Lords Sitting of 20 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

MIDDLE EAST: SUPPLY OF RUSSIAN ARMS
3.6 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what supplies of aircraft and arms have been sent by Russia to Egypt and other countries of the Middle East, since the outbreak of hostilities on 5th June, 1967, and whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to Soviet Russia on the matter.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I cannot comment on the quantities of aircraft and arms which have been supplied by the Soviet Union to the United Arab Republic and other countries of the Middle East since June 5. When Her Majesty's Government temporarily suspended arms shipments to the Middle East countries, other major suppliers, including the Soviet Government, were consulted about their intentions. No positive response was received from the Soviet Government.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that there has already been enough war in the Middle East; that already there are far too many Arab refugees, and that the cost of any further increase in their number will fall on this country and on America and not on Russia or the Arab States? What action do Her Majesty's Goverment intend to take while Russia continues to re-arm Egypt for another round of war in the Middle East?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government agree
360
fervently that there has already been more than enough war in the Middle East, and we take full account of the points which the noble Lord raised about refugees. So far as any action we can take about the supply of Russian arms to the United Arab Republic is concerned, I can only say that it remains our policy to seek international agreement on the limitation of arms going into the area. But we have been unsuccessful so far in persuading other countries to join us in such an arms control agreement. We believe that at the moment the Soviet Government's motives for rearming the United Arab Republic are probably more diplomatic than military. But I agree that it is too early to form a definite judgment on this point.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether discussions are taking place, or are to take place, between the United States Government, the Soviet Government, the French Government and Her Majesty's Government, the main suppliers of arms to the Middle East, with a view to achieving this agreement to limit the supply of arms into this particular area?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there is no plan at the moment for any formal consultations of that sort between the four Powers mentioned by my noble friend. I can only repeat that we are very much in favour of an international agreement of this kind. We have made attempts in the past to seek such an agreement, both through the United Nations channels and by other means. But, as I have said—and I regret this very much—there has been no positive response to this proposal from the Soviet Union.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if the Russians pursue their present policy there is bound to be an arms confrontation on the Canal for a period of time which cannot be foreseen, which might perhaps be the Russian intention; and does it not follow that we must base our policy, however much we do not like it, on that assumption?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course if the United Arab Republic and Arab countries continue to be supplied with arms, there is a very grave danger

361
of a renewal of conflict in the area. I think that danger is a little further away than some might think, but it remains, and will do so so long as supplies of arms to the Middle East go on. But, as in many other things, this is not a problem we can solve on our own.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, what is the Government's view of the situation in the light of Press reports to-day that Russia is to be given two naval bases in Egypt? Will this not further exacerbate matters?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot comment on that report. We have no direct evidence of the development the noble Lord has mentioned. But certainly if this sort of thing took place it would make the situation in the Middle East much worse.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while waiting for international agreement to be reached—since Russia's rearming of Egypt is likely to make more difficult the task of United Nations' observers in the Middle East—would not Her Majesty's Government be justified in raising this matter at the Security Council?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we take note of the noble Lord's suggestion. But I am afraid that this whole business of the supply of arms is one that, from our point of view, we can only regard as a matter to be judged on each individual application for arms. The action we take to try to achieve international agreement, multilateral agreement, on this is a matter for further study. We may be able to do it, as suggested, through the United Nations, or through other channels. We shall pursue it, and any other suggestions on this matter, with great urgency.

MOTORWAYS: EMERGENCY USE OF HARD SHOULDER
2.41 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the driver of a car along a motorway, who draws out of the stream of traffic and stops his car on the hard
362
shoulder, because he feels the onset of a heart attack, or is too exhausted to continue driving, becomes guilty of an offence, and is liable to prosecution.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Motorways Traffic Regulations provide that a driver may stop on account of illness or any other emergency. A driver who stopped because of a heart attack would thus be unlikely to be found guilty of an offence. It is, of course, for the courts to decide whether a given case constituted an emergency; generally speaking, however, tiredness has not been regarded as such. To accept it as justification for stopping could result in widespread and indiscriminate parking alongside motorways.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that a breakdown of the human machine on the motorway is far more dangerous to life than breakdown of a motor engine; and, without necessarily requiring any change in the existing law, could not the police be advised, in these circumstances, to consider the statements of a car driver with the utmost sympathy and understanding, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, so that the time of the courts is not taken up by ill-advised proceedings?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, naturally before making a charge the police take all factors into account, but, clearly, in the case of tiredness a driver should get off the road as soon as possible. I think I am right in saying that on the M.1 the longest distance between one point and another at which one can get off the road is some fourteen miles, and the average distance is three miles. Therefore a driver who feels that he should get off the road to have a rest should be able to do it without any difficulty.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that a driver who was feeling excessively tired would almost invariably drive dangerously? Therefore it would be far more sensible from the point of view of the safety of the public if he were to pull up on to the hard shoulder.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if a driver is so tired that he is a danger to

363
the public, then clearly he should not be driving on the motorway.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect a case which received a good deal of publicity a few years ago, when a surgeon who had been operating was driving back along a motorway? He felt extremely sleepy and, realising that it was dangerous to go on, he pulled on to the side of the road. He was picked up by the police and was prosecuted, but the court refused to convict. Is that not a case to which attention might be drawn for future guidance?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am quite sure that if the court came to that view, it did so after taking all the evidence into account.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is general acceptance of the view that stopping on the hard shoulder is a very dangerous practice? It is most unlikely that anything other than a genuine reason would be accepted, and lighthearted reasons should not be accepted.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may be quite accurate in saying that if we were to take a too lenient view of what a person might describe as "tiredness" our motorways would be littered with vehicles, the drivers of which had stopped to admire the scenery and would make tiredness an excuse. I think this is a matter which we should leave to the police and to the courts.

FUTURE BUSINESS
3.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission I should like to make a short business statement. It remains our hope and intention that your Lordships' House should rise for the Summer Recess on either Thursday or Friday of next week, subject to the progress of business. The Commons completed their consideration of the Companies Bill early this morning. The Government hope that the House will agree to take the consideration of the Commons' Amendments on Thursday of next week. It is proposed that the House should sit at 11 a.m., as is often the case prior to the Recess.
364
In regard to to-day's business, there are some 83 Amendments to the Countryside (Scotland) Bill, and although the Scottish Peers are renowned for their brevity I think it is hard to believe that they could complete the Committee stage until a late hour. We also have the Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Bill, when an important Instruction may be moved. I therefore propose that we should adjourn the Committee stage of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m., and then take the Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Bill. In view of the difficulties of Scottish Peers in sitting on Mondays, I should like to propose that the further consideration of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill be taken on Wednesday next. I hope it will be acceptable to the House if on that Wednesday we were to sit at 11.15 a.m. and take this Bill until 1 p.m., then to adjourn and to commence the Private Member's Bill at 2 p.m. If it is necessary—and hope it is not—we can complete the Countryside (Scotland) Bill after the Private Member's Bill.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, reverting to the first statement of the noble Lord, which he clothed in his usual very reasonable manner, the House has listened to an astounding request that the Commons Amendments on the Companies Bill should be considered next Thursday. With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may recall the events which have led up to this situation, because I think this is an important principle.
The Companies Bill was introduced in this House on November 22 of last year, and it left this House for the Commons on January 31 this year. Six months later, and with only a week to go before the end of the Session, your Lordships are asked to consider what is practically a new Bill. Between 30 and 40 new clauses have been inserted and 200 Amendments made. All of them have been introduced in the Commons, and I think it is frankly preposterous that with a very few days in which to examine these Amendments we should be asked to consider what are, after all, very important changes in the Bill, and then only have one day to discuss them. Then—although the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, skated rather delicately over this—I

365
understand it is the intention that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent on Thursday or Friday of next week, which of course means that your Lordships would not be able to send any of the Amendments back to another place.
I must say quite frankly that I regard this as treating your Lordships' House with contempt. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, and certainly the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, bear a great responsibility for what has happened. During the passage of the Bill through this House, time and time again the Lord Chancellor said that he was unable to accept any fundamental amendment to the Bill, and on one occasion he even threatened to withdraw the Bill if a fundamental Amendment was pressed. At the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack devoted one entire speech of six whole columns of Hansard to saying how impossible it was to enlarge the scope of the Bill, since Parliamentary time was not available. He said that if we were prepared to start the Companies Bill in this House it was to be on the clear understanding that it was not going to build up into anything more than 87 clauses.
What do we find? We find an almost entirely new Bill coming back to your Lordships' House. Why, if it was so necessary to have all these Amendments and new clauses, were they not inserted in this House, and why has it proved possible now to do something to enlarge the scope of the Bill which was impossible at that time? What has happened to make it more convenient and possible for the Parliamentary timetable to be expanded and to introduce this new Bill, in effect, at the end of a crowded Session? Many of these Amendments and new clauses were inserted at the Report stage in another place. They have been discussed, if at all only during an all-night sitting last night which finished at 6.30 o'clock this morning. Is this really the way to legislate in a matter of such importance as Company Law? It is not single-Chamber Government, it is not Chamber Government at all. It is rule by decree of the Board of Trade.
I really must say, in all friendliness, to the noble Earl the Leader of the House—he is not in his place but perhaps my remarks will be reported to him—that I am surprised that we have had no apology
366
whatever from the Government about the way in which Parliament and this House in particular has been treated. I protest on behalf of my noble friends in the strongest possible terms. I must tell noble Lords opposite that when we come to take this Bill on Thursday, as I suppose we must, we shall have to examine it in the time available as best we can, and we shall do what we think is right and not what we think convenient for the Government.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I wish to add my protest to that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It really is quite monstrous that this House should be required to deal with these 30 new clauses and literally hundreds of Amendments made to the Companies Bill in another place in the period of one Parliamentary day. This House is meant to be a revising Chamber. We ought to be given the proper time and facilities with which to do the job. In our view, it is quite intolerable that we should have received this Bill at the tag-end of a long and very weary Session. It shows not only scant respect for this House but, to my mind, the incredible inefficiency in the Government's handling of Parliamentary business as a whole in both Houses. I would ask the noble Lord to represent our views most strongly to his colleagues in another place: that we regard this as completely inefficient and unacceptable. I am told that there is still a great deal wrong with this Bill. We ought to have the time to put it right. I hope that this will never happen main. When the next Companies Bill comes, which I understand will be in the next Session—and, in my view, it must be in the next Session—we shall expect to be able to put a number of things right, and to have proper time to do it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must admit that I anticipated the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers. If I may say so, I have a good deal of sympathy with what they have said. I was anticipating a chorus of "Hear, hears!" on this side to join with the "Hear, hears!" of the noble Lords opposite. May I explain some of the difficulties that have arisen on this Bill? The noble Lord is quite correct in stating that the Bill started in your Lordships' House in

367
November and was sent to the House of Commons on January 31. It is perfectly true, too, that the Bill has become very much larger than when it was in your Lordships' House. But I will say this—and I bring it out of my memory because I see the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, opposite. Your Lordships were in some similar position in, I think it was, the 1960–61 Parliament, when we spent some 13 long and very weary weeks on the Weights and Measures Bill. My noble friend Lord Stonham played a very active part in it. We passed some 300 Amendments and the Bill went down to the other place and we never saw it again—or at least, we saw it again, but I think it was two years later. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, was on that occasion the President of the Board of Trade. At least we have got this Bill back to your Lordships' House.
I would ask noble Lords to bear this point in mind and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, I think has shared this experience. Always at a Recess we are under pressure by Departments to get their Bills on the Statute Book. My noble friend Lord Kennet has been pressing me very hard for the Leasehold Reform Bill, on which we have yet to take the Report stage. He clearly is anxious to see that some leaseholders should not suffer as a result of the Bill being delayed. My noble friend Lord Hughes is very anxious about the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. I have had to refuse both of them; we cannot possibly do it by the Summer Recess. But there is a special case with regard to the Companies Bill. I expressed willingness to come to your Lordships' House with this proposal only after very careful investigation with the Department, and I am genuinely satisfied that there is a real and urgent need for the Bill to be passed.
I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is perfectly true this Bill has been in the House of Commons since January 31. It was a Bill that we had some hesitation in introducing. Part I was criticised, I think by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in that it was incomplete. We would not have introduced the Bill, I believe, if it had not been for the need for Part II of the Bill, which gave us some powers to deal with insurance companies. The
368
supervision of insurance companies was necessary because of the very heavy failures earlier in the year. We have got that Bill through the Commons. It took a long time, and there are a large number of Amendments to it. But I think I can say that all those Amendments were made to meet the criticism of the Opposition and the criticism of the reputable interested parties concerned. We have done our best to consult with all those concerned in this matter.
May I say this to the noble Lord, in view of his criticism of business management? To take that Bill, on not one single occasion was the closure moved in the House of Commons. If we had moved the closure, undoubtedly the problems that we now face could have been avoided. The Government felt it right to include provisions to strengthen the Board's powers of inspection and supervision of the insurance companies, and give new powers of inspection to assist in the rapid investigation of company fraud. There is great public pressure for that. If we fail to get this Bill for the Summer Recess, the Board of Trade will find themselves during the long summer months with no powers to deal with a number of serious matters. There are other compelling reasons. I will not deploy them now but I shall be ready to do so next Thursday.
I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I recognise his difficulties in regard to Thursday. It is perfectly true that if we wish to get the Royal Assent by Thursday the Amendments cannot be amended. It still lies in the hands of this House to take all the necessary Amendments if they so wish, but clearly it will have to weigh up the consequences that might arise. We will do all we possibly can, with noble Lords opposite and noble Lords in any quarter of the House, to assist them in understanding the new provisions of the Bill. The Ministers concerned are willing to meet any noble Lord who wishes to have elucidation of any point or discuss any of these provisions. Timing, of course, will be a problem, but I hope that in discussion with noble Lords opposite it may be possible to group Amendments so that we can be more expeditious in our handling of the Amendments.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it gives me no joy to

369
come to your Lordships' House and make this proposal. I have carried out an exhaustive inquiry with the Board of Trade, and I would not have accepted it from the Board of Trade if it were merely a matter of departmental convenience. But I am convinced that it would be wrong not to get this Bill by the Summer Recess if we can get it, and I hope that we can have the co-operation of the House to do so.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the trouble with the noble Lord is that he is so entirely reasonable, and everybody he deals with on his side is so entirely unreasonable. The soft answer is supposed to turn away one's wrath. But it has not turned away my wrath. All the noble Lord has done is to give an explanation of what has happened; but there is no excuse for it. When you boil down what he has said, all it amounts to is that he is satisfied that the Government think that this Bill must be on the Statute Book by the Summer Recess. So this House is put in the position of either letting the Bill go through "on the nod", or having the Government say, "Because the House of Lords did not pass it, look what has happened". I think that is an intolerable situation for this House to be put in.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, why cannot the House sit a little longer? It is the people who are going to suffer. The noble Lord, who I agree is reasonable, talks about this House accepting the consequences. The noble Lord must not be surprised if, when this happens again, the House revolts and slings the Bill back in the teeth of another place.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lord, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to the House for not being here earlier. The noble Lord commented on my absence. Naturally, I take full responsibility for anything that Lord Shepherd has explained to the House. I would say that we are doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that the House must not be surprised if some drastic action is taken next time. I have been in your Lordships' House for quite a long time, and I am never surprised at anything that happens here, but I should like to assure noble Lords that we shall try to avoid this happening again.
3.34 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two from this side of the House, if I may be given a moment or two. This matter of Company Law is one of great importance to the structure of industry and commerce in this country. I speak with a great deal of interest in this matter, because for a long period of years I held the Cassel Chair of Commercial Law in the University of London, and the problems of the impact of Company Law upon the structure of British industry and commerce have been my concern for a long time. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who was in effect the editor-in-chief of Law Reform Now, I think knows better than anybody else in your Lordships' House that I was part-author of the chapter on Company Law in that book, and therefore I speak with some knowledge. I assisted the then noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to take the great Companies Act 1949 through your Lordships' House.
It is quite obvious that there are a number of pressing matters in relation to take-overs and other matters of that kind in this particular Bill. But the Bill affects the whole structure on which the industry and commerce of this country is carried on. Over the last 100 or 150 years the impact of Company Law upon the structure of our industry and commerce has become more evident all the time, and it seems to me that we are running a great risk in putting this legislation too rapidly on to the Statute Book. Obviously, we cannot really consider this position properly in the time which is available to us next week.
We have been coping for quite a number of years, not altogether successfully, with some of these problems under our present Companies Law, and it seems to me that it would be more sensible to go on for another year under these burdens in order to ensure that we get the new Companies Bill into proper order before it goes on to the Statute Book. Every one of us knows that it is difficult to amend the law once it is upon the Statute Book. It may be more than the two years which my friend Lord Shepherd has mentioned in connection with the Weights and Measures Bill, before we could get Amendments which might well become vital from the

371
point of view, for example, of our export trade which is not unaffected by some of the matters contained in this Bill. Therefore, I should have thought that on the whole festina lente was the policy which ought to be pursued in this case, and it would be just as well to give the House a chance to deal with this matter in a proper constructive manner in the next Session rather than to insist on pushing it through now.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, from these Benches we suggest that, in view of the great importance of this Bill, the House should sit on Monday, July 31, in order to give it proper consideration.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that suggestion from the Liberal Benches seems to be in conflict with the suggestion, indeed the proposal, that the Royal Assent should take place next Friday. There is no point in sitting later and perhaps into August if the Bill is to be put forward for Royal Assent next Friday. But I should like to echo and support what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. We do not get so many Companies Bills before the House. It is difficult, as I think my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale will agree, to find space in a Parliamentary programme for a Companies Bill; and when one comes it is of vital importance. All the clauses require most careful consideration, and it really is monstrous to seek to rush through all this vast mass of work in the short space of one Parliamentary day.
Is it not the case that the Government have their priorities wrong? May I ask the noble Lord to give consideration to a suggestion that I am going to put before him, which I think will at least in one part have the support of the Leader of the House? Why should we take up so much time in considering Private Members' Bills at this time of the year, when they are of far lesser importance, however one may view them, than a Companies Bill which affects the whole livelihood of this country? I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether some of the days which have been so generously allocated by the Government to Bills dealing with sexual offences and the termination of pregnancy, could not be used for the purpose of giving a proper study, even at this short notice, to the Companies
372
Bill; to let those other Bills take their chance and, if need be, be re-introduced next Session. In some part of that proposal I am sure I have the support of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in supporting most strongly the protest of my noble friend Lord Carrington may I say at once that of course I recognise, as I think the House does, that what is occurring is not occurring through the wishes either of the Leader of the House or of the Government Chief Whip, whose reasonableness on this occasion is a great asset to the Government, and an asset which they do not deserve. Part of the difficulty, and the reason for which I cannot entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is that no doubt there are parts of this legislation which are urgently needed, and there are other parts involved (the reform of the Companies Act), which deserve all the long and thoughtful consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne have indicated.
I rise really to ask one question and to point out one fact. The question I want to ask is, I think, a relevant one and one to which we have had no answer so far; namely, when are we going to see these Amendments in some printed document so that we can at least study them? That is the question. The second matter is this. The noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip, has spoken of the pressure of a Department to have this Bill carried into law. It is possible that about parts of this legislation the Department is perfectly right; but what we are doing this week in this matter is something which should be recognised by this House, by another place and by the country: it is legislation by decree, and it is the abolition of Parliamentary Government.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene? Time is pressing, not only in the Session but also to-day. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that the Amendments in printed form will be available to-morrow—they will be printed to-morrow. I hope to be able to supply noble Lords who are interested with a précis of what those Amendments

373
mean, to assist in this matter. I feel that a lot of steam is rising unnecessarily, because it is not the Government or the Government Chief Whip who imposes business on your Lordships' House; in the end, it is your Lordships who will it. I have proposed that we should take the Bill on Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, from the Liberal Benches has proposed that we should sit into the following week. If the House so wishes, then that is what we will do. But I think—and I come back to my experience, which the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will share with me—that it is far better to wait and see. I am quite sure that when we take these Amendments the situation will not be anywhere near as bad as has been suggested to the House. I fully accept the constitutional position which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, so strongly stressed. I certainly would have avoided this position now, and I will certainly take greater care to avoid it in the future.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I feel I must enter some protest. I was the mover of the no-par-value clause. That was one clause which was turned down by the Government, despite the fact that noble Lords on other Benches as well as on our side supported it. It was turned down because it was said the Bill could not be enlarged. It is very rough to bring back this Bill with 30 new clauses and to have taken out the no-par-value clause. Are we expected to do nothing but accept the removal of that clause? The Government have given themselves added difficulty. They might have saved time in another House by accepting a clause which is generally considered to be of benefit to industry; instead of which they have taken it out and, so far as I can see, we shall have no time to reconsider this matter next week.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that when the noble Viscount sees the Amendments he will see that the criteria of the Bill remain the same. In view of the time factor, may I say that the Government were right to take the line they did and continued to take through the Commons, in restricting the criteria of the Bill—but if the noble Lord is present next Thursday we may have some good news for him.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it seems to me that this House is now discussing something when there is no Motion before the House. There is not even a Question before the House. There has been a Business Statement, to which justifiable protest, I think, has been made. It has been made strongly and rightly, and in the circumstances I think it would be quite wrong to go on discussing the merits or demerits of any Amendments. We shall have a chance to do that next week.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, might I reply to the procedural point? I understood that a Business Statement was made, and surely it is in order for us to discuss the Statement which was presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. But if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would prefer it, I am certain my noble friend Lord Carrington would be happy to move the Adjournment of your Lordships' House, so that we could have a separate Motion and a separate discussion on the matter. If noble Lords would prefer that, I will encourage my noble friend to facilitate this debate.
But before I do so—I can see the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is very anxious to rise to his feet—I should like to put this particular point. I would especially reinforce what my noble friend Lord Eccles has said. It is not just a question of whether this is legislation affecting companies or anything else; the real affront to Parliament is that many Amendments have been tabled in another place by the Government only on the Report stage there, where it was virtually impossible to discuss or amend the Government's own Amendments. It is technically possible by means of a manuscript Amendment in another place, but it is virtually impossible to amend or improve the new clauses tabled at Report stage by Her Majesty's Government.
These new clauses are coming to our House on Thursday, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made it quite clear that he expects to have the Royal Assent the following day. That means that if the Government's timetable is to be realised, there is no possibility of any Amendment at all. It means discussion with no possible means of amendment. Why discuss matters if there is no power

375
to amend or to change? It is no good the noble Lord saying he will make facilities available and send us "memos" or briefs, and that the Department is pressing, and so on. The real point is that discussion on Thursday is completely meaningless if the Royal Assent is to take place on the Friday. We cannot amend if the Bill is to be law the following day. Even the Government cannot amend their own new clauses, because they cannot send them to another place and get them back in time. So we are here witnessing a complete affront to Parliament. That is my complaint. I feel very strongly about no-par-value shares, and I should like to put the clause back into the Bill; but, as I say, even the Government's own new clauses cannot be amended by the Government if the Bill is to get Royal Assent on Friday. That to my mind, is the worst feature of the sorry tale which we have heard to-day.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CONTROL OF LIQUID FUEL BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My
376
Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I would give notice that when Amendment No. 1 is moved I shall propose to your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 be considered en bloc.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill (186) as first printed for the Commons]
  [Nos. 1 to 6]
  Clause 11, page 7, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Subject to subsections (1A) to (2) below, this Part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
  (1A) Subsection (1) above shall not restrict the operation of this Part of this Act—

  (a) in so far as it affects—

  (i) the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935; or

  (ii) the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957; or

  (iii) section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 or any other enactment or rule of law relating to any parliamentary disqualification or other disability or penal consequence arising from an offence being felony; or

  (b) in so far as (by paragraph 10 of Schedule 2) it amends the Regimental Debts Act 1893.

  (1B) The amendments made by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and section 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 shall extend to Scotland.")
  Clause 12, page 7, line 44, leave out ("29th August 1967") and insert ("1st January 1968")
  Schedule 2, page 15, line 16, after ("property") insert ("but did not include loss or damage due to an accident arising out of the presence of a motor vehicle on a road")
  Schedule 2, page 15,line 26, leave out ("on") and insert ("in consequence of a")
  Schedule 2, page 15,line 27, leave out from ("or") to second ("of") in line 28 and insert ("is imprisoned or detained to serve a sentence")
  Schedule 2, page 15,line 53, at end insert (",and in the Companies Act 1948, in section 328(2), there shall be omitted paragraph (a) and in paragraph (b) the words 'in Scotland'")
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, en bloc. I shall explain them as briefly as possible, which I think will

  377
  be to your Lordships' convenience. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment relating to the application of Part I of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Its effect, though, is the same as that of the subsection as originally drafted. Amendment No. 2 postpones the date on which Part I of the Bill comes into effect from August 29 this year until January 1, 1968. This was done to ensure that courts and practitioners had enough time to study the changes involved before they came into effect. Past experience has shown that many practitioners rely on information about changes in the law being published in a supplement to Archbold, and there would be insufficient time for that before August 29. It was therefore desirable to defer the date to ensure that all concerned had time to absorb the changes. To ensure the minimum inconvenience to the courts the date had to be one when there was a minimum of current business. The first convenient date to meet that requirement was January 1 next year.
  Amendment No. 3 to Schedule 2 is an Amendment of some substance and was made to meet representations by the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society and the Royal Automobile Club, that criminal courts ought not to have to consider awarding compensation for damage arising from motoring offences in which difficult issues of contributory negligence may arise. The Amendment excludes such damage from the provisions in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill which extends the powers of courts to award compensation under Section 4 of the Forfeiture Act 1870. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are both technical Amendments relating to an entry in Schedule 2 amending the Regimental Debts Act 1893, and they are required because of the provisions for suspended sentences in the Criminal Justice Bill.
  Amendment No. 6 was made to bring a provision in the Companies Act, in relation to the property of companies, in line with a comparable provision in relation to the property of bankrupts, which was already dealt with in paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Under Section 328(2) of the Companies Act 1948, a person who takes in pawn or pledge or otherwise receives the property of a company in liquidation knowing it to have been disposed of in certain criminal circumstances,
  378
  is liable to be punished as if he had received the property knowing it to have been obtained by a misdemeanour. Under the present law this carries a maximum of seven years. The effect of the Bill without the Amendment, to which I now ask your Lordships to agree, would have been to increase that maximum to 14 years. The Amendment preserves the existing maximum of seven years in line with the provision in paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the Bill in relation to the property of bankrupts. That, briefly, is the effect of these Amendments, and I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Stonham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The Countryside Commission for Scotland
1.—
(4) The Commission shall be comprised of—

(a) persons appointed after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to the Secretary of State to represent local planning authorities;

(b) persons appointed after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of countryside interests; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may think fit.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: This is an extremely important clause because it sets up the Countryside Commission, and it also sets out in very broad terms what its functions and duties shall be. Subsection (2) says:
"In exercise of their functions the Commission shall have due regard to the need for the development of recreational and tourist

379
facilities and for the balanced economic and social development of the countryside."
I feel that it would be desirable to have some mention of the existing uses of the countryside, so that the Commission shall not be entirely unmindful of how the land is used at the moment. That is why I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("Commission") insert ("while mindful of the existing uses of land").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): A very similar Amendment to this was discussed in another place on Report stage, and my honourable friend the Minister of State explained that the Government did not dissent from the principle of the Amendment then moved. He said, however, that it was considered that in drafting terms it was tautologous. The clause refers to the need for:
"the balanced economic and social development of the countryside",
as the noble Duke has said. We maintain that if the Commission have regard to this—particularly to the word "balanced"—they cannot possibly fail to be mindful, as the Amendment would have them be, of the existing uses of land. In other words, we agree with the noble Duke, but consider that as the clause already means what he wants it to mean the Amendment is unnecessary.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Of course, I fully accept what the noble Lord has said. I just thought it was a good idea to put it in, so that anyone reading the Bill would realise what was intended. But I have no intention of dividing the House on this matter, so I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: This is an Amendment which is purely of a personal nature, in that I simply loathe the words "and social development". I think they make it sound as if the whole of Scotland were still inhabited by cavemen who drag their wives around by their hair. As the noble Lord opposite is well aware, that is not the case, so I should think it better to leave out those words. Also, I am not sure that the word
380
"development" is right when what we want is progress. So in lieu of "and social development" I have suggested that we use the word "progress". I would also point out to the noble Lord—I know that Acts are never drafted in good English, which seems to be one of the penalties we pay for Parliamentary language—that the word "development" in line 14 makes rather ugly reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("and social development") and insert ("progress").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: If we take this Amendment at its face value—and, really, what the noble Duke has done is to invite us to take it at its face value—it suggests that he is concerned only about the economic development (or, as he says, progress) of the countryside, and not at all concerned about the social development. He has made it quite clear that that is not what he intends at all. Our intention, in including the word "social", was to ensure that the Commission were mindful of the legitimate needs and desires of the people who live and work in the countryside, and it had its genesis in the first meeting which my right honourable friend the former Minister of State had with a wide cross-section of countryside interests to discuss the Bill in February of last year. It was a point which was then emphasised. The Government did not need it to be emphasised to them, because it was very much in their mind, but that conference made it perfectly clear to the Government that it was just as much in the minds of many other people as well.
If we did what the noble Duke suggests, it could create the impression that all that we are concerned about is the economic development of the area; and we suggest to the Committee that it is necessary, in order to accomplish the full objects of the Commission, that these words should remain. I hope that the noble Duke will allow his dislike of the words "social development" to be submerged for the next few minutes.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his reply. Of course I am going to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like the noble Lord to consider, for the

381
reasons I stated, the use of the word "progress" rather than "development". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.2 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (4), to insert at the beginning of paragraph (a) "not more than three". The noble Duke said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 4 at the same time. I regard these Amendments as rather more important in principle, although on reading the Bill more carefully, now that one has had greater time to do that, I fully realise that I should have put them down in a slightly different form. The way I put them down was based on the theory that the Commission were to be composed of 14 people willy-nilly, whereas it can, of course, be less than 14—and on the whole I think it should be less.
What I have suggested in Amendment No. 3 is that the people appointed in consultation with the local authorities should not be more than three, and in Amendment No. 4, that the people appointed as appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of countryside interests should not be less than seven. Of course, I intended that approximately 20 to 25 per cent. of the Commission should be local authority people, and that at least 50 per cent. should be representative of the countryside interests, as they are the bodies who will be providing the raw material of this Bill—to wit, the countryside of Scotland. For this reason, I think they ought to have a large representation on the Commission.
I fully realise that, because of the way I have worded the Amendment, it will be impossible to work if, for instance, the Commission are to consist of only nine people or so. I can therefore assure the noble Lord opposite that I have no intention of pressing this Amendment, but I should like him to tell the Committee a little more about how the Government intend the Commission to be balanced between the three categories of people mentioned in subsection (4), what organisations they will be consulting as representing the countryside interests, and what kind of people the Secretary of State may think fit to appoint under paragraph (c) of subsection (4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at beginning insert ("not more than three").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I should like to add my word of sympathy with the noble Duke's Amendment. I think the most important point about the composition of the Commission is that the members should be selected because of their knowledge of the countryside in all its aspects. They should not be townsmen if it is possible to avoid appointing them; and, as there are different kinds of countryside in Scotland, there should therefore be very different kinds of expert.
I do not know what the National Farmers' Union think of this. In a memorandum they sent round some weeks ago they very strongly advocated that the National Farmers' Union should be represented on this Commission. After all, a great deal of the land which is going to be used for access will be either abutting on or very close to farming land, and it is therefore very important, I think, that farmers should have some say in this matter.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to support what the noble Earl has just said. I would go a little further, because I think that obviously those on the Commission should represent both those who live in the countryside and those who are going to enjoy the countryside, whether they live there or not. But where I think the Amendments of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl are along the right lines is that the Bill as a whole lays great stress on the perpetual contact that the Countryside Commission is expected to have with local authorities. It therefore follows that the representation of local authorities on the Countryside Commission does not have to be so strong as the representation of the other bodies with which it is not going to be in quite such continuous contact, if indeed it is going to be in nearly such continuous contact.
I dare say that the noble Lord will point out that it is going to be in continuous contact with everyone. That, of course, is impossible; and we know that under Clause 12 there is a special duty laid upon the Commission to have consultation with local planning authorities and to keep in continuous contact with them. I would only say that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be aware that

383
there is a feeling on this side of the Committee that the Bill is not quite so specific about the consultation that has to take place with other interests, and it would therefore be a good thing if those other interests were represented on the Commission as strongly as possible.
LORD HUGHES: There are two reasons why I am glad that the noble Duke has indicated that he does not intend to press these Amendments. In the first instance, we do not think it right that the Secretary of State's discretion in these appointments should be fettered in the way in which the Amendments propose. The second reason is that, while the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that it is his intention to appoint a rather large, unpaid body, the Bill has nevertheless been drafted in such a way as to make it possible for it to be a smaller, paid body; and if in future it should be found possible to change to that type of body, then of course an Amendment of this kind would make it impossible to have a body smaller than 10 in number—and theoretically more than 10 if the third leg is to have any meaning at all.
However, I should like to say that I think the noble Duke has his proportions pretty nearly right. I would not wish to guarantee that, if there were a body of 11 members, it would be 3, 7 and 1, but I do not think it would be very far away from those proportions. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what I said on Second Reading. I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that in making appointments to the Commission it is my right honourable friend's intention to consult
"on as broad a basis as possible, so that the many organisations … 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".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/7/67, col. 1139.]
I hope your Lordships will recognise that my right honourable friend is very conscious of the vital need to secure the right balance on the Commission, and that the noble Duke will therefore in due course feel that what he has said to-day bears a very close relationship to what eventually will emerge from my right honourable friend's decision.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If it is of any comfort to the noble Lord, may I say that I personally agree with him that the Commission should be reasonably large—not necessarily 14—and largely unpaid. I think, with him and with the Secretary of State, that this will probably be the most satisfactory form of Commission. This is what led me to put my Amendment in this form. I realise its defects and therefore, with permission, I should like to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (4)(b), after "organisations" to insert: "(including women's organisations)". The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 5; and I think the noble Lord is in no doubt as to my intentions. I have complained from time to time—and generally too late—that the composition of committees, commissions and inquiries in Scotland (and this applies to England, also, but I am speaking specifically about Scotland) does not include, in my opinion, a sufficient number of women. In our particular area on the Borders we have a Commission set up by the present Government to deal with the economic problems of the Border areas, which contains absolutely no women at all.
The Commission we are discussing today is to be one dealing with the whole of Scotland, and with the countryside of Scotland in particular. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that it helps people to lead happy lives in the countryside if they are members of happy families; if the wives are happy and satisfied to live in the country. If the Countryside Commission is going to be governed and directed, as are so many commissions, entirely by men, I think it is most unsatisfactory. I should therefore like to be sure that in selecting organisations to be represented on this Commission the Secretary of State does not omit the appropriate women's organisations. I can think of one or two obvious ones: the Scottish Women's Rural Institute, the National Farmers' Union, which has many women members, and the Church of Scotland Women's Guild in the Rural Areas which has active women

385
workers. I have suggested that the words "including women's organisations" should appear in subsection (4)(b) in order that the interests, abilities and activities of women should be represented on this Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("organisations") insert ("(including women's organisations)").— (Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: Although I am going to invite the noble Baroness not to press this Amendment, I can honestly say that I am happy it has been put down, for it gives me the opportunity of making clear the Government's attitude to this matter. We welcome the co-operation of women's organisations and look forward to the contributions they will make to the fulfilment of the aims and purposes of the Bill.
For two reasons, however, I feel that the Amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. In law—and I hesitate to use these words—the greater includes the less; and the word "organisations" covers all organisations, including women's organisations—although I know, of course, that the noble Baroness probably thinks I should have said, "the lesser includes the great". Secondly, if we were to mention the women's organisations specifically we might appear to be discriminatory and restricted. This, as the noble Baroness knows, is a point of view which Governments frequently have to express. For instance, if one singles out a specific item for special mention, one draws away from the value of the general description.
We are particularly appreciative of the work of some of the organisations the noble Baroness mentioned. For example, I can say without the slightest hesitation that the S.W.R.I. will be one of the organisations which will be consulted. I am not certain that the N.F.U. would be quite happy at having itself described as potentially a women's organisation; but never mind. Some of the other organisations, perhaps all of them, will be consulted. What would be helpful to the noble Baroness is for me to say that I will make it quite clear to my right honourable friend that if this body emerges without a woman among its members the noble Baroness will make my life miserable.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I expected that I should get a sympathetic answer. I know from the conversations that I have had with him that he is sympathetic to my point of view. I hope, having put the Amendment down and having drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to it, when the moment comes for the appointments to be made it will have served its purpose. I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question on one technical point? I pose it on logical grounds. It concerns subsection (7) of Clause 1, which debars a Member of Parliament from serving as Chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland. If your Lordships would care to look at Schedule 1, paragraph 3, you will see that it says:
"The Commission may pay to any of the members of the Commission such remuneration … as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."
It may be, if a Member of Parliament were put on the Commission, that the Secretary of State would not pay him anything; on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said that one day there might be a smaller body consisting entirely of paid members. If you provide for all members to be paid, there does not seem to be any logical ground why you should except any particular member, and, contrariwise, if you have a Member of Parliament it does not seem proper that he should be paid. I wonder whether the noble Lord would comment on that subject. It seems, in the circumstances, that it probably would be better not to have a Member of Parliament on the body.
LORD HUGHES: I am not absolutely certain about this—I should like to have the opportunity to consult—but, speaking off the cuff, I should think that the last clause of the Bill, because it refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, really implies that Members of the House of Commons will not be members of this Commission. I remember when I was a member of a Regional Hospital Board, the members of which are not paid, the

387
very fact that they could be entitled to reimbursement of their travelling expenses and also, I think, payment in lieu of loss of remuneration, disqualified a Member of the House of Commons from being a member of that Board. I think the same position, therefore, applies here. I should be surprised if any Member of the House of Commons were to be so enthusiastic about membership of the Countryside Commission that he would give up his membership of another place in order to become a theoretically unpaid member of the Countryside Commission.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I think the noble Lord is thinking of the position before the 1957 Act was passed. In those days it would have been an office of profit under the Crown, and it would, for that reason, have been impossible for a Member of Parliament to hold the office, whether paid or not. But the present Act proceeds simply by naming those offices which are closed to Members of Parliament.
LORD HUGHES: Perhaps the noble Lord will give me the opportunity to look into this matter. We have ample time before the next stage of the Bill. If we make slow progress, there may be ample time before the conclusion of this Committee stage to inform him on this point.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Countryside]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.20 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to ask one brief question on this clause. In the transitional stage, before the countryside is defined by maps, the biggest town we can have will be one with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. When the maps are drawn up, in the event of it being found—and I do not think that it is entirely impossible—that there are towns, rural in character, with a certain beauty that needs preserving, which happen to have over 5,000 inhabitants, will it be possible to include them in the countryside, or must the countryside consist only of areas where the inhabitants are fewer than is included in the transitional stage?
LORD HUGHES: My impression would be that it should be possible to do as the noble Duke has asked. In the absence of maps, this is a rough and ready way of determining what is the countryside, and it was felt that by fixing the figure of towns with a population of 5,000 or less there would be no difficulty. But once we get down to the mapping it would be my impression that the limit of 5,000 would not be binding in relation to the preparation of these maps.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Duties of the Commission
3. The Commission shall have the following duties—
(a) 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 and amenity, and the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purposes of open-air recreation; and to consult with such local planning authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to have an interest in those matters;
(e) to advise the Secretary of State or any other Minister or any public body on such matters relating to the functions of the Commission as he or they may refer to the Commission or as the Commission may think fit.
4.22 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (3)(a), after "bodies" to insert "including public and other authorities in England". The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this Amendment which was put down originally by my noble friend Lord Inglewood and is designed to include in consultations those authorities that are joined with the Scottish authorities where the Borders meet. The two areas of which I am thinking in particular are the line of the Solway and the line of the Tweed. In my opinion it would be a great mistake if, in respect of consultations about functions, consideration was not given to those authorities which although technically in England adjoin the Scottish areas. Even though the Minister may think, as I believe he does, that consultation takes place between the Scottish and English authorities, I am told by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who lives on the Solway side, that in

389
respect of planning consultation does not take place. Very often planning is carried out on one side and the other side has not the slightest idea of what is being planned. Therefore I think that if both sides of a given area are involved we shall be quite sure that both sides are consulted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("bodies") insert ("including public and other authorities in England").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: Strangely enough, the acceptance of the Amendment would have the opposite effect to that intended by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who was originally to have moved the Amendment. I am in complete sympathy with what he wants to do, and I am certain that what I have to say will reassure him. I am advised that the Amendment is not required to enable us to achieve his objective, and the clause as drafted permits the Commission to consult any other body which appears to them to have an interest in the matter to which subsection (3) refers. It is hardly surprising that the advice which I have given goes as far as this. It makes it quite possible to consult bodies whether in Scotland, England, America, Australia or anywhere else.
If the Amendment were accepted, it could be argued that the Commission were restricted to consulting bodies in Scotland and England only. We should not be happy about that because, of course, much useful work of this kind is being performed in other parts of the world, and we should wish the Commission to be quite free to consult any bodies anywhere if their advice could be helpful. Having said that, may I also say we accept that there must be particular consultation between England and Scotland on this matter, and I am certain that the arrangements which will be made in due course will ensure that consultation between England and Scotland in these matters is particularly close and continuous.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord very much for his answer. I am much reassured by it. I did not realise that one might stray as far away as other continents. The consultations about which I am concerned are those between neighbouring
390
authorities, North and South and East and West. If we may be perfectly sure that people do consult with their next door neighbours, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.25 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (e) to leave out "functions of the Commission" and insert "countryside". The noble Duke said: This is the first of my Amendments designed to broaden the scope of the Commission so far as they are concerned with advice about what public bodies are doing. As I read this Bill—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will tell me I am wrong—the Commission can only advise the Secretary of State or any other Minister on matters which refer to the functions of the Committee, or any other public bodies. So presumably, if a public body referred a particular problem to the Commission they could advise even if, technically, the matter was outside the scope of the Commission.
I believe that the functions of the Commission do not officially include giving planning advice to public bodies where they are going to carry out development on their own land. I should have thought that the Commission ought to be empowered to advise in these circumstances, whether or not their advice was sought. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment that we should omit the words "functions of the Commission", and say they should give advice on any matter relating to the countryside; remembering that throughout this Bill the "countryside" refers to the countryside as defined in Clause 2. Not only would this get over the particular problem of undesirable development by public bodies on their own land, but I think it makes this subsection slightly easier to understand. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("functions of the Commission") and insert ("countryside").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not think that this Amendment is strictly necessary, but I accept that it is logical that this particular part of the Bill should refer to the countryside as a whole. In those circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, one question which relates to paragraph (b)? The Commission is to have the duty
"to encourage, assist, concert or promote the implementation …"
I want to be quite sure about this. Many Acts of Parliament, and indeed this clause, lay duties to advise, and I am not clear why there is no duty to advise in paragraph (b). It may be included in the word "assist", but if it is not I should have thought it might be desirable to add the word "advise".
LORD HUGHES: I think the words "encourage" and "assist" will include the word "advise", but if it should prove that because of Parliamentary usage they do not, and it is necessary to add the word "advise", then it will be done at the next stage.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Powers of the Commission]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I have put down this Amendment purely to discover whether the Commission have the power to help other bodies to carry out campaigns which the Commission think useful. I am thinking particularly of the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign. If the Commission were in existence at the present time, would they be able to give a grant towards the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign? If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, "Yes", I shall be entirely satisfied. If he says, "No", I think that he might accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, at end insert ("and to make contributions towards the expenses of any other body engaged in such activities").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: I hope that the noble Duke will forgive me if I do not answer him in as few words as he wants me to do. The position is that, so far as persons other than public bodies are concerned, Clause 7 gives adequate power to the Commission to give grants for any
392
project to educate or inform people how to behave in the countryside. Your Lordships will have observed that we have not made any provision for the Commission to give grants or to make contributions to public bodies. We consider that public bodies ought to be able to stand on their own feet as regards finance. But it should also be noted that the clause as drafted permits the Commission to join with another public body in the type of activity or project we are discussing and then they could pay their share of the cost.
In other words, we are all for the Commission contributing when they are directly involved in the project, but for projects in which they are not playing an active part, we do not think it right that they should be able to make financial contributions to other public bodies which have their own direct channels of assistance from the Exchequer. I think therefore that the Bill as drafted meets satisfactorily the different circumstances which can arise, and I hope the noble Duke will agree. The "Keep Britain Tidy" movement is a private body, and therefore the noble Duke can take it that it would not be excluded.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am entirely satisfied and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Powers of Commission in relation to development projects or schemes]:
4.32 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) The powers conferred by paragraph (h) of subsection (1) above shall not be exercised if the Commission are already carrying on a similar business or undertaking elsewhere."
The noble Duke said: Clause 6 gives to the Commission various powers in relation to development projects or schemes. In subsection (1)(h) the Commission are empowered, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to set up or carry on almost any form of business or undertaking. The Minister of State told another place that the Commission would get

393
approval from the Secretary of State to set up only what he called prototype developments and that they would not be allowed to set up, say, a chain of hotels throughout Scotland. I have tried to draft an Amendment to make it perfectly clear that all the Commission may do under paragraph (h) is to undertake prototype developments. This will have the advantage of bringing the Bill into line with what I gather is the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD HUGHES: I cannot accept the noble Duke's Amendment simply because it is not necessary to do this in order to bring the clause into line with what the Government want. We have to read Clauses 5 and 6 together, because the detailed powers set out in Clause 6 are limited by the functions conferred by Clause 5 and cannot exceed them. The type of project which may be carried out by the Commission is explained by Clause 5(1)(a), and this goes a long way towards meeting the purpose of the Amendment. As the Minister of State said in another place:
"This subsection restricts the Commission to new projects or those which it has not tried in areas of a similar kind".
For example, if the Countryside Commission had promoted a ski-lift in the Cairngorms they would have been able to operate it, but they would not have been able to promote and operate additional ski-lifts in the same area. It is possible that a ski-lift might be wanted in another area where the problem was totally different and where no one was interested and prepared to try it out. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible for the Commission to do this. While we want the Commission to be kept to prototypes and not to go setting up chains of hotels such as the noble Duke suggested, this Amendment could prevent them from carrying out even prototype activities. I hope that the noble Duke will accept that the Bill as drafted will work in the way in which he would wish it to work if this Amendment were put in.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that reply. I fully appreciate the deficiency in my Amendment. I think it would be a disaster
394
if the Countryside Commission were not allowed to set up ski-lifts elsewhere, if they thought it necessary, simply because they already had one. Needless to say, I was not thinking of that sort of development when I put down my Amendment. It rather worries me that if they have one ski-lift under Clause 5 they will not be able to set up another one in the same place, and it might be desirable, but immensely uneconomical, for someone to set up another because of the crowds going to ski. I rather think that we should try to loosen Clause 5 so that it would enable the Commission to do this if they felt it necessary. As I have indicated, I will withdraw this Amendment and perhaps the noble Lord will think over what I have said before the next stage.
LORD HUGHES: It was not my intention to over-convince the noble Duke.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9, [Areas of special planning control]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"( ) Public bodies shall submit to the local planning authority for planning permission any development or any class of development which they propose undertaking in an area of special planning control."
The noble Duke said: This is my effort at the Amendment I foreshadowed in my speech on Second Reading, when I said that I thought the negative powers of the Commission were not great enough to enable them to stop public bodies from undertaking undesirable developments in the countryside. I appreciate that it is probably difficult to stop public bodies from carrying out any undesirable developments in the countryside in Scotland, but I think that in these areas of special planning control, which are created under Clause 9 because of some natural feature which is particularly beautiful, or interesting, or of scientific importance, public bodies should be required to consult the Countryside Commission before undertaking any development; and, what is more, the approval of the Commission should be required. In order to achieve this, my Amendment

395
provides that a public body must submit any development to the local planning authority. Clause 9 already says that the local planning authority must consult with the Commission before giving agreement to any form of development. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD BURTON: I should like to support the noble Duke on this Amendment. Not far from Inverness a golf course was set up on some of the best agricultural land in the country. I understand that this never went before the local planning authority, because the ground already belonged to the Secretary of State. This is the sort of thing which I think should be stopped. It might have been much more serious in a place of scenic beauty.
LORD LEATHERLAND: This is a Scottish field day in your Lordships' House. I am not a Scot, and I tread with some trepidation across the Border. But I shall watch with close attention the answer that my noble friend on the Front Bench gives to this suggested Amendment, because this is precisely the situation with which we are confronted in Essex, where the Government are proposing to take away from my County Council the local planning powers which they now exercise and to vest those powers in a public Board, the Air Force Authority. So that if my noble friend is going to concede this Amendment to the noble Duke, then I think that we in Essex may have some claim on his fellow Minister when we say that we, the County Council, want to retain our complete planning powers in the area and not hand them over to an outside authority.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid I cannot give any joy to my noble friend or the noble Duke. This Amendment is one which the Government feel would impose far too onerous a requirement on public bodies. Most of them are given certain freedom under the Planning Acts in relation particularly to minor developments, and to certain developments relevant to their statutory purposes. Under the General Development Order these bodies do not need to apply for planning permission for such developments, because it is granted to them generally by the
396
Order, which defines a number of classes of "permitted development".
The Amendment would mean that these bodies would need to go to the local planning authority even about their otherwise "permitted development" proposals in the designated areas. The noble Duke has not, however, proposed that private developers should be under a similar obligation, and these also have considerable freedom under the Order—for example, certain farm buildings are permitted development, as also are certain alterations and additions to dwelling-houses. I cannot see why public bodies should be restricted in the manner proposed, particularly as powers exist under the Planning Acts (as distinct from those in this Bill) which could be used, if necessary, to fortify the powers given by Clause 9 in areas of special control by restricting permitted development therein.
I appreciate, however, from what the noble Duke said on Second Reading, that it is not minor developments in which he is interested; he is concerned to prevent something like a "Cow Green" or an "Abingdon gas works" from happening in Scotland. I can assure him that this Amendment is not necessary to achieve this object. Cow Green was a special case, and the details of it—which have already fully engaged your Lordships' attention—are not really relevant to the present issue. Suffice it to say that under this Bill the Countryside Commission would already have a very effective voice which they could make heard if similar circumstances were to arise in Scotland. As regards Abingdon gas works, surely the successful outcome of this case, from the amenity point of view, is proof positive that statutory undertakers like the Gas Board are subject to planning permission for their major works; and that is how this case was taken up—and this applies generally, not only to areas of special planning control. Adequate arrangements already exist therefore under the Planning Acts for the Secretary of State to supervise these major developments of the statutory undertakers—and also under administrative procedures to oversee proposed developments from other Government Departments—and these can be supplemented, if necessary, in areas of special planning control without the insertion of this Amendment. I

397
hope that with these assurances the noble Duke will agree to withdraw his Amendment, and that he will feel that the point of major importance to which he referred on Second Reading is taken care of, and that this Amendment is not necessarily in order to prevent these major disasters in Scotland.
4.46 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am entirely unconvinced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The only thing that saddens me is that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is in the Chair and therefore cannot speak. I feel confident that she would support me. The National Parks Commission did their best to stop Cow Green, and, if I may say so, they had absolutely no success. In the case of the Abingdon gas works, the Gas Board, three weeks earlier, sent a letter to a reporter of the local newspaper in which they said they proposed to build this gasometer 168 feet high on land which they already owned in Abingdon. The reporter of the newspaper rang up the chairman of the local planning authority and the chairman of the Abingdon Town Council, neither of whom had heard any word about it. Therefore, the Gas Board's idea of consultation was to announce what they were going to do, and to say that they were going to start in three weeks. That is not my idea of consultation.
The only reason why they were prevented from doing what they proposed was that there was such an outcry, for which the credit goes to certain newspapers—in some of which I hasten to declare an interest; but there were others. As a result, the Gas Board have been bribed (I can put it no other way), by the local planning authority's agreeing to pay a large part of the difference, to put in what I think are called high-pressure gasometers, which are smaller. But had not sufficient indignation been aroused—and this was a particularly glaring example—nothing would have happened, and they would have been allowed to get away with it.
I fully appreciate what the noble Lord said about private developers. I have never understood why a large agricultural building needs planning permission and yet a small agricultural building, which is quite ugly, does not. I cannot
398
see the logic of this. There ought to be some method laid down whereby an ugly building can be objected to even if it is an agricultural building. We are getting short of attractive places, places of scientific interest and so on, and we should not risk them in this way. I am very surprised that the noble Lord has not been prepared to hold out some hope that at any rate the sort of cases of which I have given examples can be brought within the purview of the Countryside Commission. Frankly, I am entirely unconvinced by his statement that, so far as the Gas Board were concerned in the case of Abingdon, they would have had to consult, because I know that they had no intention of consulting. I should like the noble Lord to comment on this, and hold out to me some ray of hope that we may be able to achieve something before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may put this point to him. I think that what my noble friend, and the whole Committee, desire is that where areas are to be given a special planninig control, with a unified supervision of the whole area, then whatever applies to the private sector in the way of development should apply also to the public sector. In other words, if all applications for planning permission in the private sector can be called in by the Secretary of State then he should automatically have the same kind of oversight over the public sector without taking any special measures to ensure it. It should all be in the Bill. It should not be necessary to invoke the Planning Acts, if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary to do so. I think this is what my noble friend has in mind, and I should have thought that it was right.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, But we have to take account of the different administrative machines which exist in the two countries. I speak without knowledge of how close is the connection of Government Departments on this side of the Border, but we have to remember that the Secretary of State is head of a great many Departments. I know that the Gas Board is one of the few cases which does not come under his direct control—because the Gas Board comes under the Minister of Fuel and Power—whereas the Electricity Boards come directly under the

399
Secretary of State, but no one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that it is very difficult for the Gas Board to be doing much of any major importance without the Secretary of State's being aware of it. So the circumstances to which the noble Duke referred just could not happen in Scotland.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Obviously there is no point in pursuing this argument now. We can pursue it again at a later stage. But I must say that I am supremely unconvinced by the answer of the noble Lord. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provision for public access to open country]:
4.51 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "any land", down to "consist", and insert "consisting". The noble Lord said: We now come on to Part II, which deals with access to the open country and which is perhaps the most important Part of the Bill. This first Amendment of mine has to do with the interpretation of the words "open country". Subsection (2) says:
"In this Part of this Act 'open country' means any land appearing to the authority with whom an access agreement is made or to the authority by whom an access order is made or by whom the land is acquired, as the case may be, to consist wholly or predominantly of …"
and it goes on to give a definition of the term "open country" which closely resembles that of livestock rearing areas.
The point I have in mind is this. Here, again, what one wants is a uniform interpretation of the phrase "open country". I have in mind that uniformity of interpretation of the "livestock rearing area" definition is assured because Her Majesty's inspectors, the Department of Agriculture inspectors, are empowered to decide what is a livestock rearing area, with a view to giving grants of various kinds. I should have thought it was highly desirable to have the same kind of unified interpretation here.
The Amendment I have put down—which would be to leave out the words
400
"appearing to the authority", and so on, and simply to say "consisting wholly or predominantly"—is very much in line with the "livestock rearing area" definition; and I should have thought that this would be the right way to do it. But it would not be the only way. It would equally be possible to say, "appearing to the Commission to be open country". That also would ensure uniformity of interpretation. If the Amendment I am proposing were accepted, in the end you would get, I suppose, an appeal to the courts, or something of that kind, if it was thought that the local authority was interpreting the area to be open country when it was not really open country, as generally interpreted, at all. The purpose of this Amendment is to draw attention to the need for this uniform interpretation.
I would point out to the noble Lord that while the Commission are bound, under Clause 12 and elsewhere, to consult with local authorities, local planning authorities are not obliged to consult with the Commission. There seems to be nothing to prevent them from putting their own interpretation without asking the Commission; although I would agree that the Commission are always empowered to give advice to the local planning authority. But the local planning authority may have taken their decision before the advice arrives, or without seeking the advice. The purpose of this Amendment is purely to secure uniformity, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to suggest some way in which that can be done, rather than leaving it entirely to the discretion of the local planning authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 17, and insert ("consisting').—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend on this point, both on uniformity and, more so, on clarity for the ordinary man who may be having to read this provision in future.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but, although I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment. The words which the Amendment seeks to delete have really worked well in practice, because they are taken from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and, so far as I am advised, they have not given rise

401
to any difficulty in England and Wales. In practice, given reasonable people—landowners and local planning authorities alike—I find it very difficult to foresee any circumstances in which there would be dispute as to what comprises "open country" as defined, but, if there were a dispute, I think it is right that discretion to make the initial assessment of what is, or is not, open country should lie with the local authority. Otherwise, if we accept the noble Lord's Amendment, action, at worst, could be completely stultified by lack of agreement; or, at best, could be delayed while reference, as he has indicated, could be made to the courts for a decision.
I think your Lordships will appreciate, in any case, that the circumstances in which this point would be of any significance would be rare—in fact, only in the case of access orders. Where access agreements are concerned there will obviously be no dispute between the parties, otherwise the agreement would not be made. In the case of access orders, I would remind your Lordships that these are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, with all the normal safeguards for people affected to have their objections heard. If it emerged during this statutory process that there was a dispute as to whether the land concerned was open country or not, then this is something which could be impartially inquired into, and the ultimate decision taken would rest with the Secretary of State. Thus, the final discretion does not lie with the local planning authority. In so far, therefore, as it is necessary in matters of disputed types of country to have uniformity, this will be achieved through the Secretary of State; and this, I would suggest, from past experience, is much more likely to be quickly and more cheaply accomplished than by reference to the courts, which would be the position if there were no discretion given to the local authority in the first place.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply, but I am a little surprised to hear from him that in this matter the final decision as to whether any particular piece of country is open country or not does not
402
lie with the authority, because the words are, quite clearly, "it must be land that appears to the authority to consist …". Nobody can override that. The Secretary of State may decide to give a direction, but it must still be in regard to land which appears to the local authority to be open country. I hope that the noble Lord will consider this matter further, because I am not absolutely satisfied that he is right on this point.
LORD HUGHES: The advice I have been given is that this matter arises only in the case of access orders. Because in the case of access agreements, if there is a dispute as to whether land is open country, an agreement will not be made in the first instance. Therefore, the question arises only in the case of an order, and the procedure gives full rights to the person who does not think the local authority is right. If a person thinks that the local authority is wrong in deciding it is open country, this will be one of the grounds upon which to object. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration, and if the Secretary of State is impressed by the arguments he will not confirm the order, or he will grant the appeal, whichever is the appropriate form of wording. In, these circumstances, so far as that particular access order is concerned, it does not matter then what the local authority's view as to open country is, or is not. If a man has won his appeal by convincing the Secretary of State that the local authority is wrong, he does not need to worry whether the local authority is still of the same opinion or not.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think where I differ from the noble Lord—and one does not want just to chop logic on this—is that the whole definition is "access for open-air recreation to open country", and then "open country" is defined. I think in his reply the noble Lord has been looking at this purely from the point of view of the landlord, if I may say so, and not from the point of view of the public. I shall not pursue this point, but perhaps he will consult further with his advisers. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath, hill, woodland", and insert:
"of land not capable of supporting more than one ewe to five acres or unenclosed woodland or".
The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment because on Second Reading I expressed great dissatisfaction with the definition of "open country" that is contained in the Bill. If I may just read the definition, it is
"to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath, hill, woodland, cliff or foreshore …"
The word to which I chiefly object is "predominantly", because that is not really a clear enough definition, and I am quite sure that if that word is left in the clause it will lead to a great deal of argument. It is far too indecisive.
I consider that my Amendment helps greatly to clarify the situation, because, after all, what do we mean by "open country"? We really mean rough hill grazing, and if we take my definition,
"of land not capable of supporting more than one ewe to five acres or unenclosed woodland or"
we there have a perfectly clear definition of rough grazing—in other words, of open country. This definition also has the advantage of taking the enclosed land and what we call the "in-by" land of the livestock rearing areas out of "open country". In effect, it takes the "in-by" land of the livestock rearing areas out of the definition of "open country" because, as the Bill is at present drafted (although, strictly speaking, this comes into Clause 11) the livestock rearing lands are not "excepted lands". They come under the definition of "open country".
To include all the livestock rearing areas in the definition of "open country" I am quite sure would mean endless friction, because some of these livestock rearing areas are extremely heavily stocked. The Livestock Rearing Act of 1951 was, in my view, much too wide in its definition, because it included enclosed land and "in-by" land and all hill land, which of course is too all-embracing. If we have this broad definition of "open country" in the Bill, with the word "predominantly", we
404
shall have a great deal of trouble with farmers. I pointed out on the Second Reading that there will probably be accidents, with hikers being chased by cows with calves; gates will be left open and there will be great trouble at lambing time. The farmers' task in the heavily concentrated livestock rearing areas is going to be made that much more difficult.
The other point that my Amendment brings out is the subject of woodlands. In the Amendment I have referred to "unenclosed woodland". Of course I am thinking chiefly of young plantations, and if the public, under an access order, is going to have access to young plantations, apart from all other woodlands, the disturbance to wild life and, in particular, the fire hazard are going to be quite uncontrollable. I quite agree that under Clause 19 an order can be made in the event of very dry weather, forbidding public access to certain woodlands. However, I do not consider that that is really satisfactory, because by the time the order is made and the public are aware of that order there could be a fire. The average mature woodland is of course unenclosed, so that is not affected, but I should feel far happier if enclosed woodlands were not included in "open country". I really think that is quite a feasible request to make. But the most important point is that I should like to have the definition of "open country" classed as "rough grazing hill country", and this I consider my Amendment would do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("cliff") in line 19 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD HUGHES: There was a lengthy discussion in another place about what categories of access land should be automatically excepted, and my honourable friend the Minister of State said that the Government were willing to look at the matter again. At the same time, I think it is correct to say that he warned against drafting the Statute so restrictively that we should prevent ourselves from doing things which individually, as farmers, as landowners, as Secretary of State, or—I might add—as local planning authority members, we should be willing and perhaps even eager to do ourselves.

405
There was a suggestion that all agricultural land except hill farming land should be excepted. This idea was, however, rejected—rightly in my view—because it would have meant that access arrangements could have been made only to the higher land. It is true that this would have enabled us to satisfy some part of the need for public access to open country, but there are areas where it would have unduly restricted the possibilities. We settled on livestock rearing land, not because there is any likelihood of access being sought to anything like all of it but because it seemed to us to comprehend all the types of agricultural land to which access could reasonably be sought.
The noble Viscount knows, I am sure, that the words we have used—"mountain, moor, heath, and cliff" were in both the Access to Mountains Act 1939 and the National Parks Act 1949. The only alteration that we have made, so far as I know, is that we have altered the English word "down" to "hill".
The Amendment would be much too restrictive, much more restrictive even than "hill farming land". For example, it introduces difficulties of interpretation. In assessing the sheep-carrying capacity of land are we, for instance, to take the farm as a unit, or the whole area over which access is sought, or should we have to assess it acre by acre? I am advised that if we used the farm as the basis, virtually all of the Borders and South-West Scotland would be out, and we should be left only with remote or high-lying areas like the Cairngorms and parts of Argyll, Inverness-shire, Wester Ross, Sutherland and Caithness. Secondly, there would be the problem of assessing the carrying potential of the land, and, as your Lordships are well aware, this can vary according to methods and standards of management. Not only that, but sheep are moved in the winter. When would the assessment be made?
The Amendment would also insert the word "unenclosed" before "woodland". We should all, I think, accept that access to young plantations does not make sense in practical terms, as anyone who has tried to make his way through a young conifer plantation knows. But this can, I think, be left to the good sense of the local planning authority and the occupier. The noble Viscount will, I am sure, have
406
noted the provisions of Clause 15—I think he referred to them—which provide recourse to the Secretary of State for an occupier who considers that a local planning authority is being unreasonable in a matter of this nature. Mature woods may be fenced, or they may not be. Practice varies on different estates, and it may sometimes be completely fortuitous whether they are enclosed or not. The word "unenclosed" is not therefore helpful in this context, as was recognised after full discussion in another place.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, nevertheless, for having given me this opportunity to explain why we drafted the Bill as we have done. We have used words which we think describe the "open country" to which, prima facie, free public access might reasonably be negotiated. That is all. Within that, each individual access agreement or order will have to be negotiated or considered in the light of the actual circumstances on the land. I hope, therefore, that on reconsideration the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the Amendment and will feel satisfied that what he has in mind will be accomplished through the procedure which will be followed under the Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. Perhaps instead of saying "one ewe to five acres", I ought to have said "one ewe to three acres". But I still think that it is a quite fair definition of "open country". In view of what the noble Lord has said, I shall not pursue the matter any further. Of course, a great deal of this Bill is dependent on the Secretary of State. It is true that we can appeal to the Secretary of State, but he is not a court of law; he is a law unto himself. And, of course, one can be overruled, and one may sometimes be unfairly overruled. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall be agreed to?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask a question on Clause 10 regarding camping which I asked on Second Reading? Does an access order to open country allow

407
camping anywhere in that open country? I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer that question. The other question I should like to ask is regarding the foreshore, the beach. Does an access order to open country where you have a beach allow anyone to draw their boat up on the beach and to keep it there for all time? I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that this question could have been raised either on this clause or the next clause which deals with the rights of the public. At some stage or another in the course of the Bill, I think it would be extremely helpful if the noble Lord would say what are the rights of the public. What is meant by "open-air recreation"? As this Bill is drafted it gives new rights, and the impression one gets from reading it is that those rights are pretty wide, subject, for example, to subsection (2) of Clause 11, which says:
"Nothing in the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall entitle a person to enter or be on any land, or to do anything thereon, in contravention of any prohibition contained in or having effect under any enactment."
But, subject to enactments, the impression that the Bill gives is that the rights—that is to say, the open air recreation rights—are pretty wide.
I asked the noble Lord on Second Reading, for example, about pony-trekking, and he was good enough to write to me. He told me in his letter that if the agreement or order did not specifically say so then it would not cover pony-trekking,
"or indeed the taking of a single pony on to the land".
I think it would be extremely useful if the noble Lord could make a general statement as to what people may do who may go on the land. I am quite certain that he will say that all these matters are questions of negotiation. But the question in the negotiation is whether you are going to add to the rights already existing, or whether, as the Bill gives the impression, the negotiation is really dealing with restriction of wide rights that are conferred already in the Bill. I think it would be most helpful, to the public as well as
408
to your Lordships, if the noble Lord would make that clear.
LORD HUGHES: There have been a number of fears mentioned to me about the camping position. There was the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in relation to the foreshore. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised the more general position as to what exactly are the rights of the public—these new wide rights? I think what he asks for is quite proper; namely, that there should be a general statement of the position. I think, perhaps, it would be better if we were to leave this until a later stage of the proceedings, because there might well be other points of the same kind emerging.
As our time is limited, I think it would be better if there were a comprehensive statement towards the end of the Bill, perhaps even on the Schedule, when I would endeavour to mop up the various points that have emerged during discussion. For instance, I can give an answer right away to one of the camping points, but it would not meet other points. Camping would not be included willy-nilly on access land. It would be subject to the normal arrangements for camping sites et cetera, or by permission of the owner. But that only touches on one aspect. It does not say anything about camping on verges, about which noble Lords have spoken. If it is for the convenience of the Committee I should prefer to leave it for a comprehensive statement on all these matters.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Surely the majority of the foreshore in Scotland is Crown property, and therefore the public have the right to do what they please with the foreshore up to the high-water mark. Is that not the case? It certainly is where I live.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is not so where I live. I have the foreshore rights.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think one would be a most unhappy camper below high-water mark.
LORD HUGHES: Noble Lords opposite will not expect me to intervene in this Party forum.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rights of public where access agreement or order in force]:
5.21 p.m.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to leave out from "without" to "access", and insert "without causing damage". The noble Lord said: I wish to move this Amendment in a slightly altered form. The intention is the same, but I regret that my drafting is slightly at fault. The Amendment should read:
Page 9, line 26, leave out from ("without") to ("or")—not "access"—in line 27, and to insert ("causing damage").
Following the remarks on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, we had hoped that the Government would themselves amend this clause. There was considerable discussion on it in another place, and it seems to have been left in a somewhat hazy condition—indeed, it has taken a number of lawyer's explanations to try to disentagle the matter. I hope that the wording I have put in will slightly simplify it.
I think the objects of my Amendments are quite clear. In various clauses in this Bill, and in other Bills recently before the House, the Government have resisted the addition of various bodies and organisations for consultative purposes. For instance, in another place an Amendment seeking that the Countryside Commission should have to consult with the Development Board, and in the Water (Scotland) Bill, that there should be consultation with the purification boards, was turned down on the ground that the mention of any one body in the Bill might, by implication, exclude other bodies. Surely, in the same way, if we are being consistent, the mention of specific types of damage, as here, will imply that other types may be permissible. I am certain that this is not the intention of the Government, and that they would not wish to encourage any damage. Therefore I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, which I now beg to move in the amended form.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, leave out from ("without") to ("or") in line 27 and insert ("causing damage").—(Lord Burton.)
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord has now amended his Amendment, which
410
is perfectly acceptable to the Government—my only objection to it was that it had too many "without" in it—I am happy to accept it.
LORD BURTON: I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: On Second Reading I mentioned my feeling that this clause could be improved if the conditions set out in subsection (4) were made more emphatic earlier in the clause. I own so few acres that they are not likely to be the subject of an access order or agreement, and perhaps for that particular reason I am able to approach this in a completely disinterested way. From the point of view of people studying the Bill who are not landowners, Clause 11 could be improved, I think, by making it perfectly clear that in this matter of access there are responsibilities on both parties, and that it is essential, if the Bill is to work smoothly, that people who take advantage of access agreements shall understand that there are specific obligations when they go in the countryside.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred on Second Reading to the necessity for some sort of education by the Commission so that this point is made clear, and what I am saying now links up in a remote way with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said at the end of Clause 10; that possibly it would be better if here and there the Bill were more explanatory. I am making these remarks without putting forward any specific Amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will give his mind to this aspect. As a matter of fact, from his speech on Second Reading I thought he might have moved an Amendment himself and recognised this point, that at some stage in the Bill, preferably early on, it should be made abundantly clear that in this matter of access to open countryside there are responsibilities on either hand.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, on Second Reading I conceded that the point which he raised was one worth looking at, and it

411
seemed to me then that it might be necessary to move an Amendment linking Clause 11 with Schedule 2. However, on going into it with my advisers I have come to the conclusion that this is not necessary. We admit that the clause is a long one, and if both the clause and the Schedule seem a cumbersome way of dealing with this matter all we can say is that these are matters of such considerable complexity that it is impossible to do it as simply as perhaps we should all like. There is, however, a link, although in the other direction from that which the noble Lord wishes. But there could not be anything more direct than the link in Schedule 2 itself, the opening words of which are a reference back to Clause 11. Notwithstanding that, I will look at the point again to see whether it is possible to do anything, because I admit that it is preferable that the link should come from the clause, which is read first, rather than that one should have to go through it and refer to the Schedule and then find a reference back to the clause. It may not be possible to do it in the way suggested, but I will certainly look at it again.
While we are on the Motion, That the clause stand part, perhaps I may refer to another item which has been giving concern to a number of noble Lords, and about which the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, spoke to me. This was the question of shooting rights and deer forests, grouse moors and the like. He raised the question of the importance of these shooting rights, and of our examining how they will fit in with access arrangements under the Bill. The Landowners' Federation have had shooting rights in mind in discussions they have had with my Department officials and my honourable friend the Minister of State, both before and during the course of the Bill through Parliament. We are satisfied that the clause as drafted, and in particular subsection (3), will enable public access and shooting, whether of game or deer, to be dovetailed together.
Subsection (3) provides for an access agreement or order to include restrictions on access both as to time and to place. In other words, it can be agreed between the parties to the agreement that a grouse beat may be closed on the days when shooting is planned, and similarly
412
with a hill when stalking is planned or is in progress. People who use the countryside regularly for hill walking are already accustomed to respect the life and business of the countryside, and they do ask keepers and respect their advice as to where they may or may not walk on any particular day without disturbing the shooting. There are, of course, the odd "black sheep" in the flock. But we hope that walking arrangements will be able to control, or at least deter, the worst excesses.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, will know that access arrangements work satisfactorily in grouse moors in the Peak District and landowners there have taken the initiative in seeking access agreements; and although the problems are different, I am confident that access arrangements could be made just asacceptably to deer forests. I know that the Red Deer Commission are well disposed to the Bill, and we have undertaken that the Secretary of State will consult them before he approves at least the initial access agreements affecting land carrying deer. I hope that that statement on this particular access will prove helpful to noble Lords who have been genuinely interested and concerned about this problem.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he now say something about the question of camps—tents as opposed to caravans—which I mentioned earlier?
LORD HUGHES: I should prefer to leave that until the end. I referred to this point only because it arose particularly on Clause 11, and that was thought to be the proper place on which to make a statement on this particular matter.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I welcome what the noble Lord has just said, and I know that in the Peak District the arrangements for grouse shooting have worked most satisfactorily. What worries me a little is the difference between grouse shooting and stalking. In stalking a small party goes out on the same piece of ground every day, except Sundays, for six weeks—and even on the days when it does not go out on the same ground it is essential that the deer should not be disturbed on those days. It seems to me that in places where access is extremely popular this may raise difficulties. I fully appreciate that it will

413
not raise any greater difficulties than are liable to occur at the moment. However, I think that this is a problem to which we must direct our thoughts before we can be entirely satisfied that Clause 11 is properly drawn up.
One further point is that during the lambing season much the same considerations apply. One does not want people, particularly people with dogs, even if they are under control, going among the ewes during the lambing season. But, unlike the position with grouse shooting, it is no good telling people that they may not go there for a couple of days each week. The prohibition must be for six weeks to two months solid. This may be very hard on the public who wish to take advantage of access agreements during the lambing season or the stalking season. Luckily, these two seasons do not occur at a time of peak popularity for access to the countryside. None the less, there are some people who take their holidays at those times of year and who will wish to take advantage of access during those periods. I should like to know what arrangements are going to be made to warn people about where they can and cannot go during those two particular periods, and whether the Government have thought about this problem. The stalking problem virtually does not arise in England, and although the lambing problem does arise, I believe that in some parts of the Peak District it has not been so satisfactorily solved as the grouse shooting problem.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in regard to what he has said about access orders in relation to hill land where there is no access order, and where one has the public wandering around the hills. Does this now mean that the authorities will make an order during the shooting and stalking season that for a certain period the public will not be allowed on that area? What I am getting at is that if an area has not an access order upon it but is still a very valuable game area from the point of view of revenue, will the public be debarred from straying all over that area at the height of the game season?
LORD HUGHES: Obviously, if no access order is made, the position remains exactly as it is at present. We do not
414
need to issue a statement saying that the law remains unchanged where there is no access order.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The position at present is highly unsatisfactory. I have a deer forest, and at times there are hundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of people wandering all over it in the stalking season. The point is that under the present situation I cannot rent a large part of this forest, and the law at present is, as I say, highly unsatisfactory.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid we are not making very good progress at this stage. Surely this is the best indication that the noble Lord should seek to make access agreements in due course and get the benefits which flow from them.
LORD BURTON: I welcome the statement made by the noble Lord. I should like the Government to bear in mind that the whole population of various glens depend almost entirely on sporting facilities, and the whole position of rural areas of Scotland could be altered if this were not brought in. Therefore I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his statement.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Commission to consult with local planning authorities on access requirements of their areas]:
5.37 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities" to insert:
"and with such persons as appear to the Commission to be representative of the owners and occupiers of land in their areas".
The noble Baroness said: This clause provides for consultation between the Commission and local planning authorities on access requirements for the areas, but no express provision is made for consultation with the owners and occupiers as well as with local planning authorities. This Amendment proposes that the Commission should also consult from time to time with such persons as appear to them to be representative of the owners and occupiers of the land in their areas.
Clearly, the owners and occupiers will have something to contribute in putting

415
forward the views of what access requirements already exist in their areas and what further requirements may be needed. The views of the local planning authority and the owners and occupiers may differ within any given area. It is important that the Commission should receive a balanced picture on the access facilities and future requirements of access within an area. Some local planning authorities are not always very practical in their approach. It is important that the Commission, in the exercise of their functions, should have the benefit of views and advice from owners and occupiers of land in question, and this Amendment is drafted in a form for which there is precedent in other legislation. Therefore, I very much hope the noble Lord will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, after ("authorities") insert the said words.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwod.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: One reason—
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Earl would permit me to continue, I think I can probably satisfy him. If not, he can come back on the matter. Amendments to accomplish this purpose were moved in another place, both in Committee and on Report stage, and the Government were unable to accept them, although there was sympathy with the point of view expressed. The present Amendment is a great improvement on those which were moved in another place, and the Government are prepared to accept it in principle. However, we cannot accept all that is in it. There is one reservation which we must make, and it refers to the use of the word "persons". We feel that this is too wide. Used in the legal sense "persons" could include, as well as individuals, corporate bodies like the Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union; but these would clearly be the right persons to consult rather than the individuals, and we think that the word "bodies" would be preferable. This would be easier for the Commission. It would take them out of the invidious position of having to decide whether any individuals were representative of the owners and occupiers of the land. Having said that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the Amendment now, and I undertake at the next stage to submit,
416
on behalf of the Government, an Amendment which we think will give effect to what she wishes, and in a form of words which does not affront the draftsman.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. Clearly, the changes which he wants to make in the Amendment are legally desirable, and it would greatly facilitate the drawing up of these agreements if this could be done. The noble Lord referred to the Landowners' Federation which has just established new regional councils, and these would obviously be suitable bodies to consult before any steps are taken and an access order is made. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I am sure that my noble friend will wish to withdraw this Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord very much for his answer, and I am sure he will move a redrafted Amendment. I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: Before my noble friend withdraws her Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord whether in Parliamentary use the word "bodies" includes an individual body?
LORD HUGHES: If I were to go on the answer which I gave previously to the noble Baroness, that the greater includes the less, then I should think the answer must be, "Yes". But I would hope that by the use of the word "bodies" we do not eliminate the individual. However, I shall give this undertaking, that having objected to a particular use of the word by the noble Baroness as imposing too great a burden on the Commission, we shall make certain that by October we do not fall into another pitfall of the same kind ourselves.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord whether in talking about "bodies" he will have in mind the need to consult at as low a level as possible; in particular with the local branches of the National Farmers' Union, which would appear to be appropriate representative bodies in the area?
LORD HUGHES: I think that in this matter we would of course follow the usual practice. In some cases I think the consultation would be at national level,

417
while there may well be other cases where the appropriate thing to do, as the noble Lord has suggested, would be to have it at local level.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Access agreements]:
5.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or variation". The noble Lord said: This is a rather technical Amendment. The clause provides in subsection (3) that:
"An access agreement may be made either irrevocably or subject to such provisions for revocation or variation as may be specified in the agreement".
I take that to mean that if it is made irrevocably it cannot be altered at all, except in the circumstances of Clause 27(3) which deals with provisions as to danger areas.
Circumstances change, and it is not clear to me why, even if an access agreement is expressed to be irrevocable, it should not also be made subject to variation, and (if I may speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together) in Amendment No. 17 I indicate a way in which it could be varied. Obviously, where you have agreement it should only be varied with agreement. If somebody makes a proposal for a variation and the other party does not agree, it may be desirable to have an arbiter or to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. But plainly it would not be right for the Secretary of State or the arbiter to alter the terms of the agreement without, at any rate, the consent of the proposer of the variation. That is the purpose of these two Amendments. I would only add that it is not entirely clear to me why, if an access agreement can be revocable, it cannot also be made for a term of years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("or variation").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I must confess that it was not completely clear to us what the noble Lord had in mind in proposing these two Amendments, and what he has indicated goes a little beyond the possibilities
418
which we had considered. In asking him to withdraw—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make it clear that my last observation was not covered by the Amendment. That was purely an observation about the term of years.
LORD HUGHES: I was referring to the noble Lord's desire to have an irrevocable agreement subject to variation. We had not thought that that was what he had in mind. The Bill as drafted provides, as one would expect for any agreement in the sense in which that term is normally understood, that the agreement may itself provide for its variation; and to include the provision now suggested would, in my view, be contrary to the spirit in which agreements are normally made and expected to be kept. Looking at it from the point of view of an agreement which does include within itself provision for variation, if we accepted the Amendment we should be taking away from the value of the agreement which had been arrived at. The Amendment would create the position that if one party to the agreement wished to vary it, he could appeal to the Secretary of State and, if he convinced the Secretary of State that it should be varied, the initial agreement could be set aside.
As the Bill stands at the present time, the agreement could only be varied within its own terms, and that would imply the consent of both parties. Yet the noble Lord's Amendment envisages the possibility of the agreement being varied against the will of one of the parties. We think that it is unnecessary to do this. Having entered into an agreement to which both sides are parties, and if that agreement provides that it may be varied by the consent of both parties, we do not think that it is necessary to go beyond that.
However, looking at it from the other side, that there might be provision for variation of an irrevocable agreement to take account of changed circumstances, that is a consideration with which my answer does not deal. I should like to look at the matter from that point of view, to find out whether or not it is possible or desirable to make provision, not for the withdrawal of an irrevocable agreement, but for its variation to take account

419
of possible changes in circumstances. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw the Amendment I shall get in touch with him well before the next stage, either with the suggestion of a Government Amendment or the reasons why we do not wish to make that provision. He will then, of course, be free, if he feels it necessary, to take further action on Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I expressed the purpose of my Amendment badly, but I do not think I meant to go any further than he has indicated. Of course, if an agreement is irrevocable it is there to stay. What I had in mind was the distinction in the Amendment between irrevocable agreements, the terms of which cannot apparently be varied in any way, and revocable agreements and variable agreements. There is that distinction. I thought that, whether an agreement was irrevocable or revocable, it should be capable of variation in changed circumstances. That is all I had in mind, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am rather out of my depth on this particular Amendment, and I had hoped that perhaps some of the noble and learned Lords might be here at this point to help me out. But I am advised that it is not normal for a liferenter to be able to make agreements without the consent of the trustees. The next subsection deals with trustees; and it seems to me that the right people to make agreements of this kind in regard to land subject to a liferenter's interests are the trustees, and not the life-renter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("the liferenter or").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: Although my swimming abilities in this direction are not particularly great, I may be able to rescue the noble Lord from the deep water in which he finds himself. The point of this Amendment was discussed at considerable length in another place, and it is rather interesting that a scion of this House, the Earl of Dalkeith, was fully in support of the Government's view. It is also interesting that, as my honourable
420
friend the Minister of State pointed out, we have not been pressed by the Scottish Landowners' Federation on the point, which we think would certainly have been the case if they thought it was a matter of real significance. I should like to go on, however, to explain the position as we see it.
Where there is a liferenter, it will normally be the case that he will be a party, for his interest, to any agreement made between the trustees and the local planning authority. However, cases will occasionally crop up where the trustees, because of some doubt about their powers or because they think it in the best interests of their trust, cannot see their way to enter into an agreement, even though as individuals they would each be prepared to do so had their interest been a personal one. In these rare cases it seems wrong to force the local planning authority to make an order. Perhaps the trustees would even feel obliged to object, with a view to a possible early sale of the estate. But the liferenter cannot give away a better right than he has, and could bind the land only for the period of his interest, which would cease at his death. Therefore I can see no valid reason why the liferenter should not be enabled (as his equivalent in England is) to grant access by agreement to the land he enjoys for the period of his interest. Accordingly, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. And because of what I have said, the Government make the point, of course, that the next Amendment is not necessary.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before my noble friend withdraws this Amendment, as I expect he will, may I say that, while I agree that the next Amendment is probably not necessary, it would make it much easier for people reading this Bill to understand the restriction on the powers of the liferenter or the heir of entail. I was wondering, therefore, whether it would be possible for the noble Lord to accept it in the interests of making it possible for anyone who happens to have to read this Bill, and who is not a lawyer, to understand it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to my noble friend. In order to get the discussion in order, may I first beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 18? Then, in order to enable the noble

421
Lord to reply to my noble friend, I shall move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, at end insert ("for a period not exceeding the period of his interest in the land.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: This, as the noble Lord has already said, is deep water, but may I try to get the position quite clear? When the noble Lord says he wishes the position to be made clear, does he mean by the retention of the words sought to be omitted by the last Amendment or by the insertion of the words set out in the Amendment we are now discussing?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I might make it clear, we have now agreed not to leave out the words set out in the previous Amendment, and are considering what application the words in the present Amendment would have to a life-renter or an heir of entail.
LORD HUGHES: What I should have said was that I am not clear what the noble Duke wishes to make clear.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I was hoping the noble Lord would agree to accept the words in this Amendment, because, although I am quite prepared to accept that they probably are not necessary legally, I think that the non-lawyer, reading through this Bill, would find it easier to understand that there was this particular limitation on the heir of entail or the liferenter if these words were inserted.
LORD HUGHES: I think it is a rather dangerous principle to start putting words into a Bill merely to make a legal point like this as clear as may be to the person who is not legally minded. I cannot accept this Amendment, because the information I have is that there is no doubt at all in law that the liferenter cannot give a greater right than he has, and that therefore the access agreement can be made only for the period of his interest.
LORD DRUMALBYN: For my part, I am quite satisfied with that. I think one would not make an agreement of this type without consulting one's lawyer, and he
422
would know the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I, very briefly, ask the noble Lord one question? Is Clause 13, which deals with the power to make access agreements, governed by Clause 10, which defines "open country", or is it governed by Clause 2, which defines "the countryside"? Because I think there definitely will be occasions when it will be advantageous for all parties to be able to make access agreements—and I emphasise access agreements—but not access orders over land which does not come within the definition of "open country". I am thinking particularly of places where fishermen would like access to the banks of a river, or along the banks of a river, or something like that. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure me that Clause 13 is governed by Clause 2 and not by Clause 10, and that Clause 14, "Access orders", is governed by Clause 10 and not by Clause 2.
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Duke like to wait until I make a general statement later on, by which time I shall know the answer?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Certainly.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Access orders]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"( ) Before submitting an access order to the Secretary of State a local planning authority shall, after consultation with the owners and occupiers of the land which it is proposed should be included in the order, ascertain what public paths or rights of way are already available to the public. A report of such facilities shall be attached to the application to the Secretary of State for an access order. If the Secretary of State is satisfied after any objections to the proposed access order have been considered at a local enquiry and hearing in accordance with Section 15(4) of this Act that public paths or rights of way are adequate within any part of the land comprised within the said access order he shall not confirm the access order in so far as it relates to any such part of the said land."
The noble Baroness said: We have already been discussing the problems arising out of Clause 10, and this Amendment refers to this clause. There have been declarations by the Government that access will normally be by means of an access agreement rather than by an access order. However, there are bound to be difficult cases where agreement cannot be reached, however much good will there is on the part of the owner and the local planning authority, who will be the parties to the negotiations. We do not think it right that where the public already have adequate rights of access, by means of public paths or rights of way, the Secretary of State should have the power to issue an order in respect of any such land.
The purpose of this Amendment is therefore to write into the Bill safeguards which would preclude the Secretary of State from confirming an access order in respect of any land if he was satisfied, after a public local inquiry, or possibly a hearing, that existing facilities were adequate. We do not feel that an Amendment on these lines would be detrimental in any way to the thinking and the objects behind Part II of the Bill. It does, however, place an emphasis on making use of existing facilities, whether under an access agreement or an order. It also attempts to place emphasis on the desirability of public paths and rights of way in the case of inbye and arable land through which the public must pass when going on to hill and rough grazings. The Amendment is not seeking to narrow the definition of "open country," but merely to ensure that where facilities are adequate an order shall not be confirmed. It seems sensible, therefore, to write this into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, after "agreements" insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is useful in that it directs our attention to the kind of processes through which a local planning authority will have to go before making an access order. The Secretary of State will also take this kind of consideration into account before he approves an order. The Government accept that access arrangements will often
424
involve a combination of a public path agreement or agreements with the access agreement itself. A public path could frequently be the best way of getting access through inbye land to the rougher land higher up the hill. This is the kind of question which would be naturally the subject of negotiation and examination when an access agreement or order was in contemplation. To that extent we agree with the spirit of the Amendment. But we do not think the Amendment is necessary. The Secretary of State will look at these matters in any case.
Furthermore, the Amendment appears to impose on the local authority a duty which may be unnecessary. The basic idea of free access is access to roam the hills away from such paths as there may be. No matter how many paths there may be in an access area, they could never satisfy this freedom to roam; and, to that extent, a detailed investigation of all rights of way in the area would be an unnecessary and time-consuming exercise. For these reasons I hope the noble Baroness will not press the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: If the noble Lord assures me that these matters will be considered and are under consideration, I shall withdraw the Amendment. But it seems to me that where you have doubts, where there may be difficulties, it would be simpler to lay down some kind of arrangement which would make it easier. However, if the noble Lord thinks it unnecessary and that it is already in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Provisions for securing safe and sufficient access]:
6.3 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment is to make certain that access is not merely on to the whole of the land, but on to each part of the land. What I have in mind is the access from one part of the land to another; and not just access on to the land itself. It is important in this context because here we are concerned with safety and the adequacy of access. If you are allowed to go on to the land, presumably, once

425
on it (subject to what is contained in the agreement, and the restrictions and exceptions) you can go where you like on it. In particular, it may be necessary to cross rivers. There may be bridges giving access from one part of the land to another. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see his way to allowing these words to be added, so as to enable anyone to go from one part of the land to another, subject to such restrictions as may be agreed upon or allowed. This is the sole point of the Amendment. It may be it is not necessary because access to the land may include access to any part of the land. But it is in order to get the noble Lord to state whether that is so that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, at end insert ("and the expression 'means of access to the land' includes means of access to any part of the land other than excepted land.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: We had assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was seeking information by this Amendment, and I am glad that is the case, because I cannot accept the Amendment for two reasons. The first is because, as he anticipated, in part it is unnecessary; and the second is because, in part, it is too restrictive. I confirm that the definition of "means of access", which the Amendment proposes to alter, already applies to any part of the land; so the first part of the Amendment is unnecessary. Secondly, an access agreement, though not an access order, can provide for access to excepted land. This is made clear by the proviso to Clause 11(1). If an agreement did so provide, it would obviously be sensible that the local authority should have power to provide means of access to the excepted land. If this is so, the inclusion of the last four words would be unduly restrictive. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, having got the information he wished on the first part—and I am certain he does not want to be restrictive in these last four words—will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The intention was not to be restrictive. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask just two questions? First, with regard to line 8, page 17:
"the maintenance of any such means of access".
Here, again, I am concerned with bridges in particular. I am well aware how often these bridges are washed away. I am not certain whether "maintenance" includes restoration or rebuilding where a bridge is entirely washed away. If it is no longer there, you cannot maintain it; it has to be replaced. That is the first point. The second point is in line 31. This part allows for the authority to contribute to a part of the cost as may be specified in the agreement. Does "part" include proportion; or does it allow only a specified sum of, say, an ascertained estimate to be contributed. I think it should be possible to contribute a proportion of the cost.
LORD HUGHES: On the first point, I think I must agree with the noble Lord that if a bridge were washed away and had to be replaced this would not be covered by "maintenance" in the ordinary way as we understand it. On the second point, he referred to the words "such part of that cost" in line 31. If we go back to the words in line 28:
"where it is agreed that it shall be carried out otherwise than by the authority may defray the cost of the carrying out thereof, or may contribute such part of that cost as may be specified in the agreement".
As this really contemplates that they may cover the whole or part of the cost, it seems that there is no restriction at all on the way in which this can be done. Obviously, therefore, it may be proportionate, if that is what is wanted.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Suspension of public access to avoid risk of fire.]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after "thereon", to insert
"or that members of the public are likely to be exposed to undue personal risk".
The noble Duke said: Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State power to suspend

427
access in certain conditions of weather owing to the danger of fire. I should like to extend this power so that the Secretary of State could suspend access in certain conditions of weather but for other reasons. These are that people are becoming increasingly keen on climbing and mountaineering and that during the winter they often go up inadequately dressed and, more important, inadequately shod. They often get caught by blizzards and then a large number of people have to spend a great deal of time and money searching for them. On occasion they do not find them and they die of exposure on the hills. When the access agreements come into general use this may be something which will happen with increasing frequency. People will say, "This ground must be all right; there is an access agreement applying to the area. It must be safe for us to go up." They will go up and accidents of this kind will become more frequent.
Even more important, there are certain places where avalanches are not unknown in Scotland under certain conditions. These conditions may frequently be forecast, and I should have thought there was a good case for giving the Secretary of State power to close access agreements over those areas when such weather conditions were likely to occur. I feel that in the interests of public safety it is desirable for some provision like this to be written into the Bill. Were the Amendment to be accepted, as I hope it will be, I think that the title of the clause would have to be altered to, "Suspension of public access in times of unusual weather conditions"—or something like that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
6.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I had envisaged that the noble Duke might have in mind such things as landslides or avalanches. Though he did not mention landslides, no doubt he had them in mind in view of his reference to avalanches. I must admit I had not contemplated that he had in mind the possibility of some control over or inspection of the type of clothing and footwear of the people going on the land. If we were to accept that responsibility, there would be little danger of
428
any unemployment in the Highlands, as we should need almost every available man in order to carry it out; though I do not think it would be a productive form of employment. I think I must accept that people will gradually become educated into the proper way of doing things. The fact that we are also going to make access to the water more freely available does not imply that we are saying to everyone who cannot swim, "We are giving you access to the water and you can proceed to walk on it, although you cannot swim in it".
We believe that fire risk is a subject which may be properly dealt with in the clause; but where the risks to which the noble Duke refers are substantial the proper course would be to consider whether it is desirable that access agreements should be made at all. Clause 27(1), to which I would direct the attention of the noble Duke, is relevant. If it is considered that the risk is acceptable, then the powers of Clause 27(4) are available for the local authority to take steps to warn the public of the danger. We do not think this a matter which can be satisfactorily dealt with under Clause 19. I have no doubt that if a significant natural hazard arose or seemed imminent, as distinct from the one which was there permanently, the police and the local and central Government officials in the area would, without the need for any statutory reminder, take all possible steps to warn and protect the public. This would be on a much wider basis than merely in connection with access land. For these reasons I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to accept the Amendment. I do not think it would be likely to be of help in the circumstances which the noble Duke has in mind.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not wish to misrepresent me. I never intended to suggest that there should be a sort of kit inspection before every climber set off up the hill. But I am worried by the fact that there are many places which, although providing excellent climbing for nine months of the year, may become extremely dangerous in December, January and February. I should have thought it was worth writing something like this into the Bill. I am sure that the

429
psychological effect of an access agreement will be to make people think that access is that much safer at all times of the year. They will visualise that there will be a rescue hut in which they may take refuge if they are caught in a storm, though of course in many cases there will not be. I have no wish to press this matter on the noble Lord. If he is satisfied that his arrangements for warning the public about the dangers are enough, well and good. But I should like him to think further about this point, because I think it is a more difficult problem than many people realise. The statistics relating to climbers and similar people lost in the winter and during storms show that the numbers are growing every year. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move this Amendment to leave out "the land" and to insert "such parts of the land and". The clause would then read that the Secretary of State
"may direct that section 11(1) above shall not have effect in relation to such parts of the land and during such period as may be specified in the direction".
I think that the point is quite clear. It seems rather absurd that even in the driest of times, because there is one wood which may be liable to be set ablaze, a whole vast mountain range should be denied to the public. Yet "the land" presumably can mean only land which is subject to the access agreement. There is no provision here for discriminating between one part of the land and another, and it seems to me sensible to deny access to certain parts of the land in certain circumstances but to allow access to other parts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 20, leave out ("the land") and insert ("such parts of the land and").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: We do not think this Amendment is necessary. The first part of the clause refers to access to the land, then there are some words, and it goes on to say, "or any part thereof", and directions by the Secretary of State for Scotland can be limited to any part likely to be at risk. Having said that, may I say that if on looking at the clause again the noble Lord is not satisfied that his
430
point is completely covered, I do not think any harm would be done by adding the words—other than, perhaps, the ultimate outrage to the noble Lord's own predisposition not to have unnecessary words in a Bill. If he is satisfied that these words are completely necessary, I would not dissent from adding them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that I thought they were necessary, and if the noble Lord is willing to add them, I shall be glad.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I was wondering how the mechanics of this clause would work. Will the information be broadcast over the radio? Obviously it will be something on which a decision will have to be taken very quickly. As I am sure that anyone who lives there will know, the moor dries up with remarkable rapidity at certain times of the year. The strength of the wind is one factor that has a big effect on fire danger. If there is virtually no wind, the risk is not very great, but if a half-gale is blowing, the risk is considerable. I should like to know, therefore, how the Secretary of State is to be told that the fire risk in a certain area is approaching the danger level and, when he agrees to suspend an access order, how the public are to be informed of that fact.
LORD BURTON: How are the public to know when the restrictions are lifted; and who is to say when restrictions are to be put on or lifted?
LORD HUGHES: It is made clear in the clause, which starts by saying, "If the Secretary of State is satisfied", that the decision is the Secretary of State's. But, of course, my right honourable friend is not going careering round the country himself. A decision will be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State, possibly through local Forestry Commission officials, and it will be made known by whatever means possible. In conditions of sufficient gravity, we should use all possible means, including wireless and television, as well as police and officials on the spot.

431
There will not be the same urgency about bringing restrictions to an end, but we should give adequate publicity to the fact that restrictions were lifted. Those who wanted to get on would make inquiries as to whether they could do so, and if they had not previously read the news, or heard it on the radio, they would be told that the restrictions had been lifted. In the first case, we appreciate that getting information over quickly might well be of prime importance and we should therefore take all necessary means to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that what my noble friend Lord Burton is asking is whether the phrase "during such period" includes an indefinite period—for example, until further notice. If that were the case, it would be the opposite way round and notice would have to be given that access was reopened.
LORD HUGHES: We should have to give notice that restrictions were at an end, but in the sort of emergency envisaged here we should not have an order for so many hours, days or weeks. The duration of the restrictions would depend entirely on how long the emergency conditions persisted. They might be brought to an end rapidly by a change in the weather. On the other hand, a continuation of the weather conditions which had created the risk might persist for weeks on end. Obviously, there cannot be any definite period. I am reminded of a circumstances at the beginning of the war, when an official (who must be nameless) stated that the town council had entered into an agreement with the Postmaster General for a telephone service to warden posts for a period of three years, this being the official period for the duration of the war.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Compensation to be assessed with regard to effect of first five years of access]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We come here to the question of compensation where an
432
order is made. I said on Second Reading that it did not seem clear why a person on whom an access order is served should have to wait for five years before compensation is claimable or payable. Claims for damage should be made as they arise, otherwise it is difficult, apart from anything else, for damage to be assessed. There are two separate types of claim here. One is a general claim for compensation for depreciation and the other a claim for particular damage. I raised the question of claims for the reimbursement of insurance premiums, and the noble Lord was good enough to say that they would be recovered. But why should anyone have to wait five years for their recovery?
I am not sure how this clause fits in with the next clause. Clause 21 says that compensation shall not be claimed for five years and Clause 22 says that application for compensation must be made not less than three months after the date of the order's coming into operation. These seem contradictory. Just as the party having to pay compensation may not know by experience what should be paid, so the party likely to claim compensation may not know by experience whether or not it is necessary to claim. I do not see how these two provisions dovetail. It seems unreasonable to expect anyone to put in a general, omnibus claim, covering all possibilities, and I doubt whether that would be permissible under the regulations to be prescribed. I hope that the noble Lord will look at these clauses again.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot say why the period of five years was chosen. Obviously some period must elapse because of the difficulty of assessing compensation, and the Government have decided that five years is a reasonable period.
Clause 21 only requires notice to be given. The final claim comes after a five-year period. There is provision for interim payments in Clause 23(1).
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that this is the least satisfactory of the explanations the noble Lord has given so far. Perhaps we can look at this at a later stage, because, while it is true that Clause 23 makes possible payment on account, the whole concept of these clauses should be looked at to get a more reasonable provision. I submit

433
that we should have a clear distinction between claims for damage or depreciation, or loss which can clearly be established at an early stage, and those which can be established only by experience. I hope that it will be possible to provide for this.
LORD HUGHES: I will look at this matter again. Perhaps it would be best if I were to write the noble Lord within a short period.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Claims for compensation and interest]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "duly" and insert "in the prescribed form". The noble Lord said: This is a matter to which I had intended to refer earlier, but I am afraid I let the clause go by. However, it arises here again. The word "duly" is used, and I feel that when this word is used it would be quite possible for a planning authority, or anyone else on whom a claim was made, to refuse to accept the claim on the ground that in the opinion of the authority it was not "duly" made. I think that, as we have provision for regulations to be prescribed, for example, in subsection (2), so in subsection (1) it would be better to use the words "in the prescribed form", and allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in this case, as in others. The other case where the word "duly" is used, to which I meant to refer, is in Clause 15. Perhaps, as we have now passed this clause I can write to the noble Lord about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("duly") and insert ("in the prescribed form").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord has himself referred to subsection (2), which provides that claims for compensation shall be made in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. It is because subsection (2) lays this down that the word "duly" appears in line 6. It is there as a pointer to subsection (2). This is the usual form in which it is done. Having laid down in the clause that regulations may be prescribed, it is not necessary to use this form of words on both occasions. This
434
accords with the noble Lord's own view, that you ought not to use four words if one will serve the purpose.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If this is well precedented, I am glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. When a claim is made under subsection (3) of this clause, I can see that if the land is in the same ownership as it was when the agreement or order was entered into no difficulty will arise, or should not arise. But in the event of the land having been sold, or the ownership having been transferred, I should think it might be possible that the new owner would not realise exactly when he had to claim—that is, the period not less than three months after the five years. Would the local planning authority be obliged to send the new owner a reminder that he was due to make a claim if, towards the end of that time, they had not received a claim from him or would it be up to the new owner? Or would there be some way, if a new owner forgot to make his claim, whereby the time could be extended?
LORD HUGHES: It seems to me that this is probably a point on which the new owner's legal adviser would keep him right. But it may not be so, and if the noble Duke will permit me, I will have a look at the point and see whether it is necessary for anything to be done.
LORD BURTON: If the insurance money is to be capitalised, may we have an assurance that the interest on the capital, some of which, presumably, would be set aside each year for the insurance premium, would not be taxed?
LORD HUGHES: No.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:
Saving in respect of capital gains tax and betterment levy
". It is hereby declared that where in respect of any land an access agreement or an

435
access order is made in accordance with this Part of this Act the making of such agreement or order as the case may be shall not—

(a) for the purposes of the enactments relating to the capital gains tax be a disposal of an asset; or

(b) for the purposes of the Land Commission Act 1967 be a chargeable act or event."

The noble Earl said: This proposed new clause would provide that an access agreement or access order should not be a chargeable act for the purposes of capital gains tax, or a chargeable event for the purpose of betterment levy. It would obviously, I think, facilitate the completion of these agreements, and would also save our heavily overworked Inland Revenue officials from a good deal of fruitless and unnecessary investigation. The point was fairly fully discussed in Committee in another place, and the Government said that they would look into it. But everybody seems to have forgotten about it on Report. Perhaps we can remember something now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: This new clause proposes that the making of an access agreement or order in respect of any land is not to be treated as a disposal for capital gains tax purposes or as a chargeable act or event for betterment levy purposes. I shall deal, first of all, with the capital gains tax aspect. Under the existing law, the making of an access order constitutes a part disposal of the land in respect of which it is made; an access agreement would not constitute a disposal unless the consideration included a capital sum as a premium. Broadly speaking, except where the land in respect of which the agreement or order is made has some "development value", the gain on the disposal is measured as the difference between the compensation received and an apportioned part of the cost of the entire land in respect of some or all of which the order has been made. So much of this gain as is referable to the period from April 6, 1965 (when capital gains tax took effect) to the date when the compensation is received would then be liable to tax. The position in cases where the land has some development value is more complicated, but such cases are, I am advised,
436
likely to be relatively rare—so rare, indeed, that it has not been thought necessary to specify countryside access compensation payable under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which the Bill follows very closely in this respect, in the Case F regulations made under the Land Commission Act.
There are specific provisions in the Finance Act 1965 that make the receipt of compensation of any sort a disposal for capital gains tax purposes. Once the principle that all such compensation has to be brought into account was breached, there would be a grave risk that all forms of compulsory acquisition, or disposals by voluntary agreement in cases where compulsory powers could be used, would, in the long run, be excluded from the tax charge. A proposal that gains should not be chargeable when they accrue in consequence of acquisition by authorities possessing compulsory powers (or by sale by agreement to such authorities) was debated on May 27 during the 1965 Finance Bill proceedings, but was resisted [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, cols. 914–918; 27/5/65] by the Government on the grounds that the capital gains tax proceeded on the principle that liability to it should not be limited to voluntary disposal of property; thus, for example, liability arises on death. It followed that if there was to be liability not limited to voluntary disposal of property, liability must arise where a capital gain arose from a compulsory acquisition.
As noble Lords are aware, it would be contrary to custom to make amendments to the tax code in legislation other than the Finance Bill. Moreover, the constitutional custom is, of course, that amendments to taxation law emanate from another place, so that we may expect that, apart from the merits of the matter, the present clause, if inserted into the Bill here, will be rejected by the other place as a derogation of their privilege.
I turn now to the question of betterment levy. The general principle underlying the charging of betterment levy is that levy becomes payable where development value is being realised. But the compensation provided for under Part II of the Countryside Bill is compensation for the depreciation of the value of an existing interest, or for damage resulting from the disturbance of the enjoyment of land in its existing state.

437
As long as the compensation takes this form, therefore, the Government agree that its payment should not be made a chargeable event.
We do not agree, however, that the proposed Amendment should be made. In the first place, it is unnecessary. There is nothing in the Land Commission Act, or the regulations made under it, that would make this compensation subject to betterment levy. Secondly, and even more important, the Amendment would set an undesirable precedent and would cast doubt on the position of other forms of compensation the payment of which has not been made a chargeable event but about which there is no comparable statutory declaration. Thirdly, a non-fiscal measure like the Countryside Bill is no place for legislation purporting to regulate fiscal matters. If any declaration of this kind were thought desirable it should be in fiscal legislation.
I hope it will be felt of advantage that this statement should appear in the Record, because I have no doubt that noble Lords will wish to study in writing what I am saying. It perhaps may be a little clearer than attempting to listen to a long statement of this kind. Having said that, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the Amendment so that he may have the opportunity, at more leisure, of studying what I have said; and if he still feels he has doubts in the matter, and wishes to pursue it further, perhaps he will get in touch with me well before the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am very glad to hear that there will be some advantage in publishing this rather long and mystifying statement—as all financial law is—in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Does it mean—this is all I want to ask—that when an agreement or an access order is made, and if the owner does not receive any cash through selling anything, he will not be subject thereby to capital gains tax or betterment levy? I take it that it does mean that.
LORD HUGHES: The statement means what it says, and I would invite the noble Earl to read it in due course. If he is not clear on reading it as to what it means, I have already invited him to write me about it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I had hoped that the noble Lord himself would be sufficiently clear about it to tell me whether the result of all this would mean that a betterment levy or capital gains tax was actually payable in these circumstances.
LORD HUGHES: Whether I am clear about it or not, I have sufficient respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to tread too heavily in his field of territory.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In the hope that some day the Government may be able to understand their own statements, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Acquisition by local planning authorities of land for public access]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that the next Amendment, No. 26, and Amendment No. 27 are on exactly the same point, and I strongly suspect that No. 27 is in a preferable form. Therefore, I will not move No. 26.
LORD HUGHES: Your Lordships will recollect that at the beginning of the proceedings it was indicated that we should carry on to a point between half past six and seven o'clock. I think this might be a convenient moment to move, which I now do, that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
6.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of the Brighton Marina Bill, perhaps I should not be out of place in reminding your Lordships not only that the Bill has

439
passed through all the usual stages in another place, but also that two proposed Instructions to the Committee in another place were in fact defeated. I should also like to declare my interest as a yacht owner, but I have no financial interest whatever in the undertaking.
The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the construction of a yacht and boat harbour, now known commonly as a Marina, in the Kemp Town area of Brighton, near the Black Rock. In addition, the Bill will afford to Brighton further recreational, hotel and residential amenities, and the whole project will help to enhance Brighton's reputation as one of the country's leading holiday centres, and has the full support, I would say, of the Brighton Corporation.
The main justification for the Bill is the urgent need for accommodation for yachts and boats, both medium-sized and small, in the Brighton area and on the South Coast of Britain. Between the Isle of Wight, the Solent area, and Dover, which are many miles apart, there are comparatively few moorings for yachts, and the harbours are already congested. There is no doubt that many accidents have occurred owing to small boats being unable to find refuge on this coast.
The sport of yachting and boating has seen a surge of interest in recent years, especially among the younger generation. Some ten years ago, I would say, the enthusiasts numbered about 10,000; but I would say that the figure at the present day is well over 500,000. It will be possible to accommodate 2,000 yachts of various sizes in the Marina, in addition to some hundreds of dinghies and powered runabouts—very small boats indeed. I would point out that the project has also been approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
It has been argued in some quarters that it is unnecessary to have other revenue-producing developments in addition to the harbour. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Minister's letter, dated September 29, 1966, addressed to the promoters and the Brighton Corporation, in which the Minister states, in paragraph 7,
"that he accepts that a harbour and ancillary buildings would not be an economic proposition unless they are accompanied by other revenue-producing developments."
440
I should like to stress a very important point, which I am now about to make. One or two marinas have been in fact built in this country without any revenue-producing elements attached; with the result that the cost of berthing for small yacht owners is prohibitive, as the return on capital invested has to be obtained solely from the yacht berths. I speak with considerable knowledge of these matters. The promoters and Brighton Corporation are anxious not to make this mistake, and are very anxious to provide accommodation at a reasonable cost for all yacht and boat owners, according to the size of the vessel.
It has, I think, been argued in some quarters that the building may be unsightly, and perhaps detract from the Regency buildings in the Kemp Town area of Brighton. I would point out to your Lordships that no building on the foreshore will be at a greater height than the level of the cliff top, immediately north of the site, and can have adverse effect whatever on other buildings. I think it is true to say that it has been suggested in some quarters that the Marina should be sited in another area. In the first place I would call your Lordships' attention to paragraph 3 of the Brighton Corporation's observations, as set out in the statement on behalf of the promoters. Paragraph 3 reads as follows:
"The comparatively small part of the foreshore, which will be lost to the public by the construction of the Marina, is not one of Brighton's better beaches. It is rock-strewn and of little attraction and use to bathers and its loss will have no adverse effect on the town's available seaside facilities for both residents and visitors."
In addition, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has stated, in paragraph 7 of his letter to the promoters, to which I have already referred that—and I use his words:
"This location is the one least likely to give rise to harmful effects on other parts of the town."
I would add that none of the national or local community interests have petitioned against this Bill. That is a fact which I would strongly stress in this debate.
I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause, which will no doubt be done thoroughly by the Select Committee in due course if the Second Reading is agreed to by your Lordships. On the other hand, there are one or two other

441
matters to which I may rightly draw your Lordships' attention. In the first place, the Royal Yachting Association—the national authority of the sport—fully supports this Bill, and I think I am right in saying that many hundreds of yacht clubs and sailing clubs are members of this Association and cover all classes, from dinghies to large craft.
With regard to the question of access roads, the phasing of the construction would in fact be in conformity with the programme for the construction and opening of the various parts of the Marina development. The Brighton Corporation are satisfied that the access roads will make a substantial contribution to the solution of Brighton's future traffic problems. The Corporation have undertaken to take all the necessary steps to provide a road system, and the promoters of the Bill have agreed to pay a sum of £385,000 as a contribution to the cost. I should like to mention that before construction is commenced, the promoters are to satisfy the Brighton Corporation that adequate financial resources are available to ensure completion of the whole of the work in one operation, thus removing the risk of a substandard or incomplete development.
Incidentally, the agreed terms of the lease from the Corporation to the promoters will give the Corporation a share in the profits and a right to nominate two directors to the Board. I would stress that all the organisations in Brighton, such as the local chamber of commerce, the Hoteliers Association, the entertainment people and the fishermen and, last but not least, the elected representativcs of the borough, are in favour of the project.
I would suggest that this Bill is in no way a Party matter. In another place the Second Reading of the Bill was moved by the Socialist Member for the Kemp Town Division of Brighton and was supported by the Conservative Member for the Pavilion Division. I understand that one of the most vociferous Members of another place who opposed this Bill has recently moved into a flat in the Kemp Town area, overlooking the proposed development. He brought into the debate what I would say is a Party bias by advocating public ownership of the proposed development. I do not imagine that this will be pursued by your Lordships,
442
but in any case I propose to forestall it by quoting the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place:
"My right honourable friend does not take the view that there is anything wicked, unsocialist or in any way doctrinally objectionable about a partnership between a public authority and private enterprise. … It is a hard fact in development, particularly in urban development, and my right honourable friend has used his persuasive powers to encourage local authorities to recognise the need for a partnership, if only because of the blunt fact that they will not get the capital in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13./3/67, col. 150.]
I do not think I need say any more on this aspect of the matter.
The consulting engineers employed by the Brighton Marina Company are well known to me and are employed by the Royal National Life-boat Institution, of which I am a Governor and a member of the managing committee, and your Lordships can rest assured that the building of the Marina is in good hands and if recommended by them is a feasible proposition; and this they have already done.
In conclusion, I would say that in Brighton the opposition to the Bill really comes from a few well-to-do people living in certain streets near the development area. As I have already mentioned, there will be no buildings above cliff height, so these people will not be cut off in any way from the sea. Perhaps I might add that the project has the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and that a model of the whole undertaking is available for view in the Royal Gallery. I trust that all your Lordships who are taking part in the debate have had a look at it. This Bill will provide accommodation for the "little man" for his yacht or boat, at a reasonable cost, for the reasons which I have already given, and I hope I have also given sufficient information to indicate that the whole of the people of Brighton want this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, before I state the Question, as it is not common in your Lordships' House to have an Instruction to a Committee, I think it might be of assistance if I said a word about the procedure. It is for me, of course, to

443
state the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time. It will then be open to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or any other noble Lord, to address himself both to the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, and to the Question, Whether the Select Committee should be given the Instruction which appears on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, will reply at the end of that debate, and I shall then put the Question, That the Bill be read a second time. If that is carried, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will then move the Motion which appears in his name on the Order Paper. At that point it would be open to the noble Lord (or, of course, any other noble Lord) to move an Amendment to the Instruction, in which event of course the Amendment would be taken first and then the Instruction, amended or unamended, would be put.
If that is carried the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, would then move the Resolution which is in his name on the Order Paper, and therefore at the end of the list of speakers which your Lordships have there should be the name of the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl is, of course, also entitled to take part in the main debate, where his name appears after that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I understand that he proposes to address himself to the procedure of Select Committees. The Question is, That the Bill be now read a second time.
6.57 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, on the technical question of the Instruction, about which I must at once profess a total unfamiliarity in relation to procedure, I should like to make two points. The Instruction was drafted, with some assistance, in the hope that it was moderate in character and would be found acceptable by the House. That was the intention of the Instruction, which was not designed in any way to be a controversial instruction.
I understand that some objection might be taken to the last sentence of the Instruction, which brings into consideration the question of precedents that might arise in other areas. I should like to say that in another place consideration was given to this question. There were
444
learned allusions to Erskine May, and so forth, and it appeared that it was open to the House to take this factor into consideration in relation to Private Bills. I now understand, however, that inasmuch as this factor is relevant, it is considered that it is relevant for the whole House and should be considered on the Floor of the House and not by a Select Committee. Therefore, if it is the feeling of the House that the Instruction should be amended by deleting those last words, I would certainly not be adamant on that question.
The other technical matter is that I make an allusion to pleasure craft. That, of course, is not in my mind associated with craft of exceptional luxury and elegance in which people disport themselves in Mediterranean seas. I use the phrase because it is the phrase used in the Bill, and there is in fact a definition in the Bill which is entirely adequate for including any other category of craft and which it might be thought made it unnecessary to amend that particular phrase so far as the Instruction is concerned.
Coming to the substance of my remarks, I wholeheartedly agree with the mover of the Second Reading that this is not a political question. It seemed to me that, speaking from the Benches from which he spoke, it was rather paradoxical that he should seemingly have sought to introduce a political consideration by urging that the people who opposed this Bill were propertied people in Brighton and the opposition to the Bill was restricted to that category and that category alone. I would venture to say to him from my own personal knowledge that that is indeed not the case; I have received representations and heard voices from many people who could not be described as in that category.
It was an argument much deployed in another place. I think it may well have had something to do with the result achieved in another place in relation to this Bill. It is, if I may say so, as far as the Government are concerned a singularly unattractive argument. It apparently suggests that the only people who might be concerned with preserving places of beauty and places of tranquillity are people who possess property. It is not a contention I accept for one moment. I believe people are concerned with the

445
preservation of the beaches of Brighton who possess no property, who possess little property or who possess much property. It is a completely inappropriate argument to suggest that the opposition is restricted to a category of persons who have their private interests and concerns at heart. I should like to hear before the end of the debate that that suggestion is withdrawn.
The second suggestion that one has to deal with is that this is a local matter to be determined by local decisions, that it has been fully and copiously discussed at local level and that it is inappropriate that we in this House should address ourselves to the question how far it is proper that there should be an enclosure of beach land for private purposes. This is an argument I totally reject. Local authorities are trustees of the land they possess; they are in transient possession of it. They come and they go; but the people of England continue to enjoy their beaches in perpetuity.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord is not suggesting that I put forward that argument, is he?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I was suggesting it. If the noble Lord is not putting that argument I am entirely content to leave that argument alone. It seems to me that all Members of the House must agree that this Bill, although a Private Bill, raises issues of great importance far exceeding the question of local administration. The question of enclosing half a mile of beach for private purposes is not a matter that one would wish to leave to the discretion or decision of any local administration. Without hesitation or apology, I assert that this is a matter for this House to consider with the greatest care.
The third matter to which I would make reference is that this debate is nothing to do with yachting. There has been much emphasis placed on the assertion that the Brighton Marina Bill is concerned with a yacht harbour, and that the opposition to it, in some way obliquely, is opposed to the practice or joys of yachting. May I say at once that no-one in this House is more strongly in support of the practice of yachting and the encouragement of yachting by
446
young or old than I am. I think it is an excellent practice. In so far as Brighton or any other seaside resort wishes to establish a yacht harbour which would have the effect of encouraging yachting, it has my wholehearted support. But I believe yachting has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. I believe the issue we are discussing here this afternoon is a question of enclosing beach land for private purposes, not whether or not yachting should be encouraged.
I want to say this. I am not opposing the Second Reading. I think it would be inappropriate, the Bill having come this far and received consideration in another place, that the Second Reading should be opposed. I am asking that, having regard to the special, unique and rather startling features of the Bill, we should send it to the Committee with an injunction that it should receive the most careful consideration in relation to the factors in the Bill that I consider need to be studied and inspected if we are to discharge our duty as a Legislature having responsible recognition of things happening in the country. This is not a controversial Instruction. It does not enjoin anyone to reject the Bill. It is not designed to be tendentious. It is designed to draw to the attention of the Committee the feeling of this House that there are elements in this Bill which require very special consideration. I would invite all noble Lords to consider whether it may not be possible to accept this Instruction on an agreed basis as being designed for the purpose which I have indicated.
I think it is quite right that I should state—and I must occupy a little more time than the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading—why I consider there are unusual features in this Bill. The Bill is presented in two sections; the Preamble has two sections. One is the recommendation for a yachting harbour. The second is associated with massive offshore developments which it is suggested are necessary in order to make the yachting harbour economically viable. I have studied at some length—and it has been a painful operation—a good deal of the documentation connected with this project. I have not studied all the documentation, and if it should turn out that

447
I say anything based on insufficient information I would apologise in advance and hope that noble Lords better informed will correct me at once, but I have made as detailed a study as I can in the time available to me.
It seems to me that the entire suggestion that this project is not economically viable derives from a very tenuous statement in the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry that in his opinion the evidence tended to show that the project was not economically viable. That is the only assertion anywhere upon which the whole of the enormous structure of this offshore development is in fact maintained and built. The purpose of my Instruction is to suggest that the Committee should consider, above everything else, what evidence there was and on what basis it was that the inspector decided there was evidence which tended to show that the Marina by itself and as a harbour for yachts was not economically viable.
There are two very extraordinary factors associated with this matter. The first is that if one studies the development of this project it emerges in a somewhat strange way. The mover of the Second Reading in another place said that it was the brainchild of a Brighton businessman. May I say at once that I would not venture any criticism at all of anyone who had a bright or original idea of this kind. If there is a bright or original idea on the part of a citizen of Brighton it should be commended. But what is very strange is this. It appears that from that moment onwards the Brighton businessman, joined by associates—and I am imputing nothing to the discredit of anybody; I am not suggesting lack of bona fides or anything like that—in an excess of zeal and enthusiasm for the project, joining with colleagues and associates and allies proceeded to enter into constant communion with Brighton Corporation, and the matter has proceeded on the footing that they, and they alone, have contributed notions and ideas about the whole scheme.
The scheme which is now being considered is a scheme thought of as emanating from one company or organisation, without a vestige of competition or suggestion that any other body has proffered
448
any ideas at all. Think of the implications of this: the economics of the situation are those as reported by the inspector—that the Marina is to cost £3·7 million. I do not know whether that is reasonable or unreasonable costing, economic or expensive. But I know this: it is costing based on the notions and ideas of the one corporate body that was involved in costing it. Nobody knows whether if another body saw fit to prepare a costing, to prepare plans on the spot, they would arrive at a figure of £2·7 million or £4·7 million. All we know is that there is a costing from one body in competition with nobody.
The second factor we know is that the offshore development rendered necessary if the scheme is to be viable, according to the sponsors of the scheme, is to cost £10 million. Here, again, that is the costing of the single development company that had an opportunity of being concerned in this matter. It appears to me, to put it at the height of moderation, to be a matter for the most careful scrutiny and consideration by the Committee, and ultimately by this House, as to whether a scheme which arises in this way, in respect of which there appears to be no sort of active competition, in respect of which no other ideas are invited or used or employed, should in fact be allowed to operate without, as I say, the intervention of other notions and ideas. I am not suggesting that we should reject the scheme, or that we should do anything with the scheme except examine it.
When we come to look at the economics there are some very significant and interesting features—and I refer to the report of the inspector. The only economic evidence is to be found at page 19 of the report. So far as I know, there is no other economic evidence anywhere. What it says is this: that the Marina, considered as a marina alone, is to house 2,000 boats—
LORD TEYNHAM: Would the noble Lord indicate to me which paragraph?
LORD GOODMAN: Yes; it is paragraphs 148 to 151 inclusive, in the inspector's official report. In that document, which is the only place where, as I say, I have found any economic evidence of any kind, it is stated that this marina, this yacht harbour, is to house 2,000 yachts and that in fact rental will

449
be obtained for something like 1,850 yachts. Apparently, berths are reserved for 150 yachts, and by some yachting courtesy no payment is obtained for those particular yachts—a matter I do not understand. But in any event, there is rent to be due in respect of 1,850 yachts. It is then stated that a fair rental for these yachts has been considered to be something possibly between £5 and £7 10s.
There are no findings of any kind by the inspector on this matter. There is no whisper of any evidence on this matter There is a simple, bold assertion that there are to be 2,000 yachts, which is the scheme of this particular development company, and that somebody thinks that these yachts might pay £5 per annum per foot of the harbour for the length of the harbour they occupy, and somebody else thinks that they might pay £7 10s. per annum. Then somebody else has a notion that a fair return on the money employed should be 10 per cent. Therefore they decide (and I have a feeling, if I may say so, that sometimes enthusiasm can produce a result that a less enthusiastic mathematician might not produce) that the proper figure to charge for these yachts is the sum of £6 10s. per foot. This produces the rather attractive conclusion, from some points of view, that you will get only 7·36 per cent. on your money, so you are short by 2·64 per cent., if my arithmetic is right, of the expected 10 per cent. needed for a proper return.
All of this is the hypothesis upon which the whole of this structure is built. All of this depends upon these few paragraphs, and none of this is the subject of any finding by anybody. There is no evidence as to this; and of course it is crucial to the whole matter. Because if you could build a harbour for 2,500 yachts, if you could charge £7 15s. 4d. for it, you would get your 10 per cent. I do not know what the costs ought to be for a yacht. I have not the figment of an idea. It seems to me a massive charge—
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment? There is no question of charging £8 or £10 a foot for a yacht. It is much more likely to be in the nature of £3. The trouble has been, as I tried to explain in my speech, that two or three
450
marinas have been built without the revenue for the ancillary buildings. The result is that they have had to charge a high rate to yacht owners, and the small man with his boat and small yacht cannot berth because he cannot afford it.
LORD GOODMAN: My reply to that must be simply this. I am totally sympathetic to the problems of yacht owners; I am most keen that they should have yacht accommodation within their economic reach and possibility. But this Report states—and the whole of this project is based upon this Report—that an attractive rent to the yacht owner will be £6 10s. That statement is based on no evidence. The noble Lord opposite says that that figure should be £3. On the basis of £3, how are we to know that the supporting developments which are to bring in revenue in aid of the yachts are sufficient? How are we to know that there ought not to be £20 million worth of development? If in fact my noble friend is saying that £3 is the right rental, then all these figures need to be reorganised.
If ever an intervention justified the need for an Instruction in this matter, if I may venture to say so to the noble Lord, it is this particular intervention on this particular matter: because what is quite clear is that no reliance at all can be placed on these figures. There is no evidence in respect of them—not a whisper or tittle of evidence. We have a situation where a non-competitive body is placed in a monopoly position, produces figures with no one else producing any figures of any kind; and we have another situation where we are told that we have to produce £10 million worth of urban type development on the beaches in order to subsidise and support the revenue that they will receive from the yachts. Why, I ask, £10 million? Why not £20 million?
There is one most significant economic omission from this Report. There is no assessment at all of the revenue that is to be received from the £10 million worth of offshore development; nothing to tell us to what percentage figure their ultimate return will reach; nothing to tell us whether it will be 10 per cent., whether they are going to make the £75,000-odd that is missing, or whether they are going to make £750,000, or £7 million. There is not a whisper of this. May I venture to say this—and without intending a word of

451
criticism of the inspector? The inspector who made this Report was the most conscientious and skilful man, who had a most difficult job to do. But he is, I am sure, a chartered surveyor; he is a gentleman engaged in planning matters. These were economic considerations. It was quite ridiculous that considerations of this kind should be the subject only of a planning inquiry; quite ridiculous that there should not have been the most careful economic consideration attached to the matter by experts who could think in terms of economics before this particular project got as far as it did.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord that this matter has been thoroughly investigated and debated in other places is totally unwarranted and totally untenable. Anyone who reads the Reports of the debates in another place, anyone who sees what has been said, will find that there is not a suggestion, not a ghost of an answer, to any of the matters of concern or disquiet and misgiving that must arise on reading this Report.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would my noble friend suggest that on economic matters a lawyer is more competent than an engineer?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not know that I am required to answer that question. I am not putting myself forward as an expert on economic matters. I am saying that a lawyer is able to discern when there is an absence of expertise. If I may say so, we are well trained to do that, and I think that I have the capacity to do it. I should be most surprised if any noble Lord, lawyer or otherwise, who reads this particular document does not arrive at my conclusion. It has nothing whatever to do with lawyers, and the popular device of invoking the unpopularity of lawyers is not a useful one in this particular debate.
It is a late hour, and this will be a long debate. However, there are quite a number of other things to be said. Your Lordships will have an opportunity of seeing the buildings in the model which the noble Lord, with great courage and temerity, has invited you to examine, and I endorse that invitation with a whole heart. I would beg that everyone here should go and look at the model, because
452
there is nothing more revealing of the true nature of this particular operation. I should like to read out what in fact that miscellany of buildings consists of—and you will find it in Section 40 of the Bill. There is authorised to be built on an attractive piece of beach land which many of you know, and which at the moment is enjoyed freely by the entire population of this country—
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I intervene, to put the matter right? Perhaps the noble Lord does not realise that the greater part of this land on which the ancillary buildings would be built would be reclaimed land, and not land already in existence.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, here again I have no wish to prolong this debate. Please go and look at the model. There is authorised to be built upon an area of beach land which involves enclosing something like half a mile of beach, one of the most unusual operations in the whole history of the coastline of this country. There is authorised to be built the following range of buildings: car parks, filling stations, hotels restaurants, club premises, offices, theatres, cinemas, casinos, dance halls, ice rinks, playgrounds, boatyards, bowling alleys, shops, houses, flats and other residential accommodation.
This startling range of buildings is what is authorised to be built on this particular piece of the foreshore; and it is authorised to justify the suggestion and under the pretext—I use the word advisedly—that the income from this astonishing agglomeration of buildings (though no evidence of any kind was called to show the need for any single one of them in any part of the town) is required if Brighton is to be able to have a harbour for small yachts: that the harbour can be provided only if this immense accumulation of buildings is built on the beach.
There is one other observation I should like to make. This inquiry was a planning inquiry. My Lords, it is the oddest sort of planning that allows a collection of buildings of this type to be approved en masse without individual consideration of their need; without anybody inquiring whether there is available any other site in the locality; without anybody asking whether they are wanted at

453
all—purely on the basis that some other piece of development depends upon them for economic purposes. It is an entire planning novelty to me, and I hope that it will not be repeated.
I have not moved to reject the Second Reading of this Bill, for the reasons I have stated. What I urge is that the House has the duty to see that this Bill is most closely inquired into. I urge that in the circumstances whereby one development company procures a monopoly of this kind, the circumstances whereby these tenuous and exiguous economic facts are used as a justification, the whole matter should be looked into with the utmost care and the most meticulous scrutiny. I invite the House to do this, because I believe that the House will be discharging its duty if it does so.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord talks about the buildings being put up haphazardly without any control. Planning permission has to be obtained for all these buildings, and they will be scrutinised by the Brighton Corporation.
LORD GOODMAN: I did not intend to go on any longer, but I must reply to that statement. The answer is that buildings of this type are now to be authorised by an Act of Parliament, if this Bill becomes an Act. They are authorised without any single one of them having demonstrated the need for its existence.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would clear my mind on one point in his most interesting and persuasive argument—a point that rather puzzles me. The noble Lord does not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He is not opposed to a yacht marina; he thinks it is a good thing. The maid issue in his mind is that a portion of the foreshore, which the Brighton Corporation, and indeed the Minister himself do not regard as being a matter of vital principle, should be used for other purposes. But would not the noble Lord agree that, if one accepts the principle of a marina, it is the marina, not the filling stations and the oceanarium, whatever that may be, that will occupy the foreshore? The very fact that the marina is built and enclosed is what takes away the beach. It is the marina,
454
and not the buildings which are put on the reclaimed land.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I do not know whether I may be permitted to say one more word in reply. I would not agree. The point about a marina and the enclosure of a beach for marina purposes is that this is to be a public operation on which perhaps there may be a few conventional-type beach amenities with which one is familiar, and which are entirely consonant with a beach. But if the noble Lord will go and look at the model, he will see the astonishing erections which are proposed. They have nothing to do with yachting and are not the sort of things which would be required by any yachtsman. What true yachtsman would want a bowling alley or a casino in respect of his yachting activities?
LORD COLERAINE: The noble Lord will admit that once you enclose the yachting basin with the concrete works, you have by that act enclosed the beach. The adding of a filling station does not make any difference.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is quite customary to put one question to a speaker when he finishes, but not a series, if I may say so, with very great deference to the noble Lord.
LORD COLERAINE: The series is over, my Lords.
7.26 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene very briefly, because have regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, at this stage in the debate. I should like to indicate to your Lordships certain procedural considerations, both in relation to the Bill and to the Instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will move if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I should like first to emphasise to your Lordships, although most of your Lordships will know this, that in giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill the House does not, as in the case of a Public Bill, affirm the principle of the Bill. Normal practice in the present century is that the House contents itself with giving a formal Second Reading to a Private Bill. The reason is quite simple. There are few issues on Private Bills which the House

455
can possibly decide without the benefit of hearing parties and witnesses—the promoters of the Bill, the petitioners against the Bill, and any witnesses whom they may wish to call to give evidence on their behalf. It is, therefore, the almost universal practice for your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Private Bill so that, having had its Second Reading, it can be considered and decided upon by a Committee of your Lordships' House.
Turning to the Bill itself, I might say something about its past history. The Bill was started in another place, and when it was there there was one petition against it which was considered by a Select Committee, and the Committee reported that the Bill should proceed. But the Bill was debated at every stage in another place and gave rise to considerable controversy, as it has done to-day in your Lordships' House. In this House there are at the moment no petitions against the Bill, and in the normal course of events it would be considered by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I am, however, empowered, under Standing Order 92 of our Private Bill Standing Orders, to report to the House that an unopposed Private Bill such as this one should be proceeded with as an opposed Private Bill. The effect of such a report is that the Bill would be considered by a Select Committee and not by the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
In view of the circumstances of this Bill and the interest which it has aroused, which has been very apparent in the course of this debate, unless your Lordships express the view that this is undesirable, I shall make such a report to the House. The Select Committee which would in that event consider the Bill will not be able to meet until after the Summer Recess. It is for this reason that I have placed on the Order Paper the necessary Resolution which will enable the Bill to continue its progress next Session. Your Lordships will know that if I did not move such a Resolution the Bill would die at the end of this Session.
I should now like to turn to the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. First of all, I would say that the terms of the Instruction are unobjectionable procedurally, and therefore from the procedural point of view the Instruction is
456
acceptable to the House. It is rather more widely drawn than usual, but in view of the proposed reference of the Bill to a Select Committee it may be an advantage for the Committee to have received such a precise Instruction from the House; and, of course, the Select Committee would also study very carefully indeed all the speeches which have been made, and will later on be made, in the course of this debate. I would also expect that, as is usually the case when an Instruction to a Select Committee has been passed by your Lordships, the Select Committee would make a special report on the Bill to the House and deal in particular with the matters which have been raised in the Instruction.
I should like to make one comment on the last few words in the Instruction. These words raise the question whether the works proposed are desirable as a precedent for other areas. It is these words, "as a precedent for other areas", to which I should like to direct attention. In my view, this part of the Instruction would be hard for the Select Committee to fulfil. I am also not satisfied that it would be correct for them to attempt to do so. The promoters of a Private Bill are under an obligation to prove the preamble of their Bill before a Committee of each House, and the allegations in the preamble are based on considerations of local circumstances and needs in support of which evidence may be adduced.
The principle involved is that Committees decide on matters in the Preamble on which they have heard argument and evidence. It would be unreasonable to expect the Committee and the Promoters to examine the provisions of the Bill, with a view to justifying them as precedents for other areas of which neither the Committee nor the Promoters can know anything. I think it is important that this principle should be preserved: that Private Bill Promoters are required to justify their Bill only on allegations and evidence of local need, and should not be asked to justify the provisions for which they ask as precedents for other areas. I was therefore very pleased to hear the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made in the course of his speech.
Of course, the exception to this principle would be a case where it was

457
apparent to the House that, whatever the local circumstances may be, the powers conferred by the Bill should not be allowed to the Promoters because they are against public policy and against the public interest. But in such a case it would be appropriate for the Bill to be dealt with and the relevant arguments deployed on the Floor of the House and not in a Private Bill Committee. Those are all the procedural considerations to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would give me some indication as to what he meant when he said that the Promoters of the Bill are not expected to justify their actions as precedents for other areas. I was at a loss to understand what he meant by that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I was referring to the last few words in the Instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, proposed to move, in which he was asking the Committee to consider this Bill as a precedent for other areas in other parts of the country. I gave reasons why I thought it was undesirable for a Select Committee on a Private Bill to take this particular consideration into account. Then I went on to say that I thought that such a consideration was a perfectly relevant consideration to be dealt with on the Floor of the House as a matter of public policy.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, surely the establishment of a precedent is a vitally important consideration. I am sure I must be misunderstanding my noble friend's point of view. He is not suggesting that one should ignore the establishment of a precedent?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No, my Lords. I was making no suggestion of that kind. I was merely saying that if any noble Lord attached importance—as the noble Lord himself evidently does—to this consideration, it is a matter which should be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House and not in the Select Committee.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, might I ask one procedural question? If a direction or Instruction, such as the one we are considering to-day, is given, that
458
does not, of course, relieve the Select Committee of the duty which they may have to consider points outside the direction. I ask the question, because on the last stages of the Bill in another place a number of comparatively minor points were raised and really left for consideration here.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is in the affirmative.
7.33 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must make it clear straightaway that, although I happen by chance to be speaking from this Despatch Box, I am speaking strictly for myself this evening. I am not seeking to give any guidance to anybody other than myself. That is by way of preface. By way of introduction, I would say strightaway that we all know that we are dealing here with one of our most precious seaside towns. As Bath is to our inland towns, so is Brighton to our seaside towns. Perhaps local patriots, both inland and coastal, might dispute this view, but I think it would be fairly generally agreed. It is right, therefore, that we should consider this Bill very carefully, especially because this House is always jealous of amenity, and zealous, I hope, in its defence. I would entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said on that general point.
That said, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Teynham on the clarity with which he has moved the Second Reading. I suspect that most of us, whatever we feel about this Bill, will recognise the need for more marinas, for more marinas on the South Coast of our island, and for a marina near Brighton itself. We are all aware—or, if we are not, we jolly well should be—of the tremendous growth in the popularity of sailing. I suppose that the expansion of leisure activities of all sorts is really one of the most remarkable phenomena which we have witnessed in the two decades since the war, and I think that most of us would also agree that it is a good thing that yachting—a good and healthy occupation—should be as popular to-day as it is. I had the good fortune only the other day to take part in a Round-the-Island Race and I remember what the race was before the war, with perhaps 30 or 40 rather large yachts taking part. But at

459
the start off Cowes, a fortnight or so ago there were, I think, 380 yachts of every sort, size and description.
But this remarkable growth in sailing in our comparatively restricted waters has brought its inevitable problems, the chief of which is parking. I think it is true to say that in many places now along our South Coast it is just as difficult to park one's yacht or one's dinghy as it is to park one's car. Hence the need for marinas and hence, in essence, the justification for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, rather surprised me when he said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that this has nothing to do with yachting. This Bill raises a great number of other issues, but I should have thought that the main issue with which it certainly is concerned is to make things easier for the yachtsman. My noble friend Lord Teynham has made these points and therefore I shall not elaborate on them.
Apart from anything else he said, he has emphasised—and I think emphasised quite legitimately—that the scheme has been backed and fully supported by the Corporation of Brighton; that the local fishermen are very keen on it; that it was subject to an exhaustive nine days' inquiry; that the inspector, in recommending it—and I see that he is an Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects—described it as bold, imaginative and attractive, whatever we may think about it when we look at the model outside; that it has been endorsed, subject to certain conditions, by the Minister; that it has not been opposed by any of the national amenity societies; that it has passed the fairly fine mesh of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and that it was approved—admittedly after a pretty warm debate—in another place.
This Bill, as I understand it, is not being petitioned against in your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt whatsoever, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that we should give it a Second Reading. But because we are dealing with this unique town, because the scheme is a very major one involving major development, because it has aroused controversy, it is surely right that we should all voice any reservations now which we may have on it.
I think I have four queries and I should like briefly to summarise them. In the
460
first place, I have naturally asked myself whether it is right that a project of this sort should be carried through by private interests, and whether it was really necessary to graft on to the basic concept of the yacht harbour or the marina other developments which we have seen on the model outside. I personally believe that this is just the sort of project which private enterprise in this country should be tackling, although—and I am expressing here a purely personal view—I myself should have liked to see the Brighton Corporation more actively involved in the whole transaction, possibly by way of some equity participation from the start.
I know that all the ancillary buildings—the flats, the botel (and I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Cones-ford, who is not here this evening, will quickly succeed in erasing that word from the English dictionary), the shops, the skating rink, the bowling alleys and—horror of horrors!—the night club and the restaurant have been criticised. I was a little surprised by some of the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on this point, because it seems to me that quite a large number of these ancillary by-products of the Marina have something to do with yachting and yachtsmen. A yacht harbour and a boatyard, which were included in his list, seem to me to have a great deal to do with sailing; a marina club, a restaurant—it is normal that yachtsmen should eat. Then, shops—they need to buy their stores—an hotel, a boatel, residential units and even pubs. I have known yachtsmen occasionally frequent pubs. It seemed to me that quite a lot of the list had a great deal to do with yachting and yachtsmen. However, that is by the way.
I myself thoroughly enjoyed the pyrotechnics in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, indulged on this question of economics and of this connection between the two. But, as my noble friend has pointed out, the inspector accepted the view that in all probability this scheme could not be economic without these ancillary developments. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has made a great deal of play with this aspect, and it is perhaps something that should be examined. All I can point out is that the Minister, who is a careful Minister of a careful Government, as we know,

461
presumably examined the evidence. I see that in his Decision Letter he states that he accepts that there is an ever-increasing demand for more yacht moorings, but that
"a new harbour and ancillary buildings here would not be an economic proposition unless they are accompanied by other revenue-producing developments."
I am sure the Minister of this present Government would not have come lightly to that conclusion without a very careful study of all the evidence in front of him; and I am quite certain that if more evidence was required he must have called for it. But that is by the way. It seems to me that the Minister's decision on this and his views are stated in much more emphatic terms than the views of the inspector.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? If the Minister had called for more evidence after the receipt of the inspector's report, he might have been bound to reopen the inquiry; and this, as we know, he did not do.
EARL JELLICOE: I see. If he did not feel that was either necessary or desirable. That is by the way. But I see that he accepts the view, and presumably he did not accept it lightly.
My Lords, whatever we may feel about this, I am pretty certain myself, from all I know about other marinas, that it really is not possible to provide cheap moorings for the smaller boats and the less affluent yachtsmen unless there are other allied facilities producing revenue. That is my own view; but on that broad ground I personally would come down fairly and squarely in favour of the scheme. I will not say that I am committed to every precise detail in it, but I agree that there must be other, allied developments.
My second query is about pollution. The inspector thought that the amount of beach pollution could be significant, and the Minister has called upon the public health authorities to take all possible steps to deal with it. I should very much like to know more about what is proposed here. My third query is about traffic. I notice that the inspector felt that the extra traffic generated by the
462
scheme could be successfully accommodated, but parking place is being provided for, I think, 3,600 cars, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to tell us that the road programme within and, above all, around Brighton will, in fact, be able to cope with this very great increase, loaded on top of the natural and inevitable increase which will be taking place without this extra 3,600.
My fourth query is about the height of the buildings themselves. I noted, of course, that the second condition in paragraph 13 of the Decision Letter states firmly that
"no building shall be higher than the cliff top."
This seems to me an absolutely essential condition if the appearance of Kemp Town, with its lovely Regency terraces, is not to be spoilt. But I have also noted that the first subsection of Section 58 of the Bill talks about no such higher buildings being erected:
"Save with the prior consent of the corporation …"
I again have noted that the Minister in another place thought that this was a matter which we here should look further into. May I take it that the Minister's condition, and not what is said in the Bill, is overriding here; and overriding, as it were, for all time? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, or my noble friend, will be able to allay such reservations as I have on those three or four points. But even if they were not able to do so, this would not affect my view that we should be right, for the same reason as was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to give this Bill a Second Reading.
There remains the question whether we should give an Instruction to our Committee, and, if so, whether it should be in the terms suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It is, of course, pretty unusual for us to do so on a Bill of this sort, although there was a precedent in the Tees Valley Bill. I personally am inclined to agree with the Lord Chairman of Committees, that in view of the controversy which this Bill has aroused he should exercise his discretion under our Private Bill Standing Order No. 92, (I think it is), and have the Bill considered by a Select Committee. I also agree that it would be a good thing in this case for

463
our Committee of Selection to choose a balanced Committee. But, personally, I am inclined to doubt whether it is really necessary for us to have an Instruction. Surely, in the discharge of their task our Select Committee will in any case be bound to take account of the views expressed on both sides of this question in our House this evening. That is my own view of the matter, though, of course, your Lordships may feel otherwise.
If your Lordships decide that an Instruction is required, I feel that it would be wise for the House to look very carefully at the terms of the Instruction; and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said about it being designed to be as neutral as possible, I must say that I am not entirely happy about his precise wording. The Motion on the Order Paper would instruct the Committee
"… to consider how far the works proposed … go beyond what is necessary to provide a harbour for pleasure craft …"
That is the wording used. "A harbour for pleasure craft" could mean a lot or a little. It could mean just a tiny harbour for a few luxury yachts and their luxurious owners. But what the Promoters have in mind here, as I understand it, is a large modern marina capable of meeting the anticipated demand for this type of mooring at reasonable charges. I should have thought that if we are to have an Instruction it would be wise to spell this out in some such way, as I personally find the wording chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, although it is intended to be neutral, in fact rather restrictive. I share, too, the doubts of the Lord Chairman of Committees about the last seven words of the Instruction, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, himself is inclined to share those particular doubts.
My Lords, I would summarise my personal position on this matter as follows. I am quite clear that we should give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope that its Promoters, my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to answer to my satisfaction the doubts on certain points which I have ventilated. I believe that we should have a Select Committee, and I am inclined to doubt whether we need an Instruction. But if your Lordships feel that there is a need for an Instruction, I should find
464
it very difficult myself to vote for the Instruction as at present worded, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would consider enlarging it in some way. As drawn, it seems to me to be very restrictive.
Before sitting down, I should just like to say two further things. First, I very much regret that owing to a very longstanding engagement I shall have to leave the Chamber for some little time. I hope to be able to return if there is going to be a Division. I should also like to add this. I had the pleasure quite recently of helping to pilot the Civic Amenities Bill through your Lordships' House. I believe very profoundly that this House should concern itself intimately with matters of amenity: and, although I have not attempted to labour this point, I have scrutinised this Bill and this project with those considerations of amenity very much in my mind.
7.50 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not qualified to speak on the accommodation needed for yachts; or, indeed, on the building plans that I have heard about tonight; or on the financial arrangements of this proposition. However, I want to speak very shortly on a certain aspect of the Marina which strikes me very forcefully and which arouses my emotions. Having had a long training in another place, my first reaction to the Bill, which is concerned with Brighton, and which, I understand, comes within the interest of the Brighton Members of Parliament, a Labour Member and a Conservative Member, was to say that these representatives must know all about Brighton; that this is their affair, and that I had no intention of interfering. Indeed, when one or two people spoke to me about this I felt that it was so complicated that I could not possibly make a contribution.
However, something else has been brought to my attention, and this is the aspect on which I want to speak tonight. Brighton, of course, is a place which we all regard affectionately. It has been called "London-by-the-Sea", and a Londoner, like myself, regards it as a place which one can reach in one hour, and smell the sea and the salt. As a child—and noble Lords will forgive me this personal allusion when they

465
realise how strongly I feel about this aspect of the plan—I lived for three or four years in a house at Westgate, the garden of which ran right down to the beach. On those lovely sands, on that lovely beach, I used to ride the milkman's horse. I am not suggesting that you could ride a milkman's horse along these beaches at Brighton. Nevertheless, those glorious beaches and those happy, carefree days have left a lasting impression on me. When I go abroad and see beaches desecrated by commercial interests, where children have to pay to play on the best parts of the beach, I am seized with a desire to denounce those greedy men who profit from exploiting the birth-right of the people. On hearing about the Brighton Marina Bill, I inquired whether it was intended to enclose the beaches; and I learned that this was the case in Brighton; that it was intended to enclose our beaches—
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I intervene only to explain again that there is practically no beach in the Black Rock area and that all the area is to be reclaimed land.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But my Lords, there is a foreshore. I know the Black Rock area very well. There is a foreshore; everybody knows it. The noble Lord cannot really deny it. He must go down and examine it again. I understand that part of this will be enclosed; and I presume that from this there will be other developments. There will be charges made by the commercial interests for people to go on to a certain part of the shore. This is the principle which I utterly reject as being wrong.
I felt that it was quite in order for me to make my protest, because on consulting Erskine May I read:
"The promoters of a Bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, yet if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community it is rejected as if it were a public measure."
I maintain that this will be hurtful to the community, that it will create a precedent, a precedent which will be quickly followed by other developers, and that it will lead to the leasing of the foreshore around our coasts. It is this precedent that I am asking your Lordships to consider. I feel that we must reject this Bill, not only on
466
behalf of certain people in Brighton, people who hitherto have used the foreshore, but on behalf of people living around the whole coast of Britain.
There are many, of course, who know this area of Brighton better than most. I noticed that Professor Marcus Cunliffe of Sussex University made a similar protest in The Times. He wrote:
"Leasing-off the foreshore creates a dangerous precedent for our whole coastline."
This may sound very simple to those who are engaged in these manipulations and Colossal financial transactions; but I feel strongly that the foreshore belongs to the people. The beach, I feel, is the only place where, even if only for a short time, our society enjoys a common ownership of the land. As a doctor I have often looked at people on the beach and said to myself: "When you strip off the clothes you are unable to identify the Peer from the peasant."
My Lords, this is England, and here to-night—and this may be our last chance—we have an opportunity of preventing this exploitation, an exploitation that will not stop in Brighton. This Bill reminds us that we could go back to the times of the enclosure of public land. Therefore I feel that we must exercise our vigilance. I am aware that the Corporation and the political Parties of Brighton want this Bill. But are they capable of objectivity? Even the noble Lord who moved the Motion began his speech by saying: "I am a yacht-owner." Can the noble Lord view this objectively? I suggest that he cannot; and I suggest that many people in Brighton cannot view it objectively. On the other hand, I should have said to the Corporation, and to all the other people interested in the prosperity of Brighton, that the increasing noise and hustle of urban life is so strident that I should have thought a holiday resort would recognise that its attraction will be assured if it can offer a quiet oasis where people can relax and contemplate a lanscape and a seascape, unspoiled by the ravages of modern civilisation.
Before your Lordships make up your minds, before you are convinced by this juggling of figures, before you believe that perhaps it is for the best interest of Brighton that they should have this Marina, this glorified funfair, and even before there is the harbour for the yachts, I entreat you to remember that to-night

467
you will be establishing a precedent, a very dangerous precedent, for the foreshore of Britain.
7.59 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in passing I would observe, if I may, that the noble Baroness who has just sat down would have a few surprises if she were to investigate her legal rights on the foreshore. She would find, in fact, that they do not exist, and that nobody, no member of the public at all, has any right to do anything whatever on the foreshore except two things: one is to fish and the other is to navigate. So that when the noble Baroness goes on the foreshore to take air and exercise she is doing something that she has no right to do in this country.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that I have a moral right?
LORD MERTHYR: Well, my Lords, I did not know that we were talking about moral rights.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes, my Lords, we are.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I will leave it at that, but I thought I would say that in passing.
The noble Baroness objected to the enclosure of this area of the coast for a harbour. What about Dover? What about Ramsgate? What about a hundred and one other harbours around our coasts and the coasts of other countries? How can you have a harbour if you do not enclose some part of the shore?
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, agree that these are different operations? The harbours he has mentioned are operated by a public authority, and the analogy is quite wrong.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I do not know that they are all operated by public authorities. There are various kinds of harbour authorities. I have not made a study of how many are public and how many are private; but certainly some of them are private.
It occurs to me, having listened to the debate so far, that there is little more to say. It appears to be agreed that this
468
Bill is to have a Second Reading tonight. If it is not, I shall be corrected. But if that is so, need we prolong the debate very much? And can we concentrate on the proposed Instruction? I have looked at the Instruction, and I suggest that perhaps the most significant word is in the first line where it says that the Committee are to "consider" something. I am a very strong supporter of this Bill, but I do not really mind the Committee's considering this matter or any other. I would observe in connection with something said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it is surely not intended that the Committee are to consider only this matter, to the exclusion of others. Surely nobody thinks that. Yet I thought that possibly the noble Earl did. There is surely no danger that if this Instruction were passed the Committee would feel bound to restrict themselves to this point. I should think certainly not.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I respectfully remind the noble Lord that that is exactly the question I asked the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees? And he agreed that if this Instruction were given, it would not preclude the Committee from considering other matters.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I should have thought that was plain and obvious to everybody. But there it is. Now we are agreed that is so, anyway. Therefore, although I want this Bill I feel that there is little objection that can be taken to this Instruction. If there is a Select Committee (and I understand that there is to be one, in any event) what difference will it make? Will they not have to consider this point anyway, whether the Instruction is passed or not? I would strongly urge that the last seven words of the Instruction should be left out. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is agreeable: so even that seems to be agreed. What is there, my Lords, that is not agreed?
May I say, in a very few words, that I have no interest to declare in Brighton. I have not been there for years. But I am a very keen yachtsman. I have been into a great many harbours in this country and in many other countries. I think there is a great and serious shortage

469
age of yacht accommodation in this country. I, as a yachtsman, am prepared to pay for accommodation, though I cannot help reflecting that if I go across the Channel I get better accommodation and pay nothing whatever for it. I came through the French canals last year, and I came through 350 locks between the Mediterranean and the English Channel. Apart from one tunnel, at which I had to pay, I did not pay one single sou for the lot. In all seriousness I would say that conditions in our country compare very adversely in this matter to the conditions now existing in other countries. They all have their yacht harbours and their marinas; and compared to them, this country is years and years behind. I can frankly say that I am not interested in casinos or flats, but I am interested in the provision of yacht harbours. At present, yachtsmen think seriously that it is hardly worth going down the English Channel, because the chances are that they will not be able to get accommodation anywhere; so it is better to go to France. As I said before, I will not detain the House further. There is little more to be said, though I observe that there are quite a number of speakers still to be heard, and I will willingly give way to them. I repeat, I am a strong supporter of this Bill.
8.6 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I find very little upon which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, but I am not quite such an optimist as he is in thinking that all those who are speaking to the Bill will necessarily accept what I regard as a very harmless and, in the circumstances, a necessary Instruction. That is really all that remains. We are all agreed that this Bill should have a Second Reading, if only because it would be wholly inappropriate to turn down on Second Reading a Bill which has passed all its stages in another place. We are all agreed that something is needed by way of what is called in the proposed Instruction "a harbour for pleasure craft", and I should have thought it ought to be left to the Committee to decide questions about the size of that and the rest of it. It is eminently a matter for them.
My Lords, what we do not agree about, as I understand it, is this. It is said, and was said by the Minister, that this would not be a viable proposition
470
without what I will call the onshore works. These are really a substantial part of what is, from the point of view of the Promoters, a purely commercial operation. They are going to cost £10 million out of the total of £13 million. Those were the estimates given to us. Those figures depend, I notice, purely on the evidence of the Promoters themselves. The Brighton Corporation had some sort of look at it, but I do not think the Committee on this Bill, whatever may have happened on the planning application, had any other evidence whatever but that of the financial director of the company in question. I accept that they are experienced. This private company is one of the 210 subsidiaries of the Allied Land Investment Company which, in its turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Allied Land Holdings. It became a subsidiary because those in whose fertile brains—and I mean that politely and sensibly—this idea originated, handed over control, I do not know on what terms, on or about March 22 of this year.
This experienced company had, in fact, so they told the Committee, been seriously considering this project since last October. It is, from their point of view, a commercial venture. I do not ask them to be philanthropists and I do not think any the worse of them for expecting and hoping to be successful. While we are on questions of cost, I ought to point out that there is another thing. The same financial director, when asked about this, explained that there was still a lot to be done by way of investigating the project, and only after that would he be able to know what was the cost. My Lords, in all these circumstances one asks oneself, what was the evidence upon which the inspector thought there was a tendency to show that the matter would not be viable without the off-shore works? What induced the Minister to be satisfied that that was the case? My Lords, I do not like differing from my own Ministers, but I have read through the evidence, and the evidence given before the Committee, and I can find nothing in the evidence to show that the Promoters of the Bill were not engaged in a commercial venture.
If that is the position, one is also entitled to notice that when this Bill started it contained rather remarkable

471
compulsory powers which were to be given to this company. It was only in Committee in another place, after a good deal of discussion, that these powers were taken out of the Bill and it has assumed its present remarkable form. Though it contains powers to deal with roads and the like, it does not provide for compulsory purchase of any kind, that being struck out, but I understand that it is proposed that the junior partner, the Brighton Corporation, should do the requisitioning. I am not being unduly critical of all this. All I am saying is that if that is the position, one has to see clearly on what this proposition is founded that the yacht harbour, which we all want to see, is viable only if there is this commercial venture of pubs, restaurants, cinemas and what not on shore—there is what is called an "Oceanorama", which appeared at one point; I do not think the noble Lord who promotes the Bill knows what it is, but he told me that if it contained anything it might be a shark; however, I do not attach too much importance to that. Seriously, it is altogether too little to go on, if one is going to take that as sufficient evidence for the conclusion which I agree was reached on a planning application—not on the Bill—by the inspector and followed by the Minister.
We then come to the evidence before the Committee in another place, where the proceedings were rather unsatisfactory for this reason: that by the time the Bill had got to that stage, all the Petitions had disappeared except one, which had four signatures of gentlemen who were concerned only to see that they got sufficient compensation for their property. The only one who gave tongue was appropriately called Mr. Payne Nash. It is rather unfortunate to have a question of public importance of this kind considered without anybody arguing the main question—the question of viability. What is the real point in objecting to this proposal? Brighton, or some of Brighton at any rate, may like it. They are the right judges.
In addition to the point just made by my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, there is another which I regard as of great importance. We are going to have a Defence debate in the course of a few days and we are going to consider what we can afford in that particular matter.
472
We are considering a whole lot of other social services, too, and the question of private expenditure. That is why there has been a squeeze. I am not saying "Right" or "Wrong" about any of this. I am simply saying that it is a question of grave public importance whether we should spend large sums of money and find the labour and materials at a time when this country is not altogether free from difficulties and feels that it has to cut down on defence expenditure.
We had a White Paper on Town and Country Planning the other day which stressed that at present planning was not sufficiently connected with economic considerations. This is a case in point. This Bill authorises expenditure of a large sum of money, which will provide some employment, which probably will be seasonal and which may or may not be productive, in the South of England at a moment when we are trying to get full employment in other parts of the country. Looked at from the broad economic point of view, I should think that this was very doubtful wisdom. It may be the sort of error that the proposed changes in town and country planning are intended to obviate.
This question ought not to be a Party matter. I very much doubt if it is. I have always understood from noble Lords that they accepted that planning in this country in its present perhaps rather narrow sense ought to be closely linked with the economic plans of the country as a whole. That is what makes me doubtful about the wisdom of this Bill. This is a matter of real national importance far beyond the competence of a local authority, however competent they may be within their sphere. I assure your Lordships, who know that I have been somewhat critical of our powers and activities in this House, that I have never in any way whatever criticised the powers and activities on Private Bills. On the contrary, I think they are necessary; in practice they work well, and this is a case where they ought to be exercised to meet what I can hardly call an error but a certain lack of evidence. I would appeal to your Lordships to take this matter not as a Party question, not as any question about Brighton or a yacht harbour, but as a question of whether it is really in the best interests of the country at the moment that this amount of money should be spent upon the inshore works of Brighton,

473
upon a plea, most tenuously supported by the evidence, that without them they cannot get the yacht harbour.
8.18 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, when the Member of Parliament introduced this Bill in another place, he branded all those who opposed it as "carpetbaggers". Not knowing the meaning of the word, I looked it up in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and found it to mean: "A political agitator unconnected with a district". So I stand before the House as a self-confessed carpetbagger, ready to speak against this Bill, because I consider it a political and planning blunder. I love Brighton. There is so much to enjoy and of interest there: the sea, with the marvellous downland behind it; the town, with its historic buildings and beautiful architecture. As I have not been there for some years, I went down for the day last Sunday. I walked along the stretch of green grass along the top of Black Rock and looked at the coast line. I reflected on what the Brighton Marina Company was proposing to build on the half-mile of coast line beneath Black Rock, half a mile along and one-third of a mile out to sea. And I came to the conclusion that, before we start building and developing, we should cherish what is still un-spoilt.
The Bill has as its professed first object the building of a marina—the modern fancy name for a boat harbour. Incidentally, I think that to-day's Guardian states that Allied Land, which has 74 per cent. of the money, has said that it is not particularly interested in the yachting side of this project. No-one who is against the vast development project outlined in the Bill is against the building of a marina. We are 100 per cent. for it, because we know that there is a great and growing need for a safe boat harbour. But we find it a little difficult to understand why a rich town like Brighton, perhaps with a bit of help from the Treasury, cannot find the money to build it. I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who pointed out that France is so much better at these things than we are. If there is a great need for a marina why cannt we get the
474
money for it? But what is really incomprehensible to me is that a project which would take ten years to build, and would cost up to £15 million, should be undertaken in order to make a marina which might cost one-fifth of that amount.
My Lords, let us be clear about this Bill. The Brighton Marina Bill is not only about a boat harbour; that is the least of it. The company is not proposing to turn an open beach into a marina: it is proposing to put up a great density of buildings on a beach: building, in fact, a township there; planting a complex of buildings upon the foreshore—ice rinks, restaurants, pubs, luxury hotels, houses, flats, and, last but not least, a casino. The handsome brochure we were sent has it all set out on the 106-acre site. As well as having to consider whether such a development is desirable, we have to consider whether there is any need for such a development in Brighton itself. There is ample entertainment in Brighton—some in excess of demand—and luxury flats in Brighton stand empty.
This is the first instance in this country of a slice of the foreshore—half-a-mile of it, as I have said—being taken over by a private company, and, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, it is a most menacing precedent. It is also of national importance and concern. It can be the forerunner of similar enclosures and on-shore developments. In the past, some Brighton hotels have tried to enclose the foreshore for their residents, and have been defeated. This scheme, if permitted, will be the green light for reversing these decisions.
The company which is seeking to promote this large development appears to be quite respectable, but with the possibility of planting casinos around the coast of Britain, what is to prevent the Mafia casting a predatory eye on some beauty spot and proceeding to develop it on a grand scale, on the excuse of building a marina? I have never been a glutton for nationalisation, but I would put every inch of our coastline under public ownership. It seems ironical that the Labour Member of Parliament who introduced this Bill in another place is reputedly a Left-Winger; yet this Bill gives wide, monopolistic powers to a private company to make profit out of a

475
public foreshore. We are told that just to build a yacht harbour would not be viable. No hard evidence, as has been said already, is given for this—no figures whatever. We are simply told that, in order to spend £3 million on a marina, about £12 million must be spent on development. Perhaps businessmen are clairvoyant. I am not; and I cannot believe this.
If this development is necessary or desirable merely in order to build a yacht harbour, it should be done by the municipality. But I do not think it is right even for a corporation to enclose a part of the foreshore. After all, local authorities change their personnel; they come and go. We are told, among other things, that there is to be garage accommodation for 3,600 cars, and that on a fine sunny day 20,000 people are expected there. Yet the two most important problems, those of traffic and sewerage, are barely considered. It seems to me that what would be needed was not more luxury flats, but sewers. There is envisaged a provision for about 8,000 people to sleep on the boats. I venture to suggest that this is probably all that they will do. So far as I can judge, these yachtsmen will be dancing in the ballroom, drinking in the pubs, gambling in the casino, having all this entertainment in all these ways other than sailing. What do these earnest yachtsmen need with all these diversions?
So we should have more than half a mile of public beaches, under a beautiful, unspoiled cliff, permanently lost to the public. When Brighton Corporation bought these cliffs in 1930 they entered into all sorts of covenants not to build on or deface these cliffs. In this overcrowded island of ours, we should preserve and cherish the unspoiled beauty of our coastline. Some years ago, there was a film called Bad Day at Black Rock. I say that it will be a bad day for Black Rock if this grandiose funfair ever gets off the ground. So I very much hope that we shall accept the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Goodman. Let us have another serious look at this Bill, and weigh up what we are about to sacrifice—scenic beauty for private profit—and whether we cannot have a marina in Brighton without a poor man's Monte Carlo into the bargain.
8.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I can think of no occasion until to-day when my views have differed from those of my noble friend Lord Goodman, for whom, if I may say so, I have the greatest admiration and respect. But I am afraid that on this occasion I find myself differing from him. The only difference there has been in the past is that he has always been able to express my thoughts and views a great deal better than I have. I cannot for the life of me think that it is right to support a Motion to instruct the Select Committee in the case of the Brighton Marina Bill. This Bill has passed through all its stages in another place; the scheme has received approval from the local authority and the local planning authority, and from the Arts Council.
I thought it rather strange a fortnight ago, when the Bill was down for Second Reading in this Chamber, and it was postponed for a reason which I was unable to understand at the time, and which I do not think many other noble Lords understood. I can now perhaps say that I am afraid I understand it rather better. It seems to me—I am subject to correction, and the noble Lord on the Front Bench will not have any hesitation in correcting me, if necessary—that there have been certain local interests at work which have tried to postpone and upset a matter which has already received approval by all these people and bodies primarily concerned with it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think my noble friend the Chief Whip may be able to say more about this later, but as I understand it the postponement of the consideration of this Bill was due to the fact that when it was put down last week there was no reason to suppose that anybody was about to contest it on the Floor of the House. Reasons to suppose that they were about to do so then became apparent, and the day on which it was down was already very full of business.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord on what day it became apparent?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I remember it, and subject to later correction, about the day before or two days before.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, all I can say in reply is that at the time of

477
the Second Reading we had no information on that point.
My Lords, not so very long ago certain Members on this side of the House received some stricture, albeit of the most friendly nature, for seeking to disagree with the proposals of the planning authorities in certain parts of the South Coast and other places in the North Country. It seemed to be suggested that it was not a matter about which your Lordships' House should concern itself, when democratic processes had already been decided and their requirements fulfilled. I have heard it said—not this evening in this Chamber—that the Brighton Marina scheme is the brain-child of a couple of local garage proprietors, backed by Canadian and American finance emanating from some unnamed gambling fraternity. So far as I have been able to ascertain—and I have made careful inquiry—no such American gambling interest is involved. In the first place, I can see nothing wrong in being a garage proprietor, and in fact during a fairly lengthy life, concerned almost exclusively with business, I was once a garage proprietor myself, and I certainly did not regard this as a kind of naughty enterprise. It constituted my very first venture in business on my own account, and it proved a successful stepping-stone to somewhat wider interests.
So far as the financial backing for the scheme is concerned, I understand that the money for this is available in the City of London, and the only Canadian slant I can find which may attach to it is the fact that one of the partners in the issuing house which has been concerned with the enterprise is Canadian born. He has lived nearly all his life in this country, and served throughout the last war, partly in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, when he was acting as a member of the Royal Engineers in the British Army. He is a fellow-director of mine in one company, and also a personal friend. It is, in fact, as has been said, one of the London-based property companies that is willing to support the scheme.
So far as any criticism may lie relating to the enclosure of part of the foreshore, I think it is necessary to be aware of the topographical peculiarities of this piece of the coast. There is no easy way down to the beach at the Black
478
Rock end of Brighton. In fact, there is not really any beach. There is a series of rock promontories and pinnacles, and so far as I am aware the only thing that ever goes along there at the present time is sewage. As I recall it, the sea comes up to the cliff, and when the tide goes down the rocks stick out of the sea and the sewage goes out beyond the rocks and discharges into the deep water.
I understand that under the scheme it is agreed to preserve the undercliff wall above the beach. I remember this bit of the coast being a place to which one was always very careful to give a wide berth in sailing in these waters. It seems to me that nothing but good can come from building a marina in a place which can provide no other useful amenity. The plans have been most carefully drawn and have received, as I have already said, full support from the the local authority and Parliament. Speaking as an ex-Commodore of a small yacht club, I feel that sailing activities should be encouraged. So far as a gambling casino is concerned, although I am told that nothing of the kind has so far been included, there is nothing illegal in a casino in these days and, surely, if one were going to provide a casino the natural habitat for such a facility would seem to be Brighton. I am very sorry indeed to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I hope very much that this Instruction will be resisted, and that the Bill may receive a Second Reading and proceed through its normal stages to the Statute Book.
8.35 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, because he does not think we should accept Lord Goodman's Instruction. I think that the noble Viscount feels that the whole of this matter has been gone into by the proper democratic processes. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, demonstrated to us beyond any possible doubt—and he was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison—that the evidence has not really been looked at at all.
I am very suspicious about this Bill. It proposes to do something which has never been done before: to enclose a public foreshore for private development. I may be naïve, but I cannot help thinking that something very "hot" is being

479
done under our noses; and nothing that has been said in another place, or in the Report by the Minister, has dissuaded me from this -view and from the suspicion I have. I think that if only to demonstrate the position, possibly to people like myself, who suspect that this is a racket, there is very good reason for having this Instruction. It is not unreasonable for me to suppose that a racket is going on when, in fact, it appears to me that the real purpose of this Bill, under the cloak of getting a marina, is to get public land for private development. This seems to me a most monstrous thing.
I do not mind a bit how good the development is in itself. I am prepared to believe that the architects who have drawn it up are very good ones and that the scheme is, as the Minister's inspector says, bold, imaginative and attractive. It may be all these things. It may fit in very well with the Regency terraces; it may overcome all the problems of traffic and of sewage. But this is neither here nor there; it has nothing to do with it. This is land, or so it seems to me, that should not be developed at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, pointed out that when the Brighton Corporation bought this land many years ago they entered into the most rigorous restrictive covenants as to their behaviour in regard to development of this land. Similarly, Governments of all shades in the past decade have been saying that above all else we must try to preserve our coast. The National Trust has just embarked upon this great operation "Neptune". All the local authorities concerned—those of Sussex, Kent and the South of England coast—have been saying (I forget their actual words) that above all else we must preserve this coast. I do not know how many thousand miles of coast we have in this country. It may be something like 2,000. But, after all, here it is proposed to develop half a mile of it. Well, where do we stop? Sooner or later we are going to turn the whole of this country into one urban sprawl, and the same applies to the coast. I think that where it is proposed to do something of this nature—as I say, it has never been done before—the closest scrutiny is required to show why it should be done. And I have heard
480
no reasons as to why it should be done. One of the principal arguments is that a marina would not be viable unless it had this background development. Very well then. If that is so, what about the argument that there is such a pressure for marinas? I accept the fact that there is a pressure for marinas. But if that is so, why cannot they support themselves?
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out that there is conflict of evidence as to how much it costs to keep a boat. I do not know. I have never sailed in one in my life, though I am only too delighted that my children and friends should. But this conflict over costs of keeping a boat does not alter the fact that if there is a demand, the yachtsmen can pay for it themselves. There is also the argument put forward (I cannot believe that this is true) that yacht owners must be—I will not say subsidised, but supported by expropriation from the public: because this is, in fact, what it amounts to.
It seems to me that the strongest point is neither of those two arguments, but that in fact the new company is not really interested in the marina at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, drew our attention to a statement that appeared in the Guardian to-day. May I plug the point? It was that one of the spokesmen for this holding company, with its 210 subsidiaries, said that they were not primarily interested in the marina side of the project at all. If that is so, and if there is reason to suppose that a marina is not viable without this development in the background, I want very much better reasons for it than have been given to me. Therefore I warmly support the noble Lord's Instruction, and I hope that the rest of your Lordships will do so, too.
8.40 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am strongly in favour of this Bill, and I shall try to explain why. I shall not go into the economics of it, because I leave that to people with brains, such as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am not qualified to do that, but what I want to do is to say something about some of the objections which have been raised. First, there is the question of the enclosing of the shore at all. The noble Baroness,

481
Lady Summerskill, spoke very strongly about the joys of walking along the shore and thinking to herself that it would all soon be enclosed. One can sympathise to a certain degree, if it happens to be a part of the shore with which one is familiar, but one has to remember that for the shore that the Marina is to take away it is going to give it back one hundred times, judged in terms of public enjoyment and pleasure. There are hundreds of miles of our coast where one can go and just sit on the beach, or paddle or make sandcastles, or do other things like that, but sailing is becoming an increasingly popular sport. After all, it is not so long since sailing was purely the rich man's sport, and this Marina will bring it within the reach of all.
As to the question of enclosure by private ownership, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke quite strongly against that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Am I to gather from what they said that they would have had no objection to the enclosure of the beach had it been done by the Brighton Council? If so, I cannot see that there is any real objection. The enclosure is there, and who owns it—whether it be private or public owners—does not seem to me to matter very much.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to remind him that I said I would think it just as wrong for Brighton Corporation to enclose that particular bit of foreshore as for a private company to do so.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the noble Baroness say that, but one has to remember, too, that this particular part of the shore is of no value to seaside visitors in the way of sitting on the shore or enjoying the pleasures of the sea. I should like to read an extract from the report of the Brighton Corporation. This is a description of that particular part of the shore:
"The comparatively small part of the foreshore which will be lost to the public by the construction of the Marina is not one of Brighton's better beaches. It is rock-strewn and of little attraction and use to bathers, and its loss can have no adverse effect on the town's available seaside facilities for both residents and visitors,"
That seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that the enclosure is not
482
going to be a great loss to seaside visitors, and that they will gain a great deal more by what is going to be put there, as I hope to point out to your Lordships.
Sailing, for people who live inland, is rather a problem, because one has to pay for one's mooring—I am speaking in terms of the present, not when the Marina is constructed—and one perhaps has to travel a long way to find a mooring. However, when the Marina is there, the mooring will be extremely reasonable; thousands of people will have access to it, and it will offer other facilities besides sailing. Here I come to the other objection which was raised, as to whether the ancillary buildings are necessary. I consider personally that they are necessary, because when people go to the seaside very few of them go down just for the purpose of having a sail. If they do, they are probably members of some yacht club somewhere else, and that does not refer to the general public. The general public, when they go to the sea, generally go down for a week or a fortnight, and they want accommodation. They want entertainments for their children, they want some ways in which to spend the evenings, they want their various other amenities besides the actual sailing, and that is why this Marina will be so ideal. They will find their hotels, car parks, theatres, restaurants and many other things which will make their visit not only a matter of mere sailing but also of recreation for their children. There is a swimming pool there—
LORD HENLEY: And accommodation for their wives in every port.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, accommodation for the wives, exactly, though I should have thought that possibly the singular was more usual in this country. Therefore I think if one were to have, as has been suggested, just a marina—in other words, just the harbour enclosure and the yacht moorings—what would happen? People would go down there; they would overcrowd the town of Brighton; they would find it very difficult to get accommodation; and they would have very little to do without a long walk during the evenings—in other words, it would not be anything like as successful. I think very few people

483
would be likely to patronise it. However, with the ancillary buildings, these will not only complete the entertainment side of it, but they will do an immense amount to help to pay for the scheme, which of course is among the most important things. I quite understand the uneasiness on the part of some that this is not going to prove a viable proposition, and that perhaps there may be local objections. In fact I have not heard of any local objections so far. Brighton Corporation is in absolute favour of it. But, in any case, when the Bill is examined by the Select Committee any particular objections that may be raised will be thoroughly examined.
8.50 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may a Brighton resident have a word towards the end of this debate?—and I apologise that I did not put my name down on the paper. I do not think I should have endeavoured to say anything at all had it not been for many of the things said during the course of the debate. I am proving what my noble friend Lord Mitchison said, that this is not a Party question at all, for I find myself in opposition to every member of my own Party who has spoken, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Addison, and I am right behind the Bill. Perhaps a man who lives down in Brighton has some right to say why he is in favour of the Bill. I am not a yachtsman, I am not an architect, I am not a surveyor, I am not a financier and I am not a lawyer, and the probability is that I shall never live long enough to see this scheme completed. I am just someone who thinks that this is an imaginative scheme, a great scheme that is going to add tremendously to the attraction of the South Coast in that particular area. I believe that this is a greater concept for a seaside resort in Britain than we have ever so far experienced, and it may well be that when completed it will be something better even than many of the resorts of a similar character in different parts of the country.
I repeat—the noble Lord, Lord Teynham started with this and other people have mentioned it, but it cannot be said too often—this scheme is welcomed by the people of Brighton. This scheme is welcomed by thousands upon thousands
484
of people in Brighton, and people outside Brighton who are regular visitors to Brighton. It is welcomed and blessed by the Borough Council. It received the blessing of the Ministry inquiry. It went through its stages in another place and has reached your Lordships' House. Are we, a few people in this House to-night, in view of all that, prepared to say, "You must not go on with this scheme?" I heard, "Yes" from behind. We have no right at this stage—certainly no right to turn down the Bill on its Second Reading.
I want to say as a resident of the area that I have the deepest possible sympathy for some people who live in those gracious regency houses in Kemp Town very close to this spot. I can appreciate their anxiety, their individual anxiety, about an interference with their lovely, gracious surroundings. Everybody can appreciate that. But they are not the only people who live in Brighton and they are not the only people who come down to Brighton. I say with very great respect to my two noble friends, the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, that this objection has been a little exaggerated, and perhaps I should not be very unfair if I called it a bit hysterical.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill—and the whole House knows the respect I have for her—talks in an emotional sense in the way she has spoken to-night, and very rightly and justifiably, but when she talks about the quiet oasis of Brighton I have to laugh. Does she know Brighton? Let us get down into the centre of Brighton some night at the weekend and talk about a quiet oasis. I just do not understand it. Fun fairs? Will my noble friend show me where in the plan the Fun Fair is mentioned? This is not going to be the Blackpool Fun Fair and Pleasureland; this is going to be a dignified erection, according to the plans I have read. Like my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, I, too, have read all about the report of the public inquiry. I am not speaking without having gone deeply into it.
When we talk about spoiling the coastline, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, I would point out that you cannot walk down there. There are great rocks which you have to scramble over, trying to find the odd shrimp, and that is all there is down there. People cannot bathe

485
there; people cannot boat there. If they attempted to swim when the tide was in on that section of the coast they would be broken to pieces by the rocks. Why did Brighton Corporation build a great swimming pool just near that point? Because people could not swim in the sea because of the rocks just to the East, and so they built a very beautiful swimming pool. So that is the position.
And how much is to be taken? From what we hear we might have been dealing with the taking over and erosion of the whole of the South Coast of England. At the most, I will accept that it is half a mile—800 yards. The White Cliffs of Dover, which we love to see as we come in on the boat or aeroplane, are repeated along that stretch of Coast, but nobody is talking about taking over all those white cliffs. The suggestion is that something should be placed there, occupying about 800 yards of these many miles, and there will be plenty of white cliffs left, even if this scheme goes through.
So far as the Instruction is concerned, I could not care less whether that Instruction is carried to-night. All I am concerned about is getting the Second Reading, which I feel sure the House will give to-night. I regard the Instruction as far too limited. The noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has told us this evening—and his Motion is on the Order Paper—that it can go to a Committee, and the Committee can consider anything applicable to the scheme. I suggest, with respect, that Lord Goodman's Motion for an Instruction is unnecessary.
May I mention the question of viability? What has not been mentioned this evening is the fact that about five years ago, or something like that, the idea was put to the Brighton Corporation that they themselves should make a marina—just a yacht harbour—at a point very close to the one we are discussing. The Brighton Corporation, I thought at the time mistakenly, decided not to do it. It may well be we should never have had this bother if Brighton Corporation had gone ahead, and that might have been all right—I agree with my noble friend. But they turned it down because they felt it could not possibly be viable and it would be a heavy burden on the ratepayers of Brighton. Is anybody going to suggest that the ratepayers of Brighton are going to set out to help yachtsmen
486
to come to a place in Brighton, without other facilities which could bring some profit to the town of Brighton and help relieve the rates? This is why it was turned down: because it was regarded as non-viable.
One last word—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Teynham could help me on this. I have one great reservation, as to the approach roads and exit roads. We have seen and read a lot in regard to what might be done so far as roads to and from the marina are concerned. But in my view nothing less than a dual-carriageway road from the tunnel underneath the promenade road from the marina, across the Downs, coming out somewhere near Patcham, four miles away, and joining up with the dual-carriageway of the London—Brighton road, will be sufficient. If that is not done, we are in for a bad time, with the weight of traffic that is pouring into Brighton these days without the marina. If we add the marina to that, it will be a case of confusion confounded.
Therefore, I should like some more satisfaction in regard to these roads and what they will be like. I know this is not the Promoters' problem; it is the local authority's problem. It is asking a local authority to spend a lot of money in approach roads. This is my reservation. I should like some assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that this matter is being given attention and that there will be some solution. I said at the beginning that I did not intend to speak on this Bill and in this debate. I was drawn to my feet by what, with the deepest possible respect to people whom I love, I could not but regard as very much of a tremendous exaggeration about this situation.
9.3 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I want to raise just one point. I have no interest at all in this scheme, and I have studied the maps and other things only to-day. I give it my support, however, because I think it is a good and imaginative scheme. What worries me is that the Lord Chairman of Committees, who knows much better than I do, has told us that there were no objectors to this Bill. I have in my time, sat on a good many Select Committees in this

487
House, and have always thought that when you went up to a Select Committee you heard the objections to the Bill and reported back to the House whether or not the Bill should be altered, giving recommendations. But we have been told to-night that no objections to this Bill have been lodged, and that all parties, including the Minister, the Brighton Corporation, the Fine Art Commission, all give their blessing to the Bill. In those circumstances, I really do not see what a Select Committee has to do.
We were also told by the Lord Chairman of Committees that it would not be fair to the Select Committee to ask them to say whether this precedent would affect other areas; they could decide only whether it would be right to affect Brighton. We are told that this project is to include only half-a-mile of the foreshore. This is a precedent. But the people locally want it; they have not objected to it. It seems to me that only a few noble Lords in this House wish to object to it. There will be all the expense of a hearing before the Select Committee, with learned counsel appearing for the Promoters explaining all the points to the Select Committee. I think that the House should take a decision on Second Reading, and that the Bill should go to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. However, the Lord Chairman of Committees thinks that it should go to a Select Committee. It seems to me that that is going to involve a great deal of extra expense in regard to a scheme which is wanted locally, and in regard to which no local objections have been raised. I think it ought to be passed by the House to-night on Second Reading.
9.5 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I did not intend to speak either, but I may say that I have a connection with this stretch of coast which is unique, because I lay in a hospital bed looking down on to this little patch for nearly two years, a long time ago; and even in those days there was a sewer. This experience qualifies me, I think, to speak on this subject to-night as well as anybody I have heard so far, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Goodman. I should like to ask a few questions. Can anybody tell me when the shares were transferred from the Cohens to the new company?
488
Did the Cohens sign with the passing of the Bill in another place? Does anybody know?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, on or about March 22, 1967, as I understand it. The Cohens retained a 24 per cent. interest, but let go 76 per cent. which is in the hands of the Allied Land Investment Company, which has 210 other subsidiaries.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, that is a sufficient reason for me to support my noble friend Lord Goodman. I come on to the next question, to see whether I can reinforce that point. Why was responsibility for the application for compulsory purchase powers foisted on to the local authority? Perhaps somebody will tell me that? There is no answer. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Kennet was keen to dash to his feet to answer the second question. I have not finished yet. At any rate—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for a moment, I dashed to my feet because the noble Lord dashed to his seat.
LORD RHODES: Fair enough! It is a case, or could be, I suppose, of musical chairs. I should like an answer to that question. But from what I have heard of the argument, it is a valid point that there should be further inquiry into the position of this scheme. It stands out to anybody who knows the area and has anything to do with local authority work. When one considers how little inquiry has been made into these matters, it is only a modest request that we should know more. I really do not know why the passion of those who are keen on this Bill should carry them as far as it has. At this time, when we have facing us the needs of the economy and the necessity for a more realistic approach to the way we live, the spending of money on grandiose schemes of this sort, at a time when the economy is tightening its belt, is absolutely crazy and mad. If by our action to-night we can restrain or put a bit of a brake on expenditure of this kind for this kind of purpose, I, for one, shall be proud to take part in it.
9.10 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say that I am not against the Marina per se. I am not against

489
the idea of the casino; I am not against the architecture. From what I have seen of the brochure it is well designed and sounds an exciting project. However, I have grave doubts about the economic costing of it. I understand from great friends of mine who live in Brighton that it does not stand up to examination, and that it seems doubtful that the whole scheme will be economically viable. In fact, I have fears that it may be a "white elephant". One remembers the watering places on the coast of Normandy which used to be, so fashionable thirty or forty years ago. I went through some of them a few weeks ago and saw the decaying casinos, the deserted plages, the grass growing through the concrete, the closed up hotels, and so on.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has not examined the very flourishing marinas which there are on coasts abroad.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am well aware that there are very flourishing marinas, but I am by no means confident that this particular one is being put in the right place. On the other hand, I think this is the business of the Corporation of Brighton; they have approved the scheme. It is also the business of the company which intends to promote it. If all concerned have confidence in it, I think it should be allowed to proceed—
LORD HENLEY: The whole point is that we have no confidence in either of the two parties.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to develop my argument for just a little longer, I think he will see the conclusion to which I am coming. What concerns me is the fact that they are going to close the foreshore. This will be a very dangerous precedent. The British Isles is one of the few countries in Europe where the foreshore is free. We all know that in many Mediterranean countries one has to pay quite a lot to go on a beach. Then, when one gets on the foreshore, one has to have a cabin and an umbrella, and this can cost a great deal. That is the kind of thing that is going to happen here. We are told that it is only half a
490
mile in extent, but that is a considerable extent.
I am concerned that if this kind of thing starts in one area, it may very well spread to others round the whole of our coastline; so that soon, in a few years, instead of many of our main watering places having free foreshore for the people of this country to enjoy, they will have to pay money to a corporation and walk through a turnstile in order to get on to it. For that reason, I consider that the whole scheme requires further examination, and therefore I support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Goodman.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question before he sits down in regard to his argument that this will cause a precedent for enclosing the whole of our foreshore? Does he consider that because a factory is built outside one town, that it is likely to be the case that every town in our country will be surrounded by factories?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the House will allow me to reply, it was never my intention to suggest that the whole of the foreshore of this country should be enclosed. All I tried to examine was the fact that this might create a precedent in other well-known watering places.
9.14 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I rise to support the comments which were made by my noble friend. He has given an indication of his opposition to this idea, and I join him in that opposition. I do not think anybody in this House would be opposed to the idea of a marina. I believe that anything that can be done to encourage boating, sailing and so on, is good. But quite recently somebody very aptly described this proposition as being the sprat to catch the whale. The idea is not to promote the Marina, but to enclose the foreshore, and I believe that this House should be very concerned about the protection of a foreshore of this kind.
The noble Lord opposite made reference to a factory which might be developed outside some town. Would the mere fact of its establishment encourage the development of factories elsewhere? I hope it would. But the mere acceptance of that

491
argument does not indicate that I support the enclosure of our beaches throughout the country. I want free and open beaches; I want free and open foreshores. Therefore, I feel it is right and proper that this House should give complete support to the fullest possible examination of this proposition.
To the building of a marina, I would say, "Yes". But this idea of the marina is supported by the idea of the establishment of casinos and the like. I have no objection to a casino if one is wanted, but that should not be used to support the marina. Let each stand on its own feet. I would support those in this House who say, "Yes, all right. Let us give every support we can to this Marina". But when it comes to the whole proposition of enclosing the foreshore of this country, that can establish a precedent, and precedent is important. What is done to Brighton to-day can be done elsewhere throughout this country. Therefore, I think it is the responsibility of this House to make absolutely sure that there is the fullest possible examination of this proposition before we say "Yes" to it.
9.17 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am not an inhabitant of Brighton, but I rise to my feet because I have a number of friends who are inhabitants of Brighton, and I have been slightly surprised by certain noble Lords who have asserted with absolute certainty that the population of Brighton is completely in support of this Bill. This is by no means my experience. On the contrary, I have found that most of my friends in Brighton regard the proposal with horror, dismay and dislike. But, above all, they all say that they thought it would never be anything like a successful financial venture. Now it may be no part of the duty of Her Majesty's Government to warn people off bad economic enterprises, but I suggest that at a time like this, when money is so short, and when development is so limited, this becomes of serious national interest and, surely, we ought to see to it that money, wealth and effort are directed in a direction which is for the national benefit.
I believe I am not the first this evening to say that this particular development is one which cannot adequately recommend itself at a time of stringent planning.
492
It is a capital development in the South and giving only part-time employment at best. As I say, it may be no business of Government in the ordinary way to advise private enterprise how it should dispose of its force and strength, but at a time like the present we ought to regard such schemes for expenditure with a very critical eye. I suggest, therefore, that the least we can do to-day is to support the direction to the Committee, with the hope that we shall get from them more certain advice as to what is the best thing to be done.
9.20 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before I get into this subject, I should like to answer, in a little more detail if I may, a point made by my noble friend Lord Addison about the timing of the discussion of this Bill. I see that he is not here, but I think it would still be worth while to have it on the Record. I would assure him and the House that there is no question of a sinister plot involved in this postponement. The situation is this. Private Bills, if they are to be debated at all, are always postponed after the day on which they are first put down. They are postponed for two reasons. First, they stand early in the day's Business on the assumption that they are not to be debated. If it then appears that they are to be debated, they go later in the Business, either on that day or on another. Secondly, if they are not to be debated the Chairman moves the Second Reading pro forma. But if they are opposed, and are therefore to be debated, the Promoters will naturally wish to find someone else—that is, someone other than the Lord Chairman—to move the Second Reading, and this may take a certain amount of time. What we are talking about, therefore, is a normal procedure of the House, and conceals no plot.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked two or three questions, I am not sure whether specifically of me or of anybody. I think they are probably more appropriate to the Committee, if the House sends the Bill there, but since he asked them on the Floor of the House perhaps I may say a few words about them. He has apologised for his unavoidable absence. He raised, first, the question of sewerage. The situation

493
here is that the sewerage authority concerned have appointed consultants urgently to consider what is necessary in connection with this scheme. When they have considered what is necessary, the local authority will apply for loan sanction to do it, and my right honourable friend the Minister will then consider and approve, or not approve, that application for loan sanction in the normal way.
On the question of traffic (I am still addressing myself to the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe), the noble Earl asked whether the roads will be ready for 3,600 cars. I would refer the House to paragraph 10 of my right honourable friend's Letter of Decision of last September, in which he said:
"Improved access"—
that is, improved access by cars to the marina—
"should come within stage one, with a new access early in stage two. The Council"—
that is, the Brighton Corporation—
"and the developers will be expected to have provided a road system comparable with drawing 23253"—
that is a particular drawing in the planning application—
"by the time the complete project comes into operation."
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, inquired also about the question of the buildings coming above the line of the cliffs behind them. No doubt the Committee, if this Bill is committed, will think fit to examine that point. I shall go no further on the Floor of the House than td say that the planning permission granted is subject to a condition in this respect, that the planning permission is binding and that the Promoters of the Bill do not challenge the view that the development should not overtop the cliffs.
My Lords, this is a project for which my right honourable friend the Minister has given planning permission. That is not all. He gave his planning permission in full knowledge of the fact that a Bill would come before both Houses of Parliament and that certain other steps would have to be taken by the Promoters before the development could go ahead. I shall refer to them later. The planning permission is one stage out of at least four. It was given in the knowledge that remaining
494
stages would have to be carried out; and the planning permission was given on planning considerations. The planning permission was given on a call-in. The application was made to the Brighton Corporation, the planning authority, and my right honourable friend called it in for his own decision. An inquiry lasting nine days was held in January and February last year. The inspector recommended that outline planing permission—and we are talking throughout about outline planning permission—should be given, subject to certain conditions. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation and gave planning permission in September last year.
I should like to remind the House of the conditions which have not been mentioned—or only rarely—in the debate. There are six in number. The first was that means of access to the site, and the design and external appearance of the buildings, should be as may be agreed with the local planning authority or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by the Minister; second, no building shall be of a height greater than the level of that part of the cliff top immediately North of the site; third, that operations for carrying out the development should begin not later than six years from the date of this permission; fourth, that each part of the site and each building indicated in the relevant plan should be used for the purpose stated in respect of it in the accommodation schedule submitted with the application, and for no other purpose; fifth, that no dutch or other auctions should take place on the shop premises included in the development; and, sixth, that provision for the parking of 3,600 cars should be made in accordance with the scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority before any work on the site will begin. These conditions will no doubt form part of the considerations of our Committee if we commit this Bill to it.
The main reason for the promotion of the present Private Bill was, I understand, the need to secure Parliamentary authority to interfere with public rights of navigation and to enclose the foreshore. As first deposited, the Bill itself authorised the compulsory acquisition of the land required for the scheme; but these powers were struck out in the House of

495
Commons Select Committee. What happened was that the Bill was debated on Second Reading and approved after a Division. It was considered in the Select Committee, when there were petitioners, private individuals whose property would have been subject to the compulsory acquisition which was at that time in the Bill. The Select Committee did not hear these petitioners because, after hearing the Promoters, the Committee decided as a matter of principle to delete the clauses authorising the compulsory acquisition of and, and this, naturally, met the petitioners' case. Subject to this deletion, the Bill was allowed to proceed and was debated on consideration in the Commons and was approved without a Division. Since the deletion of the compulsory acquisition powers in the Bill Brighton Corporation have resolved themselves to seek any power of compulsory purchase which may be necessary to see the scheme through. In order to do this they will, of course, have to satisfy the Minister, or Parliament, that they should be given these powers. As I am at present advised, these powers would be required only for roads and should be within the Corporation's powers as a highway authority.
As has been repeatedly stated during the debate, this Bill has the support of the Brighton Corporation who could expect to get a considerable rate income from this scheme over and above rent from the leasing of the foreshore. I understand that, under an agreement with the promoting company, the Brighton Corporation will also get a share of the profits in the operation of the scheme equal to 30 per cent. of all profits in excess of 12 per cent.
The question of precedents in the enclosure of the foreshore has been repeatedly mentioned and the Lord Chairman of Committees has told the House that this question is appropriate for discussion on the Floor of the House. I shall therefore lay before your Lordships certain information about precedents. There have been numerous Bills which have authorised enclosures and the use of the foreshore, and they have been mainly for docks and harbour development. Most of those docks and harbour developments have been for public harbours. The noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Henley, engaged in a
496
discussion earlier on this point. The answer is that those docks and harbours which have given rise to the foreshore enclosure have been both public and private, though mainly public. During the last ten years there have been seven Bills where the developer concerned has been a company operating for private profit. They have been as follows: the British Petroleum Trading Act 1957; the Esso Petroleum Company Act 1957; the Angle Ore and Transport Company Act 1959; the Regent Refinery Company Act 1962; the Brighton Skydeck Act 1965; the Crude Oil Terminals (Humber) Act 1965 and the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend indicate the location in those cases, and the purposes of the constructions?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes, the purposes.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as to the location, except in the cases where it is evident through the Title of the Act, I am afraid that I cannot inform the noble Lord. The purpose is, I think, apparent in most cases from the Title of the Act. It will leap to the comprehension of the House that all these measures, with one exception, were measures to do with the loading and unloading of goods of one sort or another.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt him? Am I to conclude that none provided for an "oceanorama", or a casino, or a marina?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot answer with complete certitude that the Brighton Skydeck Act 1965 did not. It seems to me probable that the others did not.
I said earlier that this Bill is not the last stage in the approval by Government and Parliament of this development. If the Bill is passed, the company will still need a licence under the Building Control Act 1966, and an authorisation under the Harbours Act 1964, in order to get the project which is before us. These would provide economic controls over the proper deployment of economic resources at the moment, the question of which has been raised by more than one noble Lord

497
during the debate. I think that the Building Control Act 1966 may be familiar to all your Lordships, but the Harbours Act 1964 may be less familiar. It requires that any harbour development costing more than half-a-million pounds shall be subject to an authorisation. To sum up, I have told your Lordships some of the history and a few of the facts which have not come out. The Government would not wish to urge the House in either direction, either on Lord Goodman's Motion for an Instruction or on the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, may I ask him this question? He made reference to Public and Private Acts relating to the enclosure of the foreshore. I wonder whether he can give us some indication—I am sure that he must know the answer—of how many miles of foreshore have been enclosed as a result of the Acts to which he referred?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot do that, but noble Lords will have in their minds a picture of an oil refinery and how much foreshore it encloses.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, indicated, when he was talking about compulsory purchase powers, that there might have to be an inquiry, so that the Government could be satisfied. Who would conduct the inquiry as the matter stands? Would it be the Select Committee, or who would have to satisfy themselves on this point?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the application for compulsory powers to the Minister or to Parliament would follow the normal course of the law in this respect, the details of which I am afraid I do not have in mind at the moment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the fact that compulsory powers would now have to be acquired by the Corporation for roads, but he did not mention the fact that compulsory powers would have to be acquired for the houses in Riflebutt Road, for the cemetery and things like that.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have had a very interesting debate, but I would say that very little has been heard about
498
yachts and boats, and a great deal about finance and other things which are not the things for which this Bill was promoted. I have listened carefully to the speeches of noble Lords. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a very unworthy remark when he said that there might be something "fishy" in this Bill, and some "racket" behind it. I am sure that he does not really think that.
Before dealing with the instruction to the Committee, I should like to answer one or two points made in the debate. First, the question of pollution was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I can assure him that that is being very well taken care of and there will be no question raised on that. The noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Mitchison, raised questions of finance. I would just say that full financial evidence was given at the nine day inquiry and I have no doubt at all that it will be given again before the Select Committee. I would suggest that the Select Committee is quite capable of examining all the matters that have been raised in the debate without any Instruction being passed to them and I would ask your Lordships to resist the Instruction to the Committee when put before your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
9.38 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, it is for me formally now to move the Instruction. I think that it would be quite wrong if I inflicted at this hour anything in the way of a second speech, but I should like to make a few observations, I hope of a non-controversial nature. It is my hope that the House will accept the Instruction without a Division. The Instruction is designed to enjoin upon the Committee that this House feels that there are special circumstances relating to this Bill which require special and careful consideration. It is designed for nothing else than that.
I think that in the circumstances of this Bill it is a very important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, thought there was nothing to refer to a Committee, and that the matter should be referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills as there was no further issues that required discussion. If, having heard the debate this evening, he believes that,

499
I can only reply in the famous words of the Duke of Wellington. When approached by a gentleman who said, "Mr. Smith, I believe", the Duke replied, "If you believe that, you will believe anything".
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, all I said was that there were no Petitioners. If there are no Petitioners, I do not see what a Select Committee can do. I should have thought that the whole House could decide.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for making the point I was anxious to make. Unfortunately, there is no Petition against this Bill. The reason, I understand (and I have only recently been concerned with the Bill), is that although there were Petitions in another place these were not automatically continued, and the persons concerned with the opposing of the Bill, who were not particularly supplied with wealth, resources or information about Parliamentary procedure, did not realise how indispensable it was that there should be Petitions against the Bill, so that counsel could appear before the Select Committee and represent the matter as fully and effectively as possible.
It is for that reason that it is especially important that this Bill should go before the Select Committee with an Instruction, so that they should clearly understand that the absence of Petitions does not mean that the Bill does not require this consideration. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for making this point. I do not want to make any other points. I do not want to join issue with anyone on the numerous matters raised. Having heard what we have heard to-day, having heard brought into relief and underlined the points of view of a number of people, we have a duty, I believe, to make it clear to the Committee that this
is a most important matter, on an issue of public importance, and in my view we shall discharge that duty by sending the Bill to them with an Instruction.
I should like to move an Amendment to the Instruction which stands in my name on the Order Paper, because I should like to accept the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the last words, "and as a precedent for other areas", should be left out. I formally move, as an Amendment, that these words should be left out of the Instruction standing in my name. I think it is probably appropriate at this stage that I should ask the House to deal with that Amendment before I deal with the formal Motion.
Amendment to Instruction moved—
At end leave out ("and as a precedent for other areas").—(Lord Goodman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the original Motion was:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider how far the works proposed to be authorised by the Bill, or other provisions of the Bill, go beyond what is necessary to provide a harbour for pleasure craft and whether they are desirable or not having particular regard to the unique character of Brighton and its environs, and as a precedent for other areas."
An Amendment has now been moved to leave out the words ("and as a precedent for other areas")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question now is that the Motion, as amended, be agreed to.
9.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Goodman, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Albemarle, E.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Annan, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Kahn, L.

Segal, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bowles, L.

Mitchison, L. [Teller.]

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Oakshott, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Falkland, V.

Peddie, L.

Strang, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Redmayne, L.

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, L.

Auckland, L.

Lindgren, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Caldecote, V. [Teller.]

Merthyr, L.

Wolverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in moving this somewhat lengthy Resolution, I will only say that its purpose is to enable the Bill to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. If the House agrees to this Resolution the necessary Message will be sent, asking for the agreement of another place to a similar Resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that point be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament by pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.