COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 24 October 1967 vol 285 cc1521-618

2.45 p.m.

Order of the Day read for the Report of Amendments to be received.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1:

The Countryside Commission for Scotland

1.—

(4) The Commission shall be comprised of—

1. (a) persons appointed after consultation with such associations of local authorities 1522 as appear to the Secretary of State to represent local planning authorities;
2. (b) persons appointed after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of countryside interests; and
3. (c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may think fit.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to subsection (4): ( ) Persons appointed under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above shall not be fewer than those appointed under paragraphs (a) and (c) combined.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is somewhat similar to one that I moved on the Committee stage of this Bill, but the one I moved then was faulted in one respect. I had presumed that the Countryside Commission had always consisted of its maximum number of possible members, 14, and so I moved an Amendment that category (b) should be at least seven of them. I have now expressed this as a percentage, which gets over this difficulty.

When I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was kind enough to reply not only to the Amendment as I had it down, but also to the Amendment as I intended to have it down, and the gist of his argument against the Amendment, as I should have liked to have it, was that although the Secretary of State had every intention of more or less following these proportions—possibly even bettering them—his discretion should not be fettered. I think the Secretary of State's discretion is already fettered by Parliament in other directions, so I would have thought there is nothing very much in that point. I should have thought that it was much more important to remember that the present Secretary of State is not indestructible, and that subsequent Secretaries of State may not remember the undertaking given in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he comes to make new appointments to the Countryside Commission.

I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will follow very much the proportions suggested in my Amendment, and will thereby fully vindicate Lord Hughes's undertaking. But if we think that the Countryside Commission will be a body that will last a long time—and I personally believe and hope that this will be so—surely there would have been no harm in writing this provision into the Bill. The people included under category (b) not only provide the raw material with which the Countryside Commission are concerned—the country and the land itself—but also, presumably, include the people who will use it; that is to say, members of the ramblers' associations and similar bodies. I should have thought it only right that, between them, they should have at least the majority on the Commission. I would have thought, therefore, that as the Secretary of State agrees to the principle behind my Amendment, and as I think he is bound to admit that there may some day be a completely new and different Secretary of State, and as this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill (because it sets out the Commission who will be dealing with this particular Act in nearly all its functions) it is only right that we should write into the Bill this particular provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Duke was good enough to send to me a list of the Amendments which he intended to table at this stage of the Bill, and because of that I was able to break into his otherwise free days at Aviemore by letting him know the action which the Government contemplated taking on these Amendments. If I remember rightly, that led to a letter of some six foolscap pages. Therefore what I am going to say in due course on any of his Amendments will not come as news to the noble Duke. But I have no doubt it is felt by him to be desirable that what he knows privately should be known publicly by other people through the medium of your Lordships' House.

Much as I respect the noble Duke's tenacity in seeking to amend this clause, I must oppose any Amendment of this sort which attempts to write in a restriction on the Secretary of State's discretion. What I said about this matter in Committee in relation to the noble Duke's earlier Amendment still applies, including the forecast I then made about the likely pattern of membership of the Commission. I can assure the noble Duke not only I but other Scottish Ministers will be quite happy to advise any future Scottish Secretary of State of these undertakings, and if, in the distant future, there should be an Administration from the other side of the House, the noble Duke is a sufficiently young man to be able to remind a Secretary of State from that Party of the undertakings to which he would expect them to adhere. In these circumstances, I hope that he will not find it unduly difficult not to press the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his answer, although it is somewhat unsatisfactory from my point of view. But as we are agreed on the basic thinking behind this Amendment, I think the best thing I can do is to withdraw it, or beg the leave of the House to withdraw it, and promise the noble Lord that if an Administration from this side—or perhaps, I should say, when an Administration from this side—comes into power, if they desert this particular thesis I shall certainly remind them of the fact.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Powers of the Commission]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment is simply to avoid any doubt there might otherwise be about the Commission's legal capacity to buy, rent or build offices. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 20, at end insert: (i) for the purpose of providing themselves with office or other accommodation in connection with the exercise of any of their functions, to acquire land in manner provided by section 6(1)(a) below, to erect and maintain buildings or other structures thereon, and, when the land is no longer required for such purpose, to dispose of it in manner provided by the said section 6;".—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will clarify one question? This Amendment deals with two aspects: first, the power for the Commission to acquire land for offices; and secondly, the way such land will be disposed of if it is no longer required. The Amendment refers to Section 6, which deals with the methods of disposal, one way being by sale. Is it the intention of the Government that administratively they should issue a directive to the Commission that, in the event of sale, the previous owner should have the first opportunity of purchase? As the Minister knows, that governs various other aspects of land acquisition and disposal in respect of other Government departments. It seems to me only right that it should be an administrative requirement on the Commission.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord correctly, he is referring to a condition which applies when land is acquired compulsorily. We do not contemplate that the Commission will be obtaining the land or the buildings for their office other than by the ordinary processes. We do not contemplate for one moment that they will be acquiring their offices by a compulsory order; so the undertaking would not arise.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Areas of special planning control]:

2.54 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (2), to insert: ( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of the General Development Order any development or any class of development which it is proposed to undertake in an area of special planning control shall be submitted to the local planning authority for planning permission.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is also somewhat similar to one I moved at the Committee stage. But it has one very fundamental difference, that is, that not only will public bodies be caught by it, but previously exempt private buildings, such as small agricultural buildings, which are outside planning control at the moment, will be caught also. The Amendment I moved at the Committee stage was criticised by the noble Lord on, I think, three grounds. The first was that it would be an intolerable burden on public bodies to have to seek planning permission; secondly, that similar private development was in certain cases exempt; that is to say, the small agricultural buildings; and, thirdly, that it was unlikely to arise in Scotland owing to the position of the Secretary of State as the head of almost every conceivable nationalised industry and organisation in Scotland, and that therefore such things as Cow Green or Abingdon could not arise in Scotland. I have now got over the second point of this criticism by drawing into the orbit of the Amendment exempt agricultural buildings and suchlike things. I think this was a very valid point, and I have never quite understood the theory behind the planning Acts that large agricultural buildings need planning permission, while small agricultural buildings are always so beautiful that they do not need any planning permission at all. It seems to me that this is a highly dubious theory, and one that should be altered as soon as possible. I have therefore included them in the scope of this Amendment.

With regard to the first criticism, that it was an intolerable burden on public bodies, I do not agree with that at all, because my Amendment applies only in these areas of special planning control, which we gather are going to be few and far between, and therefore public bodies ought not to be encouraged to make any form of development except where absolutely necessary. I should have thought that the number of cases arising, even if there is not this Amendment, would be small, and if there is this Amendment it would be very small indeed, and therefore extremely desirable.

The third argument—that it was unlikely to arise in Scotland—I also do not agree with. Secretaries of State are hardly knights in shining armour—I am not referring to the present one, but to Secretaries of State as a genus throughout the times, or at any rate since the war—so far as planning is concerned, if we are to believe they really look into every building that every public authority puts up in Scotland. There are, of course, certain public authorities which are not directly under the control of the Secretary of State, such as the Gas Board. So presumably it would be possible for the Gas Board to erect a building without the Secretary of State having foreknowledge. I therefore feel that the noble Lord's third argument against my Amendment hardly applies at all.

I should like to point out that the pressures on space are increasing in Scotland, and although so far the public bodies have probably behaved rather better in this respect than in England—at any rate, there seem to have been fewer major outcries—I do not think this will go on for very much longer. I think that perhaps re-zoning of the Scott country is the start of this thoroughly undesirable trend. Also, one has only to look at many lines of pylons to realise how incredibly badly sited they are, and one would have thought that for a small extra cost they could have been sited infinitely better. I fully realise that to bury high tension electricity wires, except in the most exceptional circumstances, is so expensive as to be almost prohibitive, but I would think it unnecessary to site pylons in quite such conspicuous positions as they so often are.

I should like to warn the English and the Welsh, who may be feeling rather smug because this Bill does not apply to them, that in the next Session they will probably get a similar Bill, and the chances are that it will be based on this Bill, and that therefore the public bodies may still get away with this in England and Wales as well as in Scotland.

Finally, just to show that it is not only me but also a lot of other people who are becoming extremely worried about this problem, perhaps I may quote from an article in the Daily Mail of Monday July 31 of this year. It is headed: The Spoilers. Must this destruction of Britain's beauty go on? It reads: 'One day', says Professor Colin Buchanan, 'we may wake up to a sudden realisation that the country is no longer worth living in. 'The countryside could be rolled flat by the cars of millions anxious to escape from the towns. Networks of power lines and highways could criss-cross the whole country'. It is a long article, and so I will not bore your Lordships by reading the whole of it. But that was said by Professor Colin Buchanan, who I think is a man for whom we all have great admiration and whose opinion ought to be respected by all of us, including the Government. The article goes on to say: Who are the real villians among the Spoilers? The service industries, the Government departments, the 'Statutory Undertakers' as they are so ironically called. For they, unlike anyone else, have a high degree of immunity from planning control. Then the article goes on to explain about Abingdon. I spoke about Abingdon at the Committee stage, and I will not bore your Lordships by talking about Abingdon again. But then the article says: Take the Electricity Board who are masters at riding roughshod over other people's interests. They employed a brilliant device for getting their countrywide grid systems exactly where they wanted them…irrespective of whether they damaged the country's beauty. They asked for approval of the position of each pylon in the grid individually. To oppose them was to suggest ruining the whole alignment of the grid. The cost, of course, would have been fantastic. No argument could support it. And as Graham Ashworth, head of the Civic Trust for the North-West, says: 'No doubt many lies have been told about the relevant costs of re-alignments and under-grounding'. This article concludes: How is the spoiling to be stopped? Clearly the immunity of Government Departments and Service undertakings from ordinary planning control has got to come to an end. But more—much more—is needed if Britain's natural beauty is to be preserved. I am not going anything like so far as this article. All I am suggesting is that it must come in these areas of special planning control, which we are told are going to be extremely few. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the Secretary of State already has power under Article 4 of the General Development Order to restrict permitted development, so it is not necessary to write that into Clause 9. As the noble Duke has said, the Amendment which he moved on the last stage was not in exactly these terms, and he has now amended it to bring into the effects of his Amendment the permitted private development. While this may seem to the noble Duke to be justice as between the private sector and the public sector, it is not the sort of "justice" that we can possibly put in at this stage of the Bill. Matters of this kind are dealt with only after the most careful discussion with the interests involved. The categories of development which are exempted by the General Development Order from the need for planning permission were carefully worked out in consultation with the various interests concerned, and I say, without any qualification, that the Secretary of State would wish to consult those same interests again before making any substantial change in the arrangement, far less the sweeping change which the Amendment proposes.

For instance, I doubt whether the noble Duke has obtained the consent of the local authority associations or even the Scottish National Farmers' Union, to name only two of those who are so vitally concerned with private permitted development. Notwithstanding his attempt to bring the private side into line with the public side, he has made it perfectly clear that his principal objection still remains to the public side having an exemption from this planning control, and I am sorry he still seems as unhappy about it as he was in Committee. I really cannot add much, except to give the assurance that, quite apart from the statutory planning controls, there are adequate administrative arrangements in Scotland which safeguard the position and ensure full consideration of any major developments proposed by the statutory undertakers, including a public inquiry, if that is appropriate. In reading the extract from what Professor Buchanan said, I thought it was singularly inappropriate to refer to what the Electricity Boards may or may not have done South of the Border, because if there is any type of public body which stands to be commended for the way in which they have regarded amenity in Scotland, it is the electricity undertakings. I think particularly of the care which has always been exercised by the North of Scotland Hydo-Electric Board, and I have no doubt that the South of Scotland Electricity Board acts in a similar manner.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I accept a lot of what the noble Lord has said about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, but I feel he has only to look at the Perthshire Garry, and also at the siting of some of the lines of pylons into Tummel Village, for instance. to realise that this care has not always been exercised.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, everybody, including the Electricity Boards, learns as time passes, and I doubt very much whether there is anything which the Board has done in recent years to which anyone would take exception. It could be argued that electricity in the North of Scotland is fractionally more expensive that it otherwise would have been because of the care which was taken at all times to have proper regard to the amenity factor as well as other factors. There is something else which Professor Buchanan may not have taken into account in writing that article, which is that in the Countryside Bill we have inserted Clause 66, which imposes a statutory duty on every Minister, every Government Department and every public body to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside". That is something which has not been done before in these terms, and it is a duty which we shall be drawing to the attention of all public bodies when we advise them of the establishment of the Countryside Commission and of the special requirements in the areas of special planning control.

I have no doubt that what has been done by the Government will achieve exactly what the noble Duke desires. He will have no cause for complaint—or, shall I say, no reasonable cause for complaint; and as the noble Duke is a reasonable man he would not wish to have any other cause for complaint. In these circumstances I do not feel I am doing the noble Duke any injustice when I say I am unable to accept his Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask one question, simply for information, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said? He referred to the administrative arrangements which safeguard the position as regards any major development on the part of public undertakings. If I ever knew, I am afraid I have now forgotten what a "major development" is, and I think it would be relevant to this debate for him to remind your Lordships what constitutes a major development in this connection. We certainly do not want to over-synchronise in this matter, but where there are areas of special planning control and areas of special beauty one would like to feel that they are completely safeguarded.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, while the reference is to "statutory undertakers" I doubt very much whether there is a statutory definition of what is a "major development". I think this might be capable of changing from one circumstance to another. What in one case might obviously be a major development because of its cost and widespread effect, in another case might be regarded as a major development although it cost a great deal less or was not over such a wide area, but simply because of its repercussions on a particular number of people. I am speaking completely off the cuff on this matter. I am expressing what I think is a common-sense view of the way in which this would be acted upon, but a major development will be decided from time to time as circumstances require. Obviously all the big, expensive schemes automatically will fall into that category. In size, in value, there will be proposals above the particular line which will automatically be included. There may be others below that line which in some circumstances might be regarded as "major" and in other circumstances might not be so regarded. I am afraid I cannot go beyond that.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I do not like the thought of withdrawing this Amendment, because I feel it is so vital. I agree that in Scotland the question does not arise to the same extent, but I feel that if the English Bill is going to be founded in any way on this Bill it is essential that the point should be safeguarded in the English Bill. I realise, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, cannot comment on that at the moment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, should we not perhaps be optimistic, rather than pessimistic, and if there is to be an English Bill and if it is to be modelled on the Scottish Bill should we not at least hope that they will accept Clause 66 as well?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, while I agree that Clause 66 is of great help, I do not think it covers the points entirely. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, really agrees with me about that. I feel that as this clause applies only to special development areas, areas of special planning control, I would rather it was negatived than that I withdrew it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 [Commission to consult with local planning authorities on access requirements of their areas]:

3.11 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities" to insert: and with such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of owners and occupiers of land".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may couple with Amendment No. 2 Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. During our consideration in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, proposed that in assessing access requirements and possibilities the Countryside Commission should be required to consult representatives of owners or occupiers of land in addition to local planning authorities, and I then undertook to move a suitable Amendment at this stage. The noble Baroness's proposal was that the consultation should be made with persons representative of owners and occupiers of individual local planning authority areas. I then said that we thought that it would be preferable that the consultation should normally be with bodies well known to be representative of landowners and occupiers in Scotland generally. Bodies like the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union have their own local committees and would thus be able to comment from the local as well as the national aspect. This procedure would also free the Commission from having to make a somewhat difficult and invidious choice as to which individuals were representative of owners and occupiers in particular areas. Discussions which we have had since the noble Baroness raised this point in July suggest that the proposal which is now incorporated in these three Amendments will result in effective consultation taking place. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 10, after ("authorities") insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having paid such very good attention to the Amendment which I moved on Committee stage. May I just remind him in connection with appointments on committees that in the various consultations which he has with authorities, such as the National Farmers' Union or the Women's Rural Institutes, there are two sexes and perhaps he would see that a certain number of ladies are included among those appointed to the Commission. I thank him very much for the Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for taking so much trouble to meet us on this matter, and I hope he will bear in mind my noble friend's plea about the ladies.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. In relation to the plea which was put to me, all I would say is that I realise that I ignore the noble Baroness's repeated plea at my peril.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 11, leave out "in their areas".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 12, leave out ("as respects their areas").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13:

Access Agreements

13.—(1) A local planning authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State make an access agreement with any person having an interest in land in the area of the authority whereby the provisions in that behalf of this Part of this Act shall apply to the land.

(3) An access agreement may be made either irrevocably or subject to such provisions for revocation or variation as may be specified in the agreement.

LORD BURTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may" and insert: shall if requested by the owner and occupier".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, considerable concern is expressed in the poorer counties. I may say that in my own county of Inverness-shire the rates are already around 19s. Much of the expenditure involved will occur in these poorer counties. As a member of the Inverness Finance Committee, I am going to find myself in considerable difficulty in deciding what expenditure should take place. I myself will be looking for agreement with Ross-shire and I can see their finance committee being very chary about approving possible resolutions coming from the Ross-shire planning authority, even if they get through the Ross-shire planning authority.

I should like to see some compulsion put upon local authorities to make them approve of agreements with owners and occupiers. They can compel, if they so wish, agreements, or make orders, and owners and occupiers of course have a right of appeal to a public inquiry and the matter will eventually be adjudicated upon by the Secretary of State. Would it not therefore be reasonable that the same position should apply to the owner and occupier, and let the local authority go to a public inquiry, if so required, and still have a right of adjudication by the Secretary of State? I can see considerable difficulties in getting agreements through the local authorities. I know there are powers later in the Bill that the Commission should try to influence them, but I am at a loss to see how we can get these through unless there is more compulsion put on the local authority. I hope the noble Lord, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will give us some answer on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment, but I am quite certain I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Burton. We must in the first instance remember that in this clause we are considering access agreements, and I stress the word "agreements". The Amendment proposes that one party should be in a position to compel the other party to make an agreement. This, on the face of it at least, seems to be a negation of the basic concept of what an agreement is. I am quite apprised, however, of what the noble Lord wishes. He is concerned with what happens when a local authority is unwilling to make an agreement although all the circumstances would appear to indicate that it is desirable that an agreement should be made.

The answer to the question is twofold. First of all, the Countryside Commission are charged to keep under review the overall adequacy of public access to open country for open air recreation. The owner or occupier could thus ask the Commission to bring their influence to bear on the unwilling local authority. However, they may do so without the local authority ceasing to be unwilling. In those circumstances the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 14(7) to make an access order or to direct the local planning authority to make one; and I would emphasise—and I think the noble Lord has not appreciated this effect of the power—that the provisions for making orders are not designed to deal solely with unwilling owners but apply equally to unwilling planning authorities. It would therefore be open to any owner or occupier to apply to the Secretary of State to use these powers, which of course he would do only after consulting the local planning authority and the Commission. The safeguards of Clause 14(2) would naturally apply to ensure that an order was in fact necessary, and the owner's position as regards compensation would be fully safeguarded. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will accept that the compulsion which he wishes as a last resort to be able to apply to a local authority does exist in the Bill as it stands, and that the Amendment therefore is unnecessary.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I do not know whether it is fully appreciated how much it is going to cost the country as a whole if these agreements are implemented. Having tried to work out a little budget in regard to Ross-shire, I have been appalled at the expense which will be involved on even the simplest of agreements. That is one aspect. So far as the Minister's reply is concerned, we all know from reading the Bill of the number of cases and different classes where agreements are more advantageous than orders. I am therefore rather appalled to know that if a local authority does not agree it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to make an order. I think this would also affect the owner and occupier. I am most hesitant about withdrawing this Amendment. I do not know whether the Minister could satisfy me on those points before I do so.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, what the noble Lord asked for was that it should be possible to apply compulsion to an unwilling planning authority, and I have directed his attention to the fact that it is possible to apply compulsion to an unwilling planning authority with the same sort of safeguards before an order is made as there would be in the case of an unwilling private owner. There is complete equality of treatment as between the private individual and the public body, and this seems to me to be completely equitable.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I think this is of particular importance in the poorer counties, so I would ask that the Secretary of State should take into account the fact that the 25 per cent. which the local planning authority would have to find if an access order were made against it at the behest of one of the owners or occupiers concerned could in many cases mean a substantial increase in the rates. This might be a real burden on that community. Surely, if that is the case the Secretary of State would hesitate to make these orders—at least, I think he should hesitate to do so. But in many cases these will probably be just the places where these access orders are most needed.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in deciding that the rate of grant should be 75 per cent., a much more generous grant than is normally given to local authorities in these ad hoc types of grant, I know that the Secretary of State has taken into account the burden which is likely to fall on local authorities. This is really quite a bit removed from the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. After all, he is seeking to compel local authorities to do certain things, and I have pointed out that although they do not propose to compel them in the way that he asks, they can be compelled in other circumstances.

But all of these things must be taken into account. Obviously the Secretary of State would have to weigh which was the greater advantage to the community as a whole—having an access order with its resulting cost from national and local funds, or not having an access order. I do not admit that they are likely, but I cannot rule out the possibility that occasionally circumstances might occur where the cost was an important factor to be taken into account. Having said all that, I must come back to the point that there is really nothing at all wrong with the form by which compulsion should be applied to an unwilling local authority.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend's point would not be met perfectly simply by administrative action. If I understand my noble friend correctly, what he is asking is that while, if a local planning authority wants to make an access agreement, the owner is bound to enter into negotiations with that authority, if the owner wants to make an access agreement the local authority may decline to enter into negotiations with him. I should have thought that this could be overcome quite simply by a circular indicating to local authorities that they should be willing to discuss with owners any plans they might have for making an access agreement. I should have thought that this would get over the entire difficulty, which undoubtedly seems a little one-sided as it stands at present.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving the assurance that the noble Lord asks on this point. This is the sort of thing which will be done. But, with respect, it does not quite meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has raised. He is not really visualising the circumstance where an authority refuses to enter into negotiations. That may never in fact take place. An authority might enter into negotiations but then not carry them out to the logical conclusion of making an agreement. In those circumstances, if the private owner is so absolutely certain that there ought to have been an agreement, he can, if he feels so strongly about it, follow the course to which I have directed attention—that of asking the Secretary of State to make an order. The planning authority officials are just as likely as anybody else to be able to advise their people what are the chances of the Secretary of State making an order, whether this is the sort of case in which they think that the Secretary of State might make an order or might not. If they were absolutely certain that he would not make an order on such an application they might well just dig in their heels and do nothing about it. But in any circumstances where they thought there was a possibility that an order would be made there would be quite definite encouragement to them to get on with the job of trying to do it by agreement.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.27 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "area of the authority" to the end of the subsection. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment for two reasons: in the first place I wondered exactly what these words mean. The words concerned are: whereby the provisions in that behalf of this Part of this Act shall apply to the land". They do not seem to me to have the clarity that, on the whole, the rest of this Bill has. But if they mean what I think they mean, I should have thought that if we leave them out then access agreements, but not access orders, could apply to land which was excepted land within the definition of Clause 11. This would have the advantage that where the owner or occupier and the local planning authority were all agreed that it was desirable that the public should be able to go across this land in order to get, say, to a river bank or to a public beach or something like that, an access agreement could be made applying to this land as well as to the land which was non-excepted land. If the words do not mean what I think they mean, no doubt they have some other very important meaning, in which case I shall be delighted to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Duke in this matter. When I looked at this Amendment my first reaction was to write and say that I would look to see whether it were possible to leave out these words, because it is the sort of phrase where even after one has read it three or four times one still is not sure of its meaning. But it is essentially a drafting provision on which, quite frankly, I am not prepared to express a personal view. I have very strong advice that the words in lines 28 and 29 which the noble Duke proposes should be deleted are important in determining the precise relationship between the provisions of Clauses 13, 10(1)(a) and 11. I believe there is no doubt at all about the ability of either the courts or the Civil Service to know exactly what the words mean and what they should do.

However, the noble Duke was not just anxious to clarify the wording; he was hoping that by leaving them out he would achieve a particular purpose. My advice is that if they were left out the purpose for which the noble Duke hopes would still not be achieved. Therefore, all the noble Duke would do would be to make life more difficult for those who would have to operate the Bill, without getting for himself the boon which he desires. In those circumstances I hope he will consent to this rather infelicitous wording remaining part of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should have completed my remarks on this Amendment by asking the noble Lord a question. May I ask whether under the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964, local authorities can provide access for the public or make the necessary agreements with owners and occupiers of the land and thereby get over the difficulty under this Bill? During the Committee stage the noble Lord said that that Act had some relevance to the problem, but I am not sure how far local authorities can go under it. Presumably they will not get the 75 per cent. grant if they have to make the access—and it costs money to make access—under the local government Act I mentioned as they would do if they were able to do the work under this Bill.

LORD HUGHES

I thank the noble Duke for the compliment which he pays me in assuming that I have all these matters at my fingertips. I must confess that in this matter his confidence is misplaced. I have no doubt that I shall have the reply shortly, and I will come back to it, quite irrelevantly, at some future point in our discussions.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "either irrevocably or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a discussion on access agreements during the Committee stage of this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, felt that there was some room for improvement in the reference to irrevocable agreements. I agree with him that the Bill as drafted might suggest to the layman that the normal form of access agreement was an irrevocable one. We do not intend to suggest this, nor, on the other hand, do we wish to prevent an owner from making an irrevocable agreement if that is what he wants to do. The Amendment, I hope, now makes this quite clear, and I commend it to your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 36, leave out ("either irrevocably or").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should simply like to thank the noble Lord for having made this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Access orders]:

3.36 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) (a) Before making an access order 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—

1. (i) what public paths or rights of way are already available to the public over that land; and
2. (ii) the extent to which the public already have a right of access, whether by agreement or otherwise, to land adjacent to such first mentioned land,

and a statement of such facilities shall be attached to the access order when it is submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. (b) If the Secretary of State is satisfied as respects any land comprised within an access order that—

1. (i) adequate public paths or rights of way are already available to the public; or
2. (ii) that the public already have adequate rights of access, whether by agreement or otherwise, to land adjacent to such land—

he shall not confirm the access order in so far as it relates to such land.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come on to the clause relating to access orders, Clause 14. This matter was discussed in the other place on July 4 and in this House during the Committee stage on July 20. There is a difference of opinion on this matter between ourselves and the Government. 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. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, thought that it was not necessary to insert this Amendment, but my friends and I feel that it is necessary, and for three main reasons. It is right that the general public and the owners of the land through which access is to be given should know what process the local planning authority must go through before it can obtain an access order; secondly, that the onus should be on the local planning authority to prove beyond doubt that the existing facilities are not adequate; and thirdly that the taxpayer and the ratepayer should not be required to contribute towards the cost of providing access facilities which perhaps cannot be strictly justified.

The Amendment which we put forward is a re-draft of a similar Amendment which we discussed in this House on Committee stage. Its purpose is to require that a local planning authority shall be obliged to ascertain not only the extent of public paths and rights of way on the land in respect of which the order will apply, but also the extent to which the public have rights of access over adjacent land. Under this revised Amendment the scope of investigation would be wider before a decision to spend public money on the provision of access facilities was taken. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, has spoken of the possible cost to rural areas of many parts of this Bill, and I feel that this Amendment would provide a method of making sure that money was not paid out unless it was essential. We are not by this Amendment seeking to narrow the definition of "open country" but merely to ensure that where facilities are adequate an order shall not be confirmed. Therefore, it seems sensible to write this provision into the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel this Amendment to be unnecessary. Clause 14 provides that in any case there shall be no access order unless it is approved by the Secretary of State. The clause then goes on to say that the Secretary of State shall not approve an access order if there are already in force agreements which in the opinion of the authority having power to make such an order adequately secure to the public access to the open country in question for open-air recreation"; and that there shall be no access order unless it appears to the said authority impracticable to secure the making of such an agreement or agreements. Surely it is as well that it should be made clear that it will also be unnecessary to have an access order made if, apart from agreements, there are already existing rights of facilities which give sufficient opportunities of recreation to the public, and the question as to whether or not the existing rights are adequate is left by our Amendment entirely to the judgment of the Secretary of State. I think it would be helpful to him and his advisers because, as the noble Lord said in answer to an earlier Amendment, it is as well to make clear to the people who advise the Secretary of State all the considerations which should be in their minds in deciding whether or not it is necessary to have an access order.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we discussed a similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and she withdrew it after I had explained that although we agreed with its general spirit we did not consider that it was necessary. Clause 14(2)(a), as it now stands, clearly states the test which has to be satisfied—that is, whether the public already has adequate access to the open country in question for open-air recreation. Indeed, the clause, because of its lack of specification, is more comprehensive than the Amendment would be. It is important to note the words "open country" in line 9, because I am advised that they relate not only to the land in respect of which the access order is proposed to be made, but also to adjacent land which is open country, as is proposed in the Amendment. Therefore, we consider that the Amendment is still unnecessary.

Furthermore, as in the Amendment proposed previously, it appears to repeat a certain confusion between access by public paths or rights of way, and freedom to roam over open country with which this Part of the Bill is concerned. I would direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that freedom to roam over open country is not the same thing as freedom to walk along certain paths or rights of way. The freedom to go on a path or on a right of way may, and, in fact, generally does, restrict movement to that particular path or right of way.

Having said that, I must concede that I stated the matter too strongly at Committee stage when I said that …a detailed investigation of all rights of way in the area would be an unnecessary and time-consuming exercise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/7/67, col. 424.] That is as a preliminary to the making of an access order. I have looked again at what I said then, and on reflection I think that although there is no doubt that there will be circumstances in which an investigation would, in fact, be a waste of time, I must accept that there may also be circumstances where it would be useful. We are still of the view, therefore, that it would not be right to require, as the Amendment does, that it should always be undertaken.

A local planning authority will be expected to take all relevant circumstances into account before making an access order. Clause 14(2)(b) ensures that there will already have been serious attempts to make a satisfactory agreement with the owner or occupier, and the latter will have had every opportunity of advising the authority of the extent to which access is currently permitted. Indeed, it would presumably be a major part of his case in opposing the proposed order if he could prove that this access was adequate. Even then, if an owner or occupier still considers that a local planning authority has not given due consideration to the access already available to the public in the area, he can draw this omission to the notice of the Secretary of State. But I wish to say this quite definitely. Whether he does so or not, the Secretary of State will in any event require to be satisfied that there is a properly substantiated need for more access before he confirms an order. I think this goes further, and is perhaps more emphatic, than what I said to the noble Baroness in Committee stage, when she moved the previous Amendment. I hope that she will find it, if not 100 per cent. satisfactory, a reasonable basis on which to withdraw her Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will he just make it clear that what he has said applies to rights which are independent of any agreement? What may have caused us to put down this Amendment again is the fact that the clause as it is appears to deal only with the effect which existing agreements may have, whereas there may be all kinds of rights and facilities which are not part of any particular agreement.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Earl has in mind.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I was referring to paragraph (a) of subsection (2), which says that if access agreements are in force then no order will be made; and to paragraph (b), which says that where such agreements are not in force and if it appears to the authority that there is a chance of making them, still the order should not be made. We wanted to make sure that the order should not be made if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the rights existed anyhow without any agreement; and that where an agreement was not necessary, because the rights had always been there, it would not be necessary to make an order. It was purely for the purpose of clarifying the advice which the Secretary of State's officials would give him on this subject that the Amendment was put down. I think the noble Lord is doing his best to meet the point, but I wanted to make sure of this distinction between rights which are there with agreement, and rights which are there without any agreement.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying the matter, and I have no difficulty in saying that all rights of way will be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, in those circumstances my noble friend and I would both wish to thank the noble Lord, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23:

Payments on account in special circumstances

23.—(1) At any time during the period after which, under section 21 above, compensation may be claimed in respect of the coming into operation of an order, a person claiming to be entitled to such compensation may apply to the local planning authority for a payment on account of the compensation on the ground of special circumstances; and if the authority are satisfied that such circumstances exist they shall make to him a payment on account of the compensation of such amount as they may determine.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), after the first "circumstances", to insert: such circumstances shall be deemed to exist if large annual payments on account of insurance are made".

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment is to the clause covering compensation when access orders are made. Normally, compensation will be assessed after the access order has been in operation for five years, and I think this is probably as fair as one can hope for in normal circumstances. But let us suppose that the owner or occupier has to make large annual payments, particularly for insurance, in order to safeguard some young plantations which are affected by being near some ground which has been made the subject of an access order. I can assure those noble Lords who do not have to do so that insuring young plantations is an extremely costly business. At the end of five years the owner or occupier would be well out of pocket, and I should have thought it might be fairer to insert into Clause 23 that one of the special circumstances which should be considered is a large annual payment for insurance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 2, after "circumstances" insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I wonder whether it may be for the convenience of the House if the next two Amendments which stand in my name are taken at the same time, as they are in somewhat similar terms.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, they cannot be taken at the same time. I am afraid they must be taken in order. But noble Lords may speak to later Amendments with leave of the House.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for that intervention, although it proved to have been phrased in the wrong way. It was my intention to ask the permission of the House to speak to his two Amendments at the same time as speaking to the one which has been moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl.

The compensation provisions for access orders need to be looked at as a whole, and they are, of course, comprised in Clause 23 at which we are now looking, and also in the three preceding clauses. There are a number of factors which need to be taken into account in making a full assessment of the level of compensation to be paid, and these ought all to be weighed against a reasonable background of experience. That is why Clause 21 specifies a period of years. I should like to point out that this is as much in the interest of the land owner as it is in the public interest.

At the same time, however, it would clearly be unreasonable to withhold the payment of compensation altogether, where interim claims can be clearly justified to the satisfaction of both sides. That is why we have the procedure in Clause 23 which will enable interim payments to be made. Such interim payments could cover a number of things—insurance premiums are only one—and I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to pick them out for special mention. Because if you pick them out, as in the noble Duke's Amendment, who is going to say what is a large payment and what is not? I am quite certain, for instance, that some of my life insurance premiums, which I consider large, would be considered extremely modest by the noble Duke. So much depends on the individual point of view. That is why we have the procedure in this form.

With regard to the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, of course if expenses are incurred and can be specified they will qualify for consideration, so to mention this in general terms in the Bill will not help one way or the other. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that it would be far better to leave the clause as it is. It is in wide terms, and therefore not restrictive; and I confirm that insurance premiums and other expenses are fully comprehended in it. Also, in what I am sure would be the unlikely event of an owner being aggrieved at the refusal of a local planning authority to make payment on account, he can, under subsection (2), appeal to the Secretary of State, who would of course make a full and impartial scrutiny of all the circumstances. Perhaps it was not appreciated that this was not a matter where the final decision as to what was equitable rested with the local authority. I am confident that, with these explanations, the noble Duke and the noble Lord will be satisfied that the position they wish to establish exists under the Bill as it stands.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his explanation. I put this Amendment down only as a basis for discussion, and I was fairly sure when I put it down that it was defective in the way that he has mentioned. But I should just like him to confirm that it is not necessary to prove hardship to qualify for "special circumstances", if I may put it that way; that any annual outgoing will be regarded as a special circumstance, and that it will not be necessary to prove that to pay this annual outgoing causes actual hardship.

LORD HUGHES

I would so confirm.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

With that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, in view of that most satisfactory statement, for which I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 6B.

Clause 24 [Acquisition by local planning authorities of land for public access]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I indicated in Committee (this was in column 894) that the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that local planning authorities should be able to acquire land for access purposes only when it was clear that the alternatives of an access agreement or an access order would not achieve their object. The Amendment which I now move is in terms very similar to that suggested by the noble Earl, except that the wording is: "it appears to them impracticable", instead of, "it is impracticable". Any acquisition under the clause remains, of course, as with all compulsory procedures, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I think that I have put down an Amendment which meets the point made by the noble Earl, and I hope that he will be able to confirm that this is so and that your Lordships will find it acceptable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pane 22, line 24, after ("authority") insert—", if it appears to them impracticable to obtain such access by an access agreement or access order,")—(Lord Hughes.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I should again like to thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to meet us on this point, which I think he has done quite satisfactorily.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Acquisition by Secretary of State of land for public access]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would point out that the subsection to be deleted was entirely dependent on the subsection in Clause 24, which was deleted in Committee by an Amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, which I was then able to accept. This Amendment therefore proposes that this now unnecessary subsection be deleted also. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Hughes.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the trouble he has taken. If all Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries took so much trouble for the Opposition, life would be very much easier. I thank the noble Lord very much.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.56 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out Clause 25. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I put down an identical Amendment to this one on the Committee stage, but owing to the lack of time, and the fact that I do not think it is of any great importance, I did not move it then. But I told the noble Lord that I should be moving it at Report stage, as I would have hated him to waste his no doubt beautifully prepared reply. I should like to know exactly when the Government visualise that the Secretary of State may need these powers, as local planning authorities have them under the previous clause. Are they purely reserve powers, in case a local planning authority will not acquire land which the Countryside Commission and the Secretary of State consider it should, or might the Secretary of State compete with a local planning authority to acquire land before the local planning authority can do so? I do not imagine it is the latter case; and if it were I think it would be very unsatisfactory. But perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 25.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

I should hate to deprive the noble Duke of the knowledge which is in the brief that was prepared on the last occasion, which has been, I am afraid, re-written, with minor amendments, for this occasion; so if he will be content with what I have for the Report stage I will abandon what I had for the Committee stage. I share what I am certain is also the view of other noble Lords, that this clause, as has so far been the case with its equivalent in England, will not be used. But that is as far as I can go. It would be wrong, in framing legislation which we do not expect to alter to any great extent for many years, to ignore the possibility that such a power might in some circumstances be required.

We hope and expect that local planning authorities will take any action necessary to secure adequate facilities for public access. We could, however, be disappointed in this expectation, and it might then be appropriate for the Secretary of State to acquire the land required and arrange for its administration. This is an eventuality for which we must be prepared, and that is why the clause is in the Bill. The deletion of subsection (2), to which your Lordships have just agreed, will restrict its application from that originally envisaged, and with that in mind, together with the assurances I have just given, I hope the noble Duke will be satisfied that his thirst for knowledge has been quenched, and that the Amendment will be extinguished.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for that reply, which I find quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [Maps of land subject to public access]:

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), after the second "map," to insert: "and of the notices referred to in paragraph (b) below". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I would wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which hang together. We believe that it is in the interest of everyone for details of access land and any restrictions applying to it to be as widely publicised as possible. This Amendment and the related Amendments, Nos. 10 and 11, seek to give effect to the undertaking which I gave to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, in Committee. I think these Amendments fully meet the points he then made. They will enable local planning authorities to display maps and notices specifying restrictions at places such as, for example, youth hostels as well as at places where the public obtain access to the land.

I wonder whether this could be regarded as not too inappropriate a place to refer to the noble Duke's query on the 1964 Development and Finance Act, as I have now been able to find out what the position is. Section 2 of that Act enables local authorities to provide footpaths on land, with the consent of the owners, where the local authorities do not themselves own the land. In such a case, the powers include the safeguarding of public access for the future. This, however, falls a long way short of the kind of access which will be provided under Clause 13. This will cover, in the main, tracts of open country and not footpaths. The public paths provision of Part III of the Bill provides a much more detailed range of powers for the provision in the countryside of footpaths.

Again, Clause 52 of the Bill extends the 1964 Act powers explicitly to enable members of the public to enjoy the countryside or engage in open air recreation there. In 1964 the powers were confined for the purpose of (a) preserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the land; or (b) enabling land to be brought into use. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will accept that our present proposals go far beyond the rather limited concepts of the 1964 Act in this particular field. To return to the Amendment, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 18, after ("map") insert ("and of the notices referred to in paragraph (b) below").—(Lord Hughes.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord not only for Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which I think fully meet the point I tried to bring out in Committee, but also for his answer to my question on a previous Amendment which I also find very satisfactory. The only thing I do not think he answered on that matter—and I will not ask him to do so now—is: what is the rate of grant under the Local Government Act, and is the rate of grant under the Local Government Act superseded by the rate of grant under this Bill in Clause 52? I realise that these are rather technical points and I do not wish to make an issue of them. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his answer to my remarks on the previous Amendment and also for these three Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 20, leave out ("may, if they think fit,") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 21, leave out ("places") and insert ("such places as they think fit, including places".—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Boundary notices]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, Clause 28 gives the local planning authority power to erect and maintain notices indicating boundaries of land comprised in an access agreement or an access order. I am suggesting that they should not only have power to erect and maintain notices but also be allowed to erect and maintain other marks which would have the same effect, such as cairns. I think we are in danger of becoming ruled by notices. On occasions I feel that it might not be necessary to put up large and ugly notices to indicate the boundaries of land covered by an access agreement and that it might be better to put up cairns or white stones or something like that. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment and with it Amendment 11 B, which is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 33, after ("notices") to insert ("or other means of ").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment. I have in mind an area where the boundaries are marked by stones with appropriate marks on them, in this case an initial on one side referring to one estate and on the other side referring to another. These are quite immovable; they are very heavy and embedded in the ground. They have been there for a long time and are very useful. As to notices, it is possible to move them or push them down, and it is also possible for them to be turned round so that they face the opposite direction. A number of vandalistic activities are engaged in from time to time by the young; and I have recently seen an example of this in our village where the young thought it rather a joke to turn round a large, new signpost so that it faced the opposite direction—which was rather a disaster for everybody. I think it a good idea to use other means such as stones or cairns of any type which are immovable objects and which will fix the boundaries. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I appreciate that boundaries may be readily and more inexpensively defined by means of notices at a few points and suitable distinguishing marks in other places. Therefore, I am very happy to accept the noble Duke's Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, while the noble Lord accepts this Amendment—and I am glad that he does so—I hope that it will not weaken the meaning of notices indicating boundaries of land. For example, as you enter into the Glen Feshie forest there is a very good notice actually indicating the boundaries of land on a map for that purpose. It is one thing to do that; it is another thing to have direction posts. That seems to me to be a different matter.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am satisfied that I should not have been able to extract from my advisers the necessary authority to accept the Amendment if they had the slightest doubts about it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows that it is always much easier for the office to find reasons for rejecting Amendments than reasons for accepting them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Power of local planning authority to contribute to work carried out by other persons]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, before moving Amendment No. 11B, perhaps I should point out that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List and that, in fact, this Amendment applies to Clause 29. Amendment No. 11B is purely consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 41, after ("notices") to insert ("or other means of indicating boundaries").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30:

Creation of public paths by agreement

30.—

(3) In this Part of this Act "public path" means a way which is a footpath or bridleway or a combination of those.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to subsection (3): and, for the purposes of sections 54, 55 and 64 of this Act, includes any such way existing at the commencement of this Act.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a rather more important Amendment. Under Clause 30, public paths are created by agreement. My Amendment to that clause would mean that the public paths which are created by agreement and the public paths and footpaths and rights-of-way which already exist would be subject to the by-law provisions and the warden provisions contained in Clauses 54, 55 and 64 of this Bill. I think this is desirable because I can see that there are going to be difficulties where there is a public footpath going across land which is subject to access agreements and where that land is subject to these by-laws and wardens, yet the public path, because it was an existing right-of-way when the Bill came into force, would not be subject to these provisions.

I should have thought, therefore, that it would have been tidier to give the local planning authority power to make these existing rights of way subject to these provisions in certain circumstances. I can fully understand the reluctance of the noble Lord to make it compulsory when this is a Bill designed to give people more access to the countryside. Obviously, there are many rights-of-way where the present set-up has worked extremely well in the past (and there is no reason why it should not work equally well in the future), to which no by-laws apply, and for which there are no wardens. But, my Lords, I should have thought that difficulties could arise where an existing right-of-way crosses land subject to an access agreement, or is very much connected to it by public paths created by this Bill.

For instance, what would happen if someone threw litter on a public right of way? If they did this on land subject to an access agreement, they would be transgressing against the by-laws. But so far as I can make out, if they threw litter on a public right of way, even though it might actually fall on land subject to the access agreement, they would not be committing any particular offence because they would be throwing their litter on a private place; and that, I believe, is not covered by the Litter Act. I feel that this is undesirable and could make the job of the wardens extremely difficult, because they would not be able to tell people how to behave on a public footpath. They probably would do so, but legally they would not be able to tell people how to behave on a public footpath. Yet the moment anyone stepped off a public path on to land which was not part of a public path, I imagine that the wardens would be able to give a little fatherly advice to misbehaving members of the public. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord may see his way to accept the Amendment. I feel that it would be a useful addition to the Bill, and it is an Amendment which does not go very far against his thesis that the object of the Bill is to give the public more and not less access to the countryside. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 15, at end insert ("and, for the purposes of sections 54, 55 and 64 of this Act, includes any such way existing at the commencement of this Act.").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

4.13 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, as I said when this Amendment was discussed in Committee, throughout the preparation of this Bill the Government have been anxious not to weaken or in any way to prejudice the current provisions governing rights of way and the manner in which the public has traditionally been able to enjoy them. I cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, which would enable by-laws to be made and wardens to be appointed in relation to existing rights of way which have functioned for many years without such provisions. In any case, we do not envisage such controls being widely needed on public paths as distinct from areas of access land. If circumstances should arise (I think this will meet the point made by the noble Duke) where it is felt that some form of by-law or warden control is desirable over an existing right of way, I think that in all probability it would involve a way of leading to an area of access land. The local planning authority concerned could, in that event, transform the right of way into a public path—by agreement, I hope—and they would then be in a position to promote the by-laws required. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that the noble Duke will not seek to press his Amendment which would confer wide power over existing rights of way to deal with what, so far as I am aware, is almost certainly a very restricted problem.

In referring to what I said about the 1964 Act, the noble Duke said that he would not ask me a question about particular points which he enumerated, and therefore I did not undertake to give him an answer. I have, however, been apprised of the information, and it is so satisfactory from the Government's point of view that I am very anxious to share it with the noble Duke and with the rest of your Lordships. It is that, as happened with the previous Administration, there was no grant payable under the 1964 Act, apart—and, of course, this is a quite big "apart"—from the normal ranking of expenditure for rate support grant. Under the present Bill, however, Clause 67(1)(c) extends the payment of the 75 per cent. grants payable under the Bill to expenditure incurred in exercise of Section 2 powers of the 1964 Act as extended by the Bill. So noble Lords who were concerned about the parlous position of certain local authorities in these matters will note how very generous are the Government.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his last answer, which I agree is very satisfactory, not only from the point of view of the Government but, I feel sure, from the point of view of everyone. Reverting to the first part of his answer, I do not think that the noble Lord quite covered the point. I am not sure whether it will arise (although I imagine that it may) that because people are wandering off a right of way, which is quite likely to happen, it is decided to make an access agreement on land round about the right of way. Will the right of way be subject to the by-laws and wardens which, presumably, the owner and occupier might insist on with that access agreement? I do not visualise any difficulties arising where existing rights of way do not have around them land subject to an access agreement or order. The only place where it is visualised that this might arise is where an existing right of way goes through land subject to an access agreement or order, or where paths made under Clause 30 of the Bill tag on to either end of an existing right of way. I do not know. Has the noble Lord got his answer yet?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I gave it to the noble Duke, but the thought occurred to me that it seemed such an unsatisfactory position that you could have an access area and a right of way running through it, and I was seeking to clarify my own mind on the situation. The advice I have is that what the noble Duke has postulated is such an unlikely situation that it would not be covered. An agreement would not be drawn up in such a way as to cover the whole thing. I think, therefore, that the noble Duke should be able to sleep at night and that this should not keep him awake.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this point to any great extent, but I do not think that it is all that unlikely. Many of the existing rights of way run through beautiful countryside, just the sort of countryside, I should have thought, to which the Countryside Commission for Scotland, local planning authorities and owners might consider that access agreements are appropriate. I should have thought that where you have an area as big as, say, the Cairngorms which is subject to an access agreement, there are probably existing rights of way running through it, and this might raise a very real difficulty. I am still rather worried about this one point. I am not at all worried about where existing rights of way are left entirely on their own. I can see that if it has worked all right for a long time without wardens and by-laws, there is no reason why that situation should not continue; but I think it would create a great anomally if, where existing rights of way run through areas subject to by-laws and wardens, the by-laws and wardens should not apply just to the particular area covered by the right of way.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I hope that when in due course the noble Duke reads what I have said, he will derive as much satisfaction from it as I intended to convey to him. I do not think that he is giving my words the value which, naturally, I attach to them.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I always give his words immense value. I do not wish to press this Amendment, though obviously we have no further chance of looking at it, which I think is a pity. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37:

Compensation for Creation, Diversion and Closure of Public Paths

37.—

(4) Nothing in this section shall confer on any person, in respect of a right of way created by a public path creation order or a public path diversion order, a right to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, or for disturbance in his enjoyment of land, not being in either case land over which the right of way was created or land held therewith, unless the creation of the right of way would have been actionable at his instance if it had been effected otherwise than in the exercise of statutory powers.

4.20 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Duke said: My Lords, we had a lengthy discussion about this subsection in Committee. When someone has a footpath diverted, under Clause 35, or has a new footpath made, under Clause 30, neighbouring owners may be affected. For instance, a footpath may be created alongside a hedge or fence, and if the person over the fence has a young plantation, it may be exposed to greater fire risk, particularly if heretofore it has been difficult for people to get along that way—because perhaps of a prickly hedge at one end of it, which is now cut down sufficiently to make a stile, or because there is a large burn not all that easy to cross which now has a bridge made across it.

I would have thought it only fair that the person next door to a footpath, though he does not actually own the land over which the footpath goes, should be entitled to some compensation. I fully recognise that there are difficulties, because it probably alters the whole law of compensation, which is outside the scope of this Bill. But it seems to me that people who own next-door land could be even more affected, depending on the use to which they put the land, than the person who actually owns the land over which the diverted footpath or new footpath goes.

I also wonder how the possible changes, which are envisaged owing to the Halliday Committee's Report on feuing law, apply to this question. The houses on many housing estates are subject to feus, one of the conditions of which is not to allow a public footpath to go through the land subject to feu. If the law is altered so that these feuing conditions no longer apply, it seems to me that all the people on the housing estate might have grounds for complaint, and therefore, presumably, for compensation, if a footpath were allowed to cross their estate contrary to what the feu charters originally said when they bought their houses and the land on which they were built. I fully realise that this point has not yet arisen, but I should like to plant the seeds of thought about it in the minds of the Government before they enact legislation to alter the feu laws in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, as the noble Duke has said, we had some discussion on this matter in Committee. I have given further consideration to the points raised by the noble Duke, but I am sorry that I still cannot accept his Amendment. The subsection limits the right of compensation to persons interested in the land over which the path runs or land in the same ownership. The noble Duke said that his Amendment possibly re-writes the whole law of compensation. That is rather over-stating the position, but certainly if we were to agree to this it would run completely contrary to the established practice in matters of this kind; and it would be quite wrong to do so. The owners of adjoining land will not be entitled to compensation unless they would have been entitled to take legal action to prevent or challenge a voluntary agreement to the creation of the path by the owner of the land over which it runs—for example, if they have enjoyed the benefit of a restrictive covenant against such an agreement. As this provision differs in no way at all from the normal form in such circumstances, I am certain that the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I still think that the normal form is grossly unfair, but I suspect that the whole of this side of compensation ought to be looked at. I recognise that to do it in this Bill, though it would be a good start, would probably make this Bill out of line with all the other Acts under which people can claim compensation. My real object in moving this Amendment is to sow the seeds of doubt in the Government's mind. I hope that they will look at the whole of our law of compensation so that not only the person over whose land a footpath—or for that matter any other form of activity of this sort—goes, but also those who suffer from it through disturbance or some other reason may be entitled to compensation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39:

General provisions as to long-distance routes

39.—

(4) Before submitting a report under this section the Commission shall consult with every local planning authority through whose area the route passes; and it shall be the duty of every such authority to furnish to the Commission such information as the Commission may reasonably require for the purposes of the report.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 16 together, the last three being consequential. When we were discussing this clause in Committee, it was suggested by the noble Duke that the terms of subsection (2) as drafted might not be wide enough to comprehend all the matters relating to long distance routes which the Commission might properly wish to include in proposals. The use of the words, "without prejudice to the generality" overcomes this difficulty. We are also taking the opportunity to improve the drafting of subsection (5) by cutting out seven lines without altering the meaning. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 37, at end insert ("for the provision, maintenance and enjoyment of the route, and without prejudice to that generality—").— (Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I welcome this Amendment. I think that it makes a definite improvement.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for these Amendments. They cover the points which I tried to cover much less well on Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: moved, in subsection (4), after "with" to insert: the owners and occupiers of the land through which the route passes and with".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move an Amendment to a clause which deals with long-distance routes rather than with the paths and short accesses we have been discussing. An Amendment was moved in another place to provide for prior consultation with owners and occupiers, and the Minister undertook to look further at this matter. So far as I can see however, no action has been taken. It would seem desirable that in the exercise of the Commission's general functions under this Part of the Bill there should be express provision for consultation between the Commission and the owners and occupiers of the land through which these long-distance routes are to pass.

When the Amendment was moved in the Committee stage here and we discussed this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that there would be consultation if particular difficulties appeared to exist, and that under Clauses 30 and 31, when the time comes to put the proposals into practice, owners and occupiers would be consulted. That is all very well, but it is possible that the consultation with regard to obtaining agreement and similar conditions for long-distance routes under Clause 39 might be a fairly long business.

Clause 31, as we know, deals with the compulsory powers for the creation of public paths, but it does not directly relate to the question of long-distance routes, which we are discussing at the moment. On the assumption that compulsory powers are available in relation to long-distance routes, consultation at a very early stage would, I think, be most important. If it were left too late, and it was then necessary to take some compulsory action, the consultation on this particular subject would also probably be too late, since it would most likely be a matter of consulting a considerable number of different authorities—not necessarily all private owners, but all the authorities along which these long-distance routes will run. I am thinking, for instance, of the Forestry Commission, where no doubt a great deal of discussion would take place, and where there might be great delay, and the matter of using compulsory powers would be strongly resisted. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider this Amendment that we have put down in order to see whether these troubles can be forestalled. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 7, after ("with") insert the said words.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I must confess to some surprise at seeing this Amendment appear again. I thought that my explanation in Committee, at columns 909–910 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 26, had satisfied the noble Baroness. It appears to have satisfied the noble Duke, who withdrew the Amendment on her behalf. I hope that I am not getting into trouble by drawing attention to the fact that the noble Duke may have exceeded the powers of the agency conferred upon him at that time. I gave quotations in Committee from what my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place, and the noble Baroness has made it quite clear that she has read what I said on that occasion. Therefore I will not weary her or the House by repeating what I said then. That being so, there is really nothing more I can add to what I said at the previous stage, except to say that Her Majesty's Government stand fully by the assurances which were then given. I hope that the noble Baroness will once again, but directly this time, and not by an agent, find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I hope that what the noble Lord has said will be right. I was only afraid that, in circumstances which I can visualise, of long protracted arrangements, it might be difficult. However, if he thinks he is sufficiently well equipped to meet the situation, I will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. It is not absolutely clear whether, in accordance with the procedure that he indicated in column 909, the owners will have an opportunity of proposing an amendment to the line of route. According to what the noble Lord said they will be consulted. He said: I accept that consultation with landowners at this stage should take place if particular difficulties appear to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/67, col. 909.] How will they know that particular difficulties exist unless they are consulted? It seems important that landowners should have an opportunity at some period to propose changes to the line of the route before it is definitely fixed.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think the assurances which I gave, that the consultations will take place with the owners, would not be of much avail if they did not cover a point of this kind. It is intended that the consultation at the appropriate opportunity should be the fullest possible consultation, and it would not be so if a restriction of the kind which the noble Lord wishes to prevent were likely.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am obliged for that assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 14, after ("outlay") insert ("and annual expenditure").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 14, after ("incurred") insert ("by any authority").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.

Amendment moved— Page 34, leave out lines 16 to 22.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40:

Approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route

40.—

(2) As soon as may be after the Secretary of State determines under the last foregoing subsection either to approve any proposals, with or without modifications or conditions, or to reject them, he shall notify his determination to the Commission and to every local planning authority whose area is traversed by the route to which…the report relates.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and". The noble Duke said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 16A and 16B at the same time. Clause 40 deals with the mechanics of making a long-distance route, and the Secretary of State has the power either to approve, with or without alterations, the proposals, or to reject them. Under subsection (2), as soon as he has made up his mind he has to notify the Countryside Commission and every local planning authority through whose area the proposed route is going to pass. This, I think, will be perfectly adequate if he approves the route, with or without alterations, because presumably in that case the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities will then start telling the owners concerned that he has approved it, and arrange for them to make the route available.

I am worried, however, as to what happens when the Secretary of State rejects the proposed long-distance route. Rumours will have gone around, because of the inquiries which have been going on under the previous subsection, that a long-distance route is in the offing. There will be no means of scotching those rumours, except by time, when nothing will have happened, and it may have an effect—I agree it may be a small effect—on the price of property over which, according to the rumour, the long-distance route was likely to go. I should have thought that in these cases it should be the duty of the Secretary of State not only to tell the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities but in some way also to publish his decision that he has rejected the proposal for the long-distance route.

I have suggested that the Secretary of State should put an advertisement to that effect in newspapers which circulate in the areas concerned. It probably would not even be necessary for him to put in an advertisement: probably if he rang up and told the editor he would be delighted to publish that the long-distance route which had been rumoured was not going to take place. However, I think it is difficult to move in that way, and I feel that the Secretary of State should put in an advertisement to publish the fact that the long-distance route was not going to take place. If the Commission and the local planning authorities who have suggested the route are the only ones told that it has been rejected, the danger is that they are unlikely to publish it abroad, because it will be a blow to their morale that what they had suggested has been turned down by the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, I think it would be a good idea that some provision should be made in this clause for publication of the fact that the mooted long-distance route has not been approved and will not be made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 42, leave out ("and").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am somewhat surprised at the line which the noble Duke has taken. I had not contemplated for one moment that he would find the procedure perfectly satisfactory where the Secretary of State approved a long-distance route but would be worried about the consequence of what would happen if he did not approve. I must admit that the problem to which he has directed attention is quite a different one. Nevertheless, although I am admitting it is a different one from the one I was briefed to answer, it does not alter the situation, because the position is that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to make such advertisement of his decision. The Countryside Commission are the body who have made the proposals, and it is their responsibility, and I have no doubt at all we could rely on them to see that the Secretary of State's approval or disapproval of them gets all the publicity it needs.

It has, perhaps, not escaped notice that these bodies which are created are not entirely divorced from the sort of feelings that other organisations or individuals may have, and when they get a decision which they do not think is the one they ought to have got they are just as likely to draw attention to it in the hope that the resulting publicity will get the Secretary of State to change his mind. In the circumstances, I think the noble Duke's fear that an approval will be published abroad but a refusal will be suppressed will prove to be groundless. I am sure that administratively we can make certain his fears are groundless.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 [Ploughing of public rights of way]:

4.42 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (2A) Where a public right of way is ploughed in exercise of the said right the occupier of the land shall leave sufficient headland round the land so ploughed to enable users of the right of way to walk conveniently from the usual point of access to such land to the usual point of egress from such land.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 16(C), and at the same time I should like to discuss No. 16(D) which is purely the penalty for transgressing No. 16(C). Clause 43 gives an occupier the right to plough over public paths when it is in the interests of good husbandry. This provision is probably a reasonable and a fair one, but I can see its leading to difficulties in certain circumstances. These are when a public path cuts across a field and a farmer, in the course of his farming activities, decides to plough that field and does not leave any headlands at all. There is then no means for people who wish to use the public path to get from one side of the field to the other without walking across the land which has been ploughed, which is both bad for the crops and remarkably uncomfortable to do normally, unless it has been a much drier year than we have had so far this autumn. It makes one's feet remarkably wet and dirty.

I should have thought, therefore, that it was only fair to put in this clause a provision that the farmer, when he ploughs a public path—and that seems to me to be quite a valuable right—as a quid pro quo should be made to leave a headland around the field, so that people who wish to go on using the public path may walk round the field in comfort, without getting their feet dirty and wet. This headland would obviously remain until the field was back once again into grass or stubble and the path across the middle of the field could be used as before. I think this problem will not arise very often, but where it does it may be quite longstanding, because the field may easily be ploughed up in October or November and then sown, for instance, with winter wheat, which would not be harvested until probably the following August or September. So the public footpath could be out of action, at the extreme, for eleven months, even if it were reinstated as soon as may be. I agree it is more likely that it would be out of use for nine months, but even that seems to be quite a long time. I think it is only fair that the sort of provision I have suggested in Amendment 16(C) should be in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I should like to speak in support of this Amendment, if only because I believe that earlier in the debate the noble Duke mentioned the possibility of what we do in this Bill applying to England. Only a month ago I went for a walk in the neighbourhood of Cambridge, and going up a well-defined signposted right of way I came upon a field ploughed from hedge to hedge. It was heavy Cambridge clay, pretty well impassable. That was the utmost extent of my walk; I had to turn back. It occurred to me at that moment that this was a most imprudent arrangement from the agriculturist's point of view. It seems to me inevitable that when it was drier people walking or riding would be entitled to go across the crop and spoil it, and it would be in everybody's interest if a provision of this sort were embodied in the Bill, so that it would be clear beyond peradventure that walkers and hikers should avoid a crop and at the same time to be able to do so without being denied the right (which of course they have) to go from one point to another across a field. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords I admit it was a personal disappointment to me to find I could not accept this Amendment, which seemed to reflect such an eminently common-sense point of view—that the person temporarily deprived of part of his way should be provided with a satisfactory alternative in the manner which the noble Duke has suggested. I am advised, however, that simply because of the processes of consultation it would be impossible to accept it. All these matters which affect the farming interests have been gone into exceedingly carefully with the National Farmers' Union and other interests of the kind, and we have been grateful for the spirit in which all of those organisations entered into the matter, seeking to be helpful rather than otherwise. Sometimes there were quite fundamental disagreements, but at no time were the organisations obstructive.

The clause as drafted was intended to make as little interference as possible with farming operations and, at the same time, to cause the least possible inconvenience to the public. It was because of the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, experienced that we have the requirement in the Bill placing a clear obligation on the farmer to restore the right of way as quickly as possible. Your Lordships will recollect that at an earlier stage the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, I believe, sought to have this made more clearly defined. We did not wish to define it more clearly because we felt that a definition of that sort could be achieved only at the expense, perhaps, of creating hardship for the farmer.

This is so obviously a matter which would appear to be to the advantage of the user of the right of way that, as I say, I was very anxious to try to accept the Amendment. But because of these conditions, and because of these conditions alone—that time did not permit consultation—rather than overthrow what was already in the Bill as a result of agreements, I cannot accept the Amendment. However, there is one consolation in not accepting it. There is some advantage to the user of the path in maintaining the present position. The position as at present laid down in the Bill is that there is a quite definite obligation on the farmer to restore the right of way at the earliest possible opportunity. We have a fear that the one disadvantage of the noble Duke's proposal is that, if a headland of this kind were created, it would remove in a sense the urgency of the farmer's restoring the right of way; and, over a period of years, the right of way might turn out to be not the direct route it was hitherto but the headland. I am most grateful to the noble Duke, for this Amendment shows quite clearly how anxious he is to make the situation as workable as possible in the interests of the users of the right of way; and it is with very real regret that I come to the conclusion that the position ought to remain as it is in the Bill.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask one question? Is it right, for instance, if there is no headland left, for people to walk across, or to ride across in the case of pony trekking? Will they be permitted to ride straight over the crops which have been sown or walk straight over them, or will that be forbidden? What will be the position of sown land, say in July, shortly before the crops are harvested? Will people be able to walk through them, or will horses be allowed to ride across them?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think that if we referred to what was said at Committee stage by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, we should find that he referred to the practice which he had experienced South of the Border where the sort of thing which the noble Duke wished to have written into the Bill is in fact done by agreement. It is very much in the interests of the farmer that when he ploughs up the right of way he should in fact provide an alternative route, not because the Act compels him to, but in his own interests. He should provide a way round which will limit or cut out damage to the crop which he has sown. We very much hope that in these circumstances attempts will be made—I am certain they will be—to get agreements of this kind brought about. The proposal is so eminently sensible that it ought to be carried out. Relationships between Governments and farmers are at any time a delicate matter, and I would not wish in any way to imperil our satisfactory relations with them (if that is the correct term) by abandoning this agreement at this late stage.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if I may, with the permission of the House, speak again may I point out to the noble Lord, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, that either the right of way is going to be severed at this point or the public are going to cross. If there is no way round the headland, then if they circle the field it will do more damage to the crop than if they went across. As the noble Duke pointed out, the position can continue for an entire summer, especially if a field is put down in roots and closed off, unless in the interests of the farmer, as well as of the public, some alternative provision is made whereby damage to the crop can be avoided.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it is clearly in the farmer's interest that he should make his own arrangements for an alternative route. The fact that he ploughs up a right of way does not extinguish the right of way, and if he does not make some temporary alternative to the right of way the public cannot be stopped from exercising their right to walk over the right of way, no matter what damage that may do the farmer's ploughing or crops. While it is obviously in the farmer's interest to do this kind of thing, the Farmers' Union, after they have been consulted about these matters, do not like—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable point of view—a change to be made in them without further consultation taking place.

As I became aware of these most interesting proposals of the noble Duke only about a week ago, and we had first to examine the practicality of the propositions, there has been no time to effect the fairly lengthy consultations that would have been involved. I think I made it very clear that it is with the greatest reluctance that I have to advise the withdrawal of this Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I realise his disappointment that he cannot accept the Amendment. But I raised this point on the Committee stage. I admit that I sent in the actual Amendment only a week ago: I had some difficulty in composing something which was suitable. But I mentioned this point on the Committee stage, and I should have thought that two and a half months would have been sufficient time to enable the Government's advisers to consult with the National Farmers' Union. It seems to me, as the noble Lord said, a reasonable proposition. There would be great advantages in leaving it in, and I suggest that he might allow us to leave it in now. The other place could then knock it out if they so desired, and thereby incur the odium of everyone who has to walk through a ploughed field during the course of his meanderings over public footpaths, rather than go round by a headland.

I would also point out that it is perfectly conceivable, with the barley monoculture practised in certain parts of Scotland, that a footpath that went across one of these fields could be out of action for five or six summers running; and I think that this is a point to which some consideration ought to be paid. People will begin to wonder whether these paths mean anything when they can cross fields of this sort. I should have thought it would have been well worth while considering good relations with the public in dealing with this clause. I should like the noble Lord to comment on my suggestion, that we leave this in the Bill, and to say whether he does not think it possible that another place might consider it, and if they did not like it they could always knock it out.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the course which the noble Duke suggests is fraught with peril. Time is not on our side, and if we followed this course inevitably it would take a day longer, at least, to deal with the proposals. So far, if I recollect correctly, the only Amendments which have been made to the Bill are Amendments which are acceptable. It is so long since we had the Committee stage that I cannot be absolutely certain, but I do not think that anything was put in which was not acceptable to the Government. If we can continue this process, and another place to-morrow is able to be presented with a series of Amendments all of which are acceptable to them, that will be a fairly simple course of action. But if they are presented with a series of Amendments, some of which they will accept and some of which they will reject, then we shall have to find time for further consideration of the Bill here, and I do not think that this would be a wise course to accept. While I can appreciate the noble Duke's regret that so promising a child should be cut off at an early stage, I think his pride of paternity must rest on having fathered the child and he must accept his inability to rear it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I am not prepared to withdraw this Amendment, because I feel that it is a reasonable one; and to withdraw it would not convey my views at all, or those of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. Of course we shall not insist on it in any way because I realise the difficulties in which the noble Lord is placed although I am not entirely sure that it would take a day longer in another place. I imagine that they could consider it equally easily to-morrow, and it could then come back to your Lordships' House on Thursday, and presumably the Royal Assent will not be given until Friday. I feel that I would rather have the Amendment negatived than withdraw it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 48:

Country Parks

48.—(1) A country park is a park or pleasure ground in the countryside which by reason of its position in relation to major concentrations of population affords convenient opportunities to the public for enjoyment of the countryside or open-air recreation.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "position", and to substitute: affords convenient opportunities to members of the public for major concentrations of population for the enjoyment of the countryside or open-air recreation.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I seem to be talking a great deal. We had a discussion at Committee stage on the point referred to in this Amendment, and on the use of the words "in relation to" when referring to country parks—"in relation to major concentrations of population".

At the Committee stage I said the danger was that Glasgow might easily consider that a country park near Nairn was within its orbit since one could easily fly there in approximately half an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, took me up on that point and said: I just wanted to make it quite clear that we had not visualised the possibility that local authorities would be providing many country parks for the particular convenience of those who could afford to buy an aeroplane."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/7/67, col. 922.] The thought struck me then that forty years ago the equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would have said exactly the same thing, only substituting the word "motor car" for the word "aeroplane". I understand that this Bill is to last for a long time, and I think it perfectly possible that in twenty years' time many citizens of Glasgow will be in a position either to buy or to hire aeroplanes, and it might be reasonable for a country park to be near Nairn and to be financed and run by Glasgow Corporation.

On the whole, I feel that this wording is undesirable. I think that the words "position in relation to" ought to be qualified in some way, so that the cities cannot make country parks all over the country, which is what it would amount to. Therefore I have tried once again to compose something which might please the noble Lord and which at the same time gets away from the difficulty of the words "position in relation to". My drafting is probably most unsatisfactory: nearly everything one attempts in this way is unsatisfactory, but it does not mention the expressions, "position in relation to" or "proximity", one of which I object to and one of which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary objects to. I hope the noble Lord will consider this, because it is a small problem which could cause difficulties in the future, although perhaps not for 20 or 30 years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 24, leave out from ("position") to end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, having listened to what the noble Duke has said, I am quite satisfied that there is no difference in principle between us on this matter. I was interested in what he said about the aeroplane, because when I was discussing this Amendment again with my advisers this morning I said then that if in fact we had been doing this 40 years ago we should probably have been thinking in terms of the distance that could be covered by a horse and cart; and who knows what the future will have in store? However, when I said earlier, in relation to another Amendment, that in preparing this Bill we were passing legislation which we hoped would not be amended for some time, I did not necessarily wish to convey the impression that we are so convinced of the perfection of everything in it that it will stand the test of time for another 40 years. I hope that there will be fresh legislation before then, because I am certain that new needs will emerge which will not be covered by these proposals.

The noble Duke's previous attempt to deal with this matter was unnecessarily restrictive in relation to the geography of the country parks. I have said that I did not think there was much in principle between us, and we are still satisfied that the wording as it stands is the best way of reflecting what I think both he and I have in mind. In any event, even if I were disposed to accept his Amendment, from the legal point of view it suffers from a defect which would be somewhat disastrous, because it would appear, at any rate, to imply that entry to a park would be restricted to members of the public from major concentrations of population. How is anyone in a position to control entry on the basis that one person is coming from a major centre of population and another person is not? That would almost imply, if I may be jocular for a moment, the imposition of some sort of passport or visa guaranteeing entry to such a park if one came from Glasgow but denying one entry if one came from Freuchie.

I am quite certain that the noble Duke accepts that this is impossible, and while it is the intention that these parks should be provided by these authorities primarily for their own people, there is no way of ensuring that an Edinburgh man does not in fact go into a park for which the Glasgow ratepayers pay, any more than one could keep Glasgow people out of Edinburgh's parks at the present time; and I do not think the noble Duke would want us to attempt such an impossible task. I compliment the noble Duke on his ingenuity and regret that it has not achieved better results in persuading us that it is the correct thing to do.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I am disappointed, although hardly surprised, by that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 [Camping and caravan sites]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (4), after "site" where that word occurs the third time, to insert "is becoming a health hazard and". The noble Duke said: Under this subsection a local authority have the power to acquire land compulsorily where it appears to them that a camping site, or an additional camping site, is needed in their area, or that land which is in use as a camping site should in the interests of the general public be taken over by the local authority. I do not object to the fact that they have this power to acquire land compulsorily for a camping site in their area; I can visualise cases where this power might be extremely useful, and I think it is probably a good thing that it should be in the Bill. What I object to is that they have power to acquire a perfectly good camping site in their area on any grounds they like to put forward. Of course, I imagine that they will have to get the permission of the Secretary of State to do so, and this probably limits them to some extent.

But local authorities occasionally do strange things, and if a camping site is being run rather unsuccessfully by someone on the local authority who carries a lot of weight in that rather small authority, it is perfectly possible that that person might persuade the authority that it would be a good idea to acquire a camping site being run very well by someone else, and probably charging less, in order to do away with competition to his site. This could also happen where the local authority were running a camping site themselves. Admittedly, the fact that they have to get the approval of the Secretary of State will make it slightly more difficult, but I do not see how the Secretary of State can be expected to know the local circumstances that apply. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be desirable to put in the reasons for their being able to acquire perfectly good camping sites compulsorily. I should have thought that the only reason for doing so was because the site was becoming a health hazard to other citizens. I have suggested that after the word "site", we might add "is becoming a health hazard and". It seems to me that that would cover all cases that are likely to arise, that it would get away from the difficulty that there might be local competition for a site run by the local authority or a powerful person on the local authority, and would cover any foreseeable occurrence where it really would be desirable in the interests of all concerned that the camping site should be acquired by the local authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 25, after ("site") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

5.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I do not want to intervene unnecessarily in a Bill which has not been in my province hitherto, but the question of compulsory purchase and the reasons for which Parliament gives the local authority powers compulsorily to acquire other people's land is a subject to which I think Parliament should pay particular attention. I am not as familiar with the process of inquiries into compulsory purchase orders in Scotland as I am South of the Border, but I understand that there is provision for inquiry in the case of compulsory purchase where the owner of the land objects, and the matter is heard and decided upon subsequently by the Secretary of State.

In those circumstances it does not necessarily matter, I suggest, whether the wording of the Bill is explicit, provided that the Secretary of State has some guide lines to go on, and provided those who wish to object to compulsory purchase know what was in Parliament's mind when the Bill was passed in this form. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, thinks that the ground suggested by my noble friend is the only one likely to happen or not, but at the present moment there is no guidance whatever given to the Secretary of State. There is no restriction upon the limits of the powers given under this subsection, and I should have thought there should be. Whether it is in the Bill or not is probably of less account, because the question of vires is very seldom raised on these occasions.

If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, could say what are the circumstances in which he envisages that this sort of power should rightly be used, what is the public interest in relation to the acquisition of existing camping sites, then the Secretary of State will know, and the public will know, what was in the Government's mind and Parliament's mind when we passed the Bill in this form. Whether or not this Amendment is accepted, I hope the noble Lord can say what he considers the criteria should be.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I feel that there is a very real risk of what he envisages happening. I have a site which might well be taken over by a neghbouring local authority in order to stamp out opposition. I think it should be made quite clear what is the position.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am afraid that the fears expressed in regard to this question arise from a lack of full knowledge of what the procedure is. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has put his finger on what he hoped would be the necessary safeguard. In fact, the procedure he mentioned is involved in these proceedings. If a local authority wish to acquire a camping site compulsorily, this can be done only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I would remind your Lordships that the noble Duke said he presumed they would require the consent of the Secretary of State, and if that was so that would be a safeguard. I would say that that is the safeguard. The consent of the Secretary of State would only be given if necessary after a public inquiry. If the owner of the land objected, a public inquiry would in fact take place, and this is the procedure by which the Secretary of State becomes apprised of the circumstances.

The noble Duke said that the Secretary of State cannot expect to be knowledgeable in all these details of local matters. Of course he cannot, and this is the whole reason, so that he may act in a quasi-judicial capacity in these matters, why he should have an opportunity of having presented to him by a reporter the whole circumstances elicited at the public inquiry held locally. This in fact will be done.

If I could accept the fact that the only circumstance under which the site could be taken over was if it was becoming a health hazard, then I would have no objection to writing it into the Bill. But this is only one of a number of reasons. Amenity considerations might be one reason which in the local authority's mind would justify them seeking to take that course. Whether after a public inquiry the Secretary of State was of that mind might be a different matter. There might be a case where the local authority accepted the advice of its officials that the site was not being properly serviced, and that the owner was unable or unwilling to put it into a state of service which the local authority were calling for. That could be another reason. These are only two likely possibilities—the second one a very definite possibility, that of inadequacy of servicing of the site—because the standards of these sites now are fairly high, and the good ones are very much better than the poorest ones.

LORD BURTON

My Lords, I think that both the reasons given by the noble Lord are met. You would not have received planning permission in the first place to put up sites unless you had satisfactory amenities. Many sites have been turned down because they were not sufficiently screened from the main road. I cannot see that either of those arguments is valid.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the noble Lord must accept that the arguments are valid, because there are sites of that kind which are in existence.

LORD BURTON

They should never have passed the planning authority in the first place.

LORD HUGHES

It is one thing to talk about what planning authorities ought not to do, and quite another to talk about what they sometimes have done in the past. However, I cannot accept the Amendment because, first of all, this is not the only reason which would make a local authority wish to acquire a site compulsorily; therefore if we allowed this Amendment to be inserted it would deprive them of the opportunity of taking this action, although there were other circumstances of a nature just as strong as that of a health hazard which would make it in the public interest that the site should be taken over. I would, however, once again emphasise that this action can be taken only on the express authorisation of the Secretary of State, after a public inquiry if there has been objection to the proposal; and he would require—I am going beyond the normal position in relation to public inquiries—the most convincing case to be made out, with evidence that all reasonable alternatives to secure the public interest had been tried and had failed.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, in that connection I wonder whether the noble Lord will confirm that the acquiring authority would, before the public inquiry, have to serve upon the landowner who is objecting a statement of the precise aspect of the public interest upon which they were basing their acquisition and beyond which they would not be allowed to go at the inquiry. That is the position in England. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that the position is the same in Scotland and will apply under this particular Bill.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am not in a position to say exactly what it is, but the normal procedure at compulsory purchase inquiries would be followed out in this case—no more, no less. Even with that, we do not think that this is a power which would be much used. But what I can certainly say is that, having regard to the responsibilities which the Secretary of State has in the matter, it will most certainly never be a power which will be misused. For those reasons I must ask the noble Duke not to press his Amendment, in the hope that he will find the full procedure which will have to be adopted a complete safeguard, and that he will accept that in putting in the words "is becoming a health hazard and" he has not listed the only possible circumstances under which a local authority might have the right, in the public interest, to seek to acquire such a camping site.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, again I am somewhat disappointed, but at least we have had a satisfactory discussion on what will actually happen if a local authority tries to acquire one of these sites compulsorily. I do not think the other examples that the noble Lord has given are of any great value. If it is a proper camping site—by which I mean that its condition is something that people now expect from such sites—I should have thought that it might receive planning permission and therefore it would be extremely difficult for the local authority to say, "Notwithstanding the fact that we have given you planning permission, we think, on amenity grounds, it is in the public interest that we should compulsorily acquire your camping site."

In the second case the noble Lord mentioned, of inadequate services, I should have thought that if they were really inadequate they were probably leading to a health hazard, so that case would have been caught by my grounds anyway. But we have aired this matter. This appalling procedure—it really is an appalling procedure that the reasons for which the local authority can compulsorily acquire these sites should not be known—was started, so far as caravan sites were concerned, in the Caravan Act by my noble friends' Government, and this Bill is a pure copy of what was enacted in regard to caravan sites in that Act; so it would probably not be fair to try to alter this Bill without at the same time having legislation to alter the Act relating to caravans. On those grounds, and not because I am in any way convinced of the wrongness of my case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.25 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD moved to insert after subsection (4): ( ) Land including a foreshore which is in general us as a Camping Ground or as a parking place for Motor Vehicles will be inspected by the Local Authority to ensure that adequate water and sanitary facilities exist.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to continue with the camping subject, but I think my Amendment is quite important. On the Committee stage the subject of camping was raised by several noble Lords, and Lord Burton and Lord Hughes spoke on it at some length. As a result of the credit squeeze and the restriction on foreign travel many of us have had an opportunity of seeing the effects of certain types of camping in Scotland, particularly during August and September.

Before developing my point, I think I should quote what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on the Committee stage. At column 927 of Hansard of July 26 he said—and I do not think this is taken out of context— I should like to say that we have discussed the system of licensing of camping sites with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who have had preliminary discussion with their local authority associations about it, and we in the Scottish Office are agreed with them that this is a problem which should be tackled in due course by legislation for Great Britain as a whole. The Caravan Act licensing system itself is in fact just emerging from its initial settling down period, and there has been no demand—no strong demand, at any rate—from Scottish local authorities for camping site licensing powers. The evidence we have suggests that they are able to keep sites under reasonable control by using their Public Health Act powers.'

Quite close to us in Scotland there is an authorised caravan camp. It is organised and well regulated. It is known as Tralee Bay. Next door to it there is an access road to the beach, through crofters' common grazing land, and during the Glasgow holiday week-end this year I counted 90 cars and over 30 tents on this land. They were there for the whole week-end. There is no water supply at all and no sanitary arrangements on this land. With, say, three people to a car, there were roughly 250 people in the area all the week-end. Surely in those circumstances it must be a health hazard. The litter and refuse left behind were quite appalling. This must have increased the risk of disease. A further incidental matter about this land is that the gravel and sand rights are let, and during this invasion the man who holds the letting cannot work them. My noble friend Lord Cromartie, who is not able to be here to-day, supports me in my Amendment, which I beg leave to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, was good enough to write to me about this Amendment, and he gave me information about the case to which he has referred. I think it only right that this matter should be passed on for consideration by the appropriate local authority. My brief lists three types of control which are presently available: I think I have mentioned them all before, and I do not propose to mention them again. The noble Earl has produced evidence about a site on which, notwithstanding the three ways in which such conditions can be made impossible, they have in fact occurred. Therefore, we must accept that the real answer lies in the more positive provision of facilities.

The Bill, under Clause 49, empowers the local authorities to provide such facilities, and also makes such provision eligible for grant assistance under Clause 67. I am quite certain that the Countryside Commission will do all they can to encourage and assist local planning authorities to use these powers and a powerful reinforcing influence can be wielded by ratepayers in the locality if they can show the local planning authority that they are suffering inconvenience and damage to their property as a result of the lack of proper camping facilities in the area. Whilst, therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not seek to press this Amendment, I also hope that in the particular case he has in mind he will put the problem as clearly to the local authority as he has to-day to me and to the House. I would go beyond my brief and say that if he undertakes to do that I will do the same in relation to trying to prevent a repetition of these conditions on this particular site.

At the end of the day such conditions will be eliminated over the country as a whole only if local authorities make satisfactory use of the powers to provide the proper facilities. People will not subject themselves to these unsatisfactory conditions if they have a proper alternative. Unfortunately, the position at present in far too many places is that they do not have a satisfactory alternative, and that is one of the things which we are seeking to cover by the powers already included in Clauses 49 and 67. We should much prefer these powers to remain exactly as they are listed at present, since my advice is that this is the most satisfactory wording which we can accomplish.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his very full answer. I missed one or two words, but if I understood him aright he said that the local authority will have powers under the Bill either to take over the site if it is not satisfactory or to establish sanitation and water facilities. Before I withdraw the Amendment, I would add that I had been in touch with the authority before writing to the noble Lord, and I understand that it is very difficult for them to act under the existing Health Acts. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 [Parking Places]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 together. They are formal Amendments of a drafting nature to bring the references into line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 13, leave out ("section 81 of the Road Traffic Act 1960") and insert ("section 28 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 19, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 21 and insert ("sections 28, 29, 31, 32, 52, 53 and 96 of the said Act of 1967").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Byelaws]:

LORD BURTON moved in subsection (1), after "land", where that word occurs a second time, to insert ", road, path". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C, and 18E, and also Amendments 25B, 25C, 25D, 25E, 25F and 25G. In doing so, I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very short notice he has had of these Amendments.

There has been some apprehension that some parts of the land such as roads and paths, particularly such places as tow-paths near the towns which may be used for fishing, will not be eligible for access agreements if they are outwith the areas scheduled as countryside. Some of us have been assured that such areas will be covered by Part III of the Bill. If, however, they are covered, surely they should also be subject to by-laws and should also be able to be controlled by wardens. This would not appear to be the case at the moment. The clause contains the word "land", which I feel is not an adequate cover for either roads or footpaths. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 11, after ("land") insert (", road, path")—(Lord Burton.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Burton, not to press any of these Amendments, since I am assured that the law on these matters, which by definition is peculiar at times, shows that there is no doubt that "land" includes roads and paths. So without adding the words of the Amendment, the noble Lord can be assured that roads and paths will be covered by the word "land".

LORD BURTON

My Lords, having received that satisfactory assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) to insert ( ) the making of unnecessary noise.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed in Committee when I think I had the support of almost everyone who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. His difficulty was that he did not want to insert "the making of unnecessary noise" in subsection (2) because of the difficulty of inserting the particular into the general. However, as subsection (2) begins: Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, byelaws under that subsection may prohibit, restrict or regulate… it seems to me that it would have been perfectly appropriate for "the making of unnecessary noise" to be inserted among (a), (b), (c) and (d). It seems to me to be every bit as general as the depositing of rubbish, the leaving of litter and the lighting of fires, all of which I am delighted to see covered in the clause.

The making of unnecessary noise is becoming more and more of a problem. I am sure that it is not only we humans who are worried by excessive noise: it can easily disturb animals and birds. It is, of course, going to be extremely difficult to prevent people from disturbing animals and birds in this way, but one would have some chance on this aspect if "the making of unnecessary noise" were included in the clause so that one of the conditions which could be included in byelaws would be that one must not make any noise while on land subject to an access agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, as the noble Duke said, during Committee stage I expressed some sympathy with this Amendment. I have had another look at it and have had a full discussion with my advisers to see whether it can be accepted. Much as I still sympathise with the noble Duke's general argument, I am afraid that, from a drafting point of view, we cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place, we are content that what the noble Duke wishes to achieve is already fully possible under the Bill as it is so that there is no point of substance involved. Secondly, the making of noise is essentially a part of behaviour and it is already covered specifically, and in my view preferably, in subsection (1) of the clause.

The noble Lord's Amendment does not say "the making of noise", but "the making of unnecessary noise", and that is where the difficulty arises. As soon as the word "unnecessary" is included it becomes obvious that there are some varieties of noise which are not going to be excluded. One has therefore to be able to differentiate between a "necessary" noise and an "unnecessary" noise. To take a very simple example, a baby crying can be a very unnecessary noise to people other than its immediate relatives, who do not appreciate that it should be inflicted upon them. They would not consider that it was a necessary noise if it arose from the fact that the baby was hungry and its mother had neglected to feed it. It could be argued that it would have been quite unnecessary if she had done her job properly. But from the point of view of the baby, as distinct from the others, the noise is extremely necessary. It is the only way by which it can direct attention to the fact that it is hungry. So it is possible to have a noise which is quite unnecessary to one set of people, but quite necessary to another.

The noble Duke is seeking to import into the Bill a word which the courts would be quite incapable of defining either satisfactorily or consistently. Our view is that it is only when noise becomes offensive that it constitutes a nuisance. If it is offensive to other people, then Clause 54(1) covers it; if it is offensive to birds or animals, as the noble Duke suggested—and it would have to be deliberately so, in any case, to create the offence—then it would be covered by head (d) of Schedule 2.

Therefore I come back to the same conclusion as the drafters of the Bill: that what the noble Duke seeks to do is already covered in the Bill, and that to add the words which he proposes would not create any new offence. It would, in fact, provide what might be a very difficult defence to refute, if what was proposed to be dealt with was that a person had created an unnecessary noise. I hope the noble Duke will accept that I have gone very thoroughly into the matter, and that it is not lack of sympathy which prevents me from accepting the Amendment, but the fact that if we accept it (the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is not present, so I can say this) it is more likely than not to defeat the purpose which he has in mind.

LORD THURLOW

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the Bill covers the unnecessary use of transistor radios which are becoming such an appalling problem in our beauty spots to-day?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I shall not venture on a definition of the necessary or unnecessary use of transistor radios, but we shall have another go at that one later on. There is another Amendment down on the making of bye-laws, if I remember rightly, which covers a variety of instruments including transistor radios.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are almost at one. The only thing which is not covered in the Bill, and which I should like to see covered, is the fact that a person can easily upset a bird or an animal by playing a transistor radio, which he might not do at all wilfully. I am not quite sure how such a person could be caught, but it might be good for the education of people if they realised that, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, the sudden playing of a transistor radio in the middle of a mountain may easily upset a nesting bird or an animal; and I am simply trying to cover this point. I quite see the noble Lord's point, that my Amendment is fallacious, and I must obviously withdraw it; but I hope that he can see his way to accepting my other Amendment to Schedule 2, dealing with transistor radios, gramophones, tape recorders et cetera. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 [Powers of the Forestry Commissioners]:

5.45 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this Amendment repairs an unintentional omission from the Bill and maintains the existing requirement for felling licences on access land and in country parks. It is in line with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46, line 14, at end insert— ("( ) The definition of "public open space" in section 9(6) of the Forestry Act 1967 shall be amended by inserting after "1949"the words"or of Part II or section 48 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967".").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could inform us a little further of the effect of this Amendment. He was good enough to write to me about this, and I understand that it will require that on all access land for which there are access agreements or orders a felling licence will have to be obtained before trees are cut down. Is this the effect of the Amendment? If it is, I am not quite certain whether all of my noble friends will consider that this is, in fact, necessary. Could it not be provided for specifically in the agreement, rather than make a general provision?

LORD HUGHES

No. my Lords. We are seeking merely to maintain the position as it is. The Forestry Act makes felling licences unnecessary on public open space but defines certain exceptions to it. These include access land under the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act does not, of course, deal with country parks. At least some of these are likely to be of considerable extent, and some may be established on privately owned land. We are advised that on private land it is possible for situations to arise in which neither the local planning authority (by tree preservation order) nor the Forestry Commission (by felling licensing control) could prevent felling, unless we except country parks from public open space. This is not the creation of a new principle, but is merely treating country parks in the same way as access land is treated under the 1949 Act.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61:

Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation.

61.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the next following section, a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes land which is part of the countryside may, as respects any waterway in or adjoining that land and within their area, carry out such work and do such other things as may appear to them expedient for facilitating the use of the waterway by the public for sailing, boating, bathing, fishing or other water sport or recreation, but in doing so shall take into consideration the disturbance of any fishing rights over the waterway which may be caused thereby.

5.48 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "within their area", to insert: "on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this clause deals with the improvement of waterways for the purposes of open-air recreation, and I should like to speak to the two Amendments, Nos. 20 and 21 together. The clause deals with the local planning authority's powers in relation to the improvement of waterways. The first Amendment proposes that the powers to improve waterways given by this clause should be confined to land acquired by the authority for the purposes of the clause.

The second Amendment proposes the addition of a subsection. In considering the implications of this clause, it may well be that difficulties will arise as to the ultimate liability for the works which have been erected or constructed by the planning authority on land not belonging to them. The new subsection therefore imposes an obligation on the authority to maintain any such works, and would also make them liable for any damage to a person or property resulting from the carrying out or condition of such works. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 43, after ("area") insert ("on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, this is a repetition of an Amendment which the briefness of the time at our disposal in Committee prevented us from discussing then. I think it has to be considered with the series of Government Amendments made at that stage to Clauses 61 and 62, the chief of which was to add subsection (1) to Clause 62. Those Amendments, which your Lordships accepted in Committee, made it plain that the powers given by Clause 61 can only be exercised either by agreement with persons having an interest in the land to which they relate, or after the completion of the ordinary statutory procedures relating to access orders or compulsory purchase.

The present Amendment, proposed by the noble Baroness, is unduly restrictive in saying on land acquired by them for the purposes of this section". I think it will be generally agreed that the exercise of the powers of Clause 61 should not be limited to land or water owned by local planning authorities. Provided they have made an agreement with the owners and occupiers, it is reasonable that they should be able to exercise these powers on any waterway to which the public have access.

The Amendment would also nullify subsections (2) to (7), which make it possible for local planning authorities to provide works to facilitate recreational use of water owned by other public bodies, like canals and reservoirs; and I am quite certain that the noble Lady did not intend this. I think I should prefer to deal with Amendment No. 21 separately, because it is not quite the same as Amendment No. 20 although it is to the same clause. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel that in the Amendments which have been made and with the explanations of how this will work she has already got what she had hoped this Amendment would achieve.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

If the noble Lord assures me that that is so, I will certainly believe him, and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I dealt with this Amendment in my previous speech. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 6, at end insert— ("(2) Where any works are carried out by a local planning authority under the powers conferred on them by this section it shall be the duty of the authority to maintain such works and the authority shall be liable for any damage to person or property resulting from the carrying out or condition of such works").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am advised that the wording of subsection (1) of the clause is wide enough to include maintenance, which is in the noble Baroness's Amendment. We do not accept that there is a need, or that it is desirable, to impose on local planning authorities a statutory duty to maintain every work they create, and I think that as I go on the noble Lady will accept this. If we were to do so, we should in fact be imposing a duty on the local authority to maintain the work in perpetuity, and it could involve the local authority in continuing to maintain a work which had fallen into disuse through change of circumstances, simply because it was no longer needed. Their alternative would be the troublesome and expensive one of promoting special legislation to relieve them of the duty. And here, perhaps, I may remind the noble Baroness of the difficulty which some authorities have in relation to, say, piers. A permissive power to maintain is much more satisfactory, and it does not absolve the authority from liability for damages resulting from the way in which it has or has not maintained the works.

As regards the second part of the Amendment, I would remind your Lordships that in Committee we deleted from Clause 46(2) some words, which were in the Bill when it came from another place, that would have absolved local authorities from any liability for damage resulting from the condition of any public right of way maintained by them. Under the Bill as it came to us the local authority had no responsibility. We did not think that this was right. We thought local authorities should be responsible for the normal consequences of their acts. We therefore took out this absolution. The noble Baroness proposes to put in a positive condition, saying that they are under a liability. My advice is that the way we did it was perfectly correct. As soon as we deprived them of the absolution, they became subject to the ordinary Common Law, which imposes on them the liability which the noble Baroness proposes to add. We do not wish to weaken in any way the Common Law liabilities of local authorities by putting in a specific provision of this kind, and I therefore hope that she will accept that in this clause the Bill does not require further amendment.

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, may I ask a question in explanation of a point which is not at all clear to me? On the assumption that a river is a watercourse, are we to understand that where a river in fact runs along the border between England and Scotland then this Amendment, and in fact the rest of this clause, concern one bank of the river and not the other? Also, does the last subsection, subsection (9), enable a local planning authority to acquire land on only one side of such a river, or can it do it on the other side, too, in an area not subject to the authority of the Secretary of State?

LORD HUGHES

I wonder if the noble Lord would draw my attention to the wording to which he is directing his remarks.

LORD INGLEWOOD

The entire clause, my Lords. The entire clause refers to waterways. The Amendment refers to waterways and works in connection with waterways. I wondered what the position would be where a river marking the boundary between England and Scotland was in fact a "waterway" within the meaning of this clause. I would have given the noble Lord warning, except that the point has only just occurred to me while I have been sitting here.

LORD HUGHES

I wish the answer would occur to me as easily as the question occurred to the noble Lord. Would it be permissible if we followed the procedure which worked satisfactorily on an earlier occasion—that is, if we bring it in, quite irrelevantly, in a few minutes?

LORD INGLEWOOD

So far as I am concerned, yes.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I quite realise that one does not want to make anything restrictive through this. The only thing that depresses me a little bit is this. I agree with the noble Lord that of course there are certain works which may be put up now—let us say in the year 1968—for recreation, and so on, which in 1978 would be not used and derelict; and he instanced piers. I think it would be a thousand pities if, as a result of this Bill, there were dotted about the country and around the rivers, and so on, a number of derelict objects which nobody—neither the local authority nor the landlord—had the responsibility to remove; because it is an expensive thing. This might lead to rather an unfortunate situation.

To take the question of piers, the "dead" piers, as I call them, that one finds in the West Highlands are a very gloomy relic of the past, and one wishes that somebody had the responsibility of removing them, although I agree that it might be expensive. But they really are not an attractive asset to the West Highlands. While I imagine that under the waterway clause the inland dereliction would be less, because under this clause it would be only in connection with the rivers or the lochs, it might still be considerable. However, if the noble Lord feels that we cannot put this obligation on the local authority I will not press it any further. But I think that the Commission, when it is set up, might consider this point, because it would be a thousand pities if a number of derelict objects were scattered around the countryside and nobody had the responsibility to remove them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 [Exercise of powers under section 61]:

LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on" and insert "in relation to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had an Amendment to Clause 61 on the Order Paper which unfortunately time did not allow us to discuss. It appeared to arise from a doubt as to whether Clause 61 was drafted widely enough to allow local planning authorities to make adequate arrangements for access to waterways in order to facilitate their use. We have looked at the clause again from this aspect, and I am advised that it is fully adequate. We have observed, however, that the wording of Clause 62 might cast a slight doubt on the matter, and this Amendment is designed to remove that doubt. At the same time it widens the protection which subsection (1) gives to the rights of persons with an interest in land to correspond with the scope of the powers given to local planning authorities by Clause 61.

I hope that this Amendment meets with your Lordships' approval.

In taking the earliest opportunity of replying to the question put at the end of the previous Amendment, I would direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 79(2) which states: This Act, except in so far as it relates to the amendment of the House of Comons Disqualification Act 1957, shall extend to Scotland only. Therefore, a river bank in England is not in any way affected by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 21, leave out ("on") and insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, may I with respect say that I am much less concerned with that last subsection. It seems to me to be administrative nonsense to have two different authorities dealing with different banks of the same river—particularly where it is running through very beautiful country and might for some reason or another become part of a National Park. In circumstances like this it would seem sense that both banks of the river should be subject to the same authority.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I would add that it would certainly not authorise us to acquire land in England, or to authorise the carrying out of works there. I can, however, point out that the 1949 Act provisions are complementary; so if there is a need to do something simultaneously the Southern authorities can act under the 1949 Act and the Northern authorities can act under these proposals. It is not completely unknown for us to work together. If all else fails the noble Lord can promote a Private Member's Bill transferring the Southern bank to Scotland. We should probably be quite happy.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 63:

Provision of recreational facilities by local water authorities

63.—(1) Subject to subsection (5) of this section a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 may, if it appears to them reasonable to do so—

1. (a) permit the use by members of the public, for the purposes of any form of recreation, of any waterway or land in which the authority have an interest;
2. (b) provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons resorting to any such waterway or land for the purposes of any such form of recreation.

(2) The powers of a local water authority under subsection (1) above shall, in the case of a waterway or land in which the authority have an interest but which they do not own, be exercisable only with the consent of the owners thereof:

Provided that where those powers are to be exercised in relation to a particular part of a waterway the consent of the owners of that part only need be obtained if the authority are satisfied that the exercise of those powers will not prejudice the rights or interests of other owners.

6.3 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to delete the proviso. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come to Clause 63 which deals with the provision of recreational facilities by the local water authority. We feel that there are some rather unusual provisions included under subsection (2) of this clause. Generally, in the case of a reservoir the contiguous proporietors have an equal and concurrent right in it unless the original agreement in terms of which the solum of the reservoir was acquired provides otherwise. There does not appear to be any reason for the proviso to this subsection. The Amendment, for the reasons stated, therefore suggests that the proviso be deleted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to the Amendment of the noble Baroness and to my own Amendment which is the next to be moved and which arises from the considerations to which the noble Baroness has referred. I should say first of all that the Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved is one which was down at a previous stage, but which was withdrawn without discussion because of lack of time. There is a distinction to be drawn between reservoirs and lochs on the one hand, and rivers on the other hand. If a loch is in question the contiguous proprietors have at Common Law an equal and concurrent right in it, although there may be agreement or provision in the titles to the contrary. The proviso to subsection (2) would not affect the right of each owner to be consulted in the normal case or in a case when the works would affect him.

The practical reasons for the proviso become clearer when we consider a long river or canal. I think it would be obvious that minor developments could be undertaken at one end of a long waterway without affecting in the slightest the interests of proprietors at the other end. For instance, there might be a desire to have the use of small boats on a section of a river which would not affect anybody except the proprietor whose land was adjoining. I am certain that there would be complaining letters in the newspapers if proprietors 70 miles away were consulted about such a proposal. The authority, of course, will rely on the advice of their professional staff in deciding just how far they should consult. They will get good guidance from their officials as to who are the landowners who ought to be consulted; and in some cases there would be landowners who would want to be consulted as well as those who ought. This is where local experience counts for so much.

Your Lordships will recall that we added Clause 62(1) to the Bill in Committee in order to make it clear that it was not our intention that the powers of local planning authorities in Clause 61 should override the ordinary legal rights of the owners and occupiers. In order to allay any fears that there is anything in Clause 63 which overrides these rights, I have put down Amendment No. 24 which relates to Clause 63, and is in similar terms to the Amendment which has already been accepted by your Lordships to Clause 61. I hope that with these explanations, and with this further action that is to be taken on Clause 63 in Amendment 24 the noble Baroness will accept that the Government have gone all the way necessary to meet her points.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24.

Amendment moved—

Page 51, line 29, at end insert— ("( ) The provisions of this section shall not authorise any authority, body or person to do or permit anything in relation to a waterway or land in which any other person has an interest if apart from this section the doing or permitting thereof would be actionable at his instance by virtue of that interest and he does not consent to the doing or permitting thereof.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House that I take Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. Both are merely drafting Amendments consequential on the enacting of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 52, line 33, at end insert— (", and any reference to a local water authority shall be construed as including a reference to a water development board within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Wardens]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "may" and insert "shall, unless the owners and occupiers agree otherwise". The noble Duke said: My Lords, we now come to the clause dealing with wardens. Under it, local authorities can appoint such numbers of wardens as they consider appropriate on any ground over which an access agreement or access order is made, and in relation to which by-laws are or could be made. I can visualise one difficulty here. I feel that in the making of access agreements one point of disagreement between the local authority and the owner and/or occupier is likely to be the provision of wardens. I should think that the warden service is probably going to be the most expensive part of this Bill so far as the local authorities are concerned, and that therefore they will be less keen on appointing wardens. So I feel that the owners and/or occupiers ought to have the right to insist on wardens if they agree to an access agreement or if an access order is made over their land.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will undoubtedly say that in the case of an agreement it is freely-made and that therefore it is up to the owner and/or occupier to come to terms with the local authority about wardens. But I can easily visualise cases where the provision of wardens will be the only stumbling block to an agreement. I think this is a pity, because it would take much longer to get an access order, it would cost more money, and at the end nobody would be better off. Therefore I would suggest that if either the owner or the occupier consider wardens are necessary, the local planning authority should be made to appoint such number of wardens as it considered appropriate. It would still have control over the number of wardens and I imagine that in many cases a part-time warden, or a warden shared with another area over which there is an access agreement, would be more than adequate. But I think that there may be a stumbling block to access agreements unless this provision is inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, unless the owners and occupiers agree otherwise").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

6.11 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, one of the disadvantages of writing a long letter to the noble Duke is that before he speaks he knows what I am going to say in answer. The letter was written not necessarily to give him information but in the hope that he would withdraw the Amendment. However, it makes it easier for me to reply, since the noble Duke has divided his remarks into two: one part relating to access agreements and the other referring to access orders. The noble Duke is perfectly correct when he says that in negotiating an agreement it is quite reasonable that the owner should say, "If I am going to agree, one of the conditions which should be in the agreement is that there ought to be a warden or two". It could be the other way round; an owner might say, "I do not think there is need for any wardens. You may think that there is a need, and if you want to appoint them I have no objection, but I am not insisting on it."

My Lords, if we did what the noble Duke suggests we should be saying that it shall be a condition of any agreement that one party to the agreement shall have the exclusive right to say that wardens must be appointed, and this would be quite contrary to the spirit of the agreement. I do not think it right that a local authority which was genuinely anxious to make an agreement but was not persuaded of the necessity to appoint wardens should be placed in a position that it could get an agreement only by accepting as a charge on the public purse the appointment of people as wardens. Such an obligation would be at variance with remarks made earlier about the burdens which will be placed on local authorities who have to find their share of expenditure under the Bill. While I thought some of the previous fears were a little exaggerated—and I said that not only here but at Aviemore earlier in the year—I do not think I can properly be a party to the existence of conditions which would impose the need for expenditure on the ratepayers, not following the considered opinion of those who have to levy the rate but simply at the behest of another party to an agreement.

I would expect that normally it would not be unduly difficult to reach agreement on these matters. But if one party feels so strongly that he will not make an agreement without a requirement for wardens, and the other party feels strongly that wardens are not needed and therefore cannot make an agreement which includes them, we have conditions under which an access agreement is not possible, and we have to accept that. It does not seem to me in any way satisfactory to attempt to resolve such a difficulty by depriving one party of his rights in the matter. In effect, that is what acceptance of the Amendment would do. If, however, it did come to the rare case of an access order, the Secretary of State would be the final authority, and he, after hearing all that was to be said by both parties, would say either that there were to be no wardens or that there would be a warden or wardens. Difficult and cumbersome though that may be, I think it is the fair way to deal with the situation.

No one wants to enter into what purports to be an agreement with a prior condition imposed on him which is not imposed on the other party. I am quite certain that in the circumstances, although the noble Duke is seeking to facilitate the making of agreements as quickly as possible, his sense of justice will make him realise that he is allowing speed to take priority over fairness in attempting to make an Amendment of this kind.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, this is one difficulty which arises through our not having had a full Committee stage. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I have moved too far in the opposite direction. I should like to insert some provision that if the only stumbling block is the provision of wardens, instead of an access order having to go before the Secretary of State the matter could go to the Secretary of State purely on that score for his arbitration. Obviously, that would need a lot more thought and the provision of a much more difficult piece of drafting than I am capable of achieving. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, because I feel that its acceptance would probably be going too far the other way; but I hope this provision of wardens will not be a stumbling block very often, though I am afraid that on occasions it may be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26.

Amendment moved—

Page 53, line 28, at end insert— ("(g) water development boards within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71 [Accounts and reports of the Commission]:

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, Clause 71(6) compels the Commission to make an annual report as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year. It seems to me that the Commission are unlikely to have been in existence sufficiently long in 1967 to make their report worth while, and it would be a waste of time and public money if the Commission had to publish a report of their activities for that year. I do not think the Commission can possibly be set up until well on into November. I hope, therefore, that the Government and the noble Lord will see their way to accept this very small Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 40, after ("year") insert ("subsequent to 1967").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am happy to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [Powers of entry]:

6.19 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (3), after the last "the", to insert "owner and". The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is the clause relating to powers of entry, and as the clause is drafted, for the purposes of surveying land in connection with the various matters under this Bill any person…duly authorised…by the Secretary of State, the Commission or other authority having power so to exercise functions…may, at any reasonable time, enter upon the land". Then it lays down the conditions under which they can enter upon the land, and one of the conditions is that 14 days' warning has to be given to the occupier. I feel that the owner should be warned too, for three reasons: first, because the owner is easy to trace and the occupier sometimes is not. Occupiers change, and this adds to the difficulty. Even on our own estate, where a road was being straightened, the county council duly negotiated with us and we agreed to sell them the land. They informed the occupier, as they thought. He happened to be a farmer called MacDonald, but there was another tenant farmer called MacDonald who lived two miles away and he was informed instead. The first MacDonald was astonished to see, bright and early one morning, a massive bulldozer in one of his fields, starting to straighten the road. It took six months to sort the matter out. If the owner had been notified, that difficulty could have been overcome.

Although entry is more likely to interfere with the occupier's interest, it could also interfere with the owner's interest. The owner might be planning a shoot on ground over which access was required on a particular day, and obviously it would be for the convenience of the owner to know that the Commission were going to require access on that day.

The proviso in subsection (4) refers to subsection (3) above, but when the considerations authorised by subsection (4) are borne in mind I think the owner as well as the occupier should be informed. I should be quite happy if the noble Lord said that it would be too difficult to accept my Amendment to insert "owner" in line 36, but when the Commission use the powers conferred under subsection (4) I think the owner as well as the occupier ought to be informed. At the moment the notice is in a form identical with that in subsection (3) and only the occupier is to be informed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 36, after ("the") insert ("owner and").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, powers of entry must carry with them a certain amount of inconvenience, and because of this Parliament has traditionally granted such powers sparingly. This clause, however, follows the well trodden path established after many earlier battles. It is, of course, the occupier who is liable to be disturbed by an invasion of surveyors, and not the owner. That is not to say, however, that the owner's interests are being disregarded. If, following a survey, any further procedures are embarked upon, the owners will receive full and timeous notification. But at this preliminary stage they will, I think, for by far the most part, be willing to be left out of this notification. In any event, they are almost certain to have had preliminary indications earlier of the nature of whatever proposal is under consideration. Almost the first thing that happens is that the owner is notified of the possibility, and making a survey is the first step which is taken. I make the point strongly that serving notice on the owner as well as the occupier serves no useful purpose, except in the rare case of shooting, to which the noble Duke has referred. In saying that, I am sure the noble Duke is aware that I am not giving him any assurance in relation to his next Amendment. I hope he will not press this one.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I do not feel that the noble Lord answered me regarding subsection (4), which is a much more worrying point. I cannot see why people should be allowed to start making boreholes if they have not informed the owner that they are going to do so, and so far as I can see no obligation is laid down in the Bill that they should inform the owner. The subsection provides: …that a person shall not carry out any works authorised by this subsection unless notice of his intention so to do has been included in the notice required by subsection (3) above,… I should have thought that the owner had a very real interest when people start making boreholes on his land. It is not the subsection (3) position that worries me so much as that things can be done under subsection (4) under the same authority as under subsection (3).

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the Amendment to which we are speaking refers only to subsection (3).

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, subsection (4) refers to "subsection (3) above" in the last line of page 58.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I will have a look at that before we finish with the clause. The noble Duke has another Amendment on a totally different point.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, if the noble Lord had been prepared to accept the last Amendment, I should have been delighted not to move this one, but I wish to know in what circumstances he visualises the Countryside Commission boring away for minerals on somebody's land. It seems to me to be totally outside their functions and something that ought to be discouraged rather than encouraged. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 41, leave out ("or the presence of minerals therein").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we do not commonly regard it as the Commission's business to go about boring for minerals, but there may be circumstances where it would be necessary for them to do just that sort of thing in order to find out, if it were proposed to carry out operations on a site which was thought to be suitable, whether or not there were minerals which might be worked, if they had reason to believe that there were minerals there, because such a discovery might determine that that was the wrong place to go ahead with the project. That would be a reasonable cause for boring. I am told that the provision is in common form and if it were not inserted a difficult owner might say that the Commission had no power to bore for minerals and they could not send their surveyors on to his land. I think it would be wrong to obtain the necessary information by a subterfuge, by pretending to be boring for something else, and that it should be done in a straightforward way. There is precedent for this in other legislation.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, the noble Lord has convinced me that he has a case here, I must admit, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in subsection (5), after "necessary", to insert: provided that their names had been included in the notice required by subsection (3) above.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, again this Amendment is concerned with people entering on land. I have ventured to suggest that under subsection (5), where a person who is authorised to enter upon land may take with him such other persons as may be necessary, those persons should be named when the original notice is sent. On thinking it over, perhaps this is too restrictive. What I am trying to get at is that the original notice should give some indication of the number of people who are likely to be entering on the land. Obviously, if notice is given 14 days before that Mr. So-and-So is going to enter on the land, and the second man who just holds the end of the tape is ill, they should be able to send somebody else. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I should like to know whether, when powers are taken under this clause, administratevly, it would be possible to show the number of people who are likely to be entering on the land. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Duke has spoken to this Amendment. There will be in the notice the name of the person who is responsible and upon whom will be placed the duty of seeing that the premises are left as securely as he found them. But, as the noble Duke accepts, it would be unreasonable to say that the apprentice who carried the level or held the other end of the chain should also be named in the notice, and it would have to start all over again if somebody was ill and another name had to be shown. In the normal course of events one would expect that two, or perhaps three, people would be involved in an operation of this kind. I think I could accept it that in circumstances where a larger than the normal number of people were taking part in the operation, when the notice was given we could perhaps arrange for the Commission to inform the person concerned that a party of seven people would be descending on him. I suppose one of the things the noble Duke has in mind is that in the Highlands they would probably wish to receive them with proper hospitality, and they would not wish to be prepared for a party of three if a party of seven were going to turn up.

I have just been handed a note on the point raised by the noble Duke. I think the fairest way is just to read what is before me. I hope that this does not get me into trouble, but I have found that I cannot read these things and talk about them at the same time. I will read what I have here: "The Duke of Atholl's point. We think he has a point here, and it would not be right to bore without the owners' being informed. We would propose that the Secretary of State should give a direction to the Commission under Clause 1(6) to this effect." This, I think, is rather ingenious on the part of my advisers, because obviously at this stage we cannot amend this just to take care of the point. I hope the noble Duke will accept two things: first, that he has been ingenious in discovering this; and, second, that my advisers have been equally ingenious in finding a solution.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I really must congratulate the noble Lord's advisers on producing that answer so quickly. I think it is a stroke of genius, and I am sure it will cover the point. I hope that at the same time the Secretary of State, under Clause 1(6), will give instructions to the Countryside Commission that when a large number of people are coming in—and I imagine that this will happen only when subsection (4), the boring subsection, is being used—some indication should be given in the notice of the number and the machinery which they will be bringing with them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [General Restrictions to be observed by persons having access by virtue of Part II of this Act to land which is or which gives or forms part of access to Open Country]:

Section 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to a person who, upon the land in question, commits any crime or offence, or who without lawful authority,— (d) wilfully kills, takes or molests any animal, bird or fish or takes or injures any eggs or nests;

6.35 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (d), after "takes", to insert "disturbs". The noble Duke said: My Lords, the word "disturbs" was removed in another place, and the reason why I have put down this Amendment is because I wondered why it was removed. Normally you disturb rather than "molest" animals, birds—possibly not fish—and particularly birds' nests. I am not entirely happy that if you continually put a bird off its nest you are molesting it. Do you have to physically touch it or touch its eggs in order to molest it, or does the act of disturbing the bird from its nest the whole time obviously make its eggs addled?

I am rather disappointed that the word "disturbs" was removed. As it is covered by the adjective "wilfully", I should have thought that the fears expressed in another place that it might be construed as being unwilful simply do not apply. I cannot see what was worrying them about this, and perhaps the noble Lord can give an explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 20, after ("takes") insert ("disturbs").—(The Duke of Atholl.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, concern was expressed in another place (I am not quite certain of this, but I think it was by the Opposition) that by committing one of the relatively minor offences in Schedule 2 as it then stood—and cases instanced were of a person inadvertently putting a bird to flight or knocking off a flower (I say "knocking off" in the correct definition)—a person otherwise legitimately on access land might lose his protection under Clause 11(1), and in the event of a subsequent accident on the land find himself in a very poor position regarding damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1960.

The Government were impressed by these arguments, which I think in fairness I should say were pressed from both sides in another place, and it was decided to delete the word "disturbs", which it was felt was more likely to be done accidentally than otherwise. It was also felt that usually disturbance would not be as harmful to a bird or animal, whereas in a case of deliberate harrying the wrongdoer would be caught by the term "molest" which still remains in the Bill. The Amendment to remove the word "disturbs" was made after careful consideration, because we felt that the consequences to an individual of taking him outside the protection otherwise afforded against the infringement of something of this kind were so serious that they could not be contemplated. I am quite certain that neither my friends in another place nor the noble Duke's friends in another place would take kindly to the restoration of a word which, with a surprising and unusual degree of unanimity, they were content to take out of the Bill.

I therefore hope that the noble Duke will accept that both sides in another place and the Government are persuaded that the purposes of protection to animals and birds is not in any way diminished by the removal of the word "disturbs", and that it does not place them under any unnecessary hazard.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.38 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after paragraph (j) to insert: ( ) plays any musical instrument, gramophone, wireless or tape recorder.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to see his way to accept this Amendment. We failed to get "unnecessary noise" into Clause 64, and I feel it is only right that among this vast list of things detailed in Schedule 2 there should somewhere appear these words: plays any musical instrument, gramophone, wireless or tape recorder.

I do not think land which is subject to access agreements or access orders, or even a countryside park, is the right place for people to play these musical instruments. If they want to play the bagpipes, then I should have thought they should play them in a soundproof room, rather than on the side of a road on land over which an access agreement applies. I know that the B.T.A. are inclined to send out posters of a piper playing along the banks of Loch Lomond in the belief that this will fetch the Americans, but I rather wonder whether it does when they hear the pipes played close to by an amateur performer. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment and that the noise will be a little reduced by having these words in Schedule 2, because I am sure that this Schedule will be regarded as a countryside code, and I feel that in our countryside code we ought to tell people that we do not recommend the playing of these somewhat noisy instruments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 37, at end insert said paragraph.—(Duke of Atholl.)

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I have only a very small proportion of Scottish blood in my veins, and I have no right to intervene in this debate at this stage of the Bill. However, I should like to support very strongly the Amendment just proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. There is no doubt that this playing of musical instruments (if that is the correct way to describe small transistor sets) is spreading very rapidly. Transistor sets can be obtained of such small size that you can put them in your pocket, or you can almost wear them as a wrist watch. They can be absolutely maddening to anybody who is either not listening to them very closely or dislikes the kind of music they play, as a rule. They certainly do not lend to the peace of the countryside, so I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD

My Lords, may I say a few brief words in support? I think I am right in saying that in most municipal parks now under the local by-laws—and I think in the Royal Parks—it is one of the offences to play these things; and I would support this Amendment on that count. If it is an offence to play a transistor in a municipal park, is it not even more important that it should be barred from the countryside in Scotland?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, one of the last things I heard before leaving home this morning was the item which appears on the radio at twenty minutes to nine. I think it is called "Today's Newspapers". I heard the tail end of it, and so I do not know which newspaper I am referring to; but apparently there was an article in one paper which alleged that this Government searches out things which are enjoyable and says, "Here is enjoyment, let us put an end to it". The breathalyser was given as one instance. I think it was sparked off by the announcement yesterday that coupons are to be made illegal in relation to cigarettes. This was the reaction: that the Government are a lot of kill-joys.

This is a case in which the Government are determined they are not going to have that particular label tied around their necks. What we have been asked to do is place a general prohibition on the playing of musical instruments, gramophones, wirelesses and tape recorders. Incidentally, the use of the word "playing" in respect to a tape recorder presents us with a difficulty. Some have argued that to play a tape recorder means use a tape recorder for the same sort of purpose as a gramophone, of playing back sound, playing back music. But a tape recorder, of course, can be used the other way, for recording sounds, and in those circumstances it is difficult to imagine that it can be a nuisance to anybody. But it depends on how one interprets the word "play". It might be a prohibition on recording bird sounds with a tape recorder.

However, the fact is that the Amendment, as it stands, places an absolute prohibition on the playing of these four listed varieties of apparatus. The Government's point of view is that the use of a musical instrument, a radio and so on, is not in itself objectionable. I do not think the noble Duke in fact is suggesting that it is. The suggestion which was made—that the playing of a transistor radio can be very objectionable—is one to which we would not take any exception. If it had been argued that it is always objectionable, I would have disagreed, but I must accept the premise that under certain conditions it can be objectionable. It is not that we should prohibit it, but that we should seek to eliminate the objectionable use of these instruments, which is a reasonable thing to put forward.

It comes back to the same argument as before: that it is accepted that the enjoyment of the countryside will inevitably produce some noise. The noise in itself is not prohibited. What we want to stop is noise to such an extent that it is objectionable to other people. This is another form of seeking to control a noise of an objectionable nature which becomes an absolute nuisance. But put in its absolute form, the control would stop a great deal more than just the objectionable noise. I agree that unreasonable noise created by these instruments can destroy all the pleasure that is otherwise gained by access to open country, and that some control may be needed. The right place, however, to exercise control over unreasonable noise is in the by-laws.

I indicated in resisting an earlier Amendment that adequate powers were available under Clause 54(1). Following hard upon our discussion about the word "disturb" I think it will be agreed that this Schedule is not the right place to seek to correct the position. Also, it would be only in an exceptional case that a total prohibition of the kind envisaged would be justified, even in a by-law. I can accept that there would be a particular case where a total prohibition would be desirable. If I might try to find something on the spur of the moment, in the vicinity of the osprey's nest, for example, any sort of noise could have a very serious effect. I would accept that: I think practically everybody will accept it. A by-law which prohibited the use of any of these instruments or apparatus in such circumstances would be one to which no reasonable person would object. But to say in this Bill that in any of the open country to which the public is going to have access it should become an offence to play a musical instrument, or to have a transistor radio, no matter how small it is, even playing it with an earpiece in the ear (in which case no one hears it but the person who is using it), would be quite unrealistic.

Also, to deprive a person of the right of tape recording a natural sound of the countryside, which he wishes to take back with him, a permanent or frequent reminder of the enjoyment of this recorded on the spot (and it is not going to disturb anybody at all by recording these sounds) would be unrealistic. I think the noble Duke can achieve his point, and I assure him we wish to see all necessary controls made possible in suitable cases by the wording of the by-laws. But in this case I am unwilling to have the killjoy label tied around my neck, as I would do if I were to accept this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I still think it is a pity that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. Incidentally, I am informed that tape recorders are switched to "Play" when they are making the noise, and to "Record" when they are recording the noise. Therefore, I should have thought that in order to play a tape recorder you must have it at "Play", and not "Record". So you would be all right if you were recording bird song.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I must say that it depends on one's advisers. I have this morning been advised both ways.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Perhaps it also depends on the brand of tape recorder you happen to have at the particular moment. I personally think that in these areas subject to access agreements the making of any form of music, or playing of a gramophone or wireless, ought to be banned, because I do not believe that that is what they are there for. But I can see that there would be difficulties if we put this provision into the Bill and someone was playing his transistor very softly and the bridge over which he was crossing collapsed. He might not be able to claim damages to which he would have been entitled, and I think this is a point we must consider.

Therefore, reluctantly, I feel that I ought to withdraw this Amendment. Once again, I would point out that one of our troubles is that we have not been able to discuss this matter on Committee stage, or the noble Lord might have been able to find some form of words which was acceptable both to the Government and to us on this side of the House, who appear to enjoy a much more silent life, or would like to enjoy a much more silent life, than the Government wish us to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD moved to add to Schedule 2: . A Local Authority when making By-laws under section 54 will set out the above offences either on the maps under section 26 or on the Notice Boards under section 28 and will define the penalties for committing any of these offences.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this Bill certain penalties are defined for owners or occupiers who commit certain offences. For example, a fine of £50 can be incurred under Clause 43. I would endorse what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said, that we did not have a chance of discussing Schedule 2 on the Committee stage. When I went through the Bill again carefully I found it odd to see no mention at all about penalties for those who commit offences (of whom we hope there will not be many) under Schedule 2.

A local authority are empowered under Clause 54 to make by-laws in relation to access agreements and orders, and under Clause 26 they are required to make maps of the areas concerned. That has been further amended to-day. Under Clause 28 they are empowered to erect and maintain notices indicating boundaries. It would seem to me that probably the maps, or reproductions of the maps, and the notices will both be together where the entrance is to the area over which access is to be gained. It would seem to me logical that the offences should be built into the notice, so that everybody knows what the offences are. At the moment I can find nothing as to how the public will find out what the offences are. It should be built into the notice, and, at the same time, under the by-laws the penalties should be set out. I think that this more or less falls into line with the practice of the National Parks, the municipal parks and the Royal Parks.

Amendment moved— Page 64. line 39, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, local authorities, of course, make by-laws in a wide variety of circumstances and, while they are not under any legal obligation to display them, they normally do so at places where they can be seen by users of the facilities to which they relate. I am inclined to the view that this is a matter which can well be continued to be left to their discretion, and I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl will not seek to press this Amendment, rather resting on the fact that, having raised the matter in this way in your Lordships' House, it will prove to be all that is necessary to ensure that local authorities deal with these by-laws in the same way as they would normally do in an ordinary public park.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his full answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.56 p.m.

Schedule 3 [Provisions as to making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of certain orders]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, Amendment No. 27 pre-empts No. 28. If, therefore, No. 27 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call No. 28.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in paragraph 1(3)(a), to omit head (i). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Schedule 3, the last Schedule in the Bill, and I shall be very brief. My Amendment refers to paragraph 1(3)(a)(i) and (ii). Its purpose is briefly this. I would think it only right to serve notice of a proposal to make an access order or public path order on every owner, occupier and tenant within the area comprising the order. It is obligatory to serve notices on the local planning authorities or on statutory undertakers, who I think in any event ought to know what is going on and be conversant with what the Commission are doing. Owners and occupiers, however, are not in this position necessarily, and through no fault of their own they may not have knowledge of the proposal to create an access order or public path order. The Amendment therefore proposes to delete paragraph 1(3)(a)(i) so that the notice or orders would have to be given to all such persons.

Secondly, the Amendment also proposes the deletion of head (ii), on page 66. We do not consider that the affixing of a notice of a proposed order on some conspicuous object is a satisfactory means of bringing a proposal to promote an order to the notice of those concerned. I can think of the people who during election times stick up notices on telegraph poles, for instance, which one is apt to ignore because one feels they are not of any particular importance. I can think of notices stuck up in odd places, which people are supposed to look at, but nine times out of ten they do not. I consider that a written notification should be given to all those concerned in these cases in connection with these orders.

The noble Lord just now accepted, in dealing with another Amendment, the question of notifying boundaries, not only by putting up a notice, but also by marking them in other ways. I hope very much that he will realise that this is intended to be an entirely helpful proposal, and that I am most anxious that every means of notifying people, including that of a written notification, should be included in this Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 66.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the provision to which the noble Baroness takes exception is a common one and is quite precedented. In so far as I am aware, it has not given rise to any difficulty. Its purpose is simply to provide against the possibility of undue difficulty in tracing or contacting the owner, occupier or tenant. Sometimes in the case of absentee owners, on death some of the owners may be untraceable. So while we think it will no doubt be a rare circumstance, it is one for which we must legislate.

I accept, however, that as it stands the provision appears to be rather a sweeping one, in that it does not in any way specify the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might use it. On consideration, therefore, we have put down Amendment No. 28, which will mean that the Secretary of State must first satisfy himself that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice in the normal way. I hope with this rather strict limitation of power conveyed in my Amendment No. 28 the noble Baroness will find it possible to withdraw her Amendment. I could point out that in any event the Amendment is defective, because it leaves the last three words of line 45 hanging in the air. So even from the grammatical point of view my Amendment is to be preferred. This is the sort of thing which can so easily happen accidentally; one does not notice another three words which have no meaning when they are left on their own.

To be serious, I think the noble Baroness has raised a point of substance. With regard to the powers which we are taking, although we would apply them in a particular way it is not obvious from the wording of the clause that we would apply them only in that way; therefore we have no hesitation in imposing this limitation on the circumstances in which notice to certain people may be dispensed with.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I think the solution which the noble Lord has proposed is satisfactory, because he has made it clear that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is not practicable in the ordinary way to send notices to people concerned before he authorises these other methods. But when the noble Lord said that this was a common phrase appearing in all legislation, I was a little anxious, because I know that in some cases fixing notices to telegraph poles is the only method of informing people what has to be done. I remember an occasion a few years ago when a new road was to be driven through three or four farms, and when it was announced the farmers were all extremely annoyed because they had never been told about it. They wrote to the Department and received the reply, "Oh, but on October 25 we stuck quite a big notice on a telegraph pole, with a pin". It had been pouring with rain and the notice had been washed away. In any case, no farmer had bothered to look at it. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said will satisfy my noble friend that he has met her point, and in that case I think she will probably be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, so long as it is realised that this idea of a conspicuous object is one that simply does not work and that we must have something else, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 2, after ("aforesaid") insert ("if in his opinion it is not reasonably practicable to do so").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 26):

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments.

7.4 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate that I should move the Motion that this Bill do now pass without expressing a word of thanks for the way in which the House has dealt with what I am certain will prove to be a very useful measure for Scotland. We had a Committee stage of exceptional difficulty, and I have already expressed my gratitude to noble Lords for the co-operation which they showed to me in most difficult circumstances which meant that we had only part of the Committee stage. The Report stage which we have had to-day has really been, in effect, a substitute for the Committee stage which we were unable to complete because of circumstances which had nothing at all to do with the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. Therefore I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation of the way in which the House has received this piece of legislation.

At the same time I should like to say that the Government regard this Bill as a major step forward in the provision and the development of recreational facilities in Scotland, both for Scotsmen and for visitors, and the conservation of its great natural beauty. There is perhaps one thought that we should keep in mind. Though we have had much talk to-day and in Committee of access agreements, orders, wardens and by-laws, I hope it will not obscure the general picture. The Government very much hope that Scotland will continue to retain the character it has traditionally had of great freedom to roam the hills and countryside and a general lack of unnecessary supervision and control. Therefore I hope noble Lords who can show a good example in this matter will feel that there should be a widespread and automatic movement towards access agreements, although it is hoped that wherever possible access will continue unhindered and that agreements will be resorted to only in special circumstances. If this Bill is operated by the local authorities and by the Countryside Commission in the same spirit in which your Lordships have endeavoured to send it back to another place, in even better form than we received it, then I am certain that we have done a good job of work for Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, since the noble Lord has been kind enough to compliment your Lordships on their co-operation in this Bill, I think we should reciprocate by complimenting the noble Lord on the manner in which he has conducted it through all its stages in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will understand that anything nice I say about him does not extend to the Government's arrangement of business, which I think has been absolutely disgraceful, but that is a handicap which has been suffered just as much by the noble Lord as by us. In spite of the great difficulties imposed on him by the limitations and restrictions and shortage of time under which we have had to work, the noble Lord has done his best to improve the Bill and to meet us in a full spirit of co-operation throughout all stages of the Bill.

For our part we are as anxious as he is that this Bill should have the effect of expanding tourism, which is of such importance to the Highlands, and also of increasing the pleasure and enjoyment of the countryside by our townspeople and others. I think the noble Lord will agree that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who has taken such a prominent part in all stages of this Bill, and who indeed played a great part in preparing it beforehand, is a good example of those owners of land in his part of the country who have done their best to make this Bill a good thing for the future of Scotland. I would make the same claim for the Farmers' Union, the local authorities, the landowners, and all whose co-operation is necessary. I should like to thank the noble Lord for having, singlehanded, so considerately and skilfully piloted the Bill through the House.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, as the person responsible for probably more Amendments put down to this Bill than anyone else, I should like to endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Dundee has said about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has handled the Bill and how he has done his best to mitigate the conditions under which we have suffered owing to the appalling arrangement of the Government's business. I hope the Government will not take it as a precedent that we do not want a Committee stage for the next Scottish Bill that comes before us. We do, and we have suffered from a severe handicap in not having one on this particular Bill.

I am sure that we could have improved the last half of the Bill still further had we had an opportunity to do so. The only thing that disappoints me about this Bill is the fact that my Amendment to Clause 9 was not accepted. I think this is of vital importance, and if we had had more time, or if the Bill had applied to England, I would have had every intention of dividing the House. If an English Bill appears without some such provision as I tried to add to Clause 9, although I have little to do with England, I shall do my best to try to improve it in that way.

I would say one final word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which no one else has mentioned. When this Bill came to us it cost the general public 6s. After our Committee stage, even though we had added one clause, it cost only 5s. 6d. Perhaps now, when we get the final version, the noble Lord will have got it down to 5s., and I am sure that everyone in the country, particularly the Prices and Incomes Board, will congratulate him in doing his bit to reduce the cost of living.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.