HL Deb 09 May 1968 vol 291 cc1561-76

2.58 p.m.


My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 10:

Camping and picnic sites

10.—(1) A local planning authority and the council of a county district shall have power to provide in the countryside within their area camping sites for holiday and recreational purposes, to be used primarily as places for setting up tents.

(4) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land required by them for the purposes of their functions under this section.


I beg to move Amendment No. 24 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Chesham. With your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendment No. 25, as both Amendments seem to cover the same point. This is a short Amendment. It is designed merely to confirm that the powers in Clause 10 could be used, probably in conjunction with other powers, to provide joint camping and caravanning sites, which is frankly understood to be the case. I understand that reference to mixed sites has already been made in another place. I should like some assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to permit this, and that the powers are considered to be appropriate for the purpose. With those few remarks I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, leave out ("primarily").—(Earl Howe.)


I can give the noble Earl the assurance he requests There is nothing to prevent the operation of joint sites, and the use of the word "primarily", as it stands in the Bill, must by definition imply secondary uses, so that there may be sites or, which there is a mixture of tents and caravans, and such sites may be grant aided. I hope with that assurance the noble Earl will think fit to withdraw his Anendment.


I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for those remarks. I feel a bit happier about that now. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (1), ",with space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road." The noble Earl 5aid: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. This Amendment is designed to confirn that the powers contained in Clause 10 in regard to camping sites will provide for parking space and access roads for motor vehicles to be included, since even in sites where provision is not made for caravans a high proportion of those using the sites will undoubtedly wish to travel there in their own private vehicles. This is the increasingly popular method of transport to-day. Subsection (2) of Clause 10 relating to powers to provide picnic sites, specifically refers to space for parking vehicles and a meals of access to and from a road, but no similar provisions are included in subsection (1) relating to the powers to provide camping sites. A high proportion of those using camping sites will want to travel to them in their own vehicles, and not just to park their cars and walk with their tents and camping gear on their backs. Perhaps I could be assured that my fears are groundless and that arrangements will be made to provide these facilities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, at end insert (",with space for parking vehicles and a means of access to and from a road.")—(Earl Howe.)


I am advised that it is highly probable that the situation is as the noble Earl would desire it to be under the Bill as it stands, but in order to put the matter beyond doubt I am prepared, if he so wishes, to advise the House to accept his Amendment.


Before the Amendment is accepted, may I ask the Minister whether this will mean that an authority will not be allowed to set up a park for tent dwellers unless it has a road attached? If that is so, I think it would be a bad thing.


I should require a moment or two to study that matter. At first blush I am not sure that it would. If the noble Lord thinks that the Committee would do better not to accept the Amendment, I am not urging it in either direction. We could, if the Committee prefers, come back to it on Report if the noble Earl wishes to withdraw his Amendment. I have no advice to give on this.


I would not wish to prejudice the chance of my noble friend having his Amendment accepted. Perhaps the Committee would accept the Amendment as it stands and the noble Lord the Minister could look into it at the Report stage to see whether the particular point I have made is safeguarded in some other way.


I am now in a position, having had time for further inquiries to be made, to inform the House that this clause is a permissive one and will not bind local authorities to do the things mentioned in the words in the Amendment.


I think that is of great importance because, of course, there may be many sites where tents may do no injury to the rural scene, whereas a lot of motor cars would do great injury. I think the matter is of great importance. On that I agree with my noble friend, Lord Hawke.


I do not want to confuse matters. The local authorities can make their choice.


It might be of interest to report that so far as Ashdown Forest is concerned the present arrangement is that tents are discouraged, but there are definite parking places in the forest at defined intervals.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.5 p.m.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after subsection (3), to insert:

  1. "()(a) A local planning authority and the council of a county district shall have power to provide in the countryside in their area:
    1. (i) facilities for mooring vessels in any waterway;
    2. (ii) facilities on the banks of any such waterway and on any adjoining land for persons embarking or disembarking from such vessels; and
    3. (iii) means of access from and to a road from and to the banks of any such waterway or the adjoining land on which any facilities have been provided under the last foregoing paragraph.
  2. (b) The provisions of subsection (3) above shall apply to the exercise of the powers of this subsection as they apply to the exercise of the powers of subsection (I) and (2) above and for that purpose a site shall be deemed to include any part of a waterway, the banks thereof or adjoining land in or on which facilities have been provided under subsection (3) above."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27 on the Marshalled List. This is a point to which the river authorities attach particular attention, and the effect of the Amendment would, I think, among other things, be to improve the prospect of these authorities' maintaining the purity of the rivers and the waters for which they are responsible. In particular, sub-paragraph (ii), under which local authorities would be allowed to provide facilities on the banks of any waterway or any adjoining land for persons embarking or disembarking from their vessels, has a special significance because it would enable local authorities to set up sanitary stations for the service of vessels which are using the particular navigation waters for recreational purposes.

An outstanding example of this is to be seen on the Norfolk Broads, where many thousands of people—indeed, tens of thousands of people—now go every year to take their holidays. The cabin cruisers which they hire for the purpose have sanitary arrangements on board. Naturally it is most desirable that these should not be discharged into the waters, but unless there are sanitary stations on the banks in reasonable mooring places to which the boats can tie up, inevitably there is a danger of the water being polluted in this way. What is being asked for in this Amendment is that local authorities shall have power to do this, in addition to the other things that this Bill provides, so that they would be grant-aided in the same way as these other facilities are. I am sure that this would be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)


The purpose for which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has moved his Amendment is obviously a very good one. But I would point out, as regards the powers to provide places for the dumping and collection of sewage, and also the provision of mooring places, with or without sewerage facilities, that the local authorities already have these powers under the Public Health Acts whenever an accumulation of sewage presents a public health problem. They undoubtedly have powers under those Acts to cope with that and to make a system for removing it. The provision of mooring sites is, of course, already fully covered by Clauses 8 and 14 of this Bill, and also by Section 80 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, which relate to the provision of recreational facilities, including, of course, any steps considered appropriate in dealing with the sewerage problem.

The noble Lord also touched on the question of grant. I think this is the nub of the matter: he wants grant to be payable under the Countryside Bill for these sewage collection points. I am not sure about that. I think that if there is sewage anywhere in the area of the local authority which needs to be collected, the cost of collection falls on the rates. It seems to me that it should continue to come on the rates, and the local authority should provide it in the ordinary way.


The noble Lord says that the local authority should do this. But the fact is that they do not; and it is in order to encourage them to do it that I want them to be given grants. I know that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been very reluctant to accept this proposal. They put forward various reasons why they think it should not be accepted. They put forward the view that sufficient charges should be made to the boats and the cruisers using these waters in order to pay for these stations. But we all know very well that the kind of charges that can be made for licence fees for boats will never be sufficient to pay for stations of this kind; and therefore, unless grants are given in this way, we simply shall not get these sanitary stations put there, and the waters will be excessively polluted, which is clearly to the disadvantage of everybody.

I urge the noble Lord to be a little forthcoming on this matter. I am sure this is a sensible thing to do. Although the need is urgent now, as noble Lords who are familiar with the area must surely know, these sanitary stations will not be put down unless local authorities are given the encouragement of a grant. I do urge the noble Lord to be a little more forthcoming and to say he will look at this point again before Report stage.


is it not a fact that the majority of these vessels are already fitted with sanitary appliances which discharge straight into III: river? Therefore, unless you convert a large number of these boats, those facilities will still be used. Would it not be mu:1 more practicable, once you have converted the vessels, to have a sanitary launch which could go alongside each vessel when moored to collect the sewage and dump it in a proper place—otherwise there will not be a hope of making the provision work.


It does not require any provision in the Bill to enable a hirer of boats to provide such a sanitary launch and cover the cost in their hiring fee. In regard to preventing pollution of rivers, there are by-laws in preparation for the Norfolk Broads to achieve precisely this effect. In general, I am inclined to the view that this is something which ought to be paid for by the holiday-makers who go on the Broads. They hire a boat, they pay for it—there is no grant on their hiring of it—and they should behave themselves in as civilised a way as the boat will permit. There are by-laws coming along which, in effect, will bind the boat owners to have certain kinds of sanitary arrangements on the boat. Beyond that, it seems to me that the cost of getting rid of holiday-makers' sewage should be borne by the holiday-makers themselves and be reflected in the hiring charges for the boats.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.12 p.m.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Brooke, I beg to move Amendment No. 28. Subsection (4) provides that a local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land required by them for the purposes in this clause; that is to say, in connection with camping and picnic sites. In this case the mantle of Elijah, my noble friend Lord Brooke, descends upon my inadequate shoulders to inquire why it is necessary, in the Government's view, to take compulsory powers for this purpose. These facilities of camping and picnic sites are desirable and we should like to see them further extended, but is it really justified, pro bono publico, to use compulsory powers for acquiring sites for this purpose? We all accept that compulsory powers must be used for many purposes these days, but I am sure that it is the concern of us all to keep the right balance between the rights of private property and the rights of the State on behalf of the whole community. It is right to question whether compulsory powers are really needed for a purpose of this kind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)


The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in dealing with similar powers in an earlier clause registered his doubts as to the propriety of the procedure of compulsory acquisition. Any noble Lord who has any misgivings on this matter would do well to postpone any remarks until Lord Brooke raises the subject on Schedules 2 and 3.


I hope that this Amendment will be resisted. Let us look at what compulsory procedure is. It does not authorise the local authority without inquiry to take over land which is required. They have to go through the whole machinery of public inquiry at which the landowner can state his case why the land ought not to be used for that particular purpose because it would involve him in difficulty or would affect his amenity. There is also the wider question of one landowner being prepared that a site should be used but another landowner blocking access to it. Although the site may be available from a willing landowner, if it were blocked by another landowner who was unwilling to concede the right of way and the local authority had no power to do anything about it, a desirable camping site would be completely blocked. The matter could easily be threshed out at a public inquiry and I have no doubt that justice would be done. I am sure that this Amendment would not be right in relation to local authority powers, nor would it enable the authorities to carry out the functions of the Bill.


The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whose Amendment this is, is perhaps making heavy weather in this Bill about this question of compulsory purchase. I am sure that all noble Lords realise that, in the last resort, one must have compulsory purchase powers if one is going to make such a Bill work. On the whole, we all think that it is a good Bill. There are certain injustices and difficulties for the landowning and farming communities, and those aspects must be watched. On the whole, we who are trying to look after the interests of the agricultural industry would perhaps do very much better by not paying too much attention to this issue of compulsory purchase, which is not as important as it may appear to be to noble Lords on the Tory Benches.


May I ask the Minister who is to reply, first whether his noble friend behind him was right in thinking that in such cases there would be a public inquiry at which the person whose land was sought to be acquired compulsorily would be able to put his objection? The second question is a question I raised on a similar provision in an earlier clause. What is to happen to land already being used very much for the public advantage? I refer to the case of land held by the National Trust. Would it be possible, if we left this subsection as it is, for a local authority to use its powers of compulsory acquisition to acquire land already held by the National Trust?


There has on a number of occasions been some justification for questioning the necessity for Amendments bringing in powers in relation to sewage. Some landowners take it as a threat behind negotiations for voluntary purchase; but here is a case where compulsory powers are genuinely essential. In our daily life we hear criticisms from the general public about gypsies on the roadside. Everybody is in favour of their being given a camping site so that they can put their caravans there and carry on their way of life—until one selects a site, and then everybody in the neighbourhood around the site starts to object.

I have got to the age when I prefer when on holiday a comfortable bed and comfortable surroundings, but there are still those who enjoy a caravan camping holiday as a complete change from their normal way of life. It is almost certain that wherever a local authority want to put a camping site, particularly when it is associated with an area of considerable beauty, there will be objections, not only by the landowner but by persons in surrounding lands who might be affected. Therefore, if we are going to provide caravan sites—and whether or not we should is a debatable point—it is essential in those instances that the compulsory purchase power should be in the background.


Before the Minister in charge replies to my noble friend Lord Conesford about National Trust land, there are two points about which I hope the Minister will be able to speak. My noble friend referred to the National Trust, but there would be a more complicated problem in regard to common land. It is illegal to enclose common land, but if any land contiguous to it were taken the common land might have to be enclosed. With regard to caravans, the Minister will presumably be able to say that such sites as were allotted would come under a conventional regulation.


We are here going over ground which we threshed out pretty thoroughly a couple of days ago in connection with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to Clause 7 of the Bill, which gave local authorities compulsory powers to purchase land for country parks. The same arguments apply here, where the same powers would be given to them by the Bill to purchase land compulsorily for picnic sites. Let me, first of all, answer the detailed questions which have been put to me.

With regard to the public hearing, the Government are not doing anything unusual in this. Normally, compulsory purchase order procedure will apply, which means, as it always does, that if objections are made and are not withdrawn a local inquiry will be held. On the question of the National Trust, if the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will turn to Clause 41(5) he will read that the National Trust is exempted from compulsory purchase, so that point i5 looked after. On the question of common lands, we are later coming to a clause, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has put down an Amendment, which deals specifically with them. Perhaps we can discuss the matter under that clause, rather than under this one. The general arguments are the same as those on Clause 7. In my view, the question of whether or not compulsory purchase is justified is synonymous with the question: is this a serious social need that we are talking about? The Government believe that it is and that there is, therefore, a case for having compulsory purchase, subject to all the usual safeguards written into the Bill.

I should like to repeat in the context of this clause what I said in the context of Clause 7; namely, that the compulsory purchase is, of course, subject to the approval of the Minister and that he will not agree to its being used unless he is satisfied that there is no other way of achieving the end which the local authority desire to achieve, which is the setting up of a picnic site or whatever it may be under the wording of Clause 10. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, withdrew his exactly parallel Amendment to Clause 7, and I hope that his noble friend will see fit to do the same with this one.


May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the answers which he has given to points raised by my noble friend and myself? I am relieved to hear that the normal safeguards exist, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Conesford will also he glad to hear that. I think it is not making heavy weather of the point, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, to bring it before your Lordships. It is an important matter when we give power to local authorities to take property from private persons. For myself, I entirely accept the necessity of these powers being given, but I think that each time such powers are given they should be most carefully scrutinised to assure ourselves that they are fully justified. Then, if they are, let them go ahead and we shall all be satisfied that on balance it is the right thing to do. I am satisfied, and I hope that my noble friends behind me are satisfied, but I trust that noble Lords will not feel that time was wasted in discussing this very important point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

3.25 p.m.

LORD INGLEWOOD moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:

Regulations for the control of vessels

".—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of, or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may make regulations for the control of vessels on any waterway in the National Park where, as respects such waterway, it appears to the authority that it is expedient so to do—

  1. (a) for avoiding danger to persons or vessels using the waterway;
  2. (b) for facilitating the passage of vessels on the waterway;
  3. (c) for preventing or limiting the use of the waterway by vessels of a description which, or used for a purpose which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the waterway and its surrounding area;
  4. (d) for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the waterway and its surrounding area;
  5. (e) for the purpose of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the waterway or the surrounding area for recreation or the study of nature;
  6. (f) for the purpose of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the waterway or the surrounding area by the public.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, regulations made under this section may—

  1. (a) prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a waterway, either generally or in any manner specified in the regulations, by vessels of any description so specified or used for any purpose so specified;
  2. 1572
  3. (b) be made so as to relate either to the whole or to any part of the waterway, and may make different provisions for different parts thereof;
  4. (c) prohibit the use of the waterway by vessels of any description specified in the regulation, or used for any purpose so specified, which are not for the time being registered with the authority in such manner as the regulations may provide;
  5. (d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the regulation of vessels in pursuance of the regulations.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall not provide for any prohibition, restriction or regulation of vessels which would be inconsistent with any rules for the time being in force in relation to that waterway by virtue of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and shall not interfere with any authority having under any enactment functions relating to that waterway.

(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister.

(5) The Minister, if he confirms any such regulations, may confirm them either without modification, or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm any regulations until at least one month has elapsed since the making of the regulations and, before confirming them, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a public inquiry to be held.

(6) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be revoked, varied or amended by the authority subject to the like confirmation given subject to the like provisions as the first-mentioned regulations, or may be revoked, varied or amended by order made by the Minister after giving notice to the authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry.

(7) Before an authority makes regulations under this section the authority shall consult the Commission.

(8) Regulations made under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, or as the Minister may, in any particular case, direct.

(9) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by authorities of regulations under this section, the confirmation of regulations so made, and the holding of inquiries.

(10) Any person who contravenes a regulation made under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under this section to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, thereunder, to a fine not exceeding £50.

(11) A local planning authority having power under this section to make regulations shall have power to enforce regulations made by them.

(12) In this section 'vessel' includes any ship, boat, lighter and craft of every kind, however navigated, propelled or moved, and any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manoeuvre on or immediately over the water."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29 standing in the Marshalled List in the names of my noble friends and myself.


May I interrupt the noble Lord at this point, just to ask whether he has taken account of Amendment No. 35? That is a new clause standing in my name to which we shall be coming and which covers very much the same ground as the Amendment which the noble Lord is moving.


If the noble Lord can contain himself to allow me to say one more sentence, I was going to say that my clause is very long, for which I apologise, but that there is another very similar clause—also very long—in the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I was going to ask whether it would meet with his convenience and the convenience of the House if his clause and my clause were discussed together now. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his agreement.

I am glad that his clause has been put down, even at this late hour, because it shows that the Government now accept the general need for some regulation of traffic on lakes in National Parks. That matter was discussed at great length in another place, so I do not think there is any reason for me to argue the general grounds here again this afternoon. I mentioned this question during our Second Reading debate and I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, replied he said that this was very much in the Government's mind. But he did not specifically refer to the new clause which I believe the Government have been considering since the month of February, so I thought the right thing to do was for me to put down a new clause so that the House would have an opportunity of discussing it. But I should not have done so if the Government's intentions had been clearer and if their new clause had been put down before it was really too late for proper discussion.

At first reading of the Government's new clause, it seems to me that it meets in general terms the case put forward in another place by my honourable and right honourable friends, and I believe it follows very closely correspondence which has been taking place over quite a long time between the noble Lord's Department and the Clerk of the Lakes Planning Board. Therefore I hope that when the Minister replies he will let me know how far he has been able to meet the Lakes Planning Board and which of their points he has not been able to meet. I should not have put the question quite in that way if the clause had been put down earlier and if I and other noble Lords who are interested had been able to discuss with those who advise us on these matters. Unfortunately, the time has been too short. Therefore I should like to ask several questions of the noble Lord. I am sure he will understand that until I have heard his replies I must reserve my position about any Amendment to his clause which I might like to move on the Report stage. I am not asking these questions just because of their difficulty, but rather the reverse. They are basic questions which arise from the correspondence which his Department has had with the Planning Board, and they are points about which particular care was taken in my clause.

The first question which I should like to put deals with registration. Does the question of the power to register, which is given in the noble Lord's clause, also include the power to refuse to register? It could well be, in the opinion of the Lakes Planning Board, that certain types of craft or certain lakes could become (if I may use rather an imprecise word) "over-saturated", and they would like, temporarily or for longer periods, to be able to refuse further registration. Some noble Lords may not appreciate the enormous increase there has been in the the number of people using these lakes every weekend for sport and recreation, some with great skill, some with less skill and some with no skill at all, and how these numbers are continually rising. I think it would be right to give the Lakes Planning Board the power to refuse registeration, although it would be understood that such powers would be used only in very limited circumstances.

The next question I should like to put to the noble Lord—and I think this is very important—is this. I should like him to let us know what exactly he means by the word "managed" in subsection (7), which says: This section shall not apply to any lake owned or managed by a river authority or by any statutory undertakers". From the drafting, the word "managed" there presumably means something rather less than ownership, but would it cover a water authority with power to take major abstractions from a lake, such as Manchester Corporation recently obtained, both in connection with Ullswater and Windermere? Does that come within the meaning of the word "managed" in this subsection? I should like to think that we could clear that point up this afternoon, because it is extremely important. Then, further, does "managed" extend to lesser abstractions by local water undertakers? Because if it covers either of those two classes, I think we shall have to seek to amend that subsection on Report stage. But I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that he intends the word "managed" to mean something a good deal less wide.

Then there is a question in which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will be interested. How exactly do the river authorities fit into this picture, and how are they concerned with this word "managed"? Here we are concerned only with lakes which are inside National Parks, but, as I understand it, all the lakes, whether inside or outside, come under the statutory jurisdiction of the river authorities to some extent. Therefore I should like to ask how the river authorities are in fact seen in connection with this word "managed".

The fourth point is also an important one, and it concerns the definition of "vessels". The noble Lord will see that in my Amendment great care has been taken to define all sorts of craft. I am not an expert, but great care has been taken to define craft of every sort or kind which may now or is likely in the near future to appear in the Lake District in any numbers. We have even included, any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manœuvre on or immediately over the water. In the drafting of his clause, the noble Lord does not seem to have taken quite such great pains as we have, and I should like to hear from him exactly what he thinks about this matter. The point was put to his Department by the Lakes Planning Board in these words: In view of modern developments, including the use for pleasure and sport of amphibious vehicles, seaplanes, hovercraft, motorised skis and the practice of aerial ski-ing, the words should be given a very wide definition. I am not as yet satisfied that the definition in his clause is really wide enough to cover the needs of our problem.

My last two questions concern the making of by-laws for privately-owned lakes. I can see no provision in the noble Lord's clause requiring consultation between the by-law-making authority and the owner of a lake. I should have thought that we ought to require the authority to consult with the owners of lakes before they publish these by-laws. It is not that I suppose that in the majority of cases they would not do so; but, none the less, I think that the requirement ought to be written into the clause.

The last point which has been put to me concerns compensation. The by-laws are bound to deprive an owner of something, and they could deprive him of rights of very considerable value. Although, in those circumstances, no one would wish him to be in a position to claim other than fair compensation, I think the Committee would like to be satisfied that his rights were not being taken away from him under this clause without any compensation at all. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Inglewood.)


If I may interrupt the proceedings, I believe that now would be a convenient time for your Lordships' House to hear a Statement, and I beg leave to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.