HL Deb 30 May 1968 vol 292 cc1302-45

6.25 p.m.

Read 3a, with the Amendments.

Clause 7 [Power to provide country parks]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved, after subsection (2), to insert: Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor within the country park are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Kennet, who I think has gone out to get some well-deserved refreshment. Until he returns I will attempt to deal with the substance of this Amendment.

During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, tabled Amendments which sought to circumscribe the powers of local authorities providing country parks in relation to the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments. His original Amendment would have required the authorities to satisfy themselves that comparable facilities "in the neighbourhood" were inadequate or unsatisfactory. His second Amendment would have deleted the reference to the neighbourhood. These Amendments were resisted on the grounds that it was unrealistic and undesirable to prevent a local authority from providing a full range of amenities within country parks merely because there might be some comparable facility available somewhere outside the boundaries of the park.

This new Government Amendment is intended to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to the extent of ensuring that local authorities, when setting up and developing facilities within a country park, should not duplicate any existing accommodation, meal or refreshment facilities within the country park—for instance an established bed-and-breakfast business provided at farmhouses within the park, unless these facilities are either unsatisfactory or inadequate. I hope that this Amendment is acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and I ask the House to agree it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(Baroness Serota.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having explained this Amendment, which is acceptable to me. As she said, I moved a similar Amendment, in each case in slightly different terms, on Committee and on Report, and the Government have now tabled an Amendment which substantially meets my point. I will only add that the other day I was criticised by a noble Lord opposite for taking up the time of the House excessively by moving similar Amendments on Committee and on Report. In this case my action has been fully justified, because by means of importunity I have, at the last possible stage, brought the Government round to my point of view, for which I am grateful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to present a whole series of Amendments—Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 29, 31, 32 and 33. These Amendments provide, at the end of lengthy discussions, for the consent of any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, and of such other authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, for that consent to be obtained by a local authority planning to do works in these waters or beside those waters connected with the setting up of a country park. I feel fairly confident that if the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, were here these Amendments would meet with his approval. He has made himself the champion of the river authorities in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 30, after ("with") insert ("and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, and of").—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford asked me to speak on his behalf and to apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for his inability to be here at this moment. He would dearly have wished to be here, but he has substantial responsibilities in connection with one of the new universities, as the noble Lord may be aware, and he was irrevocably committed to attending a meeting outside London. He has requested me to thank the noble Lord warmly for this series of Amendments. It is a matter which has been discussed on the previous stages of the Bill, but I understand from him that by this series of Amendments the Government have substantially met a point which he was seeking to establish. In the circumstances he said that he would not have wished to move Amendment No. 10. I would also add my own thanks to the Government in respect of this change in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 35 and insert ("where any authority so consulted withhold their consent").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Facilities in or near National Parks]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 41, after ("with") insert ("and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the sea or other waters in question and of").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 45, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 46 and insert ("where any authority so consulted withhold their consent").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Conversion of moor and heath in National Parks to agricultural land]:

6.30 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "if" to insert after consultation with the local planning authority and the Commission he is". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I never like to put down Amendments on Third Reading, but this is an Amendment to one of the new clauses which were tabled by the Government only just before we took the Report stage of the Bill, and it literally was impossible to examine it in detail before we had to add it to the Bill.

This clause concerns what we have been accustomed to call the Exmoor problem, and it is a solution, or part solution, offered by the Government, in the sense that it will enable the Minister, if he is satisfied that it is expedient, to make an order applying the section to any land in a National Park which appears to him to be predominantly moor or heath. I think all noble Lords who were present at the earlier stages of the Bill will be familiar with the general context. Because the type of case where the Minister may wish to make an order will very likely have been surrounded by local controversy beforehand, it appeared to me that it was desirable to indicate on the face of the Bill that the Minister should not take the step of making an order until he had consulted both with the local planning authority and with the Countryside Commission, who might take different views, and then only if he is satisfied, after this dual consultation, that it is expedient to act he should make his order. I appreciate that the noble Lord may say that this had already been implicit in the Government's mind. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that this is a field of possibly explosive controversy locally, it seemed to me desirable that the Bill should specifically require the Minister to consult both the local planning authority and the Commission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 17, after ("if") insert the said words.—(Lore' Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD FOOT

My Lords, may I, as one who has been particularly associated with this Exmoor matter, add a word of support for the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I have always foreseen—and I have no doubt the Minister has—that where the Minister considered designating certain land he would automatically consult with the Commission and the local planning authority. Indeed, the likelihood is that he would act only upon the recommendation of the local planning authority. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be an advantage, as the noble Lord said, to write this into the Bill in order to make it explicit. I would support the Amendment.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, the purpose behind the Amendment is obviously very good, but it raises certain concrete problems which I should like to outline to the House. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said. Obviously, in the vast majority of cases, and as far as I can see in every case, the Minister will act only after being asked to do so by the local authority or the Countryside Commission, or both. Otherwise, how would he know that there was a problem going on? Let us imagine the tiny minority of cases where he is not asked, or where he is not formally asked. Statutory consultation—we are talking about statutory consultation—is a slow and portentious matter. Neither the Country-side Commission, nor, very likely, the local authorities concerned—and I ask the House to remember that we are talking not only about Devon and Somerset; we may be talking about others in the future—would meet very often; in the case of the Commission it may be every two or three months. Statutory consultation has to be referred to a full meeting, so it might mean three months' delay. It seems to me that in the context of the case where one is by definition acting quickly, to prevent someone who has not the public interest at heart nipping in and doing harm to the public interest, it would be unwise to write statutory consultation into the Bill.

Moreover, to do so provides many handles to those who may think they have been injuriously affected by the operation of a designation of this sort. They may go to court and say: "The Minister did not go through the hoops of statutory consultation in the prescribed way." For these reasons, I would advise the House against accepting this Amendment. But, of course, informal consultation, a quick go on the telephone to the chairman or to the offices of the Commission or to the county council will be done in every case, where it does not happen the other way round, which seems more likely. In the interests of speed to deal with what might be a rapidly developing situation, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply, because it seems to me a harmless Amendment. When he says that delays will be caused, I think it would be very much in the interest of the local planning authority concerned to ensure that there was no delay in replying; and as for the Countryside Commission, it is itself a creature of the Minister, and I should have thought that he could ensure that it put itself in a position to reply with rapidity. However, I do not think this is a suitable stage of the Bill at which to divide the House. What I want to establish is that the Minister will in no circumstances use his powers under Clause 14 without having been in contact with both these bodies. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said that that will be the intention, and I am sure that future Ministers will be guided by his words. When I say "in contact with those bodies", I mean that he will have taken steps to obtain the views, formally or informally, of some responsible person in each case. That is the essential thing. It will of course be very much in his interest to do so.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I might perhaps formulate this more precisely. The Minister will always obtain the best possible view from the planning authority concerned and the Countryside Commission which is compatible with the need for speedy action in the case in question.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, in view of that more explicit statement, I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I will both agree that the Amendment should be withdrawn. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (2): If before the expiration of the said period of six months the local planning authority serves upon the occupier of the land notice of an access order pursuant to section 65 of the Act of 1949, or of a compulsory purchase order pursuant to section 76 of the said Act, the occupier of the land shall not, by ploughing up or otherwise convert any of the said land into agricultural land before the Minister has confirmed or refused to confirm the said Order. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the same situation as the last Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that at the last stage the Minister in charge of the Bill went some distance towards helping us with this rather difficult problem of the ploughing up of Exmoor and other similar National Parks. I understand that discussions have been going on and that the Minister is prepared rather to fill out what he then said. I do not myself propose to make a speech in moving this Amendment. I propose just to put the ball into the Minister's court and formally to move the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)

6.40 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, as it turns out, I am glad that this Amendment appears once again because it gives me the opportunity of saying something in more detail about this intensively difficult problem which we have discussed so often. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent an occupier from ploughing, and so on, his land even after the expiry of the six months (I need not go all through the history again, because the House knows it and we all remember it) if the local planning authority have embarked on the procedure for making either an access order or a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land. The Amendment draws attention to what might at first sight seem to be a gap in the procedure in Clause 14 but, as I shall hope to explain to the House, the difficulty which it anticipates is, in our view, unlikely to arise in practice.

Perhaps it would be of assistance if I were to recapitulate how we envisage that the procedure under Clause 14 would work. In the first place, the Minister would have to make an order applying the section to an area of land in a National Park appearing to him to be predominantly moor or heath. We hope that it may be possible for agreement to be reached between the local planning authority and local agricultural interests about the area or areas of land to which such an order should apply. Once an order has been made, the occupier of any land to which it applied would not be able to plough up or otherwise convert the moor or heath into agricultural land until the expiry of a period of six months from his giving notice to the planning authority in the first place. Unless the planning authority were willing to allow him to plough up, they would try to make an access agreement with him under which, in return for a suitable consideration, he would agree not to plough up and to give access to the public. The effect of Clause 18 of the Bill is to enable the landowner to bind himself not to convert such land into excepted land at a later date by ploughing up. This the House will remember.

In the event of a failure to reach agreement, one of two courses will be open to the planning authority. They may either make an access order under Section 65 of the 1949 Act, or they may make a compulsory purchase order under Section 76 of the 1949 Act. At an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised a question whether the power under Section 76 could be used for this purpose. He suggests it might be argued that this section can be used only for the purpose of preserving access and not for the purpose of preserving moorland, and suggests that such an order could be defeated by showing that access could continue after the ploughing up. I hope that the noble Lord will follow me in this explanation, because the matter gets more complicated and yet more complicated, but I believe it is all right. I advise the noble Lord and the House that the Government's considered view, after consultation with their legal advisers, is that the powers under Section 76 would be effective for the purpose. To exercise the power, the local planning authority would have to be satisfied of two things. First of all, that the public should have access thereto for open-air recreation. The test is not merely access, but access for open-air recreation. If the nature of the recreation is to enable people to walk or ride over moorland, the recreation could be defeated by changing the character of the land. The second thing of which they have to be satisfied is that in the circumstances it is expedient that such access thereto should be secured by the acquisition of the land by the local planning authority. Again, in deciding whether it was expedient for this purpose, it will be relevant for the planning authority to consider whether acquisition was needed in order to secure access to the land "for open-air recreation". So that buttons itself up in a circle.

Turning now to the Amendment, the suggestion is that, after notice had been served of an access order or a compulsory purchase order, the landowner might proceed to plough up before the Minister had reached a decision upon the order. In practice the risk of this appears to us so remote that it may be ignored. A farmer would in any event be extremely unlikely to plough up unless he was assured that he would receive grant for doing so, and would be all the more hesitant if it seemed that the land might be acquired before he was able to obtain any benefit from the expenditure he had incurred in ploughing up. Until last year grants for ploughing up were payable by the Ministry of Agriculture, in some cases as of right, on proof that ploughing up had taken place. But now prior approval of the Ministry is required. Where a planning authority made an access order or a compulsory purchase order they would of course notify the Ministry of Agriculture. I have the authority of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to say that in these circumstances no decision would be taken upon the application for grant until a decision had been made upon the access order or compulsory purchase order.

It is for these reasons that I advise the House that this Amendment is unnecessary. I think it would be likely only to add to the anxieties of the agricultural community, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. I regret that my explanation has been complicated, but I am confident that Lord Foot, Lord Chorley and Lord Brooke will understand what is in mind, and I am confident that all ether noble Lords will, too.

6.47 p.m.

LORD FOOT

My Lords, I find that reply by the noble Lord rather like the curate's egg: gratifying in parts. It is encouraging and reassuring to hear him say that his Department are satisfied that if a landowner is unprepared to enter into an access agreement it is open to the planning authority under Section 65 to seek an access order, and under Section 76 to seek a compulsory purchase order. I will not argue that matter any further because it would be quite improper for me to argue a legal point with those who have been advising the noble Lord. I am therefore gratified to be assured by what he said about that. But I am afraid that I am not wholly reassured by what he had to say in the latter part of his speech, about the unlikelihood of a landowner who wants to go ahead with ploughing being able to get round the provisions of the noble Lord's new Clause 14.

The noble Lord said earlier in this discussion that this particular matter was in danger of degenerating into a private dialogue between him and myself which the rest of the House might not understand. May I briefly, in two sentences, review how we have come to this present position? The problem with which we have been trying to cope over this business of Exmoor is: how is it possible to prevent open moorland from being ploughed up where the claims of amenity and national interest should prevail over the farming gain by reason of the ploughing? The solution which those who have been assisting me have put forward was that we should bring land of this kind within the ambit of ordinary planning control and, subject of course to appeal to the Minister, leave it to the planning authority to decide whether the amenity interest should prevail over the agricultural interest.

The Government have advanced their alternative method, which is in three stages. It is, first of all, to allow the Minister to designate land, moorland and heathland, which he regards as of amenity importance (I am sorry to use the word "amenity" yet again: it is a hideous word, but it is very difficult to find another) as being open land. Then it requires that anybody who wants to plough it up shall give six months' notice. Then the third leg in the argument is that if there is a recalcitrant landowner or somebody who is not prepared to enter into an access agreement, there are these powers vested in the planning authority, either by means of an access order or by means of a compulsory purchase order, to prevent the public interest from being overridden.

The noble Lord says to-day that he is satisfied that, in practice, there will not be any danger of a landowner being able to get round this, and although the planning authority want to stop him ploughing there will be no practical possibility of the landowner's being able to avoid the effect of this proposal through the compulsory purchase order or the access order not being made within the requisite period of six months.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? This is unlikely to arise for a very concrete reason, which is new and which I have just told the House about; namely, that if the landowner does plough before a decision is reached he may not get his ploughing grant.

LORD FOOT

My Lords, I quite understand that. But what is the objection? If the Government are anxious to require of the landowner that he shall give six months' notice, and they are anxious that in proper places the planning authority shall have the power to make an access order, or a compulsory purchase order, in order to prevent the ploughing, what is the objection to writing it into the Act of Parliament, as is done under this Amendment, which is very simple and very straightforward? It says merely that once the six months' notice has been given by the landowner, if the planning authority decide that they cannot reach an agreement with him, and that they will want to make an access order or a compulsory purchase order, once they have given notice to the landowner that that is what they are intending to do he must not plough up until that matter has been resolved, either yea or nay, by the Minister. What is the objection to it? It makes the position quite straightforward.

May I suggest to the Minister that there are dangers in the course which he is recommending? However, before going into that perhaps I might just say this. Those who have been advising me, and who are very experienced in this matter—and your Lordships may remember that I am talking about the Devon and Somerset County Councils—have furnished me with an estimate of the length of time it takes to get an access order from the moment you start to go about it, and the length of time which it takes to get a compulsory purchase order from the time when you first start upon it. The information I have been given is that in the case of the access order the minimum period between the time the application for the order is made by the planning authority and the time the order is confirmed by the Minister, and the necessary notice of the confirmation is given, may be 22 weeks—four weeks short of the six-month period. That is the minimum period, in the calculation of these people, which is necessary; and in the case of a compulsory purchase order the minimum period required between applying for it and getting it is 26 weeks, which is precisely six months.

Therefore, there is this danger, as I suggest to the noble Lord, that in some cases, by pure accident, the local planning authority may have the intention of making a compulsory purchase order, or an access order, and then, because more than six months pass, they are thwarted in their intention and the landowner is able to plough, whereas in another case the order is obtained within the six months' period and the landowner is not able to plough. What could be more calculated to increase between the planning authority and the individual than that in one case a man gets the right to plough and in another case he is thwarted, purely by the accident of how long it takes to get the order? If it is really the intention of the Government to allow their policy, the one that they have devised, to work, I do press upon the noble Lord that this Amendment is quite innocent and a very simple way of obtaining that objective. I would ask him, even at this very late stage—though I recognise at once that throughout this discussion on Exmoor the noble Lord has gone a very long way to attempt to meet our cafe—to reconsider this point.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I should like to add my voice in this. I have been studying the matter as best I could during the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and for my part I cannot see any reason why this Amendment should not be added to the Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, it may not be perfect in its draftsmanship, but if it goes back to another place as a Lords Amendment there is the opportunity there to improve the draftsmanship. I rather deprecate Divisions at this stage of what is essentially a non-controversial Bill, but we have not really heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, what harm there would be if he accepted this Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I can state the harm I hope that the noble Lord will be content. There are two harms, one major, one minor. Let me deal first with the minor. Suppose we extend the period as Lord Foot requires, supposing it is over-run, and there is no decision in a given case for eight months, ten months, or a year, that is a whole season during which the farmer has lost his ploughing, and the question of compensation arises. This complicates matters enormously. should we go that far. The major harm is this: that Lord Foot, during his remarks just now, said, in so many words, that his aim was to subject agriculture to planning control. But he knows as well as I do that this is a matter which has been hotly debated among those concerned for the last twenty years. I think he did say it. Is he going to say that he did not?

LORD FOOT

My Lords, if I said this, I certainly did not intend to. Earlier on I said that to subject agriculture in general to planning control would be bitterly opposed, and it is certainly no part of my proposal. What I was suggesting was that these areas of high amenity moorland might be brought within the ambit of planning control.

LORD KENNET

These areas of high amenity moorland are also desired by agriculturists to be agricultural, so we are at a dividing line and it is very "dicey" how far one goes. It seems to me that the major harm in doing it that way is that we do go over unmistakably and definitely, although on a small front, into the area of planning control over agriculture. That may be a good thing or a bad thing. Opinions will differ. Some Members of the House will wish it could happen; others will resist it to the death. But what is clear is that the Countryside Bill does not begin the process of planning control over agriculture; nor should it. That is not its purpose. Let us face that when we come to it. Maybe there is room for a Private Member's Bill to introduce planning control over agriculture, but that is where this issue belongs and not, I submit, in this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked what is the objection to doing it his way. I have given the noble Lord two objections which I hope will prevail. He has not said what objection there is to doing it my way. He has not said that he thinks farmers will go right ahead and plough, irrespective of whether they are going to get grants or not. We are talking about the top of Exmoor. Who is going to plough the top of Exmoor if he is not going to get a ploughing grant to do it? I think that is rather unrealistic.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I cannot say that I am completely satisfied, but I think I am rather more satisfied than the noble Lord, Lord Foot. The Government have gone quite a way towards safe-guarding the position, and the assurance given on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture about ploughing grants appears to be of substantial importance. I do not wish to press the Amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 [Access to open country: rivers, canals and woodlands]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 23, after ("with") insert ("and seek the consent of, any river authority having functions relating to the river or canal in question and of").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 28 and insert ("where any authority so consulted withhold their consent").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27:

Signposting of footpaths and bridle ways

27.—(1) A highway authority, after consultation with the owner or occupier of the land concerned, shall have power to erect and maintain signposts along any footpath or bridleway for which they are the highway authority.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, at every point where a footpath or bridleway leaves a metalled road the highway authority shall in exercise of their power under subsection (1) above erect and maintain a signpost— (a) indicating that the footpath or bridle-way is a public footpath or bridleway, and

(3) A highway authority need not erect a signpost in accordance with subsection (2) above at a particular site if the highway authority, after consulting the council of the parish in which the site is situated, or as the case may be the chairman of the parish meeting, not having a parish council, in which the site is situated, are satisfied that it is not necessary, and if the parish council, or as the case may be the parish meeting, agree.

7.2 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "bridleway" insert "or byway". The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, my remarks relate also to a long series of Amendments, namely, Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. They cover the same point and collectively do one thing. I must echo what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has said in that I am a great hater of the practice of moving Amendments on Third Reading. However, in this instance I have no option, and I propose at a later stage, when we come to the question "That the Bill do now pass", to voice my dislike of this process in rather rounder terms.

Clause 27 provides that there shall he appropriate powers and duties on the part of the highway authorities concerned to provide signposts as required for footpaths and bridleways. There is no mention of the new category of byways which are to be created under the Bill. The object of this string of Amendments is to provide that appropriate powers and duties for such signposting will be laid upon highway authorities in exactly the same way as it is provided in the case of the other two categories, footpaths and bridleways.

During the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Howe proposed similar Amendments in regard to the signposting of what we now know as roads used as public footpaths, but he withdrew them when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the Government indicated that arrangements would be made in the not too distant future to abolish the roads used as public footpaths, in accordance with the proposed re-classification which is now to be implemented under the provisions of Part III of Schedule 3 to the Bill. Eventually, and very hastily, these arrangements were made and the provisions introduced, but no arrangements appear to have been made for any Amendment to Clause 27 to provide for the signposting of this new category of byways.

If I have correctly interpreted Amendment No. 15, which I assume my noble friend Lord Brooke will move a little later, I understand that he is of opinion that it is necessary to provide signposting for the benefit of cyclists. It would perhaps be more necessary to provide appropriate signposting for the benefit of those who drive motor cars of various categories. I have heard it voiced on all sides in your Lordships' House in the past that the sometimes hapless and bemused driver should have a clear indication given to him of what he may or may not do. The purpose of this series of Amendments is to allow him to have such an indication. I believe that this is a reasonable provision to make, and this series of Amendments should commend itself to your Lordships.

While I am on the subject, may I refer to the fact that unfortunately the Government have been unwilling to do anything to deal with the signposting of the existing roads used as public footpaths until they are abolished. I shall be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can assure me that there will be nothing to prevent the continuance of the existing practice of putting up cart track signs on such public roads used as public paths so long as they continue to exist. I should also like to know from him that the Government will give appropriate advice to local authorities about this matter, preferably after consultation with the organisations which have an interest in the affairs of vehicle users. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 16, after ("bridleway") insert ("or byway").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, the idea is this, and I think it is reasonable. The R.U.P.P.s—that is to say, the roads used as public paths—are to be classified three ways. Some are to become footpaths, some are to become bridleways, and some are to become byways open to all traffic. Those that become footpaths or bridleways will be dealt with under Clause 27. I think the noble Lord has no objection to that. There remains the third class, those that become byways open to all traffic. It seems to the Government that the best thing is to let those be dealt with according to the same system which applies to all other ways open to all traffic, and that is by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. So it is not that there is no provision governing the R.U.P.P.s which are re-classified as byways open to all traffic. What happens is that the provisions of that Act are attracted to them and they are then signposted in accordance with what happens in the case of other ways open to all traffic. The House will not wish me to go through everything in the Act, but it may be of interest to point out that along with the normal provisions that one would expect, it says: The Minister may give directions to a highway authority for the placing of a traffic sign of any prescribed type or authorised character specified in the directions; for replacing a sign so specified by, or converting it into, a sign of another prescribed type or authorised character so specified. So one already has this procedure in the 1967 Act, which is subject to Ministerial directions which no doubt the Minister would be able to give if he were convinced there was a case.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not find the reply entirely convincing. There is a case for these roads, which may have been used for some time, to be signposted. It is not good enough to refer to an existing measure on the Statute Book which says that the Minister "may" do something. He may not. We are talking here of a thousand miles of such roads up and down the country. There may have been some which have been used in the past. If they are not now allowed to be used, then people who might otherwise use them should be told so. I do not think that is at all an unreasonable thing to ask. Having said that, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is going to say anything about the other question which I asked him?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, of course the Road Traffic Regulation Act empowers the highway authority to make certain sorts of regulations about sign-posting on certain highways, and the reclassified R.U.P.P.s which become open to all traffic will then fall under that Act. This is not the only thing about which it is said the Minister may direct this or that. The noble Lord's Amendment must be based on a feeling that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 is inadequate to cover the class of ways that he is talking about, but he has not said in what way that Act is inadequate. I hesitate to detain the House by reading out everything the Act allows everybody to do, but it is a very large battery of provisions.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I thought I had already dealt with the point about the Act saying that the Minister may do those things, and if my Amendment were accepted the duty would then be somewhat stronger. But in the circumstances I do not propose to press this point any further, if the noble Lord will deal with the rest of my inquiry.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, but I have forgotten it. Would he repeat it?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I should be delighted, and I do not blame the noble Lord in the slightest, because he has had a long afternoon. I asked him whether there was anything to prevent the continuance of the existing practice of putting up cart-track signs on roads used as public paths, so long as they continued to exist before reclassification under the Bill. I also asked him whether the Government would give appropriate advice to the authorities about this.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I do not know that cart-track signs are a legal entity, but the Government will certainly give advice on this matter to any local authority or highway authority which seeks it.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not think that gives me the assurance I need. No doubt the Government would give advice if anybody sought it. But I can see that I shall not get anywhere on this matter of clarification for the benefit of drivers generally. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.13 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I think this Amendment is self-explanatory. I moved an Amendment in identical terms on the Report stage, and on that occasion I withdrew it because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that if I allowed him to consider the matter between then and Third Reading that would be the most sensible plan. I hope it has turned out to be the most sensible plan, and that his consideration meanwhile will lead him to give a favourable reply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 23, at end insert (", if it is a footpath available to be used also by cyclists, indicating that fact, and").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, let me say in preface to my remarks, in response to the noble Lord's extremely brief and courteous motion of his Amendment, that in replying to him at an earlier stage I think I may have gone too far in saying that there were rights for cyclists on footpaths which would be unaffected by this Bill. Generally speaking there are not, but one needs to be cautious of any such statement because there is any amount of undetermined undergrowth of legal Statutes in this field.

The rights of cyclists on highways (other than such rights as will be exercisable over bridleways in pursuance of Clause 30 of the Bill) remain a matter to be determined in the circumstances of each case. Ignoring for the moment the definition of "footpath", the Amendment of the noble Lord would involve highway authorities in determining in each case, before erecting a signpost pursuant to the duty which Clause 27(2) seeks to impose, whether cyclists have a right to use the "footpaths". This would not be easy to determine, and it would be necessary to provide special machinery on the lines of Part IV of the Act of 1949 or of Schedule 3 to the Bill.

In doing all this the authorities would not be simply making an act of will, Yea or Nay, and asking, "Do we want cyclists on this footpath?" They would be giving expression to a hypothetical existing condition of the law. To do this is obviously very difficult, and if we accepted this Amendment we should in effect be imposing that burden on them. So I hope that, recognising the difficulty in practical terms for a local authority, the noble Lord will not insist on his Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I find this a rather extraordinary argument. If it is only right and proper, as it surely is, that it should be determined whether a footpath is available to be walked on by people on foot, why is it not equally right and proper that it should be determined whether or not it is available to cyclists on cycles? If it is available to cyclists on cycles, a sign should be put up to say so in exactly the same way as a sign has to be put up to enable walkers to know that it is a footpath which they may use. Why are cyclists being used as victims in an extraordinary uncertainty about the law which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to have resolved?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I should also have thought that if it was reasonable for cyclists to be told where they could go, it was reasonable for motorists to be told where they could go.

LORD BROOKE CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful for the support which I have received for this Amendment. I must say that. I, too, found the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, difficult to follow. He referred to a hypothetical existing condition of the law. If something is existing, then I fail to understand how it can be hypothetical. I think the noble Lord's advisers ought to do better than that next time.

I carefully avoided using the word "right" in my Amendment, because I realised that there might be some complication in determining whether there was an actual right for cyclists to go along a path. I used the word "available", because it seemed to me that there were probably certain paths which cyclists had used for years which nobody had showed any sign of stopping them using. So it would therefore be desirable that the cyclist who perhaps did not come from the neighbourhood should be alerted to that fact.

We all have a common interest in these days in getting cyclists off main roads where they are in danger, and where they may cause danger to other road users, and in encouraging them to go along paths which are available to them. However, I understand from the noble Lord that there is a legal difficulty about this, and I greatly regret it if my Amendment is not acceptable. I hope he will consider the possibility of advising the appropriate authorities that where a footpath is, in fact, available to be used by cyclists, it would be a good thing for them to make that fact known. That is my object, which I should have thought was entirely acceptable. I should also have thought that, without requiring anybody to enter into excessive legal complications, it would be quite reasonable for the appropriate authorities to take that action. I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend will consider whether, by circular, speech or otherwise, that idea could be conveyed. I will not press the Amendment now because of the legal difficulties, bit I hope I have convinced the noble Lord and your Lordships that it really would be a practical advantage if something on these lines could be done. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments. I think they require no explanation. They were brought to the Government's attention by the Parish Councils Association. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 32, after ("meeting") insert ("for the parish").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 34, after ("be") insert ("the chairman of").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, under Section 126 of the Highways Act, 1959, highway authorities have at present a certain number of agreements with landowners about the maintenance of stiles, gates and so forth, on footpaths or bridle-ways which come under the highway authorities. The purpose of the present Amendment is to save those agreements which already stand from the operation of the reimbursement provisions for stiles, gates and so forth in the Countryside Bill now before the House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 38, at end insert ("or if any conditions for the maintenance of the structure are for the time being in force under section 126 of the Highways Act 1959 (authority for erection of stiles etc.)")— (Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, this is a paving Amendment to the next Amendment, No. 26, so perhaps it would be to your Lordships' convenience if we could discuss them both together. Amendment No. 26 is, I think, self-explanatory. No less than 21 years ago the Hobhouse Committee recommended that wheeling a bicycle on a footpath, dismounted, should not be illegal in the absence of a by-law to the contrary. To the best of my knowledge that recommendation has never been acted upon by any subsequent Government. It seems a perfectly sensible amendment of the law to make, and that is why I propose it here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 27, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has any evidence that it is stated to be illegal or has been held to be illegal anywhere in the absence of a by-law to the contrary? I think everybody is agreed that one should be able to do this, but we in the Ministry have no evidence of people who are discontented and have a grievance because they have been prevented from doing it under the existing provisions.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, there is dubiety about this matter, because I am sure that otherwise the Hobhouse Committee would not have recommended it. I certainly cannot quote a case where anybody has been prosecuted for it in recent years. I am quite sure that there is uncertainty in the minds of cyclists as to whether they can do this or not. It may be that other noble Lords will be able to throw fresh light on it; but there does not seem to me to be any valid reason against amending the law if a very responsible Committee has recommended that the law should be clarified in this respect.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, if one noble Lord could throw light on it, it would be to suggest that people who push bicycles in those circumstances are tempted to get on them.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, that is a practical point, but as a member of the Hobhouse Committee—there are some survivors still—I think it is perfectly clear that this is an offence. I do not think the fact that the police have been sensible about not prosecuting so far is any argument to the contrary. It is like the case of a person pushing a bicycle along on a pavement by the side of a road, and certainly I have known prosecutions for that, very understandably. I should have thought that the legal situation was exactly the same. As this matter can be safeguarded by a very simple Amendment here, which does not give rise to any difficulty, I should have thought the Government might very well accept it.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, if I may speak again, is there any reason why this should not be accepted?

LORD KENNET

Only the general one, my Lords, that one must naturally be reluctant to clutter up a Bill with details saying that this or that is not permitted, or even that this or that is permitted. Should we not then have a clause saying whether it is permitted to carry a bicycle, or to push it with one wheel on the ground and not the other, or in which position one may carry it? And what about wheeling a tricycle, and so on and so forth? I confess to the feeling that at the end of the day you have to leave a certain number of questions simply uncovered by Statute Law, and I should myself prefer that this question whether or not, in the absence of a by-law to the contrary, a citizen has the right to wheel a bicycle on a footpath should be left blank in our Statute Law, just on the grounds of keeping it short. We have many complaints as to the cumbrousness of legislation and as to the excessive bulk of Statute Law, and this surely is a case in point.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, it surely is a well-known, recognised practice to introduce into a Statute a clause which says, "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that…"—and those words could then have been inserted. I should not have thought they were necessary, but if they had been surely there would have been no possible objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. Surely Her Majesty's Government can bend themselves to accept this Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, with permission, I should like to say that I can see no reason at all why this should not be incorporated in the law. I do not feel disposed to withdraw it. I think this is something which the noble Lord should allow to go back to another place. If in fact there they find it offensive, then I shall not create a constitutional crisis between the two Houses by seeking to stand firm on it; but I think I have sufficient support for refraining from withdrawing it and for seeking to secure that a decision on it is reached in another place.

LORD KENNET

Before the Question is put, let me say this. I do not seek to dissuade the House from sending, this Amendment to another place to see what they think about it. But in the debates which come before us let us remember the amount of time we have given to the question whether or not it shall be legal, in the absence of a by-law to the contrary, for a citizen to wheel a bicycle on a footpath; and if complaints are levelled against the Government about the excessive detail and number of provisions in Bills to be brought before this House, and if there is an argument about the amount of time to be provided fur the discussion of those provisions, I for one shall remember the discussion of the last few minutes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:

Wheeling of pedal bicycles on footpaths

(". Any member of the public shall subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws, have the right to wheel a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, oil any footpath.")—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 [Exchequer grants for Lee Valley Regional Park]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this Amendment is what you might call "late consequential" on an Amendment that we passed earlier which provided grant towards the costs of local authorities incurred in acquiring land for the purpose of planting trees to preserve or enhance the beauty of their area. What the early Amendment did not do was to allow the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to do the same thing. In the view of the Government they are on all fours with other authorities which now have that right and ought therefore to have it as well. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 18, at end insert ("for the purpose of planting trees on land in their area for preserving or enhancing the natural beauty thereof, and expenditure in 07 in connection with the acquisition of land for that purpose").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.32 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 45, to insert the following new clause:

Designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty: hearings

".—(1) This section has effect where the Commission makes an order under subsection (1) of section 87 of the Act of 1949 designating an area for the purposes of that Act as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on Committee stage advised the rejection of an Amendment the main purpose of which was to allow a local inquiry to be held if there were objections, for instance, to certain marginal areas being included in a proposal to designate an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the point at issue was whether or not the area in question was of outstanding natural beauty and that, in that particular context, the mineral extractive industries had no particular expertise to bring to bear on the subject. The noble Lord went on to say that if, at a later date, the mineral extractor is refused planning permission, he then has a right of appeal to the Minister; and that was the time for the Minister to take into account the needs of the mineral industry.

What I am asking now is that the Minister should take into account these needs when the Commission send the designation order to him with any representations that they may have received, by allowing any person who has made representations the opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister. Such a hearing at that point of time would surely avoid duplication and difficulties and the delay inherent in an appeal to the Minister after a refusal of a planning application. It would also ensure that the reasons why the objections had been made were firmly on the record. I would add that the proposal which I am placing before your Lordships is in line with the provisions of Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Regulations, 1965 and with the provisions of Clause 4(3)(b) of to-day's Town and Country Planning Bill regarding structure plans.

As an example, I would mention how this proposed new clause could affect the Kent Downs Order which is now before the Minister and awaiting confirmation. If the Minister is willing to accept my Amendment there would then be an opportunity for a record to be kept at this point of time—and I stress that—that there were included in the area alternative reserve raw material areas to support new works which a company is proposing to erect at Northfleet. These works are to have a capacity of 3.6 million tons of cement per annum and they will be the largest cement producing unit in the United Kingdom. The available chalk supplies from the existing quarrying area will service these works only for the next twenty years. This could be extended for another ten years by permission to deepen the diggings, but, after that, to cover the economic life of the works that I have mentioned, further chalk areas to either the East or the West of the Medway would be required.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it would be wise and opportune if the Minister were able now, when the Bill is passed, to consider and be au fait with all these matters prior to a confirmation of this particular Order? It may he that the Minister will agree to the deletion of certain areas in the Order. Be that as it may, I do not think that it changes the desirable requirement that some arrangement should be made for the parties to be heard so that there is put on record in detail the very reasons why exclusions are sought. The individual importance of each area for which exclusion is sought could also be discussed. Surely this conflict between amenity and the needs of industry, coupled with the fact of their very existence, should be carefully considered by the Minister when the Order is before him, with an opportunity for a hearing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 45 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Merrivale.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, in asking for the third time for a hearing for possible objectors, and especially the mineral extractive industry, before the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, the noble Lord said that such a hearing would avoid duplication and delays when the same matters came under consideration at the time of a planning application for mineral extraction in the same place. A different question is being examined on the two occasions. On the first occasion, the question under examination is whether or not the area is of outstanding natural beauty. On the second occasion, the question under examination is whether or not the mineral extractive company ought to be allowed to extract minerals in that place. The noble Lord also drew an analogy with the structure plans that we dealt with earlier this afternoon, where there is provision for an inquiry and a hearing. I do not know whether he was thinking of local planing. I expect he was. In any case, in these plans the question under examination is whether an area should be planned—

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I was speaking of structure plans.

LORD KENNET

It is the same in both cases. There is a hearing in both cases. In those cases the question under examination is whether a given area should or should not be developed in the way proposed by the local planning authority. In that question, the livelihoods, the amenity interests and workaday interests of hundreds, thousands or millions of people may be involved. The question examined in the case envisaged by the noble Lord is still whether or not a given area, or part of it, is of outstanding natural beauty. This affects neither the interests not the workaday life of anybody, let alone those of a great mineral extractive company.

The noble Lord raised a question concerned with Kent. I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on a particular planning case. Let me take a hypothetical case. I think what worries him to-day is the little bit at the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty which is not as beautiful as the rest but yet has a lot of lovely gravel in it. The noble Lord asks: "Why should not the company come along before it is designated and suggest that that part be left out?" The answer is because it will be equally easy for them to come along at the time of their own application for planning permission and make the same point, namely, that this bit is of less natural beauty than the rest and that there is a lot of lovely gravel there. And if those two facts are true—I have not the least doubt that they will be in the case of the kind of companies the noble Lord has in mind—they will be the more likely to weigh with the local authority, or in default of them the Minister, and he will be the more likely to give consent, which will be the purpose of the whole operation.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is not able to agree to a hearing being held by the Minister when representations have been submitted by the Commission, rather than relying on the Minister rceiving an appeal at a later date, if the local planning authority does not agree to a planning application. I should have thought that it would be a great advantage to the Minister concerned, and to the industries affected, if, in effect, these representations and why they were put forward were on the record. For I still feel that they would alleviate delays at a later occasion, many years later; for then the local planning authority could get in touch with the Minister and would know that certain areas had—shall we say?—been earmarked by the company concerned so that some specific works could continue to be serviced.

I cannot see what harm there could be in having a hearing held by the Minister. Already he has before him the representations submitted by the Commission when they put forward their proposal for a designation order. I should have thought this was the time to hear the reasons why the representations were made. At the moment, so far as I can ascertain, the Commission receive these representations but do not go into any detail about why they were made, or consider, marginal area by marginal area, whether or not certain exclusions should be made. I understand that they just say to the company, "What you are asking does not fit in with our plan, which is to designate some particular area." My Lords, it is a very late stage in the proceedings on this Bill at which to try again to influence the Government. I have tried to do so in the past, but with those final words I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 [Interpretation]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 26, at end insert ("'river authority' means a river authority constituted by or under the Water Resources Act 1963 and the Conservators of the River Thames, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and the Isle of Wight River and Water Authority")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 [Short title, repeals, Commencement and extent]:

7.43 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved to add to subsection (3): except that Parts III and IV of Schedule 3 shall come into force on such day as the Minister may by order, made by statutory instrument. appoint and such an order shall not be effective until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment for two reasons. The first is that these provisions, as your Lordships know, were produced in the middle of the Report stage two and a half hours or so before your Lordships' House was due to sit. The Amendment is designed to ensure that these provisions have proper Parliamentary consideration. The time given has been deplorably short. The second reason is to enable proper and full consultation to take place with interested parties in varying respects, I do not know the full details about what consultations the noble Lord's right honourable friend may have held. I know of some, but none of them was with parties representing the interests of vehicle users, and certainly not the motoring organisations. I have said already that I shall deal with this at greater length a little later. If by any chance the noble Lord is going to refer to the letter that his right honourable friend wrote to me to-day offering such consultation, I will tell him—

LORD KENNET

My Lords, before the noble Lord tells me, may I say that I was going to refer to the letter but only to the extent of asking, I hope courteously, whether he had received it. I gather that he has.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I will give the noble Lord a courteous, "Yes". I tried to catch him in the corridor to tell him, but he was in a hurry, I think, to consult, and I was not able to do so. I hope that, equally courteously, I may say, "Yes, thank you, I did receive it." But I would also say that receiving an offer to consult at 1.15 p.m. to-day, the day that the Bill is due to receive its very last consideration on its way through Parliament, is to me absolutely no kind of an offer at all. For these reasons I have put down this Amendment. I believe it is one that your Lordships may well wish to accept. I think it one that will not cause delay but will afford an opportunity to give the proper consideration that such measures should have. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 3. at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am truly puzzled by the remarks of the noble Lord. What he did not do was to tell us what would be the effect of his Amendment. Let us examine together the substance of this Amendment, and then I will ask the noble Lord, if I may, to tell your Lordships' House what sort of consultation he wants. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to defer the operation of Parts III and IV of the Schedule 3 until an appointed day made by Statutory Instrument—and so on. What do Parts III and IV of the Schedule do? They provide for the survey of roads used as public paths so that each road can be put into its appropriate category, as I described to the House at an earlier time. Is it the wish of the noble Earl that this survey should not take place; and, if so, why? Does he want the roads used as public paths to remain as they are? Does he disagree with the Gosling Committee's recommendation that they should be split up? If so, I can only suggest to him that it is rather late in the day to make a big "thing" of this. Or does he want them to be split up in different ways?—because that comes elsewhere in the Bill and he is not seeking to amend it. Or what is it that he wants to happen?

I am truly at a loss about this, and I think that I had better do no more at the moment than to ask him to enlighten your Lordships' House, and me, as to the purpose underlying his suggestion that this operation be put off until the Minister says that it ought to happen.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, before I answer that question, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can tell me at what earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill I could have made a big, small or any kind of "thing" of this matter?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, all noble Lords are free to move Amendments at any point they wish, on Committee and on Report, as well as on Third Reading.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, these provisions were not in the Bill at the time of the Committee stage, they were introduced in the middle of the Report stage at two and a half hours' notice. At what stage could I have been expected to make any kind of "thing" of this, or move any Amendment to it? That is entirely the burden of my complaint. These matters have not been considered properly. In the normal way one would have expected that there would have been consultation with my own motoring organisation, as well as with others. This sort of consultation is normal. It is expected and usually carried out. It has not been done here. I have written several letters to the Minister concerned asking that there should be consultation on the matters dealt with in these new Amendments. Consultation has not been forthcoming until 1.15 p.m. to-day as the result of a rather sharp postscript I put on my letter. It is not good enough, and it will not do. The noble Lord should now understand exactly what I am trying to achieve.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am quite unable to pour oil on these troubled waters. It seems to me that this is another difficulty arising simply and solely out of the habit of the Government of tabling Amendments to this Bill at the very last moment so that it is impossible for any of us to have time to consider whether they are acceptable. In this case, I feel some difficulty in going all the way with my noble friend because, if he will remember, his noble friend and mine, Lord Molson, warmly welcomed this part of the Bill when it was tabled, though he said that he had had no time to take it in and was dependent on the Minister's explanation. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not think that I am arguing this purely on Party lines. I believe that it is bad for legislation when we are called upon to consider substantial new Amendments with no notice at all. In these circumstances, it is completely understandable if my noble friend moves an Amendment designed simply and solely, so far as I can see, to give more time for examination of this. In this case, whether his Amendment is agreed to or not, Parts III and IV of the Bill will have to go back to another place to be examined. But I have the greatest sympathy with him, be cause this is a glaring example of the additional trouble being caused to your Lordships' House, which jeopardises good legislation, by the late tabling of Government Amendments.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, that really is only part of the story. I accept the noble Lord's correction: I was in error, and he could not have put down his Amendment earlier. What first happened was that on Committee stage I male a statement that an Amendment would be moved on Report. I gave a fairly full account of what the Amendment would be about, the tripartite division and the procedure by which this could be done in connection with map revision. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Chest am, saying anything about it at that time, but I speak subject to correction once again.

Let us look a little farther back. This provision was not brought out of a hat on Report stage in your Lordships' House. It is putting into effect one of the recommendations of the Gosling Committee, and that Committee was set up to inquire into all this, to take account of everybody's interests and ask all the relevant questions, whether or not they agreed with this, and what they wanted done. It is a fact, which the House should bear in mind, that the R.A.C., which I assume might have an interest in this matter, was invited to give evidence to the Gosling Committee and did not take up the invitation to do so. Therefore, if the Gosling Committee recommendation is unwelcome to the R.A.C., one might hold the view that it would be wrong for them to come in and object at this stage. But it is possible to overdo this emphasis on last-minute Government revision, which had been announced in advance, and which is following up the results of an expert Committee before which everybody was free to give evidence.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, it may be that the R.A.C. has an interest in this, but the noble Lord's argument seems to me to be regrettable. I was well aware of the evidence collected by the Gosling Committee. I was not aware until recently what was going to happen—and the noble Lord in his statement on Committee was not completely explicit about it. If he was explicit why did he not put an Amendment down then? He did not tell us what the Government were going to do. We have not had an opportunity to consider this properly. There are certain aspects which from the vehicle user's point of view are—I will not go so far as to say objectionable, but at least arguable. It has always been customary when there were differences of opinion to iron them out in consultation, for which I have been asking for some weeks, and which I have not been granted. It has not been possible to iron out these things since 1.15 p.m. to-day when consultation was first offered. I think that this is a procedure "up with which I personally cannot put."

LORD KENNET

My Lords, before the Question is put I should like to get upon the Record that I personally—and I speak for no one else—have seen no communications, letters, telegrams or any other form of communication, from the noble Lord asking for consultation on this.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, if the noble Lord will consult the Private Secretary to his right honourable friend, he can no doubt be shown the file.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, if I may have permission to speak again, we really are in deep waters here. Since the Amendment was moved, I have been reading again the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Proceedings on Report stage when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was, as he said, giving an account of this matter. When I complained that the Amendments had been available in the Printed Paper Office only two and a half hours before the House met, the noble Lord said: … may I say that of course it is not simply a question of drafting; it is also a question of consultation which imposes delay. This is a difficult decision for any Government to take. We could have brought this Amendment before your Lordships earlier, but that would have meant we should not have consulted everybody who ought to have been consulted in the local authority world, and the associations concerned, to the extent that they ought to have been consulted. It is an extremely complex matter, as I think your Lordships know from the complications which we have found in the discussion of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/5/68, cols. 629–630.] When I heard the noble Lord say that, I assumed that the Government had consulted everybody, and that the length of those consultations was a principal reason why the Government had not been able until the very last moment to table their Amendments. Now it emerges from the debate on this Amendment, in spite of what was said then, that certain bodies who were obviously vitally concerned had not been consulted, and that is why we are in this trouble.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I must confess, on what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, that I cannot help feeling considerable sympathy for him. I would also say that I do not think that sympathy is enough in the circumstances. Clearly we do not want to hold up the progress of this Bill. I think that what he would like is to find a way to ensure that, before this matter is settled one way or the other, there is proper consultation, and if it is possible to leave the matter open in some way, whether here or in another place, this will go some way to meet him. I know that my noble friend Lord Kennet has been considering this closely. I take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. I should not like him, or indeed any other noble Lords opposite, to think that when they make a point of this kind it falls on deaf ears. I think it is my duty as Leader of the House to have some regard to the rights of all noble Lords. In the light of that, I think that perhaps if the House were to give leave to my noble friend Lord Kennet to speak again it might be that he has some way in which he can help us through this.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, clearly there has been some breakdown and misunderstanding in communication somewhere. Let me repeat what I said. I have never, to my knowledge, refused to consult with any noble Lord on any topic about a Bill going through the House; nor shall I ever do so. It did not arise in this case, and for me it never will. But things do go wrong. Something may have gone adrift, and that being so, I think that probably the best thing I can do is to say that I cannot advise the House against accepting this Amendment, and this will be one means of obtaining time for the consultation which the noble Lord desires.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am grateful for the conciliatory attitude of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for what he has said. If there is any justification for what he said, I did not write to him I wrote to the Minister, which I thought I was perfectly entitled to do. It is with the Minister that I have been corresponding. I am most surprised to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does not know of this correspondence. If the House wishes to accept this Amendment. I hope it will do so, because, quite frankly, despite the help I am receiving from the Government here, I cannot see my way to withdraw it. The reason is that an offer of consultation after legislation has been enacted is not an offer of consultation at all. Consultation occurs beforehand, not afterwards. For this reason, I do not feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Proposals submitted to statutory undertakers and other authorities]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31, which is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 7, leave out ("object") and insert ("withhold their consent").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 8, leave out ("and the objection is not withdrawn").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 10, leave out ("objection") and insert ("grounds for withholding consent").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Public rights of way]:

8.5 p.m.

LORD KENNET

moved, in paragraph 4(3) of Part II, to leave out all words after "shall" and to substitute: "cause a local enquiry to be held". The noble Lord said: My Lords I should like to discuss Amendments No. 34 and 35 together. They give effect to an under-taking which was given to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on the Report stage, that the Government would consider amending the shortened review procedure in order to ensure that in a dispute about a right of way each side in the dispute would be accorded the same treatment. The effect of these Amendments will be that the Minister will cause a local inquiry to be held if objections are made to alterations affected by, or anything omitted from, the draft revision map and not withdrawn. In this way any person interested will be able to make representations to an inspector about the rights of way in dispute at any inquiry, which will be advertised in the normal way. This provides a fully balanced procedure for a public hearing of both sides of the case.

Paragraph 4 (5) of the Schedule is however retained, and I should explain this. It ensures that if the Minister does not simply say "Yes" or "No" to what is proposed. hut says something halfway between "Yes" and "No". or "on condition", or makes a new decision himself; if the Minister does anything he has not been asked to do by anybody in his decision, then he shall be bound, before making the decision final, to communicate with any person who may be affected. I think this is the complete picture. It is really analogous to the situation that prevails in planning law. One has everything here. You get the draft published. Anybody who is affected by what is proposed goes along and has his say. You then get a report and recommendation to the Minister, and he can take his conclusion there and then, so long as it is either "Yes" or "No", to what is proposed. If, on the other hand, the Minister, of his own judgment, takes account of anything else, and decides half-way, or something different again, he must communicate that decision to anybody concerned, and to anybody who may not have thought he would be affected at an early stage but who now is. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 44, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 47, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, as one of those who was concerned with this Amendment at an earlier stage, I should like to say that I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for the course that they have taken.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, this is all part of the same point. I beg to move—

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 4. leave out from ("by") to ("take") and insert ("the person appointed to hold the local enquiry").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.9 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in paragraph 9(1) of Part III, to leave out head (a) and insert: (a) a "byway" together with an indication whether it is open to all traffic or to specified types of traffic,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that it seems perfectly reasonable to think that there will probably be some roads used as public footpaths which will be well suited to some types of vehicles but not to others.

A good example of this, I think, would be something which might be suitable for motor-cyclists, but not for other classes of vehicles; or it might in some circumstances be suitable for motor cars, but not for any form of commercial vehicle. I think there should be adequate and proper provision to enable a suitable classification to be made in such cases, so that these restrictive categories of vehicles would be able to use the ways where appropriate, instead of just simply extinguishing all rights of way for vehicles. I see that, as the noble Lord pointed out before, provision is included for road traffic orders to be made under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967, This would, I think, permit restriction of the use of a byway open to all traffic to certain classes, but such action would be taken only after reclassification had been decided and the review had taken place.

Paragraph 11 seems to me undesirably limited in the way that it specifies matters to be considered when deciding whether or not a road used as a public path should be classified as a byway open to all traffic; and if a particular public path is assessed as being only suitable for use of motor cycles it would seem unlikely that it would then be classified as a byway open to all traffic, or that indeed it would be satisfactory if it were. The way the Bill stands, it seems here to be all or nothing. I think we require a broader definition, and that is what my Amendment sets out to achieve. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 29, leave out article (a) and insert the said new article.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD KENNET

My Lords, the intention at present is that once the roads have been reclassified, if they ever are, as byways they will come within the existing highways law, as I said on an earlier occasion in another context, and it will be possible to make traffic restriction orders applicable to them under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967. Orders limiting the type of traffic will therefore be considered separately, and signs indicating the restrictions in force will be displayed on the roads when the orders are in force. The existing public rights over each way, as well as the condition of the surface and width of way and suitability for traffic, will all be considered. I do not know whether that explanation meets the noble Lord's point or whether he would like to withdraw this Amendment and include the ground it covers in the consultations which we are to have.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think I appreciate the point the noble Lord has made about this. But it seemed to me that the noble Lord had some doubt about whether this reclassification would take place, because I thought I heard him say, "When it takes place, if it ever does".

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I was referring only to the possibility, the remoteness of which we shall all be the judge, of whether the Amendment recently carried at the instance of the noble Lord would stand through the proceedings in the House of Commons and be acted upon by the Minister in such a way that these reviews did not take place.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I hope that no result of any consultation we might have would necessarily achieve that, because that is not what I am setting out to do. I am merely seeking to improve in certain respects the conditions in which this review would take place. What I am seeking to do at the moment is to make certain that what is in the Bill is not either open to all traffic or closed to all traffic. As the Bill now stands, it seems that there is no differentiation between the two. But if the noble Lord thinks that this Amendment will stand further scrutiny and consultations will iron out this kind of problem, I am prepared to accept that. But I do not know whether the noble Lord can say that, and I am sure I am not being impolite to him when I say that he is not quite sure if he can say that, either. Therefore, I am wondering whether I ought in fact to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am not quite sure that I followed what my noble friend was saying just now. As I understand it, this is a proposal to amend words which were inserted in the Bill in this House. They will therefore, in any case, either in the form as printed now or in their amended form as my noble friend proposes, have to go for consideration to another place. It is an obvious fact that if any Amendment is sent to another place it can be further amended there, whether in the light of successful consultations or of any other initiative. It certainly would seem that honourable Members elsewhere, if they felt strongly that the words in the Bill were not the right words, and that they should be amended in some such way as my noble friend suggests, could equally well put down Amendments there. I venture to suggest that it might be better if, instead of seeking to amend these words, all of which are now in the melting pot, pending consultations, we were to send this Part III and Part IV to another place as they stand and let the work be done there following the consultations, which in my view are essential.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, let me be sure that I have this quite straight. We shall be sending from here, as I understand it, the Lords Amendments. Surely it would be better to accept this Amendment at the present and send it; then, if the due process of consultation indicates that this Amendment should not be accepted, all that has to happen is that the Commons do not agree with the Amendment. If after consultation the matter is so fixed, there will be no further trouble from me. Surely that is the way to do it. One thing I will say to the noble Lord is that, in view of the consultations he promises, I have no intention of being unreasonable about it or anything like that; I am merely trying to improve the Bill in certain ways, which I hope to do successfully as a result of the consultations. But I do not see that my objective is going to be achieved by withholding the Amendment now. I think it should be done the other way round.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, prima facie I would agree that it can be done either way with perfect correctitude, but, as a matter of fact, if this Amendment is carried there are a couple of later Amendments on to-day's Marshalled List which it will be impossible to move. So the noble Lord may feel it would be better to do it the way his noble friend suggested, in order to allow the two later Amendments to be considered when we come to them in due order.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, could the noble Lord quickly tell me to which Amendments he is referring?

LORD KENNET

I will tell the noble Lord as quickly as I can. They are to Schedule 3, page 56, line 45; and Schedule 3, page 58, line 41.

LORD CHESHAM

Could the noble Lord repeat that? I am a little lost.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, if I may speak again, with the greatest respect, I find this very hard to follow. We are debating an Amendment to leave out: (a) a 'byway open to all traffic',"—

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I interrupt? I most profusely apologise. It should be the other way round. If those two Amendments are carried, we should not be able to carry this one. I apologise.

LORD CHESHAM

I did not move No. 36 for that very reason.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

If I may continue, my Lords—I was interrupted by the noble Lord— the issue is now whether we send back to the Commons (a) a 'byway open to all traffic', or (a) a 'byway' together with an indication whether it is open to all traffic or to specified types of traffic,". It is clearly open to us to do either, and whichever we do the words will be open to examination and possibly further amendment in another place. I feel in some difficulty here. But my noble friend has had, I think, a limited success in getting the Government not to oppose his earlier Amendment, ensuring further consideration in another place. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the Government see some real difficulty about this Amendment. I would therefore suggest that, even as a matter of diplomacy, it might be better for my noble friend, having put his views on record here, to leave the final wording entirely open to decision after the consultations, an object which he will completely secure if he were to withdraw this Amendment now.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am sorry to be argumentative about this, but there is one thing I do not understand. Since, after the Bill leaves here, the only further stage in its progress is consideration of the Lords Amendments in another place, if we do not put an Amendment in now I do not see how—although I am willing to be told if there is a way—a fresh Amendment can be made.

LORD AIREDALE

Hear, hear!

LORD KENNET

My Lords, one has to keep one's head. Unless both the noble Lord and I are mistaken, this is an Amendment to a part of the Bill which was inserted in this House. All such parts of the Bill must be considered de novo by the House of Commons and can be amended there, in distinction to other parts which originated in the House of Commons and came through this House unscathed.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I think I can help. If this is sent back to us from another place with a disagreement, possibly with the noble Lord's Amendment made with an Amendment, provided it is relevant to the disagreement it will be open to the noble Lord to move an Amendment again. I hope I am giving the correct advice to your Lordships, but I think the noble Lord has not finished with this particular matter.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, all I am anxious about is that it is procedurally possible to get this Amendment in. I can see how it is procedurally possible to put it in and then to get it out, but I am not sure of the procedure the other way round. I should have preferred the former procedure, but if the noble Lord the Leader of the House assures me that in the circumstances it is possible that this Amendment, after agreement, could be moved in when this part of the Bill goes before another place, I am happy. But I want that assurance.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I think the last speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put the matter beyond any doubt—that it can be dealt with when the Bill goes back to the Commons.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, in that case, and with the assurance given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House which I am taking as an assurance, I ask leave to withdraw—

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, in absolute honesty, and tempting though it is to keep quiet, I wish I could be absolutely certain that I have given him the correct advice. This is a part of the Bill which has been incorporated in this House, and if the Commons accept it there will be no disagreement and it will not come back to this House. Although the noble Lord was good enough to say that he would withdraw, I feel that I must make the position clear.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

But, my Lord, it can be amended in another place, can it not?

LORD SHACKLETON

That is so, my Lords, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will be prepared to accept this. I was just a little worried that I might have misled him into withdrawing his Amendment, and that I should subsequently find that the advice I had given him was not entirely sound. I did not want to be guilty of that. None the less, I hope the noble Lord will feel inclined to let it go to another place.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, if I can take that as an assurance that it can be so amended, I will accept that course, otherwise it will be no good having consultations and agreeing to amend it. If we agree in consultation and the noble Lord is prepared to see that it is amended, I am prepared to withdraw—

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I think I must make one final comment on that. If, when the noble Lord comes to see me and my ministerial colleagues, we reach agreement, we would then invite the House of Commons to amend it, but nothing is absolute.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, that is all I want to know, and now I will have a further shot at withdrawing it. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I beg to move that the further consideration of the Countryside Bill be adjourned for the purpose of taking a Message from the Commons into consideration.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.