Lords Sitting of 19 February 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Defence: Teeth Arms Increase
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by how much and in which respects have our teeth arms been increased as a result of the promised increase in defence spending since the last general election.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the promised increase in defence spending has taken place. The defence budget for 1981–82 will be 8 per cent. higher in real terms than in the last year of the previous Administration. In the same period substantial increases in our teeth arms have been achieved. The regular armed forces are 20,000 stronger and the volunteer reserves 7,000 higher than when we took office. The Government have announced the decision to purchase Trident as the replacement for Polaris, and other major new equipment programmes. An additional armoured regiment has been formed in BAOR and the number of tanks manned has risen from 475 to 560.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, may I say how flattered I am that in 24 hours I have moved up the scale of nobility from a Viscount to an Earl to reply to my Question! Would the noble Earl agree that the reply which he has given refers to what may take place in the future rather than answering my Question, which is what has taken place in the last 21 months?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the compliment about a rise in the peerage. I did state that the regular armed forces are 20,000 stronger and that the volunteer forces are 7,000 higher than when we took office. I also said that an additional armoured regiment had been formed in BAOR and the number of tanks manned has risen.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that two hunter killer nuclear submarines will be ordered this year?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, so far as naval arms are concerned, we have, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, planned orders for ships for next year, and tenders for the coming year under consideration include a nuclear-powered fleet submarine, two frigates and minesweeping trawlers, among other vessels.

BAOR: Absentee Servicemen
3.3p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average daily number of men absent from BAOR, in the United Kingdom, other than on duty in Northern Ireland, during the last 12 months and what were the principal reasons for those absences.
Viscount Long: My Lords, besides those on emergency tours in Northern Ireland, servicemen absent from BAOR are mainly on leave or on training courses. The numbers absent at any time are monitored and are subject to our continuing to be able to meet our NATO commitments. There are plans for the immediate return of those in the United Kingdom to BAOR in the event of an emergency. It is not the practice to publish detailed information about in-theatre strengths.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for that reply which does not really begin to answer my Question. If, as I strongly suspect, the figure for the daily average absence of men from BAOR is a high one, and if the majority of those men so absent are in the United Kingdom on training courses, would Her Majesty's Government consider that it would be more satisfactory, and achieve better economies in this atmosphere of trimmed defence expenditure, to organise training courses either on a central basis or under commanding officers' supervision actually in British Army of the Rhine?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very constructive question. We conduct as much training as possible in Germany. There are limitations on the training areas available, and, for example, we have use of Suffield in Canada for tank training and live firing.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree with the figure published within the last month in a Bow Group pamphlet which states that, on average, week-on-week there are 12,000 men absent from the Rhine Army in the United Kingdom, on courses at any one time?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. Perhaps I might say to him that I can neither confirm nor deny those figures.

Commonwealth Students
3.6 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new students

(a) from Nigeria and

771

(b) from all other Commonwealth developing countries

had been admitted for their first year to United Kingdom universities and polytechnics as at 1st November 1980 compared with the corresponding numbers admitted in 1978 and 1979.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, the number of new first-year students from Nigeria admitted to United Kingdom universities was 833 in 1978 and 721 in 1979; in polytechnics there were 505 in 1978 and 525 in 1979. From all other Commonwealth developing countries the figures for universities were 6,617 in 1978 and 6,150 in 1979, and for polytechnics 2,918 and 2,787 respectively. These figures include first-year students at both undergraduate and post-graduate levels, and those for polytechnics also include students starting non-advanced courses and advanced courses other than at first degree level. I regret that the information for 1980 will not be available for several months.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for those moderately reassuring figures, might I again ask her whether it is not very satisfactory that they have not been brought up to 1st November 1980—that is, the beginning of the present academic year—because they will be the only significant figures in the present context? In the circumstances, does she not agree that it would now be very desirable for the Government to set up some kind of machinery for consultation with the organisations active in this sphere—that is to say, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs, the Council for the Education of the Commonwealth and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors—to concert with them, if possible, some kind of general policy in future for the admission of foreign and overseas students into this country in order to allay the anxieties, if nothing else, of the universities and polytechnics which are now, as the noble Baroness knows, heavily down the drain as a result of the Government's policy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the information for 1980 for universities will be available in two or three months, and for public sector institutions this summer. As I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord on a similar Question yesterday, the Government are monitoring the effects of the policies on overseas students.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say why it takes so long to get the figures for the students registering on 1st November 1980? It seems ludicrous that they are not available.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find that students, particularly students from overseas, register during quite a period of time after the beginning of the academic year, and the fact is that this information is not available today.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that these figures will be very carefully
772
examined by Members of this House and, indeed, by representatives of the organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, because they would seem to indicate a fairly substantial drop as between one year and another, and we still do not know what has happened since the beginning of the session in October 1980? May I further ask whether she is aware of the immense and growing importance of Nigeria, of its increasing potential as both an industrial and an agricultural country, and that the figures for Nigeria need to be very carefully examined indeed to see whether in fact we are grasping the opportunity of the best form of investment in that country through the encouragement of student exchange?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have already published a Statistical Bulletin on all the most up-to-date information that we have on overseas students, and a copy is in the Library and is available. We are monitoring the effects. We are, of course, aware of the concern of this House and others about the whole question of overseas students' fees and the effect not only on our own universities, polytechnics and other institutes of higher education, but also on our relationships with members of the Commonwealth.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that taken individually every university knows perfectly well on 2nd November the number of overseas students who were registered the previous day? The university could also inform the Department of Education as to the percentage change in numbers compared with the previous year. From what I gather, the experience varies very greatly between different universities: in some cases it is small and in some cases it is large. If the noble Baroness does not yet have the figures, something is wrong with the Department of Education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot accept that. The tentative figures that have been published through the universities have been published at intervals since the start of the 1980 academic year. The particular figures for which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked are not yet available. However, as the noble Lord who asked this supplementary question will know, we have already published figures which show that compared with 1979–80 the numbers of first-year students—that is, all first-year students from overseas—have fallen by around 10 per cent. in the universities and 28 per cent. in the polytechnics and other public sector institutions. These figures were published some time ago.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that this fall in the number of students is regrettable and likely to be larger in the 1980 figures because of the higher charges? Is it not regrettable from two points of view? Does it not limit knowledge and appreciation of this country abroad, and does it not mean that the students who do come are from the rich élite or are subsidised by Governments—which is very much the same thing—and do not include many promising students from all classes in these territories?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have already indicated in answers that I have given to similar questions that we wish that more money was available for overseas students. But it is right that as a Government we should give priority to the importance of getting our economy right, and that is what we are doing. As regards the countries of origin of overseas students, money is still available through the overseas development organisation to help students from the developing countries of the Commonwealth.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, do the Government not realise that instead of saving money through this policy they are actually losing money?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is a statement which the Government are not able to accept.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I hold in my hand the Statistical Bulletin to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred this afternoon and yesterday. I should like to draw her attention to the top of page 3, where it says:
"Provisional information for universities about individual countries of origin should be available within a few weeks".
May I suggest to the noble Baroness that this should be published before the appearance of the Final Educational Statistical Record for 1980–81. Can she possibly help the House on this subject, in which we show such a great interest, by making these figures available in advance of the final statistical record?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science has published all the figures that have been available since the start of the academic year 1980. The Statistical Bulletin to which reference has been made was published this month and we do not yet have any more information to add to it. When we do, we shall publish it.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have figures for the colleges of higher education? In a way it seems a pity to separate them from the polytechnics because those colleges have contributed a great deal to the education of overseas students.
Baroness Young: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will table a Question on that, I shall supply the figures.

Small Businesses
3.15 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as a result of recent measures they expect that in 1981–82 the formation of small businesses will exceed the 65,000 founded in 1980.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government have already introduced a considerable number of measures designed to help small businesses prosper. How many
774
small businesses are formed in 1981–82 depends on a number of factors, not least the continuing fall in inflation and the state of world trade.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the continuing fall in the rate of inflation will be of considerable help to all industry, but particularly to the small businesses? Can he say what progress the Government are making in introducing new measures to help small businesses, which will be further advanced in the Companies Bill that we shall be debating next week? Can he say whether he is in touch with the Small Business Administration in the United States, which has existed for 25 years now, and whether we will garner the best ideas from their experiences and perhaps introduce them here?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, we are in touch with the United States, and I have had very useful meetings with Professor Birch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has some interesting facts and even more interesting ideas about small business formation. However, I am not convinced that to copy the American procedures of administration would be right in this area.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, with bankruptcies running at a conservative figure of about 150 a week, there would be 78,000 bankruptcies in a year compared with the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, gave, which I notice that the Minister did not even accept? Would it not be better if the Government's economic policies were aimed at keeping from bankruptcy the small businesses that exist now?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly do not accept the figure given to me by the noble Baroness. Statistics on the small business sector are scarce and notoriously difficult to derive from existing sources, and we are trying to improve that. As to the question of bankruptcies, fierce recession and counter-inflation policies contribute to bankruptcies, but not of course on anything like the scale that galloping inflation would.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that this morning I was told that 80,000 new businesses had started and that considerably fewer had failed in the last year, and that a great deal of publicity is given to bankruptcies and not to successes?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend having come to my aid. I have rather churlishly to stick on the fact that statistics in this area are difficult. That is not an excuse for not trying to improve them and one of the things we are doing is to try to improve the methods by which we quantify both the birth and death rates of small businesses.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that a great many of the small businesses which are driven out of business do not actually go bankrupt, but just wind up? Will he also confirm that the number of small businesses that were

775
trading at the beginning of 1980 and which have now ceased to trade is way in front of 100,000?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with the same caveats about the statistics, I broadly agree with the noble Lord. When I met Professor Birch—and, again, I must point out that he was talking in an American context—one of the things he said to me was, "You over here are much too frightened of bankruptcies. It is essential to have a rapid turnover of business".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that the biggest help that the Government could give to small businesses would be to reduce the bank rate so that they could borrow money at a decent figure? May we expect this in the course of the spinning of Government policy, which now appears to be taking place?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that lower interest rates would be very desirable, and I hope that all noble Lords who call for increases in Government spending in one area will recognise the effect on interest rates in another.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, perhaps I could bring some further comfort to the noble Earl and say that the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, which is the largest specialist institution dealing with small companies, financed in the financial year which is just ending well over 400 start-up companies, which is 32 per cent. more than last year. It has put out, or will have put out in the next few days, about £100 million to small businesses, which is over four times what it did five years ago.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I could not ask for comfort from a more authoritative source, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, for my benefit, and perhaps that of the House, can the noble Earl define what are small businesses from the point of view of this Question and of his statistics?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think we would really need a debate for that, but I am thinking in terms of up to 25 employees; that kind of scale.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, apart from the question of high interest rates, is the noble Earl aware that small businesses would benefit considerably from simplification of VAT so far as they are concerned, and some Government assistance in dealing with exorbitant rates charged to small businesses by speculative landlords, and that small businesses also have a problem in so far as local government rates are concerned?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord tacked the latter part of his supplementary on to the former, because obviously it is most important that local authorities, in deciding on their expenditure within their rate support grant limits,
776
do look at the effect on business, large and small, of unjustified or excessive rate increases.

Business
3.22 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Gowrie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the coal industry.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. It is proposed that the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill should be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately three-quarters of an hour and the Report stage of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill will be taken during this adjournment.
For the benefit of those Members of the House who may not have been present yesterday when I made a business Statement on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and in case it should have escaped their notice during their perusal of the Official Report this morning, it might be convenient if I repeat that the Government very much hope that it will be possible to complete the Committee stage today. As I said yesterday, I am sure that the whole House would welcome this. If in the course of the Committee this afternoon it should become clear that a Sitting tomorrow, Friday, 20th February, will be inevitable, I shall make a further business Statement to the House at or after the dinner adjournment.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the organisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
Redundancy Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 506:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Making of orders under ss. 39, 40, 41
.—(1) Orders made under sections 39, 40 or 41 shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and shall contain a map, on such scale as may be prescribed, showing such rights of way as are affected by the order.
(2) Appeals made to the Secretary of State under section 39(8) shall be in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: It did not escape my notice that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, had invited us to make better progress today than we have done hitherto, although as I said to him yesterday it was unfortunate that he should have chosen the precise moment to give your Lordships this advice when two of my amendments were about to be taken. I bear him no resentment for that, and I assure him that I shall take these amendments at the breakneck speed that this Bill has been experiencing all the way through its proceedings.
This is really a simple amendment which will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. If we look at Clauses 39, 40 and 41, we see there that surveying authorities are given power to make orders of various sorts. In Clause 39 they are given the power to alter the map and the statement prepared in definitive form for the area under Section 33 of the 1949 Act in consequence of any of the events occurring which are specified in subsection (3) of the clause.
Clause 40 gives a similar power to make orders modifying the map and statement after reviewing all RUPPs and reclassifying them as byways open to all traffic, bridleways, or footpaths. Finally, Clause 41 contains the power to make orders modifying the map and statement after a survey begun under Sections 27 to 32 of the 1949 Act has been abandoned, after a draft map and statement have been prepared, and the period for making objections or representations has expired, giving effect to decisions of the Secretary of State on objections, but also implementing proposals contained in the draft definitive or draft revised definitive map which did not attract any objection.
What this new clause modestly proposes to do is to provide that the Secretary of State shall prescribe the form of the orders made under any of the provisions I have mentioned, and also the form in which appeals would be made if there were to be a machinery for making appeals under Clause 39. Of course, when I drafted this amendment I never for one moment
778
imagined that the Committee would reject Amendments Nos. 477 and 478, which your Lordships will remember sought to create a right of appeal where an authority had ignored, or had declined to act on, a written claim alleging that one of the events mentioned in Clause 39(3) had occurred. I hope that this is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his colleagues may feel able to return to on Report stage, because obviously as the Bill now stands subsection (2) of the new clause now before the Committee would not make sense. That amendment would need to be restored to Clause 39 for it to make sense.
Powers very similar to the one I am proposing here exist at the moment in relation to public path orders in Schedule 6, Part I, of the Highways Act 1980. It may be said that if this amendment were not to be accepted by the Government, the Secretary of State could always issue circulars to local authorities recommending a form for the orders in question; but as your Lordships will be aware, the present Government are not keen on circulars, which they see as a kind of interference with the freedom of local authorities.
The case for standardisation is that without this local authorities might not always publish orders which were legally correct, and since they form part of the title deeds to land it is absolutely essential that they are correctly drafted. In practice what would be likely to happen is that one local authority draftsman would publish a set of draft orders and then that would be copied by most other authorities, and of course they would get it right in the end. But why run unnecessary risk of mistakes in the meanwhile? I beg to move.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I acknowledge that regulations of this kind ensure uniformity over the country as a whole. Indeed, at one time we took the view that there was much to be said for them, and a proposal to this effect was in fact included in our consultation paper. However, on reflection it seemed to us to be inconsistent to be transferring jurisdiction on definitive maps to local authorities on the one hand while tying their hands very firmly on a comparatively minor issue on the other. I say this although I am aware that the final decision on the question of the transfer of jurisdiction has yet to be resolved.
Whatever the final outcome of that debate, I question whether it is necessary to prescribe the form of orders to ensure there is complete uniformity nationwide. I should make it clear that the three types of order will be very simple and that their form will be determined by their function, which is to modify the existing definitive map and statement. Given that function, there is little or no scope for any great variation in the form of these orders.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about an alternative, and I would be prepared as an alternative to discuss with the local authority associations the possibility of introducing a model form of order which could be recommended to their member authorities, and I think that would achieve the same result more simply. If that suggestion commends itself to the noble Lord, perhaps he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: The Minister seems to have made an

779
excellent suggestion—namely, that consultations be held with local authorities with a view to seeing whether a draft model acceptable to all of them could be developed—and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Effect of definitive map and statement]:
3.32 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 506ZA:
Page 37, line 1, at beginning insert ("Except in the case of highways to which section [Greenways] applies,").
The noble Lord said: At an earlier stage in our Committee proceedings I dealt with the question of greenlanes from the landscape historical, and flora and fauna aspects and suggested, with the approval of the Minister, that we should treat the question of rights of way separately in this part of the Bill, where it more properly belongs. This is a paving amendment for No. 511B, to which I will, with permission, speak at the same time. No. 511B attempts to bring together all the considerations which it is suggested should be taken into account in designating these ancient thoroughfares as a special class which warrants statutory protection of several kinds.
I explained that greenways were ancient unmetalled tracks usually bounded by hedges, walls or ditches. The most famous example of these is the Ridgeway, a very ancient path which runs over the edge of the Chilterns and through the Marlborough and Berkshire Downs. One of the main objects of the amendment is to preserve the Ridgeway and routes of a similar character from the intrusion of motor vehicles and particularly, in my view, from motor-cycles. I emphasise however, that motor-cyclists are fully entitled to enjoy their sport in the countryside like everybody else, but they should not be permitted to do so at the expense of the walker and cyclist in particular; there should be proper areas set aside for the recreation of the trail riders and others who use vehicles, be they two or four wheeled vehicles, for recreational purposes in the countryside and not on the main roads.
Mr. D. Grant King, chairman of the Ridgeway Conservation Conference, wrote to the Countryside Commission on 14th January asking what decision they had made on the status, use and measures for the protection of the North Wessex Ridgeway and separately for other greenways. I am told that he has had no reply as yet. It is unfortunate that the Countryside Commission was not able to reply more promptly to a letter which was clearly very relevant to these proceedings. I realise the Countryside Commission have many other things on their minds and that they have done a tremendous job in providing information for noble Lords in relation to this Bill. However, I still regret they were not able to reply to Mr. Grant King on what is a most important point. The commission's report for 1971–72 clearly said (for the record, it was stated in chapter 4, page 7, paragraph 3) that between Overton Hill in Wiltshire and Goring Gap at Streetley the Ridgeway was to be a bridleway for use by riders and cyclists as well as walkers, and
780
then beyond the Thames, as far as Ivanhoe Beacon, the path would continue as a right of way for walkers only.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be here this afternoon, but he was at the Department of the Environment at the time and I believe he fully supported that policy, to which the commission adhered until fairly recently. But then, after the submission of the report on greenlanes, they altered their policy or they accepted the proposition that all kinds of motor traffic should be allowed on the Ridgeway and on other greenways, limited only by voluntary restraint on the part of motoring clubs and policing by officials of those clubs. Although this was never said, I understand that one of the reasons for arriving at that decision was the great difficulty of policing the use of greenlanes by motor vehicles, the reluctance of police authorities to become involved and the great difficulties of enforcement.
The change of policy was embodied in a letter written on 23rd May last by my noble friend Lord Winstanley to Mr. Tom King, my noble friend then being chairman of the commission. This document then came to the attention of the Ridgeway Conservation Conference much later, in November. In that letter my noble friend expressed the opinion—which was based on the report of the Greenlanes Study by the Dartington Trust, submitted to the Countryside Commission—that voluntary restraint by motoring and motor-cycling bodies provided some hope of solving the conflict of interest without recourse to further legislation. That must have been music in the ears of Ministers, to whom in this Government legislation is to be avoided wherever possible, but we must ask whether it is reasonable for us to rely on voluntary restraint. Has it been successful in the past and, if not, to what extent will the absence of restraint exercise a harmful effect on other interests?
Motor-cycle trail riding and motor rallies can and do damage, and in the end destroy, the surface of greenlanes, and of course the noise and danger of sporting events in turn destroy people's enjoyment of the countryside and the peace which the majority of people using greenlanes are seeking. The Greenlanes Study said in paragraphs 250 and 251 that ramblers were
"pleased to see vehicular rights being withdrawn from the green lanes".
But that pleasure was qualified by the risks that some people saw being incurred in that
"the greenways would, as a result of being closed to vehicular traffic, be exposed to ploughing up and destruction by the farmers on either side".
My amendment would take care of that risk also by making it an offence, punishable by fine up to the statutory maximum, to
"plough up, divert or otherwise injure the highway"
including any boundaries on either side of it. The Greenlanes Study also made the point that vehicular users had rights over only 3 per cent. of the paths available to walkers and riders, but that should be put into perspective. After all, motor-cyclists have access to open spaces which are not greenlanes, and, as I have said, that should be expanded. And they can of course use the whole of the public road net-

781
work. The trail riders constitute, according to the Greenlanes Study, only a very few of the 5,000 members of the Autocycle Union and British Motorcyclists' Federation, while it is estimated that there are approaching 1½ million long-distance walkers. Thus, if we must weigh in the balance the interests of the ramblers against those of organisations which wish to open up greenlanes to vehicular traffic, I suggest the overwhelming majority are on the side of the ramblers.
The RAC, in its incorrect assumption that I would be sympathetic to the views that it expressed, sent me a memorandum on the Bill which contained a very interesting comment on the Ridgeway. I quote:
"Responsible motorcyclists still fear—especially if any irresponsible behaviour by a minority continues—that there will be further endeavours to secure abolition of the vehicular rights of way."
I believe that that constitutes a tacit admission that irresponsible behaviour has been commonly experienced up to now—irresponsible behaviour not by members of the recognised associations, such as the Trail Riders, but by those who are known as "cowboys"—even at a time when one might have expected the individuals concerned to be looking over their shoulders at what is happening in Parliament and recognising that if they were not very careful, your Lordships and another place might take care to reduce the rights that they have enjoyed in the countryside.
However considerate the propel users of vehicular rights may be, the intrusion of noisy machines into the peace of the greenlanes is intolerable in itself. This might be the last occasion that we shall have to save the Ridgeway and other of the most ancient and most nationally important greenlanes from the deprivations which have been caused by such traffic in the past and to leave them to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of ramblers. I beg to move.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On this side of the Committee we should like to accept at least the spirit of this amendment and of the new clause, to which Amendment No. 511B refers. This is a very complicated question. We may not love motor bicyclists who pass our house or go along greenlanes, on which we wish to walk, but it is quite clear that they must have some rights. However I think the Government should look very carefully at what the noble Lord has suggested: that there should be limitation of their rights; and in so far as it is thought necessary, as laid down in the later clause, following consultation, arrangements could be made to preserve parts of the lanes exclusively for the pedestrian. I think there is probably no one in the Chamber who would not agree with that.
Of course we are selfish because most of us are not keen motor-cyclists. But judging from the number of people who have elaborate runs at midnight past my house in a very small road—a practice which we tend to dislike, but put up with—there is considerable scope for the kind of pleasure that is derived, perfectly legitimately, in this way without using also the green-lanes. Such use, quite apart from the physical damage it causes to the surface, entirely spoils the pleasure of the rest of us. Without endorsing every single point
782
in the amendments, I believe that the Government ought to look at this question extremely carefully. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, in a sense this is the last chance to do something about the problem, and I very much hope that we shall have a favourable reply.
Lord Gisborough: I hope that the Minister will consider the spirit of the amendment, because there is no doubt that the "cowboys" are on the increase and there is a terrific increase in the number of trail riders. Most of them do not appear to act within the rules of motor-cycle clubs and associations. I hope that the Minister will give good consideration to the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I rise very briefly, merely in the hope of setting straight somewhat the record with regard to the comments made by my noble friend about the regrettable failure of the Countryside Commission, of which I was then chairman, to reply to one of the very many welcome letters which it frequently receives from Mr. Grant King. I am very sorry that apparently there was a failure to reply to that particular letter.
For the purpose of setting the record straight, my noble friend may care to know that at the same time the commission received a very lengthy letter on a quite similar subject from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who is one of the more active supporters of the Ridgeway Conservation Conference. I know for a fact that a full reply was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and one would have hoped that perhaps the contents of that letter would have been communicated to Mr. Grant King.
Since at the time I was officially involved in the discussions, I propose to say nothing regarding the substance of the argument, save that in general, speaking purely personally, I am very much inclined to support the general tenor of my noble friend's observations. However, I am most anxious to hear from the Minister what are the Government's intentions regarding a matter on which I know Ministers feel very strongly.
Lord Bellwin: The clause that we are now debating provides not only for the preservation of those green-lanes which are regarded as specially valuable, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury's, other new clause on ancient unmetalled highways, but also for the extinguishment of any right of way over them for vehicles, except for the limited exemption under subsection (4).
When we debated the noble Lord, Lord Avebury's, other new clause on 12th February, my noble friend Lord Sandys referred to the Countryside Commission's recommendations in May 1980 to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, following the Dartington Amenity Research Trust (DART) Study on Greenlanes. The DART study team's conclusion on recreational conflict between motor vehicle, including motor-cycle, users and other users was that it had on the whole been somewhat exaggerated, and that where it did occur it was more amenable to management than to wholesale banning of one group or another.
The commission's advice, given in its letter of 23rd May, was, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

783
said, that, on the basis of the evidence given in the DART Report about the extent of the conflict between the different users, it considered that the powers to make traffic regulation orders given under various Acts were satisfactory and provided adequate safeguard for walkers and horse riders. The commission also stated that voluntary restraint by motoring and motor-cycling bodies provided some hope of solving the conflict of interests without recourse to further legislation. That was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. Our preliminary conclusion is that the commission's advice on this matter seems to be sound.
However, I recognise the concern that has been expressed today. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that we want to look very carefully at this question because, as is so often the case, there are differing points of view and attitudes, and it is in trying to reconcile the interests of all concerned, which is so difficult, that we run into problems. Yet it is also fair to say that this is an opportunity which does not arise every day, and therefore there is a special responsibility upon us to consider it. As my noble friend Lord Sandys stated on 12th February, the Government are sympathetic to the need for some protection for historic greenways, and we would very much welcome the advice of the Spicer Rights of Way Review Committee on the extent of such protection and on the procedure and criteria et cetera which would be appropriate. I hope that what I have said indicates that the Government recognise the problem and that we are not simply trying to get it out of the way. Perhaps, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt: Before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, responds to the Minister's request to withdraw the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister when he is considering sympathetically the amendment and the sense behind it, to bear in mind that we are legislating for a very long period ahead. Whatever the DART Committee may have said about the situation to date—and there is room for differences of opinion about that situation, in terms of whether it is satisfactory or whether it is threatening—in my submission in the next 10 years or so there will be a very considerable growth in the trail riding habit.
Lord Sandford: I feel that the Committee will be grateful for the reply from my noble friend Lord Bellwin to the amendment. Certainly in so far as solutions can be found by good management of the greenways, they are preferable to legislation. We shall need to be told something fairly substantial in order to be convinced on this point when we look at it again on Report. However, in particular cases local arrangements can certainly be made, in which it should be possible to reconcile the legitimate rights and needs of all concerned, including the motor-cyclists—and there are a number of local examples of that being done.
But I would ask my noble friend, when he is reconsidering this whole matter, to draw a fairly clear distinction between those greenlanes which are just highways, and are therefore susceptible to management
784
by the highway authority, and those which have been designated by the Countryside Commission as long-distance national footpaths. Once the Countryside Commission has taken the decision—which they can take only after consultation with all those concerned, and, in particular, with the highway authorities involved (and there are four or five of them in the case of the Ridgeway)—then I think they must be obliged to stick to their guns. Having designated a long-distance footpath for a particular purpose—which in the case of the Ridgeway and the Icknield Way was the quiet enjoyment of the countryside by those parts of the public which ride over them and walk over them—they must stick to their guns and see that that designation is properly fulfilled, and be armed with the necessary legislative powers to make it so. I hope my noble friend will bear that distinction clearly in mind.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may add one very quick point as the Government are considering this—and I am certainly delighted that they are. I wonder whether they could consider the possibility that the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 might apply, either as it is currently drafted or with a very minor amendment, to deal with the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised. At least that seems to me to be one possibility worth exploring.
A second point is that, while agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said so far as it went, I think it is important to remember that this problem does not arise simply in the case of long-distance footpaths, although I have certainly found walking on the Cleveland Way that it does arise on long-distance footpaths. I know, for example, of a nature reserve in Norfolk where youngsters riding trail bikes where they are not meant to are causing very serious damage to a nature reserve; so I think it is a problem of rather more general application than simply on long-distance footpaths, although that is where it causes most severe problems, possibly.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether, when my noble friend takes this away, he could look at what is happening in Lincolnshire, where the Lincolnshire County Council have entered into close consultation with the farmers, particularly over these green roads. They have insisted, for instance, that the road should be, say, 14 feet wide; and if the farmer has knocked down a hedge, as I think my noble friend has suggested we occasionally do, they have insisted that it be put back. They have also helped the farmers tidy up the lanes in places, and I think it would profit my noble friend if he looked at what Lincolnshire is doing in this matter.
Lord Foot: May I add one word before my noble friend replies? Two or three years ago I had the opportunity of initiating in your Lordships' House a debate on the Ridgeway, and we had a very full discussion at that time. I should like to say that I have listened with great interest and, indeed, satisfaction to the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, because I think it is the most forthcoming statement we have had about the problem of these greenlanes from any Government in the last 15 years—and, of course, I know perfectly well that it is sincerely meant.

785
May I just underline what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was saying just now? One of the anxieties which, I am sure, has been felt by those who have been responsible for promoting this amendment—one of their very great anxieties—is that if the opportunity to deal with this matter in this Bill was lost it might be lost for the rest of the century; and who knows what is going to happen to these ancient ways during the rest of the century? I therefore look forward with the greatest expectation to the prospect that the Government will indeed consult with everybody as to what solution can be found to this problem, and that they will do that with some sense of urgency, because, while things remain as they are, the existence of some of these greenways is at risk; there is the risk of their complete disappearance. So I very much welcome what the noble Lord has said, and I regard it as one of the most satisfactory things which has emerged from the long discussions on this Bill.
Lord Burton: As the law is somewhat different in Scotland and the problem of motor bicyles on footpaths there is rapidly increasing, I wonder whether my noble friend would look at this at the same time as he is looking at the situation in England. I think that perhaps part of the trouble with this motor-cycle cross-country business is that it is not properly organised. If the riders had behind them a national organisation like the British Horse Society there might he a great many fewer problems.
Lord Avebury: I think I probably owe an apology to my noble friend Lord Winstanley for when, as he said, the communications which were addressed to the Countryside Commission by the Ridgeway Conservation Conference were in fact answered in the form of a letter to Lord Kennet. It may be that there has been a failure of communication there of which I was not aware. I am most grateful to him for all the hard work that he did, as I know, when he was chairman of the Countryside Commission in helping to establish good relations with the Ridgeway Conservation Conference and with all those who aim to preserve these historic greenlanes.
It struck me, as it has done other noble Lords, that the Minister's reply was wholly satisfactory, and we must be warmly grateful to him for promising to look at this and to bring forward some solution which could be incorporated in the Bill at a later date. I am well aware of the fact that the drafting of my amendment is not ideal, and that it may be held to be too rigid in the restrictions that it imposes on various types of user. What, ideally, I should like to see, if I may say so to the noble Lord, is that there should be some reserve powers put into the Bill so that, as long as voluntary methods were working and continued to work satisfactorily, those reserve powers would not be invoked; but as soon as you found that cowboys (as they are called) and other harmful activities were taking place on these greenlanes, then those powers could be brought into operation and the restrictions imposed. Because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, emphasised, and as others have agreed, we are looking a long time ahead, and if we do not take the opportunity of this legislation then there might be, as the Greenlanes Study itself mentions, an enormous increase
786
in the kinds of traffic which are most harmful, not only to the surfaces of the road but to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of other types of user.
These things have happened since my noble friend Lord Foot spoke two or three years ago. There has not been a reduction in the activities of those who are destroying and impairing the beauties of the greenlanes. In fact, there has been an increase in that type of use; and if one looks at what the Dartington Amenity Research Trust says concerning the views of the users, we really have not got enough evidence on which to base any certain policy. When they asked the people who used the greenlanes, the sample was very small; it was only 69 people. I think a far wider questionnaire would be necessary if we were to establish the kinds of damage and harm which are now occurring.
But we are not talking particularly about the circumstances of the last three years; we are talking about looking forward to the end of the century, and the types of pressure on recreational activities in the countryside which may grow immensely over that period. So I hope we shall take this opportunity to arrive at a solution which will last to the end of the century, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the assurances that he will do his best to achieve just that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon: If it is convenient to your Lordships that we should now take the Statement, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Coal Industry
3.59 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the coal industry. My right honourable friend's Statement was as follows:
"As the House knows, there was a tripartite meeting of the coal industry yesterday. This had been called, at the industry's request, to discuss the situation which had arisen following the meeting in London on 10th February between the National Coal Board and the unions. At that meeting the National Coal Board had outlined their approach to the current problems facing the industry. They had put forward a four-point plan for bringing the supply and demand for coal back into balance, whilst maintaining investment for the future. The plan included an accelerated programme for the closure of older capacity approaching the end of its productive life. This was to be discussed in detail in the areas. The board believed its plan to be reasonable and acceptable. However, fears and anxiety among the workforce arose through rumoured and distorted impressions of what was being proposed.
"It was against this background that yesterday's meeting took place. At the meeting, three main points were raised—closures, financial constraints and coal imports. I said that the Government were prepared to discuss the financial constraints with an open mind and also with a view to movement. The chairman of the National Coal Board said that in the light of this the board would withdraw their closure proposals and re-examine the position in consultation with the unions. I accordingly invited the industry to come forward with new proposals consistent with Plan for Coal.
"As regards imports, I pointed out that these would in any case fall this year from their 1980 levels. The industry representatives said they wished to see this figure brought down to its irreducible minimum. I said that the Government would be prepared to look, with a view to movement, at what could be done to go in this direction.
"I welcome the decision of the national executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers today and hope that their lead will be followed. I will be meeting the industry again next Wednesday ". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for repeating that Statement. I believe that this is another U-turn. I am not going to try to make party political capital out of it because the situation is so serious that we need confidence restored in the industry. I think that Ministers and officials have handled the crisis with extraordinary clumsiness and insensitivity—and I really mean that. Here is a major industry which is so important to the economy of this country that every care should be taken in relation to not only negotiations but also attitudes outside. I think that the mining community sometimes feel that they are ignored and that certain Governments of a certain political flavour have a considerable prejudice over what happens in their industry. I hope that talks and discussions will now emerge. No doubt noble Lords will have read much of the press. I commend them to read the Financial Times carefully, because from that I understand that the Minister is arranging for a meeting with the energy and transport industries, the leaders of the NUM, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and the National Union of Railwaymen, next Thursday morning. I hope that these talks go well, but I hope that in no circumstances will the Government try to use the miners as a whipping boy.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we, too, from these Benches wish to thank the noble Earl for his Statement and welcome the effects of it. We have no intention to point out the causes of it, but from these Benches we would like to put this question to the noble Earl. Can all the parties involved in the events which brought about this Statement learn some lessons—lessons of co-operation, fuller consultation and greater information? Anything that goes wrong with the coal industry affects the whole of British industry and is a very serious matter. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell the House how much money, or extra money, will be involved in the effects of this Statement. Thirdly, will the noble Earl be able to reassure the domestic
788
consumers of coal that, although there is to be negotiation about the importation of coal from abroad, this will not automatically create a price rise for the domestic coal consumer?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said that anything that affects the coal industry affects industry as a whole. Of course, I agree with that. That is one of the reasons why inevitably the Government have become involved in matters which are preferably dealt with (as they traditionally have been dealt with) by the National Coal Board and the unions concerned. That is one of the reasons, again, why we welcome the lead that the national executive council of the National Union of Mineworkers has given today; and why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be calling a meeting again next Wednesday.
On the issue of U-turns—or tacks, whatever one cares to say—I think that this Government are identical with the previous Government in affirming their commitment to the future of the British coal industry. They have backed that commitment consistently throughout their period of office with hard cash in very large quantitites. But inevitably there can be misunderstandings or difficulties within an industry, and in an industry as important as this one the Government are happy to do all they can to sort them out.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that when this matter was raised last week I ventured to suggest that the Government must intervene? I am very relieved that they have done so, and I am quite sure that I represent the views of all sensible people in the United Kingdom in hoping that we are not going to have another industrial dispute—certainly the one which is likely if the miners decide to go on strike. With great respect to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think that anything is to be gained by indulging in suggestions about U-turns, or in sneering at the Prime Minister because she appears to have changed her course of action. The essential thing is that we are going to be relieved of another great industrial confrontation, and that is a great advantage.
All that I hope now is this. We should not worry too much about what appears to the Members on the Liberal Benches (though not to me) to be very important; namely, what it is going to cost. We might consider what it was likely to have cost if there had been a strike. That would be far more serious financially than having to ladle out more money now. No matter what it will cost—and it will always cost too much—to be relieved of another great industrial dispute in the circumstances facing this country is of great advantage to us all.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord with all his experience of this particular industry and also for reminding the House—as I should have done, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on this—that questions of the issue of costs are not yet decided, and there is a long way to go. That is why the meeting has been convened again for next Wednesday.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, can my noble friend say, in cases where pit closures become necessary—and it seems to be agreed on all sides that there have been many such cases in the past and there will no doubt be a number in the future—what possibilities of employment exist in other pits in the country; and what assistance, financial or otherwise, might be available to miners who want to take advantage of such employment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, there is lateral movement (if I may put it that way) between exhausted pits and pits which have other capacities and aid exists for the expenses and the like where such lateral movements occasion them. Of course, I would remind my noble friend that one of the reasons why the Government have consistently committed very large sums of public money to the development of new capacity in the mining industry is that this industry has a great future—not only in the wealth and energy that it can generate for this country, but also in the employment it can bring.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I, too, welcome the Minister's Statement and express the fervent wish that there is a successful outcome to the negotiations. May I also express the hope that the South Wales miners will now return to work pending the conclusion of the negotiations.
Will the Minister bear in mind that in South Wales it is not a question of run-down pits; it is a question of pits producing the best coking coal in the world? The pits have now come to a difficult situation because of the run-down in the steel industry in South Wales. That has to be borne in mind. Will the Minister indicate what hopes there are of exporting this first-class coking coal if there is no immediate use for it in this country?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I welcome very much what the noble Lord has said and his call to the miners in the South Wales field, which I should like to endorse. Of course he is quite right in implying to the House that the coal industry, like other industries, has been affected in its revenue by falling sales both at home and abroad. That is one of the reasons why it is important to take another long, hard look at the position of the coal industry. He also reminded the House that the coal industry is a vigorous exporting industry as well. It would certainly wish, I imagine, to continue in that position; but of course world demand is down, not only home demand, and that is why we must use our best endeavours to get out of this recession so that normal life can be resumed as soon as possible.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the Statement? There is not the slightest doubt that tribute should be paid to Mr. Joe Gormley who is a realist, has his feet on the ground and was able to see that this meeting took place. I was delighted with the expression at the end of the Minister's Statement that they welcomed the decision of the national executive of the NUM and I therefore wish to pay a tribute to the NUM. I know of the poverty and desolation of the 1931 period and before and what that led to. Without trying to score a political point, as the
790
noble Earl said, these matters were to be discussed in detail in the areas, and the pity was that the discussion did not take place before the plan was "bumped" on to the public. This debate is far too important to want to try to score party points. What we want is Britain back at work.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord said about Mr. Joe Gormley. I would remind the House that Mr. Gormley has called for people now to return to work throughout the industry and we all welcome that. As my right honourable friend's Statement said, fears and anxiety among the workforce did arise—and, perhaps precipitately—but we must look at human and psychological considerations as well as economic ones and that is why I welcome the proposed additional meeting.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, from this side, could I also endorse the praise which is deserved by Mr. Joe Gormley who has behaved in a most statesmanlike way. I am sure that this should be universally recognised. It is in rather marked contrast to some of those who have been leading the South Wales problems. Could my noble friend say whether our exports—which are forecast to be 8 million tons of coal this year—will be in any way at risk as a result of our restriction of imports? This 8 millions is of importance not only for the cash flow to the NCB but because our stocks of 37 millions are so high that it is very difficult to accommodate another 8 millions if they are not sold abroad.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that it is a question of restriction of imports at this stage. Imports have been falling naturally through surplus capacity and through demand. Certainly world demand depends on whether the exports from the NCB can be kept up. My information is that they are going to be considerably higher this year than last. Given the state of the industrialised world, that is very good going indeed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while I appreciate that there will be further negotiations, may I ask whether the noble Earl could throw a little more light on the sentence in the Statement that the Government are prepared to discuss the financial constraints with an open mind and with a view to movement? Does that mean that there will be relaxation on the restraints under the Coal Act and that there will be movement in that direction? Secondly, does the announcement that the Secretary of State for Employment has agreed to meet the mining and steel trade union leaders next week to discuss the contraction of those industries mean that that subject is now to be examined fundamentally? Would not an earlier examination have prevented the unhappy crisis which has arisen?
In regard to the crisis is the noble Earl aware—and I think he has indicated this—that the mining communities of South Wales, where I was brought up, in particular have long and bitter memories of governmental neglect and indifference? Will he, his colleagues and the officials concerned, bear in mind that it is a scene that needs to be treated with great sensitivity? That is the least we owe them.
The Earl of Gowrie: That is exactly what we think we are doing: we are treating this situation with great sensitivity. As I said, we have consistently—to use a vulgarism—put our money where our mouth is in respect of the coal industry. That is true of successive Governments. The meeting with my right honourable friend the Employment Secretary was arranged previous to this issue in the coal industry, and so that is part of our on-going discussions as to how to get the economy out of recession. Regarding what viewing financial constraints with an open mind and also with a view to movement means, an open mind means just that. The view to movement is that we recognise that the external financial limits of the coal industry were drawn up at a time when the expectations of revenue were very different in view of what has happened in terms of demand, recession and surplus capacity. That is why we are prepared for movement.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, while agreeing with everything that my noble friend has said and much of what has been said on every side of the House, may I ask my noble friend this: Would he please consider what would be the most appropriate Oscar to give the National Coal Board for what must be the worst bit of public relations seen this century?
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, may I also extend to the Minister our thanks and express relief at the Statement he has made? May I also thank him for the clarity and sympathy in the answers that he has given to the many questions? One point that I should like to enlarge upon at some distant date is the characteristics of British coal. In Britain we have been endowed with every variety of coal known to man. We have lost our home-based markets to a substantial extent. I hope that this will have removed the blinkers away from the National Coal Board and we shall look upon our coal as an export.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord. We shall bear them closely in mind.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while all of us I think in this House this afternoon are endeavouring to exercise the utmost constraint—and very sensibly so in the present position—would the noble Earl not think it ungracious if hereafter, and possibly after peace has been declared in the coal industry, we revert to the question of whose clumsiness it was and whether it was only the National Coal Board or whether there was not clumsiness elsewhere?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that this is a question of clumsiness. Obviously, it is possible in any industry for the workforce to be anxious—often unreasonably—about something which is being suggested, and for that anxiety to get blown out of the proportion that it was originally intended to have. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said, this industry is of very great importance to every part of the economy, and it is inevitable that the Government would be drawn in. The Government are now trying to see that a new mood prevails in the industry. Then the industry can get back together and work its own way without Government intervention, which is the best way.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, if I may intervene, I think we have had a good and on the whole useful exchange of questions and answers on this subject. In view of the fact that there is another meeting which has been announced to take place on Wednesday, I think the House will agree it is better to move on.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 506A:
Page 37, line 1, after ("shall ") insert (", subject to subsection (2A),").
The noble Baroness said: As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is not here to move his amendment, I shall be pleased to do so. This amendment is about the status of the base map. Where no definitive map exists, the Bill requires in Clause 41(2) that a base map be prepared which will become the definitive map through the inclusion of rights of way by modification orders. The effect of the definitive map, as evidence of the existence of rights of way, is provided for by Clause 42. By an oversight, the combined effect of Clauses 39(1), 41(2) and 42 gives the base map to which no public objections can be made the evidential value of a definitive map.
Clearly, only those particulars included in the base map as a result of properly advertised modification orders should have any value as evidence of rights of way. What we are hoping is that Clause 42 can be clarified to provide that only rights of way included in a map prepared under Clause 41(2) as a result of modification orders under Clause 39(2) or Clause 41(3) or (4), are conclusively presumed to exist. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this, perhaps he would say what the Government imagine would be on the base map.
Viscount Ridley: I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for moving my Amendment. I was trapped in the rush to leave the Chamber when this Committee stage began. The noble Baroness has in fact said everything I would have said but has said it much better than I could have said it. I would hope it can be supported. It is believed by highway authorities that the amendment remedies what is apparently a drafting oversight and there is no "evil "in it. I beg to support the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I would assume that my noble friend would support it. I wonder whether I might assume that we are, while speaking to this—
Baroness David: I am very sorry: I should have said I was speaking to 511ZB as well.
Lord Bellwin: I wondered also whether the noble Baroness might feel that we were also dealing with Amendments Nos. 506A, 507A, and 511ZB.
Baroness David: I think those are possibly Viscount Ridley's amendments which are ACC amendments; and we have different ones which we prefer to those.
Viscount Ridley: I may be wrong, but I think that 507A refers to a different subject.
Lord Bellwin: That is fair enough. We have accepted that the evidential provisions applicable to footpaths and bridleways should be subject to a proviso regarding possible higher rights. I shall be speaking shortly on an almost identical amendment that has been tabled. As for the remainder of these amendments, they would appear to be intended to deal with what I respectfully suggest is a non-existent problem. The map and statement to be prepared under Clause 41(2) would become the definitive map and statement on being modified. Since the evidential provisions would apply to all definitive maps and statements, whatever their origin, I would submit that the need for a specific provision along the lines of the amendment disappears. I wonder whether my noble friend would feel able to agree with that and therefore would not press his amendment?
Viscount Ridley: I accept the advice of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. We think it is an improvement, but in the circumstances I am quite happy that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness David: If the noble Viscount wishes the amendment to be withdrawn, I will beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Fletcher Lord Fletcher moved Amendment No. 507:
Page 37, line 3, after ("extent") insert ("but the absence of a footpath from the map shall not be deemed to be evidence that the footpath was not at the relevant date in fact a footpath at common law").
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively simple amendment but I venture to believe that it is not an unimportant one. We have just had a discussion about the evidential importance and value of the definitive map. I am sure we are all glad to see that in Clause 42(1)(a) the Bill reproduces what is the existing law on the subject, namely, that where a map shows a footpath the map shall be conclusive evidence that there was at the relevant date a footpath as shown on the map.
The object of my amendment is to remove any possible doubt in the mind of anybody that the reverse is not the case. It seems to me most important that the Bill should enshrine what are equally the present provisions of the common law, though not established in statute law; that the absence of a footpath from the map shall not be deemed to be evidence that the footpath was not at the relevant date a footpath at common law.
I think it is well known that throughout the country there are a number of footpaths which have either been dedicated or have become footpaths by reason of user for at least 20 years but are not yet put on any definitive map. The omission may or may not be due to the slackness of members of the public in investigating earlier versions of the definitive map. I certainly do not think it is the fault of local authorities, but it is a fact, to my knowledge, that some members of the public feel that unless a footpath is on the definitive map there
794
is reason to think that the public have no right to use that footpath.
A great many rambling associations and others throughout the land have been vigilant in recent years in drawing the attention of the local authority concerned to the fact that some footpaths ought to be on these maps when they come to be revised. I think it is also true to say that some members of the public may have been deterred from using the footpaths they are entitled to use by reason of the fact that they have not found them on the definitive map. Such ignorance is not to be despised. Members of the public, quite rightly, have come to rely on these definitive maps to know what their rights are, and I think it would be most unfortunate if members of the public failed to use public footpaths which have not yet been put on the map and which may well be in many cases the subject of current representations. Therefore, although the Minister may say that my amendment is not necessary, I do believe that in the interests of clarity and for the benefit of the public, it is desirable that it should be put on the statute book. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I could not support this amendment because it would cause confusion. A few years ago my local council in Scotland came round my estate and put up notices saying "Public footpath"—pointing into the hills. They put up about five such notices. The point is, of course, that in the 17th or 18th centuries, when there were more people in the hills, it had been handed down through generations that certain paths existed. But those paths have long since disappeared. When the council put up the notices, there were a great number of ramblers who got lost and there was also great disturbance to the flora and fauna. It was very aggravating for my small staff and myself to have all these people getting lost, because we had to go out and find them. People can quickly die of exposure on those hills, if there is a mist and they get lost. Furthermore, many of them came from towns and went out wrongly clad. We had one fatality, which occurred because, unfortunately, a lady went over a precipice and was killed. There must be public footpaths as laid down in the Bill; otherwise, there will be confusion. At my own expense I made paths for the public, which I signed properly, telling them the altitudes which they would have to reach in order to get to certain parts, and I also pointed out the hazards. I asked them, too, to keep to the paths, which the majority did. Having said that, I should not like to see this amendment carried.
Lord Hale: I do not think that the delightful sea loch of the noble Viscount is characteristic of my native Leicestershire, where this point used to arise at quarter sessions when that was the authority for establishing a footpath. As I see the amendment, it is simple. It may be unnecessary, because I think the point has been decided, but it can do no possible harm to anyone. It can leave open a dispute, and prevent a genuine dispute from being misjudged, by the impression that the absence of marking on a map is decisive against those who are seeking to establish a right. It never was and it never should be. My noble friend, who is a practising solicitor of much greater experience than myself, has moved an amendment which can do no harm and can do good.
Viscount Hanworth: I think we shall largely find that this is covered in the next amendments.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, quite properly anticipated the tenor of what I would say in reply—namely, that the amendment is not necessary. I appreciate that his motives in tabling this amendment are to clarify what may not be altogether obvious to some people. But Clause 42 is unambiguous, in the fact that the conclusive evidential effect of the definitive map and statement applies only to the particulars contained in the map and statement, and nothing else. If a footpath, or any other category of public right of way for that matter, has not been afforded definitive map recognition, this lack of recognition, because the map and statement is conclusive evidence only of what is shown, cannot and never has been taken to mean that the right of way does not in fact exist. There is not much more that I can say. I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I have said and will not wish to press on with the amendment. I ought to say, too, that the rights of way provisions in this Bill will not apply to Scotland.
Lord Fletcher: I have listened to what the noble Lord said, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied with it. His real argument in opposing this amendment is that it is unnecessary. I do not want to debate the necessity for it. I want to debate the desirability of this amendment being inserted in the Bill whether or not it is strictly necessary. I have listened to what the noble Viscount opposite said with regard to people getting lost up in Scotland—something to which this Bill does not apply—but I wonder whether your Lordships are familiar with another problem which has come to my knowledge.
Some landlords have erected notices over a public footpath to the effect that it is not a public footpath, whereas the local evidence is that persons have been using it as a public footpath for many years. But if a landlord chooses to put up a notice saying, wrongly, of a footpath which is being frequented and regularly used by large numbers of the public that it is not a public footpath and that therefore the public have no right to use it, then I am sure that members of the public, particularly when this Bill, dealing at length with definitive maps, has been passed, will look at a definitive map and, if they find that the public footpath that they have been using for many years is not on the map, they will be deterred by reason of such a notice from continuing to use the path. Therefore, it seems to me absolutely essential, even though it may not be strictly necessary, that this Bill, which is now codifying the whole of our provisions about rights of way, should say expressly that the absence of a footpath from a definitive map is no evidence that the public footpath does not exist.
Lord Gisborough: Is this not a situation where there is a footpath which is being established, but which has not been established as a public footpath, and where a farmer or landowner quite rightly wishes to establish the fact that is is not a public footpath? He quite rightly either closes it for 24 hours in a year, or whatever is the statutory time, or puts up a notice saying that it is not public footpath. That does not necessarily
796
mean that the public cannot use it, but it is a protection against its becoming a public footpath.
Lord Fletcher: I appreciate what the noble Lord said. If, in fact, it is not a public footpath, then of course it is some protection to the landlord. But if it is a public footpath and there is an inquiry pending about the rights, then it is surely wrong that, pending such an inquiry and pending some modification of the definitive map, the public should be deterred from using it as a public footpath. All I am asking is that the Bill should say in writing that the absence of a footpath from the definitive map is not evidence that it is not a public footpath.
Lord Foot: May I add one suggestion to that? I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister has said about this amendment and about its being quite unnecessary. I ask your Lordships to consider this situation. Let us suppose that there is a contest as to whether a right of way does or does not exist, and then an inspector holds an inquiry in order to ascertain the facts. Let us further suppose that the person who is trying to resist the right of way draws attention in the course of his argument to the fact that the right of way does not appear upon any map. If this amendment which the noble Lord is recommending were carried, it would be perfectly open to the inspector to say, "I am sorry, I cannot listen to any evidence about that, because that is not evidence on the matter at all". In the absence of this amendment and looking at the clause as it is now framed, I suggest that the inspector would be in some doubt as to whether he was entitled to refuse to consider the fact that, perhaps over a long period of time, the way had never appeared upon a map. I suggest that this amendment would eliminate doubt on that matter and could do no possible harm.
Lord Melchett: I am interested in what I heard my noble friend say; I apologise for not having been in the Chamber to hear all of it. My advice is that my noble friend's intention is covered first by the Bill, and more particularly by Amendments Nos. 508 and 511 which are now down in the Government's name as well as in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I wonder whether my noble friend would care to wait and see what happens to those amendments and then, if he wants to do so, to come back to this point at Report so that we do not spend too long on it now.
Lord Bellwin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I gladly look for any source of help in expediting the proceedings. I look almost with desperation at times because of the time we are taking. However, I do not seek to belittle the importance of everyone saying, as they will in any case, exactly what they wish to say. I hope that they in turn will feel for me, for my noble friend Lord Avon and for the others working on the Bill.
On the point of the erection of notices, it would be open to anyone who is unhappy about it to approach an authority for a definitive map order. If I may turn to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, yes, let us see whether the following

797
Government amendments which I shall move in a moment are agreed to. Obviously I shall not undertake to accept the amendment but I will read carefully what has been said and will think about it. It may well be that we shall be covering the point properly. As with everything in this Bill, we are attempting to get the best Bill we can. We shall think of it in that way.
Lord Fletcher: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister. I am perfectly prepared to hear what is said regarding Amendments Nos. 508 and 509 which may conceivably, when they are discussed, remove the necessity of my amendment, although I should have preferred mine to any alternative. However, in view of the assurance which the Minister has given and the fact that we may be able to renew the matter at Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord MaybrayKing): I am advised that if Amendment No. 507A is carried, we cannot consider Amendments Nos. 508, 509 and 510.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 507A:
Page 37, leave out lines 4 to 15 and insert—

"(a) where the map shows a footpath, the map shall be conclusive evidence that there was at the relevant date a highway as shown on the map, and that the public had thereover at that date a right of way on foot, so however that this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any question whether the public had at that date any right of way other than that right;

(b) where the map shows a bridleway, the map shall be conclusive evidence that there was at the relevant date a highway as shown on the map, and that the public had at that date a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, so however that this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any question whether the public had at that date any right of way other than those rights;").

The noble Viscount said: I think I am right in saying, though I do not pretend to be an expert, that this amendment is to do with a court case, Suffolk County Council v. Mason. If I am right, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, have put down amendments which deal with the same point as I wish to make. It therefore I believe is correct that I should allow the Government to move their amendments rather than that I should move mine. I am sure the Government understand the point a good deal better than I do. If my noble friend will confirm that what I have said is so, while I will move the amendment formally, the debate had better take place on Amendment No. 508.
Lord Bellwin: I am quite content with that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Viscount wish to proceed with his amendment?
Viscount Ridley: No, I wish to withdraw Amendment No. 507A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 508:
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("footpath") and insert ("highway").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 509, 510 and 511. This amendment concerns the evidential effect of definitive maps. The Bill provisions in Clause 42 represented an attempt to make the definitive map truly definitive; to have a map which meant what it said and one which could be read in the knowledge that it reflected no more and no less than the rights which exist on each path shown. We recognised that this was an ambitious objective as it was made clear to us that the average map was so riddled with errors that it would be most unwise to regard it as totally authoritative. In recognition of this, Clause 42(2) was introduced which provided for a seven-year period of grace to allow local authorities to correct their definitive maps and during which the evidential provisions would not bite.
Since the Bill was printed we have received a large number of representations on Clause 42 and discussions have been held between the department's officials, the local authority associations and various interested parties. Some sympathy has been expressed for our objective of making definitive maps mean what they say, but almost all those who have made representations are adamant that the necessary corrections to enable desirable goals to be achieved cannot be made in seven years. This inevitably means that if we retain this provision local authorities are likely to be in-undated with requests for corrections to be made to the definitive map in the early years of the new system. We are naturally anxious that the transition from the old to the new system should be effected as smoothly as possible. The retention of the seven-year moratorium is clearly likely to make this more difficult.
I am impressed also by the argument that if, when the seven-year moratorium ends, there are still a large number of corrections to be made people will be breaking the law if in good faith they seek to exercise rights higher than those shown on the definitive map in the conviction that those higher rights exist.
We are faced therefore with the option of extending the seven-year period or of acknowledging that the time is not yet ripe to pursue our objective of making the map truly definitive. We have chosen the second alternative and this is reflected in the amendment which I beg to move.
Baroness David: We on these Benches would like to welcome these amendments, so I hope we can proceed apace.
Viscount Hanworth: I put down this amendment originally and thought of saying that I was so pleased the noble Lord and his advisers had seen the light. But on mature consideration I thought it wiser, with the possibility of future favours, that I should thank him most sincerely and merely remark that this is an excellent amendment. I hope no other noble Lords will find it necessary to oppose it, because then I shall have to speak.
Viscount Ridley: May I, too, add my support to these amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have one or two questions to ask my noble friend. These amendments highlight my worry that the thrust of the Bill is to make footpaths into bridleways or even byways open to all traffic and bridleways into byways open to all traffic and indeed to motor-cyclists as well. What steps should a landowner or indeed a rambler take should he find horses on a footpath? Surely the person on the horse would merely say to the apprehender, "I have reason to believe that this path was previously a bridleway ", and he would continue to ride there. What does a landlord or a rambler do in that case? He might not want horses on that path.
Lord Bellwin: My noble friend's question only highlights the extent of the difficulties with which the Government are faced in this Bill in trying properly to look after the interests of everyone concerned. My noble friend has raised a point which I am sure by itself is fair enough. However, the position has been like that for as long as I know. Therefore I would answer him by turning the question back and asking: what does he do now?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If my noble friend would give way, I have got an answer in my Amendment No. 555C which deals with equestrian traffic.
Lord Bellwin: When we come to it I am sure that we shall be glad to tackle it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 509:
Page 37, line 6, at end insert ("and that the public had thereover a right of way on foot, so however that this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any question whether the public had at that date any right of way other than that right ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 510:
Page 37, line 14, leave out ("to drive animals of any description along the highway ") and insert ("of way other than those rights").
The noble Lord said: I have also spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 511:
Page 37, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 511ZB not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 511B not moved.]
Clause 43 [Supplementary provisions as to definitive maps and statements]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments No. 511A, 512A, 512B, 512C, 512D, 512E, 512F and 512G:
Page 38, line 38, leave out ("on ") and insert ("in").
Page 39, line 13, after ("keep") insert ("(a)") At end insert ("; and
(b) copies of all orders under this Part modifying the map and statement,")
Page 39, line 19, leave out ("a copy ") and insert ("copies")
Page 39, line 21, leave out ("as relates") and insert ("and copies of so many of the orders as relate")
Page 39, line 25, after ("of ") insert ("(a)")
Page 39, line 25, After ("statement ") insert ("; or
(b) each order under this Part modifying the map and statement,")
Page 39, line 28, leave out ("one copy") and insert ("single copies").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are far less complex than they appear. They eliminate altogether the apparent uncertainty that exists that copies of definitive map orders should go on deposit for public inspection with the definitive maps and statements they modify.
Once made, orders are an integral part of the definitive maps and statements they modify. Needless to say, it is important, until copies of the modified definitive maps and statements which actually reflect the effects of orders are prepared in accordance with subsection (2), that these orders are available for public inspection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 512 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 513:
Page 39, line 29, at end insert—
("(6) The surveying authority shall be under a duty to sell copies of any map and statement prepared under subsection (2) above to the public at such reasonable charge as they may determine.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would place on a surveying authority the duty of selling to the public copies of any definitive map and statement prepared under Clause 41(2). These will be clean copies of definitive maps and statements prepared because the existing maps and statements will have had many changes made to them as a result of the amendment orders. That was something which we discussed on Tuesday evening. The purpose of the amendment is to help members of the public to have information about their public rights of way. As the Bill stands at the moment it only guarantees access to that information in one place in each district, and members of the public enquiring might find at that place that there was only information relating to that particular district where the information would by law—by law if this Bill becomes an Act—have to be held.
Although the amendment creates a new duty which would be placed on surveying authorities it is not a particularly onerous one in terms of either time or finance, and the benefits of allowing members of the public to obtain, rather than merely inspect, copies of the maps and statements could well be considerable. I hope that, with that brief introduction, the amendment will be acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Your Lordships will be aware that under subsection (4) of Clause 43 the surveying authority will be required to keep a copy of the definitive map and statement available for inspection in one or more places in each district and as far as practicable in each

801
parish. In addition, in a circular issued in 1970 (No. 22/70) authorities were reminded of the need to make the information contained in definitive maps available to the public outside normal office hours in such places as public libraries. Your Lordships will also be aware that the current series of 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey maps distinguishes between public rights of way and other unsurfaced tracks.
I hear what the noble Lord says but in the circumstances I am loth to place an additional burden on surveying authorities by saying that they must make copies of the definitive map available for sale. I readily concede that there are parts of the country where the demand is no doubt such that it would be extremely helpful to have copies of the map available, but equally there are areas where the demand would be negligible—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would agree with that—and the expense of setting up the organisation that would be required to meet it would, I suggest, be out of proportion to the benefits to be gained. The surveying authorities themselves are best placed to decide whether there is a need for this facility, as indeed many have already done. I hope the noble Lord will not press me to take away from local authorities a discretion which I suggest they are capable of exercising sensibly and which I hope they do.
Lord Fletcher: I cannot pretend to be satisfied with the Minister's reply. Whatever additional trouble it may give to the surveying authority it seems to me to be of paramount importance that the public should not only be able to go to inspect the map (which may involve a long journey) but should also be able to obtain, at cost, a copy of the definitive map. I think that that is even more important under the new procedure because each definitive map will be subject to whatever orders have been made modifying it. In the interests of public knowledge, surely it is no hardship to the surveying authority to be required to send, at the expense of the member of the public, a copy of the definitive map, together with such orders modifying the definitive map as have been made. I hope I am not anticipating Amendment No. 514, which applies to modifying orders. I hope the Minister will look at this in the interests of the public. I am supported in what I am saying by some observations that I have recently received from the Countryside Commission, saying that they believe it is essential that the public should be able to purchase copies of the map and the accompanying statement. Therefore, will the Minister be good enough to look at this again, in the interests of the public?
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support this as well, not so much in the interests of the public as of the landowner. It seems to me quite essential, if you are a landowner and if you want to keep good relations with the public—and I have two footpaths across my property. It is infinitely nicer for people to stay on the footpaths than for the landowners to have to get cross with somebody simply on the grounds that he is not keeping to the footpath. I live in what is practically suburbia and if everybody keeps on the footpaths then everybody is happy. I beg my noble friend to think again on this amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful for the support on both sides of the Committee. It may be that I did not make it clear enough in introducing the amendment that the effect of the amendment would only apply to new maps which were prepared under Clause 41(2). The purpose of having this in the Bill was merely—and I probably did not make it clear enough—that when surveying authorities were preparing a new map they would prepare it in such a way that it could be copied quite easily and sold to anybody asking for it. I understand that authorities who already sell copies of their maps to the public more than cover the cost, so there is no financial burden on the authority. It is simply that the authorities should prepare these new maps in a particular shape and size which could easily be copied on whatever machine they had and could then easily be produced when someone wrote in and asked for a copy.
I hope the noble Lord may agree to look at this again in the light of this clarification of what I was originally intending. It may be that it would be possible to cover it in a circular. The noble Lord said there was a circular issued. I do not know whether the Government envisage issuing another one once this Bill has become law. I imagine that is quite likely, in which case it may be that, when the noble Lord has had a chance to look at it, he could tell us that the Government would make a reference to this in the circular, and I think that that would be satisfactory.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord makes the point well enough. I think it is interesting. Certainly, we ought to think about it, as to the best way in which we might do something to try to cover the point. I will take it away and think about the best way we might do it.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 514 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 43, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Fletcher: I noticed that my noble friend Lord Melchett did not move his Amendment No. 514. When I was addressing your Lordships on Amendment No. 513, I was under the impression that Amendment No. 514 would be moved, or at any rate debated.
Lord Bellwin: If I may intervene for a moment, a Government amendment has been tabled to this effect. I suspect that is why the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not move it. It may be that that will help the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I should have said—and I apologise to my noble friend for not doing so, as he had referred to Amendment No. 514—that Amendments Nos. 512A to 512G, which we have already accepted, do cover exactly the same point as I intended to get at with Amendment No. 514.
Lord Fletcher: Am I right in thinking that that means that some of these amendments at any rate will require

803
a local authority at the request of a member of the public to send a copy of orders modifying definitive maps?
Lord Bellwin: The point here is that we recognised the need for the improvement of the right of way provisions and it is to that end that we have tabled the amendments.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of ss. 39 to 43 to inner London.]:
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 514A:
Page 39, line 32, leave out from ("to") to end of line 34 and substitute—
("(a) any area which, immediately before 1st April 1965, formed part of the administrative county of London; or
(b) any part of a county to which, immediately before the commencement date, sections 27 to 34 of the 1949 Act do not apply.").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 514A, and with it I would speak to Amendment No. 514B. Under the 1949 Highways Act no survey of rights of way was required for certain areas; namely, parts of London, former county boroughs and areas excluded by resolution with the Minister's approval. Such areas might have been made subject to the Act by resolution of the appropriate council. This Bill provides that definitive maps will have to be prepared for such unadopted areas outside London, although no time-scale is laid down in the Bill. It is suggested by the local authority associations that this change is unjustified. Areas which are still unadopted by 1981 are for the most part urban areas for which there is little demand for a definitive map and where the work needed to prepare such a map would be out of all proportion to the benefits to be gained by it.
At this moment allocation of resources to perform this very heavy additional duty must be a matter for the county councils concerned. It is, therefore, proposed that this is very difficult to achieve and that Clause 44, which preserves the exclusion of London areas except where the council adopts the provisions, should be extended to all counties. Amendments Nos. 514A and 514B make this change. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I would strongly oppose this amendment. A number of county councils have done this voluntarily, and I see absolutely no reason why an exemption should be made.
Baroness David: We also would oppose this amendment. I spoke to this and said how pleased we were, when I spoke at Second Reading, that this was in the Bill, that town areas would have to have maps provided for them as well. I think a lot of people do like walking out by paths from the town into the country. I do not think the work would be all that heavy, and I think it would be a great advantage. I trust the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: Former county borough areas are now integral parts of the counties to which they belong. They frequently contain substantial areas of countryside in which one would expect to find a number of
804
public rights of way. I do not consider that the definitive map for any particular county would be complete unless it covered those areas. I question that there is an adequate parallel between them and inner London and that they should necessarily be treated alike. If the concern of my noble friend is about the burden on authorities, I suggest it is more apparent than real. The provisions in the Bill impose no deadline on authorities for producing the maps for former county borough areas, and also enable the maps to be built up progressively by definitive map orders. There will be no pressure from Government to specify time limits in tackling these areas. With that my noble friend may feel somewhat reassured, at least sufficiently not to press the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I certainly will not press it, I think it must be said again that this piling of new duties on to the backs of local authorities will cost money, and I know my noble friend appreciates this. Those areas to which he referred—and I agree that county borough areas can include open countryside—have, I think, all been covered where they are relevant, as the demand for a definitive map must have been there for many years. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the interests of progress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 514B not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley: moved Amendment No. 514C:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Orders of magistrates' courts
. Subsection (3) of section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 514C, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 558A and 558B. Where a highway authority seeks to apply to the magistrates court for diversion or closure of a path under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, district and parish councils may veto the application. If, however, the authority makes a public path order under Sections 118 or 119 of that Act, to the same effect, those councils merely have the right to object and not to veto. It is thought that amendments of this kind should be sought to remove the district and parish councils veto under Section 116(3) of the Highways Act 1980. I believe it is in the interests of good management. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I hope the Government will resist this. It does seem a bit hard on the parish councils and district councils. I take the point the noble Viscount is making, that it would probably be better to do away with the procedure altogether under Section 116 of the Highways Act, given that there is a more modern procedure, but while it is there, I think it is only fair to allow district and parish councils their existing rights. I hope the Government will agree.
Viscount Hanworth: I would oppose this amendment on the same grounds as have just been stated.
Lord Bellwin: Like my noble friend, I am interested in anything that will help good management, but I think the proposed new clause embraces, in addition to public paths and metalled tracks, other classes of highway, and as such surely it is a matter of general highway legislation, and the Government really would not want to agree to extend this Bill to incorporate them. Therefore, I wonder whether on reflection my noble friend would not agree with me as regards this matter and perhaps agree to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Ridley: Yes; I shall not press this amendment either, but I think that there is a problem here and I hope that the Minister will not totally ignore it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.11 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 514D:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of 1971 Act
. For section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (orders under section 32 of the Mineral Workings Act 1951) there shall be substituted the following section:—
221. If the authority by whom an order under section 209 or 210 of this Act is made is satisfied that, after the development to which the order relates has been completed, the highways to which the order relates can be restored to a condition not substantially less convenient to members of the public, the order may provide—

(a) for the stopping up or diversion of the highway during such period as may be prescribed by or under the order;

(b) for its restoration at the expiration of that period;

(c) for imposing on any person who, apart from the order, would be liable to maintain the highway during the said period, a corresponding liability in respect of any highway provided in pursuance of the order; and

(d) for the stopping up at the expiration of the said period of any highway so provided and for the reconstruction and maintenance of the original highway.".").

The noble Viscount said: I apologise to the Committee because it seems that I am now involved in a rather substantial block of amendments, but I hope to get them over as quickly as I possibly can. I beg to move Amendment No. 514F and to speak to Amendment No. 557ZA. This amendment refers to temporary closures and diversions. In the case of mineral workings it is possible to make a temporary closure or diversion of a path to be reinstated when the workings are finished. A similar power is needed for other development not permanently affecting the land such as waste disposal sites and land reclamation schemes which nevertheless take too long to permit temporary traffic orders to be made under Section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.
It is suggested that these amendments should be sought extending the power to make temporary Section 210 orders under Section 32 of the Mineral Workings Act 1951 to any development, completion of which in the opinion of the planning authority will enable the path to be reinstated. Amendment No. 514D inserts a new clause which replaces Section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as a means of extending the power to make temporary stopping-up or diversion orders. Amendment No. 557ZA is consequential in Schedule 14.
These amendments would avoid a cumbersome procedure by supplying a power of temporary diversion for cases other than those where the power already exists. I beg to move Amendment No. 514D.
Lord Bellwin: The idea that my noble friend has put forward is not objectionable in principle, but since the clause encompasses all classes of highway and not just rights of way or other unmetalled highways, I respectfully submit that it is outside the scope of the Bill. Indeed, as with the previous new clause, which my noble friend moved as an amendment, this proposal although it is concerned with the Town and Country Planning Act is again a matter of general highway legislation. Again, for that reason, the Government would not want to agree that it would be right to extend the Bill to incorporate the amendment and again, as I said last time, in view of that perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 514E:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
("Stray dogs
.—(1) If, in a case not falling within subsection (2), any person without lawful authority allows a dog to stray from the line of a public path in a field or enclosure containing sheep or lambs, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) any person acting with the permission of the owner or occupier of the field or enclosure;

(b) any blind person; or

(c) any constable acting in the exercise of his duty.

(3) In any proceedings under subsection (1) it shall be a defence to show that the dog was under control on a lead of reasonable length.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 514E, the purposes of which are two-fold: first, to protect sheep from dogs; and secondly, to help and encourage a good relationship between the farmer and the walker—and I admit freely to my priorities being in that order. The effect of the amendment would be to keep a dog on the line of a path, maybe on a lead, but not necessarily so, for I accept that many dogs are so well trained that they would keep to a path without a lead—but alas! not mine. The amendment allows for that, and it also allows for the case when the walker does not know where the path is. I will not regale the Committee on the horrors of dogs chasing sheep. I have experienced it in my own flock and I can only say that I find it deeply distressing. I believe that this amendment would help and would protect the innocent walker and his dog for whom I have much sympathy.
Perhaps I may be allowed to bore your Lordships with the background thinking to this amendment, which is that although members of the public have a legal right to walk or indeed ride on rights of way, I would ask them to consider it also a privilege to be in the country, and to remember that human beings often do not fit in with the country. For instance, humans with dogs do not fit in very well with sheep.

807
Even the presence of a dog will pack sheep and also people going on a walk automatically arouse a bullock's interest and will stop him sleeping and eating, which, of course, I object to. Often a number of people in a beautiful site by their very presence destroy the very thing that they have come to see.
I hope that I realise my position as a tenant for life of the bit of land which I farm. Likewise, I ask those who visit my farm to realise that they are not walking on a motorway and to be respectful and aware of the agricultural operations going on around them—be they bulls, cows or sheep that they are walking among. If they are not, the time may come when there will be nothing for them to see at all. I think that that would be a great pity, because what better sight is there than a herd of cows with calves at foot or a flock of sheep with lambs at foot? I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support the amendment because it is one which deeply concerns anyone who farms in hill areas, whether it be Wales, Northumberland, Cumberland, the South of Scotland or anywhere where there are great areas which are used for grazing. To allow stray dogs on to those areas can be absolutely devastating. I know that people normally think that dogs are very harmless animals and that they do not do anything which they should not do, and so on. However, they can terrify sheep and they can of course attack them, although I am not saying that ordinarily they would do so.
I can give an example from the area in which I live where someone, unbeknown to I think any of us, began breeding Alsatians miles away in the hills. Alsatians are very dangerous animals. After a while there was a devastating experience when people discovered that the dogs were getting out, killing sheep, and returning home again. It was a very bad state of affairs. The position was discovered only because the unfortunate farmers whose sheep had been killed did not know where the dogs were coming from; but finally they discovered where they were coming from and action had to be taken. The person who bred them had to remove the dogs and, because of that, the whole situation was changed.
It is extremely important that if one allows, as many of us do, people to walk over or ride over one's land those people should realise that having dogs—perhaps more than almost any other animal—on hillsides can be extremely dangerous. When there is trouble people ask for the dog to be shot. I do not at all want dogs shot, but the situation becomes extremely dangerous for farmers and altogether it makes it impossible for one to allow one's land to be traversed either by hill walkers or ridden over by hill riders.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment because it seems to me that it is absolutely vital and does not in any way interfere with the legitimate practice of allowing the public to go on one's land, provided that certain matters are safeguarded. A stray dog is one of the most dangerous and difficult animals with which the farmer has to contend. I hope that the Government will appreciate that and will accept the amendment.
Lord Hunt: We have heard the farming and landowning points of view as regards this amendment and I should like, as a hill walker and a long distance walker, very warmly to support the amendment. It seems to me to be quite essential and enlightened self-interest on the part of all who walk and who happen to take dogs with them, that they should conform to the terms of this amendment in the interests of the goodwill and good relations between the recreationists and the farming and landowning community. It is, I think—and, if not, it ought to be—a part of the Country Code. Therefore, it has everything to be said for it.
Lord Dormer: I also support this amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley. Those of us who live in the countryside and farm know only too well of the great dangers of stray dogs, particularly among flocks of sheep and in-lamb ewes, and also in cattle. They can and do cause grave damage. It is extremely unpleasant afterwards to have to take the owner to court or to obtain retribution in some other way. I should like to support the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I shall be brief. It is not just a question confined to the law. All the arguments in support of this amendment have probably been covered and I, too, should like to support it. In my part of the world, where there are a great number of rights of way through farmland on which a great many sheep are kept, there are people who definitely go down rights of way with long dogs to kill sheep and also hares. There is no doubt about that. I think that this amendment would be welcomed by the authorities and, to a certain extent, by the police as being an added bow to their armoury to prevent this type of crime. The excuse always is that the dog got away from them. If they are not caught, they have lamb for supper. I support this amendment and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to do something about it.
Lord Melchett: I hope that I shall not be a lone voice in speaking against the amendment. I hope that the Government also will speak against it. I must make it absolutely clear that I have the greatest possible sympathy for the point at which everyone who has spoken on the amendment has been getting. But, with great respect, it does not seem to me that that is the effect of the amendment. For example, as far as I can understand it, it would have the extraordinary result that someone taking dogs into a field where they were trespassing, as long as they committed no damage, would not be liable to be prosecuted for any offence; whereas, someone walking down a path with a dog three feet one side of the path, or three feet the other, with the dog under perfect control, would be committing an offence. That seems to me to be a nonsense.
To look at the general problem, at the moment it is, of course, an offence to have a dog worrying sheep, and, quite rightly, farmers are allowed to shoot dogs if they find them in the act and if there is no way of stopping the offence. I hope that it might be possible for us to find something more to do, if anything more is needed in legislation, in order to combat this problem.

809
But I honestly do not think that this new clause does it. In the rubric it claims to be dealing with stray dogs, but it is actually talking about dogs which moved a couple of inches, a couple of feet or whatever, from the line of a footpath—I do not know how far noble Lords imagine it would have to be.
In introducing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that it would be a defence for someone if he did not know where the line of a footpath was. But I could not see that in the wording of the new clause. If someone was mistaken as to where the footpath went, I think he would then be committing an offence. If the noble Lord could answer that point while I am on my feet, I would gladly give way to him. If he cannot, I shall wait for the Government to confirm that my interpretation is correct.
It does not seem to me that walkers on footpaths are the main or, if they are, at all frequently the source of this problem. I speak as someone who led a walk last Sunday with 51 ramblers, some with dogs and some without, round both my farm and other people's land. I have always found that people who walk down footpaths are exceptionally good about keeping dogs under control and I speak as someone who walks there myself and who has a dog. I should have thought that in an amendment one wanted to get at the circumstance of someone letting a dog out of a car and driving along in the car with the dog running behind, which seems to me to be a deplorable practice from the dog's point of view and a great deal more likely to lead to a dog chasing sheep. This amendment would not do anything about that because, so far as I can see, it does not cover, for example, an unfenced road. As I have said, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lords are trying to do, but I honestly think that the new clause would cause a large number of very serious, if not some slightly idiotic, anomalies, and I hope that it will not be accepted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: On the noble Lord's first question, I would point out that it is covered in subsection (3) of my amendment. Of course, he would have to keep the dog on a lead.
Lord Melchett: That is not an answer. If someone is walking down what he thinks is the line of a public path but it is not, how will he know that that is the point at which he has to put the dog on a lead, because he would not know that he was off the line?
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps at this moment I could put the Government's view. Of course, the Government are sympathetic to the wish to reduce livestock-worrying by dogs. This new clause would make it an offence for any person to allow a dog to stray from the line of a public path in a field or enclosure containing sheep or lambs. Under subsection (3) it would be a defence in any proceedings to show that the dog was under control on a lead of reasonable length.
One of the 10-point slogans of the present Country Code is "Keep dogs under proper control ". The Commission's consultation paper, issued in December 1979, concerning a review of the code suggested that this should be amended to: "Keep dogs under close control ". It added:
"Many suggested that the code should say that dogs should
810
be on leads. As a general direction that is probably too restrictive".
That is my up-to-date information from the Countryside Commission and I should have thought that they were the right people to keep the code up to date on this matter. I am sure that they will read this particular discussion with interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, the Animals Act 1971 provides at Section 3 that where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is the keeper of the dog is normally liable for the damage. The noble Lord also went on to explain about the question of when a dog is shot. As I said earlier, the Government are sympathetic to this idea and this was one of the issues considered by the Interdepartmental Working Party on Dogs which was set up because of public concern about nuisance caused by dogs. Its report was published in 1976 and it concluded that the existing law, as it applies to England and Wales, provides adequate protection against sheep-worrying. I believe that if we were to go further into this subject, we would have to consider the other recommendations of this report, and not just this one in isolation. In the circumstances, I hope that I have convinced my noble friends that there is not a need for an amendment to the Bill on this subject.
Lord Avebury: Before my noble kinsman replies to this amendment, may I tell him how very appropriate it is that he should have introduced an amendment to this Bill to keep dogs under control, when his great great grandmother wrote to her husband on 10th September 1843:
"The Manchester gentry are much more annoying to one's comfort and enjoyment than operatives, as one can neither handcuff nor great-dog them if they are intrusive or offensive".
The noble Lord now has the opportunity to make amends.
The Earl of Caithness: I should like to support this amendment, but I would advise my noble friend to withdraw it and come back with a stronger amendment in order to satisfy the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. However, like my noble friend on the Front Bench, I do not think that the present legislation is working because in 1978 3,258 sheep were killed in this connection and a further 2,342 were injured. If that is the case—and these are reliable statistics—the law does not seem to be working, and we ought to look into this question in more detail at a later stage.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to ask a question before the amendment is withdrawn. My noble friend spoke about restrictions being called the Countryside Code. Does that apply to Scotland?— because I have never heard of it in my life. I live in an area where any amount of trouble is caused by dogs, not on footpaths but on the hills. The dogs get away. Those of us who are anxious, as I am, to see that people can walk over the hills, can go on our land and so on, are only too delighted to let them do so provided that they do not have dogs that chase the sheep. If the code can be endorsed, well and good; that is grand. I have never heard of it. The only way that I have been able to deal with dogs is to shoot them, or at least to

811
get someone to shoot them for me. The Government must realise that this is detrimental to pedestrians and to those who want to enjoy the countryside, apart from the wretched people who are trying to keep sheep. As the noble Earl said, last year 3,000 were killed.
The Earl of Avon: May I just clarify the point for the noble Baroness? The Countryside Commission publishes a code which is a code of advice, and that covers Scotland. I am sure that they will take note of the fact that it does not seem to be reaching the noble Baroness's part of Scotland.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I know that we want to press on, but I was interested in the noble Earl's passing reference to the Inter-Departmental Committee on Dogs in Society. I myself was chairman of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and was the principal witness to that inter-departmental committee in 1976. The report of that committee followed very closely indeed the recommendations that I was able to make on behalf of a wide range of interested organisations.
The last Government had this report before them for some time, and the present Government have had it before them for some time, but neither is disposed to do anything about it. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they really ought to read up about dogs in society and look at the broad problem of control of dogs, responsible ownership, and discipline. It is all there. We are only dealing really with one of the outcrops of the present unsatisfactory and chaotic position about dog ownership and the way in which dogs behave.
Only recently the Secretary of State for the Environment has informed the Joint Advisory Committee that the present Government have no intention of introducing any legislation to implement the recommendations of the committee during the lifetime of this Parliament. I deplore the fact that large numbers of people are appointed at different times to look into problems which are pressing when Governments feel that it is necessary to have them investigated, but when all the time and money has been spent on getting careful thought over long months on a matter of this sort, they just pigeonhole the report and regard you as a nuisance if you ask them to do anything about it.
This is one of the deplorable features of government. They shunt things off to a committee, use the unpaid time of people who are prepared to devote themselves to a problem, and then they think that if the pressure has been relieved they need do nothing. This dog problem is just as bad as ever it was, and there are many other aspects of it which it would be quite out of order for me to refer to now. We shall never get this dog worrying problem, and a great many other problems relating to dogs in society, resolved until some Government apply their mind to it and grasp this nettle. We know what the nettle is. The nettle is the licence fee and the enforcement of the licence fee, and getting a closer control over the dog population, and knowing where they are and who owns them. But in present circumstances dogs can wander anywhere, and do any amount of damage. It is quite impossible
812
to enforce rules of the kind now proposed to the committee.
Lord Burton: I am sorry about that last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because I thought that we had a unique occasion when he was agreeing with these Benches, in which case probably the amendment ought to go through if it was unanimous. It is sad that both Front Benches have taken the attitude they have, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, because in the course of our dealing with this Bill he has spoken on a number of occasions about the need for agreement with Europe. In most European countries, unlike the £200 fine which is suggested here, the dog would be shot. It seems to me that this amendment is the most moderate of proposals. It seems the greatest pity that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made that last remark because the greatest cruelty arises through the worrying of sheep, and anything that can be done to control dogs surely must be in the interests of the countryside, the interests of this Bill, and the interests of everyone in this country.
Lord Auckland: Basically this is an amendment which is very worthwhile, but there are two points which ought to be made. One concerns subsection (b). There are people other than blind people who are disabled and who take dogs where there may be sheep. I would hope that the amendment would be extended to include disabled people. Secondly, for those who are magistrates, how is a lead of reasonable length going to be decided? Surely a lead in itself—provided it is a lead and not merely a piece of string, on which some people do exercise dogs—would be acceptable. These points aside, I believe that this is an amendment which is desirable and acceptable.
Lord Spens: I feel I must come to the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, over this. We have had a number of expressions from other noble Lords with which I am very sympathetic, but this amendment will not do what they think it will do. For example, it only deals with a dog straying from the line of a public path in a field or enclosure.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord? I have no intention of pressing it, if it is worrying him.
Lord Spens: I thank the noble Lord very much, but that is not the point. I rather support his ideas but I think he has to introduce a much wider amendment. This amendment would not deal with a dog which strayed through any field in which there were sheep, which did not have a public path running through it. It is so limited in its present drafting that it is really useless.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I must say that I did not realise that your Lordships were as fond of sheep as I am and my noble friend Lady Elliot. I feel, as a result, that there is hope for your Lordships' House yet. I have listened with the greatest interest to the points raised, and I am particularly impressed with the measure of support that I got from all parts of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in

813
suggesting that walking through the countryside carried quite a responsibility on the part of the walker. From my contact with those who walk around my farm I would say that the great majority of walkers fall in line with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and they behave exactly in the manner he described.
I am usually fearful of the comments made by my noble kinsman, Lord Avebury, but on this occasion I do not think I had any need to be. Indeed, I can commend the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to perhaps read the quotation. I am in favour of nearly all of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made about dog licences. I take many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Avon, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the lack of preciseness in the amendment. Having had such sympathy from the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Orders creating, extinguishing or diverting public rights of way]:
[Amendments Nos. 515 to 517 not moved.]
5.38 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 518:
Page 79, line 41, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 518 I should like to speak also to No. 539. Both these amendments seek to extend the objection period for public path orders under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Highways Act 1980 from 28 to 42 days. The objection period for both types of order has been reduced over the years, and our feeling is that some increase is desirable. The period of 42 days has been included because it is the length of time allowed under Schedule 12 of the Bill for objections to be submitted to orders modifying definitive maps to be made under the provisions contained in Part III.
I believe it will assist public understanding if objection periods are standardised. An increase of 14 days, which these amendments will bring about, would also allow interested parties more time to consult each other, and this could lead to fewer rather than more objections if the parties agreed not to object to a proposal after being able to give it reasonable consideration. Under the present arrangements what amount to holding objections are submitted simply because there has not been time to give the matter proper consideration before the period of 28 days has expired.
When I moved Amendment No. 487 I spoke of the need for sufficient time for objections to be made, and the Minister then said—in respect of that and similar amendments, namely, Nos. 493, 519 and 540—that he would be tabling amendments on Report to cover that aspect. I hope he will feel as kindly towards this amendment and will agree to it.
Lord Bellwin: We feel in this instance that 28 days is more than adequate for interested persons to obtain details of a particular proposal, to consider the merits
814
involved and, if not content, to challenge the proposal. The point the noble Baroness makes about the 42-day period that is allowed for objecting in respect of definitive maps is interesting, but there are some differences between the two. In relation to public path orders, it is essentially a matter of challenging the specific grounds on which the orders are made. The complexity of the evidence taken into consideration by authorities before formally proposing to amend definitive maps is such that potential objectors need more time to unearth counter-evidence.
The definitive map older procedure set out in Schedule 12 includes a provision enabling potential objectors to require local authorities to inform them of any documentary evidence taken into account in preparing a modification. Authorities have 14 days in which to comply with a request and the objection period must take this factor into account. There is, therefore, a difference. I take the point that it would be helpful to gave uniformity of time for these matters, but there is a considerable difference between the two situations which the noble Baroness described. Our main reason for resisting the amendments is that there seems to be no need for an extension of this period.
Baroness David: I should have liked to have the time extended, but this is not something to have a fight about and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 519 to 521 not moved.]
5.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 521A:
Page 80, line 17, after ("held ") insert ("by a person appointed by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 521B, 522A, 522B, 542A and 543A. Your Lordships will recollect that in moving the Government's amendments to Schedule 12 on the appointment of persons to hold public local inquiries into opposed definitive map orders I mentioned that corresponding amendments had been tabled to Schedule 13 in connection with the handling of opposed public path orders. These are they.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 521B:
Page 80, line 18, leave out ("appointed to hold the inquiry") and insert ("so appointed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 522 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 522A:
Page 80, line 32, after ("held") insert ("by a person appointed by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 522B:
Page 80, line 33, leave out ("appointed to hold the inquiry") and insert ("so appointed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 523 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 524:
Page 80, line 34, leave out ("substituted ") and insert ("inserted").
The noble Lord said: This and Amendment No. 528 do no more than correct typographical errors that occurred during the printing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 524A:
Page 80, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert—
(""(2A) In relation to a local inquiry caused to be held by an authority under this paragraph—

(a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which relate to the giving of evidence at local inquiries) shall apply as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section;

(b) the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 shall apply as it applies in relation to a statutory inquiry held by the Secretary of State, but as if in section 12(1) of that Act (statement of reasons for decisions) the reference to any decision taken by the Secretary of State were a reference to a decision taken by a local authority."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 525 to 527 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 528:
Page 80, line 48, after ("Schedule") insert ("for").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 529 to 534 not moved.]
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendments Nos. 534A and 534B:
Page 81, line 27 after ("bridleways)") insert ("for the words from the beginning to "is situated" there shall be substituted the words "Where it appears to a council as respects a footpath or bridleway in their area (other than one which is a trunk road or special road)", and the words "(whether on to other land of his or on to land of another owner, lessee or occupier)" and")
Page 81, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) En subsection (5) of that section, for the words "the owner, lessee or occupier on whose representations "there shall be substituted the words "any owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by the path or way at whose respect ".").
The noble Viscount said: Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 authorises the making of a public path diversion order only at the request of the owner or occupier of the land affected, whereas under Section 119 of that Act a public path extinguishment order can be made by the authority's own motion. This is an anomaly which can be avoided only by the authority making a creation order for a new path and an extinguishment order for the old if it is desired to make a diversion. It is therefore proposed in the amendments that it would be simpler and administratively more convenient if the authority could itself make a diversion order, and the amendments would amend Schedule 13 in such a way that would allow Section 119 of the Highways Act to enable a diversion order to be made by surveying authorities. I believe it would be a useful power for authorities to have. There is no question here of trying to duck the responsibility for public rights of way or in any way to restrict them, and no public rights would be prejudiced, but where diversions have to be made—and they often are necessary—the process for doing so would be streamlined. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. There is no question here of taking away the power of the individual also to make a diversion, and in this connection I would remind my noble friend Lord Bellwin that we have not heard anything about the Government's view on diversions. This is an important subject and I am wondering whether my noble friend would care to make a statement now on diversions and their use, or perhaps he would prefer to do that at another time.
Baroness David: We should like to support the amendments: they seem to be useful.
Lord Bellwin: I recognise that in many respects the present provisions for the creation, diversion, and extinguishment of public paths may be in need of improvement, and that there may be a need for local authorities to initiate diversion orders. I respectfully submit that what is needed in the circumstances is not piecemeal changes, but a comprehensive review of the legislation. While obviously I cannot make any promises, since it is independent of Government, I hope that this is something that Michael Spicer's rights of way committee may be able to take under its wing, and I give an assurance that I shall take steps to explore this possibility. I hope that my noble friend and others would agree that in the absence of such a review it would be wrong to change the present legislation. Perhaps with the assurance that we shall look at the matter very seriously in the way that I have suggested, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Melchett: We have had a number of references to this committee which, as the Minister has just said, is not a Government committee. It is, as I understand it, an entirely informal committee. When considering Part I of the Bill we were all very anxious that the Government should have the opportunity to consult the scientific advisory bodies, and I am sure that all noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber would be more than happy for the Government between the Committee and Report stages to consult any committee that they wish to consult.
However, I want to make clear what I am sure would be the feeling on all sides, particularly on an amendment which obviously has the support of all sides: that the reference to a non-statutory committee, over which the Government have no control, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, should not simply be used as an excuse—if that is not putting it too harshly—in order to prevent the House from considering these matters on Report. I hope that if the matters are to be referred to this committee, the Government will be prepared to come to the House at Report stage, or rather before then so that we can all avoid once more tabling and discussing our amendments—and I think the noble Lord the Chief Whip is giving me very helpful support here. I hope that when matters are referred to this committee, as was the cases with references to the scientific authorities in regard to Part I, we ensure that we receive an answer in time for ourselves and the Government to avoid tabling amendments.
Lord Bellwin: I think that that is absolutely fair comment. It is certainly not in any attempt to fob off someone, get out of something, or move away from it that I say what I do say. We are glad that there is a body sitting in this way. We want to hear what it has to say and to be advised by it, in so far as we think that proper. I make careful note of the point about timing to which the noble Lord referred.
Viscount Ridley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for saying that he will look at this point. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; we should like to get this sorted out. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley that when asking for the diversion of a footpath there would be no question of interfering with the rights of an owner or occupier of land under the Act. That is not by any means my intention. The intention is merely that the authority should have the same rights as the owner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 535:
Page 81, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
(" (2) In subsection (6) of that section for the word "confirm" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "make".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 489. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 535A:
Page 81, line 35, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (1) of that section after the words "held with it" there shall be added the words "(including the securing of freedom from disease, security of premises or reasonable privacy).".").
The noble Lord said: Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 states that diversion of a footpath must satisfy either the efficient use of the land or provide a shorter or more commodious path. There are then savings for the public interest in that where an order is made on the grounds of efficient use of the land, the path must be not substantially less convenient to the public and regard must also be had to the public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole. From time to time the phrase "efficient use of the land" has proved unfortunately restrictive, and I want, very briefly, to speak about farmers' problems over this.
I want to clarify the question of whether the phrase "efficient use of the land" is likely to be interpreted favourably to farmers in cases which they are finding particularly worrying. I hasten to say that the amendment is exploratory, hence its rather comprehensive nature, which I hope is not worrying noble Lords too greatly at this stage.
I wish to mention briefly points regarding hop wilt and paths leading to farm buildings, as well as the question of reasonable privacy, with emphasis on the word "reasonable ". Hop wilt is a disease that is communicable by people walking. I understand that it is the only plant disease in respect of which the Ministry of Agriculture has supported footpath
818
diversions. The Ministry has also taken strong powers under the Progressive Wilt Disease of Hops Order 1978, and this disease has become steadily more virulent and worrying all the time over the last 50 years, I think.
Obviously farmers do not want to leave any stones unturned in trying to contain the disease, and this attitude has resulted in their concluding that it would be much better if possible to keep footpaths out of hop gardens. So they have been trying to secure diversions; and there are difficulties here. Kent County Council feels that as the law stands the diversion must be for the purpose of "efficient use of the land", and the council is unclear whether freedom from hop wilt falls within this definition. In the meantime, as I understand it, the Ministry of Agriculture has no powers to make temporary diversion of footpaths in the face of this disease. This traditional industry has experienced difficult times, and we do not want to see it disappear from the face of either Kent or Herefordshire. I am sure that no rambler would wish that to happen in any case, and no doubt their good will can be counted upon.
I turn now to the question of paths leading to farm buildings, and this, too, is sometimes a problem. Paths were originally developed for purposes that were different from those for which they are used today. Hence they frequently led straight to farm premises; they were used in that way. Now that the paths are used primarily for recreational purposes, very often it may be unnecessary that they should lead to farm buildings. Today there are fewer people on farms, and more farm buildings are either unattended or attended only rarely. There is among farmers a general feeling that if possible they want to keep the public away from farm buildings, particularly those which tend to be unattended. The first reason for this is prevention of animal diseases—diseases among pigs, poultry, and other livestock. I shall not go further into that point.
There is also the question of the safety of the public and the fact that children use rights of way. Sometimes even older people are more curious than they should be and they can get into difficulties by entering farm buildings. Then there is the question of security and fire risk. Again, is this aspect covered by the phrase "efficient use of the land", and what is to be the official line on requests for diversions on the kind of grounds that I have mentioned?
This subject ties up to some extent with the question of reasonable privacy. There was a recent decision regarding the diversion of a path in a garden in West Sussex. The Secretary of State considered:
"The view is taken that protection of privacy and prevention of vandalism do not satisfy the statutory requirements".
Probably, in that case, fair enough; but one asks oneself whether it would be quite so satisfactory with the following case, and what would happen.
Suppose a cottage is occupied by a key farm worker and there is a right of way in his garden. Increased use of the path takes place due to neighbouring developments and the occupants become unsettled and have difficulties; they have no close neighbour to keep an eye on their property while they are out, unlike people in towns. The farmer therefore applies for a diversion to keep this man on his farm. Will the

819
Secretary of State find it necessary to stick to the same narrow view just quoted, or will he take the same view as the farmer probably does, that it is important for the efficient use of the land that he keeps that particular worker?
As I say, this amendment is exploratory, and it has given me a chance to mention some of the difficulties under which farmers labour. What I should like to say about it is this. I am aware that the Spicer Review Committee have had preliminary discussions about these very technical matters, and I am wondering whether my noble friend will be able to let them proceed rapidly with this subject before the Report stage, possibly with a view to incorporating suitable amendments to the Bill that will meet such of those problems as it turns out it is necessary to meet. I am sure that if something could be done about that it would be most excellent news. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I think one has some sympathy with the problem raised here, but the amendment as it stands goes far too wide and could be used for other purposes. I suggest that this is one of those areas where further consultation outside would be desirable, and that the noble Lord should come back with perhaps a much narrower amendment later.
Lord Bellwin: Let me confess at once that on the subject of hop wilt or any other associated or like disease I am no expert. I would have thought that the answer to my noble friend's concern on this matter is surely that under the Highway Act 1980 there are already powers for farmers to ask for diversions of this kind if they so wish. I would have thought that in fact that was the solution to his concern.
As I said in reply to the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ridley, however desirable this amendment may be—and I in no way wish to be lighthearted in my treatment of it at all, because I recognise it is a serious matter—it is not appropriate, I submit, to consider it in isolation from other, similar changes which need to be looked at in relation to the procedures and criteria for making public path orders. On the understanding that these will be comprehensively reviewed, I should add that I find it difficult to see how one could be sure, in any case, that a diversion would secure freedom from disease as against, perhaps, merely reducing the risk of disease.
In the same way, though it would no doubt produce greater privacy in some instances, I think you could not really hope to make premises secure by diverting a path; but, as I say, no doubt my noble friend has much greater knowledge and experience than I have of these matters. But I hope that, with the reference I have made to the powers that are already in existence, he may feel able to withdraw the amendment, in that his problems can be solved in that way.
Lord Monk Bretton: Indeed I should like to thank my noble friend for that sympathetic reply. I am sure we shall have time to study this matter a little further and some of the narrower points. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 536 to 540 not moved.]
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 540A:
Page 82, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(1A) Where objections to the making or confirmation of an order pursuant to this Schedule have been received which appear to pertain to matters of principle, the authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may, by notice served on the persons making such objections direct that any person who intends at the inquiry to submit that any public path to which the order relates should not be created, diverted or extinguished shall send to the authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State within such period as may be specified in the notice, being a period not less than 28 days sufficient information about their objection as to enable the true grounds of the objection to be identified.

(1B) Where the authority, or as the case may be the Secretary of State, have given a direction under sub-paragraph (1A) above, the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may disregard any objection which in their or his opinion amounts in substance to an objection in principle.").

The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to provide the most moderate possible means of excluding extremist objectors in principle to diversions of public paths—the type of objection which is going to have no bearing on the outcome of the inquiry. One asks oneself, if it is not going to have any bearing on the inquiry why hold the inquiry at all? As I see it, the position under the Bill is that anyone can object to a draft order without giving a reason, and that this has to lead to an inquiry and the delay and expense connected therewith. It is also necessary, I think, to mention that quite frequently areas have people who are objectors in principle and who make these objections.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to two examples in Kent, in the parishes of Langley and Chart Sutton. Divisions were proposed there which were supported by the local councils and the local rights of way groups. They got the whole matter well worked out, but then there was an objection in principle. When, in one case, it was finally discovered what the objection was about—this came out at the inquiry, and it was a written objection—it ran as follows:
"I am not interested in where the path goes, or local interest, only in that the footpath should not be interfered with in any way. That is my sole and only objection".
The inspector reported, after the objector had not turned up at the inquiry, as follows:
"No evidence has been produced to establish that the footpath would be less convenient to the public as a consequence of the proposed diversion. Indeed, on the information before me the opposite seems to be the case".
This was at the Langley inquiry.
The final quotation I have is from the Local Walkers' Magazine shortly afterwards. They said:
"It is quite clear that a change in the law is required to stop this waste of public money",
and it went on to say that costs should be awarded against such objectors. The procedure that is suggested in this amendment is a much more reasonable and moderate one than that, and I hope this will be fully recognised.
The amendment is in fact modelled upon the powers given to the Secretary of State in Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980. This has been in use since 1971 for just the same purposes, and enables the Secretary

821
of State to disregard certain objections when making new road orders. I think that an amendment of this kind may well be a welcome help to highway authorities, and I hope that we may be able to elicit some support from them. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I have some sympathy with what is behind this amendment. I, certainly, and many others, do not like pressure groups; I do not like people who do things purely on principle. But I am afraid that in this age it is something which we have to some extent to live with. Pressure groups are perhaps today the only way of getting anything done. But this amendment is not acceptable. You cannot define when a thing is done on principle because the person who puts it forward has only to produce a reason and it falls to the ground. Also I think it would be open to a good deal of abuse. I would say to the noble Lord that he must be a little tougher and accept the rub of the green to this extent.
Lord Bellwin: I have indicated on two occasions previously that changes to the present public path order procedure should flow from a comprehensive review of the legislation. On this occasion, however, I must respectfully question the merit of the main amendment. I recognise that it is intended to meet a specific problem but, because it would enable an order-making authority to disregard certain objections, it would amount to a curtailment of a person's democratic right to object to an order and to have that objection considered on its merits. Of course, I feel sure that that is not the intention of my noble friend but I know that he will appreciate that, for that reason alone, we could not accept it.
Moreover, if the amendment were accepted, authorities would be faced with the difficulty of trying to distinguish between objections of principle and those which relate to the substance of the order. In addition, it would not be long before persons to whom the provision was directed realised that they must word their objections slightly differently to get round its effect. In the circumstances, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am a little troubled still because I wonder whether the powers in the Highways Act referred to have worked satisfactorily or not. If they have, I should have thought that there was something to be said for using them again. This is a matter which needs going into carefully. What worries me is the fact that this kind of thing is what fossilises the rights-of-way system. What I wonder, and should like confirmation of, is whether the Government—presumably they do—pay regard to the 1966 White Paper, Leisure and the Countryside, which said:
"Radical reform may be needed to the footpaths system to create a footpath network more suited to modern needs".
And also, in 1975, the White Paper, Sport and Recreation said:
"In the Government's view, there is scope for local initiatives to modify the existing networks of footpaths and bridleways in order to reconcile increasing demands for access and for recreation with the needs of the farming community".
Those things we are anxious to achieve, I am sure, on both sides. I hope my noble friend will bear that in
822
mind very clearly. With that, enough said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 540 B, 540C, 541 and 542 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 542A:
Page 82, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (a) after the word "held" there shall be inserted the words "by a person appointed by the Secretary of State"").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 543 and 543ZA not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 543A:
Page 83, line 18, leave out ("holding a local inquiry") and insert ("causing a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 544 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 544A:
Page 83, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert—
(""(4) In relation to a local inquiry caused to be held by an authority under this paragraph—

(a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which relate to the giving of evidence at local inquiries) shall apply as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section;

(b) the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 shall apply as it applies in relation to a statutory inquiry held by the Secretary of State, but as if in section 12(1) of that Act (statement of reasons for decisions) the reference to any decision taken by the Secretary of State were a reference to a decision taken by a local authority."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 545 not moved.]
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Prohibition on keeping bulls on land crossed by a footpath or bridle way]:
[Amendments Nos. 545A, 545B and 545C not moved.]
6.9 p.m.
Lord Milverton Lord Milverton moved Amendment No. 546:
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("or bridleway") and insert ("bridle-way or byway open to all traffic or road used as a public path").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 546, which is down in my name. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Melchett, the noble Baroness Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who kindly stepped in for me earlier on other amendments which I had put down. I am grateful. I gather that my noble friend Lord Avon has just said that he is sympathetic to this amendment of mine and, on Amendment No. 547, he said we would be talking more fully on bulls. Therefore, to help to speed up matters, if he says that the Government are sympathetic to this amendment, I hope perhaps he will be able to say that it will be accepted. Then we will

823
talk fully about bulls in Amendment No. 547. I will ask my noble friend whether he can accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As my noble friend Lord Milverton has said, this is acceptable to the Government in principle and we will consider drafting something on these lines at the next stage.
Lord Milverton: In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if Amendment No. 547 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 547A or 548.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Avehury Lord Avehury moved Amendment No. 547:
Page 40, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment is designed to exclude all bulls from public footpaths. It is put down in the hope that the Government may see fit to deal with the problem which has been uppermost in the minds of those who use the countryside and those who have in the past suffered risk and even serious injury as a result of the presence of bulls in fields through which a public footpath runs. I do not wish to go into an enormous amount of detail, but I think it is worth mentioning some of the evidence which shows that bulls are very dangerous creatures. They have led to deaths and to serious injuries to persons using the countryside peacefully and unaware perhaps of the dangers which are just around the corner.
The Ministry of Agriculture Safety Division told the Ramblers' Association in a letter in 1973:
"Bulls are always a potential danger and it is advisable to treat them with extreme caution".
The Ministry of Town and Country Planning in a circular, said:
"Danger to the public undoubtedly may arise when bulls are kept in fields or enclosures of normal size through which a footpath runs."
I shall not weary the Committee with many other examples of authoritative statements that can be adduced in support of the proposition that all bulls are dangerous. To show that accidents involving bulls do occur and have had very serious consequences, I would mention one example out of a great many that I could have cited. This was an article which appeared in the Sunday Express of 31st August last, reporting a most horrifying incident which occurred to Mr. George Kither. The account begins:
"Mr. Kither's nightmare began after he had collected Brandy (his horse) from the Riverview Riding Club at Thamesmead. He took the horse through a gate into a large area of open space which is owned by the Greater London Council. He said: I was tending Brandy when he suddenly bolted. I was still on my hands and knees. Then I looked up straight into the eyes of this huge, brown bull. It had horns about 18 inches long. It rushed at me and caught me in the face, breaking my glasses. I was terrified. I kept thinking, "This is not happening to me ".'".
But it was happening to him. He was told after his
824
ordeal by the doctors who treated him in the Brook Hospital, where he was detained overnight, that he was lucky to be alive. Many of those who have had encounters with bulls have not been so lucky. Three farmworkers were killed by bulls in 1979, four in the previous year, and in those years 27 and 34 respectively were injured.
We are talking about an extreme hazard which faces any person who has the temerity to walk through a field where a bull is being kept by the farmer. So that I can dispel at once the objection which I know is likely to be levelled against this particular amendment—that it deals with all bulls whether or not of a certain size—I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a picture which appeared in the journal Great Outdoors of February 1981 which shows a sign saying "Public footpath" pointing over a gate, and on the gate there is a large notice saying "Bull in the field ".
A rambler coming up to this gate and seeing that sign is not going to ask himself whether the bull is over or under a certain age. He is going to take the wise course of not risking the sort of ordeal that I have described, as happened to Mr. Kither. If possible, he will take the longer route round. That may not be possible and he may abandon his recreation altogether. That was one reason why I sought to introduce the amendment applying to all bulls and not just to those of a certain kind. The other one is that at least this amendment has the merit of simplicity and it can be readily interpreted.
In about three-quarters of England and Wales there are local by-laws which prohibit grazing of all breeds of mature bulls in fields containing public paths. In remaining areas, bulls are allowed provided they are with cows or heifers. That does not mean to say that because the cows or heifers are present in the field, the bulls are necessarily safe. If time allowed, I could read out several other examples showing what happened by people who thought that because they saw cows or heifers in the field with the bulls they could safely enter it. They were swiftly disillusioned.
In Scotland—and the point is bound to come up because of the way the Government have sought to proceed in this Bill—Section 44 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 provides that all but dairy breed bulls may be grazed in fields containing public paths providing that the bulls are with cows or heifers. What the Government are trying to do in this Bill is to apply similar provisions to England and Wales. That is the meaning of Clause 46 of the Bill.
If the clause were to be passed unamended, it would mean that the farmers were able to graze beef-breed and cross-breed bulls in fields with public paths in those paths in those parts of England and Wales where such bulls are prohibited at the moment. What we want to do is to ensure that wherever a field is crossed by a public path, a byway open to all traffic or any of the other classifications in the Bill, the restrictions on bulls apply. We want to remove the provision which allows beef-breed and cross-breed bulls in fields containing public paths.
I want to examine for one moment what may be the Government's objection to the amendment which I am now proposing. First of all they may say that this provision is necessary for the purposes of beef production. The first reply to that is that we are already

825
producing far too much beef in this country. We have 20,000 tons of the EEC's beef mountain stored in Great Britain, and that is only a small proportion of the total of the EEC's surplus of beef at the moment.
The Ministry of Agriculture said in 1974 that variations due to changes in the law relating to the running of bulls in fields crossed by public footpaths are unlikely to affect the total supply of beef animals, and hence market prices, more than marginally. Finally, it has recently been estimated that on average only one field in five has a public path in it and so the majority of fields would be unaffected by a general ban on bulls in fields with paths such as this amendment proposes. Where particular problems arise locally, they can always be met by the temporary diversion provisions.
The next point that I want to touch on is a point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, speaking in the Second Reading debate on 16th December last, when he remarked (and this is at col. 1094 of Hansard):
"Our proposals are surely safer to the path user than the conglomeration of by-laws and no laws that abounds today".
That means that a very simple amendment of this sort ought to commend itself to the Government, whereas on the contrary, if the Bill is allowed to go through unaltered, then by relaxing controls that apply over three-quarters of England and Wales it will make walking in the countryside a great deal more dangerous than it is at the moment.
I think that there are one or two points that should be borne in mind. The consensus of informed opinion is that all bulls should be treated as potentially dangerous in all circumstances. A large number of people, including ramblers and farmworkers, have been killed, injured and seriously threatened by bulls. Also, as far as the situation in Scotland is concerned which, as I have said, is the one which it is sought to implement in England and Wales by these proposals, it is quite different, because in Scotland, as my noble friend Lord Thurso would have confirmed, had he been here (he was here a moment ago), most people take to the hills and mountains above the fields in which the bulls are kept.
There is very much less scope for doing that in England, particularly in the South and East where almost all country walking has to be done through fields and enclosures. In Scotland, of course, there are no definitive powers, and anybody who sees a bull in a field ahead of him can ordinarily follow another route with impunity. On the contrary, in England and Wales walkers are constantly urged to keep to the path, and therefore they face the risk of being caught trespassing if they depart from the approved route for the purposes of avoiding a bull. I think it would be preferable to replace the current mixture of bylaws with a single enactment which applies all over the country, but only if that provides for a ban on all bulls in fields with public paths. If we do not do that, then the gain in simplification of the law would be enormously outweighed by an increase in danger to walkers.
The other objection which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, may possibly raise is that temporary path diversions would mean an enormous amount of extra work for local authorities. Certainly there is an
826
element of additional work involved in any temporary diversion, but I suggest to the Committee that it could be justified on the following grounds. First, the diversions would be necessary for public safety, if the Committee accept my proposition that bulls and walkers should be kept apart in all circumstances. Secondly, this extra work is not likely to be of any great significance or to involve much extra cost. It would not be necessary to insert notices in the London Gazette, and the local paper would not be required to have a notice in it either; nor would public inquiries be necessary, but merely the holding of informal consultations and the signing of an order. Moreover, local authorities have asked for, and the Government intend to give them, the far more time-consuming and costly job dealing with all permanent diversions and enclosures which do involve the publication of notices and the holding of public inquiries. Of course, if local authorities have the resources to take on all this extra work—and noble Lords on the Government Front Bench are always telling us that nothing in this Bill is likely to involve a significant amount of extra resources in local authorities—surely they are able to handle a few temporary diversions as well.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time with a long speech on what is, after all, one of the most important provisions in the Bill. Representations have been made by the Ramblers' Association and others, who are very, very concerned that your Lordships should pay careful attention to what is suggested in this amendment. However, I feel I have deployed the case sufficiently to warrant its acceptance by the Committee, and, in the light of what I have said, I hope the Government will accept the amendment, or, if they cannot accept it, at least say that they will come up with something very similar between now and Report stage. I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: With respect to the noble Lord, he has been speaking rather a lot of non-sense. I have kept almost every breed of bull in my time, except Simmental, Friesian and Friesian-Ayr-shire and Guernsey. I have had every other breed. I quite agree that dairy bulls can be dangerous, but then they are almost always penned up, apart from when you do have them in a field with heifers. The noble Lord mentioned about one or two farm workers having been killed by bulls. Of course, that is quite true; but they were not killed by bulls in the open but by dairy bulls in their pens, which is a very different matter.
In Scotland, as the noble Lord said, from 1967 we have had beef bulls out on the hills the whole time, with no fences, alongside public roads and alongside public paths. I have never known of an accident. The only annoying thing which happened to me—cattle are very inquisitive—was when one shorthorn of mine went to investigate a hikers' tent. They were not there, and he got tangled up in the guy ropes, and somehow unfortunately got a frying pan attached to his horn. This was extremely annoying for the cows, because whenever he tried to get near them they heard this thing banging and fled. It was also very annoying for me, because I could not get a cow served, and in the end the poor bull had to be shot. I have had some extremely endearing

827
bulls. I had one Ayrshire bull down in Kent who was extremely friendly. One day, he walked into a wedding reception in the village hall. He was, of course, perfectly harmless but caused a bit of a panic. I believe he also knocked over the wedding cake.
But, really, the noble Lord has been rather talking nonsense. I would say from my experience that some cows are a lot more dangerous. The Highland cow, and in particular the Galloway cow, if she has a calf, is extremely dangerous. If you go to within 50 yards of a Galloway cow, and especially if you have a dog, she will charge you if she has a young calf. But the Highland bull or the Galloway bull is completely harmless; I really could not support this amendment; I think it is completely unsupportable.
Lord Underhill: I readily give way to what the noble Lord has said on his knowledge of agriculture, but I do not think it affects the merits of this amendment. I will not go over what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, but he referred to the fact that three-quarters of the counties in England and Wales have bylaws which would accord with the principle of this amendment. I wonder whether the Government have consulted county council opinion, because many county councils have large rural farming areas. Yet they have felt it was necessary to have this amendment and have not suggested repealing it: therefore we need to know the view of the county councils on this matter.
I would remind your Lordships of what I and others said during the Second Reading debate. We are not talking about those people who walk in the countryside and who understand animals. I do not, but I enjoy a walk in the countryside. I can assure you that when I see a bull, I do not care what age it is, I am not going in there. There are millions of people who wish to walk in the countryside with their children and, frankly, an assurance from the Minister that this bull is safe will not make those people believe that it is safe, Therefore, we are dealing with the apprehensions of people and have to take some notice of them.
The only other point I would make is that everyone who is associated with farming interests is not necessarily in support of the view expressed against this amendment. If one looks at newspapers and journals, there are veterinary surgeons who would agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I believe it was the agricultural expert attached to the Health and Safety Executive who, 12 months ago, said that no matter how docile a bull appears we should treat it with considerable care and caution. Therefore, I am talking about people who are not expert and people who want to walk in the countryside. Unless this amendment is agreed to, those people and, possibly their children with whom they wish to walk, will have great apprehensions.
Lord Milverton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, because I also have had quite a reasonable amount of information given to me which clearly suggests that you cannot just say that it is only the recognised dairy breed bulls that are dangerous. All bulls are dangerous. If we are talking about anything like cows with their calves, that is a different matter. In fact, I was thrown by a cow when I was
828
in Kenya, but that is another story. But bulls are quite different, and I should like to quote from Mr. A. G. Wilkins, who wrote in the Birmingham Evening Mail on 1st January 1981:
"I have been connected with farming all my life. No bulls ought to be loose where there is a footpath. No bull can ever be trusted, whatever the breed. They can be meek and mild for years and then, with no warning, turn on their keeper".
I should have thought, from the information that one has, not only from organisations such as the Ramblers' Association but also from what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, as well as from those who work in farming—that is, veterinary surgeons, farmworkers and farmers—that one has to treat all bulls with care. Furthermore, it is not only fit people who should feel safe. We must also think of those who are in some ways semi-disabled—
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord would tell me how we are to get the cows in calf, or does that not matter?
Lord Milverton: Presumably, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, and as my information shows, farmers would not lose much land and it would surely still be feasible. There would still be the land for that to be done. I really cannot see how that can be put forward as a reason.
The Earl of Onslow: May I just take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill? He said that he thinks this is safe, because people believe that bulls are dangerous, irrespective of whether or not they are. It seems to me most extraordinary to base legislation on the fact that people think that something will happen, whether it is going to happen or not—
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Earl sits down, he was playing games with my noble friend which were quite unwarranted, and not of the normal high standard of his contributions to your Lordships' Committee. He knows perfectly well the list of organisations, starting with the Ministry of Agriculture's safety division, and going through a number of other people, including the Health and Safety Executive and the National Association of Local Councils. Anybody who keeps cattle knows that at least some bulls, in almost any breed, can be very dangerous indeed, and the statistics for accidents to farmworkers bear that out.
Viscount Hanworth: I promised one noble Lord to whom I spoke that I would consider the farmer's point of view. What I told him I would say was that, as on so many other issues, there is a good deal to be said on both sides. The first point I would make is that the Bill as it is simply will not do. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) uses the phrase "a recognised dairy breed". What about farmers who keep bulls that are not of a recognised dairy breed? This is wide open.
Then it is argued that beef bulls are nearly always very quiet when they have cows with them. But if you have a problem with a dairy breed, it is surely not much harder to deal with a beef breed. I know that some farmers have predominantly beef breeds, but the point

829
is that the problem can be overcome. Another point which is extremely important is that we are told that bulls are dangerous. Never mind whether or not it is true, the fact remains that most people who come from towns, as well as most people in the country and I live in the country, but I am not a farmer—will have to treat them as such. That really means that you cannot use a certain path.
Therefore, on the balance—and, like so many other things, it is on the balance—farmers must accept that they have to suffer some inconvenience and some cost so that bulls are kept out. I also realise that, although this will not mean very much to some farmers, it will mean quite a lot to others, because they have a lot of rights of way going across, as does the noble Lord to whom I spoke. But that is just one of the rubs of the green. Let us face the fact that this subsection has just been put in as a sop to the NFU. We ought to argue this through and not just accept something like this which, on the face of it, is completely unsatisfactory.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I speak now as someone who farms in Scotland, where we have always had no restrictions, such as are suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the question of running bulls. We have never had any trouble. If you have a dairy bull which you believe to be a danger, then of course you do not put it out in a field where people are likely to go past. It would be just stupid to do it. We have beef bulls which are the quietest things in the world. You can go up and stroke them and play with them, and they do not do anyharm to anybody. You do not put bulls into every field or on to every hill. It is only at a certain time of the year when the bull and the cow run together.
To make all this fuss about not going through a field or on a hill where there is a suckler herd with beef bulls, which are very often much quieter than the cows and quieter than you can imagine, is too silly for words. Any practical farmer, and I am one, knows perfectly well that if you have a dangerous animal you do not put it out where there are people. But nine times out of 10, where you want to run a suckler herd the bulls are perfectly safe and there is no reason for making any change. This has been going on in Scotland since time immemorial and no one has ever complained at all. Why the English have suddenly become frightened of bulls is too extraordinary and I am entirely opposed to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Collison: I want to say something in this debate. I am afraid that I shall fall out with my friend the noble Baroness opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I am concerned about this matter on two fronts: one, as a member of the Strutt Committee—not the town and country committee, but a special committee which was set up to consider this problem of bulls and foot paths—and, secondly, because of my association with agricultural workers, through the National Union of Agricultural Workers, of which I used to be general secretary.
The Strutt Committee does not do things by halves and it did not do this job by halves. We met a large number of people who were ramblers, people who were concerned with farming and farmers themselves.
830
We went out to see these paths for ourselves. We went to the Highlands to see what we could find out about the dangers involved in people crossing these very large expanses. Having weighed all the evidence for and against, the Strutt Committee formed the firm conclusion that it would be proper to ban all bulls from fields which are crossed by paths used by the public, except in the Highlands and the hill land where the open spaces are very large and, therefore, the danger is not so intense.
I appreciate that this is a controversial matter, and I have been in touch with the National Union of Agricultural Workers, who confirmed what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said: namely, that there have been a number of fatalities which need not have happened, and there have also been a much larger number of accidents.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Certainly there have been fatalities with bulls, but can the noble Lord give me one example where there has been any fatality or any danger with beef bulls running on footpaths? To my knowledge and to the knowledge of the Ministry of Agriculture there has not.
Lord Collison: My point is not that. My point is that bulls are clearly dangerous.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Collison: Let me tell noble Lords of a personal experience that I had when I worked on the land. If the noble Viscount wants to say something I will sit down.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Bulls which are dangerous are penned up. Those are nearly always dairy bulls. Any fatalities which there have been have been with penned-up bulls when the farmworker has gone to feed the animals and they have got him against the wall. It has never happened on footpaths.
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Viscount confirm that he is speaking from his own knowledge when he says that there have been no fatalities from bulls to agricultural workers except when the bulls have been penned up?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am talking of beef bulls.
Lord Melchett: The noble Viscount did not say that when he got up.
Lord Collison: I repeat my point that bulls are in fact dangerous. I have had personal experience of the danger involved. When I worked on the land, on the next farm I had a very good friend who was a cowman and who was working with bulls for beef production. On the land of that farm they had a bull which was normally quite docile and no danger to anyone. My friend was not feeding him, or cleaning him out, or doing anything of that kind. He was walking across the field where the bull was when it suddenly turned vicious and attacked him. This can happen. I have seen this happen from time to time.

831
Bulls of all breeds, which normally are quite docile, for some reason suddenly go berserk and charge the people in charge of them.
The Agricultural Workers' Union is very much in favour of this proposition. As I have said, the Strutt Committee, having looked at all aspects of the matter, came down in favour of bulls being totally banned from footpaths in England except in the highlands where there ate vast open spaces. I understand that the last Government intended to introduce into the Bill that they were preparing a clause completely to ban bulls. In view of what has been said, I hope that the present Government will be prepared to accept the points made to them and to do the same.
The Earl of Caithness: I am pleased to note that the party opposite is becoming more tolerant. It was one of their Members, the honourable Member, Dr. Dickson Mabon, who introduced a similar clause affecting bulls in Scotland into the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Interestingly enough, a Question in another place, answered on 9th February last, asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases had been brought to his attention of ramblers having been chased by bulls in Scottish fields since the implementation of Section 44 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. I would point out that the question related to being chased by bulls; it did not specify dairy or beef bulls. And it referred to fields, not footpaths. The answer which the honourable Member for Edinburgh Pentlands, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, Scottish Office, gave was one word: "None ".
Lord Collison: Before the noble Earl sits down may I make the point again that it is not only a question of people being charged and damaged by bulls when crossing land? We had evidence to show that bulls alerted themselves when people were walking on paths and came towards them. Perhaps the people were too frightened and did not know much about bulls. There was one case were a bull actually ran for a person. He had to jump the stile and he damaged himself in so doing. It is not only a question of people being hurt or injured by a bull. It is also a question of the fear that the bull inspires, in townsmen in particular and sometimes in mothers with their children. There is a real fear which we on the Strutt Committee were told about and which we accepted as good evidence and as a good reason for banning bulls on footpaths.
I agree with what has been said about diversions. We suggested that diversions could be provided to make it possible for farmers to get their heifers inseminated. I want to reiterate that it is not only a question of people being charged. I know of one case where a person crossing a field was charged at and had to jump a stile, and I told noble Lords about the case of my friend.
6.55 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: If I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, he said that we should know what the county councils think about it. I can tell him something about this, because the county councils of
832
England and Wales have debated this subject on and off for a very long time. It is a quite regular item on their agendas. They very much enjoy talking about it because it always raises a laugh, as in your Lordships' House. The answer is that they believe this Bill provides by far the best compromise so far suggested. They are in favour of Clause 46, as I am. They hope very much that the Government will see this clause into legislation.
The question about diverting footpaths remains the only thing where they do not agree with some of the very vociferous farmers on these Benches. Although in an ideal world it may be very desirable to divert footpaths during the mating season so that the bulls can get on with the job, so to speak, there is a serious drawback to this. First, I have just moved an amendment which would have given the county councils the power to divert footpaths. They do not have such powers at the moment, as those who happened to be here for that debate will have heard. The Government did not accept my amendment, so they cannot do it. Secondly, it would be a great problem. Administratively, it would be a very laborious and cumbersome business. By the time the whole process had been concluded the bull would have lost all interest in the cows and there would be no crop of calves for next year—never mind the expense. More important than that has been the talk about posting diverted footpaths so that people skirt round the new line. I do not know whether noble Lords have ever tried posting notices in upland areas where there are no fences and no posts, and where some fields measure thousands of acres. These posts are blown away in a matter of weeks or, if not, are taken home by ramblers as souvenirs. Those notices would not last. Therefore it would be much more dangerous to have a footpath temporarily diverted because people would not realise that it had been diverted. They would go gaily on and therefore would perhaps be provoking the bull who thought he had the field to himself. I hope Clause 46 is not amended in any way.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I take it that this clause is drafted in favour of the person who is walking along the footpath. Therefore the key question is whether or not it benefits him. Is he better with the subsection or without it? To answer that question it is necessary to look at the matter from the point of view not of the bull, nor of the farmer, nor of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, but of the walker. The walker is likely to be a pretty ignorant sort of person. For the sake of argument, you must consider that kind of walker only—even the one who cannot tell a bull from a cow. However, he may be confident that there is a law which operates in his favour to safeguard him. Therefore he walks across the field perfectly happily, knowing that this law or a similar law has been passed. He is therefore surprised to find himself suddenly tossed into the county hospital, or even frightened and caused to have a heart attack, or to sprain an ankle or to do something to his detriment.
How has this happened? He has taken for granted certain things which he is in no way entitled to take for granted. First, he has taken it for granted that the farmer knows the law. Secondly, he has taken it

833
for granted that the farmer is conscientious and scrupulous in applying the law. Thirdly, he has taken it for granted that the farmer knows the bull is in the field. Fourthly, he has taken it for granted that the bull has every right to be in the field and has not broken through a hedge, or come through a gate left open by another rambler. None of these things is necessarily true. It is not reasonable to take this extraordinarily favourable view of human nature, particularly in the case of farmers. People are not always so reliable as all that. Some of the people who are not reliable are farmers. Therefore the only way to protect this ignorant passer-by who is crossing the field is to delete subsection (2). I support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Committee gets too drastically serious and both sides stare at each other with a ferocity far greater than that of any bull staring at a rambler, may I beg of the Front Bench opposite not to take an unfair political advantage? At general election time supporters of my party in rural areas, wearing rosettes of a similar colour to the handkerchief which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is wearing at the moment, run a far greater risk than supporters of the Party opposite with the colour of their rosettes. Therefore, I ask noble Lords opposite not to take an unfair political advantage, and will they kindly support this amendment!
Lord Burton: I believe a lot of this trouble has arisen because a number of notices have been put up "Beware of the bull" when in fact there was no danger at all. It was done in order to keep people out, possibly for one reason alone—that farmers were afraid of gates being left open in view of the trouble which arises when stock is let out. There are also the problems of litter and fires. At least two noble Lords have referred to the difference between Scotland and England. If you meet a wild bull (if there is one) or a wild cow on an open hillside you have a lot further to run than you do in a closed field, and therefore I think the argument that has been put forward is totally invalid.
There is another point which has not been mentioned: that if a farmer has a dangerous bull, how does he get it inside and out of the field? Clearly if it is dangerous he is most unlikely to let it out into a field because he will not be able to get it back in again. It has also been said, if one can get dairy cows into calf why can one not get beef cows into calf? The answer is quite simple. Anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that dairy cows come in twice a day and are under close scrutiny all the time. It is a very different matter with beef cows, where the farmer just checks up to see that they are all right and does not have to go round examining each cow once a day, let alone twice a day.
Another thing said was that surely the farmers could bear the cost. I want to emphasise that at this present time the farmers are being very hard pressed financially. To give one small example. We have had a statement on the closure of 23 pits which lost £127 million last year. That figure is four times the total net income of farmers in Scotland last year.
A noble Lord: Good point!
Lord Melchett: The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, suggested that what was in the Bill was a compromise. I really do not think that is a sustainable position. This is not a compromise. It is very strongly opposed by all organisations interested in public access and public rights of way. However, there was a compromise. Indeed, there was an agreement, and I would suggest to noble Lords opposite who have spoken against this amendment, and particularly the Government, that the reason why this part of the Bill has aroused so much public interest and so much disquiet among all those who wish to visit the countryside without being killed, injured or just frightened, is that the Government allowed the agreement which had been reached between the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers' Association not to be put into the Bill.
That agreement allowed for the temporary diversion of paths and for the banning of bulls over a certain age in fields, with a fine to go with it. That seemed to me to be an acceptable and reasonable compromise which was supported by the last Government, and it was one which all sides of this argument supported, and if this amendment is causing a controversy and taking time to debate it is entirely the fault of the Government for not keeping to that compromise and keeping it in this Bill when they introduced it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked us how we expected him to get his cows into calf. I am not sure whether he was looking for detailed biological information, but assuming that he was not and was only asking for agricultural information, I would simply point out that four out of five fields in England and Wales do not have a footpath going through them, and on those fields farmers are free to put any bull with anything they want and that is how they will get their cows or heifers into calf.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If the noble Lord will give way, it may be that those figures are right—I do not know—but the fact that a footpath goes through a field means it is very likely to be a grass field rather than an arable field. Hence I suspect that that number is not correct in regard to the number of fields into which you could put your bull.
Viscount Ridley: And what about all those areas in upland Britain where there are no fences at all and therefore no fields? Half the problem arises in the hilly areas of England and Wales.
Lord Melchett: Those are exactly the sort of problems which the CLA, the NFU and the Ramblers' Association agreed could be met by the temporary diversions, which were part of the agreed package. I agree that simply to ban all bulls from all fields would be wrong, and that is why the agreement was that there should be temporary diversions. I think that would have met the problems not only of people with single suckler herds or beef herds but also of people with dairy bulls who wanted to run them in the fields and who have a lot of fields with public footpaths going through them. They will be in a worse position under the provisions of this Bill than they would have been under the proposals which the last Government supported

835
and which I have made clear were also supported by everyone else.
There are three points which I do not think have been sufficiently brought out in the debate on this amendment. First, I was sorry to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, being so rude about Galloway cattle. As a member of the Council of the Belted Galloway Society, I took his remarks very much amiss. That is undoubtedly the best beef breed in this country, or indeed in the world, with a marvellous temperament.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I was referring to the common Galloway, not the Belted Galloway.
Lord Melchett: I am quite prepared to accept that the common Galloways have all sorts of defects which Belted Galloways do not have! More seriously, there are a number of breeds which I assume under this legislation will be allowed to run in fields, ranging from White Park cattle—and I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not here to tell us a little more about their temperament—to a number of Continental breeds.
I think somebody asked at Second Reading who actually stood in the middle of a field and waited to see whether something as large as a Charolais or a Simmental or some of the bigger bulls from the Continent were as safe as the nice little friendly poll Hereford which all beef farmers in this country are used to and are quite happy to accept is not, in the main, all that dangerous. I simply do not believe that in modern circumstances this reversion to the idea that beef bulls are safer on average than dairy bulls is justified. It is certainly not justified to suggest, as noble Lords opposite have done from time to time in this debate, that beef bulls are always to be trusted. Anybody who is a responsible farmer, and all the responsible organisations which give advice and have experience of this, know that from time to time any bull is liable to be dangerous.
If I may say so, I was really astonished and horrified at the attitude of noble Lords opposite when they suggested that there was nothing to worry about. My noble friend Lord Collison gave us some information about the statistics of accidents to farm workers. If noble Lords opposite have shown an attitude to these dangers that is typical of farmers generally, I think that is a good explanation of why so many farm workers are injured and killed by bulls. They are dangerous animals, they should never be trusted, and no responsible organisation involved with farming, from the Ministry of Agriculture in any direction, has ever suggested anything else.
If I may make one final point, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested in a moment of hilarity which I am afraid typifies this sort of discussion, that it would be easy to run for the hedge in a field and therefore nobody would have anything to worry about. I have been in a situation where I was with a group of young children and somebody in a wheelchair when a bull came into the field unexpectedly, and I can tell the noble Lord that it is no joke if you are with somebody in a wheelchair and a number of young children, none of whom can run for the nearest hedge in the gay way that the
836
noble Lord suggested was possible. This sort of provision in the Bill totally ignores the rights of elderly people who are not capable of running for cover, of young children, and of other people who will be extremely concerned about this sort of provision, including in particular the disabled.
Lord Burton: If the noble Lord will give way for a second, he was misinterpreting me again. What I said was that it is further to run if you are out on the open hill. I have in fact been caught by a cow in a field, and I was jolly glad that there was a hedge there and I was able to get over it.
Lord Melchett: The mere fact that noble Lords accept that it is likely that some people will have to run from bulls seems to me to make the case for this amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will press it to a Division.
Lord Burton: Also the fact is, as has been brought out already, there has not been a case in Scotland since 1967.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: This starts by saying "The Government fully recognise that this subject is highly controversial". I think that is a masterly understatement. The present situation in England and Wales is regarded as unsatisfactory by all major interested parties. Some areas have total ban bylaws, others have bylaws which permit a bull of any breed to be at large with cows or heifers, and some areas have no controls at all on bulls on public footpaths. In fact East and West Sussex have two different regulations, so either a walker or a bull in East or West Sussex would have difficulties in knowing whether he could go into a field or not. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin said at Second Reading, to have different rules applying in different counties is confusing and unsatisfactory, and as the bylaw-making powers are now vested in district councils the position may well get even more confused in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a considerable case of the August 1979 agreement between the Ramblers' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the County Landowners' Association, but both the Ramblers' Association and the NFU later withdrew their support, and, furthermore, the Association of County Councils has expressed strong opposition to those proposals. So when we came to this Bill we were faced with having to make the decision ourselves.
It has been argued that bulls in fields crossed by public footpaths should continue to be regulated by bylaws so that they can take account of local conditions. But when this was proposed in an earlier consultation paper issued by my department in 1978 it attracted strong opposition. In particular the path user interests argued that bulls in fields should be regulated by national regulations as councils could not be compelled to adopt bylaws on this matter. There have been some four previous attempts to legislate in the last 32 years. None of the previous ones has been successful, but the Government believe that we should continue with our efforts to reach a solution which strikes a reasonable balance between

837
the interests of farmers and of path users and which reconciles the conflicting requirements of agricultural production and public safety.
During the past decades various attempts have been made to find a generally acceptable solution, and I should like to pay tribute to those efforts by farming and rambling organisations and others. I think it is fair to say that every solution that has been proposed has been strongly opposed by one or more major interests. In the absence of such agreement, the Government concluded that the most reasonable solution and the one which met the essential condition that it should be easy to administer and not involve local authorities and landowners in a cumbersome bureaucratic procedure was to allow a non-dairy breed bull to be at large in a public field provided it was with cows or heifers, and of course there is also the caveat about being 10 months old. This accords with the practice operative in Scotland for more than a decade—we have heard quite a lot about this—as a result of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, and is more favourable to path users than cow clause by-laws which have actually been introduced in a number of counties in England and Wales between 1946 and 1973.
It has been argued that the situation in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales. But whereas of course there is some difference, we do not agree that a conclusion as a result of the last 13 years in Scotland should be brushed under the carpet. The vast majority of accidents caused by bulls are incurred by farmers and farm workers, and most of these do not occur in open fields. The Health and Safety Executive leaflet on agriculture safety concerning bulls states that familiarity can breed contempt but when you are dealing with bulls you should be careful at all times.
We have no evidence of any walkers being killed or injured as a result of an accident involving a nondairy breed bull accompanied by cows or heifers and at large in a field crossed by a public footpath. In the example the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave us to begin with there was no breed of bull, so I take it, as he has not sprung to his feet, that as far as we know that was not a beef bull.
Lord Avebury: Not all ramblers are able to identify bulls and their breed with the facility of noble Lords opposite.
The Earl of Avon: Quite obviously with this one if he had his spectacles broken there would have been even more difficulty. I think it is also pertinent to point out that Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work et cetera Act 1974 places a duty on employers and employees not to put at risk the health and safety of third parties, and Section 33 makes it an offence to fail to discharge this duty. If a farmer were to put in a field crossed by a public path a bull which he knew to be dangerous he would be committing an offence under that Act. A lot of noble Lords behind me have been saying how this is borne out by their own experiences.
In the hill and upland areas livestock farming is often the only possible economic activity and it plays an important part in maintaining the local community and preserving the environment. Because these areas
838
are characterised by poor soil, uneven terrain and severe weather conditions, they are suitable only for the breeding and rearing of cattle and sheep on an extensive basis. The suckler herd system used in these areas involves the bull running with the herd, for at least part of the year. Practice varies, but basically the periods for calving are spring or autumn, which would at the very least require the bull to run with the cows for two periods of three to four months. Some farmers with larger herds prefer to have the bulls with cows throughout the year. Artificial insemination is not yet an acceptable replacement for the bull in this type of herd.
It is virtually impossible to quantify in precise economic terms the effect of further restrictions on the practice of running beef bulls in fields with cows, but it is clear that beef production would suffer. It would certainly not be possible for farmers to keep these herds at a satisfactory level for economic efficiency, particularly in hill areas. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collision, whose interjection of course we all value, that I have the 1975 report in front of me, and that, though I agree with him that the conclusions are more or less supporting his argument, there is written there in paragraph 61:
"The council believes that farmers would be faced with virtually insurmountable problems if the present total prohibition bylaws presently covering many of these areas were to be rigidly enforced".
May I perhaps, as everyone else has had a personal fling, say that I myself am a Londoner, and, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am very nervous indeed when I approach the fields. I have always made it a practice to make sure that I can get to the fence before whatever is in the field can get to me. I do think we must talk about relative danger a little hit because I think it has been overdone. There are bulls, there are cows, there are rams, and there are horses. So far we have had people who have been thrown by cows. I know of a lady who recently had her leg broken by a ram. I myself was kicked by a horse as a young boy, and I have that hoof as an astray at home. It really is relative danger. I would be just as terrified, in fact more terrified, to go into a field with horses as into one with a bull. This is partly because my father had some very nice bulls which we always used to go and scratch, or rather he scratched while I stood near the gate. I do feel also that we should think about signs. "Beware of the bull" is one of those signs which are too often used, but equally I have been kept out of a place by the warning Beware of adders".
We have had a very interesting and entertaining debate. I think the serious points have been made with due seriousness, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if he does press the point, will abide by the wish of the Committee.
Lord Avebury: I am not going to detain the Committee for more than one minute. The noble Earl says that farmers have to abide by the Health and Safety at Work Act and not keep bulls which are dangerous in fields, and of course they would not do so if they knew the bulls were dangerous. But you do not know in advance if a particular bull is dangerous: the essence of the dangerousness of bulls is in fact their unpredictability.

839
So I do not think the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act go to the root of the problem. As for the noble Earl's remarks on Scotland, I did try to develop in my original speech the reasons why a difference in treatment was quite understandable as between Scotland and England and Wales. I do not think that the noble Earl altogether digested that point.
I understand—and the noble Earl may correct me if I am wrong—that the famous agreement which has been discussed across the floor of the Committee between the NFU, CLA, and the ramblers, which unfortunately foundered, could be reconstructed as far as the NFU is concerned. I think that the noble Earl might at least have offered, as a sop to the views which have been expressed from all sides of the Committee, at least to try to resuscitate that agreement, and to go back to the NFU and see whether or not, even at this late stage, they could arrive at a modus vivendi which would have been acceptable to all sides of the Committee. In view of the fact that the noble Earl has made no such offer, nor has he agreed to consider the views which have been expressed on all sides, I am afraid that I must test the feeling of the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down—
Several noble Lords: Divide!
The Earl of Onslow: No, I want to declare an interest. I have both a beef bull and footpaths and I did not say so, and I thought that perhaps it was correct that I should say so to your Lordships.
7.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 547) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Auckland, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avebury, L.

Loudoun, C.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bernstein, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mishcon, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Spens, L.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Janner, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Burton, L.

Avon, E.

Caithness, E.

Bellwin, L.

Chelwood, L.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boardman, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boston, L.

Crathorne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

840

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Hanwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Falkland, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Feversham, L.

Portland, V.

Gowrie, E.

Radnor, E.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ridley, V.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hertford, M.

Romney, E.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Shannon, E.

Keyes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Soames, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Tollemache, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Mersey, V.

Wolverton, L.

Middleton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee for dinner. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should finish the Bill tonight thereby saving your Lordships the burden of coming in on Friday. Perhaps it would be useful to say that if the intervening business is finished in time the Committee stage will resume at 8.15. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of unlicensed deep sea mining]:
Lord Ritchie-Calder Lord Ritchie-Calder moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
("(8) Nothing in this section shall involve the need for a licence in respect of bona fide scientific research, including taking samples of the deep sea bed, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such research will not adversely affect the marine environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is intended to remove what I think is an unintentional flaw in the Bill. This Bill is designed to permit, as we all know, commercial exploration and commercial exploitation. It is preoccupied with

841
licensing and protecting the licensees, who will be the large consortia which are poised and impatiently waiting to go into the deep oceans to recover the hard minerals—that is, the ferro-manganese nodules which cobble the seabed. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Errol, in the Second Reading debate that costly knowhow is involved in exploration and in eventual exploitation.
The consortia are naturally anxious to ensure the provision of "in quiet enjoyment" of the claims for which they are seeking licences and also for protection of their special know-how, from if you like, industrial espionage. Thus, in Clause 13 we have penalties on any person who discloses information which has been "received in pursuance of this Act". Even with the amendments tabled by the Minister, the penalties are still very strict, with fines and imprisonment.
Clause 1 enacts the prohibition of unlicensed exploration for, or recovery of, the hard mineral resources from the deep seabed. I submit that this is a catch-all clause that the Government probably never intended, and it will, in fact, discourage bona fide scientific research as distinct from commercial exploitation.
Last week there was a meeting in Luxembourg of an independent group of lawyers, scientists, economists and environmentalists from seven countries, who are scrutinising the effects of the Bill which is now going through Parliament in this country, and of those which have gone through the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, and which possibly will come forward in France, Italy and probably Japan. They are studying what effect these unilateral Bills will have on the Law of the Sea Conference which is about to resume in New York. I was present at these discussions, where regret was expressed that the British draft, which we are looking at now, not only fails to provide for a reserach programme, but effectively constrains the exchange of scientific knowledge.
I would remind your Lordships that the only genuflexion—no, it is not a genuflexion but just a curt nod—to the scientific implications is Clause 5, which makes it incumbent on licensees to protect (so far as reasonably practical) marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitats from the harmful effects of their activities. That "so far as reasonably practical" begs a great many questions since our ignorance about the ocean ecosystem is profound. Scientific research is desperately needed because we are tampering with our last resource—the oceans. Scientific research is more than sampling deep sea minerals or, though of paramount importance, studying marine life. It includes mapping, or taking of geophysical, geochemical, oceanographic or atmospheric measurements or random samplings of the deep seabed.
As the Bill now stands, it would put in legal jeopardy any British scientist who engaged in so-called "unlicensed activities" or who published bona fide non-commercial information which might impinge on the "exploration" activities of the consortia. I am quite sure that that was not intended and I am also quite sure—I am certain that the Minister will assure me—that the penalties would not be invoked; but as long as the jeopardy exists it will—and I repeat this
842
—discourage genuine research and discourage British scientists, who would, as citizens, be subject to the Bill, from involving themselves in surveys and deep sea experiments.
I would remind the Minister that Public Law 96–283, which the United States Congress passed last June and which is the prototype for the national Bill, such as the one with which we are now dealing, is quite explicit. In spelling out the prohibitions, such as this Bill does, in Section 101 it explicitly excludes from the licensing requirements:
"Scientific research, including that concerning hard minerals",
and goes on: "mapping et cetera".
I might also point out that the administrator under that Act—it would be the Secretary of State under ours—has the power to require environmental assessments and is enjoined to support a programme of ocean Research. This Bill—and I regret it—makes no such provisions, but at least it should not positively discourage scientific research, nor appear to penalise British scientists who might participate in marine Research. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as my name is attached to this amendment perhaps I could say a few words on it. From reading the Bill and from listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, it seems to me that he is quite correctly giving the Government the benefit of the doubt here. I think that it is almost certain that the Government, inadvertently, have failed to allow for this important research activity. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, pointed out, the comparable American law to which this Bill bears many affinities, specifically excludes scientific research from the licence requirement. I was simply impressed by the moderation with which the noble Lord moved the amendment, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to assure me that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is correct and that, in fact, this was an inadvertency which the Government will see their way to taking the necessary steps to remedy.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, in taking over from my noble friend Lord Kennet, who is prevented from being on the Front Bench this evening, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that nothing in the Bill should in any way restrict or inhibit scientific research in the deep sea. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, can assure us that the definition of "exploration" in the Bill clearly limits it to an economic purpose and in no way affects scientific research. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to do so. Certainly this needs to be made absolutely clear. In that respect at least I am glad that my noble friend has put forward his amendment. It, or some other refinement, may have to be considered if the Bill, in fact, could affect scientific research.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, very briefly, I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and agree with almost everything he said. But what surprises me a little is that, although nothing should prevent bona fide research in these areas, the amendment goes on to say that:

843
"provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that such research will not adversely affect the marine environment".
If we are saying at the beginning of the amendment that there is no need for a licence and that bona fide research alone is to be conducted, I for my part, in my general ignorance of these matters, cannot understand why the Secretary of State should be brought into this matter at all.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, by leave of the House, I had to include that because it was my deference to the Government that at least they would recognise that there was a need for an environmental impact—a recognition. I did not know any other way of doing it. It is purely my inadequacy in drafting.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, Lord Ritchie-Calder's proposed amendment to Clause 1 characteristically combines his interest in scientific pursuits and his concern for the wellbeing of the marine environment, which of course the Government share. The Bill as at present before the House in our view meets the noble Lord's first concern: his concern that genuine marine scientific research should not be hampered by the need to be licensed. Clause 1 of the Bill prohibits exploration or exploitation without a licence and the definitions of these terms which are set out in Clause 17 make it abundantly clear that they relate to the commercial exploration or exploitation of a particular area.
Genuine marine scientific research will not be affected at all by the passage of the Bill. If that is accepted, this means that I cannot meet the second of Lord Ritchie-Calder's objectives, which would enable the Secretary of State to allow marine scientific research only when he is satisfied that it would not adversely affect the marine environment. I think that this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Much research under this description would be right outside the authority of this Bill, and indeed right beyond the authority of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry. It might relate to fisheries, oceanography, or to any one of a number of sciences outside the scope of this Act and outside my right honourable friend's ability to regulate.
The Bill relates to deep seabed exploration and mining, and contains adequate provisions to enable the Secretary of State to control these in the interests of the marine environment by including such terms and conditions as he thinks fit when issuing licences (that is in Clause 2(3)), when varying or revoking a licence (that is in Clause 6(1)(a)(ii)), and in making regulations (that is in Clause 12 and in paragraph 5 of the Schedule). It is for these reasons rather than from any lack of sympathy for Lord Ritchie-Calder's objectives that I could not advise the House to accept his amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 2 [Exploration and exploitation licences]:
7.43 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) relating to the safety, health or welfare of persons
844
employed in the licensed operations or in the ancillary operations;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I undertook to consider at the Committee stage the amendment put down at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As a result of these considerations I have tabled this Government amendment. It is indeed difficult to overstate the case for safety provisions, particularly when we are dealing with a new industry as we are in this case. Therefore, in addition to the existing reference to safety in the regulations, I agree that there should be a specific reference to safety matters in the terms and conditions of licences.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran's proposed words have been replaced by the rather more general words "safety, health or welfare" which are, I believe, broad enough to cover any of the matters which were mentioned when we discussed this in Committee. The other two amendments which flow from this change are in Clause 6, where safety, health or welfare are spelt out as conditions for varying or revoking a licence, and also in paragraph 3 of the schedule specifying that regulations may be made on all these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his advisers for having considered the amendments that I introduced at the Committee stage in regard to the safety of personnel. At that stage I disclosed an interest, that I am chairman of the Institute of Sports Medicine. I would not have raised these matters had I not in that capacity been closely concerned with postgraduate research in the prevention and treatment of soft tissue injuries arising inter alia when persons indulge in underwater swimming and diving, whether for business reasons or for leisure activities.
In connection with this research in soft tissue injuries a fellowship has been founded at New Hall, Cambridge. The fellow is Dr. Sylvia Lackman, who has opened a clinic under Sir John Butterfield at the new Addenbrookes Hospital. During the last two years of her activities there a large bank of useful information has been discovered by the treatment of about 1,000 sportsmen and sportswomen attending the University of Cambridge. This bank of information is quite unique, and it displays that there are hazards relating to persons doing underwater diving and swimming which were not known hitherto until these kinds of injury were highlighted by the activities of North Sea oil exploration. If noble Lords want to know anything about the difficulties arising from underwater swimming and diving they have only to consult Mr. Fryers, who does such excellent work for us in the Printed Paper Office nearby. He was a diver in the Royal Navy.
Coming to the words in the proposed amendment introduced by the Government, I wondered whether the words relating to safety, health or welfare are quite adequate to protect from harmful effects persons who are concerned with these underwater activities. Should not the wording be more specific, and refer to the protection from harmful effects arising? I do not want to be accused of entering into any kind of semantics with the noble Earl on this matter, but I am a little doubtful whether the general words "safety, health or welfare" are adequate for the purposes of

845
the Secretary of State to consider before he grants a licence. However, in the circumstances I must express my gratitude to the noble Earl, and I may come back to this matter at a later stage if I can think of an improvement.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill the support of noble Lords on these Benches was offered to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when he moved his amendment to ensure that companies given licences should assume direct responsibility for the safety, health or welfare of the personnel they employed on underwater operations. Consequently, we too are pleased that the Minister, on giving the matter the consideration he promised, has decided to make the Bill specific in the matter of safety, health or welfare, by this addition to subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Protection of the marine environment]:
7.48 p.m.
Lord Ritchie-Calder Lord Ritchie-Calder moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State in negotiations with reciprocating countries shall seek to establish areas of the deep sea bed where no activity requiring a licence under section 1 of this Act shall take place.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this amendment as crucially important. It would be a sign of grace and enlightenment if the Government would concede the point which it tries to make. I stress again, as I have done often enough in this House, the extent of our ignorance about the seabed. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the bottom of the sea. The extent of our ignorance about the effects on the water column and the marine life it sustains, or what the effects would be through the disturbance of deep sea mining, we just do not know. What the disturbance will produce is pure guesswork.
We shall be bringing up in the dredges or the suction pumps not only nodules, the things they are after, but substances and forms of life including unpredictable bacteria which have never before intruded upon the surface waters and upon the food bearing layers. The activity might interfere with other aspects of the ecosystem, including the peremptory exchanges of bottom waters and surface waters with unpredictable thermal factors.
Some preliminary work has been done, intended no doubt to be reassuring, but it does not reassure the distinguished marine scientists with whom I have discussed the subject. It is supposed to be reassuring, for example, that the plume of disturbance—that is, the movement of pollutents from the mining operations—will be dissipated within 100 miles of the operations. I call them pollutents just as I would call smoke from a chimney stack pollutents. We do not know the nature of that plume. It may be harmless in its constitution, but we just do not know.
It therefore behoves us to monitor the effects of the on-going operations, and the operators have, very
846
properly, been enjoined to limit the harmful effects "so far as reasonably practicable". For something to be reasonably practicable must involve acquired knowledge, and that means objective scientific research; not just monitoring and sampling on the site of the zone of the actual activities (which in any case is being muddied, and so the observations are being muddied) but research in a control area in which observations can be compared.
The amendment proposes that in negotiation with the reciprocating countries there shall be a section or sections of the seabed from which no activity requiring a licence to explore or exploit hard minerals will take place. It is simply a question of setting aside areas for observation. This is not a great self-sacrificing ordinance being imposed on the consortia; the part of the Pacific where there is the greatest concentration of nodules in which the highest content of economic minerals are to be found covers an area about the size of China. It is desirable that a comparable area—comparable, that is, with the mining area—shall be designated as a stable reference area and that would be reserved for scientific research.
The Minister is no doubt aware that this has been set out clearly in United States Public Law No. 96283 in Section 109 where the American Secretary of State,
"shall, in co-operation with the Administrator of the United States Licensing System, negotiate with the reciprocating nations for the purpose of establishing such international reference areas ".
But the United States Secretary of State is specifically debarred from unilaterally establishing such an area. I am asking that this Bill should take note of that enlightened provision and, by multilateral agreement—by agreement between the reciprocating states—secure the existence of stable reference areas. The reciprocating countries would in this case he acting as trustees because such safeguarded areas could be embodied in the United Nations Law of the Sea as part of the provision for scientific research and the protection of the environment. I cannot see that there should be any difficulty about accepting the amendment. It would not impose any hardship or restriction on the licensing of areas. It would simply say that certain areas should not he licensed because we want to protect them.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, the amendment raises for the first time in the consideration of the Bill the novel and interesting idea of designating areas of the deep seabed which would be protected from the depredations of mining activity, and it has much to commend it to the House, to the reciprocating countries and to the world as a whole. Scientific research in the deep sea has been going on for some time, but as technology improves it has a long way to go yet. As science advances we must have undefiled areas for it to explore and, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said, there is in the United States Act a section along similar lines referring to stable reference areas. If we too open the way for protective measures, no doubt it will prove easier to gain the co-operation of other reciprocating countries in achieving the end which my noble friend seeks through the amendment, which I support.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for raising this matter of what are referred to as stable reference areas and for describing them so clearly, and I should like to consider the matter further. On a preliminary look, we feel the bill as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to honour any internationally agreed reference areas and refuse to issue licences in respect of them, but I acknowledge that it makes no special provision for that purpose.
The form, perhaps more than the content, of the amendment causes me some disquiet. For example, it might be unwise to select and agree such areas without detailed topographical or other knowledge of the seabed, which, as the noble Lord pointed out, we do not really have. The amendment refers to no activity taking place in such an area, but it might be preferable to allow at least exploration to take place there, and then, on the basis of data obtained, select and agree internationally an area in which exploitation should not be authorised.
On the basis that there are no difficulties of principle with the spirit of the amendment, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it, on the understanding that the Government will consider tabling a suitable amendment to meet the intent behind his amendment for Third Reading. Or if that were not to prove possible in the time available, perhaps the House might allow me to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to table such an amendment in another place.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for those remarks and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Granting of licence
.—(1) In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect (so far as reasonably practicable) persons from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence; and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him concerning such effects including those likely to result in soft tissue injuries.
(2) Without prejudice to section 2(3) above, any exploration or exploitation licence granted by the Secretary of State shall contain such terms and conditions as he considers necessary or expedient to avoid or minimise any such harmful effects.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 5, with which the House has just been concerned, has as its title in the margin, "Protection of the marine environment", strong words showing how necessary it is to protect marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitat from any harmful effects which might result from any activities authorised by licences. I felt some surprise that nothing appeared in the Bill about the safety or protection of persons, and I therefore wished to introduce Amendment No. 5, to deal with the protection of persons. Indeed, that was the title I had ascribed to this proposal when I submitted it in the usual way.
However, I see from the Marshalled List that the
848
title ascribed to it is, "Granting of licence". That is a mistake and the clause should have been entitled, "Protection of persons". However, having regard to the fact that the Minister introduced Amendment No. 2, which the House has accepted, I will not move this proposed new clause.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Variation and revocation of licences]:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 17, after ("safety") insert ("health or welfare").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential on my previous amendment, my Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disclosure of information]:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("conviction") to ("to") in line 17.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee I agreed to reconsider the question of penalties for disclosure of information in the light of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I have now brought before the House an amendment which I believe goes a long way towards meeting the noble Lord's concerns.
The amendments to Clause 13 are intended to meet two needs. First, they will bring the various penalties in the Bill into balance, in so far as this is practicable and desirable. Secondly, they will ensure that the various different cases of disclosing information will be dealt with appropriately.
As I, among others, pointed out in Committee, protection of information is a sensitive and complex affair, and the Bill has to protect a wide range of types of information and deal with possible cases of disclosure. I am grateful to noble Lords for drawing attention to these wide variations. What we need in the Bill is a set of penalties that will fairly and adequately safeguard all the information that is passed to the Government by licensees and licensed applicants, since in any new venture such as this we shall need to ask companies for a good deal of technical and financial information, and the companies must be assured that such valuable and sensitive information (in commercial terms) will be adequately protected.
What kind of information are we talking about, and what are the kind of disclosure offences with which we need to deal? There is a wide range. At one end of the range there are some rather insignificant cases, in which a person might disclose minor details about exploration activities; for instance, the dates of surveys and tests carried out. At the mining stage there might be disclosed the rate of recovery of the valuable nodules. In any subsequent action the circumstances and the effects of such disclosure would obviously be relevant in terms of assessing the seriousness of the case, but it is unlikely that for a relatively minor breach of trust of this kind anything more than a fine would be required as a penalty.
At the other end of the range we have serious cases that might not only involve breach of trust, but result

849
in substantial financial gains for the offender, and cause very grave damage to the interests of the licensee. The kind of instance that we must be able to guard against is that involving an inspector or official with access to detailed technical data, perhaps concerning some innovatory process to be used by the licensee, who might sell such data to another party—perhaps one of the licensee's competitors. In a case such as that, a fine is surely inadequate and imprisonment can be the only appropriate penalty.
So, recognising the different types of cases, it seems right to amend the penalties, and therefore I propose to delete the imprisonment provision for the less serious cases that may be referred to a magistrates' court. But, given the kind of serious case that I have sketched, I believe that it would be quite inappropriate to remove altogether the possibility of imprisoning such a serious offender. Of course, retaining an imprisonment provision does not mean that it must necessarily be used, and with, I imagine, all other noble Lords, I hope that the Bill will not contribute to any further overcrowding of Her Majesty's prisons. Nevertheless, the sanction of imprisonment should surely be available for cases of great seriousness. I beg to move.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet will be particularly pleased by this Government amendment, as indeed I am, since, as the Minister has just pointed out, my noble friend at the Committee stage raised the matter of the inequality introduced into the Bill by following what the noble Earl the Minister described as "standard Home Office policy". Quite apart from the desirability of not creating further grounds for imprisonment, while accepting that it is necessary to safeguard certain information, the provision for imprisonment was, as I suspect the Minister himself began to feel during the Committee stage, rather more drastic than was necessary and did seem discriminatory. Its deletion is welcome.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, since the noble Earl the Minister was good enough to mention my name, I should like to say that I, too, am pleased with the amendment and shall support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("or to both").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
The Schedule [Subject matter of regulations]:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 8, after ("safety") insert ("health or welfare").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.15.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 until 8.15 p.m.]

Wild Life and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 46.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery moved Amendment No. 547A:
Page 40, line 10, leave out ("to") and insert ("in the case of").
The noble Earl said: This is a small drafting amendment to change "shall not apply to any bull" to "shall not apply in the case of any bull". I take it that it is clear enough that a bull can be the occupier of a field or enclosure as mentioned in the second line of Clause 46(1), but it is not reasonable to suppose that he can be mulcted in a fine of £300 if he knocks anybody down. That is in fact how it reads if you analyse it carefully. In my submission it should read, as my amendment says, that the subsection,
"shall not apply in the case of any bull",
rather than "to any bull". If that argument is sufficient I will sit down and save time. If it is not, I will enlarge upon it further. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Earl says, this is a drafting amendment. I do not feel at the moment that it is quite necessary, but I will certainly take it back and have a look at it to see whether our draftsman agrees.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 548 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 548A:
Page 40, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in any byelaws, whenever made, shall make unlawful any act which is, or but for subsection (2) would be, made unlawful by subsection (1).").
The noble Earl said: It has always been our intention that the proposed new statutory provisions regulating the pasturing of bulls in fields crossed by public footpaths should supersede the existing control by bylaws. This amendment seeks to put the matter beyond doubt. It would not of course affect bylaws in so far as they related to the control of bulls in streets and public places. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 549:
Page 40, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) If on the application of the occupier a council, being a council with power to divert footpaths and bridleways under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of good farming to do so it may order the temporary diversion of the path or way for a continuous period of not more than four months.
(4) On the making of the order the highway authority shall forthwith cause a copy of the order to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of the diversion.
(5) Before deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3) of this section a council shall take into account the interests of the users of the path or way and shall consult such organisations representing the interests of users of the path or way as it considers appropriate.
(6) A council shall before refusing to make an order under subsection (3) of this section consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
(7) An order under this section diverting a path or way—

(a) shall not affect the line of the path or way on land not occupied by the applicant,

(b) shall not divert any part of the path or way on to land not occupied by the applicant, unless written consent to the making of the order has been given by the occupier of that land, and by any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to the land,

(c) may require as a condition of the taking effect of the order the provision of any necessary facilities for the convenient use of the diversion,

and the highway authority may enter into an agreement with the applicant for the provision of any such facilities by the highway authority at the expense of the applicant.").
The noble Lord said: So many noble Lords seem to have spoken in other debates on this question of the diversion of paths that I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister will feel he is able to accept it. It really is a compromise between the interests discussed in the debate we had before the adjournment, and I hope the Committee will feel likewise. The amendment provides a situation in which the farming interests and those of the people who use the footpaths can come together, because the amendment provides that where, for farming reasons, a farmer wishes to have a bull in a particular field which is crossed by a footpath, then the footpath can be diverted.
It is, as I say, a way of reconciling the interests of the farmers with those of the users of the footpaths. In view of the time I shall not go in detail through the various subsections in the amendment but, if this amendment is carried, it will enable the farmers to do what they would like to do in view of the previous amendment. It will also enable the walkers in the countryside to use footpaths with complete safety, because they can be diverted for the short period mentioned in the amendment.
I would draw attention to the provisions in subsection (6) because, before the highway authority make the necessary order, the authority shall consult representatives of path users and also the Minister of Agriculture. It may be argued that there is a cost involved; but it would be minimal because, in terms of this amendment, there is no necessity for the local authority to publish notices or to hold any inquiry; there is but a simple procedure of consultation which is set out in the amendment. I hope that the Committee and the Minister will consider this a useful amendment which could be accepted.
The Earl of Avon: The Government are not unsympathetic to this; but as your Lordships will see from what I am about to say, there are a number of difficulties. Careful consideration has been given to the possibility of having a system of temporary diversions but there was strong opposition from a wide range of interests (including not only the local authority associations but also bodies representing the farmers and the path users) to the department's 13th August 1979 consultation paper. The proposals included
852
such a system administered by the local authorities. Subsequently, the Department of the Environment suggested a simplified system making the temporary diversion the responsibility of the farmer. This was also opposed by most parties on various grounds. The Association of County Councils had strongly opposed the previous proposal involving temporary diversions administered by the highway authorities because they were complex, time consuming and had no regard for the resource and expenditure implications for the highway authorities. None of the local authority associations considered it possible to have a temporary diversion system which did not involve some element of highway authority supervision. There were also significant differences between the National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers' Association on this matter.
The present amendment does not seem to make provision for the circumstances in which temporary diversions are regarded as impracticable. The proposals I have referred to did make such provision. Whereas the Ramblers' Association wanted "impracticability" to be defined sufficiently narrowly to ensure that the number of cases coming under this heading would be relatively small, the National Farmers' Union wanted it to be more generally applicable. Also there were disagreements concerning the possible provision for a public rights objection to proposed temporary diversions and concerning alternative proposals under which farmers might provide an additional alterantive path to the legal right of way. The Ramblers' Association wanted the legal right of way to remain open and the farmers wanted it closed.
We have been sympathetic to the idea of temporary diversions as an element in the solution to the bulls' problem; but after all these consultations we came to the conclusion that it was not possible to devise a system of temporary diversions or provision of alternative paths which would be uncomplicated, easy to administer and acceptable to the major interests involved. I hope that this will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have been thinking along those lines and have tried hard; but that at the moment we cannot find any effective solution.
Lord Melchett: If I may address myself as much to my noble friend as to anyone else, it would be useful for us to be able between now and Report stage to look at what the noble Earl has said and, in the light of the decision the Committee made on Amendment No. 547 (the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend) we might be able to come back to this at Report stage. I would say to the noble Earl that it seems odd to me, when the various interests most directly involved, the NFU, on the one side, and the Ramblers' Association, on the other, were so close to agreement—even though there were some minor points of difference that the noble Earl mentioned—that those points of difference were not felt by the Government to he something that they could make a decision on and to come to Parliament for Parliament to make a final decision. Instead of that, the Government went away and came back with a set of proposals which, to put it mildly, raised great public concern and a fair amount of public outrage. It seems to me, when one looks behind the Government's

853
motives, one finds really quite small problems about the narrowness or width of particular exemptions in particular points. I am wondering whether the Government tried as hard as the noble Earl has suggested to find a sensible and reasonable compromise which, if not entirely satisfactory to all interests, was very much along the lines of something which would have been satisfactory. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to leave this now and come back to it at the next stage.
Lord Avebury: I want to make one suggestion. I realise the noble Earl has made every attempt to bring the interests together and to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all those concerned—the NFU, the farmers, the local authorities and so on—and that, with the best will in the world, this has not been possible so far. I would suggest to the noble Earl that a different situation now prevails in that all those interests must appreciate that unless they reach a conclusion now the opportunity will have been lost for ever. I suggest to the noble Earl that he immediately issues an invitation to the NFU, the Ramblers' Association and the local authorities to attend together at a meeting where they will look at Lord Underhill's amendment and bring forward any criticisms that they care to make, and that, if possible, they will suggest to him what changes should be made to the amendment so that he could bring back an agreed solution before Report. If he cannot do that, at least he can report to us on the nature of the discussions which took place and the differences which still remain.
The Earl of Avon: I take the noble Lord's point that if the amendment we have discarded before goes on—that is, the Government policy goes on there is now a new situation. This is a good point. I think that what the noble Lord has suggested on consultation will take longer than between now and Report stage. If they come to a solution satisfactory to all parties, this could be added in the other place on this particular issue.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to Lord Avebury for his comments about missing the opportunity. In the light of the noble Earl's comments—and a nod is as good as a wink—and that we may find his honourable friends will be putting something forward in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 550:
Page 40, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) If the occupier of a field or enclosure crossed by a bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic, permits a stallion to be at large in the field or enclosure he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
For the purposes of this section "stallion" means any non-castrated male equine animal of two years or over.").
The noble Lord said: I put down this amendment at the instigation of the British Horse Society, who are getting worried about the numbers of incidents which are being reported to them of stallions attacking riders riding along bridleways or through paths. We heard a lot about bulls before the break, but I
854
should like to suggest that stallions are very much more dangerous than bulls. They can attack you from either end and, secondly, they are much more aggressive and protective than bulls. Stallions will attack any male horse in their vicinity and also will try to bring under their control any mare that comes along. Any ridden horse is in danger—and not only the horse but the rider, too, suffers if such a contretemps occurs.
I should like to give an example which, although this clause would not have protected him, did happen to the father-in-law of one of my sons. He was riding a mare in the Quantock Hills last autumn when, out of the blue, a stallion came along and tried to mount the mare while he was still in the saddle. The result was utter confusion. He fell off. The mare bolted and eventually got home about three miles from where the incident had happened, closely followed by the stallion. Luckily someone was there and managed to keep the stallion out of the stableyard. My son's father-in-law had to walk the three miles home.
This afternoon I received another example of a case. A boy was riding his pony mare through a field in Essex. A stallion which was not normally vicious seized the child by the shoulder and flung him to the ground in order to get at the mare. Stallions are dangerous animals. The British Horse Society feels that this amendment would give a lot of protection to the very large number of riders who now ride for recreation. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. Stallions are quite different from bulls, as the noble Lord said. A thoroughbred stallion can be very vicious. Arab stallions are never gelded for riding. They are an exception. You can usually trust them. They are not dangerous for riding and seldom dangerous to pedestrians. I have an Andalusian stallion, a Spanish stallion, who has a lot of Arab blood in him yet we would never let him out in any field at all which the public was going to cross. In Scotland—and this does not apply to this amendment—we have Highland stallions out with the mares on the hills, but that is quite different because they are not in a field or an enclosure. I heartily support the amendment.
Lord Melchett: We support the amendment. I am assuming, in view of the noble Earl's traumatic experiences as a child, that he will be supporting it, too. I hope we may hear from him to that effect.
Lord Burton: I see a little difficulty with this. On Exmoor, the New Forest and the Welsh mountains, where the stallions are running out with the mares, there is rather the same trouble as one might have with a beef herd. The mares are out in the wild there and I feel that we should not rush into this without further consideration. Many stallions, if they want to get to a mare, will jump out of a good many obstacles, so to have them shut in one field may not have the desired effect. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, Highland stallions run out with the mares. We will take a stallion out and bring in the stags. He goes out with a mare very often. If this is going to apply, I would ask the Minister whether he would consider it not applying in Scotland.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Is there a textual amendment needed? The amendment says:
"If the occupier of a field or enclosure crossed by a bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic, …".
Should the first comma be removed or should the word "or" be inserted? Should it be:
"a bridleway or road used as a public path …"?
The point I am getting at is whether the amendment is intended to prohibit the keeping of a stallion in a field crossed by a road on which horses may be taken. Is it intended that a footpath would prohibit the keeping, of a stallion in that field? I am not clear as to the nature of the right of way that is prohibitive to the keeping of a stallion in that field. That is the point that I am getting at. It seems to me that the longer these debates go on, the more we are convinced that all males of the species are dangerous animals.
The Earl of Avon: If I may intervene with the Government's view, we have an open mind on this. I understand that the informal Spicer Committee in another place has just produced a report on it favourable to the amendment of Lord Spens. We shall certainly consider the amendment in the light of the Spicer Committee; and if, on that undertaking, the noble Lord is able to withdraw the amendment, then so much the better.
Lord Spens: I am most grateful to the Minister. This afternoon I received a copy of the Spicer Committee's recommendations. I hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept them. Regarding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I did not draft this amendment, so the Committee is getting my own interpretation of it. We had to start with the lowest denominator of where a horse and rider can go, which is a bridleway. Then we get a road used as a public path and finally a byway open to all traffic. Those are three separate tracks over which a ridden horse can travel. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 551:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of Wardens for Footpaths and Bridlewars
. A local authority may appoint such number of persons as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects a footpath or bridleway which is both in the countryside and in the area of the authority, and the purpose for which wardens may be so appointed is to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or way.").
The noble Baroness said: I moved an earlier amendment—Amendment No. 460—which enabled the local authority to appoint wardens. This, I am glad to say, was accepted by the Government. I hope that this amendment will be accepted likewise. If I see a nod from the noble Earl opposite, I shall say no more. I see the noble Earl nods and so I therefore beg to move the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: If I may put something on record before I agree that the Government will consider this, we appreciate that, in places like urban fringes, some local authorities have to grapple from time to time
856
with problems of misunderstanding by urban visitors about the care of the countryside; and that they might find it helpful to be able to appoint wardens with the object of increasing co-operation and mutual understanding between the users and the land-owning community. My noble friend Lord Bellwin said on Second Reading that the two wardening proposals had merits but that this is not the time to create new tasks for local authorities. That is right. But we recognise that this new clause would not oblige local authorities to appoint additional staff and I would not expect them to do so in current economic circumstances. We want to see reductions in their overall expenditure, not increases. The Government concede that a few local authorities might find it useful to be able to transfer staff to provide warden services of this nature, particularly in the fringe areas around our great cities where there may be compelling reasons for action to improve relationships between farmers and the general public using the land as a playground. And we certainly wish them to have as much freedom as they need. With this in view, I hope that we may be able to consider this amendment in a favourable fashion.
Lord Sandford: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment—I am not sure whether it will be in the Bill or whether the noble Baroness is going to withdraw it so that the Government can propose something else—may I raise two further aspects? The amendment, as worded, makes it possible for a single local authority to appoint a number of wardens. There are a number of paths which will go through more than one local authority area—therefore that ought to be in the plural—even in respect of the fringe areas round our big cities, for which there is certainly a need.
I would suggest to my noble friend that there is also a case for appointing wardens on long-distance footpaths which go through the area of more than one local authority. There may be a case where a district council and a county council would, for different reasons, both want to be involved. All those considerations point to the need for using the plural.
Then there is the further consideration that a lot of this work has so far been done by the Countryside Commission exercising their experimental powers, so that a final version of this ought to make provision for them, in addition to local authorities, to have this power. Whether or not this amendment is accepted now, those are just a few refinements I should like the Government to consider.
Baroness David: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. He has obviously raised a great number of important points. Had I spoken at length on this amendment I would have said that I thought probably voluntary wardens would be appointed for this purpose, so that it would involve the local authorities in very little expense. However, as the Minister has said he will take this question back to look at it in a very favourable light, as I understand the last one was taken back, I shall beg leave to withdraw this now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 552 not moved.]
8.42 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 553:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Highways Act 1980
.—(1) In section 134 of the Highways Act 1980 (ploughing of footpath or bridleway) subsection (3) shall be omitted.
(2) In subsection (4) of that section, for paragraphs (a) and (b), there shall be substituted "not later than 3 weeks from the time when the occupier began to plough the footpath or bridleway".
(3) Subsection (5) of that section shall be omitted and the following substituted—
"(5) A person who fails to comply with subsection (4) above—

(a) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £200; and

(b) where he is convicted of failing to comply with that subsection and the offence is continued after the conviction, is guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £1 for each day on which the offence is so continued."

(4) In subsection (6) of that section for "(3) to" there shall be substituted "(4) and" and the words after "authority" where it appears for the second time, shall be omitted.
(5) Subsection (7) of that section shall be omitted.
(6) In subsection (8) of that section for "subsections (6) and (7)" there shall be substituted "subsection (6)" and for "footpath or bridleway" there shall be substituted "highway"."
(7) In subsection (10)(b) of that section for "footpath and bridleway" there shall be substituted "highway".
(8) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted a new subsection—
"(5A) A person who ploughs a highway other than in the exercise of the right conferred by this section or of any other right shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £200." ").
The noble Lord said: I formally move this amendment and I propose not to speak on it at any length. I am certain the Committee will appreciate that, as it would require the explanation of the eight subsections. I propose to take this course of action because a number of speakers have referred to the Spicer Committee, which was considering a review of the whole question of rights of way. I have in my hand a copy of a letter which was sent to the Secretary of State dated only two days ago, which sets out the terms of an agreement which has been arrived at by all the representatives who carried out the review.
I should like to feel that the Government, though they may not be able to give me a clear answer now, will consider this agreement with very great care with a view to bringing forward some kind of amendment at the Report stage. I hope the Minister will feel he can do that: otherwise I shall have to explain the whole eight subsections of the new clause, which I would prefer not to do.
The Earl of Avon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I understand that the Rights of Way Review Committee, under Michael Spicer's chairmanship, have discussed a number of these proposals. I put it in the past tense so that your Lordships will realise that we actually have got proposals on paper here which represent a package for dealing with problems caused by ploughing on public rights of way. The Government would certainly be willing to consider suitable amending legislation, but before going any further I should like to be satisfied that these amendments are generally acceptable. We will, of course, consult with farming and local authority interests, but we should like to have time to digest these and bring forward something on Report.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 554:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Restoration of eroded highways
. When a highway ceases to exist due to natural causes, it shall be a duty of the highway authority to restore the continuity of the way, either by creating by agreement or order a new highway or by reconstructing that part of the highway which has ceased to exist.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to place upon a highway authority the duty of restoring the continuity of any highway which has ceased to exist due to natural causes. I am given to understand that it is a principle of law that if a highway ceases to exist physically because of the erosion of a cliff-edge or river bank, then it ceases to exist legally. One can see that a cliff top or riverside path could be rendered effectively useless as a through route by erosion on a short section, since there is no duty on any authority to restore the continuity.
The amendment gives authorities two options. Either they an reconstruct the highway or use their powers under the Highways Act 1980 to create a new highway by agreement order to link up the two severed parts. No doubt the former choice would probably be exercised in the case of a river bank or canal towpath, whereas the latter choice would be more appropriate where coastal erosion is concerned. This seems to be a common-sense amendment and I should like to think that the noble Earl can accept it on behalf of the Government.
The Earl of Avon: I can well appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put forward this amendment. I hope the Committee will not feel me to be ungenerous at the moment if I say that we prefer not to have it, and I will explain why. When a highway ceases to exist, as the noble Lord has said, through natural causes, it is clearly right that consideration should be given to whether it ought to be replaced; but whether the highway authority should in all circumstances be obliged to replace or restore it is debatable. For example, there may well be cases of land-slip where restoration or replacement is impossible or pointless, having regard to the continuing nature of the problem.
However, I am now coming on to a further point about which the Government feel rather more strongly. The debate about this matter we do not believe should take place in the context of this Bill, because Part III is primarily concerned with public rights of way for walkers and horse riders and this amendment goes much wider than that and concerns itself with all highways. I feel, therefore, that it is really a matter for general highway legislation, which is not appropriate to this Bill. From the Government's point of view, this is a slightly more fundamental point, because we do not want to clutter this Bill on conservation more than we have to with other matters not strictly concerned with conservation. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: I have taken the noble Earl's two points on this amendment. First, I can see that it would clearly be unreasonable, if, for example, a highway had for some reason been built over the top of a volcano, particularly if it were active, for the highway authorities to rebuild it every time the volcano erupted. But it seems to me a little unlikely that there would be a highway in those circumstances.
Lord Avebury: If they accepted the last amendment, then they could have temporarily diverted it during the eruption of the volcano!
Lord Melchett: I think that if they had accepted the last amendment it would have solved all sorts of problems, including this rather unlikely one. But that difficulty raised by the noble Earl could be got round by the insertion of the word "reasonable" or some such qualification in the duty that is being placed on the highway authority. The noble Earl did not seem to place a great deal of weight on that first objection; so I wonder whether I could ask him a question about the second one. It is, after all, likely that if part of the M4 disappeared the highway authority concerned would set about replacing it pretty quickly. But what we were wanting to know was whether the Government would view with some favour a duty to replace, where it was reasonable in the circumstances specified by my noble friend, a footpath or bridleway. I do not know whether the noble Earl is prepared to consider that limited point, which would clearly fall within the terms of the Bill. As my noble friend said in moving the amendment, it seems to be an eminently sensible provision.
The Earl of Avon: I see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and equally I hope that he will see mine. We are getting very nervous about things on the highway, and so on, coming into this Bill which we do not consider should be there. I take his point about the replacement of bridleways and footpaths, and we will see what can be done on that issue.
Viscount Hanworth: It seems to me there is a danger, when you ally a rather simple problem to a major one concerning other problems such as highways, that in the end you find that the problem is insoluble and precisely nothing is done. Now—
Lord Melchett: I wonder whether I may just intervene. The noble Earl very kindly said that he would consider the point, and I know how anxious the Government are, when they agree to consider something, that we should not then prolong the debate. That is a feeling with which I have some sympathy, so I wonder whether, if any noble Viscount wishes to add anything more, he will bear in mind that we are trying the noble Earl's patience.
Viscount Hanworth: Most certainly, but I hope that he will bear in mind what I said as well.
Lord Underhill: In the light of the assurance given by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 555:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Power to require removal of electric fences
. After section 164 of the Highways Act 1980 (power to require removal of barbed wire) there shall be inserted the following section:—
"164A. Where on land adjoining a highway there is an electric fence, and the electric fence is a nuisance to the highway, a competent authority may by notice served on the occupier of the land require him to abate the nuisance within such time, not being less than one month nor more than 6 months from the date of the notice, as may be specified in it.
For the purpose of this section—

(a) the competent authorities, in relation to any highway, are the highway authority and also (where they are not the highway authority) the local authority for the area in which the highway is situated;

(b) "an electric fence" means a fence capable of carrying a current of live electricity and an electric fence is to be deemed to be a nuisance to a highway if it is likely to be injurious to persons or animals lawfully using the highway.".

The noble Lord said: I put down this amendment, also, at the instigation of the British Horse Society. Section 164 of the Highways Act 1980 gives a competent authority power to require an occupier of land to take down a barbed wire fence which is a nuisance to the highway. This amendment seeks to give a similar power in the case of an electric fence. Having heard what the noble Earl the Minister said about highways on the last amendment, I wonder whether this amendment is drafted too broadly, and whether we ought to reduce it to the problem of a bridleway or something like that.
The point is that electric fences are quite dangerous to horses. Horses and ponies are thin-skinned animals and most of them are iron shod. Some of them may be sweating a little when they come into contact with an electric fence, and they will get a very much more violent shock than the cow against which the electric fence is probably directed. So that if a child is riding a pony along a bridleway, and touches an electric fence which borders it, there could be quite a nasty accident. The British Horse Society have had several reports of accidents of this kind. They are worried about it and would like to see some means of controlling the installation of electric fences along the border, or even across a public right of way over which horses and riders are allowed to travel.
The problem in numbers is quite considerable. I asked the British Horse Society to give me estimated figures of the numbers of horses and riders which they thought carried out their recreational activities inside the United Kingdom. They think that there are probably 1½ million riders and half a million horses, the difference being because there are a large number of riding schools where the same horse carries a large number of riders on its back during the course of a week. But even for half a million horses, which are not necessarily all out at the same time, but are out during the same period, this problem can be quite a severe one. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I do not think I can give the support to this amendment that I gave to the noble Lord's last amendment. Its effect would be very hard on farmers who, by putting up an electric

861
fence, are trying to keep stock off the highway. I think I am right in saying that if you put through an electric fence a voltage that will be injurious to human beings it is illegal anyway. I quite see the noble Lord's point if horses touch an electric fence. Of course, the current is very low, but a highly bred horse would shy, and as in some riding schools you get a lot of people who cannot ride at all, they might come off. But I have very mixed feelings about this amendment. It is up to the horseman to prevent his horse from touching the electric fence. I agree that horses do not have four-wheel brakes or a steering wheel, but I cannot say that I really support this amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I try to encourage the noble Viscount to be a little more generous in his support? First, although the electric current in an electric fence would not be hazardous to a human being, the point of wanting some control—and it is only a limited control—over the presence of electric fences on bridle-ways is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, horses are likely to come into contact with them. A horse will very often be sweating, unlike a cow, or a bull for that matter, and the current will therefore have a much more marked effect. That is without the fact that a horse has a thinner skin and would be more susceptible to shock.
That, in itself, though, is not a danger; it is the horse's reaction when it receives the shock and bolts and throws the rider. If the rider is young and inexperienced that is more so, rather than less so. I do not think we want to encourage anything in the countryside which deters young people from riding and learning to ride horses, nor to discourage them from using bridleways as opposed to motor-roads, where the dangers to them and to everybody else are so much higher.
As I understand it—and I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me with this—what the amendment does is to bring electric fences into line, as it were, with controls that already exist over barbed wire. It seems to me, if I am right about that, that it is quite reasonable, from the point of view of people riding, in particular, that electric fences should be treated in much the same way as barbed wire. Barbed wire has always been, to put it mildly, not liked by those who ride horses in the countryside, sometimes with a passion which I personally share, and I think it is reasonable that electric fences should be treated in law in the same way.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I feel that I should now support the amendment.
Lord Grimston of Westbury: I think it is fair to say that, in many cases, barbed wire fences are indistinguishable from electric fences these days. Therefore, I feel that this amendment should be supported as a matter of principle, to treat both types of wire on the same basis.
Lord Harvington: Before the noble Earl replies, may I say that I am perhaps the only one of your Lordships who has actually jumped into one of these fences, and it is an extremely disagreeable experience.
862
It is much worse than jumping into barbed wire, because the horse suddenly goes mad with you. I thought for a moment that I might have detected a smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but I have not detected that smile, so I cannot say that I did. Anyway, it happens at times that people jump into these fences and the effect is very bad indeed, and very hard on the horse. The bovine animal quickly gets used to it, because with its very wet nose the fence gives him the most awful shock and it is very careful not to do it again. But the horse is not quite like that and when he touches it he seems to suffer more than a cow. The real difference is that once a cow has touched an electric fence with its nose, it never does it again.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We are all getting charged with a little electricity, I notice. But nobody has yet mentioned human beings. What about the thin-skinned humans who touch these contrivances? It is surprising to me that this matter has not been raised before in this connection, because these fences are a hazard. I am not sure, however low the voltage, whether some people would escape a shock which might be harmful to them. We have heard of children, in connection with bulls and so on.
Electric fences are altogether unpleasant things, and I hope that they are not as widely used as they were to begin with. I think that better improvisation of fencing is probably possible now than it was some years ago. But in the context of this Bill, we are clearly talking about electric fences near pathways and other rights of way in the countryside, and not especially, or even probably, in relation to the highway.
Are there no rules about this in existing legislation? I shall he surprised if there are not. The noble Lord said that he thought it was illegal to put above a certain voltage into an electric fence. Presumably there is a law about it somewhere. The idea behind the amendment is good. It would be desirable, if at all possible, to get electric fences away from where people go for a walk in the countryside. I am all for protecting farmers from having unnecessarily expensive fencing when they want to divide up pasture land or root crops so that grazing takes place over a limited area and not over a much wider area than would be economical. Electric fences ought to be barred from anywhere where people have the right of access for reasonable recreational purposes.
Lord Monk Bretton: The noble Lord's amendment relates to horses. It refers to highways which will include footpaths. I think, therefore, he has gone a little further than one might realise from first appearances. It is fair enough, in my view, about horses. It is reasonable to say, so far as pedestrians are concerned, that it is unreasonable to put them on a very narrow piece of land with an electric fence beside them; but sometimes it is justified, particularly if the distance left before the electric fence is wide enough to be reasonable. A good deal more thought needs to be given to this matter.
Lord Melchett: Would the noble Lord agree that the amendment does not ban electric fences? It simply allows some control if an electric fence is a

863
nuisance to the highway, as he will see in the line where it says "164A".
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was quite correct when he said that this would give effect to Section 164(1) of the Highways Act: a power to highway and local authorities to require operators on land to abate any nuisance caused by barbed wire fences. This would now do it with electric fences as well. The Government take much the same view as they did on the last amendment. We feel that this is too wide, in that it affects the Highways Act. Equally, however, as I said on the last amendment, if the Committee are referring to bridleways and paths, which we are discussing more in this Bill, I should be quite happy to take it back, though I am slightly less optimistic regarding this amendment than the previous one. However, we will certainly have a look at it.
Lord Spens: I am most grateful to the Minister. The reason why we put "highways" into the amendment was in order to parallel Section 164(1) of the Highways Act. I am inclined to agree that that is too broad a definition and that something a little lower down the scale would be better. With that in mind, I hope the noble Lord the Minister will consider the possibility of dealing with this problem, which is very serious. I will take it back to the British Horse Society and see what they have to say about it. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 555A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway
.—(l) if a person wilfully cuts down, roots up or removes a hedge, tree, wall or bank alongside an unmetalled highway in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £250.
(2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section.
(3) This section shall not apply to the cutting down, rooting up or removal of a hedge or tree which is dying or dead, or has become dangerous nor to the removal of hedge, tree, wall or bank whose cutting down, rooting up or removal is in compliance with an obligation imposed by or under an Act of Parliament.
(4) Where the owner, lessee or occupier of agricultural land, or of land which is being brought into use for agriculture, over which a highway runs, or which is adjacent to a highway, represents to the highway authority for that highway that for securing that the use, or any particular use, of the land for agriculture, shall be efficiently carried on, it is expedient to cut down, root up or remove a hedge or tree alongside the said highway in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, or to remove any wall or bank alongside the said highway the highway authority may, subject to such conditions as they may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to be exercised without undue inconvenience to the public, authorise the destruction of the hedge, tree, wall or bank.
(5) This section shall not apply to hedgerow trees of less than 50 centimetres circumference.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to protect hedges and trees alongside unmetalled highways. The need for it will be apparent to your Lordships when I say that since the end of the war the loss of hedgerows in our country has been estimated at something like 120,000 to 140,000 miles. It is still continuing at the
864
rate of an estimated 1,000 miles a year, despite the fact that since 1977 Ministry of Agriculture grants for hedgerow removal have been brought to an end. It has been most serious in the arable counties. The Nature Conservancy Council estimate that there has been a 75 per cent. loss of hedgerows in East Anglia alone. But farmers in the arable counties say that the loss of hedgerows is now virtually complete, though instances of hedgerow and tree removal do still continue to occur.
I should mention that not all lost hedgerows included in the figures that I have mentioned border highways, but when highway boundary hedges and other features are removed, then ploughing out often follows and frequently is perfectly legal. The Countryside Act 1968 excludes from any right to plough paths which follow what are for the time being the headlands or sides of a field, but a farmer who owns both sides is at liberty to turn two fields into one. He has to reinstate the line of the path after ploughing by passing tractor wheels or rollers over it, but the resulting path is substantially worse to the user, both for ease of walking, for landscape value and for wildlife.
It so happens that the other day a rather vivid example occurred of the kind of thing which may happen. It was reported in The Times of 11th February under the heading "Woodland order is too late". This concerned the case of a 500 |yard greenlane known as Cow Pasture Lane, which is part of Rectory Farm, Mellis, near Eye, owned by a Mr. Battell. What happened was that the local authority decided to apply for a tree preservation order in respect of this greenlane and a copse at the end of it, but during the time that they were making up their minds and obtaining the order the farmer was too quick for them and cut down all the trees. So the tree preservation order was of no effect. This lane which the farmer has demolished is supposed to date back 900 years at least—probably to even before the Norman Conquest. That shows how it is quite possible, under present circumstances, for ancient trees and hedgerows to be removed by farmers without any penalty whatsoever. I think the need for some kind of protection is very vividly illustrated by that case. The amendment does not seek to protect hedges and other boundary features, even those bordering greenlanes, that are not connected with public highways. Of course as your Lordships will be aware, some greenlanes are wholly private and everybody would agree that the only acceptable way to conserve them is by management agreements or, in very rare cases, probably by designation as SSSIs.
We have the two options for protection. There is the carrot or the stick or a combination of the two. Clause 31 of this Bill allows authorities to make management agreements, and I understand that they can include hedges, banks, walls and trees, but I must emphasise that management agreements make heavy demands on local authority resources, not only in finance by way of compensation but in the time it takes the officers who have to conduct the negotiations. Neither is likely to be available immediately in cases such as the one I have mentioned, nor to the extent that is needed. The amendment of course does not preclude an agreement for future maintenance.
Another point I should like to mention is that it appears that the EEC conservation grants are only

865
available to farmers who have been under compulsion in the first place. That is a point which the Government may like to take into consideration.
During an earlier sitting on this Bill, on 12th February, we were discussing another aspect of greenlanes and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned the committee under the chairmanship of the honourable gentleman Mr. Michael Spicer—the Rights of Way Committee which has been referred to so frequently during the course of our proceedings. He said that the Commission's proposals for greenlanes had been discussed there but that they had not reached the stage of agreeing on recommendations, regarding either greenlanes in general or the ones that were considered to be of outstanding importance on historical or other grounds, but that the Government were sympathetic to the need for some form of protection for these greenways and would need to give careful consideration to the procedure which would be most appropriate. He suggested that people should submit views and also that the Spicer Committee's recommendations on this matter would be carefully considered by the Government.
I ventured to hope then that the Spicer Committee might reach some sort of conclusions while the Bill was still going through your Lordships' House, because this matter of timing is crucial. It may be that another place is quite as well able to deal with it as we are here and I have no doubt that if the Spicer Committee came up with positive suggestions for the protection of boundary features on greenlanes it would be dealt with there just as well, but I should like some definite undertaking and assurances from the Government as to the time-scale that is involved in the Spicer Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that they had written on another matter very recently and I think it would be valuable if the noble Lord who is to reply could tell us when he thinks the Spicer Committee is likely to make recommendations on this matter and whether the noble Lord can give us some information about it before we reach Report stage. I do not intend to press this matter to a Division but I hope the noble Lord can give us that information so that we may decide whether we can do anything while the Bill is still in this House or whether we shall have to wait until it reaches another place. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has proposed. I am not committed to the detail or the drafting of his proposed new clause, but I feel that he has made out a case for dealing with this problem of the further reduction of hedgerows. When we were discussing Clause 26 and the question of the protection of habitat of wildlife, I referred to the fact that in Huntingdonshire (which I used to represent) 88 per cent. of the hedgerows have been destroyed in the last 30 years. It so happens that a great many of the few surviving miles of hedgerow are along the roadsides and I think we should be sympathetic to an effort to preserve them, more especially bearing in mind that the reason why so many hedgerows have been destroyed is to make the fields larger. This proposal would not have a bad effect upon farming. It would merely mean that fields which cannot be further enlarged by cutting down hedgerows would
866
not suffer because the hedgerows would simply remain at the side of the highway.
Also I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the question of hedgerows along the sides of greenlanes. They are useful because they help to mark where the greenlanes are. Therefore, I hope that even if the detail proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is not acceptable, the principle he has proposed will find sympathy on the part of my noble friends.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether I might set one matter straight because I think my noble kinsman has been rather unfair to Mr. Battell. When this question arose local farmers nearby—because the farming community was somewhat worried about it—did approach him, and it was found that certainly The Times had completely wrongly reported the incident. There was not a tree preservation order on there. There had been one, and Mr. Battell had appealed against it and had won. The order had not been put on. So I think we are being slightly unfair to him in this case. I am not saying that he was right or wrong, but the reporting was inaccurate. I am sure my noble kinsman would like to look into the case before he confirms that.
Lord Underhill: So much could be said on this amendment, which I am pleased the noble Lord has moved, but I will content myself with two or three points. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned figures relating to the loss of hedges. I understand that the Nature Conservancy Council has said that 75 per cent. of hedges have been lost in East Anglia. Therefore, there is a problem. I will not weary the Committee by going into details, but they have been mentioned in previous debates. My mind goes back to the debates on not only Clause 26 but also Clause 31, where I had to complain that we had no anwser to the position of farmers who either are not interested in conservation of this kind or do not make management agreements. Therefore, we are referring to a minority, and it may well be that we are referring to a minority here, but unless the minority is dealt with we can find some of these most delightful aspects of our countryside disappearing. I must say on this amendment, as we have said on many others, that we must not miss the opportunity provided by this Bill, which, after all, is a countryside Bill, concerned not only with the protection of the beauty of the countryside but in this case with the hedges that provide very valuable habitats. Therefore, we have to look at two aspects.
This amendment again is a compromise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is to be complimented on it. There are some good provisos for the farming fraternity. Subsection (3) makes quite clear that any hedge or tree which is dying or dead or has become dangerous shall be removed. There is no argument about that. Then we have subsection (4) which says that if a highway authority is satisfied that in the interests of good farming these hedges or banks have to be removed, it can be done. Then there is the last provision, which concerns any hedgerow trees of less than 50 centimetres circumference, because that would assist the farming operations with the hedge cutting. I hope the noble Earl will feel that there are sufficient provisos, and if he thinks there are not sufficient

867
provisos perhaps he would bring in an amendment with additional ones. But this is a most important point which should not be missed in this Countryside Bill.
Lord Sandford: The question whether one should leave the hedges in place in order to protect the footpath or should remove them in order to facilitate agriculture and farming is just one issue in the whole business of how, through management, to reconcile these two potentially conflicting uses of the countryside. This is an art which has been pioneered and developed in detail over the last decade by way of the Upton management experiment starting in the Lake District, starting first of all in one dale and then spreading to several, and now operating not only in the whole of the Lake District but in a number of other national parks. Whether it is concerned with grubbing or leaving in a hedge is neither here nor there. It can amount to that; it can involve other things.
The point is that it can involve the farmer in doing the work voluntarily or as part of a management agreement, or it can involve the work being done by a contractor and the cost being borne by the National Park Authority, or the other local authorities that might be involved; or it can be, and often is done by people who in the summer time, when the recreational pressures are at their peak, function as wardens. The role of the warden is more or less as stated in Amendment No. 551, which we saw a moment ago; namely, to advise and assist the public in connection with the use of the path or the way. During the winter time their activities are rather different and they find themselves engaged in a whole lot of minor estate management activities--like clearing footpaths, small drainage operations, clearing woodlands, and so on—sometimes on land which is in the ownership of a local authority or a national park authority, but more often on private land by agreement with the occupier.
What I should like my noble friend to consider, whether or not this amendment is accepted, is whether we can continue that kind of operation and develop it alongside footpaths with the use of the wardens for which Amendment No. 551, or another version of it, will make provision in the case of narrow strips of land represented by rights of way and bridleways. The kind of management involved is not only the management of hedges so as to minimise the hindrance to agriculture and at the same time protect the footpaths, but also the provision of such things as small parking bays so that visitors and pedestrians can park their cars without getting in the way of the farmers and so that rights of way are kept drained, foot bridges are kept in good condition and so on. I should like him to be good enough to look at that aspect as well.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: The amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerns the preservation of boundary features to rights of way. The previous amendments of the noble Lord dealt with wide unmetalled tracks or greenways which were of special interest or value on landscape or other grounds. The clause which we are now considering, however, has much more extensive application. It applies to all
868
hedges, trees, walls and banks alongside any unmetalled highway—namely, any footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic. No owner or other person could chop down or remove any such trees or hedges, et cetera, with the limited exceptions set out in subsections (3) and (5), without the approval of the highway authority. Such a requirement I think would impose a burden on highway authorities, farmers and landowners and would be hard to justify.
The long-standing tree preservation order system enables local authorities to protect trees in the interests of amenity, and these orders can be applied wherever the trees are situated. We appreciate that hedgerow saplings are vulnerable to destruction by the widespread use of mechanical hedge trimmers and I commend the advice about saplings given in the Countryside Commission press notice issued a year ago.
In responding to the amendment moved by the noble Lord on 13th February, I indicated that the department would be entering into discussions with the Tree Council concerning its recommendations for changes to the tree preservation order legislation, including its recommendations concerning hedges. My noble friend Lord Sandys in responding on 12th February referred to the Countryside Commission's advice concerning protection of greenlanes—and here of course we did give an undertaking to consider this point as regards greenlanes—and the Commission's strong preference for protection of the majority of greenlanes to be achieved by positive encouragement to local authorities, farmers and landowners and by appropriate management arrangements including the use of formal management agreements. That advice accords with the views that the Commission had previously expressed in its new agricultural landscapes policy statement, in which it expressed the view that action to stop the unnecessary clearance of features of landscape value including trees, shrubs and hedgerows was more likely to be achieved by agreement than by compulsion.
In particular, I commend the initiative which has been taken by the Countryside Commission in providing relevant advice to the farming community by means of its Countryside Conservation Handbook and in particular the hedge management leaflet which they issued fairly recently and which provides advice on the management of hedges, the factors to be taken into account before action is taken to remove hedges, and the desirability, where hedges are removed, of planting up in their place field corners and other places which are difficult to cultivate.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in particular mentioned the Spicer Committee. When I spoke to an earlier amendment I said that perhaps we could ask them to consider an amendment that might be tabled later in another place. I said that on that occasion only because I thought that consultation on that could not possibly be completed by the Report stage. I can give no undertaking that the Spicer Committee will discuss any of the problems that we are raising at the moment. Of course, they have already written a paper on the one which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Spens, raised. Therefore, although we can ask them to do something, I can give no undertaking that that could be done by the Report stage.
In view of what we said to the noble Lord, Lord

869
Avebury, on his previous amendment about green-lanes, when we said that we would certainly consider it, and in view of what I have just said, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that this amendment is too large in scope to be acceptable. I shall, of course, consider what has been said, and I paid particular attention to what my noble friend Lord Sandford said. As I have said on previous occasions, management agreements are perfectly able to cope with hedgerows.
Lord Burton: There seems to be no mention of forestry here. Whereas this amendment might be applicable on agricultural grounds, it seems to be totally impracticable as regards forestry. I think that it would be quite impossible for the Forestry Commission to have any forest walks if they were unable to cut down the trees.
Lord Avebury: I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, did not really deal in toto with the points that I raised because I gave him an example of a case which occurred the other day. Whether or not the particular farmer contravened a tree preservation order is really neither here nor there. If I maligned this particular farmer, I apologise through my noble kinsman opposite. But the account shows that it was certainly in the mind of the local authority to make a tree preservation order in respect of the whole of Cow Pasture Lane and that the tree preservation officer, Mr. Dick Wassell, arrived at the farm with the intention of serving an order which, as I understand it, the local authority had made, only to find that the farmer and his son were in the process of cutting down mature trees along the whole of the 500 yard length of this lane.
Therefore, although I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that wherever possible we want to work through voluntary agreements—and management agreements are to be highly commended and would work in the majority of cases—there will always be the occasional farmer who decides to take matters into his own hands and who decides not to accept an offer by a local authority to enter into negotiations for a management agreement, but rather to go ahead and cut down the trees along what may be a very ancient greenway so that he can bring the land into agricultural use.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I could give full details to my noble kinsman about what happened, but in fact the tree preservation order was imposed last year and was contested by Mr. Battell who managed to have the order cancelled by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In fact, he had been doing this work for three weeks. I am not saying whether or not he should have done it environmentally, but he was totally within the law and was wrongly reported.
Lord Avebury: If he was totally within the law that surely reinforces the point I made when speaking to my amendment. If we had something like this on the statute book, it would not have necessitated a tree preservation order, nor would he have had the power to go to the Secretary of State and appeal against the decision of the local authority. I do not think that the noble Earl made any attempt to answer that point. We are at a late hour, and obviously we do not want to pursue this ad nauseam.
870
I shall simply make one further suggestion to the noble Earl, which I hope will enable us to make progress. We all agree that the work of Mr. Michael Spicer is valuable and important in throwing light on these matters and helping us to decide what kind of legislation is necessary. We also agree, I suppose, that it is essential that whatever Mr. Spicer and his committee may advise, it should be available to Parliament before this Bill has reached the end of its tether; it is too late for either your Lordships or another place to do something about it.
What I would suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, if he would be prepared to do this, is that he writes to Mr. Spicer and draws his attention to the debates we have had, on both 12th February and this evening, and asks him to let those who are taking part in this debate know roughly what is the time-scale within which he will be able to make recommendations on the matters in question. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, nodding his head, and so with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 555B:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Countryside Act 1968.
.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968 (signposting of footpaths and bridleways)—

(a) the words "after consultation with the owner or occupier of the land concerned" shall be omitted;

(b) the words "have power to" shall be omitted;

(c) for the words "footpath or bridleway" there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic";

(d) after the word "authority", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (2), (3) and (4) below, and shall have power to erect and maintain the signposts where the highway authority consider convenient in or on the property adjoining the footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic".

(2) In subsection (2) of that section—

(a) the words "subject to subsection (3) below" shall be omitted;

(b) for the words "footpath or bridleway", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic";

(c) for the words "exercise of their power" there shall be substituted the words "carrying out their duty".

(3) In subsection (4) of that section—

(a) the words "it shall also be the duty" shall be omitted;

(b) for the words "exercise of their powers" there shall be substituted the words "carrying out their duty";

(c) for the word "to" there shall be substituted the word "shall";

(d) the word or "shall be omitted;

(e) after the word "bridleway" there shall be inserted the words "road used as a public path, byway open to all traffic, provided that before erecting the signpost the highway authority shall consult with the owner or occupier of the land concerned".

(4) In subsection (5) of that section for the words "footpath or bridleway" there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic".
(5) In subsection (6) of that section for the words "footpath, or bridleway" there shall be substituted the words "footpath, bridleway, road used as a public path or byway open to all traffic", and for the words "footpaths and bridleways" there shall be substituted the words "footpaths, bridleways, roads used as public paths and byways open to all traffic".
(6) In subsection (7) of that section for the words "signs or notices" there shall be substituted the words "signs, notices or waymarks" and for the words "sign or notice" there shall be substituted the words "sign, notice or waymark".
(7) In this section "road used as a public path" means a way which is shown in the definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path").
The noble Lord said: Throughout this part of the Bill there has been evident a sort of tug of war or tension between the interests of landowners and land occupiers on the one hand, and the rights and interests of the general public on the other. This amendment, I hope, strikes a correct balance between the two. The question at issue is that of "waymarking." The term "waymark" is defined in the OED as
"any object, whether natural feature or artificial structure, which serves as a guide to the traveller".
In practice it generally takes the form of an arrow painted on a suitable surface.
One of the frustrations that confronts anyone who walks or attempts to walk in our countryside is that in some areas (I do not say all, but in many) the highway authority confines itself to placing a signpost at the junction of the footpath or other right of way with the metalled road and then washes its hands of the matter, leaving the landowner or occupier to put up as many fierce injunctions to keep out as he pleases. In my own area a case comes at once to mind. A spruce white on green signpost reading "public footpath" points directly at a metal gate, bearing the legend "Private Road Access to Brown's Farm only". Now is it not useless, indeed, a waste of public money, to erect a signpost if the general public have no idea what path, if any, it can follow beyond that point? There are many other instances of signposts pointing straight into waving fields of crops, with no further guidance; also, of wired-up stiles, making a mockery of the whole concept of rights of way.
In 1974 the Countryside Commission set up a study group on the question of waymarking, and not only the representatives of the Ramblers' Association and other users but also those of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, I think I am correct in saying, generally accepted the benefits of a waymarking system. The study group led to the setting up of a project, and an excellent Public Path Waymarking Project Report published in 1979 by the Ramblers' Association—the project officer was Judith Ansell—from which I will quote briefly:
"The principle of waymarking rights of way is to enable users to follow the path accurately at points where they might otherwise have difficulty. Thus the advantage to users of footpaths and bridleways is obvious. But having made the route of the path clear, it follows that the amount of accidental trespass will also be much reduced. This constitutes the advantage to farmers and landowners".
In the eight project areas covered it is interesting to note that the majority of landowners and tenant farmers ended up in favour of waymarking once the system was explained to them. The greatest enthusiasts were those who suffered most from trespass. I think that reinforces my claim that our amendment seeks genuinely to reconcile the interests of all the parties.
Turning to the details, three main changes are proposed to Section 27 of the Countryside Act 1968. The first is to remedy the deficiency that the highway
872
authority has no power to affix, place or paint signs or notices on private property against the owner's wishes, even where the property in question is a stile or gate on a public right of way. The amendment would give the authority power to erect and maintain signposts, including painting or placing other signs, where they consider convenient in or on the property adjoining the way in question—though only after consulting the owner or occupier concerned.
The second change is to exend the scope of the section to cover roads used as public footpaths and byways open to all traffic. I am aware that RUPPs, as they are called—roads used as public paths—are due to be phased out, but that may be a lengthy process and their inclusion here corresponds to the definition accorded to them in Government Amendment No. 484A which was agreed on Tuesday, 17th February.
The third change is to include the word "waymark" within the meaning of the word "signpost" to remove any doubt which might arise as to whether waymarks—which are normally, as I have explained, small painted arrows—are covered by this legislation. Incidentally, in case anyone is concerned with additional labour costs falling on local authorities, I should say that wherever an authority is sympathetic to way-marking, I am told it should not be difficult to find volunteers to carry out the job. Indeed, the Countryside Commission's Practical Guide to Waymarking says:
"Most of the labour is likely to be provided by voluntary organisations".
The amendment has the support of all the national organisations representing users of public rights of way. I will not spell them all out, but they must between them have well over half a million members. It is worth bearing in mind, furthermore, that the Sports Council has calculated that walking—that is, over a distance of two miles—is by far the most popular of all outdoor activities, involving more than one-fifth of the adult population during the summer months. The amendment therefore aims to go some distance towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of a large body of our fellow citizens to take healthy recreation in the open air, while at the same time minimising damage or nuisance to owners or occupiers of land. I think that is a fair balance, and I trust that the Government will give me some encouragement to hope for some progress in this rather neglected field. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I fully recognise that the sign posting and waymarking of rights of way is of considerable benefit to path-users and that it also benefits landowners by helping to prevent trespass, which is often unintentional. I believe it was originally hoped that the task of signposting, required to be carried out in accordance with Section 27(2) of the 1968 Act, would be substantially completed within four to five years, but although some counties have now almost completed the task, others unfortunately have made very little progress.
It appears that the main intention of the amendment, ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is to stiffen up the signposting duties imposed by the 1968 Act. However, the duty to waymark would still remain discretionary and there would be no effective

873
change in the duty to signpost public paths where they meet metalled roads, except to remove the obligation to consult owners and occupiers and the provision that highway authorities may agree with parish councils that signposts may not be necessary at particular sites. The Government are sympathetic to extending the signposting and waymarking provisions of the 1968 Act to "roads used as public paths" and to "byways open to all traffic", but do not think that the other changes are necessary.
The 1968 Act makes provision for people, with the consent of the highway authority, to erect signposts along public paths. I appreciate that many authorities are finding it difficult to devote sufficient resources to carrying out the signposting task in a reasonable time unaided, and I hope that many authorities will co-operate with voluntary groups, who are often prepared to carry out much of the work. On the understanding that the Government will introduce an amendment to extend the provisions to RUPPs and byways, the noble Lord will, I hope, feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his forthcoming attitude to the amendment. I am glad he referred to the question of collaboration with voluntary organisations because that is the obvious way to go about it and, where there is good collaboration between local authorities and voluntary organisations, I am sure a great deal of progress can be made. I shall of course read carefully tomorrow in Hansard exactly what the noble Earl said, and perhaps I can get together with him before the Report stage. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 555C:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Equestrian Traffic
.—(1) In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967—
(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for section 1(3A) (by virtue of which the provision which may be made by a traffic regulation order includes any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by foot passengers):—
"(3A) The provision which may be made by a traffic regulation order shall include any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or am, part of the width thereof by, or by any specified class—

(a) of foot passengers; or

(b) of persons driving, riding or leading horses or other animals of draught or burden,

either generally or subject to exceptions specified in the order, and either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified.";
(b) in section 12(1) and (2) (by virtue of which a highway authority may restrict or prohibit the use of a road or any part of a road by vehicles or by vehicles of any class or by foot passengers) after the words "or by foot passengers", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or by persons driving, riding or leading horses or other animals of draught or burden"; and
(c) the following definition shall be inserted in section 104(1),
874
after the definition of "street parking place" and "off-street parking place":—
"traffic" includes pedestrians and horses or other animals of draught or burden;").
The noble Lord said: Although a local authority can manage vehicles under the Road Traffic Regulations 1967 and pedestrians under the Transport Act 1968, it has no power to manage horses, and this amendment would correct that anomaly. It would help a local authority to manage horses on paths. For instance, it could temporarily prevent the passage of horses down a path, the surface of which had perhaps become a quagmire, due possibly to wet weather or excessive use. The amendment could meet many of the problems that we have been discussing, in particular those arising from misuse of footpaths by horses. It would also answer my problem of a horse rider riding down a footpath to the inconvenience of the walker, the rider's only excuse being that he had reason to believe that his grandfather rode the path many years ago. I raised that point in Amendment No. 508, and I hope that in fact it answers my question to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, who I think was somewhat at a loss as to how to reply. The amendment could also solve some of the greenlane problems. For instance, it could have been used to prevent the extinction of the scabious thistle in a greenlane in Cambridgeshire.
The power given by the amendment to local authorities—not to farmers or landowners, I emphasise—could help in a number of other ways to the advantage of walker, rider and farmer. I should add that the amendment contains no power whatsoever that would allow a local authority to discriminate against any particular section of the horseriding fraternity. Indeed, a look at the case in which Oxfordshire County Council tried, by means of a traffic regulation order, to ban motor bicycles from the Ridgeway will I hope reassure those concerned, in particular the riding schools, which I understand have been worried about the matter. In the Ridgeway case the inspector ruled against Oxfordshire County Council on all 10 reasons, and as we know, motor bicycles still travel along the Ridgeway.
When I moved a similar amendment to this—though it was a rather untidy one—during consideration of the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, my noble friend Lord Bellwin replied sympathetically, but pointed out its technical weaknesses, which I have, I hope, tidied up. My noble friend also said that the Government wanted more time to discuss the matter with the various organisations. It may have been a case—it probably was—of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread, because the result of my noble friend's reply was a tirade of abuse from some sections of the press, which fortunately for my noble friend landed on me. But after a particularly helpful article in Byeway and Bridleway, all parties—the British Horse Society, the ramblers, and the farmers—have made a very great effort to see one another's point of view, and a very real measure of agreement now prevails among us, and indeed with the Spicer Committee. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not delay implementing this provision, but will strike while the iron is hot before the trio of rider, walker, and farmer decide to have another family row. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: May I very briefly make a point? I think that owing to the tremendous volume of traffic now on the roads it would be a great mistake to exclude horseriders from any type of lane or bridleway. It is extremely unsafe to ride on horseback on tarmac roads. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I must say that there has been a tremendous increase in riding, and in view of the great enjoyment that it gives people I believe that to pass the amendment would be a most retrograde step.
Lord Melchett: I must say that I have some sympathy with what the noble Viscount has just said. The thing which worried me particularly about this—and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, can help me with this—is that, as I understand it, at the moment under a traffic regulation order there is no right of appeal whatsoever, so that if an order was made banning riders from a particular bridleway they would have no right of appeal. Just as I was complaining earlier, I think with some support from all sides of the Committee, that it would not be right simply for there to be an appeal to the local authority in cases of diversions, and so on, when they were the people who had initiated matters, it does not really seem to me to be fair on horse riders that if a traffic regulation order is made against them they should have no right of appeal to anybody. I would hope that before the Committee looked with favour on this amendment we could at least deal with that problem, if I am right about it.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like to support what Lord Melchett has just said.
Lord Renton: I, too, find great difficulty about my noble friend's amendment. I see that the rubric is "Equestrian Traffic", but foot passengers are to be controlled. Although one appreciates the motives expressed by my friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, I seriously doubt whether there is a mischief to be dealt with by statute arising from what he said. I do not think it would enhance the enjoyment of the countryside for pedestrians and those who ride if we were to have this kind of regulation becoming very general. Also, I can see that the use of the power given by the new clause could be easily abused by over-zealous officials or councillors. Therefore, I very much hope that it will not find sympathy, though I regret to have to say so to my noble friend.
The Earl of Avon: The proposed new clause covers highways, and is not confined to bridleways or similarly unmetalled ways. The amendment is therefore a matter really for general highway legislation, and, as with Amendments Nos. 554 and 555, the Government do not want to put these matters into the Countryside Bill. Having so said, the Government have been keeping a careful eye on this particular situation. They note that the Spicer Committee is now expressing its support, but equally that the British Horse Society has set out some counter-arguments. We shall look very carefully at what has been said today. I was going to ask my noble friend not to press the Government to put this amendment into the Bill because we would hope that it would be included in a suitable Transport Bill
876
in the next Session. However, in view of a certain amount of criticism which came across the Floor, I think we should look at it in more detail. I am sorry that there should be a family row, particularly when his noble kinsman is not at the moment present.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry that we have not had a more helpful debate on this, but there are one or two points which I could perhaps answer. The first is that I think you can have an inquiry before a road traffic order, and I see no reason why you should not here. The second thing is something that my noble friend Lord Renton raised. The point that I think perhaps he missed is the great help that this would be in controlling abuse on footpaths, which we have discussed at considerable length. At the moment you have no way of stopping horses being ridden down footpaths. I have such a footpath on my own farm, which causes a great deal of aggravation. The horses come down it, and we are normally blamed for allowing them to do so. We do not, in fact, but there is no way in which we can stop them because they say that they have ridden down it, or their grandfathers did, for years. This could control that.
The other point I should make to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is that it would work in a manner similar to the way in which the attempt was made to bring in the road traffic order on the Ridgeway. There, it went to the inspector, and on all 10 counts he went against the local authority; so I do not think you could possibly say that a local authority would have undisputed powers to go on with this under this amendment. I shall not speak any further. I am glad to hear my noble friend say that he will look at it. In particular, may I remind him—and I hope that perhaps he will nod to save time—that the Spicer Committee I think meets again on 2nd March, and perhaps he may ask them to cast their mind over this once again.
The Earl of Avon: I think I said in my remarks that the Spicer Committee were supporting it already.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: In which case, I hope the Government will find that they are able to support it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 555D not moved.]
Clause 47 [Interpretation of Part III]:
9.50 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556:
Page 40, line 21, leave out from ("means") to end of line 23 and insert ("a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment amends the definition of "byway open to all traffic" by removing the reference to a road used as a public path, and specifies instead that it is used mainly for walking and horse riding. The amendment clarifies the meaning of the expression, but without any change of substance. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for duplicating his idea. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 556A and 556B not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556C:
Page 40, leave out lines 38 to 40.
The noble Earl said: Clause 47 contains a definition of roads used as public paths even though these are destined to become a thing of the past. It was necessary to have such a definition because in the Bill byways open to all traffic are defined by reference to roads used as public paths. In the previous amendment we changed the definition of "byways" to remove the reference to roads used as public paths. The definition of the latter is therefore no longer necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556D:
Page 41, line 9, at end insert—
("(3) The provisions of section 30(1) of the 1968 Act (riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways) shall not affect the definition of bridleway in subsection (1) and any rights exercisable by virtue of those provisions shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Part.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment makes it clear that the right to ride a bicycle over a bridleway, granted by the provisions of the Countryside Act 1968, does not affect the definition of "bridleway" in Clause 47, and that the exercise of that right does not establish vehicular rights. I beg to move.
Baroness David: Can I ride my bicycle on a bridle-way? 1 should like to be quite clear.
The Earl of Avon: Yes. The amendment makes it clear that the right to ride a bicycle over a bridleway.
Baroness David: I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556DA:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
("Offences by bodies corporate etc.
—(1) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members subsection (1) shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.").
The noble Earl said: When the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved Amendment No. 339A, which was designed to make directors and others liable for the activities of their companies in appropriate circumstances, we promised to take away the proposal and give it full consideration with a view to putting down a Government amendment. This is the promised amendment. We have put it down as an amendment to Patr IV of the Bill, because it is relevant to offences nuder Part II of the Bill as well as to those under
878
Part I. During the discussion on Amendment No. 339A, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about its application to partnerships. I am advised that there is no collective or corporate responsibility in respect of partnerships. Each partner is responsible as an individual. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Earl not only for accepting the point that we made but for managing to meet it before we finished the Committee stage. I only wish for the sake of us all—the Government, the Front Benches and everyone else—that we had managed to do a few more of the things while still in Committee that we have to come back to at Report stage. Nevertheless, that is not to be. It is wonderful that we have dealt with one amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Minor amendments]:
9.56 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556E:
Page 42, line 29, at end insert ("and in section 23 of that Act (areas of special scientific interest) the words "not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve" shall be omitted")
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 556E, 557ZC, 557ZBA and 558ZA. The last two amendments are consequentials. There may be a small advantage in having Committee stages spread over such a long time—at least one is now beginning to deal with the amendments from the first two days!
The Nature Conservancy Council have a statutory obligation to inform local planning authorities and water authorities of any areas of land, not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve, which is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features. This duty is placed upon them by Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Section 23(3) of the Water Act 1973.
But there are perhaps 600 areas of high scientific interest which are excluded from this duty. These are nature reserves owned or managed by the voluntary conservation movement and about which the local planning authorities and the water authorities need not know. They do know, because the Nature Conservancy Council tell them. But there is no duty on the Nature Conservancy Council to inform these authorities of these areas of land. Conversely, there is no duty upon local planning authorities to inform the Nature Conservancy Council if they intend to grant planning permission in such areas, when there would be if the land had been notified to them under Section 23. This is a loophole which we would like to block.
The Nature Conservancy Council in endeavouring to block the loophole by informing local planning authorities of such areas if they are of special scientific interest quality, can be said to have been acting ultra vires. We wish to regularise the position and make it a statutory duty for the Nature Conservancy Council to inform local planning authorities and the water authorities of all land in their areas which is of special

879
interest by reason of its flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features, irrespective of whether it is managed as a nature reserve or not. This will regularise the position and I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Once again I am very grateful to the Government and welcome these useful amendments.
Lord Chelwood: I should like to add my thanks. I had amendments down which would have had the same effect. I am extremely grateful for the action which the Government have taken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 556F:
Page 42, line 34, leave out ("37 of the 1968") and insert ("15(1) of the 1968 Act (areas of special scientific interest) the words "which is not for the time being managed as a nature reserve but" shall be omitted and in section 37 of that").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 556F and 557ZAB as they are linked. No. 557ZAB is consequential on No. 556F. The earlier amendment continues the logic of the argument that it should be possible to deal with nature reserves of the right kind in the same way as sites of special scientific interest. As the legislation stands at present, these high quality reserves are excluded from the benefit of Section 15 agreements. But at this point perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 provides that the Nature Conservancy Council may enter into agreements with owners, lessees and occupiers of land which for the time being is not managed as a nature reserve, but which have been notified to the local planning authority. The agreements are made for the purpose of conserving those flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features which have been the subject of a notification.
The NCC can enter into agreements to conserve certain important features with owners, occupiers and lessees of land which is not a nature reserve. But many of the reserves are owned by the county trusts or by occupiers who would greatly benefit if they could reach a management agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council. These agreements would enable such owners to maintain the reserves, which may not be of national reserve status but nevertheless are of high scientific interest, in a satisfactory state. The effect of these amendments is to enable the NCC further to assist the county trusts and dedicated individuals who wish to see our nature conservation resource undiminished. I commend these amendments to you and I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Again, we welcome these amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 557:
Page 42, line 36, leave out ("Parts II and III of").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Stanley not being here, perhaps I might move this amendment. Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 makes it a
880
duty of every Minister, in the exercise of his function under the 1968 Act and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of the rural areas.
The effect of Clause 52(4) is to extend that duty to this Bill, but only to Parts II and III. It appears, therefore, to be intended that Ministers, in the exercise of their functions under Part I of the Bill, will not need to have regard to agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of the rural areas. That seems to me to be a strange omission. This amendment, therefore, would relate Section 37 of the 1968 Act to the whole of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I must say it seemed to me that by the time we had finished Part I just about every possible exclusion for agriculture and forestry was allowed for at least twice over in the existing provisions of Part I. We were hoping in a number of respects that when we came back to the matter on Report we could at least have them allowed only once rather than twice. Unless there is some sensible explanation for leaving out Part I, I propose that it should be agreed here, and then perhaps we can get back to the actual drafting of Part Ito make it a little more sensible than it appears to be at the moment.
The Earl of Avon: It is drafted this way purely because we thought that only Parts II and III can have any relevance to Section 37 of the 1968 Act. Parts I and IV which we omitted deal respectively with the protection of birds, other animals and plants and miscellaneous and general matters. The Government submit that there is little or nothing to be gained by the amendment put forward by my noble friends, but if they are not prepared to withdraw it at this stage, certainly I will not fight against it.
Lord Melchett: Might I suggest to the noble Lord Lord Middleton that it might be a little more seemly if we at least waited until the Report stage, and see whether we cannot meet some of the very real worries about Part I and the exclusions that are there at the moment. I am thinking in particular of the problems about general licensing and the provision which allows people at the moment to do something at any time, although it was clearly the intention of noble Lords, at least on the Back Benches opposite, that this should simply be used for emergency procedures. If we can get some of thoss problems cleared up, we might not feel we were overdoing it quite so much as we would feel at the moment if this amendment were pressed.
Lord Middleton: I shall not press this amendment. But I really am not convinced. Why should not the Secretary of State, who has a function under every clause of Part I, have a Section 37 duty laid upon him for that Part, as it is he who exercises his function under the rest of the Bill? If it is to be argued that it is no part of the duty of the NCC to think about rural needs, then I would perhaps ask him to look again at Section 37, which I did not quote in full, which then laid the duty on what was then called the Natural Environment Research Council and which is now the NCC. I think they, too, should have this duty. I shall not

881
press this, but I would ask my noble friend, if he will be so kind, to think about this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 557ZC:
Page 42, line 42, at end insert—
("(6) In section 22(3) of the Water Act 1973 (areas of special scientific interest) the words "not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve "shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 557ZB not moved.]
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Enactment repealed]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 557ZBA:
Page 84, line 4, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 23 the words" not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve".").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 557ZA:
Page 84, line 7, at end insert—

("1951 c. 60.

Mineral Workings Act 1951

Section 32.").

The noble Viscount said: I am tempted to move this amendment, but I do not think I will.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 557ZAB:
Page 84, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 15(1) the words "which is not for the time being managed as a nature reserve but".").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 557A not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 558:
Page 84, line 25, at end insert—

("1972 c. 70.

The Local Government Act 1972.

In Schedule 17, paragraphs 22 to 33.").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 558ZA:
Page 84, line 25, at end insert—

("1973 c. 37.

The Water Act 1973.

In section 22(3) the words "not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve".").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 558A not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 558AA, 558AB and 558AC en bloc:
Page 85, line 10, column 3, leave out ("120") and insert ("118").
Page 85, line 21, column 3, leave out ("121") and insert ("119").
Page 85, line 31, colunn 3, leave out ("123(4)") and insert ("121(4)").
The noble Earl said: These drafting amendments take account of the last minute changes to the Highways Bill, which became the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments No. 558B not moved.]
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 559:
Page 43, line 18, at beginning insert ("Sections 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 35, 38, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 54 of this Act shall come into force on the date on which this Act is passed and the remaining provisions of").
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships' remarkable patience is not yet exhausted, I beg to move Amendment No. 559. Clause 54(2) uses the familiar formula, as a result of which there can be a series of appointed day orders bringing different provisions of the Bill into operation on different dates. That is perhaps inevitable, but it frequently causes bad headaches for lawyers and other users of the statutes. The Law Society has produced a paper about it. The Statute Law Society, of which I am president, have also produced a paper about it. The trouble, especially with a long enactment like this one, is that even exhaustive inquiry cannot always enable one to be sure whether or not a particular provision of a long enactment has come into operation.
I realise that my amendment alone will not overcome those difficulties, but I am happy to say that the Civil Service Department—and I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Soames on the Front Bench, because he is head of that department—has recently issued new guidance to Ministries, which we hope will be of some practical help. However, we have this Bill before us and we shall see what we can do to mitigate the confusion caused by having a series of appointed day orders. Therefore I picked out those clauses which are of general relevance, such as interpretation clauses and purely formal powers which will need to come into force in any event, whatever appointed day orders there may be. We might as well have them brought into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should like to support the noble Lord. I had intended to put down an amendment which would have covered Section 21, one of the sections which the noble Lord has covered in his amendment. I did not do so in order to save time, for which I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be grateful. Section 21 covers the advisory bodies. In particular it struck me that it would be useful to see that they were

883
set up straight away and that that section came into force straight away. However, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should prefer his wider amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
The Earl of Avon: It is very nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Renton, speaking as both alpha and omega. I believe that he launched Amendment No. 1, and here he is tonight with the final one.
This amendment would bring into effect the clauses to which it refers as soon as the Bill is enacted, rather than on the date or dates subsequently to be fixed by order. These clauses concern advice on the protection of birds, other animals and plants, the procedure for making regulations and orders related to such protection, interpretation, application to the Crown, general finance and interpretation and the Short Title, commencement and extent. They also cover the power of the Countryside Commission to vary national park designation orders.
Our initial impression is that there is no reason for us to object to any of the clauses becoming operative as soon as the Bill becomes law. In some cases, there might even be an advantage in this. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I am happy to say that the Government will consider the amendment and will bring in their own at a later stage if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I can only say that is an exceedingly happy note on which to end. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 560 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: I think this might be a suitable opportunity to thank first my noble friends Lady David, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and those on our Back-Benches, in particular my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Underhill and Lord Kilbracken, for their extremely brief but extremely valuable contributions at numerous stages in the Bill. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who has been so remarkably helpful and patient with noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. At times I dare say he has felt, as I have, that we were engaged in a process which was never going to come to an end. But it has, and I am sure we are very pleased about that.
I hope we shall be able to carry out a number of consultations and discussions between now and the start of the Report stage so that we can dispose of as much business as possible before we bring the Bill back to the Floor of your Lordships' House and also so that the noble Lord the Chief Whip and the noble Lord the Leader of the House do not feel quite so agitated during the next stage of the Bill as I have had the feeling they have been at some points during the Committee stage.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I, too, can thank my noble friends Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Avebury and his friends and relations in various parts of your
884
Lordships' House for the indefatigable work they have done. May I join the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in conveying the thanks of noble Lords on these Benches to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for the way in which he has listened to our arguments, and non-arguments, and for the way in which we hope he has taken on board many of the suggestions we have put to him. We are indeed most grateful to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Avon: I am very grateful for the remarks of both noble Lords opposite. I should also like to thank very much the team which has been helping me on the Front Bench and those wonderful people who provide me with all the information from the Box and who have worked so hard. While speaking about one's own supporters, I think I may have to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if I can have some driving mirrors here so that I can see what is going on behind me—sometimes it seems to be applause and sometimes it is not quite so happy. I look forward to the Report stage.
Clause 54 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.