Sitting of 9 April 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE, CHURCHYARD BILL
    SAINT MARY, HORNSEY, BILL
    Read the Third time and pased.
  THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  ALL SAINTS, STREATHAM BILL [Lords]
    CHRIST CHURCH WITH SAINT ANDREW AND SAINT MICHAEL, EAST GREEN WICH BILL [Lords]
      MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/ WALLASEY) BILL [Lords]
      Read a Second time and committed.
PETITION

  Countryside Bill
  Mr. Iremonger: I rise to present a national Petition to Parliament from the British Motorcyclists Federation about the Countryside Bill. The Prayer of the Petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the undersigned members of the affiliated clubs and supporters of the British Motorcyclists Federation,
  SHEWETH
  That the Countryside Bill, 1968, as amended, by Standing Committee of the House of Commons, does not provide reasonable access to the countryside to motor vehicle users, nor does it make sufficient provision of facilities for motor sport.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that Parliament should amend this Bill justly to safeguard the interests of and provide access to the countryside for pleasure purposes to all sections of the community whether on foot, horseback, motorcycle or car and to safeguard
  1048
  public rights of way for vehicles as properly established by custom and to make available sufficient facilities for motor sport in national parks and country parks.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.
  The Petition is signed by over 7,000 signatories.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the progress of the latest sanctions taken against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of sanctions against Rhodesia.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken within the framework of the efforts of the United Nations and Commonwealth countries to implement comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment he has made of the effect of sanctions on the Rhodesian economy and on Rhodesian domestic politics.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I would refer the hon. Members to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself on 27th March, 1968.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Commonwealth Secretary give any indication how soon it will be when sanctions are extended and along what lines they are likely to be extended? Are we in touch with the United Nations Secretariat about sanction-busting, as one or two countries should know better?
    Mr. Thomson: We are of course in touch with the United Nations Secretariat, and in the United Nations itself

    1049
    consultations are going on about a possible resolution. I should not like to anticipate the results of those consultations.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the utmost resistance on this side of the House to any extension of these sanctions, which have strengthened Mr. Smith?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Witness the lifting of the censorship. If the object is to induce negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman take up the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)?
    Mr. Thomson: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The question of extension of sanctions is of course something that is designed to indicate to the régime that, however long it seeks to go along this road, it is a road which leads to economic stagnation. I think that enjoys very general support at the United Nations as well as very considerable support in this House.
    Mr. Biffen: On Question No. 27, could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in fact the political position of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia today is stronger than ever before? Is it not now quite clear that sanctions is a policy which is far more hurtful to this country than it is in promoting the cause which the Government seek to promote?
    Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I cannot accept that at all. I think the hon. Member must know very well that at the moment, for example, Rhodesia has cut herself off from her traditional sources of outside development capital and is using her internal resources for wasteful stockpiling of unexportable commodities like tobacco. Since the African population of Rhodesia is increasing very rapidly, the real economic state in Rhodesia is one of decline.
    Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unless the sanctions policy is made effective, there is a danger that the Commonwealth will not survive? Will he therefore consider listing the individual foreign companies which are violating sanctions so that measures can be taken against them at the United Nations?
    Mr. Thomson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the future of the Commonwealth is very much at stake in making sanctions as effective as possible. The suggestion my hon. Friend makes is one of a number of suggestions that are under consideration at the United Nations at the moment.
    Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), which was simply this. Is it not a fact that the political position of Mr. Smith is now stronger than ever?
    Mr. Thomson: I am increasingly depressed by the degree to which hon. Members, and now right hon. Members, opposite rush in to suggest how strong Mr. Smith is. These great and serious moral international issues must be seen in a much longer time scale than the temporary popularity of an individual over a month or two.
    Mr. Maudling: That is not good enough. The point simply is that the House should know whether sanctions are working. Have not sanctions in fact strengthened the position of Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Thomson: In the short run sanctions are bound to have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman is describing. Is he drawing the implication from that, that in the short run we should surrender? I certainly do not draw that implication.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs which countries are, and which are not, now applying United Nations mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia; what representations have been made in this regard; and with what result.
    Mr. George Thomson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Eveyn King) on 25th January, 1968. As the hon. Member will be aware, exchanges between Governments are confidential.—[Vol. 757, c. 173.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since when there has been no change. Is not the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of this futile farce is that other members of the United Nations—competitors of ours—are merely taking our

    1051
    trade? When will the Government face facts and bind up these self-inflicted wounds?
    Mr. Thomson: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way, why does he resist the proposal for comprehensive mandatory sanctions which would put those people who are, as he says, taking our trade on an equal footing with British traders?
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest recommendations of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.
    Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir. The Committee's proceedings are confidential.
    Mr. Fraser: Notwithstanding that, could the Government, in consultation with our Commonwealth colleagues, use every possible pressure—for instance, on Portugal—whether it be through N.A.T.O., E.F.T.A. or any other medium, to ensure that there is proper policing of sanctions on the Mozambique border?
    Mr. Thomson: I assure my hon. Friend that the discussions now going on at the United Nations are designed to fulfil the purposes he has in mind.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We welcome the Secretary of State back from his recent very long journey. Did he obtain from Commonwealth Governments in Asia a very great deal of support for his sanctions policy?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what information he now has regarding the number of men under sentence of death in Rhodesia as the result of guerilla activity; whether next of kin have been informed; and whether the names of all those thus sentenced are now known.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): There is nothing that I can at present add to the Answer which was given to my hon. Friend on 12th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 262.]
    Mr. Judd: Does my hon. Friend agree that that sentence for any of the freedom fighters in what amounts to a civil war situation is utterly indefensible, and that they should be assured of prisoner-of-war status? If we are not in a position
    1052
    to guarantee that ourselves, will my hon. Friend initiate discussions with the Red Cross?
    Mr. Whitlock: The names of all those who have been sentenced cannot be known because some have been withheld for security reasons. Moreover, the names of those whom the régime has announced its intention of not hanging have not been disclosed. It would therefore be very difficult to find out by any means who are the people involved.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it Her Majesty's Government's position that it is all right for Mr. Dupont, the Officer Administering the Government, as he is called, to exercise or usurp the Royal prerogative of mercy and reprieve persons sentenced to death in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the maintenance of law and order in Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomson: Her Majesty's Government would deplore a breakdown of law and order in Rhodesia. Their policy is to promote a return to constitutional rule and they do not believe that this will be achieved by violence.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of sanctions is designed to cause a crisis of confidence and of government in Salisbury? Is not the very success of the sanctions policy to be measured, at least to some extent, by a steady weakening of the internal forces of law, order and racialist repression?
    Mr. Thomson: I do not agree with that. The policy of sanctions is designed precisely in order to try to produce a peaceful solution without all the suffering to people of all races that would result from the use of force and violence.
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March.
    Mr. Jackson: Bearing in mind certain remarks from hon. Members opposite

    1053
    today, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the State of Mr. Smith is a police State? Is there any evidence either in education or housing that Mr. Smith's régime has moved any way towards a multiracial society?
    Mr. Thomson: On education and housing, I am afraid that the sad evidence is that the Smith régime have been moving in a more segregationist direction. We of course welcome the lifting of the censorship by the régime inside Rhodesia, although I am bound to say that I would feel more optimistic about the future if the régime were to go ahead and lift some of the more oppressive features of the police State.
    Mr. Maudling: Does it remain the position of the Government that they are not prepared to have any negotiations with the present régime of Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Thomson: The immediate question is to see what comes out of the consultations at present going on in the Security Council. This is the immediate scene of future action in relation to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will remove the word British from the title of the British South Africa Police, in view of the fact that they are now fighting for the Rhodesian illegal régime against loyal British subjects in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Whitlock: This would serve no useful purpose.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the casualties suffered by white rebels in Rhodesia have been created by bombing by the Royal Rhodesian Air Force? Will he advise Her Majesty to remove the title "royal" from this traitorous and inaccurate organisation?
    Mr. Whitlock: That is an entirely different question.

    Biafra (British Nationals)
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the situation of those United Kingdom citizens isolated in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure the safety of United Kingdom citizens in Biafra; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Thomson: Since the reply given on 12th February to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), a number of our nationals who decided to leave have been able to do so and are now back in this country. We have still no direct means of keeping in touch with those who, despite our advice to leave in the past, have chosen to remain, but there is an International Red Cross team working in the area.
    We have drawn the Federal Nigerian Government's attention to our concern for the safety of those British nationals still living in areas which may become involved in the fighting. The Federal Nigerian Government have undertaken to notify their military commanders accordingly.
    Mr. Davidson: Precisely how many British citizens are still isolated in Biafra? Has any consideration been given to the offer which I made orally to the Minister of State on behalf of Caledonian Airways to send in an aircraft, if approved by the Government, to take out the British citizens stranded there?
    Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive offer of help. I do not think that this is the real problem. There are about 110 British nationals still in Eastern Nigeria. Most of these are missionaries, and our opinion is that they do not at present wish to leave. Indeed, some of the 110 have gone out to Biafra only recently.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the Secretary of State realises the deep interest which there is in Scotland in what goes on in Biafra, on account of the work of the Church of Scotland there over very many years. What are the Government doing to prevent the bombing of Scottish mission hospitals and missions schools, particularly in view of what happened recently at the Mary Slessor Hospital at Itu?
    Mr. Thomson: I appreciate the concern there is in Scotland and throughout Britain about the tragic civil war in

    1055
    Nigeria. On the latter point, a civil war brings some very ugly incidents on both sides and the right thing to do is to direct all one's energies to trying to bring it to an end. There are other Questions on the Order Paper about this, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can about it.

    Asian Immigrants from Kenya
    Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his discussions with other Commonwealth Governments on the question of the admission of Asian immigrants from Kenya who hold passports of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitlock: As my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on 28th March, we are maintaining close contact with the Commonwealth Governments principally concerned with arrangements for the admission of United Kingdom passports holders of Asian origin from Kenya.
    Mr. Archer: Has my hon. Friend made it clear that, while Britain accepts the major responsibility, if the Commonwealth means anything this is just the kind of question on which responsibility should be shared by other Commonwealth members?
    Mr. Whitlock: It would be very helpful if other countries accepted these immigrants from Kenya. This is a matter for Commonwealth Governments themselves, and they would not need to refer to Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Fisher: If large numbers of Kenyan Asians arrive this summer from India, what is the Government's policy to be? Will they admit them, in which case it makes nonsense of the recent Act of Parliament, or will they reject them, in which case what is to become of these people? Are they to be in perpetual orbit between England and India or India and Kenya?
    Mr. Whitlock: We shall have to face that situation when it comes, but the Government of India have already admitted several hundred Kenyans for a temporary period. All the indications are
    1056
    at the moment that those ready to leave Kenya left in the panic exodus before the recent Act was introduced. The expected cancellation of residence permits has not yet reached significant proportions.
    Mr. Braine: Does the Under-Secretary realise that this is quite intolerable since his statement leaves in doubt and uncertainty large numbers of British subjects in Kenya? If he cannot give a clear answer now, will he undertake that a clear answer on this subject will be given?
    Mr. Whitlock: There is every reason to hope that the Kenyan immigrant legislation which the House recently passed will be administered in such a way as to cause no difficulty.

    Uganda (Mr. Cooksey)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Uganda concerning the violent assault recently made on Mr. Wilfred Cooksey, a citizen of the United Kingdom; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitlock: Our High Commissioner in Kampala has made repeated inquiries of the Uganda authorities about the outcome of their investigations into an incident on 31st August, 1967 when Mr. Cooksey was assaulted and his car damaged by gunfire. We had also taken up the matter in London. The Uganda Government have now replied to our inquiries and offered to pay for the damage done to Mr. Cooksey's car.
    Mr. Bell: When was that reply received from the Uganda Government? What explanation was given for the quite disgraceful delay which occurred in the Uganda Government giving their reply to the representations of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Whitlock: The reply was received quite recently. We have been pressing this for some time. There is nothing now to prevent Mr. Cooksey, if he wishes, from instituting a civil suit.

    Passports (Falkland Islands and Gibraltar)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will consider granting to

    1057
    the people of the Falkland Islands United Kingdom passports comparable to those issued to Channel Islanders and Manx-men;
    (2) whether he will consider granting to the people of Gibraltar United Kingdom passports comparable to those issued to Channel Islanders and Manxmen.
    Mr. Whitlock: If by a comparable passport is meant one which exempts the holder from control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, the answer is, "No".
    Mr. Tilney: As there is considerable tear felt by people in both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar about their future, should not something be done by Her Majesty's Government to enable the citizens of both territories to feel that they qualify for passports similar to those which we have?
    Mr. Whitlock: Although the Commonwealth Immigrants Act exempts Channel Islanders and Manxmen from immigration control, it does not similarly exempt from control persons belonging to dependent territories, and it would be wrong for me to defeat the purpose of the Act by providing such persons with exempting passports.
    Mr. Maudling: That was, no doubt, a good legal answer, but these are people who have a claim on the interest of this House. Why is it not possible to do what is suggested here to help these people, who are very worried about their future?
    Mr. Whitlock: I think that the people of the Falkland Islands are in a totally different category from the people of the Channel Islands. They are 8,000 miles away and, while they are British, to admit them in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests would defeat the purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since certain people who depended on this House have just had their basic right to come to this country taken from them, many of us find it nauseating hypocrisy on the part of the other side now to suggest that we should give this right to certain other people?

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about a future constitution for Gibraltar.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to announce the date, venue and composition of the Gibraltar constitutional conference.
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning plans for a future constitution for Gibraltar.
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, having regard to the express wish of the Gibraltarians to retain their link with Great Britain, he will now convene the proposed constitutional conference.
    Mr. George Thomson: We are having further discussions with Gibraltarian Ministers at the beginning of May. Subject to those discussions, we aim to have the constitutional talks in June.
    Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gibraltar Constitutional Commission recommended strengthening the tie with this country, more power for the Gibraltar Council and the ending of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act? What will the Government do about these proposals? Does he realise that the Gibraltarians want their status recognised and their future guaranteed by this country?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir; and Her Majesty's Government have given the people of Gibraltar very substantial guarantees indeed. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would feel that the dates I have now announced show that we are making good progress on this matter. The other questions which he raises will be the subject of these discussions.
    Sir F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State accept from me—I returned from Gibraltar only this morning—that his intimation of dates, though welcome, is much overdue and that the riots which took place over the weekend were not, as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said yesterday, caused by just

    1059
    a few hooligans but, in fact, represented the widespread feeling in Gibraltar that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government got on with talks with Gibraltar and not with Spain?
    Mr. Thomson: There are, perhaps, conflicting views about the origin of the troubles in Gibraltar, but I think there is agreement that the actual violence was the work of an unrepresentative group of young hooligans.
    Mr. Jackson: While disregarding any conflicting views about recent events, will my right hon. Friend remember the opinion of the people of Gibraltar expressed in the referendum last year? May we have a guarantee that, when the constitutional talks do take place, they will, in their detailed expression, represent a closer move by the people of Gibraltar to this country in a political context?
    Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government are determined to play their part in fulfilling the view which the Gibraltarians expressed in the referendum as to their own interest. We shall do everything we can to see that that is fulfilled.
    Mr. Braine: Whatever view the Secretary of State may take about last week's incidents, will he agree that these were a reflection of the frustration felt by all Gibraltarians about the continued delay in coming to any agreement about their future? Why are there to be constitutional talks at all, since the people of Gibraltar have emphatically declared their desire to remain British?
    Mr. Thomson: Unusually for him, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of these talks. The referendum gave a plain statement of where the Gibraltar people regarded their interest as lying, and I have said that we stand by that. The constitutional talks are designed to bring about further advances and improvements in the internal constitution of Gibraltar. These are matters which require careful consideration. I hoped that the dates which I have announced would, after some delay, satisfy the House that we are making progress.
    Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the feeling in Gibraltar is that we have wasted far too much time discussing extraneous matters with Spain
    1060
    instead of discussing with the people of Gibraltar how they can be tied more closely to Britain, which is what they want? Will he give a pledge that there will be no more discussions with Spain until a satisfactory solution between the Gibraltarians and ourselves has been arrived at?
    Mr. Thomson: Questions about the discussions with Spain are still questions for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no connection whatever between any talks which may have taken place with Spain in the past and the timing of these constitutional discussions. The only consideration in regard to the constitutional discussions has been the need to do the work of preparation adequately and to settle a timetable related to the interests of the Gibraltarians.

    Falkland Islands
    Sir J Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what machinery he will establish to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands on the status of those islands.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will afford an early opportunity for the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to give official expression of their views on the future of the territory.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from representative bodies in the Falkland Islands for any change in the territory's status; and what steps he now proposes to take to ascertain the wishes of the population in regard to any proposal for the transfer of sovereignty.
    Mr. George Thomson: The position of Her Majesty's Government on all these points has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 26th March and in reply to Questions on 1st April—[Vol. 762, c. 3–5.]—and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for

    1061
    Foreign Affairs in the Adjournment debate on 28th March—[Vol. 761, c. 1868–76.]
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that substantial guarantees have been given to the people of Gibraltar about their position. Will he assure the House that guarantees of no less force are available for the people of the Falkland Islands, and that any effort to ascertain their views will be on the basis of direct franchise rather than on some basis of indirect franchise thought up by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Thomson: As I understand it, the people of the Falkland Islands have direct franchise at present. There will be the fullest consultation with their elected representatives in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council. In answer to the main point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave these substantial guarantees in the speeches to which I referred. For example, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), he said:
    "…the wishes of the islanders are an absolute condition ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 5.]
    Sir F. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that a direct referendum such as took place in Gibraltar is necessary here, will he confirm that that is so because he knows in advance what the answer would be? Second, will he remove from the record of what was said by one of his right hon. Friends in another place the one unfortunate word "immediate", when it was said that there will be no immediate transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the Falkland Islanders? Will he once and for all expunge the word "immediate"?
    Mr. Thomson: As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there has been a great misunderstanding that some fundamental change was imminent here. Nothing of the sort has ever been the case. As regards how the people of the Falkland Islands will be consulted, it is too early to prejudge that question because, first of all, we must have something to consult them about, and we have not reached that stage yet.
    Mr. Marten: In view of his use of the word "imminent", will the Common
    1062
    wealth Secretary expand upon the clarity with which he said his right hon. Friend had dealt with this matter and give an absolute assurance that there will be no change in the status of the Falkland Islands at any time without the consent of the people of the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Thomson: That was exactly what I sought to do in answer to the original Question. I thought that it might have saved time.
    Mr. Braine: In his answer to my original Question, did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he had had no representations whatever from any bodies in the Falkland Islands? If so, since there is no support for cession in the Falkland Islands, will he make early arrangements to ascertain the wishes of the islanders?
    Mr. Thomson: My original Answer did not mean that there had been no representations. We have had a distinguished Member of the Legislative Council of the Falkland Islands in this country.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not place the fate of this country in the hands of the Falkland Islanders?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend, who is an old and doughty fighter for the right of self-determination, will agree with me that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, an absolute condition. At the same time, it would clearly be much in the interests of the Falkland Islanders if they were to feel that there was an acceptable modus vivendi arrived at with their neighbours on the mainland of Latin America 200 miles away.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does not the Minister realise that the Falkland Islands are British, and will he terminate immediately any negotiations with the Argentine about them?
    Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. For the reasons I have just given, I do not think that that would be in the interests of the Falkland Islands.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will launch a British peace initiative to end

    1063
    the Nigerian conflict as suggested by Colonel Ojukwu in his letter dated 12th March to certain hon. Members, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further action he will now take to effect a peaceful settlement between Biafra and the Nigerian Federal Government.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the continuation of the war in Nigeria and the danger of genocide there, what steps he will now take to bring both sides together.
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the report he has received on the outcome of the approach made by the head of the Commonwealth Secretariat to the Nigerian Federal Government, in the light of the latest developments.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further initiative Her Majesty's Government propose to take to bring about mediation in the civil war in Nigeria.
    Mr. George Thomson: We have repeatedly expressed our hopes for a negotiated settlement and an end to the fighting. We have also made it clear that we are ready to consider taking any action which we believe might be helpful in leading to that end. We must of course bear in mind the responsibilities of the Federal Military Government as the government of an independent sovereign state. Moreover there are already a number of peace moves going on, for example by the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the O.A.U. We must be careful not to impede these efforts by well disposed parties which command our ready sympathy. But if the Biafran authorities have any specific proposal which they would like to put to Her Majesty's Government in writing with a view to its being passed on to the Federal authorities, we should be ready to receive it.
    Mr. Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend use the influence he undoubtedly has in Lagos to encourage the Federal Government to move closer to the negotiating position now taken up by Colonel Ojukwu? Does he agree that there must
    1064
    be a limit to the amount of human suffering that the establishment of the 12 States is worth?
    Mr. Thomson: We certainly feel as deeply as my hon. Friend and, I know from the evidence of the Questions, hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about the need to end the suffering in the Nigerian civil war. We have constantly pressed on both sides in it the need to get round the table and negotiate a peaceful settlement, and we are continuing to do so.
    Mr. Lipton: What specific action are Her Majesty's Government taking to use whatever influence they have with anybody to end this very lamentable state of affairs? Can we stand helplessly by and just see these Africans killing themselves?
    Mr. Thomson: We are not standing helplessly by. I assure my hon. Friend that when the history of this tragic episode in Nigeria is written, he will not feel that we have not seized every opportunity to try to bring the fighting to an end.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Would not the most productive move be for Britain to press for a Commonwealth representative, preferably an African, to get both sides together, particularly as the Biafrans are ready to negotiate unconditionally?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend seems to overlook the fact that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, with our complete support, has for months been trying to do exactly that.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister confirm that we would be prepared to co-operate in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, so that the Ibos would not fear further massacres should they lay down their arms?
    Mr. Thomson: I have said in the House on previous occasions that if there were a general desire from Nigeria for a Commonwealth force as part of the settlement of the civil war, we would be ready to consider very carefully whether we could participate in it.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nationalism is the

    1065
    force least subject to reason and argument, that it is causing bloodshed all over the world, and that it is very difficult to have reason applied to it with a view to bringing about a settlement?
    Mr. Thomson: I agree.

    British Honduras
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will convene a conference in London with the representatives of British Honduras, in order to bring about the independence of British Honduras within the Commonwealth.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement upon future constitutional advance in the territory of British Honduras.
    Mr. George Thomson: I would refer to the reply by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State on 3rd April to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).—[Vol. 762, c. 112–13.]
    Mr. Fisher: If the right hon. Gentleman receives a request from the Premier of British Honduras for an independence conference in London later this year will he accede to it without waiting for the result of the American mediation over Guatemala, which is quite a separate matter and in any case has taken a very long time?
    Mr. Thomson: I am happy to give that assurance.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole territory is in a state of ferment over the danger of a forced amalgamation or a putsch to join Guatemala? Can he give the House a pledge that there will be elections in the territory before we ever get near the stage of final independence?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend's question goes a little wide of the original Questions on the Order Paper. There is no question of any forced amalgamation. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), we are waiting for the elected Government of British Honduras to put before us proposals for a constitutional conference.

    Zambia
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions with Zambia to explore the possibilities of signing a treaty of mutual assistance with that country.
    Mr. Whitlock: I am not persuaded that this would be a desirable course.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of any formal defence commitment between this country and Zambia the time has now come for an urgent reappraisal of our policy, particularly in the light of possible military adventures across the Zambesi by the Smith régime, or perhaps by its freelance supporters?
    Mr. Whitlock: We have no reason to believe that there is any possibility of a military incursion across the Zambesi. Although we have in the past received requests from Zambia for defence aid, and the Zambian Government are known to be concerned at their vulnerability to hostile acts from neighbouring countries, they have not raised with us any question of a mutual assistance treaty, and we have no reason to believe that they would wish to discuss one.
    Mr. John Lee: But if the Rhodesians decide to add invasion to their treason shall we come to the assistance of the Zambian Government?
    Mr. Whitlock: As I said, we have no reason to believe that Zambia is likely to be subjected to external attack. If it were the victim of unprovoked aggression Her Majesty's Government would take whatever appropriate and practical action is possible in the circumstances.
    Mr. Wall: What are Her Majesty's Government doing to prevent invasion the other way round, namely, military incursions from Zambia into Rhodesia?
    Mr. Whitlock: These incursions take place quite unofficially. There is no reason to believe that the Zambians, who are concerned with not provoking retaliation from others, should support these at all. The hon. Gentleman will be perfectly aware that the sheer size and physical nature of the borders make

    1067
    it impossible for the security forces in Zambia constantly to keep an eye on the borders.

    Dependent Territories (Executions)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to find out how many cases there have been over the last 10 years in territories under British colonial administration, of executions having taken place one year or more after the accused had been condemned to death.
    Mr. Whitlock: My right hon. Friend is asking the authorities in the Dependent Territories for which he is responsible to provide this information.
    Mr. Hastings: Is it not possible that the answer may be rather inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 18 men sentenced to death in Singapore were executed a year and seven months later, two years and three months after the commission of their offences? Was it not the exception rather than the rule under British colonial administration for a man to be hanged within a year of sentence? Does this situation not give the lie to the hysteria so sedulously cultivated by the Prime Minister in the recent debate on Rhodesia?
    Mr. Whitlock: We have no information to the effect described by the hon. Gentleman. It has been the long-standing policy of successive Secretaries of State to take into consideration the length of time a prisoner has been under sentence of death when advising the Crown about a reprieve.
    Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Fiji (Wages, Incomes and Prices Report)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the report on incomes and prices in Fiji by Professor H. A. Turner.
    Mr. Whitlock: The Report of Professor Turner on wages, incomes and prices
    1068
    policy in Fiji is currently under study by the Fiji Labour Advisory Board on which the Fiji Employers Consultative Association and the Fiji Trades Union Congress are represented. This study is not yet complete.
    Mr. Irvine: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, in the Report, attention is drawn to the fact that unemployment has in the last 10 years increased five times? In these circumstances, should he not do something about it?
    Mr. Whitlock: These are all matters under consideration by the Fiji Government in consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions there. No doubt this point, which was raised in the Report, with all other aspects will receive due weight.

    British Solomon Islands (Expatriate Officers)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken on the representations made in August, 1966 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Designated Permanent and Pensionable Officers Association of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, about pensions and conditions of service.
    Mr. Whitlock: The representations of the Association were investigated by a Staffing Mission from the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development in April, 1967. As a result, the level of expatriate officers' emoluments was substantially increased with effect from April, 1967. The Mission also recommended measures to improve conditions of service in the longer term, and these will be discussed with the staff very shortly.
    Mr. Irvine: In view of the relatively high number of resignations from the service, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is likely to be a future for officers serving the Solomons?
    Mr. Whitlock: As I have indicated, substantial improvements in the current emoluments have been introduced and this provides a breathing space while we are working on a scheme which would retain the experienced staff as necessary to keep the administration going, while

    1069
    meeting their reasonable claims for recognition that their career prospects have suffered.

    Atlantic Free Trade Area
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the United States Government proposals for a feasibility study of a possible Atlantic Free Trade Area.
    Mr. Whitlock: I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 21st March and 5th March respectively.—[Vol. 761, c. 596; Vol. 760, c. 201.]
    Mr. Moyle: Will my hon. Friend not take the opportunity to correct an inadvertently inaccurate statement? United States Ambassador Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on 29th January that his office was studying the project.
    Mr. Whitlock: As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on the last occasion, the newspaper report of what Mr. Roth told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress was exaggerated and taken out of context. The United States Government have said that they are undertaking no such feasibility studies.

  WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to clarify the constitutional position of the Government, relevant to the individual, and to define the rights of individuals in a form of written constitution.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I doubt whether the case so far made out for a written constitution is strong enough to justify my recommending the appointment of such a Royal Commission.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: What has the Prime Minister got against setting out impartially the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution as a safeguard against the constant erosion of the liberty of the subject?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that most hon. Members feel that a written constitution would be in grave danger of infringing the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty and of creating a special category of law which could not be changed by normal legislative process. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the previous Government rejected the Wyatt Report calling for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, or Ombudsman, whereas we accepted it, with the result that the Parliamentary Commissioner is now functioning.
  Mr. Archer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the protection of the individual in United Kingdom public law is to be found in the International Human Rights Convention to which we are a party? May we hope for ratification during Human Rights Year of the two 1966 Human Rights Conventions?
  The Prime Minister: On the first part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend is quite correct. On the latter part I have nothing to add to what has been said before.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the rights of Scottish individuals would best be served by any constitution, written or otherwise, emanating from a Scottish base?
  The Prime Minister: The rights of Scottish individuals are best protected by the vast majority of Scottish Members of this House.
  Mr. McGuire: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to safeguard the liberty of the individual is to extend the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner?
  The Prime Minister: These matters were fully debated during the passage of the legislation and the House has had an opportunity to consider one of the Parliamentary Commissioner's Reports. We want to get more experience of the system and, indeed, the report of the appropriate Select Committee before we consider any changes.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of State at the Ministry of Labour to help deal

  1071
  with the legislation arising out of the Royal Commission on Trades Unions and Employers' Associations.
  The Prime Minister: I have no such appointment in mind, Sir.
  Mr. Ridley: Does not that Answer confirm what the Prime Minister has always thought—that a Royal Commission takes minutes to appoint and years to report? Will he do anything about the Report when he gets it?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the words of the Gracious Speech on this question. Of course we are anxiously awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission, which, I hope, should be ready fairly soon, and we shall then announce our conclusions to the House.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend advance any reason why the Opposition have put forward their own proposals for trade unions before they have even had an opportunity to read the Report?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir—but I thought I saw the Leader of the Opposition trying to get up. Perhaps he will tell us.
  Mr. Heath: I speedily make it clear that I am asking the Prime Minister about the new arrangements concerning the Ministry of Labour. I understand from the Press that it is to be streamlined. In which respects are the functions of the Ministry to be changed and how will this be done? In particular, is the new Secretary of State to retain the statutory duties of conciliation which the Minister of Labour has at present? How is this to work when responsibility for prices and incomes policy is also to be placed upon her? Surely it is this which will cause conflict?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will continue to have all the existing duties, statutory and otherwise, exercised by the Minister of Labour. So far as the changes at the Ministry are concerned, she will now have overall responsibility for the prices and incomes policy, which was previously, of course, in the Department of Economic Affairs. The right hon.
  1072
  Gentleman fears a conflict of duties. This is not involved in the new arrangements because, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, when he was at the Ministry of Labour, dealt on an individual basis with the principal wage claims. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to do that but will also have general co-odinating resonsibility for the policy as set out in the White Paper.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend may well be in a position of having to conciliate in disputes that have come about as a result of the prices and incomes policy?
  The Prime Minister: That is a problem that we have had over many years—[Interruption.]—and only those who do not take seriously economic problems and getting a satisfactory prices and incomes policy laugh at that particular remark. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would have wished us to have yielded to excessive demands in the case of the seamen's strike. We had a very difficult choice. Had we done so it would have cast great doubts on our resolve in the matter of prices and incomes. We had a very costly strike. This is a continuing dilemma for any Government that believes in a prices and incomes policy.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has not answered the question. In the past there have been many cases where Ministers responsible for nationalised industries have been following an incomes policy which has caused conflict, and the Minister of Labour has then been brought in in order to resolve this. This will no longer, be possible, because the same Minister is the cause of the conflict and also has a statutory duty to conciliate. Can the Prime Minister also say in which respects the Ministry of Labour is to be streamlined?
  The Prime Minister: The question of conflict has always been the same. I remember the former Government's prices and incomes policy collapsing because of an extraordinary award in the electricity industry. That was given as a result of conciliation. One remembers also the dilemma they had in 1964 on the Post Office. As to the streamlining,

  1073
  by linking together the responsibility for the, general policy and prices and incomes and its implementation, this will cut out a considerable degree of duplication.

  SOUTH AFRICA (LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LETTER)
  Sir R. Russellasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter he received from the Chairman of the South Africa Executive Committee of the, London Chamber of Commerce, expressing concern at the Government's decision not to supply aircraft and naval vessels to South Africa.
  The Prime Minister: I have replied to the effect that there is no reason to think that United Kingdom exports of non-military goods will be jeopardised by continuing the policy which we have followed since 1964 and that we want this important market to be developed by British exporters.
  Sir R. Russell: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the first two months of this year our exports to South Africa were £4 million less than in the corresponding period last year, and were no higher than our imports? In view of this deteriorating position will be reconsider the whole policy?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our exports in 1967, despite the interference in the concluding months by the dock strike, were £257 million compared with only £236 million in 1964, when the arms embargo was introduced. As to the early months of 1968, obviously they would be affected by the dock strike.
  Mr. John Lee: Could my right hon. Friend do something about reducing imports from South Africa so as to help this country and hurt South Africa at the same time?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In general, obviously devaluation provides an incentive to a general reduction of imports, but I was not thinking that it should be applied in respect of individual countries. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that both exports and imports with South Africa have risen very substantially over the last three years.
  Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that the favourable balance of trade with South Africa, which is what matters, taking both exports and imports into consideration, has steadily declined in 1965–66 and 1967 and in the first two months of this year has declined still further? It is this trend which has to be changed by these additional exports.
  The Prime Minister: I have already commented on the first two months of this year. The imports are now revalued at a higher price, as is general with most of our imports. While we must all have concern about any worsening of trade to all markets, I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the way to fill that gap is to breach the agreement we made with the United Nations, following the decision of the United Nations.

  RHODESIA
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the latest situation in Rhodesia.
  Mr Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the latest developments in Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself in the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 1662, 1545.]
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Since the Government tell us that there is no moral judgment involved in the recognition of reality—HANSARD, 26th February, column 940—will the Prime Minister face the realities of the situation and get back to trading with Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware that it was a policy, even of the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, to support the removal of sanctions at this time. The realities of this situation are that that country is in rebellion and is recognised by no country in the world.
  Mr. Wall: Since the Government claim to govern Rhodesia, what action is the Prime Minister taking to alleviate the worst drought in 40 years which is causing widespread suffering in the rural areas?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he was one of those who criticised it—of the approach I made in 1965, in what was then a serious drought, to the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada. He will also know that the régime refused to receive any help from us on that occasion, although fortunately on that occasion the rains came very quickly after the decision.
  Mr. Heath: I would have thought that the whole House welcomed the lifting of the Press censorship in Rhodesia and would have hoped that it would become permanent? Would the Prime Minister join in that welcome?
  The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome the removal of the Press censorship—I never thought that it should have been imposed. I heard very little criticism of it from many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends while it was in force. I hope that it will now be followed by a very big change on which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, many independent people have commented, in the régime's conditioning of the news by radio and television.
  Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend consider, as a matter of some urgency, holding talks with Zambia to draw up new defence arrangements with that country in view of possible incursions by the rebel régime from Southern Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that I have been in touch with the President of Zambia with regard to an earlier meeting, but a talk about defence arrangements has not been proposed for the agenda.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the National Liberation Front in Vietnam on matters for which this country is responsible as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement.
  The Prime Minister: None directly, Sir, though we are, of course, in touch with our Soviet co-Chairman who in turn is in touch with the National Liberation Front.
  Mr. Fraser: While recognising the delicate state of negotiations at present, will
  1076
  my right hon. Friend accept the widely held view that communications and agreement with indigenous political movements in South Vietnam are essential to a lasting political settlement?
  The Prime Minister: In all my own discussions with Mr. Kosygin I have had very clear evidence that he was in very close touch throughout those talks with the National Liberation Front, as well as with Hanoi. I have no reason to think that that has not been continuous ever since.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the Prime Minister repeat what he previously said, that if it is in the general interest, he will certainly try to call for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. As the noble Lord knows, we have called for this very many times over the last three years. As he will know, the Soviet Government, while accepting its responsibilities as co-Chairman, in the communiqué, feels that the idea of a conference convened by the co-Chairmen at Geneva should follow and not precede agreement between the parties who are now in touch with one another. That is the way in which they would like it handled. We would be ready to do that or to co-operate in any other way in helping the parties concerned with their negotiations.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister press the President to remember that the North Vietnamese position is that peace talks will start, when and only when, the bombing of their country is ended unconditionally?
  The Prime Minister: The President is well aware of the successive statements that have been made by leading figures in Hanoi and by representatives from Hanoi to everyone who has ever met with them, as my hon. Friend has done. He will also be aware that as a result of the President's initiative there has been a further look at this matter by Hanoi.
  I do not underestimate the difficulties or want to exaggerate hopes at this stage. As a result of the large number of contacts, because many countries have been labouring in this vineyard for a considerable period of time, there has been some slight movement closer together. There

  1077
  was a very big movement at the time of San Antonio, by the President of the United States, and there has been a successive slight movement by Hanoi. We must now hope that the contacts that have been established will be productive.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (AMALGAMATION)
  Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister whether, despite the merging of Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs under one Secretary of State, there will continue to be a Minister of Cabinet rank with special responsibility for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies.
  The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 28th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 332 and 1726–31.]
  Mr. Fisher: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that everybody's problems are of tremendous importance to themselves and that in the end everybody wants to see the Secretary of State? Therefore, a large number of junior Minister, is not the complete answer and there will be a tremendous workload on one right hon. Gentleman. Is it not also rather a pity that the Commonwealth should lose the best appointment that probably the right hon. Gentleman has ever made?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do so—for what he has said. As he knows, there will be a Commonwealth Secretary right up to the time of the merger in the autumn. What I said on 28th March was that the position would cease thereafter. The hon. Gentleman knows that virtually throughout the Commonwealth they prefer not to have separate Commonwealth Ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministers, and there are many advantages in the merger from their point of view. Nearly always, when Commonwealth statesmen come to this country, they want to see the Foreign Secretary, because they want to discuss with him many aspects of our relations with third countries.
  Mr. Maudling: Surely the Prime Minister will recognise that there is apprehension in a number of dependent territcries—the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar
  1078
  and possibly Honduras—that the interests of the independent territories may conflict with the interests of foreign policy. Therefore, what can he do to assure those people that their interests will be represented in the Cabinet by someone responsible for representing their interests?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, from the time of the merger, and indeed before the merger, of the Commonwealth and Colonial Offices, at the time of the previous Government, when the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) represented both Departments, he did not have just a single responsibility for the Colonial Territories. But I am absolutely certain—and arrangements can be made to ensure this—that no Government in this country would ever allow the requirements of the dependent territories to be subordinated to any other factor, and whether or not there is a separate Minister makes no difference to that.

B.O.A.C. BOEING 707 (ACCIDENT)
Mr. Corfield Mr. Corfield (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement giving such details as are at present available to him of the circumstances in which a B.O.A.C. Boeing 707, on a flight to Zurich, crashed at Heathrow on 8th April, 1968.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): Yes, Sir.
A Boeing 707 of B.O.A.C. took off in a westerly direction at 1627 hours B.S.T. yesterday en route to Sydney with its first stop at Zurich. Very soon after takeoff the aircraft reported fire in an engine on the port side and asked for an emergency landing. The aircraft was cleared to land on any runway. Whilst it was turning to the left for a landing on runway 05, the engine, which is now known to be the inner port engine, became detached and fell away into a water-filled gravel pit. By this time the fire had spread to the wing structure and continued to burn. The pilot maintained control and landed the aircraft successfully on runway 05 with the wing still on fire. The airport fire and rescue services, which had been alerted and were in position near to the runway, went into

1079
operation as soon as the aircraft came to rest. The fire spread rapidly from the port side and was accompanied by explosions. Passengers were evacuated through exits mainly on the starboard side. Four passengers and one stewardess were killed but the remaining 121 occupants escaped.
A team of investigators from the Accidents Investigation Branch of the Board of Trade began investigating the cause of the accident within two hours with the co-operation of experts from B.O.A.C.
The House will join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives and in wishing a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
The House would also like me to pay the highest possible tribute to the skill of Captain Taylor and his crew, to the rescue services, and to the calmness of the passengers. The prompt evacuation of so many people in such circumstances was a miracle of skill and organisation.
Mr. Corfield: I associate myself and my right hon. hon. Friend with the Minister's expression of sympathy to the bereaved and his congratulations to and admiration of Captain Taylor, the crew and those concerned with the rescue operation for their remarkable achievement in reducing injury and loss of life. May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that their success must, in part, be due to the fact that B.O.A.C. uses aviation kerosene as a fuel and not the more inflammable fuel used by other airlines? Will he do his utmost to press that this should become universal practice for all airlines, or, at any rate, for those operating into airports in this country?
Mr. Mallalieu: The point about kerosene is very well taken.
Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in due course—perhaps sooner than we are thinking at present—the jumbo-jet, with its capacity of 400 passengers, will be with us? In the light of yesterday's disaster, would it not seem necessary now to have a fresh look at the extent and nature of our present safety precautions?
Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the safety drills proved themselves absolutely admirable in this accident.
Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sort of inquiry will be set up into the circumstances of this disaster, which had a miraculously small toll but which might have been very much more serious?
Mr. Mallalieu: The investigation has already started, and we shall go through with it. Whether it will be necessary to have a public inquiry later remains for my right hon. Friend to decide in the light of the facts which are elicited. But the investigation will be so technical—it is totally about the engine—that I rather doubt whether it will be necessary for the inquiry to go public.
Mr. Lubbock: May I associate my party with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved and the congratulations which have been extended to the captain, crew and rescue services?
May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? First, if he is satisfied that this accident might have been a great deal worse if JP4 had been used. will he make fresh approaches to the International Civil Aviation Organisation with a view to having JP4 totally banned from the world's airlines? Secondly, does not this fresh accident illustrate the folly of Sir Giles Guthrie's having cancelled the last ten VC1Os which he had on order? How does he think that the airline will be able to maintain its schedules with the reduced fleet?
Mr. Mallalieu: I have already dealt with the point about the use of kerosene. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about JP4 and will consider it. I spoke to the Chairman of B.O.A.C. at Heathrow last night. He tells me that he will be able quite satisfactorily to keep to the schedules.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Was it not fortunate that the aeroplane took off in a westerly direction over comparatively open country and that the engine fell into a disused gravel pit rather than, as it might have done if the wind had been another way, into a built-up area? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the engine will be recovered from the gravel pit so that tests can be made on it?
Mr. Mallalieu: I understand that it has already been recovered.
Mr. Fortescue: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? Since five lives were lost in this disaster, surely there should be a public inquiry, no matter how technical the cause of the accident.
Mr. Mallalieu: My mind is certainly not closed to the possibility of having a public inquiry. But we will go through the usual procedure first of having an ordinary straightforward investigation and then see what happens.

COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER
3.39 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a charter of rights for council tentants.
It has been my great privilege to introduce six Private Members' Bills. Two of them dealt exclusively with the protection of house owners and, as a consequence, I hope that house owners have some measure of protection against substandard building and the bankruptcy of building firms and that the standard of building has been considerably increased.
The other Bill affecting house owners which I submitted to this House dealt with the high cost of house and land conveyancing. Today, however, I ask leave of the House to submit a modest Bill that establishes a charter of rights for council house tenants.
There are a million council house tenants in England and Wales, and we are building 200,000 new council houses each year. New problems have arisen over the last 20 years creating a situation in which council house tenants are no longer a privileged section of our community. Indeed, in many respects they are rapidly becoming orphans of the storm. They are faced with many new problems arising from the enlargement of authorities, making local councillors more and more remote on huge council estates. They are very much affected by the recent increases in council rents varying from 20 per cent., 50 per cent., and 70 per cent. in the Greater London area over three years. In consequence, a rising tide of discontent has been sweeping great council estates in this country leading to unfortunate campaigns such as rent strikes and marches on councils.
It is clear that large numbers of council tenants feel exploited and frustrated. They have many new problems. Apart from the problem of increased rents, there are the problems of amenities from shortage of telephones to shortage of schools, lack of maintenance and repairs on council estates, air pollution, smells and dust from local factories, and shortage of doctors' surgeries and chemists' shops on council estates. As new council estates are built up and established, new problems arise which demand new ideas from

1083
this House and, in my view, new rights for council tenants.
Many of the difficulties created for council tenants can be laid if there is machinery whereby their legitimate protests and grievances can be ventilated. My modest Bill, which I hope the House will permit me to introduce, does not in any way attempt to undermine the democracy of local government. It does not in any way try to create new institutions and new machinery that will interfere with the legal statutory rights of our local authorities. I propose the establishment of small tribunals comprised of representatives of the tenants, the rate payers and the local council presided over by an independent chairman with professional qualifications. These small tribunals would be established by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in each local authority area. A local authority which decided to increase local rents would submit its proposals to the tribunal, and political parties and recognised groups of tenants' organisations would have the right to argue their case against these increases by explaining how anomalies had arisen for them and the people they represent.
The local council, through its housing committee representative, would open the books and try to prove that it has to balance its budget and show why it is compelled by law to make these rent increase recommendations. The tribunal will have no legal authority. It will look into the grievances of the tenants and analyse the right of the local authority to allocate subsidies as it thinks best and balance its budget. The tribunal will have the right to make a report to the Minister—the report will be published—and the Minister will then decide. This is essentially an advisory body to deal with and report on the mounting problems which arise from anomalies in rent increases which are causing so much discontent among hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
The next proposal in the Bill is the establishment of a housing advisory committee which will meet regularly and will
1084
be representative of recognised political parties, tenants' associations and rate payers. It will have a continuous dialogue dealing with the problems of council house tenants. This will be a means of communication between councillors, the housing committee and the tenants in these great housing estates. It will merely extend the accountability. It will in no way interfere with local government democracy. It is an extension of the means of communication which will perhaps allay the discontent that is undoubtedly sweeping through the great council estates of this country.
I seek to introduce a very modest Bill. It tries essentially to deal with new problems which have arisen from the enlargement of local government. It is our intention in future to regionalise local government. This will bring more and more problems and make the tenants more and more remote from their council representatives. Some of the constituencies represented by councillors in these great new areas of local government are larger than Parliamentary constituencies, so how can a councillor deal with the many problems which arise for council tenants? The number of council houses under the control of some of our big councils has increased to 150,000. Therefore, to deal with these new problems I should like to submit this modest Bill which I think will go a long way to appease the difficulties and allay some of the suspicions and frustrations which are so widespread in this country. Therefore, I now seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Milne, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Horner, Mr. Will Owen, Mr. Woof, Mr. Archer, Mr. Newens, Mr. Rhodes, and Mr. Heffer.

COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER
  COUNCIL TENANTS' CHARTER
  Bill to establish a charter of rights for council tenants, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on 10th May, 1968, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Richard Crossman be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Fred Peart be added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
3.50 p.m.
Mr. David Steel Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Member knows that this Motion has been introduced under Standing Order No. 13?
Mr. Steel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I want to help the hon. Member. He may make a speech in opposition to the Motion, but it must be a speech under the Ten-Minute Rule. It must be a brief speech.
Mr. Steel: I do not propose to divide the House on the Motion, but I should like to say a few words about it. The House does not have enough opportunity to debate the way in which we run the House and the facilities that are provided for hon. Members to conduct their business. Many hon. Members will be in sympathy with me in seeking this limited opportunity, when we are appointing a new Chairman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must oppose the Motion. He cannot talk about Select Committees in general. The Motion proposes to substitute one name for another. The hon. Member must now give reasons why he is opposed to the Motion.
Mr. Steel: In that case I am required to oppose the Motion on the ground that I wish the status quo to be maintained. I am not in favour of a new Chairman of the Select Committee on Services. My reason for this is that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), before he was appointed
1086
Leader of the House, was known to us all as a man who was interested in Parliamentary reform. He was known to be interested in the procedures of the House and in the facilities afforded to hon. Members. As such, his appointment as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Services Committee was most appropriate.
I have great personal affection for the new Leader of the House, but his qualifications for being Chairman of the Services Committee are not known to me. He is not known to me to have campaigned for the rights of ordinary Members, and I submit that there are several matters affecting the business of the House, and the manner in which we run the House of Commons, which ought to be of concern to anyone who is seeking appointment by the House as Chairman of the Select Committee on Services.
Many members of the public are shocked when they learn of the lack of facilities to carry out our business—
Mr. Speaker: Some other occasion must be found for that speech. This is a narrow debate.
Mr. Steel: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will have a chance to reply to this debate.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to reply to it.
Mr. Steel: In that case, I am wasting my sweetness on the desert air, because my object in speaking was to bring the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box to show how enthusiastic he was to reform our facilities and to improve them. I hope that he will have these feelings when he takes up his new appointment.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COUNTRYSIDE [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enlarge the functions of the Commission established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and to make provision as respects the countryside it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any payments by way of allowance to members of any committee concerned with Wales or Monmouthshire.—[Mrs. White.]
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I should like to refer to the Money Resolution in the very narrow sense in which it has to be discussed. It is being changed this afternoon to make special provision for the payment by Parliament of certain moneys to certain people working for the Commission in Wales.
  We shall not oppose the Money Resolution, but I must point out that during the passage of the Bill we were debarred from asking for a separate Commission for Wales because of the restrictive nature of the Money Resolution. We would have liked the Money Resolution to have gone further. Indeed, as I think is known by the Government Front Bench, we would have liked to have had a separate Commission for Wales.
  I hope later to be able to move a new Clause and an Amendment to the Countryside Bill, and I shall seek then to show where we think the Government have gone wrong in this matter.
  3.54 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman has done so. The main argument which arises can best be dealt with when we are discussing various new Clauses to the Countryside Bill. I hope that the House will welcome the Money Resolution, which extends the purview of the Bill in a way which makes possible further developments in the Principality. I shall reserve the argument of substance for later in our discussions.
  Question put and agreed to.

  COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have posted up a list of selected Amendments, but since I came to the Chair I have had some further suggested groupings of Amendments, and for the benefit of the House perhaps I might mention an early one. When we come to new Clause 1, we shall be taking with it, or it is suggested we should take with it, Amendments 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 83, which I gather are kindred.

  COUNTRYSIDE BILL
    New Clause No. 18.

      EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
      (1) The Commission shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint a Committee for Wales.
      (2) The membership of the Committee for Wales shall consist partly of persons who are members of the Commission, one of whom shall be the chairman of the Committee, and partly of persons, not exceeding four in number, who are not members of the Commission.
      (3) The Commission may, after consulting the Secretary of State and subject to such conditions as they think appropriate, delegate any of their functions in Wales or Monmouthshire to the Committee for Wales, including (for Wales and Monmouthshire) their advisory functions under section 2 of this Act, and their duty of making recommendations under that section in respect of local authorities' applications for Exchequer grants.
      (4) So much of section 2(3) of the Act of 1949 as authorises the payment of allowances in respect of the matters listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that subsection shall apply as if all the members of the Committee for Wales were members of the Commission.—[Mrs. White.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause gives substance to the general line of argument which I followed when we discussed this matter in Committee Upstairs. It makes provision for a separate Committee for Wales of the new Countryside Commission. In Committee we had a good deal of discussion about the best way of dealing with the

      1089
      real problems which have arisen, and can arise in the future, in the Principality.
      As the House may know, a large proportion of Wales is already designated as a National Park, or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Discussions are proceeding on the possible designation of another large area in Mid-Wales as another National Park, and this fact of itself must give rise to the consideration that Welsh opinion and Welsh interests should be more specifically provided for than they are under the organisation of the present National Parks Commission, which is the forerunner of the Countryside Commission provided for under the Bill.
      We have two eminent Welsh members on the National Parks Commission, and we are extremely grateful to them for the work they do, and the advice they give, particularly with regard to Welsh problems, but, with the extended functions of the new Countryside Commission which is being provided for under the Bill, it seemed to the Secretary of State for Wales and to his colleagues that some more specific arrangement was desirable. Naturally we considered whether a completely separate Countryside Commission for Wales would be the best form of organisation, but, after considerable deliberation, and consultation with Lady Wootton and her colleagues, we came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory arrangement would be to have a separate Committee, but that it should be an organic part of the total organisation for England and Wales.
      The reasons for this are partly a matter of economy, not only of money, but of manpower. We did not feel that it was necessary, or desirable, to aftempt to duplicate in Wales the complete apparatus of research, information, and so on, which is at the disposal of the Commission, and will be at the disposal of the new Countryside Commission. This seemed to be wasteful, because there are many respects in which experience gained in one part of the country is valid in another, and even more so where comparisons of experience in different parts of the country can be extremely useful and rewarding.
      4.0 p.m.
      Scientific matters, such as biology, ornithology, botany, geology and so on, know
      1090
      no political boundary, and the learned people on the staff of the Commission and those who give their services and advice to it can be used to the fullest possible benefit if there is a combined organisation for some of these purposes. We therefore came to the conclusion, on these grounds, that an entirely separate commission was not in the best interests either of England or of Wales. Furthermore, we are all well aware that a large number of those who enjoy the beauties and the natural interests of Wales come from across the border, and it is right that their interests as consumers, if one might call them such, should be taken into consideration, provided that local interests are given their fullest expression and weight. This is another reason for having a combined organisation.
      We suggest in the new Clause that, by having a separate Committee of the Commission, we shall make the best of both worlds. We shall retain the right to use the resources of the Commission, but we shall have a separate body for Wales with the duty of taking special account of Welsh interests and opinions.
      In subsection (2), we suggest that membership of the Committee should consist partly of persons who are members of the Commission, one of whom shall be the chairman of the Committee, and partly of persons who are not members of the Commission, not exceeding four in number. This seems to be a reasonable pattern. We shall of course expect to retain on the main Commission the Welsh members who now sit there, and one would expect that they would be members of the Welsh Committee. In addition, we might well expect other members of the main Commission with special interests in the work in Wales including scientific interests, also to be members of the Committee. We have left the number imprecise because, with the variation in membership of the main Commission, it would be unwise to be too rigid in the matter. It depends from time to time upon the interests and experience of the different members participating at any given moment. On the other hand, experience has shown that, if it is to be effective, a body of this sort should not be too large. Hence, the proposal that four members should be appointed to the Committee which we think would be about the right number

      1091
      to cover the various areas of the Principality.
      We have now to consider what the Committee should do. We have suggested that various powers, duties and responsibilities may be delegated from the main Commission to the Welsh Committee after consultation with the Secretary of State, who will also be consulted about the composition of the Committee. We have suggested, by way of example, one or two important powers that might be so delegated. It seems to us desirable not to make an extensive list. If one does so and excludes anything, either by inadvertence or because it is an activity which has not yet become prominent in the work of the Commission, one may be supposed deliberately to be leaving it out. It seemed to us better to give examples only of the kind of work which might be delegated, rather than to attempt to make an all-inclusive list. The examples given are very important ones, namely, the whole gamut of advisory functions under Clause 2, and the other obvious one of making recommendations to the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of applications for Exchequer grant that might come from local authorities in Wales and Monmouthshire.
      In this way the matter is left flexible so that, as experience indicates, other spheres and other duties may in due course be added or may be included from the outset. We feel that this should be a matter which the Commission should consider with the Secretary of State and with the members who have been appointed to the Welsh Committee before hard and fast decisions are reached. The new Clause as drafted leaves this open for consideration. It is open also for development in the way in which experience shows to be best.
      Finally, in subsection (4) provision is made, which is now included in the Money Resolution, that the normal allowances may be paid to members of the Welsh Committee as they are now paid to members of the Commission. I should perhaps make it clear that power already exists, if desired and agreed by the Treasury, to pay remuneration to members of the full Commission. At the present time the chairman and the deputy chairman only receive such pay
      1092
      ment. Under the provisions already in existence members of the Commission would be eligible for such payments, including the chairman of the Welsh Committee, if it were decided that the chairman should receive some honorarium for services rendered. The amount is not laid down in the Statute; it is a matter for negotiation with the Treasury. As I say, at the moment only the chairman and the deputy chairman of the main commission receive an honorarium. We would consider that, by negotiation, it might well be decided that the chairman of the Welsh Committee should also receive a suitable honorarium, in addition to the normal out-of-pocket allowances for expenses actually incurred. In this way we are making suitable arrangements for the new Welsh Committee, and I am sure the whole House would wish it well.
      Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we are taking with the new Clause the two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), in line 7, and new Clause 5—"Separate divisions for Wales and Monmouth". If the hon. Member so desires, I am prepared to allow a Division on his first Amendment.
      Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the House is interested in what the Minister of State has said today about the position of Wales under the Bill. However, I must point out to the House that, as the Bill was originally drafted, it was not the Government's intention to give Wales a committee of the Countryside Commission, or a Commission of its own. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and myself spoke in favour of the need for Wales to have a separate commission to administer the provisions of the Bill in Wales. My view has not changed since 10th November, when we had Second Reading. At that time, the Government were firmly of the opinion that Wales did not need a separate commission or committee. That is well shown by what the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading. However, during the Committee stage of the Bill, we saw the Government changing their position gradually. We do not know why that should have been, but

      1093
      I will come in a moment to some of the possible reasons.
      First, they talked of the possibility of an office. Then they talked about an administrative post. Now they have come, dragging their feet, as far as a committee. In Committee on 30th November, we heard the Minister of State for Wales say that the Chairman of the National Parks Commission had said months ago that it had proposed an office to carry out work in Wales, Yet, on 10th November, neither Minister made mention of it on Second Reading. As I say, that they set their faces against any concession to Wales.
      What, then, had happened to the proposals from Lady Wootton, the Chairman of the National Parks Commission, during that period and earlier? I think that it is fair and reasonable to ask the Government if the liaison between the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was not somewhat imperfect, or if pressure from local authorities and other organisations in Wales had started to have its effect.
      During Second Reading, the hon. Lady explained in column 67 some of the reasons why the Minister had not been properly briefed. She said that she was away from London. But surely it shows that the Government had no appreciation of the fact that men and women in Wales felt the need for a special commission or committee with the extended functions contained in this Bill. I explained why we thought that Wales should have a separate commission. Many organisations of a different character have their dual counterparts in Wales, and that fact is often the secret of their success. I will not read to the House the long list of dual committees of this sort. I give only two examples, because they are indicative of the problem and perform functions similar to those which will be carried out under the provisions of the Bill.
      The first is the Welsh Land Settlement Society, which was set up before the war to deal with the problems of unemployed miners. The English Land Settlement Society and the Welsh one are totally separate but, at the same time, they perform the same functions. My second example is the National Committee of the Forestry Commission in Wales. The
      1094
      members are all Welsh and, in dealing with a very difficult problem in view of the conflicting demands of agriculture and forestry, the Committee has worked reasonably well. I am certain that in this way many more people in the Principality feel personally interested in the successful outcome of any venture or project, and it has always been wise for Governments to take advantage of local and national patriotism for successful administration.
      In Committee, however, the hon. Lady was somewhat crushing on the subject and accused my hon. Friends and me of jumping on to the separatist bandwagon. If she had read the Order Paper which was available to the House at the time of Second Reading, she would have realised that there was no foundation for her remark. An Amendment in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Carmarthen appeared on the Order Paper declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill, but it was not supported by my hon. Friends and me. Therefore, evidence to the contrary was available. But, as I say, it may be that I do her an injustice, since she was out of London on the day in question and was not able to be present during Second Reading to inform her hon. Friends.
      Although my hon. Friends and I may speak in much the same vein today as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, we do not share with the hon. Gentleman the policy of economic separatism. We never have and certainly we do not at present. That does not alter the fact, however, that we believe that the sort of matter covered by the Bill should be dealt with in Wales by Welsh people, particularly as the Bill will have such a wide effect on the countryside. If it is to succeed, we have to, have good will between those who live in the countryside and those from abroad and from our great cities who want to enjoy it.
      4.15 p.m.
      The Government's new Clause goes some way towards that for which we ask. However, it does not go far enough, and that is the purpose of the Amendment and the new Clause which my hon. Friends and I have tabled. In practice, the Government will find that, as the Committee

      1095
      evolves and as matters concerning the various functions come before the scrutiny of the Committee and the Secretary of State for Wales, sooner or later they will come to the conclusion that it would be preferable to establish a separate commission.
      In order to entice and encourage the Government a little further along that path, our Amendment says that, after consulting the Secretary of State, the Commission shall delegate all functions in Wales and Monmouth to the Committee for Wales. I cannot see what is wrong with that Amendment. It merely follows out the argument that I have advanced, which is that matters in Wales are attended to far better by Welsh people, and we think that they will be dealt with more competently, economically and speedily. That is why we say that it should be mandatory on the Commission to delegate all its functions after consulting the Secretary of State.
      New Clause 5 is reasonable and realistic. After all, it is a nominated council, and rightly so on this occasion. Having come so far with us as regards the choosing of the Committee, the very least that the Government can do is to agree one step further and consent to this practical and sensible measure of devolution. With its rich potential to the visitor, the walker, the pony trekker and the nature lover, Wales deserves no less.
      Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I want to support the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) in his amendment. I notice that no hon. Members are present today to speak for Scotland, and there is a simple reason for that. The matter has already been settled in Scotland, and Scotland has a Commission. Again, I see no hon. Member present to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland, and the reason is that Northern Ireland has her Government. However, Wales is to remain a nation without a Government and, as matters stand at present, we are to be without a countryside commission. That is no way to treat a nation.
      The Government must make a greater effort to adapt themselves to the fact that on this island we have not one nation but three—
      Mr. James Dempsey: Four.
      Mr. Evans: In these islands, there are four. In this island there are three.
      In Committee, the Minister of State gave reasons why Wales, in her opinion, should not have its own commission. As far as I can see, each one of her reasons applies equally to Scotland, but I did not notice any opposition to the Scots having their own separate commission. In these circumstances, it seemed to me that these reasons were only special pleading. They certainly failed to take into account the fundamental fact that we have in Wales a nation, and that Wales herself is the homeland of that nation, and no less than one-third of the area of that homeland is now taken up by national parks.
      In reply to the debate on the Second Reading, the Minister gave as the main reason, as I understood him, for denying Wales a Commission the fact that Wales has this great area in her national parks. But surely from the Welsh standpoint this argument is wholly unconvincing, even perverse; because the fact that so large an area is included in national parks in Wales is a fact that should make a Welsh Commission imperative. The arguments deployed against the Commission are so weak that they seem to confirm the Welsh people in their suspicions that we are denied a Commission, not so much because we may be more easily helped, as has been stated on behalf of the Government, but because we may thereby be more easily exploited. But whatever the reason the Government are denying Wales this measure of self-rule.
      There is at present no autonomy even in this field. It is true that they have now come to the position where we are to have a few Welsh people in a committee with others dealing with Wales, but this does not change the character of the committee and certainly does not change the character of the control. By throwing a few currants into a rice pudding one may change the flavour of the pudding, but one does not alter its character; and that is the situation here, as I see it. The control remains precisely where it was and we still have here a committee which, as far as the Welsh are

      1097
      concerned, is without any real responsibility. We have here still a situation of tutelage; in fact, the old imperial relationship all over again. This, as the Government now propose it, is to be a kind of advisory committee with a Welsh flavour. We have in Wales a plethora of these advisory bodies, but they amount to no more than a bit of window dressing. The power of decision has always been retained where it was, in the hands of gentlemen sitting in Whitehall, and we see what a mess they have made of the job of governing Wales.
      The Welsh people are getting sick and tired of this rule from Whitehall and of our subordinate relationship which has been continually described by hon. and right hon. Members as one of "co-operation" or of "partnership". In this context the words "co-operation" and "co-partnership" are certainly overworked euphemisms for something else, but in themselves they are relationships that can exist only between autonomous people, between equals. But the partnership between Wales and England today is like co-partnership between Jonah and the Whale.
      We are considering in this debate the future administration of a great part of the area of the land, of the soil, of Wales. The Welsh people approach this question conscious of a background of which many hon. Members may be oblivious and I would like to give a few examples of why the Welsh people look with some suspicion, or at least lack of confidence, on the proposals of the Government.
      I remember being engaged in the struggle for Mynydd Epynt, the mountain range and valleys taken over by the War Office when they threw out 400 Welsh speaking people and took 30,000 acres of land which had been occupied by those farmers since time immemorial, and moved the linguistic border in some 10 miles on that occasion. That was done in the teeth of the unanimous opposition of the people there, opposition in which I am proud to have taken some part.
      Then there was the case of Tryweryn, where a Welsh community was scattered and destroyed and the valley drowned, despite the almost unanimous opposition of the Welsh people. On that occasion
      1098
      most hon. Members in this House from Wales voted against the Measure, only one hon. Member from Wales voted in favour and yet the Measure was carried overwhelmingly; such is our democracy in Wales, a democracy where the Government can override our united constitutional action and can treat our democratic and political action with some contempt.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must come to the Clause.
      Mr. Evans: I am trying to illustrate why people in Wales feel some lack of confidence in the proposal made by the Government here. I hope my next example will be right on the point, Mr. Speaker. It is taken from the Upper Towy Valley where the Forestry Commission propose to take some 40,000 acres to plant, as a first instalment of planting nearly 1 million acres in Wales. The opposition had more success this time. Success has not always been obtained in opposing measures taken by the Forestry Commission. I mention this example because the Government now propose to set up in Wales a Committee which resembles the Committee which the Forestry Commission has.
      If the Government have more sympathy with and more knowledge of Wales they would realise what a very unhappy precedent this is. Of course, everything is done for the good of Wales; for our good we are to have a rural board imposed upon us against our will, and equally for our good we are apparently to be denied a countryside commission, although we want that very badly. In the words of the song, "When will they ever learn?". When will they ever learn that Wales is a nation and deserves to be treated as a nation, and deserves the right to live as a nation her own national life? When will they ever learn that the era of Empire is over?
      This is what we want to impress on the Government on this issue. It may be that the Government are too far gone in their dream of Wales, because I believe there is a Whitehall view of Wales. That is illustrated in this proposal which the Government now makes in the matter of the Countryside Commission. It is a view which sees Wales as a lovely but silent playground for those who live in urban complexes elsewhere, without

      1099
      industrial roads and railways, beautiful but depopulated, her hills under miles of pine trees, her valleys drowned, with a few natives living affluently in what the Ministry of Agriculture would call "commercial units". But there is a new national self-respect in Wales, a new determination that Wales is to live as a nation with her own institutions and not only a countryside commission. We must be fully equipped with all the institutions which pertain to nationhood, and those must include, of course, in the first place a Government for our people.
      Mr. Tudor Watkins: I do not know on what previous occasion I was one of the odd currants coming into the hon. Gentleman's rice pudding, but I am glad to do so whatever may happen under the code of conduct on this side of the House, for I must say I prefer the new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) to the Amendment of the Government. At the end of the debate I shall have to look at my conscience in that respect but I feel that the argument is far more in favour of new Clause 5 than of the Clause put forward by the Minister of State for Wales. To be perfectly honest on this, I wish I could follow the illustration given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), because I would just have said that on the evidence of those illustrations—although it was out of order—I was fully 100 per cent. behind those campaigns, though I had better not refer to them.
      An important aspect, first of all, is that I do not like the wording of the Amendment of the Minister of State, because I much prefer that all the functions should be given to the Welsh Committee, and not only particular functions, because who is to decide which functions those shall be? I was not very satisfied about the illustration of functions given by the Minister and I should know something about the functions because I am Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Brecon Beacons National Park under the National Commission. I am not going to say we suffer under the present Commission, but it would be better if we had our own Commission.
      1100
      4.30 p.m.
      If this Committee is formed, will its offices be in Wales and, if so, where? I suppose that, as usual, they will be in a national park, and I suggest that Brecon would be a good centre. I, too, pay a tribute to members of the National Parks Commission, Mr. Elwyn Jones and Dr. Margaret Davies, and also to another member from Brecon, Mr. John de Winton, who has served very well on the Commission. I leave to conjecture the reason why he was pushed out.
      Will the membership of the Committee be drawn from the present Commission or from outside? Whoever serves on it should know its functions. Will it decide estimates for the various park authorities and the national parks themselves, or will they be determined by the Commission? The Welsh Office deals with grants of Government expenditure to the national parks and there is no difficulty about going to Whitehall, so why should not the Committee have these functions?
      I hope that the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book because of the grants for administration which it will give. I hope that the Front Bench will have second thoughts about which of these Clauses is better for Wales. I suggest that it is new Clause 5 and not the other.
      Mr. Emlyn boson: If Wales is rich in anything, it is in committees. To be a member of a committee is a national disease. As the English follow football and racing, the Welsh seem to follow committees. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) said, we have a plethora of committees with very little power. It has become a tactic of Government, when faced with the pressure of criticism that they do not acknowledge Wales' national existence and separate social and cultural patterns, to give us a committee. Yet another is proposed here, which will have some crumbs of power at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission is a nominated body, but it will have discretion, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to delegate some functions to the Committee.
      This is an absolute sham. The Government had no intention of granting Wales anything. Scotland had not only a separate Commission but separate legislation to create it. I have heard and read

      1101
      nothing to show how Wales is different in this respect. What justification is there for this different treatment? The Government have been under pressure by me and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, which was followed up in Committee by the hon. Members for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones), and they have slowly given way. Now they bring forward the minimum possible proposal, a committee with no absolute powers of its own, and this is not good enough.
      The new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford is preferable to that of the Government. One does not have to be an economic separatist to recognise the need for a separate Welsh Commission. No one has attacked the concept of economic separatism more than I or been attacked more by the Welsh Nationaist Party, but that does not prevent us from agreeing on subjects like this.
      No one doubts that Wales has its own social and cultural pattern. Does the Minister of State suggest that the Prime Minister was jumping on the separatist bandwagon when he created the office of Secretary of State for Wales, thus acknowledging that Wales needed separate treatment for some purposes? Why, then, have the Government refused to grant Wales what they granted Scotland? A far greater proportion of the land of Wales is in the national parks than is the case in England or Scotland—[An. HON. MEMBER: "There is none in Scotland."]—I am grateful. This adds strength to my suggestion that, if we are to have separate treatment for anything, it should be on this kind of subject.
      The people of Wales are concerned about the land and the national parks which they want developed in a certain way. Why should we be controlled by Whitehall? Why should the Government be so stupid as well as so mean as to propose this Committee? I was not a Member of the Committee, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who took up the cudgels in Committee. I entirely support the new Clause of the hon. Member for Hereford and hope that he will press it to a Division.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: I suppose that second thoughts are better than none, and the Government have at least advanced from a flat refusal to
      1102
      recognise that Wales deserved some special body to this tiny concession of a committee. Also, a partial concession is better than one, but that is all that can be said for this proposal. The Minister of State must feel very uncomfortable about this. After all, she represents a Welsh constituency and is Minister of State, Welsh Office.
      I would go a little further than the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) or the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I think that this is a deplorable failure by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office. Where were they when this Bill was being considered and drafted? Did they not assert in some small degree the interests of Wales? There has been no argument to justify this remarkable distinction between the Scottish and the Welsh machinery.
      We in Wales have a separate gas board and some of us would have liked to have had a separate electricity board. There were reasonably strong economic arguments why such a board should not be established, but there are no similar economic arguments why we should not have a separate Countryside Commission for Wales. While I do not share the separatist views of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, I warn the Government that by their disregard of the reasonable aspirations of the people of Wales they are supplying magnificent material for separatist views. I hope, therefore, that they will have third thoughts on this subject and will revise the Bill because the establishment of a puny, worthless Committee of this sort will not be acceptable to Wales, even if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery regards it as a concession.
      Mr. Hooson indicated dissent.
      Mr. Gower: Perhaps a concession is better than nothing, but I hope that this concession merely postpones the day when a separate Commission will be established for Wales. Indeed, I hope that the Conservative Party will make it clear that it will be our policy to establish such a Commission when we are re-elected to power.
      There has been unanimity in the speeches made so far today by Conservatives, Liberals and the Plaid Cymru. Even the hon. Member for Brecon and

      1103
      Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) is against the Minister. I hope that the hon. Lady will persuade the Government to agree to the moderate proposals put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt).
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that he did not believe in any form of separatism. I suspect that some of his arguments, if carried to their logical conclusion, would lead to at least a form of separatism. I had the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee which discussed the Bill and I fear that we might see developing a sort of Dutch auction between the parties as to which one will gain the separatist vote. There is a marked contradiction between the arguments now being advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite and the actions they performed when they were in power. I admit that I was not able to be in my place at the beginning of this discussion but, as I say, I had the advantage of being a Member of the Committee upstairs.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman rightly admitted that he did not have the advantage of hearing the speeches made earlier today. I assure him that, speaking for the Conservative Party, I made it clear that we do not agree with economic separatism. If he is considering what my Party did when we were in power, I suggest that if he looks at the record he will find a long list of functions which were carried out for the first time by separate bodies of the type we want to see established, all introduced during our period in office.
      Mr. Anderson: But nothing as significant as the establishment as the office of the Secretary of State for Wales. That capped them all.
      I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind the danger of conducting a sort of Dutch auction for the separatist vote and of making promises when in opposition which they will not carry out if unhappily, they are ever returned to power.
      In Committee I spoke against the "Mark I" draft of the Bill in which it was suggested that Wales should not be given separate treatment. I then ex
      1104
      pressed pleasure at the concession made by the Government and I reiterate that today. It means that we in Wales will have the best of both worlds, since we will not be excluded from, for example, the research facilities which will be available in the United Kingdom as a whole and since we will have enough devolution to ensure that the interests of Wales are maintained. I hope that there will be scope for further devolution. Since the hon. Member for Barry mentioned that not a voice on this side of the House had been raised in support of the Government, I rise to assure my hon. Friend that she has my support in making this concession.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hooson: Although the hon. Gentleman does not want Wales to be excluded from the benefits of research, is he suggesting that the Scottish Commission will be excluded from the research carried out in England?
      Mr. Anderson: I mentioned research as an example and referred to the benefits which would accrue as a result of the sharing of experience. I am, therefore, happy to see this half-way house for Wales, which is represented by the concession, and I believe that, as a result of it, we will have the best of both worlds.
      Mr. J. Idwal Jones: No one will say that I am a separatist. I am certainly not a political nationalist, although I am a cultural nationalist because I want to preserve all the things that I regard as important for Wales. I must admit, therefore, that I am rather unhappy about new Clause 18. After all, there is an established tradition between Whitehall and Wales in certain functions. For example, we have the National Library of Wales. We have had a Welsh Department of the Ministry of Education for a longer number of years. The existence of those separate bodies does not deprive us of information from the national set-up. In addition, we have the National Museum of Wales. I therefore cannot understand why we cannot have a separate Countryside Commission for Wales and Monmouthshire. With these few observations, I leave the matter to my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Mrs. White: I have been accused of feeling uncomfortable, but I assure the

      1105
      hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the contrary is the case, for I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) that the proposal in the Government new Clause represents the best of both worlds for Wales. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) referred to Jonah and the whale, but Jonah did rather well out of the whale; he had a free trip with all found, I suggest, therefore, that we follow Jonah's example and benefit from the whale.
      We believe that by following the Government's proposal we will have the advantages of the English and the Welsh establishment. We will also have the advantages of the separate Welsh Committee. The two Amendments to the new Clause simply represent another way of rejecting it because if all the functions were obligatorily delegated one would have a separate commission, since no functions would be left. They are, therefore, alternative ways of saying the same thing.
      The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) made two points which were entirely in favour of the Government's approach. He suggested that as the work of the new Countryside Commission evolved we would find different fields of approach and of development. This is why the new Clause leaves the matter flexible, so that in the light of experience we can see that the functions of the Committee develop in the way which is of the greatest benefit.
      He also said that the work should be competently and economically dealt with. It would be completely uneconomic and incompetent to duplicate a great deal of work, which would have to be done if we had completely separate organisations. What we are proposing is emphatically in the best interests of the Principality. I remind the hon. Member far Caernarvon, among others, that it is not an English Minister in Whitehall but a Welsh Minister in Cardiff who will take the decisions on which the advice will be given, for example, on grants to local authorities in Wales.
      Broadly, the Commission is not an executive body; it has relatively few executive functions. There are two schools of thought about this and it might have been otherwise, but it is provided that the main executive functions will be with the local authorities. The Com-
      1106
      mission will have relatively few executive functions and its work will be mostly concerned with research, information, advice, persuasion, education and the like. As to executive matters, one of the main duties of the Commission will be to undertake experimental schemes. I am glad to let the House know that in preparation for this work the Commission has been considering its first priorities for experimental schemes, and they are both to be in Wales. We see the advantage which we can gain: if we had separate Commissions, at least one of these schemes would have been in England.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: In Committee we were told definitely by the Minister of State that no money would be available from the Government for this purpose. How can she now say that the first two examples will be in Wales? Could she tell us, first, where they are to take place in Wales and, secondly, when?
      Mrs. White: I can certainly tell the hon. Member where. I shall leave to my right hon. Friend to say when. The first is a proposed mountain land management experimental scheme which will be in the Snowdonia area. The Secretary of State has recently purchased Snowdon and part of its surroundings. It is very appropriate that this experimental scheme should take place on what used to be the Vaynol Estate. The other will be at Dale, in Pembrokeshire, where experimental work will be undertaken on a new type of day-visitor centre.
      When we have a Commission which has overall responsibility, Wales can sometimes do exceedingly well. If we had the complete separatism which has been advocated in certain quarters, in all probability we should lose the very valuable services of some most distinguished people in the scientific and amenity fields. To mention an example, Mr. James Fisher, deputy chairman of the Commission, who takes the most intense interest in the problems of conservation and natural life in Wales—
      Mr. Hooson Mr. Hooson rose—
      Mrs. White: No, I am not giving way to any hon. Member.
      Mr. Hooson: The Scots are misguided?
      Mrs. White: The Scots may well find they have been misguided in this matter.

      1107
      They may have less certain advantages than we in Wales will retain. I make no apology for this. By these means we are obtaining the best of both worlds, the advantages of a large organization for scientific research, information and education, and we are obtaining for Wales the kind of advice by which I am sure the Secretary of State will very much benefit. The pattern suggested which will provide for progressive evolution on these lines is much the best for the Principality. I warmly recommend it to the House in spite of the various views which have been advanced in the discussion.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I rise to say that we shall certainly not vote against the Government new Clause, but obviously we shall divide the House on our Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time.
      Amendment proposed: In subsection (3), line 1, after 'Commission' leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 207.

      Division No. 114.]

      AYES

      [4.56 p.m.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Pardoe, John

      Astor, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Peel, John

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Percival, Ian

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionet

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pym, Francis

      Biffen, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hornby, Richard

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Body, Richard

      Hunt, John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Royle, Anthony

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Sharples, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jopling, Michael

      Smith Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Campbell, Gordon

      Kimball, Marcus

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Carlisle, Mark

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Speed, Keith

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Stainton, Keith

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Clark, Henry

      Lane, David

      Stodart, Anthony

      Clegg, Walter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

      Cooke, Robert

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Taylor, Edward, M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Cordle, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Costain, A. P.

      Lloyd, Ian (Portsm'th, Langstone)

      Teeling, Sir William

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

      Longden, Gilbert

      Tilney, John

      Crouch, David

      Loveys, W. H.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Lubbock, Eric

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Dance, James

      MacArthur, Ian

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Walters, Dennis

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      McMaster, Stanley

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Drayson, G. B.

      Maginnis, John E.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Eden, Sir John

      Marten, Neil

      Webster, David

      Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshatton)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)

      Mawby, Ray

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Emery, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fortescue, Tim

      Monro, Hector

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wright, Esmond

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Wylie, N. R.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Younger, Hn. George

      Goodhew, Victor

      Nott, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Grant, Anthony

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Gresham Cooke, B.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Timothy Kitson.

      Grieve, Percy

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Murray, Albert

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)

      Alldritt, Walter

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Anderson, Donald

      Hamling, William

      Oakes, Gordon

      Archer, Peter

      Hannan, William,

      O'Malley, Brian

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Harper, Joseph

      Oram, Albert E.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Hazell, Bert

      Baxter, William

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Padley, Walter

      Beaney, Alan

      Hilton, W. S.

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Bence, Cyril

      Hobden, Wennis (Brighton, K'town)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

      Hooley, Frank

      Park, Trevor

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Blackburn, F.

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Howie, W.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Booth, Albert

      Hoy, James

      Pentland, Norman

      Boston, Terence

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Boyden, James

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hynd, John

      Probert, Arthur

      Bray, Dr, Jeremy

      Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

      Randall, Harry

      Brooks, Edwin

      Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)

      Rankin, John

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Richard, Ivor

      Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rose, Paul

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Lawson, George

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Coleman, Donald

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Small, William

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Loughlin, Charles

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Luard, Evan

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Symonds, J. B.

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      McBride, Neil

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      McCann, John

      Thornton, Ernest

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Tuck, Raphael

      Dempsey, James

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dickens, James

      McGuire, Michael

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dobson, Ray

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      Doig, Peter

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Driberg, Tom

      Mackie, John

      Wallace, George

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Eadie, Alex

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Weitzman, David

      Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ennals, David

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Whitaker, Ben

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      White, Mrs. Elrene

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Whitlock, William

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Manuel, Archie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Foley, Maurice

      Mapp, Charles

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Marquand, David

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ford, Ben

      Maxwell, Robert

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Forrester, John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Winnick, David

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Gardner, Tony

      Mikardo, Ian

      Woof, Robert

      Garrett, W. E.

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Yates, Victor

      Ginsburg, David

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Moyle, Roland

      Mr. Eric G. Varley.

      Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 1.

      COUNTRY PARKS: SAILING, BOATING, BATHING AND FISHING.
      (1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 6(2) of this Act, where a country park comprises any waterway the kinds of open-air recreation for which the local authority may provide facilities and services under that subsection shall include sailing, boating, bathing and fishing.
      (2) If a country park is bounded by the sea, or by any waterway which is not part of the sea, the local authority providing the country park shall have power to carry out such work and do such other things as may appear to them necessary or expedient for facilitating the use of the waters so adjoining the country park by the public for sailing, boating, bathing and fishing and other forms of recreation.
      (3) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above include power to erect buildings or carry out works on land adjoining the sea or other waters but outside the country park, and to construct jetties or other works wholly or partly in the sea or other waters.
      (4) The local authority, before acting under the foregoing provisions of this section, shall consult with such other authorities, being authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the sea or other waters in question, as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct, and Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect as respects any objection made by authorities so consulted.
      (5) A local authority may make byelaws regulating the use of works carried out by them pursuant to this section and of any facilities or services provided in connection with the works, but before making any such byelaws the local authority shall consult the Commission:
      Provided that byelaws made under this subsection shall not interfere with the exercise of any functions relating to the waters or land to which the byelaws apply which are exercisable by any authority under any enactment.
      Section 106 of the Act of 1949 (supplementary provisions as to byelaws) shall have effect as if byelaws under this subsection were bye-laws under that Act.
      (6) Nothing in this section shall authorise the carrying out of any operation in contravention of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (works detrimental to navigation).—[Mrs. White.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Clause, we can discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 83.
      Mrs. White: This new Clause really arises out of a discussion which we had in Committee—columns 387–9 on 18th January—in which the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) very rightly pointed out what appeared to be a discrepancy in the Bill. As I freely admitted at the Committee stage, she had put her finger on an anomaly which indeed occurred, and we have taken this opportunity not merely to correct that anomaly but also to do some tidying up in the general arrangement of the Bill, so that we now have included in this one new Clause the various references to the matter concerned. It seemed to us that this would be more convenient for everybody in the future, and I hope very much that it will be acceptable to the House.
      The main purpose of the new Clause and the consequential Amendments is to empower local authorities, when creating country parks on the coast or on the banks of waterways, to provide facilities for waterborne recreation on the sea or on the waterways bounding these country parks. When we first discussed this, the hon. Lady pointed out that we had not taken into account the position in which a local authority might be proposing to provide a country park which abutted on to the sea. This new Clause makes this possible and also takes in the other conceivable situation in which there would be a fresh waterway on the edge of a country park and not contained actually within it. I am sure that this is entirely in keeping with the desires of those of us who are concerned with this Bill.
      There might be some query as to why it was necessary to put in subsection (3), so I should perhaps just explain this. The reason for this is that one might have a situation in which the country park was separated, for example, from the foreshore, if it abutted on to the sea, by a public highway. It seems to make sense in such circumstances not to attempt to take the highway into the country park but to enable the local authority concerned to establish facilities on the foreshore, thus meeting the purposes of the Clause. That is why subsection (3) is included.
      The other consequential Amendments are primarily a tidying up process to bring into the Clause matters formerly

      1113
      contained in Clause 6. We have made a saving for works which might be in contravention of Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949—that is, works detrimental to navigation. It will be clear why this was necessary. We have also provided that byelaws made under this subsection will have the same effect as any made under Section 106 of the 1949 Act. There is provision in the Schedule for appeals to be made to the Minister if there should be any disputes between the local authority wishing to establish a country park and any other statutory body with an interest. In the Clause and the consequential Amendments we have not only carried out the undertaking given to the hon. Lady but have also improved the drafting and general layout of this portion of the Bill.
      Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The whole House is indebted to the Minister of State for tabling the Clause. It is also indebted to my learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) for raising this issue in Committee. The only point I wish to raise is one which has been brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and by the Yacht and Motor Boat Association, which is a little worried lest there is some intention of using the byelaw powers contained in subsection (5) to impose rigid byelaws and a system of registration for yachts and motor boats. I do not imagine that that is the Government's intention, at any rate for yachts. It would be helpful if the hon. Lady could confirm that no such byelaw powers would empower local authorities to do this sort of thing under the Clause. Subject to that, I am sure that the Clause will be generally acceptable.
      Mr. John Pardoe: welcome the Clause and its recognition of the importance of water as a means of recreation. I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) on having raised this matter in Committee. The Clause is of immense importance to the West Country, particularly Cornwall which is almost entirely surrounded by water—not quite, unfortunately.
      One or two questions arise on the Clause. It is of great importance to the small boat building industry. Will the
      1114
      financial powers under Clause 26 as related to this new Clause apply to the creation of dams to create boating lakes—not inland boating lakes, but boating lakes which are part of estuaries running into the sea? I am thinking particularly of creeks that need to be dammed to provide an adequate level of water for boating. The North Cornwall coast suffers from heavy tides and normal boating in the open sea is not easy. It is of great importance to us that we should be able from time to time to dam up the odd creek, and even some river estuaries, to provide such facilities.
      5.15 p.m.
      Where fishing is both an industry and a recreation, how, under the Clause, will it be possible to separate the two? I am thinking particularly of lobster and shark fishing which are an industry but which, during the summer season, are also a leisure-time facility. For instance, would the sheds that fishermen use for storing their pots, and which are part of recreational facilities for tourists, be eligible for this kind of assistance?
      What would happen in the case of beaches which are held by the local authority or by the National Trust, to be dangerous because of falling rocks and which are at present sealed off from the public? Would means of access become eligible for grants? Would it be possible for financial help to be given, to open up such beaches completely? I am thinking again of a local spot, a place called Bedruthan Steps which is owned by the National Trust. It is one of the largest areas of sand anywhere in the United Kingdom and probably in Europe. Unfortunately, because of the crumbling rocks, the steps have fallen away and the National Trust has seen fit to exercise its authority to seal off the whole area. I have raised this matter with the National Trust, which has told me that it has a responsibility to shield the public from falling rocks and that this is why it does not wish to renew the access. How far does the Minister of State think that local authorities have a moral duty to save us from ourselves? Should not we be allowed to walk on beaches, in spite of the danger of falling rocks, provided that some warning is given?
      I come now to the forms of recreational facilities which are specifically laid

      1115
      out in the Clause. Is water ski-ing included as one of these? Does it come under bathing or boating, or has it been omitted? Are surfing and malibou boarding included in this open air recreation? I am sorry to be a little parochial, but this is of immense importance to the whole of the north Cornish area and I should like to know whether it is included.
      My final question relates to the bathing facilities. Presumably oily and dirty beaches mitigate against good bathing facilities. Would the cleaning of beaches be eligible for grant under Clause 26 in relation to this new Clause?
      Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Lady for the trouble she has taken about my Amendment. Little did I think that the small Amendment I tabled would grow to such a magnificent size and cover so many important points. What the Minister of State has done will be a great asset to people in country parks. It will prove to be of benefit particularly to coastal areas.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the Clause, and particularly subsection (2) under which authorities will have power to carry out such works as they regard as necessary
      "for facilitating the use of the waters…"
      and so on. Although they form a great holiday area, North Cornwall and North Devon suffer from a lack of easy boating facilities because of problems created by the tide and the exposed coast. Many visitors come to the area, but I am sure that we lose a good many because we have not the facilities for boating which so many people want nowadays. People who enjoy sailing and boating will usually go to South Devon, where the facilities are easier, rather than to North Devon.
      I welcome the Clause, therefore, because local authorities will have a chance to remedy this situation. I should like to see the whole of the North Devon and North Cornwall coast made into an area where sailing and fishing could readily be enjoyed. This may well be possible under the Clause. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, there are certain areas where a dam might be put down to provide boating facilities. An excellent inland lake
      1116
      could be made on the Torridge in my constituency, which would be of tremendous benefit to the area and meet the need of the modern generation of people who enjoy sailing.
      Another matter of interest to me, on which the Clause may be of value, is that in the South-West there has been opposition to the building of reservoirs. If it is possible for reservoirs to be used for recreation as well, some of the opposition, which is very real, might be overcome. Reservoirs could be opened up for fishing and, perhaps, even for boating.
      I hope that the local authorities will use the powers under the Clause and take steps to introduce some of the facilities which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and I have mentioned. In passing—the hon. Gentleman will not like my saying this—I have in mind that the Clause may help where there is the possibility of a reservoir being demolished or done away with. If the dam is taken away, all the enjoyment which people have experienced, as I have—
      Mr. Pardoe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am about to use my influence to ensure that he will be able to fish in the Tamar Lake for ever and anon.
      Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. I was thinking of that lake in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It seemed that it was to be done away with, which would be a sad event. Perhaps the local authority will be able to stop any such move after the new Clause has come into effect. I and many others have enjoyed the pleasures which the reservoir has given over many years, and I now hope that that little problem will be cleared up. I welcome the Clause, which should be of great benefit in a good many areas, particularly areas such as mine.
      Mrs. White: I am delighted that the Clause has had a warm welcome and that our good intentions are appreciated.
      The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) raised the question of byelaws. The local authority is under an obligation to consult the Commission, and I am sure that the interests to which he referred will be borne very much in mind in the formulation of any possible byelaws. No

      1117
      suggestion has reached me that the interests to which he referred will be in any way adversely affected by the sort of bye-laws possible here.
      I emphasise that the Clause refers only to country parks. I suspect that some hon. Members who have not had the advantage of reading our proceedings in Committee do not entirely appreciate that these powers will be brought into effect only where a local authority has decided to establish a country park. In the beautiful parts of the country represented by the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), I am sure that various local authorities may well wish to establish country parks. The Clause relates only to such areas.
      Mr. Peter Mills: Surely, it would cover land held by the National Trust—vast areas of land?
      Mrs. White: Not necessarily. Indeed, probably not. There is a new provision in the Bill under which a local authority may seek to establish a country park not necessarily in its own area. Such a park could be established, with the proper consent and consultation, in the area of another local authority. These powers are to extend the possibilities for country parks and for them only.
      Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her answer to the point which I raised. I am sure that the people concerned will be grateful. If some worry still remains, perhaps she will be good enough to look at any representations made to her on the matter.
      Mrs. White: Certainly. If I find that there is more in it than I have indicated so far, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.
      I shall be happy to write to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North on some of the detailed points which he raised, again always within the context of country parks. Had the hon. Gentleman given a little notice of some of the detailed matters, including lobster and shark fishing, one might have been in a better position to reply. It is largely a question of circumstances. A country park will be for recreation, not to promote commercial fishing. Therefore, anything provided must come within the ambit of amenity or
      1118
      recreation. The question of access to beaches and so on will depend upon the area concerned being included in a country park, and also on financial priorities. There will not be endless money for all the things one would like to do, and in setting up a country park the local authority will have to decide how best to spend its money in the general interest. Where a fine beach was otherwise not fully usable, it might be thought that the provision of access was one of the best things to do. But, plainly, this would have to be a matter for careful consideration in relation to the financial priorities.
      The list of proposed recreational activities in the Clause is not intended to be final. It makes clear that the recreations provided for shall include sailing, boating, bathing and fishing, but subsection (2) refers also to "other forms of recreation", which could, where suitable and desirable, include water skiing, for example. We had various suggestions made in Committee—kiting behind boats, hovercraft and all kinds of esoteric recreations. These will be matters for consideration by the promoting authority.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2.

      TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS: COMPENSATION UNDER PLANNING ACTS.
      In section 125(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, so far as it relates to tree preservation orders, and in section 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 (both of which sections provide for compensation for refusal of consent under tree preservation orders) for the words 'damage or expenditure' there shall be substituted loss or damage '.—[Mr. Skeffington]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Government Amendment 43, in Clause 20, page 22, line 8, leave out "damage or expenditure" and insert "loss or damage", is consequential and may be discussed at the same time.
      Mr. Skeffington: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am much obliged.
      The new Clause was put down as a result of suggestions made by the Valuation Office. Hon. Members will recall that Clause 20 provides a new and welcome form of compensation which has not hitherto been available when tree preservation orders were made. For the future, one envisages local authorities often making tree preservation orders not in respect of single trees but much more in respect of whole woodlands. This is a satisfactory way of allowing woods to remain in private ownership, with some return, while at the same time preserving features of amenity which may be very important. But it seemed unfair that under the existing procedure, if the authority made a tree preservation order with certain directions as to the species to be planted, which could be of less commercial value or of much slower growth, this could result in the owner's losing quite a considerable sum. The intention is to give compensation of the difference between the potential value of proceeds for an advance under Section 4 of the Forestry Act, 1967 and the potential value in view of the conditions imposed by the local authority. The difference will be made up by compensation.
      5.30 p.m.
      It has been suggested, although this is not absolutely certain, that the words we had used, which we had taken from Section 125 of the 1962 Act, referring to "damage or expenditure", might not be wide enough to cover the case where there was not the mere refusal to fell, but one where the tree preservation order was based on a direction as to the species or the conditions under which the timber was to be grown. A very simple example is that of an investment of about £100 which the owner had thought might give him a return of £20 in five or 10 years, but because of the direction given the £20 does not materialise or is limited to £5. If this would have qualified for an advance under Section 4 of the Forestry Act under the original scheme, the difference the damage the owner has suffered, as a result of the direction can be made up by the provisions of Clause 20. The Amendment is to make certain that our intention is carried out. The new formula is considered to be wider.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Amendment is acceptable to our side of the House and, I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that it is sensible. We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the way he has explained it to us, and we support it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to New Clause No. 3 and the Amendments to it, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon): In line 2, at end insert:
      Provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained.
      and the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson): In line 3, leave out 'remain mounted on' and insert 'ride'.
      In line 4, after foot' insert:
      'in circumstances which would or might interfere with the rights of any person on foot or endanger his safety'.
      The Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham has been selected for Division if required.

    New Clause No. 3.

      RIDING OF PEDAL BICYCLES ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.
      (1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a pedal bicycle on any footpath or bridleway.
      (2) It shall be unlawful for a person on a footpath or bridleway to remain mounted on a bicycle when passing or overtaking any person on foot, and a person contravening this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
      (3) On a bridleway subsection (2) above shall apply to the passing or overtaking of any person on horseback or riding a horse, or any driven animals, as it applies to the passing or overtaking of a person on foot.
      (4) Subsection (1) of this section has effect subject to any byelaws made by a highways authority or local authority.
      (5) The rights conferred by this section shall not affect the obligations of the highway authority, or of any other person, as respects the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the footpath or bridleway by cyclists.
      (6) Subsection (1) of this section shall not affect any definition of 'footpath' or bridle-way ' in this or any other Act, and 'horse' and 'horseback' shall be construed in accordance with section 27(6) of the Act of 1949.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The House will be aware of the recommendations of the Gosling Committee. As I indicated in Standing Committee, as soon as we had an advance interim report of paragraph 71, which referred to cyclists, it seemed to us to contain suggestions which were fair and reasonable. The cyclist is one of the travellers on the highway who is very vulnerable, and it seemed to us right that his status should be recognised. He has now, in general, no right under the definition of footpaths and rights of way to which the public have access. It was therefore thought that the recommendations should be accepted, and that is why we have tabled the Clause.
      An essential feature of it implicit in the recommendations, which I think are generally accepted, is that while these vulnerable and rather neglected highway travellers will get the advantage of being able to use paths they should not do so in preference to the foot walkers for which the paths were originally designed and are maintained. Consequently, there is a requirement which has caused a certain amount of comment—and certainly the cyclists' organisations have not liked it—that when passing a person on the footpath or bridleway the cyclist should dismount. I imagine that, in any interpretation, common sense would be used. If the footpath is broad there is no need for cyclists to get off, but if it is narrow and the cyclist might encounter 20 or 30 people as he goes flying along on a Saturday afternoon it might be quite dangerous for children or old people. Therefore, I do not think that it is an unreasonable requirement of cyclists.
      It may well be that cyclists will not take much advantage of the provision, but that is a matter for them. Many footpaths are not good cycling territory, particularly if one has to keep getting off and humping a bicycle over a style. The Committee made the recommendation after hearing evidence and considering these matters, and it seemed sensible to
      1122
      us. The cycling organisations welcome the opportunity of having their status made quite clear, though they do not like the prohibition. But on the whole we think it is right, since footpaths and bridleways are in the main for walkers or horse-riders.
      It may be that there are short sections of paths which are much used where it would be wrong to have this general provision. In that case there is nothing to prevent the local authority, under the bye-law powers of the 1933 Act, which are very wide, from making a prohibition order to prevent cyclists going either on part of the path or the whole path. No. doubt there will be cases where the local authority will want to do this. But that is a matter for them and certainly not one for Whitehall.
      With the qualifications I have set out, the Clause gives cyclists the opportunity to get off the roads to places where they will be safer, and they will enjoy the right to do so in circumstances which are not at the expense of the walker or the horse-rider. I hope that the Clause will commend itself to the House.
      Mr. R. H. Turton: I am rather worried by the Clause. I gather from the Gosling Report that it arises from pity, which I never think is a very good foundation for legislation.
      A right of way in the form of a footpath is of itself ill-designed for the cyclist. In many parts of the country the footpath is the way that will be used by the old people, and where there are prosecutions of cyclists riding on footpaths, which we have had in many parts of the country, it is usually the very young who are riding their bicycles and terrifying the old people who use the footpaths concerned. The hon. Gentleman has included in the Clause a provision which he claims is for the protection of the old people, and we shall come to that later.
      My main objection to the Clause is that I believe that it will interfere with the privileges and rights of old people who use footpaths and who regard them as their special, safe way of going about the country. The next problem is that there is another type of footpath, very common in my constituency, the path going right through farmland, having done so from time immemorial, which is very valuable

      1123
      for those who want to go from parish to parish or for ramblers who want to enjoy the countryside. It is wrong that that privilege should be interfered with by the cyclist.
      I have no animosity against the cyclist, and I do not agree with the Gosling Report that he is not welcome on the roads, except for the motorway, trunk roads and other major roads. The cyclist is still very welcome on the unclassified and ordinary country roads. It is wrong that he should be encouraged to invade the right of the rambler, the pedestrian and the old people.
      Many country rights of way have stiles or even a kissing gate at the end of a path. What will happen there? How will people deal with a bicycle? Perhaps the hon. Lady will come in on this and tell us how one is to deal with a bicycle at a kissing gate, because there will surely be a certain amount of difficulty in surmounting that obstacle.
      Mrs. White: We usually find a way.
      Mr. Turton: Quite clearly, this right cannot be granted in all cases. The hon. Gentleman refers to the byelaws. That may be all right in the more urban areas but it does not apply to the more rural parts. During Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman referred to footpaths on precipitous hillsides where the local authority might interfere. Surely the owner should be allowed to interfere when a footpath is going through his own cornfield, as many go across cornfields in my constituency. It is rather hard that the owner really has no redress under the Clause unless he can persuade the local authority to publish a byelaw. Presumably, in any case, it will usually be the county council, which is a fairly distant authority for a small farmer who has a footpath through his field.
      The other problem is one on which I want to give the House the benefit of my magisterial experience. This is on the question of the proviso. If a cyclist sees someone using a footpath he must immediately dismount—which I presume means that he must get off the saddle, for otherwise he will be guilty of an offence. I have frequently sat in court listening to evidence given about a young person using a bicycle on a footway.
      1124
      In all cases the defence is, "I was not on the bicycle".
      It is usually the evidence of the police constable that while it was true that at the time the young person reached the constable he had got off the saddle and was riding on the pedal, a cyclist can go with the same velocity on the pedal as on the saddle. Usually the court has been able to convict because it has noticed that, before he passed or overtook the constable, the cyclist was sitting in the saddle. As I see it, the Clause as drafted has a perfect let-out for everyone who wants to use it. All a cyclist has to do is to get out of the saddle, perhaps progressing at even greater velocity with his feet on the pedal when passing the person or the horse. I ask the Government to reconsider this.
      I do not want to be pedantic, but again, in passing or overtaking, presumably the person who charges an old lady has neither passed nor overtaken but has merely struck her and is not, therefore, committing an offence. The Clause has been hastily drafted and is ill-considered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, perhaps to reintroduce it later after reconsideration. I am certain that, as drafted, it will cause a great deal of confusion.
      There is a minor point. Many pedal cycles have what is called a "supplementary engine". Are they pedal cycles within the meaning of the Act? If such pedal cycles with supplementary engines are to chug along cornfields, they will be highly unpopular, and I do not think that that is what the Government desire. This is a bad Clause. It originates from pity and not from reason and requires to be drastically amended if it is to survive.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: It will be quickly apparent that I approach the new Clause from a rather different standpoint from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but I agree with a number of the points he has raised. I give a general welcome to subsection (1) which, for the first time, recognises the need of a pedal cyclist to have a legal right on footpaths and bridleways—for him, as my hon. Friend said, to have a

      1125
      status. But I can only give modified welcome to the Clause as a whole.
      The first point has been emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause has been drafted so hurriedly that the draftsman has ignored a large number of practical considerations, some of them instanced by the right hon. Gentleman. In this connection, it would have been helpful if my hon. Friend had consulted the Cyclists Touring Club, the body principally concerned on behalf of cyclists generally.
      In Committee, we had a discussion on an Amendment I moved dealing with the rights of pedal cyclists on long-distance footpaths. Reference was made to the fact that the position in relation to cyclists and footpaths was being considered by the Gosling Committee. My hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would consider the point raised. He said:
      "…we"—
      the Ministry—
      "are still in contact with the various bodies…".—[REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th March, 1968; c. 1359.]
      In these circumstances, I think it regrettable that the Ministry did not get in touch with the Cyclists Touring Club to find out whether it had any views on the Government's proposals. It would have helped in relation to some of the practical considerations.
      My first and main objection to the Clause is against the absolute nature of subsections (2) and (3), which make it imperative in all cases for cyclists to dismount. Let us look at the practical implications. If a cyclist meets a pedestrian going in the opposite direction and gets off his machine, that makes the passing more inconvenient if the path is narrow. It might be much simpler to stop, remain on the machine with one foot on the ground and allow the pedestrian to pass.
      If the cyclist wants to overtake a pedestrian, he must catch up with the walker and must then dismount. But by this time a fast walker will be some yards ahead again. The cyclist will then have to run, pushing his bicycle until he catches up again, and then repeat the process. It could be a tedious process which could lead to a new fable of the
      1126
      walker and the cyclist, ending with an appropriate quotation such as, "And panting time toiled after him in vain".
      Conditions will vary considerably on different paths and bridleways and the circumstances operating at the time of meeting or according to the nature of the path or bridleway may seem irrelevant.
      In this connection there are literally hundreds of paths throughout the country which are so wide that a cyclist could overtake or pass a pedestrian without being close to him at all. What the draftsman obviously had in mind was a narrow path, where its width would necessitate some provision about priority. Need the cyclist dismount in all cases? Surely it would often be sufficient if he just stopped when meeting a pedestrian or horseman going the other way, without actually getting off the bicycle? That might make the passing easier.
      I would emphasise that the C.T.C. and cyclists generally are well content to accept the views of the Gosling Committee, which is that walkers should have prior right of passage and that cyclists should use the footpath and bridleway with:
      "Proper care for the safety of walkers and other users."
      This new Clause goes much farther than that. I would refer to the way in which the same problem is dealt with on pedestrian crossings. Under existing regulations the pedestrian has precedence and I suggest that this principle might apply in the case of footpaths and bridleways.
      All that is needed to carry out the recommendation of the Gosling Committee and to avoid putting an unnecessary and irrelevant burden on to the cyclist would be to limit the new Clause to cases where the pedestrian or horseman might be prejudiced or in danger if the cyclist did not dismount. The rights of horsemen and pedestrians should be given precedence. I urge upon the Minister that it is unnecessary to impose any greater restraint.
      I have drafted an Amendment designed to cover the objections that I have outlined. Although I do not expect the Minister to accept my wording, I hope that he will consider the implications, both of what I have said and what has been said by the right hon. Member for

      1127
      Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It would be undesirable if we were to add to the Statute Book a provision giving cyclists a legal right, for the first time, including unhappy conditions governing that new right which are impracticable, unnecessary and unrealistic.
      The Amendment tabled by the Opposition also seems to be impracticable and unrealistic. It says that:
      "provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained."
      This will surely involve the cyclist contemplating a journey in the gravest possible difficulties. He will first of all have to obtain consent beforehand or, alternatively, there will have to be some provisions whereby paths become either paths with consent or without consent.
      That will necessarily mean a proliferation of notices and the practical difficulties of enforcing such a provision would make it impossible. For these reasons I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that the new Clause is not satisfactory in many respects and it ought to be reconsidered. Perhaps in another place some of the obvious defects can be remedied.
      Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I would like to add my plea to those who have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to take this new Clause away and look at it again. Most of the points I wanted to make have already been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and there are now only two points I wish to make. First it is clear from paragraph 72 of the Gosling Committee that that Paragraph is drafted with an eye on footpaths in or around a town or houses. It says that the local authorities will be able to make byelaws prohibiting the use of cycles on footpaths in particular areas. My right hon. Friend spoke of footpaths going over farmland. I cannot believe that a particular area for which a local authority is likely to make a byelaw would be a footpath going through a farm. The farmers of the area are not likely to ask the local authority to pass a byelaw to say that cyclists would be welcome on that footpath.
      There is the practical problem that if a footpath is supposed to be three or four
      1128
      feet wide, and one has the business of people dismounting to pass each other, even if it is only one bicycle in one direction and one in another, that, coming across a field of corn, will make a considerably wider path than the four feet normally regarded as the width of a footpath. Apart from that, cyclists go about the countryside, on the roads, in large numbers and frequently one cannot pass them in one's motor car because there are so many of them. If they go on footpaths supposed to be four feet wide, across a field of corn, grave difficulties will arise.
      My second point is what seems to be an innocent question, which might be easily answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. What is a footpath? If he has looked at the interpretation Clause of the Countryside Bill he will find, in Clause 39(2):
      "'bridleway' and 'footpath' have the meaning given by section 295(1) of the Highways Act, 1959;"
      Section 295(1) of the Highways Act, 1959 defines "footpath" as:
      "…a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway;"
      It seems to me that if the new Clause goes through it would be possible to ride one's bicycle from here to Victoria Station on a footpath. If that is so, it is not what he really wants the new Clause to mean. I would suggest that it might be as well to have another think about this.
      Mr. Pardoe: I am not unsympathetic to cyclists—I am unsympathetic towards this new Clause. I ride a cycle and am only too well aware of the dangers of riding cycles in traffic. I do not think that that is sufficient reason to give to cyclists what has been for a very long time the privilege of people on foot. There are real dangers involved. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton) mentioned the dangers to old people. I have grave worries about the dangers to children.
      The footpath is the one place where one can, as a family, go out for a walk and allow very young children to go on ahead without supervision. With cyclists coming round sharp corners it would be quite impossible for them to stop, to get off, and allow pedestrians

      1129
      to pass. There is the likelihood of increased danger to farm animals, particularly where footpaths run through farmyards.
      The great majority of footpaths are not suited to cycling, not only because of the terrain which they cross, and their width, but also because of kissing gates and stiles. Since I am convinced that the great majority of footpaths are unsuited to cycling, it is nonsense to pass legislation which entitles people to ride bicycles on footpaths and then ask local authorities to pass byelaws to prevent them from doing so. The number of footpaths on which they will be able to ride bicycles is very small. This is the wrong way to go about it. Why not allow local authorities to pass byelaws permitting cyclists to ride on the footpaths? This would save a great deal of local government time and our time.
      6.0 p.m.
      There is the considerable difficulty of enforcement. I know how difficult it will be to prosecute when a cyclist comes tearing round the corner on a footpath and nearly knocks one's children over and half kills one's dog. How will one find evidence? From where will the witnesses come? How many policemen patrol country footpaths to enable one to bring forward a prosecution?
      If we add the Clause to the Bill, we shall have a law which is almost impossible to enforce. We should have nothing to do with laws which are almost impossible to enforce.
      Mr. Skeffington: I have been impressed by some of the points which have been made. In our desire to be helpful we promised hon. Members to include something on Report and perhaps that Clause had been hastily drafted. We studied very closely that cyclists evidence.
      I suggest that we might have another look at that Clause, particularly subsection (2), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) referred. He had some quite justified fun. But even if that Clause were accepted as it is now, it would be much better than the present position. A great deal happens which has no legal basis or for which there are no procedures. We still adhere to the principle that the basic recommendation
      1130
      of the Gosling Committee is right, and we intend to reintroduce it in another place. We shall look at the priorities which we think it right to give to horse riders.
      Dame Joan Vickers: That debate has been devoted to cycling. I should like to bring out the question of horse riding. I should like the hon. Gentleman to look into that question.
      Hon. Members: It is not in order.
      Mr. Channon: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for saying that he will withdraw the Clause, and I am certain that we shall give him permission to do so. This is reminiscent of the Clause on bulls which we discussed in Committee, but which was generally unacceptable to any section of opinion in the Committee.
      However, we should not let this opportunity pass without making it clear that it is not just the details of the Clause to which many of us are opposed. We oppose the general idea of the Gosling Report that pedal cyclists should be able to ride on footpaths. Perhaps I have the support of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) in that. If so, he is another valuable ally. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should not be under the impression that there is not a large body of opinion in the House which is opposed to the principle as well as the wording of the Clause. I, too, could have made the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). Cyclists have told me that they seriously think that if the Clause were passed in this form there would be a grave danger of traffic jams on footpaths, because there would be no overtaking whatsoever.
      I hope that the Government will bring an open mind to bear on the Clause before coming to a decision in another place. We shall have an opportunity later to debate the matter should their Lordships pass such a Clause. There is serious objection to the Clause, particularly in the light of the grave inconvenience which it would cause. It proposes a fundamental change which is not supported. The Government should not be under any illusion about the feeling in the House.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I am glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider this matter again. I am not happy about the Clause. I do not see why there need be any legislation at all on this matter. Surely this is a matter of common sense and courtesy. People in the countryside know that one can ride a bicycle on certain footpaths and that one cannot do so on others. I do not believe that there is any need for legislation on this point.
      There are occasions when it is right for people to ride bicycles on footpaths. The village postman, with his heavy load, may have a short cut to certain hamlets or farmhouses. It is right that he should be able to cycle along a footpath so that he can deliver his mail and save time. Why should he get off his bicycle when it is heavily laden with letters and parcels? Surely it is common sense and courtesy for a person walking on the footpath to step back and say, "How do, maister".
      I never heard anything so ridiculous as the suggestion that legislation is needed on matters like this. This is a waste of the time of the House. We are taught courtesy at an early age. If an old lady comes along, one get's off one's bicycle and allows her to pass. The farmworker whose only method of carrying things is a bicycle may have a very large sack between the frame of the bicycle. He has every right to use the footpath.
      The Minister must think again about this matter. However, I must say to my hon. Friends that I do not like their proposed Amendment in line 2—
      Provided that in the case of a footpath the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the land must be obtained.
      Mr. Channon: It was tabled only as a second best. We should certainly prefer to see the Clause dropped altogether.
      Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. There is a mile of footpath and road combined leading to my farm, and then the footpath continues. Just imagine on a Sunday morning or at some other time, when I was hoping to have a little peace and quiet, having a queue of people asking whether they can ride a bicycle along that footpath. It is utterly ridiculous if this is the stage that we have reached. I hope that the Clause will be dispensed with entirely. If the Minister would like to issue a pamphlet in an
      1132
      endeavour to teach people common courtesy in the countryside and how to use footpaths, I should back him wholeheartedly.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I wish to make three points.
      First—and perhaps this is a minority view—to me, cycles are like motor cars. They have associations with urban life. Seeing bicycles in the countryside is incongruous, and I find them very offensive. This is a view which is perhaps not shared by the majority of people, but there is a sizeable minority of people who like to feel that in the countryside they are free from the associations of urban life. Things like cycles and motor cars are associated with urban life, and some people are as horrified as I am on finding such excresences in the midst of the countryside.
      Secondly, if cyclists are to have rights of access, it will be much more difficult to provide adequate stiles and gates for it. P think that I am being realistics in saying that it would not be done. Farmers would not replace stiles with gates. Therefore, the cycles would have to be carried over the hedge or wall, and the hedge or wall might be damaged as a result.
      This leads me to my third point. This would alienate to a certain extent the agricultural community. When I go back to the High Peak to explain the provisions of the Bill to the local branches of the N.F.U., which I intend to do, they will not be very happy at my telling them that they not only have responsibility for maintaining stiles and gates to meet the needs of walkers, but also the needs of cyclists. I know that the Minister is concerned about the balance which he strikes with the local communities, and this is a consideration he might properly bear in mind.
      Mr. John Smith: I do not wish to detain the House long. Had the undertaking been to withdraw the Cause I should not have spoken, but I understand the Clause is simply to be reconsidered or redrafted.
      One or two points should be made before this is done. We all recognise the desire of cyclists to get away from dangerous and over-crowded roads. Indeed, I am attracted by the idea of

      1133
      long-distance routes for them. However, to add this Clause at this late stage is precipitate and unrealistic. Examples have been given of the way in which it is unrealistic, but another example is subsection (2) which says:
      'It shall be unlawful for a person on a footpath or bridleway to remain mounted on s bicycle when passing or overtaking any person on foot"—
      or a horse—
      'and a person contravening this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20."
      Is it really envisaged that we shall have cases in the courts concerning people who have cycled past a horse, and are young people to be fined £20 for doing it?
      The Parliamentary Secretary in Committee said that walkers must have "utter priority". Utter priority is a high degree of priority, but I do not see cyclists flinging themselves into hedges or taking to ploughed land to avoid pedestrians. We all know that it will be the pedestrian who has to get out of the way.
      Further, is it a good plan to introduce legislation so that we have one rule of the road on the road and another rule of the road on the path? On the road the pedestrian gets out of the way of the cyclist but on the path it is to be the cyclist who gets out of the way of the pedestrian. Even if this complex notion can be got into the heads of the very young and the very old, who make up a large proportion of the users of paths, there will be many genuine cases of doubt whether the cyclist and the pedestrian are on a road or a path. Some paths are described on the definitive map as "roads used as public paths." Many paths look like roads—for example, farm access roads—and many roads look like paths—for example, green lanes.
      Another point which has not been mentioned is the danger to stock. Many cyclists will leave their bicycles and go for a stroll. Indeed, that may be their purpose in cycling to that point. As hon. Members who have attended picnics know, cattle are interested in anything new in a field, and a bicycle is a dangerous object to leave in a field full of stock.
      One of the arguments advanced for banning horses from footpaths—and I am relieved that we do not have to go into that—was that such use damages the
      1134
      surface of the path. This argument also applies to bicycles. Cycling along a path with a thin covering of grass will soon remove the grass, whereas use by pedestrians will not remove it.
      6.15 p.m.
      There will be an inevitable demand for expenditure and adaptation of paths for cyclists. There will be a demand for the removal of stiles and "improvement" of the surfaces of paths and a general pressure towards that urbanisation which, in my view, is endemic in the Bill, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson).
      This is one of the contentious recommendations of the Gosling Committee. The Report of the Gosling Committee was signed only 14 days ago on 26th March, and it will have been in the hands of the public for an even shorter time. The matter demands far more thought and public discussion before legislation is introduced. It is precipitate to introduce it now.
      For example, even the cyclists are not satisfied. The Cyclists Touring Club, which is an old and honourable body, in a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary, says:
      "The Cyclists' Touring Club should have been consulted before any new legislation was drafted. That has not been done, however, with the result that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the new Clause as drafted are really quite unacceptable."
      So this new Clause does not please those whom it is designed to please.
      The conflicting interests of pedestrians and cyclists are much too imcompatible to be dealt with so quickly and summarily without causing a great deal of trouble. However much we sympathise with the cyclist and however much we admire him in his unending struggle with the forces of nature, I feel that this Clause should be withdrawn.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 19.

      AVOIDANCE OF POLLUTION.
      In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949 it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commission

      1135
      and local authorities to have due regard to the protection against pollution of any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to statutory water undertakers or which statutory water undertakers are for the time being authorised to take.—[Mrs. White.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This again is consequent upon an undertaking given in Committee to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). He expressed some apprehension about the possibility of increasing the danger of pollution of water because the general purposes of the Bill are to increase the use of the countryside and consequently the number of persons who might come into areas where this danger could exist. I said at the time that the Government were sympathetic to the purposes of the new Clause, which he withdrew. We have, therefore, carried out our undertaking by laying a positive duty upon
      "…the Commission, the Forestry Commission and local authorities to have due regard to the protection against pollution of any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to statutory water undertakers or which statutory water undertakers are for the time being authorised to take."
      I believe that the new Clause will be welcome to the British Waterworks Association, whose anxieties led to the earlier attempt to deal with the matter in Committee.
      I do not need to elaborate upon this. We have drawn the attention of hon. Members who were on the Committee to the fact that there are powers in existence for the prevention of pollution which are exercisable by river authorities; and statutory water undertakers also have powers to make byelaws for the protection of their sources against pollution. Under the Bill we are proposing a more extended and intensive use of the countryside and we are concerned that the Commission, the Forestry Commission and local authorities should clearly understand that this is one of the objects to which they must pay regard in any of their undertakings.
      Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Minister of State for putting down the new Clause, which substantially meets the point I raised on Committee. I have
      1136
      only one slight worry about it. I must point out to the House that the new Clause only appeared on Friday. I do not think there will be any points for me to pursue at a later stage, but I would not like to give an absolute guarantee about that as I have not had time to consider the wording.
      The statutory water undertakings have not had full time to consider the implications of the Clause, although it is 99 per cent. certain that they are happy. Subject to that word of warning, I very much welcome the new Clause. It is absolutely vital that nothing in the Countryside Bill should detract from the importance of preventing the pollution of water. I am grateful to the Minister of State for having moved the new Clause.
      Mr. Marcus Kimball: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, the Clause went down only on Friday and, although I support it, I must warn the Minister of State that I am not entirely satisfied that some activities of the Forestry Commission on peat soils will not, in the opinion of most river boards, be regarded as activities which pollute rivers. I refer to the undesirable habit of the Forestry Commission of planting on peat lands by deep ploughing. In areas of very deep peat this is a growing practice where it is intended to grow citrus fruits very quickly. The practice is to plough out a furrow anything up to 2 ft. deep by 18 in. across the top. Whenever there is a heavy spate the effect is to expose large areas of raw peat to sudden rainfall, and what were moderately peaty rivers become extremely sour peaty rivers.
      The Minister of State may have been the interesting statistics on the effect of peat on fisheries published by a research station in Northern Ireland. The statistics show that peat has a most depressing effect on fisheries. If the peat content of a river suddenly rises to any great degree, the fish cease to have any sporting value. They go to the bottom of the river and are quite miserable for three or four days. I am encouraged that, as a result of the new Clause, it may be possible to curb some of the destructive activities of the Forestry Commission.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the Clause, but the Minister must

      1137
      watch this matter very carefully. It lays the Commission open to the problem of the pollution of rivers by the red soil that we have in the South-West. If this is the sort of pollution for which the Commission, the Forestry Commission and others can be prosecuted, it will lay them open to considerable trouble. With the modern drainage systems, our rivers, particularly in the South-West where we have red soil, are being polluted and discoloured at an alarming rate. Of course, I agree that the normal sort of pollution ought to be stopped. The people interested in fishing and such other activities might tackle the Commission and the Forestry Commission on this point. It may sound a minor point and a rather stupid one, but I can assure the House that with our red soil the rivers are polluted to an alarming degree. I hope the Minister is aware of this danger.
      Mrs. White: The two points just made illustrate some of the matters which will have to be borne in mind. We are concerned only with pollution that might arise from activities of the bodies referred to in the new Clause, and with no other type of pollution. Pollution is normally something which endangers health. I am not sure whether the happiness of fish is within the legal definition of pollution, but the fact that attention has been drawn to the matter will be noticed by the Forestry Commission.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 4

      NATIONAL PARKS JOINT PLANNING BOARD: EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF OFFICERS
      (1) This section has effect as respects any National Park joint planning board, that is to say a joint planning board constituted under section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 for an area which consist of or includes any part of a National Park.
      (2) Any such board may defray—

      (a) any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred by or an behalf of members or officers of the board, or of any committee of the board, in attending a conference or meeting convened by one or more local planning authorities whose areas include the whole or part of a National Park, or by any association of such authorities, being a con
      1138
      ference or meeting for the purpose of discussing any matter connected with the discharge of functions exercisable by local planning authorities in respect of National Parks;

      (b) any travelling or other expenses reasonably incurred by or on behalf of members or officers of the board, or of any committee of the board, in making official or courtesy visits, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom, on behalf of the board;

      (c) any expenses incurred in the reception and entertainment by way of official courtesy of distinguished persons residing in or visiting the board's area, and of persons representative of or connected with other local planning authorities or bodies concerned with matters relating to the countryside, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom, and in the supply of information to any such persons.

      (3) In the case of a visit within the United Kingdom, the amount defrayed in respect of the expenses of a member of the board shall not exceed the payments which he would have been entitled to receive by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance under section 113 of the Local Government Act 1948 if the making of the visit had been an approved duty of that member within the meaning of that section.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause honours an undertaking I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the Amendment he moved in Committee. The effect of the new Clause is to empower National Park joint planning boards to pay expenses incurred by members or officers attending conferences and making official or courtesy visits. The boards are also empowered to pay reasonable expenses associated with the reception and entertainment of distinguished persons. The new Clause covers all the points I undertook to cover.
      Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful to the Minister of State for moving the Clause. It goes the whole way to meet the case I put during the Committee stage. The joint planning board in the Lake District have the greatest difficulty in suitably entertaining distinguished visitors from overseas. This came to a head when we were honoured by a visit by the Duke of Edinburgh in 1966, and it was necessary to go through the rigmarole under Section 228 of the Local Government

      1139
      Act, 1933. The new Clause will make this procedure unnecessary, and we are grateful to the Minister for moving it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 7

      NATIONAL PARK WARDENS
      (1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land within the National Park which is subject to the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, or as respects any waterway within the National Park in respect of which there is in force an Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
      (2) The purposes for which wardens may be appointed by an authority under the immediately foregoing subsection are—

      (a) as respects any land, to secure compliance with the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and of the Litter Act 1958, and with any byelaws made under any enactment by the authority or by any other local authority;

      (b) as respects any waterway, to secure compliance with the provisions of the appropriate Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894;

      (c) as respects any land or waterway, to advise and assist the public and to perform such other duties (if any) in relation to the land or waterway as the authority may determine.

      (3) The Act of 1949 shall have effect as if the foregoing subsections formed part of section 92 of that Act and were inserted immediately after subsection (2) of that section.
      (4) Subsection (2) of the said section 92 shall be amended by the substitution of the words 'under the foregoing subsection' in place of the words under this section' and subsection (3) of the said section 92 shall be amended by the addition after the words 'Part V of this Act' of the words 'or subject to the provisions of section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, or in respect of which there is in force an Order in Council made under section 421(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 '.—[Mr. Jopling.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      In my view the Clause is the most important one which the House has to consider at the Report stage on the
      1140
      Countryside Bill. I moved a new Clause in Committee which proposed to extend the area of land in the country over which wardens could operate. That new Clause allowed wardens to operate over a much wider area than is at present allowed under the 1949 Act. The Government rejected it. I fear the debate was held rather late on a Tuesday afternoon, not many people were present, and there was little discussion. However, I hope this afternoon to elaborate the need to extend the area over which wardens can operate in national parks, and I hope the Government will accept the new Clause.
      The wardens' service has proved to be extremely useful over the years, particularly in the Lake District. We now have in the Lake District four full-time wardens and 400 voluntary wardens. More are needed. We need more full-time wardens, as voluntary wardens are less helpful and less useful. Full-time wardens are by far the most important. The functions that wardens in the national parks are asked to perform are pre-eminently to advise visitors on routes, paths and places of interest, and in general to be as helpful as they can be to people who visit National Parks. There is also the need to control the behaviour of the more unruly minority, a very small minority, who come into the area. Finally, there is the function of supervision of bathing places and the supervision of speed limits on some lakes.
      Experience in the Lake District over the last five or six years has shown that wardens are very well liked, they are most helpful to visitors and they are more than welcomed by residents in the National Park. We are not asking that wardens should have extra powers similar to those of the police or traffic wardens. This matter was referred to at Committee stage in column 991. Wardens should have the same powers as the ordinary citizen, and this is exactly what we ask. We are not asking for a new form of police to patrol the National Parks. We ask merely for more people who can perform these advisory functions, with no more powers than the ordinary citizen has. The draft Clause is specific on the control powers, and there is no suggestion in my new Clause for new policing powers to be invoked.

      1141
      6.30 p.m.
      In Committee, the Minister demanded the existence of byelaws before a warden service could operate. He said that it was essential to have a code of conduct so that wardens knew the basis on which they operated. However, Section 92 of the 1949 Act, which allows wardens to be appointed in National Parks, does not say that byelaws have to be in force before wardens can operate. All it says is that there has to be a power over certain land for byelaws to be invoked. I hope that, to some extent, that disposes of the Minister's objection. However, I shall return to it presently.
      I turn specifically to the new Clause, where we have attempted to meet all the objections that the Minister raised in Committee. We have confined the area over which wardens could operate. Under the terms of the new Clause, wardens will only be allowed to operate on urban commons set up under Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That Section covers areas in my constituency in the urban district of Keswick and in the Lakes and the Windermere urban council areas. In the Lakes urban area alone, 12,000 acres are involved in urban commons, and they include the parts of the Lake District which are best known to the general public, such as Langdale Pikes, Fairfield and half the summit of Helvellyn. This is the area which people know best and to which thousands of visitors come every year, and it is vital to have wardens who are able to operate on these urban commons.
      It might be as well to remind the House of what urban commons mean and why they were set up under the 1925 Act. Among other things, Section 193 says that members of the public shall have rights of access for air or exercise to any land which is the subject of the Section. The point is that all this vast area of land covered by the Law of Property Act, 1925, has been open to the public for free access for over 40 years. But, by virtue of the 1949 Act which followed it, all the land is excepted, which means that it is impossible to make access agreements and arrangements over it so that wardens can operate, because wardens are allowed to operate only over land which has access agreements or orders upon it. By the very nature of these vast tracts of urban
      1142
      commons which are open to the public, wardens are not allowed over them by Statute, and that fact makes the whole problem extremely difficult.
      The difficulty of the present situation was put to me very clearly by the chief land agent to the National Trust in the Lake District, who made the point that if someone is dying of exposure on Langdale Pikes or Bowfell, the Lake District Planning Board cannot send out its wardens to rescue him. That is the absurd situation which we have reached with the warden service because of the limitations put upon it by the 1949 Act.
      My new Clause is smaller in scope than the one which I moved in Committee. In it, we have tried to meet the objections of the Minister, and I hope that it will be accepted.
      The other objection which was made in Committee was that there should be an umbrella of byelaws and codes of conduct under which the wardens could operate. However, under Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by which the urban commons were formed, there are clear and wide byelaws and codes of conduct already in existence. For instance, one is not allowed to drive vehicles on the land, or camp, or light fires. Limitations are imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Litter Act applies to the land and has to be enforced. Then on urban commons in the Lake District there are county byelaws which prohibit stone rolling and the use of wireless sets and loudspeakers. There are others for the protection of plants, and so on. Then in Section 193 there are powers for Orders of Limitation which allow more conditions to be made, but which we have no powers to enforce at present.
      The remaining power for which we ask in the new Clause is that for wardens to enforce or supervise compliance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which allow speed limits to be enforced on some of our lakes, particularly Windermere.
      We ought to have more powers to enable wardens to advise and assist the public on land under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and on all waterways under the Merchant Shipping Act. The greatest use and function of our wardens is to advise and help the public. That in

      1143
      itself is an adequate code of conduct, without the long list of codes and bye-laws which I have read.
      I want to meet a point which the Minister put to me when he tried to make out that this was a Lake District problem. That is not true, particularly when it is realised that urban commons can be and have been added to up and down the country by lords of the manor who, by means of deeds and declarations, have brought certain areas of land within Section 193. I have spoken already of the Lake District commons which are very vast, but I would point out to the Minister that in Penllyn, in the Snowdonia National Park, there are 17,000 acres. There are urban commons in other parts of the Snowdonia National Park, and the Crown Estate Commissioners have applied Section 193 to all Crown commons, and they own a large acreage in North and Central Wales and in the Snowdonia and Brecon National Parks. In Wales, there are vast areas which come under Section 193 and on which my new Clause would allow wardens to be used. There are other commons in the Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks where the Lords of the manor have adopted Section 193. Examples include Spitchwick Common, with 2,000 acres at Widecombe; Haytor Down, in the Dartmoor National Park, with over 1,000 acres; and Brenda Common, with over 3,000 acres in the Exmoor National Park. This is a national problem, as I hope I have made clear. I hope, too, that I have made it clear how pressing it is and how much we need powers.
      I think that the new Clause meets entirely the objections and reservations which the Minister voiced in Committee. I hope that on this occasion he will be able to accept it. If he can see his way to do it, it will be greatly welcomed all over the country.
      Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a much modified version of a new Clause which he moved in Standing Committee. I am not sure that its purpose is wholly attained by its present drafting, but what it seeks to do is to allow a Park Planning Authority's wardens to go on any common land or on certain waterways in a National Park. At present there are the powers of wardens which derive from Section 92 of
      1144
      the Act of 1949 under which they can go on any land in the authority's ownership or in respect of which access orders or agreements have been made. I believe the Lake District Planning Board in particular wants to be able to send wardens on to common land, of which there are considerable areas in the Lake District; and as the hon. Gentleman has told us, much of it is in urban districts and therefore within Section 193 of the Law of Property Act.
      As far as waterways are concerned, what they particularly have in mind are the four public lakes sometimes referred to as Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston and Derwentwater. We have had considerable discussion in Standing Committee about waterways in National Parks and we were urged to seek to find ways of giving the National Parks Authorities greater powers, either by byelaws or by regulations and Orders, to control activities on waterways in National Parks.
      Mr. Channon: There is another new Clause on this which we shall come to later.
      Mr. MacDermot: I want to make clear that we have given close attention to that and will be coming to a new Clause dealing with that matter, but, as far as the Government's proposals are concerned, I believe we will need a little more time to get them fully completed. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are proposing to bring forward proposals which I believe will go most of the way to meet what he wants in relation to waterways.
      As far as common lands are concerned, the problem here is that, as we all know, action under the Commons Registration Act is now proceeding, and I believe that there is danger in tinkering with the law affecting commons at the present time. There are already existing powers of management of commons and there are byelaw-making powers. I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will take the point I am making, because it is one which he himself made when we were discussing Clause 7 of the Bill in Standing Committee. He will remember that he asked:
      "Why should we have very curious piecemeal legislation, allowing certain developments

      1145
      to take place on commons in the face of the sure knowledge that a Bill will be going through Parliament on the subject within the next four or five years?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd January, 1968; c. 475.]
      The hon. Gentleman may say that that argument does not come very strongly from a Government having made the position as it is in Clause 7, but here it is a question of striking a right balance ever it. I say at once that I have some sympathy towards the argument he is putting forward and I concede that at some stage it is desirable to make provision to enable there to be a proper enforcement of byelaws on commons and in National Parks.
      Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has quoted what I said in Standing Committee on commons registration and I am grateful that he has done so. I do not withdraw a single word that I said, then or now, but if he is arguing on the Commons Registration Act will he give one or two examples of the ways in which, by enacting my proposed Clause, he would, or would be likely to, interfere with the development of commons registration? Frankly, I cannot think of one. I discussed this with the Clerk to the Lake District Planning Board over the weekend, exactly in this context, and he could not think of one either.
      Mr. MacDermot: I am not suggesting that it will interfere with the process of registration. The argument that has been put to me and which I have put before the House is that the sensible course would be to review the question of bye-laws and of their enforcement in regard to commons in National Parks in the context of the further legislation for commons which is proposed. The effect of that would be that we would avoid what to others would seem to be anomalies between public access in National Parks and rural commons there which were not subject to access de jure although the public may, in fact, resort to them. I believe it is the Lake District Planning Board in particular which feels strongly about this. I am not suggesting that there are not commons in other areas but we have not had representations from other areas on this. If that Board feels strongly about this then I am prepared to consider this matter with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
      1146
      6.45 p.m.
      I do not wish to tie myself at the moment to give any undertaking beyond saying I will consider sympathetically the proposal he is making in relation to these commons in National Parks. For the reasons I have given and in particular my reference to the waterways for which provision would not be apt here, I would ask him not to press his new Clause, on my undertaking to examine the matter further in the light of what he has said.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I should like strongly to support my hon. Friend on this Clause. I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will look at this again. Although he does not wish to be pressed on it, I hope he will look at it very carefully, because I believe there are many reasons why we ought to have National Parks wardens. There is the necessity for assisting people advising them on routes, roads and paths and places of interest. What I am really concerned about, however, is the situation when trouble arises on a moor or common. This is becoming more and more frequent as more and more people come into the countryside. The whole object of this Bill is to have people come into the countryside and we want them to enjoy it; but on these bleak moors, particularly places like Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor, it is extraordinary how quickly people can run into trouble, and I should have thought wardens were the very people to assist them, showing them where they were, guiding them to the nearest town or village and giving first aid. Then there is the problem of mist descending quickly and suddenly upon people who do not know where they are. Here, again, wardens could help.
      I would have thought this kind of problem will increase. I can only tell the Minister that over the last year or two, particularly on Dartmoor, we have had serious troubles and people have died through exposure and from other causes. I am sure that this kind of problem will increase and park wardens could assist in such difficulties, guiding people and helping them out of trouble. I hope that the Minister will consider this aspect when he is deciding whether or not to accept this new Clause, because I believe it is a very real point and that there will be increasing problems and difficulties in the future as more and more people come into the countryside.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I rise briefly to support this Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The Minister of State in his reply endorsed a statement made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington):
      "Because we cannot make law purely in relation to the Lake District, which has a special case, I could not advise the Committee to accept the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th February, 1968; c. 995.]
      I understand that very few hon. Members were present in Standing Committee when this Amendment was moved. Perhaps in those circumstances it is not altogether surprising that my hon. Friend's statement was not challenged. I should like to challenge it and to inform him that there is certainly concern in the Peak district about extending powers of wardens. I should like to draw particular attention to the Twelfth Report of the National Parks Commission, 1961, Appendix E, paragraph 12. This says:
      "We recommend that Section 92 (Wardens) of the Act should be amended so that wardens may be appointed to perform duties designed to secure a proper standard of behaviour on the part of persons visiting National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Their appointment should not depend upon the existence of access agreements or orders or on the ownership of land by local authorities."
      This is a clear recognition by the National Parks Commission of the need to go much further than the new Clause proposes. I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this problem is a national one and not restricted to the Lake District. He should at least make this concession and provide protection and coverage for commons.
      Mr. Channon: I am glad that the Minister of State has agreed to look at this again, although he cannot accept the new Clause. There is genuine feeling on both sides that this should be tackled. Hon. Members on his own side, the hon. Members for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) have signed the new Clause, and we on this side feel strongly about this. We hope that the Government will move an Amendment in another place to meet these very real points and that we will not have to wait for further legislation before action is taken.
      Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for what the Minister of State has said and I hope that something can be done in another place. A Clause of this sort would encourage other lords of the manor to bring land under the umbrella of Section 193—so that the public would have access to more land, as we all want—because they will know that a warden is available. Owners of land want to know that their land is being looked after and visitors supervised by wardens I hope that something useful may come out of the hon. and learned Gentleman's consideration. I hope that we can consult hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported this, since a provision of this sort will meet, if only in part, all the points of the Lake District Planning Board, which will be splendid for the Lake District. I thank the Government for their attitude, and, with the leave of the House, I would like to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 8.

      PROVISION OF MEALS, REFRESHMENTS AND ACCOMMODATION.
      In the exercise of their functions under this Act with regard to the provision for the public of meals, refreshments and accommodation it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.—[Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause Amendments No. 18, in Clause 6, page 8, line 12 at end insert:
      Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;
      No. 27, in Clause 8, page 11, line 41, at end insert:
      Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms;

      1149
      and No. 42, in Clause 18, page 20, line 21, at end insert:
      Provided that the Commissioners shall not under this section provide accommodation meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms.
      Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify what he said in Committee, when there were two matters on which he and my hon. Friends had a difference of opinion. The first was that thought that the local authority should provide meals, refreshments and accommodation, whereas some of us on this side disagreed. The second was that he thought that, in many places, no-one would be available to provide these services, whereas some of us thought that there are few parts of the country where people are not already providing at least some of these services and could not provide additional ones better than a local authority.
      The hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
      "Therefore, it seems to us to be reasonable that the local authority should have the right to provide the facilities that seem appropriate for that sort of concept … Obviously, a responsible local authority will make its arrangements … Of course, in a number of cases, these will no doubt be made through concessionaires. This is not the sort of prows on which is aimed at private enterprise."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 297.]
      So he said at first that the local authority would be the right body, and then that it would sometimes be done through concessionaires. The new Clause would ensure that concessionaires had the opportunity and would remove the doubts of those already providing such services about whether they could provide any increased services required. There is always the fear that services provided by local authorities would have to be financed by the ratepayers.
      In Committee, I asked the hon. Gentleman to reconsider Section 3 of the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, which seemed a respectable precedent from a previous Social administration, and which provided that, if an organisation did not operate at a profit after a reason-
      1150
      able period, it had to close down. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that he would be glad to look at anything. He has had the chance to look at this and at anything else now, and I hope that he will now think that the new Clause will clarify what he said in Committee and would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I hope that the Forestry Commission will not be asked to provide restaurants on any scale. Those of us who have regularly visited conservancies in all-party groups know of the efforts of the Commission to attract the public to forest areas where no harm would be done to forestry. But, however good its work, we have gained the impression that it has its hands full with other things, since its first job is to grow trees and its second, increasingly, to market them. In one or two areas, such as the Keilder Forest on the Upper Tyne, the Commission is providing excellent facilities for the public. It would be wrong to give it the job of providing food if it did not wish to do so; nor would it be right to ask the Commission to accept on its forestry votes any expenditure or losses which might be caused. For these reasons, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the new Clause.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Pardoe: One might refer here to Bagehot, who was quoted favourably by the Prime Minister recently, in saying that, where we cannot have competition in the field, we should have competition for the field. This is a principle which should be followed in this situation as in all others. Unlimited competition is not possible in providing these facilities—there are obvious limits—but there are grave dangers, as shown by the recent and recurring troubles of the Egg Marketing Board over the second eggs scheme, in powers for a commission, marketing board or other authority to provide services like this. If a system of tendering is not provided for, the whole matter can go adrift. It is absolutely essential not only to write in a system of tendering, as has been done here, but to see that it is universal.
      Private enterprise always provides a better service, particularly in catering,

      1151
      than a State-run organisation. For example, British Rail was pleased to hand over to private enterprise its cafeteria at Tavistock, a small station in the West Country—which it could not possibly keep open on the terms on which it had been running it. For the last two or three years a man and his wife have been running what was a non-paying cafeteria to the satisfaction of all concerned, including British Rail, and they have been operating it not only successfully but profitably. I hope that the Minister will accept that rather than for us to allow the Commission to run these establishments, they should be given out to tender to private enterprise.
      Mr. A. P. Costain: I support this reasonable new Clause. Hon. Members know how difficult it is, even in the heart of Westminster, to make a refreshment department work. Those who travel overseas also appreciate that the facilities which are provided by private enterprise at beauty spots and elsewhere are always more efficient than State-run organisations. We should make it obligatory for local authorities to put this out to tender so that efficient, competitive and reliable services are offered to the public.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: I, too, support the Clause and from what my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) said, I think that he may have been pushing at an open door. If so, it means that the Parliamentary Secretary realises the tremendous value of the work done by small groups of people in country areas in providing refreshment facilities for the public. Hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of national parks will appreciate the important work done by men and their wives in providing services required by the public. Their activities are greatly preferable to those of the large State organisation, which must face staffing problems and the need to find employment for staff not required in the winter. This makes the service extremely expensive. On the other hand, a small private firm or a man and his wife can provide these facilities without difficulty.
      Mr. Peter Mills: My reason for supporting the Clause is that it is right in principle, and anything else would be
      1152
      utterly wrong. I fundamentally disagree with the Government on this issue because I do not like the idea of development boards and commissions interfering with private enterprise. When Government bodies enter this sort of business they usually make a mess of it. Nobody is attracted by the food offered by British Rail. Even the tea is cold. Private enterprise does this job well, and I will not, in explaining why, go into the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) of the Commission having to find employment for its unwanted staff in the winter.
      In many country areas farmers' wives provide refreshment facilities and, by doing so, help to meet their expenses. In some areas this work is part of the "perks" and it should not be taken away from the wives of farmers or farm workers who, from their small cottages, provide cups of tea and perhaps bed and breakfast at 22s. a night. This is a little hit of jam on the small amount of bread that they have, and it would be wrong for the State to interfere with it.
      Mr. Anderson: I cannot understand this farrago of prejudice from hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly from the normally sensible hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who referred to State concerns inevitably making a botch of things and British Rail always serving cold tea.
      Although I go part of the way with the new Clause, I disagree with it in principle. This matter should be left flexible and, where the provision of these facilities can be put out to tender, that will be done. I have no objection in principle to the Commission entering into this type of business, as long as it does so on a fair basis and competes on fair terms with private enterprise. I shall support this principle in the Transport Bill, just as I shall in this Measure.
      Mr. Skeffington: This reminds me of several discussions we had in Committee when hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed doctrinal obsessions to take over. Even the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) dragged in the suggestion that if a local authority became the main agent in providing these services, the cost would fall on the ratepayers. That may happen in his constituency, but I know that it does not happen in the

      1153
      constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), where the local authority makes good profits out of the provision of extremely good services of this kind. As far as I know, the Hotels Executive has never made a loss.
      However. I do not wish to base my case on this philosophical or doctrinal attitude, but to ask the House to face up to the situation in which increasing demands are being made on the facilities being provided in the countryside. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have not given sufficient thought to the enormous number of people who wish to take advantage of these facilities. Our 581 people per square mile are becoming more mobile. The Bill aims in part at opening up areas to the public by the creation of parks, picnic sites, camps and so on.
      To meet this demand, local authorities will wish to provide facilities. If facilities are available, they will not wish to do that. Nor will the Commission, which is limited to providing these facilities only in a few experimental projects—and even then it may not wish to do that. The matter is completely at the Commission's discretion. Local authorities will use existing facilities if they are adequate. Many municipal authorities take the view that where facilities should be provided in town parks, it is essential, for the families who wish to spend their time in the parks, to provide these facilities.
      Whether the provision of these facilities should be left to private or local enterprise is a matter for the local authorities concerned. We wish to adopt the principle that in this great new obligation which local authorities will have, they should act responsibly, remembering that if these authorities were not capable of operating responsibly, Administrations of both parties would not have given them greater powers over the years.
      We must consider this matter in a practical way and face the problems arising from the vast number of people who are going into the country. There are now nine million motorcars on our roads. There will be 20 million in 10 years' time. These facilities must be provided.
      It is not true that, as some hon. Members seemed to suggest, the powers we are giving to local authorities and the Forestry Commission in the relatively small number of cases where this situation might arise
      1154
      would prevent anyone else offering a service. This provision does not stop anyone doing so, but it is to see that in particular areas there will be adequate facilities. In the sort of place mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), such as Keilder, it is unlikely that any private caterer would be interested in providing these facilities. We are giving local authorities or the Forestry Commission the opportunity to provide them where there is a need for them and where they cannot be conveniently provided adequately by private enterprise.
      I was asked what would happen in the winter. The Commission would close its accommodation in the winter just as the private operator would close accommodation. Perhaps hon. Members forget that already about 5 million people visit the forests annually. It is right that the Commission, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, should provide facilities which cannot be conveniently provided by others. It is wrong to take this grandmotherly attitude towards the Commission and the local authorities.
      I am sure the new Clause has been put forward only in order to elicit a response from the Government. It would not be adequate. I merely says that the bodies named in relation to various activities
      "shall not … provide accommodation, meals or refreshments unless they have satisfied themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms."
      Satisfactory to whom? Does it mean more economically? It is quite hopeless, even if it were taken as a test of practicality. Our belief is that the Commission and local authorities, in the small number of cases in which they may be concerned, should have the right to do these things, if they cannot be provided conveniently by others.
      Mr. John Smith: What the Parliamentary Secretary has said arouses all the fears that many of us have about this Bill. His approach was entirely urban. This is not a question of national or municipal enterprise versus private enterprise but a question of our approach to the countryside.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hotels Executive and what is done in town parks, but the type of person who wishes to go miles in search

      1155
      of solitude—and whom I wish to encourage to do so—does not want to find a British Restaurant on his arrival there. He wishes to find, incompetent though it may be, and in municipal terms most incompetent, a farmhouse tea. I therefore warmly support the new Clause and I hope that we can expunge this urban approach from the Bill.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Jopling: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but, after listening to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel constrained to do so. The hon. Member for Monmouth did not try to do what I give credit to the Parliamentary Secretary for doing—to argue his case. He more or less said, "I do not like this Amendment. I am all for State trading; I approve of it in the Transport Bill and here". We would have been grateful if he had given a few reasons. He might have said, "I like this because Karl Marx wrote it and I will go into the Lobby and vote against this new Clause". I am sorry that he did not explain his position more fully.
      My reaction to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). This would be a useful Clause dealing with remote rural areas where the provision of accommodation would be only marginally profitable. Whoever makes provision for catering and accommodation there should make the best possible use of resources, not only in investment but in his work. The best use of resources could be ensured by the private enterprise man in a small way. He could provide a far more efficient service in these areas.
      From the point of view of rural depopulation, this new Clause is important. These catering enterprises are only marginally profitable. It may be that the Commission or the local authorities would find them too expensive and that the cost would be too great. Then, if they decided not to provide them, there would be no such provision. Many hon. Members on either side of the House have tried to create a situation in which more people will be encouraged to live in remote areas. By writing into the Bill a firm provision that private enterprise must
      1156
      have first priority in this activity, we would be encouraging more people to live in those areas in which we are so concerned about rural depopulation.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) will press the new Clause to a Division. I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it in the Lobby.
      Mr. Channon: This debate has shown how totally doctrinaire the Parliamentary Secretary is. In this new Clause we attempted to put forward a compromise solution. So undoctrinaire were we in Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary asked for time to look at this proposal again. If he thought that we were putting forward a totally invalid suggestion, why did he say in Committee:
      "The Government have some sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment ",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 14th December, 1967; c. 295.]
      We sought to strike a balance between the interests of private enterprise and the interests of the State. I shall show the number of occasions in which, where it is proposed that various authorities can provide meals, refreshment and accommodation, a fantastic side-swipe can be taken against the proposal. A plethora of hotels and restaurants could be set up as a result of this Bill. What could be more disastrous for the countryside?
      If it is thought that I am exaggerating, I call attention to Clause 3, by which the Commission, for experimental purposes, can provide meals, refreshment or accommodation because it has power to
      "set up and carry on directly or through an agent any business or undertaking."
      I should be astonished if this were not wide enough. They would certainly have the power to do it under that Clause.
      Under Clause 6 the local authorities have the power to set up hotels in the country parks and provide meals or accommodation. In Clause 7 the local authorities have the power to do it on common land, and as a result, my hon. Friends voted against this provision in the Standing Committee. Curiously enough, though, in Clause 7 the Government have put forward a safeguard which, had it been written into the rest of the Bill, would have meant that my hon. Friends would not be pressing this new

      1157
      Clause. Clause 7 in regard to common land that
      "a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor in the neighbourhood of the common land are inadequate or unsatisfactory.…".
      If the Government were prepared to write that into the remaining parts of the Bill, they would have a case. It is quite unsatisfactory for the Parliamentary Secretary to come to this House and say that in those remote areas the facilities are going to be so unsatisfactory and inconvenient that it is essential that this is in the Bill, yet not be prepared to write in the safeguard we would be willing to accept, and indeed suggested in the Standing Committee debates.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) will be interested in the powers of the Forestry Commission under Clause 18. I hope we shall have an opportunity to discuss this in detail later, because the Forestry Commission is given powers to provide accommodation for visitors, camping sites and caravan sites, shops, public conveniences, information centres and a whole host of things which could very easily, on occasion, be provided equally satisfactorily by private enterprise.
      During the Committee stage we suggested that the Government should either bring in the safeguards which they have in their own Clause 7 or adopt the test which my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) pointed out that they brought in under the previous Labour Government in the Civic Restaurants Act of 1947, that if such activities did not show a profit for three years certain penalties should follow. Either course would seem to me to be reasonable.
      This Clause does not stop local authorities providing the facilities when it is impossible for them to be provided in other ways, which would avoid a waste of public money. It simply says:
      "it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Forestry Commissioners and local authorities, before themselves providing such facilities, to satisfy themselves by the public invitation of tenders that such facilities cannot adequately be provided by other persons on satisfactory terms."
      That seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory and reasonable and to represent a compromise which could easily have been accepted by the Government. We suggest public invitation of tenders, that other people should be invited to say if they wish to provide the facilities; and if they can do so on satisfactory terms we think they should have the chance.
      One of the major defects of the Bill as drafted is that time and again, in Clause after Clause, more powers are written in for local authorities, the Forestry Commission or the Countryside Commission to engage in activities which are not essential to their job under the Bill, which will divert their attention from providing the things we want to see them provide under the Bill—to providing meals, refreshments or accommodation, and will do so at the expense of private enterprise and in a way which will ensure that the facilities lose money and fail to give satisfaction to those who will be the customers.
      I very much hope that my hon. Friends will agree to divide the House on this subject, to show how deeply we feel about this Clause.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 202.

      Division No. 115.]

      AYES

      [7.24 p.m.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Brewis, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Astor, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter

      Dance, James

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Biffen, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Campbell, Cordon

      Doughty, Charles

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Carlisle, Mark

      Drayson, G. B.

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Eden, Sir John

      Blaker, Peter

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Boardman, Tom

      Clark, Henry

      Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

      Body, Richard

      Clegg, Walter

      Emery, Peter

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Cooke, Robert

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lubbock, Eric

      Royle, Anthony

      Fortescue, Tim

      MacArthur, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Sharples, Richard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Silvester, Frederick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Grant, Anthony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Speed, Keith

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Stainton, Keith

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mills, peter (Torrington)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monro, Hector

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hawkins, Paul

      More, Jasper

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Hiley, Joseph

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Tilney, John

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Holland, Philip

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Hornby, Richard

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Hunt, John

      Pardoe, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)

      Peel, John

      Webster, David

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Percival, Ian

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Jopling, Michael

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Pym, Francis

      Worsley, Marcus

      Lane, David

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Wylie, N. R.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Mr. Timothy Kitson and

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

      Loveys, W. H.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Alldritt, Walter

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Archer, Peter

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Kelley, Richard

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Beaney, Alan

      Ellis, John

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Bence, Cyril

      Fernyhough, E.

      Lawson, George

      Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Binns, John

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Foley, Maurice

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Blackburn, F.

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ford, Ben

      Loughlin, Charles

      Boston, Terence

      Forrester, John

      Luard, Evan

      Boyden, James

      Fowler, Gerry

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McCann, John

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Gardner, Tony

      MacDermot, Niall

      Brooks, Edwin

      Garrett, W. E.

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McGuire, Michael

      Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mackie, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Macpherson, Malcolm

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hamling, William

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Coleman, Donald

      Hannan, William

      Matron, Simon (Bootle)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Harper, Joseph

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mapp, Charles

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Haseldine, Norman

      Marks, Kenneth

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Hazell, Bert

      Marquand, David

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Hooley, Frank

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Horner, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doug as

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Howie, W.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hoy, James

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Dempsey, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Moyle, Roland

      Dewar, Donald

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Murray, Albert

      Dickens, James

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)

      Noel-Baker, Bt.Hn.philip (Derby, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Driberg, Tom

      Hynd, John

      O'Malley, Brian

      Dunn, James A.

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Oram, Albert E.

      1160

      1161

      Orbach, Maurice

      Rose, Paul

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Orme, Stanley

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Rowlands, E, (Cardiff, N.)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Wallace, George

      Padley, Walter

      Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Whitlock, William

      Park, Trevor

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Small, William

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Snow, Julian

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Pentland, Norman

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Winnick, David

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Swain, Thomas

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Probert, Arthur

      Swingler, Stephen

      Yates, Victor

      Randall, Harry

      Symonds, J. B.

      Rankin, John

      Thornton, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Richard, Ivor

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Varley, Eric C.

    New Clause No. 9.

      DUTY OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO STRUCTURES.
      (1) It shall be the duty of a highway authority in the exercise of their powers to maintain any stile, gate or other structure across a footpath or bridleway (hereafter called 'the structure ') in such a state as not to cause any harm or inconvenience to persons using the footpath or bridleway.
      (2) If it appears to the highway authority for the footpath or bridleway that the structure is in need of repair whether with or without prior notification of that fact having been made to it by the owner or occupier of the land it stall have power to make arrangements for the owner or occupier of the land to take all reasonable steps to repair and make good tie structure.
      (3) Where any such arrangement as referred to in subsection (2) above is made, the highway authority shall make a contribution of seventy-five per cent. of the reasonable expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of the land in repairing and making good the structure.
      (4) This section shall be construed as one with the Highways Act 1959.—[Mr. Channon.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Clause I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 61, in page 24, line 20, leave out "the amount" and insert "three-quarters"; Amendment No. 62, in page 24, line 22, leave out "subsection" to end and Government Amendment No. 63 and the Amendment to Government Amendment No. 63 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).
      Mr. Channon: That suggested grouping is convenient, because it enables the
      1162
      House to decide how to treat this very important problem. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), I think that this is probably the most important new Clause that we have to discuss. I am glad that it has been possible to discuss all the Amendments relating to stiles together. There is no doubt that the rights of way Clauses are hound to have an important effect on the lives of those who live in or frequently visit the countryside.
      The Clause enables the House to decide whether the duty to repair stiles, gates and other structures across footpaths or bridleways should be placed upon the highway authority or, as the Government propose, upon owners and occupiers of land. The Government have come forward with proposals which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said in Committee, will be revolutionary for the countryside. There will be widespread feeling and anxiety about them. The Government propose to make farmers responsible for the first time for the maintenance of stiles over public footpaths.
      There will be many small farmers with large numbers of stiles over footpaths on their land to whom this will be a great burden. In the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) quoted the example of a very small farm on which there were no fewer than 34 stiles. It has been estimated that it would cost about £8 to maintain each stile. My hon. Friend said that in his part of the country stiles last on an average for about two weeks, so this is a substantial burden.
      It must be admitted that the law has been confusing up to the present. Most

      1163
      authorities agree that it has been the duty of highway authorities to repair gates, stiles and footpaths. I shall not discuss at great length the legal position in regard to stiles, because many hon. Members, among whom is certainly the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, know the position very well. Many cases point out that, if the local authority is responsible for the surface repairs on a road, it is also responsible for the stiles and gates.
      This situation will change when the Bill becomes law. The Gosling Committee recommended in paragraphs 42 to 46 that the maintenance of stiles and gates should be transferred to the landowner or the occupier. It did so on the grounds of keeping costs to a minimum and for various practical reasons.
      In paragraph 44 of its Report, the Gosling Committee said:
      "We have heard evidence that, bearing in mind the present and prospective recreational use of footpaths, there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gates to be met from the public purse. But in the interest of keeping these costs to a minimum and also for practical reasons, we recommend that owners and occupiers should be responsible for the task of maintenance."
      In paragraph 45, the Committee said:
      '… it seems to us fair, and we recommend, that owners or occupiers should, as of right, receive a reasonable contribution from the highway authority towards maintenance costs, subject only to the work being carried out to an acceptable standard."
      I have two criticisms of the Gosling Committee's recommendations. Fist, I do not think that the Committee paid enough attention to the argument on equity, the great change which would affect people in the countryside, particularly small farmers, to a very great degree. Second, its recommendation was too general. It did not say what it had in mind or how much recompense should be made to the owners of land affected by the proposal. In the result, the Government did not at first accept the Gosling Committee's interim recommendation, when the Bill was printed and at the Second Reading stage.
      In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends and I pressed strongly—and we had the support of certain hon. Members opposite—that there should be a mandatory contribution by the highway
      1164
      authority for the maintenance of stiles, gates and other structures. We argued that that mandatory contribution should be 75 per cent., unless the duty was not complied with by the landowner. If the owner did not carry out his duties—this is Clause 22(2)—the highway authority would have to do the work itself and would then recover 50 per cent., so that it would cost the owner more if he did not do the work.
      The Parliamentary Secretary accepted the principle of a mandatory contribution but he was not prepared to go beyond 25 per cent., the figure written into the Government Amendment now before us. The sense of the Committee on that occasion, on both sides, was against the figure of 25 per cent. My hon. Friends and I argued for 75 per cent. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson)—this is column 1215—suggested a mandatory contribution of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson)—this is column 1217—suggested some such figure as 60 per cent. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson)—this is column 1221—argued somewhat differently from myself but said that there should be power to contribute up to 75 per cent. I did not regard that as satisfactory because it did not have a mandatory lower figure, which I thought essential. It is fair to say, therefore, that opinion in the Standing Committee, although it did not go as far as 75 per cent., was in favour of a great deal more than 25 per cent.
      The Parliamentary Secretary argued that the 25 per cent. mandatory contribution would be discretionary and that in certain cases highway authorities could go higher, sometimes even going up to 100 per cent. We all know what happens with a discretionary payment system. The 25 per cent. would almost certainly become the maximum in all but a small minority of cases.
      I still regard the 25 per cent. proposed by the Government as unsatisfactory, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree. It seems to me that the choice lies between the new Clause, which would keep the onus and duty on the highway authority, and the Government's proposal to put the burden on the owner, with a 25 per cent. mandatory contribution from the highway authority. Before I discuss the merits of those two courses, I shall

      1165
      explain the purpose of new Clause No. 9 a little further.
      7.45 p.m.
      The Clause would place on the highway authority the duty to maintain stiles, gates and so on across footpaths. One passage in the new Clause would require amendment if it were accepted by the House. Instead of providing that the stiles or gates should be kept
      "in such a state as not to cause harm or inconvenience",
      it would have to agree with the Government Amendment as regards harm or inconvenience. I say that at once because I do not want it to be thrown out on drafting grounds.
      The highway authority would have power to delegate its duties if it wished, but it would then make a contribution of 75 per cent. of the reasonable expenses incurred by the owner or occupier of the hind. In general, the responsibility to maintain would rest on the highway authorities themselves.
      Hon. Members may hold different opinions on whether it is right that this duty should fall on the highway authority or on the owner of the land. I agree that, on balance, it would be more convenient if the duty were put on the owner but, in that event, the compensation must be reasonable. In my view, the worst of all possible solutions would be to leave Clause 22 unamended. No one wants to do that. The best possible solution would be acceptance of our Amendment to the Government Amendment, which would make the mandatory contribution 50 per cent. Failing that, as second best, I should press new Clause No. 9, which would keep the duty on the highway authorities.
      I very much hope that the Government will not stick to their solution, which is to make the mandatory contribution 25 per cent. I look forward to hearing hon. Members opposite, if they agree that there is a case for increasing the mandatory contributions, and I hope that the Government will be persuaded to raise the figure from 25 to 50 per cent. If they agree, I shall ask leave to withdraw the new Clause. If they do not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to press the new Clause, because we think that it would be better than keeping such a small fig are as 25 per cent. for the mandatory contribution.
      1166
      The House is united in its wish to see greater opportunities for access and enjoyment of the countryside after the Bill becomes law. It is united also, I think, in agreeing that, if there is this great increase in access, there will inevitably be great problems for those who live and work in the countryside. Great burdens will be placed on small farmers, and they will find it very difficult to meet them. I hope that the Government recognise that.
      My hon. Friends and I have moved from our proposed 75 per cent. mandatory contribution to the figure of 50 per cent. because, in the light of our discussion in Committee, we took it to be the general view that that was an acceptable figure which all hon. Members could support. This a genuine attempt to find a solution which will not put upon highway authorities so great a burden as would be unreasonable, while, on the other hand, not putting too great a burden upon the people who will have the duty of mending stiles and looking after them, paying for the work out of their own pocket.
      This is a genuine attempt to find a solution acceptable to both sides in the discussion. There is no party political difference between us. It is purely a question of the practical way to deal with the problem so that all sides can be satisfied with the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Government will accept, not necessarily the new Clause, but the Amendment raising the mandatory contribution from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. If they do so, a broadly satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem can be reached. Those who live and work in the countryside will be very grateful that an answer is found which recognises their problems and at the same time is a satisfactory solution to what I think is the most worrying feature of the whole Bill.
      Mr. Turton: I have rather more affection for the new Clause than has my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). A strong case has not been made out by the Gosling Committee for shifting the responsibility for the repair of stiles from the highway authority, where it generally is, to the owner or occupier. I leave out gates, for they

      1167
      are quite a different matter. In the interests of those who will use the footpath it will be far better not to disturb the liability but to look at the problem from the farmer's point of view. He wants his field encased by a hedge or a post and rails. As there are footpaths through it somebody will have to enable the pedestrian to get over the hedge or the post and rails, and therefore the stile is introduced. Generally—certainly in my area—the obligation to repair a stile is on the highway authority. The case of a gate is different, because that is normally erected to keep stock in where there has been a right of way, though I accept that this varies by custom in different parts of the country.
      I beg the Government to hesitate before accepting this part of the Gosling Report. As I see it, the Committee said that in general it would like this shifting of responsibility, but that where an owner could establish that he had dedicated a path expressly excluding liability for maintenance he should be reimbursed in full. It is noticeable that the Government have not accepted that part of paragraph 5 of the Report, which I suggest is not very well designed. What about the cases where owners from time immemorial have made it clear that they have no liability under the Enclosure Acts for the stiles? There are many old Enclosure Acts in which that has been laid down. But the Government should not suddenly at this stage thrust the responsibility on to the farmers, that is a burden that should not be placed on them at present.
      There is one small point that is not clear in either the new Clause or Clause 22, and that concerns the position in my area, in North Yorkshire, where one finds footbridges with a stile or gate at the end for the protection of pedestrians. Clearly, that should go with the footbridge. I gather that the Government agree that a footbridge is the responsibility of the highway authority, and it will be ridiculous if the footbridge is to be maintained by the highway authority but the approach—a stile where the pedestrian comes on to it—becomes the farmer's responsibility. I beg the Government to think again about this, because in my area where there are many ghylls and ravines it is a very normal practice to have a
      1168
      bridge with a stile or a gate at the approach to it.
      If the responsibility is to be shifted it is wrong to place the huge burden of 75 per cent. of the cost on farmers, limiting the recovery to a minimum of 25 per cent. It is far better when drafting legislation not to say "not less than" but to state exactly the percentage that should be paid, because, as my hon. Friend said, one always finds that the minimum tends to become the maximum paid by a local authority.
      If the responsibility is shifted, and we are as ungenerous as the Government propose, the stiles will not be maintained properly, or in some cases will be maintained in a very dangerous way by the farmer. I know many of my constituent farmers who will see when they maintain a stile that they have a nice little piece of barbed wire, which they love using, on the top rail. I warn pedestrians that it is far better to have their interests looked after by a highway authority than by a farmer, who will be looking after his own interests and deterring pedestrians rather than encouraging them.
      Mr. Anderson: I shall not rehearse the arguments already raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in what I thought was a good and very conciliatory speech, nor the arguments I raised in Committee in favour of a 50–50 breakdown.
      This is not a party political debate in any sense but rather one about where it is equitable to draw the line of responsibility. As I maintained in Committee and still believe, a 50–50 breakdown is on the whole likely to be most equitable and to be greeted as most fair by the country people on whom we shall rely for carrying out the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. James Ramsden: This question does not involve really big money for local authorities, even if they have to bear the whole cost and continue to be responsible for maintenance. On reflection since Committee, I think that that would be the right course. It does not involve really big money for farmers although it involves a certain amount of inconvenience and, for the small farmer, a considerable outlay of money.
      We are most likely to get the matter right if we try to take the discussion out

      1169
      of the realms of responsibility under the law, where it has been so far, and of the option between 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. and try to relate it to fulfilling the main purpose of the Bill—to get more people out into the countryside to enjoy themselves there, to make sure that they are welcome when they go there, and to see that the Bill's aims are supported by the feeling of the local people. We have all agreed that the Bill cannot work without that.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the impact on the farming community of suddenly finding themselves responsible for the maintenance of stiles will be considerable. I do not think that it will conduce to the good relations which are necessary if the Bill is to work properly.
      I have discussed this with a gentleman in my constituency with whom I have been in close touch about matters affecting the interests of ramblers, because he knows a great deal about the subject and has successfully represented their interests in our locality. He feels the same way. He does not think that this is a reasonable imposition to lay on the farming community and he believes that if it is imposed it will not make for the achievement of the sort of relations between farmers and ramblers which both sides wish to see.
      I hope that the Government will think again about this. It would be reasonable, following the Gosling Report, for the local authorities to accept the duty of repair and to make arrangements with the local occupiers to do the work, since they would do it more practically and more cheaply. I hope that the Government will do this in the interests of good relations between the farming community and those going into the countryside and will look at the matter again from that point of view.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. MacDermot: I am not seeking to bring the debate to a close, for I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. This is a difficult topic and I do not pretend that it is easy to get the right answer, but it might be helpful if I put forward the considerations which the Gosling Committee
      1170
      had before it and the reason for these proposals.
      The new Clause and the Amendments raise two questions. The first is where the duty should lie to do the job of maintenance and repair. The second is who should pay for it and, following that, whether the cost could be shared and in what proportions. First—where should the duty lie? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been talking as though the Gosling Committee was making a recommendation for transferring an existing liability from the local authority to the landowner or occupier. That is not correct and it is not a view which the Committee itself took, because it said in paragraph 43:
      "The intention of the present law on maintenance of stiles and gates is not immediately apparent. There is much confusion because it is not clear whether the liability rests on the landowner or occupier on the one hand or on the highway authority on the other."
      Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that in a matter of this kind, there should be doubt as to where liability lies. We know from practical experience how rickety stiles can be. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke of elderly people using them often and emphasised both the importance of the stiles being properly maintained and the question of where the liability should rest being put beyond doubt. The Committee recommended, with eminent good sense, that the most satisfactory course is to place liability on people in a position to do the job best and most cheaply. It said in paragraph 44:
      " …in the interest of keeping these costs to a minimum and also for practical reasons we recommend that owners and occupiers should be responsible for the task of maintenance."
      Surely that is something that we should clearly accept. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I would advise rejection of new Clause 9, which would seek to place the responsibility on the local authorities.
      Secondly, there is the question of payment. Again, of course, there is doubt at the moment as to where legal liability stands. The arguments are fairly clear. Those who think that the landowner or occupier should pay say that the footpath is a highway—and so it is—over which the public has the right of way and that the public has no need for stiles or for

      1171
      gates. They say that it is the farmer who needs them to keep his stock in and that this is why there is a gate or stile, otherwise the footpath would continue through a gap in the hedge or fence. On this argument, one sees that the responsibility should rest in a sense with the farmer, not only to erect the gate or stile but to maintain and repair it, since it is for his benefit that it exists.
      The argument the other way is that the use of these footpaths is the use of the general public and that it is usually the general public who get the advantage of being able to use them. Therefore when, as a result of their use, these stiles or gates fall into disrepair, it is right that the public should pay for their maintenance and upkeep.
      If one is minded to attach weight to each argument and to say that there is something to be said on both sides, this would lead most people to think in terms of a 50–50 conclusion and say, "Split the difference and let the local authorities contribute 50 per cent. of the cost ". I understand the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) to be arguing that it would be better to have a fixed contribution from public funds in all cases. This is not what the Gosling Committee recommended. It accepted that there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gates to be met from the public purse and it recommended that owners and occupiers should, as of right, receive a reasonable contribution.
      The fact that the Committee made its recommendation in these terms indicates to me that it thought that there should not be a fixed contribution, because whatever sum one fixed would tend to be unfair in some cases. We have heard references in debates—I am not sure whether it was referred to in the Gosling Report—to vandalism in the countryside and to stiles which had been erected being destroyed in a short time by vandals. If a case of that kind occurred, it seems to me that, if one were to have a flexible system, there would be a strong argument for saying that there should be a 100 per cent. contribution from public funds.
      At the moment, there is a power for local authorities to contribute, and I
      1172
      understand that in some cases they exercise that power, so that, on occasion, they contribute 100 per cent. The question is whether we want to give effect to the Gosling recommendation by providing that a contribution should be made and leaving it to the local authorities' discretion to decide what is the reasonable contribution to make in any particular circumstances.
      One can try to marry that provision either to a maximum contribution or to a minimum contribution by the local authorities. The great danger of that is that we know from experience that any minimum contribution laid down tends to become the maximum. The higher the minimum contribution is fixed, the greater is the tendency. That is why we believe the right solution to be a flexible one with power to pay up to 100 per cent., and since there was a feeling that there should be a minimum contribution, we thought it better to recommend aiming at a low minimum contribution—and it is low at 25 per cent.—because then there would be a good prospect that it would not be treated as the maximum and that the local authorities would direct their minds to what was a fair contribution to make in each particular case.
      Once one shifted that minimum up to, say, 50 per cent. contribution, it is my belief that it would become the maximum. If that is what we want, we should say, "It is better to have a fixed contribution and make it 50 per cent., and be content with that 50 per cent. contribution in all cases". If the feeling of the House is that this would be the better solution, I would be prepared to agree to it. Provided it is workable, my belief is that there would be more justice in a flexible system under which the duty was on the local authority to make a reasonable contribution. That would be in accordance with the Gosling Committee's recommendations.
      Mr. Turton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking of reasonable contributions recommended in the Gosling Report. The Gosling Committee went further and said that in certain cases there should be full reimbursement. I do not think that the Gosling Report put the case correctly. It said: "Where there had been an expressed intention." It ought also to have included:
      "…where there is an express legal liability on the highway authority."
      Mr. MacDermot: If one put it in that form one is back to all the doubts and complexities of the present legal situation. I have a brief here, several pages long, dealing with the legal points. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the situation is complex. It is a matter which is open in any particular case to a very great deal of argument as to where the legal duty rests. I have not forgotten the right hon. Gentleman's point about the last sentence of paragraph 45. We have provided for that in Amendment 63. The first subsection provides that where an owner had dedicated a path expressly excluding his liability for maintenance, he will be entitled to be reimbursed in full. Otherwise, we have provided that it will be open to the local authority in any particular case to pay up to 100 per cent.
      Looking at our Amendment and the wording of the Clause, I see in subsection (3):
      "The highway authority shall have power to make contributions towards expenses incurred in compliance with subsection (1) above."
      If hon. Members think that it would be helpful, I would be prepared to consider introducing in another place a wording—pitting that positively and adopting the wording of the Gosling recommendation—that the authority shall make such contribution as in all the circumstances appears to it reasonable, or words to that effect, and then provide for a minimum contribution of 25 per cent. This seems to be a provision that would give some flexibility and result in justice in a greater number of cases.
      There was an occasion when a former Member of this House, Mr. D. N. Pritt, opened a case in the Court of Appeal, against a judgment, which had been described by the judge who gave it as "rough justice", by questioning whether this was rough justice or just roughness. The danger of the 50–50 solution is that it will be just roughness.
      Mr. Channon: Can the Minister of State repeat what might be proposed to be in place of subsection (3)?
      Mr. MacDermot: I was only seeking to adopt the wording of the Gosling recommendation, and say that the highway authority shall make such provision toward the expenses incurred in compliance with subsection (1) as in all the
      1174
      circumstances of the case, appears to it reasonable, or words to that effect. I would then suggest that we added the provision that in any event the contribution should be a minimum of 25 per cent.
      Mr. Pardoe: Farmers, through their union, have welcomed the increased access to the countryside. As the Minister has said, all we are trying to do is to decide who will pay. Nothing costs nothing, and this greater freedom of access will cost someone something. We have to ask who will gain. As far as we can see the farmers will not gain anything from this increased access. The people who will gain are those who have the greater access and, to a certain extent perhaps, local authorities who may benefit from increased tourism. The farmer will gain nothing but it will cost him a great deal.
      He will be forced to pay the price of other people's freedom and this is wrong in principle. It is not just a question of putting the present costs on the farmer's shoulders. To some extent in some places he already bears these. In some respects, with gates as opposed to stiles, he has this responsibility. It is not only the present costs, because it has already been pointed out that we have 581 people to the square mile. There will inevitably be more people and more and more will walk down the footpaths, climbing gates and stiles. Wear and tear will be considerably greater.
      The situation has vastly changed since the purpose of the footpath was to get from A to B by a few whose daily chores made it necessary for them to walk to work. Their interest was to maintain stiles and footpaths in adequate repair because they had to use them, morning and evening. Vandalism and hooliganism have been mentioned, and unfortunately some people who use the footpaths will have no such interest in them, because they will probably use them only once in their lives. Unfortunately, some human beings will tear almost anything apart.
      8.15 p.m.
      Gosling has made a rather strange distinction. It is said that there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance for stiles and gates to be made from the public purse, but he goes on to say that for administrative reasons,

      1175
      owners and occupiers should be responsible for maintenance. The hon. and learned Gentleman made the distinction that there is the cost on one side and on the other the physical business of doing the work. Rather than worry too much about the 50 per cent. of 75 per cent.—and I have already made it clear that I favour the public authorities' paying a larger share since the farmers are being forced to pay too much—why try to divide the work? It is extremely difficult to assess labour in this. Why not leave the labour element out of it, leave it to the farming community to do?
      In most small farms the farmer will do it himself. We should fix whatever percentage we decide upon on the actual cost of materials. I can see the distinction about administration; it will be extremely difficult to assess how much time anyone is spending bashing in posts for a stile, putting the plank across and hammering the nails in. The actual cost of the materials is not open to anything like as much doubt, and would be administratively simpler.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I should like to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the terms of his reply. The principle which he enunciated is perfectly right, and I am happy to say that I accept it. I am a little unhappy about the wording of the Amendment, and I very much fear that it might be misconstrued by local authorities. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to clear this up. Amendment 63 reads:
      "(4) The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above, contribute not less than one-quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.
      (5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any structure if and so long as the highway authority are, under an agreement in writing with any other person, liable to maintain the structure."
      I am not a lawyer or a county surveyor, but a layman. I must confess that my reading of that subsection suggests that all that I. as the local authority official, would be obliged to contribute would be 25 per cent. My hon. and learned Friend must spell this out. He said that this is the minimum, and he is quite prepared to envisage circumstances in which local authorities could bear the full cost. I very much fear that local
      1176
      authorities will read him in the way in which I have read him, and will contribute no more than 25 per cent. I should like him to make the principle a little clearer in Amendments tabled in another place. Alternatively, he might do it in a circular to local authorities, to bring home to them that the 25 per cent. is a minimum and there are certain circumstances where they will be expected to pay more.
      I turn to the circumstances in which I feel that local authorities should be encouraged to pay more. There was reference in Committee, and there is reference in the White Paper, to setting up long-distance routes. We know how very few new creations there are. We hope that long-distance routes will be set up. New creations require the co-operation of landowners. My hon. and learned Friend will be seized of the point when I suggest that landowners will be reluctant to agree to creating new footpaths if it involves considerable obligations in respect of stiles and gates.
      Therefore, when it is right and proper for the local authority or the National Parks Commission to meet the full cost of stiles and gates, I hope that, perhaps not in Amendments, but in circulars, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will inform local authorities that it is not unreasonable for them to pay up to 100 per cent. of the cost.
      Sir Frank Pearson: I have not the advantage of having followed all the debates in Committee, but I wish to intervene because this is one of the most important proposals and the debate on it is of extreme importance to people living in the countryside, and we want the countryside to be enjoyed very much more than it has been by townspeople. The right of use of footpaths and bridlepaths is the centre of the problem.
      We should consider how the footpaths originally came to be used. In the past, they were purely local amenities used by local people. By the Bill, we are substantially extending their use. Most people in the countryside would welcome this extension. Under the old system, when the use of footpaths was relatively limited, it was not a heavy burden for the people through whose land the footpath ran to maintain stiles and gates. But we are now altering the whole concept of the use of footpaths. We want to encourage

      1177
      people to use footpaths, but this will be a very heavy burden on the people through whose land they run.
      I do not think that the Minister of State was entirely right in saying that it was rational to place the full burden on the landowner or farmer. If the Bill is to succeed, we must have the willing collaboration of the farming community and the landlords. It is niggling little points like this which make the Government appear to be mean-minded. These are the sort of points which will put the landowners and tenant farmers against the Bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. There is not a big sum involved. Once we extend the right to use footpaths to a much wider public, and once we look on the use of footpaths as something of social importance and national good, it is right to say that the public authority should stand the greater part of the cost of maintaining stiles and gates.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a valid point. It is already accepted that local authorities shall maintain bridges. On my own land, there is a path which goes across three bridges. They are all maintained by the local authority. If anything happens on them, it is not the landowner but the local authority which is responsible for the damage. Is it not reasonable to take that a step further and say that the same principle should apply to gates and stiles? I cannot help feeling that that must be right.
      The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) made the point that by laying down a 25 per cent. limit we are laying down a limit to which local authorities will say that they will go. I ask the Minister of State to have another look at the matter. I should like him to go the whole hog and say that highway authorities shall be responsible in full for the maintenance of stiles and gates. If he cannot go as far as that, I ask him to go much further than he has gone up to now. This is a point which could create justifiable ill feeling and we do not want that to happen. The landowners and tenant farmers wish to encourage the public to go to the countryside, but if we lay restrictions of this sort on them we are going the right way about turning them against the Bill.
      Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I have not had the advantage of seeing the brief which the Minister of State has in his possession. That may be a piece of good fortune, because, apparently, he feels that, as a result of the brief, his view of the law is rather obscure. I set out my view of the law on Second Reading and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be pleased to know that I do not propose to go over it. However, I heard nothing in Committee which led me to alter my view that the liability for the maintenance of stiles is squarely on the highway authority. Therefore, I should find the greatest difficulty in accepting paragraph 43 of the Gosling Report. It follows that this legislation alters the burden on the local authorities and places it on shoulders which did not carry it before.
      A point to which I referred once or twice in Committee, and to which I have not had an answer, is that, if we do that, what will be the position concerning negligence if a stile is not properly maintained? I think that the law is reasonably clear. One of the cases is Rundle v. Hearle, which doubtless the Minister of State will find in his brief and which he knows all about. The position concerning negligence is quite clearly covered at present, but I am not sure that it will be after the Bill is passed. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this.
      Secondly, the Gosling Committee said, in paragraph 44 of its Report, that
      "a substantial part of the cost of maintenance"
      should
      "be met from the public purse".
      When the Minister of State made his Second Reading speech, he referred to the "affluent motorised society". That phrase has remained with me throughout these proceedings. It is the affluent motorised society for which the Minister is legislating, and it is that society which will use the stiles. If the Gosling Committee says that a substantial part of the cost of maintaining stiles for the affluent motorised society should be met from the public purse, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that 25 per cent. should be written in the Bill. Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to say that a much higher figure should be written in. There is no reason why more than 50 per cent. should

      1179
      not be written in, but I see no justification for starting at 25 per cent.
      The Minister said that the work was to be done by the people in the best position to do it. By that he meant that the farmer living near the stile can more easily do it than anybody else. Most farmers, when they drive around the countryside and see the staff which is maintained by highway authorities would dearly like to have the same amount of labour available to them to do the work on the rights of way. Most farmers these days run their farms with very few staff indeed. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to a farm where there are 34 stiles. This farm was composed of 40 fields, 18 of which had no rights of way and the remaining 22 had one to three rights of way in each. That is a sizeable burden to place on any small organisation, but that is what we are asking the farmer to take on.
      8.30 p.m.
      A constituent of mine only a few days ago told me that in the middle of his farm there is a disused iron mine, which is not unusual in Sussex. For over 100 years there have been seven rights of way leading to the place where this iron mine used to be. My constituent runs a small farm, but he will be responsible for maintaining stiles on seven rights of way which do not go anywhere.
      The Minister said that stiles are there for the benefit of the farmer. I hope he will think again about that, because the farmer could farm quite happily without any stiles. He does not use stiles. It is merely that the right of way happens to be there and it is there for the use of the public.
      If my view of the law is correct, it is the affluent motorised society that the Minister has been talking about which uses the stiles. Therefore, the Gosling Committee's recommendation, that a substantial part of the cost should be met from the public purse, is right.
      For these reasons, I sincerely hope that the Minister will have another look at this proposition and consider whether he cannot do something better than is suggested.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: We have had a wide-ranging debate and I do not propose
      1180
      to repeat the arguments which have already been made, nor to rehash the arguments we had in Standing Committee.
      The Minister of State has gone some way to meet the points urged by the Opposition concerning new Clause 9. He has moved from Clause 22(3), as it now stands, where the highway authority simply has the power to make contributions, because Amendment No. 63 says,
      "The highway authority shall … contribute not less than one quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred."
      One point of difference is that this is a permissive power and, as I read new Clause 9, would impose an obligation on the highway authority to make a contribution in all cases of 75 per cent. What is at issue, therefore, is, first, whether it shall be mandatory, and, secondly, what the contribution shall be.
      The Gosling Committee used language which suggests that 25 per cent. is in these circumstances not adequate. The use of the phrase in paragraph 44,
      "there is a strong case for a substantial part of the cost of maintenance of stiles and gate,, to be met from the public purse",
      would not be met by a contribution of 25 per cent. I do not think that the Minister would argue that that was a substantial contribution. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if he cannot extend the offer that he has made, first, to find some way of writing into the Bill that the contribution shall be made as of right, and, secondly, that in assessing it it shall be made clear that, if 25 per cent. or any other percentage is included, this is not to be taken as applicable to all cases. It may be to the disadvantage of farmers if we write in 50 per cent. because there may be cases where a grant of 75 per cent. or even 100 per cent. would be payable. I gather that there are cases where a 100 per cent. contribution is made. If we write in 50 per cent. it might be to the disadvantage of those who would otherwise receive a higher sum. Therefore, I hope that serious consideration will be given to this aspect.
      We have long passed the stage where we can argue about legal niceties. I was impressed by what underlines the suggestion of the Gosling Committee: that it is concerned not with the past but with the future. It stresses the present and prospective recreational use of footpaths.

      1181
      I would therefore ask the Minister of State to go a little beyond what he said, and to make it quite clear that there is no limit to the amount of contribution. It might then be possible for us to agree generally that in another place a new Clause could be introduced or an Amendment made to cover all these points.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: We have had an informed and serious debate on a difficult matter. We have heard legal opinion from both sides of the House and we have heard a great number of people with practical experience of the problems of stiles in the countryside. I would say two things to the Minister. He quite rightly said that we were discussing two points: first, a question of law, whether it was the responsibility of the local authority or the occupier; and secondly, the question of how much who should pay.
      On the first point he came down on one side. I do not argue with this; he is a lawyer and I am not. I do not have his ability to get the material and to understand it. The Minister must realise that he has definitely said that in his view the law should be changed to make the occupier of the land responsible for repairing stiles. Other points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) to cast doubt upon this assertion. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member are bath lawyers. Who am I to decide between them? All I am saying is that the right hon. Member the Minister of State has come down on the first alternative on one side of the fence.
      If responsibility is put on the owner, then I agree with many of my hon. Friends and with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House when they say that a substantial contribution must be given to the occupier. This is borne out at page 12 of the Interim Report of the Gosling Committee. The Minister of State thought the occupier would do better if the minimum were 25 per cent. than if a definite figure of 50 per cent. were included. I must point out to him that if he were to follow our Amendmmt in line 2, to leave out "quarter" and insert "half" his Amendment would then read—
      " The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above,
      1182
      contribute not less than one half of any expenses"
      I do not understand how he could argue that a local authority, faced with these words, would be less likely to make a suitable reimbursement to an owner than if the minimum limit were 25 per cent. I have sat on a council for a long time, as have many other hon. Members. We know the working of the minds of the chairman of the finance committee, the county treasurer and the city treasurer.
      The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) rightly said that, if the wording is "not less than 25 per cent." it will be 25 per cent. except in very exceptional circumstances, and of course in regard to Section 5 which he has referred to. I put to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who probably knows as much about the problems of walking on footpaths as anyone in the House, discussed this matter not only in Committee but also with a good deal of fervour this evening. He has appealed to the Minister to reconsider the figure.
      If we lumber occupiers of land for ever more with the responsibility of keeping stiles and gates, which can cost a considerable amount of money, if we take away what, in the estimation of many occupiers of land, is today the responsibility of the highway authority, then I am certain, and my hon. and right hon. Friends are certain, that the figure should not be less than 50 per cent.
      In what he has to say, I hope that the Minister of State will go along with the feeling of the whole House that a slight adjustment in the figure is necessary. If he will say that he is happy to look at the position again and, at a later stage, will bring forward the figure of 50 per cent. as the basic minimum and not less than 50 per cent., we will accept the position. On the other hand, if he cannot, I must tell him that we on this side feel strongly about the matter. What he has said so far is inadequate and, much as we dislike doing it on a Clause about which there has been a great measure of agreement on both sides, we shall feel bound to divided the House.
      Mr. MacDermot: I invited hon. Members to say whether they would prefer a fixed percentage or a flexible system. Apart from those hon. Members who

      1183
      asked for a 100 per cent. contribution, no one asked for a fixed percentage.
      If it is argued that a 25 per cent. minimum is in danger of becoming a maximum, my retort is that a 50 per cent. contribution is certain to be a maximum. That is why I say that, if hon. Members are really strongly in favour of a 50 per cent. minimum, let us settle for a 50 per cent. fixed contribution. However, that would produce very rough justice. Surely all the arguments about the minds of a Committee faced with a 25 per cent. contribution apply a fortiori to a 50 per cent. contribution, and no one will get more. My view is that the justice of the matter lies in a flexible system. As a general rule, I think upwards of 50 per cent. ought to be paid by way of contribution. But if one is to have a flexible system which allows 100 per cent. in some cases, it is right also that one should meet the case where a person would not get more than 25 per cent.
      The cost of a repair will be affected greatly by the extent to which maintenance has been done. If a stile or gate is inspected regularly, and a repair is carried out at an early stage, it will be a cheap job, but if defects are allowed to go on uncorrected, complete replacement will eventually be required. Whereas before, it would have been possible to get away with a cheap repair—it will now be necessary to install a new stile or gate and it will be due to the negligence or failure of the owner. In those circumstances, it does not follow that, if what is required is a new gate or stile, it would be fair that the local authority should contribute more than 25 per cent. That is not a typical case, but if one is to have a flexible system to allow for 100 per cent., it is reasonable also to have a low minimum.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I agree about a flexible system, but would my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of stating no percentage at all?
      Mr. MacDermot: That is what I had originally in the Bill. I think that would be the best solution. I would prefer to change the wording and follow the recommendations of the Gosling Committee and, instead of merely giving them power to make a contribution, put on them the duty to make a contribution of what is
      1184
      a reasonable amount in all the circumstances. I think that that would be better. However, I was under immense pressure to introduce a minimum, and, because I wanted to keep the system flexible, I acceded to it and said that in that case we should have a low minimum.
      Mr. Ramsden: Ignoring percentages, if it were made clear that the contribution would be the reasonable cost, that would be acceptable, but that has not been made clear. A contribution has been taken to be some small proportion of the cost which it might seem fit to the local authority to provide. If the Government can endorse the principle that the contribution is the reasonable cost which, if done by local labour would obviously be less than if done by the county council, that would be acceptable.
      Mr. MaeDermot: What the hon. Gentleman is arguing for now is 100 per cent. For a number of reasons, I do not think that that is right.
      8.45 p.m.
      May I comment on one or two further points before making my final recommendation? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) asked why the work should not be divided. I do not think he meant that literally, that some labourers should do one part of the work while others did other parts, but rather that he was suggesting that the division should be between the local authority which should pay for materials and the farmer who should pay for labour. But that might work hardly for the farmer where no new materials were required and the whole of the cost was for labour, so that it would not be a very fair division.
      My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) raised the question of long-distance routes and hoped there would be power to take on the whole of the responsibility for the maintenance of new routes created. There would be power under the new Amendment No. 63, because they can by agreement repay the whole amount. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), in arguing the 100 per cent. case, was arguing that the principle should be the same for stiles and gates as for footbridges. I do not agree, because

      1185
      the reason why it is right for a footbridge to be maintained by the local authority is that it is on the highway, for which the local authority is responsible, whereas a stile or gate is an obstruction to the highway, put there in the interests of the farmer. This is an argument for saying that the farmer ought to pay; and of course there were arguments the other way, but I do not want to be identified with one side or the other of those arguments. That is the reason why the treatment in respect of footbridges is different.
      The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) asked where responsibility for negligence will lie. Hitherto, there has been doubt, but in future there will be no doubt. It will be on the landowner or occupier. That is made very c ear by the provisions of Clause 22(1), which means in practice that farmers will need to insure against this liability. This is a factor which ought to be borne in mind in considering what is a fair contribution to be made to farmers out of public funds.
      Sir Frank Pearson: Will it be possible for that to be set off against tax?
      Mr. MacDermot: That is something the hon Gentleman had better ask my successor, the Financial Secretary. What I have suggested as the kind of Amend
      ment we should move in another place would, I believe, meet the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) in making clear that 25 per cent. was not intended to be the norm, as it were; it was really meant as a minimum and there would be a duty on them to pay a contribution which would be reasonable in all circumstances.
      For the reasons I have given, I still advise the House that I believe this is a better solution if we are to have a flexible system. If hon. Gentlemen want to say "No" to this, we must say we feel there is too great a risk that the farmer will be done down if he only gets 25 per cent. in all cases. I am prepared to go for the higher fixed percentage, but I believe it should be a fixed percentage, and my advice to the Committee is that the new Clause No. 9 should be rejected, our Amendment No. 63 should be accepted and that the Amendment to it should be rejected. If that is done, there is my undertaking to move in another place an Amendment to amend the wording of subsection (3) in the words I have indicated.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 203.

      Division No. 116.]

      AYES

      [8.50 p.m.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Kimball, Marcus

      Astor, John

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

      Doughty, Charles

      Lane, David

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Eden, Sir John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Loveys, W. H.

      Biffen, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lubbock, Eric

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fisher, Nigel

      MacArthur, Ian

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'tv)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Boardman, Tom

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maddan, Martin

      Body, Richard

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mawby, Ray

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Brewis, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Grieve, Percy

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gurden, Harold

      Monro, Hector

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      More, Jasper

      Buck, Anthony (Colchester)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Campbell, Gordon

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hiley, Joseph

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Holland, Philip

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Clark, Henry

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hornby, Richard

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Cooke, Robert

      Hunt, John

      Peel, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Percival, Ian

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dance, James

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Dendes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Jopling, Michael

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Pym, Francis

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Speed, Keith

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Stainton, Keith

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Webster, David

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Royle, Anthony

      Teeling, Sir William

      Worsley, Marcus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Williams, W. D. (Dudley)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Sharples, Richard

      Tilney, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Silvester, Frederick

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Mr. Anthony Grant and

      Smith Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. Timothy Kitson

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Alldritt, Walter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hamling, William

      Oram, Albert E.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Harman, William

      Orbach, Maurice

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Haseldine, Norman

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Beaney, Alan

      Hazell, Bert

      Owen, Witt (Morpeth)

      Bence, Cyril

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Padley, Walter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hilton, W. S.

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Binns, John

      Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hooley, Frank

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Blackburn, F.

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Boston, Terence

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Howie, W.

      Pentland, Norman

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Hoy, James

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Randall, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      Hynd, John

      Rankin, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,s.)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Rose, Paul

      Coe, Denis

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kelley, Richard

      Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Lawson, George

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Small, William

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Snow, Julian

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Luard, Evan

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Dempsey, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dewar, Donald

      McBride, Neil

      Swain, Thomas

      Dickens, James

      McCann, John

      Swingler, Stephen

      Doig, Peter

      MacDermot, Niall

      Symonds, J. B.

      Driberg, Tom

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Thornton, Ernest

      Dunn, James A.

      McGuire, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Mackie, John

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      Eadie, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wallace, George

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Ellis, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Weitzman, David

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

      Mapp, Charles

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Fernyhough, E.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Whitlock, William

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marquand, David

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Maxwell, Robert

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Foley, Maurice

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Ford, Ben

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Forrester, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Winnick, David

      Fowler, Gerry

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Yates, Victor

      Garrett, W. E.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Murray, Albert

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)

      Mr. Eric G. Varley.

    New Clause No. 13.

      AMENDMENT OF S. 89(1) OF THE ACT OF 1949.
      Section 89(1) of the Act of 1949 shall be 2.mended by the insertion of the words ' and maintain ' after the word plant '.—[Mr. Peter M. Jackson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      I apologise for returning to a matter which was debated, perhaps not as fully as it might have been, in Committee. It is however, a matter of considerable consequence and perhaps I should not be too fulsome in my apologies. The purpose of the new Clause is to amend Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act to allow local authorities to receive grants in aid not only in respect of tree planting but also in respect of tree maintenance work.
      I know that my hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate has every sympathy with me in this matter. I wish to get on the record the reply he made in Committee. My hon. Friend accepted that it is only right and proper that trees should be adequately maintained. He went on to say that he was very much seized of my remarks, and he added:
      "If we can meet it, I should like to do so. I am not in any way opposed to meeting that problem … I should like to look again at the question of maintenance of more mature tries to see whether we can do anything about it. I think that the arguments will be economic rather than philosophical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 13th February, 1968; c. 930–1.]
      I believe there is no division between the two sides of the House on this matter. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) supported me. I think my hon. Friend misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment I moved in Committee. In his reply, he spoke about grants being given for planting and of budgeting being over a period of five years. Thus, according to his argument, there was an element of maintenance. I said that I am not so much concerned with replanting but with the problems of mature trees.
      I am not alone in this. The Commission, in its Report, was also seized of the problem and urged upon the Government the need for amending legislation to allow grants to be paid in respect
      1190
      of maintenance. I quote from the Report of 1961, Appendix E, paragraph 7. It says in a general reference to the increasing grants:
      "The cost of acquisition, maintenance and management should qualify for grant …"
      That appears in italics. The Report spells out the general case for increasing the number of grants referring to trees and says:
      "These powers would be of wide application and benefit. A particularly good example of the use which might be made of them is in the acquisition and management of amenity woodlands. The Commission's efforts to get this done under existing powers, either by the Forestry Commission or the Minister, have not so far proved successful."
      In this matter I am not a lone voice crying in the wilderness; I have the support of the Commission in calling for a change in the legislation.
      Much of the work of maintenance in woodlands is continuous. It takes place all the year round. One thinks of work in nurseries, of the preparation of semi-mature trees and actual tree surgery. These matters do not qualify for grants. Local authorities would be somewhat inhibited from undertaking this work, yet it is very necessary that it should be undertaken. It is not enough to say, as my hon. Friend said, that planning authorities can recoup a certain cost through thinnings. I believe I rebutted that argument successfully when I pointed out in Committee that we were not concerned with replanting but with hundreds of thousands of mature trees which require to be maintained.
      The cost of the work of tree surgery is appreciable. I refer to the British Standard. My hon. Friend hopes, as we all hope, that all tree work in the future will conform to the recommendations of British Standard 398 of 1966. I do not know if he is familiar with the terms of the British Standard but if he looked up the matter he would realise that a lot of this work is very expensive. To quote one or two examples: cavity treatment costs money; reducing and shaping and bracing all cost money. A lot of unskilled people would not undertake this work but if the work were to be undertaken in conformity with the British Standard it would cost money, and one feels that local authorities, because such very necessary work would not qualify

      1191
      for a grant, would be reluctant to put the work in the hands of a competent tree surgeon.
      I cannot feel that when the 1949 Act was drafted the Parliamentary draftsmen were sufficiently cognisant of the problems which would be involved as a result of tree planting. Had there been a Parliamentary draftsman with a knowledge of forestry and an interest in trees the point I am urging upon my hon. Friend would have been adequately covered. To me it is an absurdity that we give grants of 75 per cent. for planting trees and do do not make adequate provision for their subsequent maintenance.
      I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will meet me on this point and that we shall have adequate plans not only for tree planting but also for tree maintenance.
      Mr. Skeffington: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) speaks with real passion about trees, and this is a feeling I share. We will not go through the personal revelations of each other's secret hobbies as we did in Committee. I will only say to him and to the House that so far as he is speaking about the need for these things to be done, particularly in large amenity woodlands, or indeed woodlands anywhere, I share that interest. I said to him in Committee, and I think I had better repeat it because it is perhaps not generally realised, that the way in which the grants have been administered under Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act has been to pay a grant not only for the planting but also for work during a period of four or five years afterwards. One cannot just plant a tree by putting it in a hole and leaving it. There has to be preparation, the soil may have to be drained, and there are fencing and ditching and many other operations. The grant has always taken this into account and if a tree does not taken within a reasonable period a replacement is generally allowed. So this grant has been applied in a way which I think has been both intelligent and not ungenerous. For a period of four or five years afterwards the grant payable has covered far more than the mere act of putting the tree into the ground.
      1192
      The payment of the grant for this purpose is covered in the appropriate sections of the Bill. Clause 27 makes it possible first of all for a 75 per cent. grant to be paid instead of the smaller grant. It will apply to the whole country as opposed to only a small area and I have every reason to think, and will take some steps to ensure, that the grant will continue to be applied in the same way. This is a tremendous extension of a power which has proved very successful in getting trees planted.
      My hon. Friend argues that, beyond that period, and certainly in the case of mature trees, continual work must be done by experts to keep them in the best trim. If splits develop, they must be covered. All this work is recognised as requiring a high degree of skill. When one is considering the provision of national funds for this and other purposes, I bring the House back to the point that these major grants from central authorities are to cover the initial expenditure. We should be opening the gates very wide if, having paid the 75 per cent. grant for the heavy initial expenditure, the central Government were to continue for an indefinite time with a supplementary grant. I could not agree to that principle in this connection any more than I could for the many other things where, having paid a 75 per cent. grant, the central Government or the Commission might be asked to authorise maintenance grants or some continuing grant over a long period of years.
      I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying to write this into the Bill. I am sure that local authorities, the Park Planning Board and everybody else would like it. I have said why it breaches the general principle, although I have great sympathy with the point. I hope that the fact that we cannot have a special grant for maintenance beyond a certain period will in no way lessen the work which these local authorities are doing and, I hope, will do on an increasing scale. Although I realise that maintenance work costs money, it costs nothing like the huge sum the initial planting costs. I hope that this will not be too great a burden to leave with the authorities which are now doing the work.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause No. 14.

      BUDGET OF THE COMMISSION.
      (1) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the Countryside Commission such sums in respect of the expenses of the Commission as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, and so far as relates to the use and expenditure of sums so paid the Commission shall act in accordance with such directions as may from time to time be given to it by the Minister.
      (2) The Commission shall keep proper accounts and other information with respect to its property and activities as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
      (3) The Commission shall prepare for each financial year statements of account in such form as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct and submit those statements of account to the Minister at such time as he may direct. The Minister shall on or before the 30th November in any year transmit such statements of account to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify them and lay copies of them together with his reports thereon before each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Channon.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chanson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause the House can discuss Amendment No. 3, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, leave out:
      'with the approval of the Minister';
      Amendment No. 7, in Clause 4, page 5, line 21, leave out ' approved by the Minister'; and Amendment 8, in line 27, leave out from beginning to the ' in line 28.
      Mr. Channon: Those Amendments are consequential on the new Clause. It is vital to get some picture of how the Commission will emerge, what its budget will be, how much independence and initiative will remain with it, and in how many cases it will have to seek the approval of the Ministry for its projects. It is vital that the Commission, which will be a very important body, should have powers and status comparable with its new duties. We have discussed the question whether it should have more executive functions. The Government, with the approval of many hon. Members, did not wish to give the Commission any more executive powers than those provided for in the Bill.
      1194
      However, there is a case for dealing with the Commission's budget in the way suggested in the Clause. I hope that the Minister will either accept the Clause or give us an outline of how the Commission's budget will work. The Clause is an amalgam of two Sections, one in the Science and Technology Act, 1965, and the other in the Agriculture Act, 1967. It would ensure that the Commission would be given by the Minister certain moneys, as provided for in subsection (1), and the Minister would then give certain directions in accordance with which the Commission would act. The Commission would then have to bring forward a scheme which would have to be approved by both the Minister and the Treasury. Naturally, accounts would have to be kept, as provided by subsection (2), and there would be the usual financial control by the Comptroller and Auditor General. From time to time, no doubt, the Estimates Committee or, perhaps, the Public Accounts Committee, would keep an eye on the Countryside Commission.
      9.15 p.m.
      The Commission ought not to be so tightly controlled that it has no independent powers at all. I have put down the new Clause in the hope that we shall learn that it is to have a certain discretion in all these matters in relation to its direct expenditure. The Commission should not have to come to the Ministry every time to seek approval of small matters such as travelling expenses, minor questions of staff salaries, and so on. It will have to deal with a host of important problems in the future. It will have to deal with inquiries and research, it will have to deal with experimental projects, with grants and loans to nonpublic bodies, and it will have to provide a great many services for visitors. It is right that the Commission should do all those things within a scheme broadly approved by the Government but should not be required to come to the Government for specific approval of every small idea, although such approval might well be appropriate in major matters.
      There ought not to be such strict Ministerial control as to thwart initiative. I have nothing against the Ministry of Housing, save that it is already overburdened with decisions. It has a vast number of planning decisions to deal

      1195
      with. In Southend, for example, the Minister has just issued his decision on the development plan review. It has taken him more than three years to do it. It would be wise for the Commission not to have to come for detailed control of every scheme to the Ministry of Housing. I accept that it would be an exaggeration to say that it would always have to wait three years, but it is not such an exaggeration as all that. The Ministry of Housing has an enormous amount of detailed planning and other work to do already.
      The Clause would enable the Government to accept that, perhaps, the Commission knew better than the Minister of Housing in many respects. It would be likely to have better priorities, and in many cases a requirement for strict control over all its activities might well lead to wasteful and inefficient duplication of effort. I feel rather strongly about this. The Commission will have a great task to do, and it must measure up to it. It will measure up to its task and will work far more satisfactorily if it is a quasi-independent Commission not at the beck and call of the Ministry on every tiny decision.
      I hope that the argument of administrative convenience will not be put against this proposal. I accept that some recasting of the estimates may be required if some such proposal is accepted, and this could cause certain amount of inconvenience to Ministers. But it would be outweighed by an improvement in efficiency and an enhancement of the status of the Commission. The House is anxious to get the Commission off the ground and see it make a good start. To this end, the Commission should not be burdened by day-to-day interference in its work but should be, as I say, quasi-independent, entrusted to carry on its day-to-day activities, working within a broad scheme laid down and approved by the Government.
      I hope that the House will accept the purpose which I have outlined, and will look upon either the new Clause or something very like it with favour. The consequential Amendments which I have put down would merely remove at the appropriate points the requirement to obtain the Minister's approval.
      Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I welcome the intention behind the Clause, because it is desperately important that the new National Parks and Countryside Commission shall have real authority. One of the great weaknesses of the National Parks Commission has been that it has lacked that independence. It has had neither executive authority nor any real financial authority of its own, or so limited a financial authority as to be quite unreal.
      I very much hope that the Clause will at least bring from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State a statement, such as has been requested. We are very anxious that as wide and independent powers as possible shall be given to the new Commission. I am not sure that the Clause would be workable as it stands, but we want something nearer to independence than the Nature Conservancy has been able to achieve. We want quite a considerable independence in its action such as has enabled the Natural Environment Research Council to go ahead under a clear plan over a period of years, whereas the National Parks Commission has never been able to do that. It has never been master in its own house in any proper sense.
      I hope that the new Commission will have a wider executive authority. A small amount has been given, which I welcome, but I should like it to be even greater. One thing we can try to achieve is to give it a limited amount of financial independence so that it will have at least some powers to deal with its budget in its own way, leaving it a sense of choice which otherwise it might not have. If my hon. and learned Friend can help us from that point of view, we shall be very grateful.
      Mr. MacDermot: Since I moved from the Treasury to a spending Department, I have begun to experience the smarting under Treasury control which my colleagues used to complain about. No one likes having to be controlled in his expenditure, but I am afraid that it is one of the facts of life that if one is to keep a coherent system of government, one needs a fairly strong system of financial control, for otherwise things get out of hand.
      Bodies set up by the Government may be grant-aided or they may be bodies

      1197
      whose expenditure is carried on the Vote of their sponsoring Department. In the first category are bodies like the scientific research councils, such as the Medical Research Council, and in another field there is the Arts Council. They are bodies which are themselves bestowing munificence on others, which are making grants, and for which it is particularly desirable that there should be no question of Ministerial dictation as to the way in which the moneys should be distributed. That is the basic principle underlying those grant-aided bodies.
      It would not be right to grant that degree of independence to the Countryside Commission, because it is so intimately bound up with the whole expenditure and the determination of priorities in expenditure, not only of Exchequer moneys but indirectly of local government moneys. I should say that the Commission's most important rôle in financial matters consists of its powers and duties in relation to Exchequer grants under Clause 29. In a sense we have put an unusual fetter on the Minister, because we have said that not only will he seek the Commission's advice as to which are the projects for which he should agree to give grant within a certain overall budget but that he shall not depart from that recommendation without consulting the Commission about his disagreement.
      It is not merely that he has to give reasons, as it were, but he must discuss the matter further with the Commission. This is a recognition of what we intend to be the real influence which the Commission will have. We would regard it as an exceptional circumstance if, in matters of determining priorities of expenditure, the Minister should depart from the Commission's advice. I think that this is the big new factor and it makes a difference between the position of the present Commission and that of the new Commission.
      As regards the Commission's own expenditure, we propose to follow the precedent of the National Parks Commission. It will be borne on the vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This means that, like all branches of this Ministry and of others, when Estimates time comes, it will have to put up its own schemes and priorities for expenditure and that these will be presented through the Ministry to the
      1198
      Treasury, and will have to be agreed with the Treasury. Certainly, under each head of expenditure that seems right, we will do all we can to argue for and assist the Commission to attain the priorities it thinks right. But ultimately, of course, as in all Estimates matters, the final say rests with the Treasury. One cannot take every matter of dispute to the Cabinet. So, as a constitutional matter, this will be the position.
      Otherwise, of course, as regards keeping accounts and reporting, etc., the new Commission will be obliged under Section 4 of the 1949 Act to make its annual report to the Minister, who must lay it before Parliament. That does not include the financial statement but, of course, the accounts of the Commission will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and subject to the control of the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way. For these reasons and because the Commission will be primarily advisory, I would advise the House that it is right that we should continue the system of control which exists for the present Commission.
      Mr. Channon: I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer a little disappointing because I think that the Commission will have too much day-to-day control imposed upon its activities. I hoped that it might be possible to devise a system to enable it to have a little more independence than that envisaged by the Government. However, I accept that a step forward has been announced in Clause 29, and at this stage I should like to study what the Minister of State has said. If necessary, my noble Friends in another place may wish to pursue the point, which is of interest to those concerned.
      At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 15.

      PLOUGHING OF FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY.
      Where a footpath or bridleway crosses agricultural land or land which is being brought into use for agriculture, then, if—

      (a) it is proposed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry to plough the land. and

      1199

      (b) it is convenient, in so ploughing the land, to plough the path or way together with the rest of the land,

      the public right of way shall be subject to the condition that the occupier shall have the right to plough the path or way as well as the rest of the land.—[Mr. Ramsden.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ramsden: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause, we can discuss Amendment No. 64, in page 24, line 29, leave out Clause 23, and Amendment No. 92, in page 46, line 49, Schedule 4, at end insert:

      7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.

      The Highways Act 1959.

      Section 119.

      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ramsden: We come now to the question of what the law will be and what will happen when a footpath is ploughed, a point which has produced some considerable amount of legal difficultly for quite a number of years. We discussed this at some length in Committee and I do not think that we have quite got it right yet. I move this Motion really to give the Government the opportunity to have another shot at the problem.
      It ought to be possible to get a more sensible law than we have. Before making the argument, it might help to remind ourselves of the development of the law on ploughing footpaths over the last 20 years or so. As I understand it, before 1949 a farmer could plough a footpath only where he had a common law right to do so; there was no statutory right. He could plough only where a path was dedicated subject to his right to plough.
      That was all right in those days when ploughing was with horses or fairly low-powered tractors and small implements—very different from the kind of tackle used today which, for its economic use, needs to be able to traverse fields in long, uninterrupted bouts. The 1949 Act, which was re-enacted verbatim in the Highways Act, 1959, which governed the law before this Measure, went some way towards recognising the developing needs of agriculture. While keeping a common law right, it added a statutory right, and allowed farmers to plough on condition that they gave notification of their intentions to the parish council and that they restored the surface after ploughing, as
      1200
      soon as may be, to use the words of the Statute.
      It is these words which have led to the difficulty. It was held by the Gosling Committee that the phrase "as soon as may be" was too vague and led to a state of the law which was unenforceable. This difficulty has been rather over-exaggerated, but it could be said to be there. There were other difficulties in that in a large number of cases no notification was given, and some paths disappeared as a result. Having considered the situation, the Gosling Committee made its recommendations, which are embodied in Clause 23, except for one important recommendation which we took out in Committee. It envisaged circumstances in which, for the benefit of the farmers, paths could be temporarily stopped up.
      The Committee thought that this was not a reasonable impediment to put in the way of the walkers. I hope that the House will take the fact that we struck it out as an earnest that in moving this Amendment we are in no way taking the side of the farmer as against the rambler. We are trying to get a sensible, enforceable state of the law. At present the Clause is open to three fairly serious objections. In the first place, the administrative process, if one can call it that, under which the farmer has to apply for a diversion or extension of the period in which he has to restore is a cumbersome one and will lead to difficulty.
      I took advice on this from my county council, and would like to quote the comments of the county clerk on the measures proposed. He says:
      "… the present law … has proved extremely difficult to enforce. As you are aware, there are a large number of paths over agricultural land in the county area, very few notices have been received under Section 119(2), and very few complaints have been brought to the County Surveyor's attention.
      Under the proposed Clause … the County Council would still, in practice, have to rely largely on members of the public to bring breaches to their notice, and in my opinion this Clause, if enacted, would be likely to be honoured far more in the breach than in the observance.
      If indeed it were to be observed generally, it would lead to considerable administrative work. A farmer would have to make application within the five or six weeks' period which would require processing and notices affixing at the ends of the path before the period expired. To comply with both Acts the County Council would have to consider ' rules of good husbandry'…' the interests of good

      1201
      farming'…'the interests of the users of the paths'"—
      in each case he gives the statutory reference—
      "and, if minded to refuse the application, the views of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Frankly, having regard to the number of paths and the time scale, I would not regard this as practicable."
      I do not know, and the county administrative authorities do know, but to put it at its lowest, I should think that the procedure of having to apply for the necessary concession on the part of the farmer and reapply if the weather is wrong is something which we should avoid if we can.
      The second difficulty about the Clause—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about Clause 23. He must talk about his own Clause at some time.
      Mr. Ramsden: My argument on my own Clause will be extremely brief. I am trying to put it in a negative way by saying that my Clause is necessary because the Government's Clause will not work. My Clause simply asserts, with the consequential Amendments, that a better solution is to have a right to plough with no statutory obligations to restore. My argument against the Government Clause is necessary to make the case for my Clause.
      At the moment, there is a maximum of three months within which restoration must take place. This will not work. If ploughing is done in the autumn, however much the farmer may want to complete his cultivation and get the surface of the land back, the weather, at any rate in the North of England, is almost certain to be against him. Certainly, when ploughing had to be done in October or November on many farms, it was not possible to get on the land until the middle of March and, in some cases, not until early April. One cannot help this. It is no use making provision for these things if one is to be betrayed by the weather.
      The third point has a bearing on my Clause, because I propose no method of restoration other than the foot of the rambler as he walks up and down the path. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me satisfactorily how one restores
      1202
      the surface of a footpath other than by the agricultural operation of harrowing, sowing and rolling or by walking up and down it, or by a combination of both. I know of no implement which can be used to restore a footpath and which one can guarantee to get on the land to do the job in all weathers.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must come to his own Clause.
      Mr. Ramsden: Having said what is not sensible and will not work, I propose to say what I think would be sensible and in the interests of the farmer and walker.
      As a result of a previous Clause in the Bill, there will be signposts on these paths. There will be more signposts so that people will know to where the paths go. There will not be stopping up, so that people can be assured of going for their walks in the countryside without impediment. It would be sensible to let the farming operations take their course and to let people go on their walks as they wish and consider what the results on footpaths and restoration will be.
      The farmer will do his ploughing some time during the winter. The man going for a walk over arable land in the winter will admittedly have to walk across the ploughed field, but that is not a great hardship in the months when country walking is not at its most popular and certainly when older people who might be inconvenienced do not ordinarily do much walking in the countryside. When the farmer gets on the land in the spring the harrowing, sowing and rolling will be done, the surface will be consolidated, and the path will be there again. It will be signposted and all that the walker will have to do will be to go from one signpost to another. Admittedly he will have to go through the crop, but the farmer will have nothing to complain about in that regard because the path was to be there anyway. The combination of the field being rolled and people walking up and down the line of the path will contribute, as nothing else can, to the restoration of the surface of the path. This would be a sensible and practical solution which would meet the farmers' and the walkers' point without any administrative rigmarole of statutory obligations.

      1203
      I hope that the Government will look at this sympathetically.
      Admittedly this can apply only to country paths. In the case of footpaths in the neighbourhood of towns with tarmac surfaces—and there are such—obviously one does not want to give anyone the right to plough them, and no one would want to plough them. That is the exceptional situation and could, I suggest, be controlled by byelaw. It is not necessary to have a general power such as is proposed in the Clause to operate all over the country. I hope that the Government will look into this. If what I have suggested in its present form does not meet the point, I have no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can think of something which will. But do not let us make a law which will not be enforceable and which will repeat the difficulties of the 1959 situation.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: I have some sympathy with the point of view of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), but I think that his proposal is unworkable. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist it. The real point is that a clearly defined footpath is as much in the interest of the farmer as of the walker. We know the dangers that the farmer has to face because of people going away from the path on cultivated land and the damage which can be caused. We appreciate that, but the only way to safeguard the farmer against this is to have a clearly defined path. To suggest that the walker should make his own track, as it were, across a ploughed field and also possibly through growing crops is an impossible proposition if we are to help the farmer.
      One safeguard for the farmer is that people who go walking should try to avoid ploughed fields and keep away from growing crops. We try, by education and so on, to encourage people to keep to the edge of a field. I have been doing this for years. If people think that it is perfectly all right to wander across a field of growing crops, that must cause infinite damage to the farmer. There will be arguments as to whether a person is following the precise route of the original path or whether he is not. One can imagine the kind of furore there might be and the complaints that would come from farmers if this practice were followed.
      1204
      I quite appreciate the difficulties, but it is better that, where it is proved to be necessary, an alternative route should clearly be established for people to follow without causing damage by walking across the centre of the field. This is no major hardship.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Ramsden: If it lasts for three months, then at some point people have to walk through the crop. So long as we have footpaths this is something that has to be accepted.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: There are provisions for permanent diversions in certain cases. I do not object to that in proper circumstances. I have never felt particularly badly done by if I have to follow a crooked route in order to avoid damage to the farmer. I have had some experience of wandering about in the countryside as a walker, and I have been on reasonably good terms, I am glad to say, with farmers. I suggest that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Harrogate is not practicable. While I should like to help him to find an easier way, I suggest the compromise we have reached in this Bill is workable and satisfactory. After all, farmers have in years past given a great number of undertakings to maintain footpaths, and they have not done so. They must accept a certain amount of blame for this. All over the country footpaths have been going out of existence and, unfortunately, hardly ever is any attempt made by the farmer to make reasonable provision. I consider that the more detailed provision we have put into the Bill is necessary. I am sorry that it should be necessary, but there it is.
      Mr. Kimball: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must do all his rambling in the livestock rearing parts of the country. I have spent a great deal of my time trying to avoid ploughed fields. In Lincolnshire, Norfolk and other counties in the east of England it is quite impossible to avoid ploughed fields. About one-eighth of the area of most parishes in Lincoln and Norfolk is not ploughed. The suggestions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, are not practicable. They may apply in the North Riding of Yorkshire, they may apply in Durham, they certainly apply in Northumberland, but they do

      1205
      not apply in other counties. The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) is, in my opinion, a sensible, practical compromise.
      The right hon. Gentleman described it in Committee as a method of treading out footpaths. This does not involve anybody in any great expense. If the farmer ploughs up the footpath and the local community of the local rambling club wish to use the footpath, all they have to do is to tread it out again. They are not liable for any damage. They stick to the existing route; they are not faced with diversion. They do not have to discover whether they can go that way or not. They can follow the line of the map and follow the signposts. All they have to do if the footpath has been ploughed up is to walk along it, and once they have walked along it the footpath is re-established. Farmers have not done all the necessary diversions which have been suggested in the past because, in practice, they have been proved to be unenforceable. On the other hand, there have been very few objections about footpaths being ploughed up, and farmers have not found it necessary to obtain permission before carrying out normal agricultural operations.
      In the Clause we have a sensible, practicable proposition whereby footpaths which people want maintained will be maintained at the least expense to the farming community. We shall not suffer from the professional footpath maintainer who now exists in many areas. Even some rural district councils now employ such people as retired army majors who can read maps to ensure that footpaths are kept open. My view is that they should continue to employ them. Let them tread out the paths. With this Clause, this sort of individual will not be a great worry to the farming community or to anyone else. I hope that the Clause will be accepted as the most practical way of dealing with the problem.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that we must "safeguard" the farmer and "help" the farmer. However, that is rather like the Government's attitude to the Falkland Islands. We hear a great deal about the interests of the islanders, without hearing what it is that they themselves want. Surely if we mean to
      1206
      help farmers, we should find out what they want. They do want this new Clause, and they do not want Clause 23. The new Clause unlike Clause 23 does not oblige the farmer to give notice of his intention to plough a footpath, nor does it oblige him to reinstate the path after ploughing.
      We must not legislate as if farmers were ill-intentioned people. There were hints of that towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Clause 23 is a long one, and it is typical—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, Clause 23 is in the Bill. We are discussing a Clause which is not in the Bill.
      Mr. Smith: I was seeking to contrast it briefly but unfavourably with my hon. Friend's proposed Clause. The Clause in the Bill is typical of the urban attitude throughout the Bill, whereas my hon. Friend's Clause escapes that charge. Throughout the Bill, there is a fear on the part of the townsman that when he gets into the country the natives will prove hostile. There is also the bias which the townsman is apt to feel against the farmer—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Not only are we not discussing Clause 23; we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing new Clause No. 15.
      Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I do get out of order, it will only be for a moment or so, from time to time.
      My hon. Friend's Clause gets away from the bias which there is against the farmer. For example, tinder existing legislation, a farmer can be fined £50 in certain circumstances for ploughing a footpath, but a man whose dog attacks sheep or cattle on a footpath is fined only £20. There is this bias from which—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting even worse. We must come to the Clause.
      Mr. Smith:—my hon. Friend's Clause helps us to get away. Farmers will not plough footpaths just to annoy the rambler. They will plough them only if it makes for better farming, and better farming is not merely a selfish matter of the farmer earning a better living, but part of the national business of saving imports.

      1207
      That leads me on to a general consideration in favour of the new Clause. Governments are much too apt to ignore the effect of legislation on the economy. They have some regard to the taxpayer, it is true, but they ignore that part of the cost of legislation which falls on the economy; although in many cases costs which fall on the economy are much more damaging to the country than costs which fall on the taxpayer. For example, the Selective Employment Tax is always said to be—[Interruption.]—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing whether a farmer may plough a bridlepath under certain conditions.
      Mr. Smith: I am sorry; it is most unfortunate to my argument, Mr. Speaker, that it should be yourself in the Chair at this moment. My right hon. Friend's proposal does get away from the fallacy to which all Governments are prone, which is to believe that if expenses do not fall on the taxpayer then they do not cost anything at all. My point is that much desirable legislation costs the economy a great deal, but that in our present situation we cannot afford every luxury we desire. The question of ploughing and reinstating footpaths is a case in point. Either a farmer does not plough a footpath, or he ploughs it and reinstates it; both alternatives increase the cost of farming. How does the farmer reinstate it? What machine does he use? Moreover, the cost to the economy is quite incommensurate with the advantage to the walker—the rambler—who can perfectly well tread out the path for himself. We all know the farming phrase: "The best manure is the boss's footsteps". The best method of reinstatement for a footpath, in my opinion, is the rambler's boot. Clause 23 of the Bill is unnecessary and damaging to the economy and the new Clause now proposed is greatly preferable to it.
      Mr. Skeffington: I am not quite certain whether I understand the hon. Gentleman's view of new Clause 15 as well as I did before listening to the last speech, because in trying to find which part of the new Clause the hon. Gentleman was speaking to one got lost; and one even got lost between those parts of the speech which appeared more relevant than
      1208
      others. I want to make seriously to the hon. Gentleman a point on which he should bear me out since he was a member of the Standing Committee. He said that the Bill is characterised all the way through by an urban approach. This is not true at all. We have tried again and again—and credit should be paid to the Government for this—to keep a balance all the way through between the needs of those who live and work in the country and those of the vast numbers of people who go, and will continue to go, on a large scale to the country. I would have thought that in many respects we have been extremely successful in that.
      Our approach in this particular Clause and the Amendment we are discussing has been wider than the specific recommendations which came from the Gosling Committee on which were representatives of all the interests involved. There were country interests and particular group interests, who heard the views of a large body of people representing farmers, landowners, and others. It is necessary to put this into the picture before we begin to discuss what we are attempting to do, having got these recommendations from this very conscientious and hard working Committee.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Proceedings on the Countryside Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
      Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Skeffington: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's motives in moving this new Clause, although it is unacceptable. His actions and his observations in Committee were very helpful and we were often grateful to him. He gave tonight a pocket history of footpath legislation which was accurate in that compass, and which highlighted the important point, in considering the balance which the Bill has so far achieved, that, until the 1949 Act, the occupier had no right to plough a right of way. That great Act took away the right of the individual, which had been enjoyed and fought for for centuries, to walk paths designated as common thoroughfares. Section 56 limited their right: before, it had been possible

      1209
      to plough only under a common law right arising because the path had been dedicated to the public authorities, who were charged with responsibility for it—
      Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Surely, in most cases where a footpath goes diagonally across an arable field, a farmer has always had a right to plough it, simply because the original dedication would have been subject to ordinary operations of husbandry. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that that right was created by the 1949 Act.
      Mr. Skeffington: Except where a common law right to plough was established, an owner or occupier had no right to plough a right of way. Because of certain concessions arising from the war, this provision was made in the 1949 Act; the premises were re-enacted in Section 119 of the 1959 Highways Act, bat have not proved very effective. A good deal of ploughing which takes place is not really legal. Evidence has been given by the amenity societies and many other bodies, including local authorities, that ploughing leads to a tendency for the paths to be lost.
      Walkers do not like the occupation of treading out paths. The more valiant of them do it, but it is a difficult operation. We know from the evidence given to the Gosling Committee that we are considering a problem which may, in the main, affect paths near towns. Many paths are disappearing each year. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of Section 119 of the Highways Act and the recommendations in paragraphs 62–65 of the Gosling Report, we drafted new Clause 23.
      I concede that there will be difficulties in administering the provision. I must be honest and say that it is not an ideal solution. However, we feel that there are considerable advantages to be gained by having new Clause 23, which the Opposition new Clause would delete. It is important that there should be well-signposted paths, that where ploughing tales place notice should be given so that the authority is alerted and that, if restoration does not take place in accordance with the provisions of the
      1210
      Bill, it can be done by the local authority and not left to the walker. As I said in Committee, the walker's boots may be the best way of treading out a path, but there are other ways, such as the use of small motorised rollers.
      It is in the interests of the farmer to have well maintained paths which are known, sign-posted and restored. This will prevent a great deal of the trespassing that goes on, much of it done innocently. As a result of the Bill, the walker will know that, although he may occasionally be diverted, he has a right of way and, therefore, every right to be there. This is the most practical way to solve this problem.
      If the Opposition new Clause were accepted all this would go and, with Amendment No. 64, there would be none of the provisions in new Clause 23. Further, Section 119 of the Highways Act would not apply. We would be left with merely the right of the more intrepid walker to walk through a footpath, if he could find it, and thereby maintain it. In view of the history of this matter, we consider that the Opposition new Clause is not the answer, remembering that if it were accepted there would be nothing to prevent paths around fields from being covered. For all these reasons I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Clause.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: This has been an interesting debate and, in his usual style, the Parliamentary Secretary was reasonable in his reply. I regret that I cannot agree with his arguments. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill did not provide an ideal solution. Indeed, he went so far as to say that boots were best.
      The Clause, moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), would do away with a great deal of the cumbersome administrative paraphernalia which will be a nuisance not only to local authorities but to farmers. All the difficulties about diversion and the problem of the three months affecting agriculture would be solved. The Minister said that paths were being lost, but footpaths are still on the map and the inveterate and sensible walker who finds himself in a strange area

      1211
      knows how to read the Ordnance Survey or definitive map. Provided he gets one which is up to date and as has been published since we had a rehash of the footpaths a few years ago, he will be perfectly able to see where these footpaths are. If the Clause is accepted, even if the ploughed field perhaps under crop has not reverted to holding the footpath in the field, it will still be open to the walker rightly to tread out that particular footpath.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Has the hon. Gentleman ever attempted to follow a non-existent footpath using an ordnance map? If it is a 6 in. map, or even a 2½ in. map, I take the point he made, but with a 1 in. map the footpath is not definite and cannot be followed.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: After the Bill is passed, county councils, at considerable expense, will put up footpath notices, and where they leave the road it will be absolutely clear to anyone where the footpaths will be. I say to the hon. Member for South Shields: get a good stout pair of boots and tread out these pathways. That is what most people do. Wherever the powers are required they will still be there.
      I do not accept what the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Member for South Shields said about losing footpaths. The Parliamentary Secretary used the argument that the Gosling Committee was in favour of the proposal in the Bill. Gosling has been in favour of a number of things which this House in its wisdom has not agreed to. It was in favour of a certain Clause about bulls. That has disappeared from the Bill. It was also in favour of stopping up and we have done away with that. Although we are in favour of much of the Gosling Committee's Report, we should not necessarily slavishly follow it.
      The arguments for this Clause put forward forcibly by my hon. Friends should be followed. It was apparent during the closing remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would not follow us, but I hope that even at this late hour he will say that on consideration he will accept the Clause with all its simplification and benefit both to the walker and to the farmer. If he cannot do that, we shall divide the House.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 199.

    New Clause 20.

      FORESTRY ACT (AMENDMENT).
      The power of the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase land which in his opinion is suitable for afforestation or for purposes connected with forestry shall not be exercised in relation to the purposes of section 18 of this Act.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause we can discuss Amendment No. 95, in page 46, line 54, Schedule 4, at end add:

      15 & 16 Eliz. 2.c.10.

      Forestry Act 1967.

      In section 40(2) at end insert (e) land acquired under section 18 of this Act.

      Mr. Gibson-Watt: Time is getting on and I shall be brief. We are proposing that the power of the Minister to give compulsory purchase power to the Forestry Commission to buy land for certain recreational purposes should be done away with. The Commission, under Section 9 of the Forestry Act, 1967, already has an eventual power of compulsory purchase with regard to afforestation, and afforestation is what the Commission was put there for by the House in the first place.
      10.45 p.m.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not exclude the fact that within the bounds of the Forestry Commission land, under certain circumstances, it is a sensible idea, for the provision of public enjoyment and recreation, to provide such things as have been noted in Clause 18. We cavil at the fact that Clause 18 gives the Minister compulsory powers to allow the Commission to provide accommodation for visitors, camping and caravan sites, places for meals and refreshments, picnic places, viewpoint stances, parking places, routes for nature study and footpaths, information and display centres, shops in connection with these facilities, and public conveniences.
      Within the existing land that the Commission has, it is possible that these recreational and occupational provisions should be met. But it is wrong that the Minister should be given the power to give the Commission the power to look over its borders, rather on the lines of Naboth's vineyard, and say that it wants that piece of land in order to provide a hotel or a "loo". This is not right, and it is for this reason, without wasting further time, that I move this new Clause.
      Mr. MacDermot: I must begin by advising the hon. Gentleman and the House that the new Clause would not achieve the hon. Gentleman's purpose. It would have no effect, for it refers to the power of the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase, land, and so on. The Minister
      1224
      in the Bill is the Minister of Housing, except, in some cases, it is the Secretary of State for Wales. The Ministers concerned with the powers of compulsory purchase for the Forestry Commissioners are the forestry Ministers, the Agriculture Ministers. I point that out, not only to advise the House, as is my duty, of what would be the effect of that Clause, but also because it may be some reassurance, in view of the tone in which the Clause was moved, to know that the confirmation power is with the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that will assure the hon. Gentleman that before any such compulsory purchase order was confirmed, the interests of agriculture would be fully taken into account.
      As I understand it, the forestry Ministers except to use the powers of acquisition under Clause 18 sparingly in any event. I am not talking just about their powers of compulsory acquisition, but their powers of acquisition in general. It would be an unusual circumstance, in our view, for it to be necessary to acquire any other land in order to facilitate the use of Forestry Commission land for amenity purposes.
      We think it necessary to provide for the rare contingency that may arise, where for example, an access route near, but not on, its land was essential for purposes of a camping site, which was on its land. That being so, we regard the possibility of compulsory powers being used for these purposes as being even more remote. Nevertheless, we think it right to retain the right and power to acquire land compulsorily for that purpose, even though we think that it would be a most unusual eventuality for them to have to use their power. To deprive the Forestry Commission of these powers and withdraw them would be inconsistent with the other powers existing in the Bill to acquire land for amenity purposes. It would also incidentally produce the curious anomaly, in view of the provisions already contained in the Countryside (Scotland) Act, of giving one forestry Minister stronger powers than other forestry Ministers.
      I would also remind the house of the provisions of Section 40 of the Forestry Act, 1967, because it is under that Section that any powers of acquisition would be used for this purpose. There are certain

      1225
      classes of land that cannot be compulsorily acquired under these powers; they include land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest; land which forms part of a park, garden or pleasure ground or which forms part of the home farm attached to, and usually occupied with, a mansion house or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling house; land which is the property of a local authority; land which has been acquired for the purpose of their undertaking by statutory undertakers; and land subject to a forestry dedication covenant or agreement which is being used and managed in accordance with a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners. So there are a number of restrictions on the powers of acquisition. To get the matter in true perspective, the real picture is that it is a last resort power and would be used only when the Forestry Ministers were satisfied that it was essential to enable the Forestry Commissioners to carry out their amenity responsibilities which they are acquiring under Clause 18.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman felicitously replied to my short speech with an equally short speech, but I do not agree with a word that he has said.
      He referred to the fact that there would be rare contingencies, but that this would be a most unusual eventuality. He then went on to give the various exceptions where the Forestry Commission would rot and cannot, under the existing law, tike these compulsory powers. One of the exceptions was land which had already been dedicated by individuals to the growing of trees. With respect, if individuals have dedicated their land to the production of trees it would be taken for granted by any Minister of the Crown that no Forestry Commission would be able to come along and take it. This was a poor type of example to produce tonight.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer my argument on this. My argument, which I will not repeat at great length, was that the Forestry Commission already has powers of the sort we are describing to get land for trees.
      1226
      But why should it be necessary for the Forestry Commission to have these powers for the provision of land for recreational purposes? My point was that the Forestry Commission, on the land that it already has, should be able to provide these types of recreation and it should be unnecessary for the Government to go in for further compulsory powers in this way.
      We are in danger today in this and in other ways of blinding our people with the number of compulsory powers that the central Government are taking. I believe that some of the results which we are seeing, and the way in which certain parts of the country are reacting, have a definite connection with the compulsory purchase and overriding powers which in certain ways the central government are taking.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the Ministers. I would point out that the Secretary of State for Wales acts as the Minister of Housing and is also in charge of forestry. In Wale:, we are dealing not with two Ministers, but one.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my argument. He has not proved to the House why it is necessary for the Forestry Commission to have these compulsory powers. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their support by voting for the Amendment, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman says something rather more encouraging.
      Dr. Bennett: I am always deeply suspicious when a Minister says, "These are powers which we do not expect to have to use", or "They are only marginal powers, and it would he extraordinary if we had to use them." The Minister's sweet words are never recorded on any document in the possession of a solicitor who has to fight an incursion by the Government on the lines adumbrated by a provision such as that which the new Clause seeks to moderate. Therefore, we should reject any idea of giving these powers which are to be used so sparingly. The whole idea is misconceived, and certainly I oppose it.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 130. Noes 189.

      Division No. 117.]

      AYES

      [10.14 p.m.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Doughty, Charles

      Kitson, Timothy

      Astor, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Lane, David

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Eden, Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveys, W. H.

      Biffen, John

      Fisher, Nigel

      Lubbock, Eric

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Fortescue, Tim

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

      Blaker, Peter

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Boardman, Tom

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Body, Richard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mawby, Ray

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Gower, Raymond

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Brewis, John

      Grant, Anthony

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

      Grieve, Percy

      Monro, Hector

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gurden, Harold

      More, Jasper

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Buck, Anthony (Colchester)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hawkins, Paul

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Carlisle, Mark

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Clark, Henry

      Holland, Philip

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hornby, Richard

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Cooke, Robert

      Hunt, John

      Peel, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Percival, Ian

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Dance, James

      Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Jopling, Michael

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Pym, Francis

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Stainton, Keith

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M. (Ripon)

      Webster, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Royle, Anthony

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Teeling, Sir William

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Sharples, Richard

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Worsley, Marcus

      Silvester, Frederick

      Tilney, John

      Wright, Esmond

      Smith Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Speed, Keith

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Alldritt, Walter

      Hamling, William

      O'Malley, Brian

      Anderson, Donald

      Hannan, William

      Orbach, Maurice

      Archer, Peter

      Harper, Joseph

      Orme, Stanley

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Harrison., Walter (Wakefield)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hazell, Bert

      Padley, Walter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Beaney, Alan

      Hilton, W. S.

      Palmer, Arthur

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hooley, Frank

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Binns, John

      Horner, John

      Pentland, Norman

      Bishop, E. S.

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Blackburn, F.

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Probert, Arthur

      Boston, Terence

      Howie, W.

      Richard, Ivor

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Hoy, James

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Rose, Paul

      Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hynd, John

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P 'cras, S.)

      Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Coe, Denis

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kelley, Richard

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

      Small, William

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Lawson, George

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Culien, Mrs. Alice

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Swain, Thomas

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Swingler, Stephen

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Symonds, J. B.

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Luard, Evan

      Taverne, Dick

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Dell, Edmund

      McBride, Neil

      Tinn, James

      Dempsey, James

      McCann, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Dewar, Donald

      MacDermot, Niall

      Varley, Eric G.

      Doig, Peter

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dunn, James A.

      McGuire, Michael

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruttherglen)

      Wallace, George

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Mackie, John

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Eadie, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Weitzman, David

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ellis, John

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Whitlock, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mapp, Charles

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Foley, Maurice

      Maxwell, Robert

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Ford, Ben

      Mikardo, Ian

      Winnick, David

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Fowler, Gerry

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Yates, Victor

      Garrett, W. E.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Moyle, Roland

      Mr. Harry Gourlay and

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Murray, Albert

      Mr. Charles Morris.

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)

      Division No. 118.]

      AYES

      [10.55 p.m.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Astor, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Pardoe, John

      Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

      Grant, Anthony

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Peel, John

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Grieve, Percy

      Percival, Ian

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Pink, R, Bonner

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Gurden, Harold

      Pounder, Rafton

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hawkins, Paul

      Pym, Francis

      Blaker, Peter

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Boardman, Tom

      Hiley, Joseph

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Body, Richard

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Holland, Philip

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hornby, Richard

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brewis, John

      Hunt, John

      Royle, Anthony

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Sharples, Richard

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Buck, Anthony (Colchester)

      Jopling, Michael

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick&Leamington)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kimball, Marcus

      Speed, Keith

      Channon, H. P. G.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

      Clark, Henry

      Lane, David

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Clegg, Walter

      Langford-Holt Sir John

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Cooke, Robert

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Teeling, Sir William

      Crouch, David

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Loveys, W. H.

      Tilney, John

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Lubbock, Eric

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Dance, James

      MacArthur, Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt, Hn. Sir John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Maddan, Martin

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Doughty, Charles

      Mawby, Ray

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Drayson, G. B.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Webster, David

      Eden, Sir John

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Emery, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Eyre, Reginald

      More, Jasper

      Worsley, Marcus

      Fisher, Nigel

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wright, Esmond

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Dempsey, James

      Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dewar, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Alldritt, Walter

      Dickens, James

      Horner, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Doig, Peter

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Archer, Peter

      Dunn, James A.

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dunnett, Jack

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Howie, W.

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

      Hoy, James

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Eadie, Alex

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Beaney, Alan

      Ellis, John

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Binns, John

      Fernyhough, E.

      Hynd, John

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

      Blackburn, F.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&st.P'cras, S.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Foley, Maurice

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Boston, Terence

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Ford, Ben

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

      Forrester, John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Brown Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Kelley, Richard

      Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

      Cant, R. B.

      Garrett, W. E.

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lawson, George

      Coe, Denis

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Coleman, Donald

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hamling, William

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Hannan, William

      Loughlin, Charles

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Luard, Evan

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Haseldine, Norman

      McBride, Neil

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Hazell, Bert

      MacDermot, Niall

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Dell, Edmund

      Hilton, W. S.

      McGuire, Michael

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Padley, Walter

      Thornton, Ernest

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Tinn, James

      Maclennan, Robert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Urwin, T. W.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Varley, Eric G.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Walden, Brian (All Saints)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wallace, George

      Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Mapp, Charles

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Weitzman, David

      Marquand, David

      Rose, Paul

      Wellbeloved, James

      Maxwell, Robert

      Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Whitlock, William

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sherrington, Arthur

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Moyle, Roland

      Small, William

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Murray Albert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby, S.)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Winnick, David

      Norwood, Christopher

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Woof, Robert

      O'Malley, Brian

      Swain, Thomas

      Yates, Victor

      Orbach, Maurice

      Swingler, Stephen

      Orme, Stanley

      Symonds, J. B.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. John McCann.

    New Clause No. 16.

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

      (a) for avoiding danger to persons or vessels using the waterway;

      (b) for facilitating the passage of vessels on the waterway;

      (c) for preventing or limiting the use of the waterway by vessels of a description which, or used for a purpose which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the waterway and its surrounding area;

      (d) for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the waterway and its surrounding area;

      (e) for the purpose of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the waterway or the surrounding area for recreation or the study of nature;

      (f) for the purpose of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the waterway or the surrounding area by the public.

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

      (a) prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a waterway, either generally or in any manner specified in the regulations, by vessels of any description so specified or used for any purpose so specified;

      (b) be made so as to relate either to the whole or to any part of the waterway, and may make different provisions for different parts thereof;

      (c) prohibit the use of the waterway by vessels of any description specified in the regulation, or used for any purpose so specified, which are not for the time being registered with the authority in such manner as the regulations may provide;

      (d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of vessels in pursuance of the regulations.

      (3) Regulations made under this section shall not provide for any prohibition, restriction or regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a sistent with any rules for the time being in force in relation to that waterway by virtue of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and shall not interfere with any authority having under any enactment functions relating to that waterway.
      (4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister.
      (5) The Minister, if he confirms any such regulations, may confirm them either without modification, or subject to such modifications
      1216
      as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm any regulations until at least one month has elapsed since the making of the regulations and, before confirming them, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a public inquiry to be held.
      (6) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be revoked, varied or amended by the authority subject to the like confirmation given subject to the like provisions as the first-mentioned regulations, or may be revoked, varied or amended by order made by the Minister after giving notice to the authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry.
      (7) Before an authority makes regulations under this section the authority shall consult the Commission.
      (8) Regulations made under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, or as the Minister may, in any particular case, direct.
      (9) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by authorities of regulations under this section, the confirmation of regulations so made, and the holding of inquiries.
      (10) Any person who contravenes a regulation made under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under this section to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, thereunder, to a fine not exceeding £50.
      (11) A local planning authority having power under this section to make regulations shall have power to enforce regulations made by them.
      (12) In this section 'vessel' includes any ship, boat, lighter and craft of every kind, however navigated, propelled or moved, and any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manoeuvre on or immediately over the water.—[Mr. Jopling.]
      Brought and, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, That the Clause he read a Second time.
      This is exactly the same as a Clause which was debated in Committee. On that occasion the workings of the Committee and of an all-party approach to a problem showed themselves at their best. The Government were unwilling to meet the principle embodied in that new Clause and were overwhelmed by the sensible feelings of back benchers on both sides. If that Clause had not been withdrawn, I think that the Government would have been beaten on a Division. We were given certain assurances on the question of the control of vessels on waterways in National Parks which led us to believe that it would be reasonable to withdraw that Clause, on the assurance that the

      1217
      Government would table a Clause either on Report or in another place. I am disappointed that the promised Clause has not appeared on the Notice Paper. However, I quite understand that the question raises important matters, and due consideration and consultation with the interested authorities must take place before it is brought in.
      The background to the new Clause is the great boom in boating and water sport in this country. Many of our lakes, particularly in the Lake District, have become overcrowded with boats and water sport activities of one sort and another. This is becoming a serious matter in the Lake District because of the boats which are permanently kept in the area—the larger yachts and houseboats—and it is exacerbated by the boats which are brought on the tops of cars or on trailers for the weekend and launched at same of the public and private landing places around the lakes. The situation will become infinitely worse as the M6 motorway comes nearer to the Lakes themselves.
      The greatest problem arises in the Lake District, and various difficulties must be faced. First, there is the problem of noise. Many people go to the Lakes for peace and quiet. Noisy forms of water sport have not yet intruded on to some of our lakes, and I hope—I am sure that this hope is shared on both sides—that noisy forms of motor water sport will never intrude on certain lakes. For instance, it would be intolerable if there were water skiing or motor boating on lakes such as Grasmere or Rydal Water. Noise can be controlled to an extent under the Local Government Act, 1933, but the power there is limited. More powers are needed. The new Clause would enable the local planning board to control noise.
      Second, congestion is a growing problem. At present, a dangerous state of affairs is developing on some of our lakes. I think of Windermere in particular, where there ise terrible congestion by various types of boat, and where the standard of boatmanship—if that is the right word—is very varied. There has been power to control speed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, so that the of accident can be much reduced, though it is a wonder to me and many people that far more serious accidents
      1218
      have not so far occurred. A much easier form of control over speed and congestion must be found and given to local authorities than is available under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
      Next, there is the problem of interference by one set of users with another. On the lakes, there are the interests of people who go to sail, people who go to row, those who like water skiing and the faster and more adventurous motor water sports, those who go to paddle and to swim, and those who go just to fish. They all have different interests and different approaches to the use of the lakes, and, unfortunately, they often interfere seriously with one another. For instance, water skiiers are potentially a great danger to swimmers, and all forms of boating are potentially disadvantageous to fishermen. More powers are needed so that local authorities may control water sports in our National Parks.
      Powers must be given in the interests of safety. There must be power to insist that all those who drive fast speedboats shall have third-party insurance.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Mapp: In the Clause there is exclusive reference to waterways. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing about lakes and has now introduced the word "watercourses". Does he mean that lakes will come under the word "waterways", which has a very limited meaning?
      Mr. Jopling: I am advised that the word "waterway" covers lakes, and I believe that this point has been put to the Ministry by the Lakes Planning Board. We shall probably hear from the Minister about this later.
      It is important to be able to zone the lake for secondary purposes, so that one can have speedboat racing in one part and swimming in another. It is essential that the local authorities have powers to register boats of certain types. I imagine that it would not be necessary to use them for all sorts of boats, but the powers could be held in reserve. Powers are also needed to inspect boats.
      Finally, but not least important, there is a need for power to control the sanitary arrangements for the effluent from houseboats. This point was made to me very forcibly since the Committee stage by someone who is interested in setting

      1219
      up an establishment on the side of the lake for young people to go for holidays. He is particularly perturbed about the prospect of setting up the establishment in a certain bay where he wants to do so because of the effluent from the many houseboats permanently moored there.
      This is how the Clause was left at the Committee stage. The Government promised to do something. Since then, so far as I can gather, all that has happened is that a letter has gone round from the Ministry to a number of interested people, saying what the Government intend to do. I understand that they intend to introduce a new Clause in another place giving byelaw powers to control vessels navigating on lakes in national parks and covering many of the things about which I have been talking. They are intended to:

      "(a) ensuring the safety of persons resorting to the lakes;

      (b) regulating all forms of water-based sport;

      (c) conserving the amenity and natural beauty of the lakes and surrounding areas;

      (d) controlling nuisance and damage."

      What has worried me and people in the Lake District most is another part of that letter, which says that there will be a general saving for public rights of way, which means that the byelaws will not affect those lakes which are public rights of way. Public rights of way exist on certain lakes known in the Lake District as the highway lakes. There are four—Windermere, Ullswater, Derwentwater and Coniston. We must know what that saving over public rights of way means. If it means that on any one of those lakes the byelaws and regulations will not apply to anyone who claims a right of way, the byelaws and that new Clause will be useless on those four lakes where the powers are most needed. I hope that my fears are unfounded, because it is essential that the regulations are introduced. If it means that, why has it been necessary to exclude the lakes on which there are public rights of way? Could it be, as I have been told, that compensation would have to be paid to people who might lose their rights of way? What is the difference between a right of way on land and a right of way on water? It is possible on land to prohibit certain traffic from using rights of way.
      1220
      It is possible to prohibit all wheeled vehicles under the same Clauses and even under Clause 25, powers are given to control vehicles on land highways in National Parks. Over the last two or three months, the Minister has blown rather hot and cold on this matter and we must know what he means by the phrase, "There is to be a general saving for public rights of way".
      We have gone a long way and I congratulate the Government on having gone as far as they have, but it is essential that these powers are made applicable to the highway lakes, so that the good which would come from my new Clause is not marred.
      Mrs. White: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for emphasising a matter of considerable and, we believe, of growing importance in amenity and recreation matters. Those of us who were on the Standing Committee will recall that when the hon. Member introduced a new Clause with precisely the same wording as this, he said that he did not mind whether we accepted it or not, provided that the Government did something, and I presume that tonight his attitude is the same. It would therefore be convenient if I explained the Government's position. At the conclusion of our Committee debate, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), acknowledging that this was a complex problem, needing considerable consideration, said:
      "I think that hon. Members consider this issue to be of such importance that they would not mind if it was introduced in the Lords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th February, 1968; c. 1025.]
      That is what we propose. We have given undertakings and are consulting the local authorities, the Parks Commission and various sporting and land-owning interests. The consultations are still proceeding and we firmly intend to put down, in another place, a new Clause which will deal with the points made. I am not yet in a position to discuss the new Clause which has not been formalised, nor appeared on the Order Paper, and it would be most undesirable if we debated this today at half-cock, before knowing the specific implications of the Government's undertaking.
      The hon. Member for Westmorland raised a matter which is troubling him,

      1221
      and which he referred to in Committee, that of the highway lakes. As I understand it, the intention is that the right of way should not be extinguished but the manner of its use should be regulated. 'That can be made plain when we come to The new Clause which we have undertaken to introduce. It is best to leave it with this firm declaration of intent. We appreciate the importance of the points the hon. Member raised. They have been mentioned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. While I gave a general undertaking in Committee that legislation would be introduced, we thought that there would be considerable pressure of opinion that we should bring it in in this Bill, and we intend to abide by our undertakings.
      Dr. Reginald Bennett: Not having served on the Standing Committee but appreciating what the hon. Lady has said, may I ask whether it is the Government's intention to do something in the nature of zoning between these various incompatible occupations which take place in water, such as separating swimming from water-skiing? Will this be the nature of the provision the Government intend to introduce in another place? I see that the hon. Lady is being briefed, so perhaps I can now give her the opportunity to reply.
      Mrs. White: My hon. Friend was reminding me that this is a matter in which the Sports Council takes a keen interest. I do not think we should go into details now, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. One of the problems is the incompatibility of certain recreations, each o' which is desirable in itself but which cannot be carried on at the same time and at the same place as certain others. We hope to make provision in such a way that something sensible will be done.
      Mr. Channon: It is true that in Standing Committee I said that we would have no objection if a provision on this matter had to be introduced in another place, because we were more anxious to get it done than to stick to our rights and insist that it be introduced here first. I hope that, when the Minister of State is considering this point, she will bear in mind not only the debates in Committee but the points made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who speaks with
      1222
      tremendous experience of this problem and has done the House a service by drawing attention to it, for it is a vital problem which is in some ways the most urgent aspect of the Bill.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to withdraw the Clause. I know she will not want to discuss them now but I am sure that we can take it from the hon. Lady that his remarks tonight and in relation to the letter she referred to earlier will be considered before the final decision is taken. With these remarks, I hope we can now leave this new Clause in the hope that we shall see a satisfactory conclusion in another place.
      Mrs. White: I willingly give the undertaking the hon. Gentleman asks for.
      Mr. Jopling: I shall seek leave to withdraw the new Clause but I am a little disappointed that the hon. Lady has not been able to allay my doubts and fears and those of many people in the Lake District about the saving for highway lakes. I plead with her to ensure, between now and when the Bill reaches another place, that everything will be done to make sure that the byelaws and powers are available on the highway lakes, because I cannot stress too strongly how important it is that such powers should be given. Otherwise, we shall have the most terrible accident in that part of England. The matter rests on her shoulders in the next few weeks to see that these powers are written into the Bill and that the highway lakes are not excluded.
      Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.

    New Clause 23.

      PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES IN NATIONAL PARKS.
      The local planning authority shall have power to operate or promote a public transport service whenever in their judgment such a service would overcome congestion arising from private vehicles in a National Park.—[Mr. Peter M. Jackson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the situation referred to in the new Clause has already arisen. There has been published recently—within the last two years—a traffic survey undertaken by the local planning authorities of Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire, and the conclusion of the report is that by 1984 it will be necessary to bring about a complete restriction on vehicular traffic within National Parks.
      I will not detain the House very long in moving this new Clause, because I think the need for such services is self-evident. I should, nevertheless, like to support the argument by quoting one set of figures.
      In 1960 there were something like 15,250,000 people living within three hours of the Lake District. By 1974 it is estimated that this figure will have risen to 21,500,000, and by the year 2010, it will have risen to 25,500,000.
      The Lake District, as perhaps many hon. Members will know, is very small, and obviously it would not be possible to
      1230
      accommodate the number of vehicles likely to arise from this growing population. It will, therefore, be necessary to impose the kind of restriction which the planning authority envisage having to impose by 1984. Although they envisage the possibility of introducing this restriction, they must nevertheless cater for the needs of tourists, and they suggest that tourists will park their cars at large car parks on the perimeter of the park and then transfer to various forms of public transport.
      It is quite probable that this public transport—minibuses or ordinary buses—will require public subsidy of some kind, and it is for this reason I move this new Clause tonight.
      As I understand it, the National Park authorities do not have the power under existing legislation to pay such subsidies. I should like to see them given such power.
      After tabling this new Clause, I had drawn to my attention the excellent provisions of Clause 34 of the Transport Bill, and I understand that this Clause will allow county and county district councils to assist in the provision of rural bus services, and if this is done, assistance will be given by the Ministry of Transport to the extent of some 50 per cent.
      The point may well be met through the provisions of this Clause, perhaps in preference to the new Clause which I am moving. Nevertheless, I hope that

      1231
      the Minister, in his reply, will say something about the powers which National Park authorities will have in the future to meet this growing problem.
      Mr. Skeffington: My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has raised a very interesting point.
      Generally speaking, I should have thought that there was not much need for this sort of provision because there is a multiplicity of services, provided either by large companies, some of which are publicly owned, or by private operators, and of course, in certain areas by local authorities themselves. But authorities in National Parks of course do not have these powers. With the tremendous growth in motor traffic near these delightful areas, nearly everyone wants some restrictions, and there might be a case for minibuses. We might look at this, but any provision would not be outside the general traffic commissioner licensing regulations, which are a necessary safeguard and important rationalising element.
      Some provision like this was made in the Lea Valley Regional Park Act, 1966, which was a useful experiment. I can go no further than that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that for a few highly specialised areas the door is not closed.
      Mr. Jopling: I will have to oppose the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) for what is, I think, the first time in our consideration of the Bill. I am aware of the survey two or three years ago by Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire County Councils and the proposal of minibuses, which would be essential to take people to beauty spots like Tam Hows, near Hawkshead, or the Little Langdale-Blea Tam-Great Langdale circuit.
      The Parliamentary Secretary was a little misleading in talking about public transport, since this would be a special
      1232
      service, with minibuses whisking people from the main car parks to the beauty spots. An immediate problem is that the car parks would have to be vast and within the National Parks themselves. In the first example I gave, for instance, there would have to be something at Hawkshead, and, for the other circuit, there would have to be something at Ambleside. Such huge car parks would be undesirable. This congestion happens only at weekends, and the Lake District season lasts only four or five weeks, and only three or four days a week, so the minibuses would be idle—filling the car parks—for most of the year and most of the season.
      They would be only relatively economic in getting people about, because, since a car holds about four people and a minibus 12, one bus would replace only three cars. This is not a striking saving of vehicles using these narrow roads. Considering the enormous losses which would occur, I do not believe that the project would be worth while. I am dubious about the scheme and, while something must be done about the traffic stagnation in the Lake District, being the representative of part of that area I am not sure that this would be the way to tackle the problem.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that the Minister will look further into the proposal, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). I have considerable knowledge of the Lake District and other National Park areas and I should have thought that the Langdale and Little Langdale areas, including Wasdale, would benefit from such a scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will carry out the undertaking he gave.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: In view of my hon. Friend's reasonable reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.

      PUBLIC VEHICULAR RIGHTS OF WAY.
      5

      (1) For the purpose of ensuring a fair balance between the rights of different sections of the public to enjoy the countryside whether on foot or on horseback or in or on vehicles, and for the purpose of confirming or otherwise determining and defining the precise nature of the right of public vehicular way along highways which are not classified roads and are shown on maps (that is to say, draft, provisional or definitive maps made by surveying authorities under Part IV of the Act of 1949) in such a manner as to leave the public in doubt whether such public vehicular right exists and as to what kind of vehicle is included in the right, the Minister shall (in respect of every authority to which Part IV of the Act of 1949 applies), on petition made within one year of the commencement of

      10

      this Act by any person or body of persons claiming an interest in such public vehicular right of way, and within two years of the commencement of this Act, hold a public inquiry.

      15

      (2) Regulations made by the Minister may prescribe the form which every public inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (I) shall take, provided that such inquiry shall be presided over by a person not having any connection with the surveying authority or the Commission.

      (3) At every inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (1) evidence may be given concerning the right of public vehicular way along any highway by or on behalf of any person or body of persons.

      20

      (4) The Commission shall give evidence to every inquiry held under the foregoing subsection (1); and shall submit to the inquiry all maps and records which have a bearing on the purpose of the inquiry; and shall, in the preparation of its evidence, take account of representations and recommendations (including recommendations as to maps and records to be submitted as evidence) made to it by any person or body

      25

      of persons claiming an interest in the purpose of the inquiry; and shall, as part of its evidence, present a schedule of all such representations and recommendations together with a summary of the substance of each one and an explanation of the reason for any failure to accept any recommendation; and shall supply any person or body of persons who made representations or recommendations with a copy of the schedule not less than

      30

      six weeks before the opening of the inquiry.

      (5) Section twenty of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which provides for appeals to the High Court by way of case stated on a point of law) shall with the necessary modifications apply in relation to this section.

      (6) The surveying authority shall (subject to the provisions of Part IV of the Act of 1949

      35

      where applicable, but notwithstanding anything in the proviso to subsection (5)(of section 34 of that Act), within one year of the final determination of the rights referred to in subsection (1) of this section, prepare a revised map showing clearly all highways and differentiating clearly between one kind of highway and another, with special reference to highways not being classified roads along which there is a public vehicular

      40

      right of way, as determined and defined by the inquiry, and distinguishing between one kind of vehicle and another in respect of which the right of way exists, and explaining clearly on the face of the map who has and who has hot the right of (way along each highway, and stating clearly any other details which might help any person, including any motor-cyclist or other cyclist, in any circumstances to know where he has a right

      45

      to go in the countryside.

      (7) The meaning assigned to the expression ' road used as a public path ' in section 27 of the Act of 1949 shall cease to have effect.

      (8) Nothing in section 10 of Part III of the First Schedule to the Act of 1949 (which provides that certain maps shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever)

      50

      shall be so construed as to interfere with the operation of this section.—[Mr. Iremonger.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss the following proposed Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to the new Clause: In line 4, leave out 'right of public vehicular' and insert 'public right of'.
      In line 7, leave out from 'doubt' to as ' and insert:
      'as to what public right of way exists and, in the case of a public vehicular right of way'.
      In line 10, leave out 'vehicular'.
      In line 18, leave out 'public vehicular.
      In line 39, leave out 'vehicular'.
      In line 41, after first 'of', insert:
      'right and another and, in the case of a public vehicular right of way, between one kind of'.
      In line 44, after 'any', insert 'equestrian'.
      and the following Amendments: No. 45, in Clause 21, page 23, line 21, after 'bridleway', insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 46, in line 24, after bridleway insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 47, in line 27, after 'bridleway', insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 48, in line 28, after bridleway insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 49, in line 31, after bridleway insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 50, in line 33, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 52, in line 44, after bridleway insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 54, in page 24, line 4, after 'bridle-way', insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 56, in line 8, after bridleway insert:
      'or carriageway or other highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way,'.
      No. 58, in line 9, at end insert:
      (7) Every signpost or other sign or notice erected or placed along a carriageway or highway, not in either case being a classified road, along which there is a public vehicular right of way shall indicate clearly the class or classes of vehicle to which the right applies and does not apply.
      (8) Any person or body of persons may apply to a magistrates' court for an order requiring the responsible authority to remove or alter or replace any signpost or sign or notice which is incorrect or misleading or inadequate in respect of any of the foregoing provisions of this section.
      No. 91, in Schedule 4, page 46, line 49, at end insert:

      7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.

      The Highways Act 1959.

      In section 109, the words 'stopped up or', and related and consequential words.

      Mr. Iremonger: Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, there are a number of points to which I wish
      1236
      to draw attention. At the beginning of business today I presented a Petition on behalf of the British Motorcyclists' Federation bearing more than 7,000 signatures. Hon. Members will see that I am not representing a paltry interest; and, for an organisation like the Federation to produce a Petition signed by so many people, there is obviously a great deal of high feeling on this issue. The prime purpose of the Clause is in its opening words:
      "… on ensuring a fair balance between the rights of different sections of the public to enjoy the countryside whether on foot or on horseback or in or on vehicles …"
      The motivation behind the Clause may be deduced from the words "on vehicles". Although the grievances of motorcyclists first made my hon. Friends and I aware of the defects in the Bill—which the Clause seeks to remedy—those grievances are shared to a high degree by the users of motor cars and other vehicles.
      The Bill, as amended in Committee, does not meet these defects and the earlier Acts, on which it is founded, have failed to provide the fair balance to which the Clause refers. Indeed, the balance is weighted against motorcyclists and other vehicle users. The old machinery for establishing and mapping rights of way in the countryside has tended over the years to deny to both motorcyclists and other vehicle users the rights of way to which they are entitled, and to leave them in confusion as to what rights of way they have in the countryside.
      The purpose of the new Clause is also to provide a new machinery by way of an unbiased public inquiry and clear maps, based on the findings of the inquiry, to establish the rights of way for vehicle users. The existing machinery in Part IV of the 1949 Act should have done this, but it has often failed to do so, largely because the machinery was managed by interests hostile to vehicle users. It is fair to say that there are honourable exceptions in certain counties.
      The new machinery, which would use parts of the old machinery where convenient, would provide an alternative procedure and impartial decisions, without delay, for the benefit of those who have lost confidence in the old. The public inquiry is, therefore, the central

      1237
      feature of the new Clause, and I will explain its details, functioning and the reasons behind them. I win do this subsection by subsection seriatim, but I want to jump ahead and straight away to ask the House to look at subsection (7), because that pictures the real cause of the whole trouble. Seeing the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) in his place, I hesitate to say, "The nigger in the woodpile"—
      Mr. Andrew Faulds: I should hope so!
      Mr. Iremonger:—but that is a vulgar and old-fashioned expression describing what the subsection seeks to remove. The subsection says:
      "The meaning assigned to the expression 'road used as a public path' in section 27 of the Act of 1949 shall cease to have effect."
      Roads used as public paths are known in the language of people who talk about these things as "rupps". I was tempted when I drafted this Clause to add, "the expression 'rupps' shall be deemed obscene" and that its use would be punishable by a fine not exceeding 5s., but I resisted the temptation. Nevertheless, the expression "rupps" has given rise to endless trouble.
      The definition in the 1949 Act, Section 27 (6), says:
      "'road used as a public path' means a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths or bridleways are so used."
      If we look back to see what a "public path" is, we find:
      "'public path' means a highway being either a footpath or a bridleway"
      If we look back further we see what a footpath or a bridleway is. They are fairly reasonably described as highways over which the public have right of way on foot or on horseback. The definition of
      "road used as a public path"
      as being
      "a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths or bridleways are so used."
      is a Parliamentary enormity. I cannot think how it came to be embodied in any Act which has been through this House. I have not perused the ultimate meaning of "rupps" to its archaic depths, but I think that it could he used to abolish the monarchy and to dissolve
      1238
      Parliament, in which case I would be entirely in favour of it. It is so bad that the 1950 Commons and Open Spaces Footpaths Preservation Society's green handbook of "Instructions to Walkers" gradually became discredited because it was based on this bad definition and the public was driven back to the Act, which gave no help.
      We are therefore driven back to the position where, if one is walking in the countryside, one does not know whether one is on a highway or a road used as a public path. It would be equally difficult for anyone to try to stop one because he could not tell whether one should be there or not although there may be a road marked as a public footpath or bridleway and it is a road where there is to be vehicular right of way.
      We had the difficulty of deciding whether we should try to amend the definition of a road used as a public footpath, or simply to get rid of it. I am glad to see in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Report of the Footpaths Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Gosling recommendation 15, which says:
      "The definition 'roads used as public paths' should be abandoned. These roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities who should decide in each case whether the road should be designated as an unclassified road, a bridleway or a footpath."
      I think the House may feel that in this vital respect, my view, which anticipated slightly the Gosling Report, is borne out by the conclusions of the Gosling Committee. One may also feel that the recommendations foreshadow in some degree my recommendation as to an inquiry, because having an survey would be perfectly satisfactory if the surveying authorities commanded confidence.
      The inquiry, therefore, has got to say definitely whether a vehicle has a right of way along a particular highway other than main roads and so on. It may decide, according to my intention in drafting the new Clause, either that a vehicle has a right of way and should continue to have a right of way, or it may decide that it has a right of way but that it should not continue to have a right of way. Again it may decide that it has not got a right of way and should continue not to have a right of way, or that it has not got one but should have one in future. In every case the inquiry

      1239
      should specify which class or classes of vehicles should have a right of way and which should not—cars, tractors, bicycles, motor bicycles, invalid chairs and all the rest.
      To some extent, the House has got to face the fact that the issues which the inquiry would be required to decide, apart from purely historical ones, are not strictly justiciable. But then, this is not a court of law. There is a provision under subsection (5) for appeal to the High Court on points of law, and we are now hardened, if not reconciled, to unjusticiable issues being decided by quasi-judicial tribunals. Although we ought to scrutinise with an unfriendly eye proposals for any proliferation, I must say that I do not find this proposal offensive. In any case, this inquiry procedure will be fair.
      The essence of the proposed new Clause is that it recognises that there are genuine and cherished conflicting interests when it comes to dealing with the countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is not in his place at the moment, represents in this House the shade of Wordsworth who
      "wandered lonely as a cloud"
      and he gave expression to a profound and endearing strain in the English character which we ought to protect and which it would not be pretentious to say subsists in and inspires the ramblers of today. It might be unjust to be too Pharisaical and toffee-nosed about a lot of other people who are learning to love the countryside, even if they do go to it, and perhaps want to go through it, in motor cars or on motor cycles. They deserve fair consideration from this House and from any legislation that we pass. It ought to be possible to give them a fair hearing and it should not be too much to ask that they should have a fair deal.
      As I shall make clear, many of the rights of way which would be considered by the inquiry proposed in the new Clause are historically a part of the ancient liberties of the people and part of the heritage of this country.
      Mr. John Lee: The hon. Gentleman has set out a very elaborate Clause. Can he be a little more specific about the part of subsection (1) which says:
      1240
      "… any person or body or persons claiming an interest in such public vehicular right of way"?
      It is a very wide range of categories. Will the hon. Gentleman be more specific as to how wide it is?
      Mr. Iremonger: No. I intended that it should include the hon. Gentleman if he wanted it to, or anyone else. It seemed to me that nobody who had not got a genuine interest would bother to claim an interest in the inquiry. I want to make it as wide as possible and I refrained from saying "any motor cyclists" because I thought it might seem invidious. Therefore, I purposely left it so wide.
      11.30 p.m.
      The Clause would provide a fair hearing and it ought to provide a fair deal. We must consider what the criteria should be. I suggest that they should be, first, historical—simply the historical evidence referred to in a later subsection. Secondly, in respect of what right of way ought to exist as opposed to what can be established to have existed historically, bearing in mind the nature of modern society, in which practically everyone who ever goes into the countryside either is or might be or will be a motorist or a motor cyclist, the understanding which the inquiry will have of people's needs, and the evidence given by interested parties, the criteria should simply be that over-riding demand of the opening words of the Clause, which is to strike "a fair balance".
      Subsection (2) provides that anyone holding the inquiry, the details of which would be prescribed by regulation by that Minister, would have two great virtues. He could not be nobbled by the authorities, which have over the past 20 years forfeited the confidence of the public, and he would not be connected with the Commission, because the Clause provides a different and useful rôle for the Commission later. It might be said that the inquiry could be biased in favour of motor cyclists. The answer to that is twofold. First, if the Clause indeed makes that possible, that could be remedied in another place. Secondly, after 20 years of bias against the motor cyclist at least that would be a change. Seriously, the House must be concerned that the procedure really is fair. Having

      1241
      made the proviso that there shall be no connection with the authorities or with the Commission, the House could leave the details to the Minister.
      For the rest, once the inquiry is established, it is a case of every man and every legitimate interest for himself, with complete freedom to anybody, as provided in subsection (3), to give evidence. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) will see that it is just as wide for anyone to give evidence as it is for anyone to petition for the inquiry to be set up—ramblers, fishermen, preservationists, and those who have heretofore tried to have a fair hearing but have been refused.
      Mr. John Lee: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to say more about the criteria? He said that the first criterion was historical. Does he intend to say more about that, because what is strange is that all this machinery is set out, but the definitions by which the inquiry will evaluate the pros and cons of an application are not set out?
      Mr. Iremonger: I shall deal with that point and explain exactly the type of evidence I have in mind for the historical criteria. Once the inquiry has that historical criteria before it, it may say, in whatever sense it thinks right, that the historical criteria should be discarded because they are no longer relevant or that they justify the inquiry in upgrading a footpath, say, to a public carriageway. It is entirely a matter for the individual judgment of the inquiry.
      It has been felt in some quarters, particularly by motor cyclists, that motor cyclists have been treated with almost arrogant disdain by many of those responsible for making decisions of this kind. Motor cyclists may have antagonised some individuals by having noisy exhausts or this or that, but they should not be subjected to prejudice when it comes to deciding such an important right as public vehicular rights of way, which applies to motorists just as it applies to motor cyclists.
      Subsection (4) is of particular importance because it provides that, whereas anyone may give evidence to the public inquiry, the Countryside Commission must give evidence to it. What is more, it must give a certain kind of evidence,
      1242
      or it must explain why it is not doing it, at the behest of anyone interested. I can best explain the point of this by showing how handicapped anyone is who tries to establish the existence of ancient rights of vehicular way. This may go some way to explain to the hon. Member for Reading, what has to be decided.
      If one is conscientiously to decide the historical question alone, one has to check, among other things—according to my information—original walkers' statements under the 1949 Act as to the width, metalling, gates and the years of use; the Local Government Act 1929 delegation maps; lists of upgradings from lower categories which should be available for public inspection; the pre-1835 Highways Act maps in the records department; enclosure awards and maps, tithe maps, apportionment rolls and altered apportionment maps; 1878 to 1894 highways board minutes; the pre-1835 to 1878 parish surveyors' minutes; also the disturnpiked roads lists, particularly where the land was not specifically handed back to the owners; the 25-inch Ordnance Survey maps of 1868–74 at the British Museum, where parish area books are often a source of proof. Parish minute books may still record very ancient rights. It is necessary, also, to check physically for signs of right of way such as engineered cuttings, horizontally clipped hedges of long standing and ruts and hollow ways made by timber dragging. Also, if necessary, one must interview old inhabitants free of local pressures or obligations.
      All this should be done by qualified surveyors employed ad hoc by the Commission. They should be open to suggestions from interested parties of the kind I have mentioned, and there should be made clear at the inquiry what suggestions as to evidence to be admitted have been made and how conscientiously they have been followed up. Thus, the inquiry would be fully informed to everyone's satisfaction, and its decisions would command confidence.
      So much for the inquiry. Subsection (5) merely provides for appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Subsection (6) provides for the end product of the inquiry, that is to say, that the surveying authority should do as a result of the inquiry what it should have done under

      1243
      Part IV long ago. It should prepare a revised map showing clearly all highways and differentiating clearly between one kind of highway and another, with special reference to highways which are not classified roads along which there is a public vehicular right of way as decided by the inquiry, distinguishing between one kind of vehicle and another in respect of which a right of way exists, explaining clearly on the face of the map who has and who has not a right of way along each highway, and stating clearly any other details which might help any person, including any motorcyclist or cyclist, to know in any circumstances where he has a right to go in the countryside.
      That is the new Clause. Taken with it are the Amendments to Clause 21 concerning signposting. They are designed to ensure that carriageways as established by the inquiry, as well as footpaths and bridleways, should be signposted. Amendment No. 58, which would add a new subsection (7) to Clause 21, provides that signposts shall show where there is a vehicular right of way, and to which classes of vehicle the right of way applies.
      Subsection (8) is of particular importance in that it enables any person to get an order from a magistrates' court to make the authority replace a misleading signpost, that is, where there is a signpost which says that a highway is a footpath or a bridleway—which it may well be—but which fails to say that it is also a carriageway and, therefore, misleads people on motor cycles or in cars into thinking that they may not go there when, in truth, they may. I understand that this has been particularly obnoxious in the County of Hampshire, which would be obliged to replace the signposts with the correct indication of who could go there.
      Amendment No. 91 would add to the repeal Schedule, Schedule 4. It would take out of Section 109 of the Highways Act, 1959, the words "stopped up or" and any others which serve a like fell purpose. A frontager on a neglected maintained carriageway can extend his garden across, or nearly across, the carriageway, and can then apply to the highway authority to have the carriageway stopped up, or nearly stopped up, that is, down-graded to a footpath. So, on a whim, he can use the law to enrich
      1244
      himself and deprive the public of a right. The authority has a bias in favour of down-grading or stopping up, because it then relieves itself of any obligation to maintain the highway, and the bench may be content to preserve ramblers' rights alone by down-grading, because vehicle users' rights may not be represented to it or be sympathetically considered. This cannot be right, and the House could not wish this abuse to continue. It is a small point, but I do not regret its being taken with the new Clause concerning public vehicular rights of way because the same principle is involved, namely, that all sections of the public should have a fair deal in determining, limiting and preserving rights of way, which are no small part of people's liberties.
      Therefore, I hope that the Clause and the Amendments commend themselves to the House and that the Minister, even if he does not feel that he can accept the Clause exactly as drafted—though I fail to see how it could possibly be drafted better—will at least proclaim emphatically and reassuringly that he supports the principle and tell us exactly how he proposes otherwise to remedy the manifest abuses to which I have tried to draw the attention of the House.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has put forward, though I shall not go to the lengths to which he went in the very able way in which he presented his argument.
      The section of the public on whose behalf he made his speech—motor cyclists—are in some fear that the Bill will deprive them of certain rights which they have had up to now, and the House would not feel that this would be a good thing. My hon. Friend is a vigorous champion of the motor cyclists, and he showed this in his excellent Second Reading speech and again tonight. In many parts of the country motor cycling is a very valuable and popular sport. In the Wye Valley in Herefordshire and Wales a great deal of scrambling takes place, as it does in many other parts of the country. A number of us have received small petitions bearing 50 to 100 signatures. My hon. Friend referred to a petition bearing about 7,000 names which he presented to the House this afternoon.

      1245
      11.45 p.m.
      The motor cycle unions or centres supporting these young men are responsible organisations and what the hon. Gentleman was saying to the House a moment ago was that in all consideration of the closing up or using of public rights of way, the views of these motor cycle unions should be taken into account. This sport has a great effect on the motor cycle industry, affects exports to some extent, and in some ways affects our ability to win sporting trophies overseas. An example of this is a Radnorshire neighbour of mine, a Mr. Lewis, who is a motor cycle international gold trophy winner. We are proud of him. It is a tough sport and it does a lot of good. Some will say that it is noisy but the noise of a motor cycle, even of 20 motor cycles, is as nothing to that of some of the aeroplanes which break the sound barrier in quiet country districts which I know, and I do not believe that this argument can be sustained.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in reply will make encouraging noises and that he will be able to say that when local authorities are making decisions about the user of certain public rights of way and "roughs", they should be made to consider all interests, including motor cycle interests. Section 1(1) (d) of the R Dad Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, applies to this. We hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can help us and the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Skeffington: One should at least pay tribute to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) who has almost written a new Transport Bill of his own. Although I will not weary the House with technical points, he would have succeeded in amending eight or nine Acts and many dozens of Sections in them. There may be a case for doing it, but not, I think, in the Countryside Bill.
      I want to concentrate on the essential points which have led him to initiate this important discussion. There is nothing in the Bill that in any way impinges on or alters the existing status of motor cyclists. I was therefore a little astonished, as were some other hon. Members, perhaps, at the rather violent language used by some motor cyclists who had been led to believe that this Bill was taking away some of their precious rights.
      1246
      As this was clearly contrary to the purpose of the Bill, and to anything in the White Paper, I was surprised. Twice I saw the Secretary of the British Motorcyclists Federation and received a deputation. I started by saying to them that I was incensed by the terms of some of the letters which had come to me, because they were a complete distortion of anything in the Bill.
      The Federation was good enough to say that those of its members who had sent such letters—not all the writers were members—had been misinformed about the purposes of the Bill, and I think that the deputation went away in a happier frame of mind. I must put it on record, and I hope this will be understood by hon. Members who have been worried about it, that there is nothing in the Bill which takes away any right motor cyclists now have. I hope that that is clearly understood and that hon. Members will have no hesitation in quoting my statement if they are approached by individual motor cyclists or others on this point.
      But there is something in the point that in general, for one reason or another, motor cyclists as a body feel that they have not always had their needs properly considered. It may be that perhaps they have not always used the right methods. One method is to do a good deal of research into legislation so that they can keep apprised of events and take appropriate action at an early stage. That is what other bodies do, many of them with less resources than the motor cyclists.
      Motor cycling is a useful method of getting about and it is a healthy sport. Nothing I have to say detracts from the good sportsmanship and fellowship of those engaging in this exhilarating pastime. As I told the deputation, all those concerned with sport, and especially my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, are anxious to see that the local authorities make proper provision. That is essential. But trouble has often arisen in dealing with the countryside because of incompatibility of activities, leading to argument as to which activity should use which land and under what conditions.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I agree entirely that full provision should be made but would my hon. Friend agree that it

      1247
      should be provided outside our National Parks?
      Mr. Skeffington: I would have thought that that would normally be the case. But that sort of decision should be left to the bodies I shall indicate. The difficulties began to arise in connection with the motor cyclists when the Gosling Committee was set up. Various representatives of amenity bodies were appointed to it but the motor cyclists were not selected. However, I pointed out to their representatives at an early stage and when I saw the Secretary, that there was nothing to prevent them giving evidence, and I am glad to say that they took my advice and did so.
      Apprehensions probably began to arise when the interim proposals of the Gosling Committee were made known, particularly paragraph 69, which recommended that the category "roads used as public paths" in Section 27 of the 1949 Act should be abandoned and gave the reasons for that recommendation. Although the Committee had sympathy with the difficulties of motor cyclists, it did not think that motor cycles should normally be ridden along footpaths and this is a conclusion with which many people would agree.
      The motor cycling fraternity became alarmed that its interests were going to be abandoned and I tried to make the position clear as regards paragraph 69 and also as regards paragraph 70, which recommended that these roads should be surveyed by the responsible authorities to decide whether they should be designated as unclassified roads, bridleways or footpaths.
      Fears may arise in this connection and this is something that will be dealt with at a later stage. In so far as there are any fears, I hope that I can put them at rest. I indicated in Committee what we proposed, although we have not been able to include it on Report, because it requires further drafting. We had in mind that county councils in the normal way would look at these roads and come to certain conclusions about their future use, either as footpaths or bridleways, or for any other use. They would then follow the common procedure under the Highways Act, whereby the conclusions would be advertised in the London Gazette and local papers.
      1248
      There would be a period for objections by people who felt their interests were affected. If there were objections, there would be a normal public inquiry and finally that matter would go to the Minister, who would confirm or not confirm. There would be three opportunities for objection, first after the authority had made its proposal, secondly at the inquiry and then on appeal to the Minister.
      We cannot do that at this stage. This only relates to the small category of roads used as public paths, and not to the whole gamut of thoroughfares, as does the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and, I hope that he will assure motor cyclists, that they will have every opportunity of seeing that their needs are thoroughly understood and their opinions ventilated.
      The new Clause goes enormously wide and the hon. Member is, as I have said, almost writing a fresh Transport Act on his own. The procedure for the general surveying of roads, to which he refers, is already provided for in one or other of the Sections of the 1959 Act. This procedure has to be followed before any road can be created or designated. It would be impossible, even if it were technically within the ambit of the Bill, to include this vast range of alterations in so many Acts.
      He referred to unclassified roads. I do not suppose he would want to be concerned with many of those coming under that definition. There are something like 94,000 miles of them. It would be quite beyond the sort of additional procedure he is suggesting for the surveying authorities to undertake this and certainly it would be beyond the Commission. The Commission will have a great many responsibilities. It will not get all the staff that it requires, or all the resources that it would like. We are taking the power now because we want the Commission to get started. To have this enormous responsibility, appearing and giving evidence at all these inquiries, would be an impossible task. It is not fitted for it. It would not have the figures or data. Hitherto the Commission has operated only in the national parks. Although I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants this particular body to do this, it would not be fit nor proper for it to do so, in the light of what has been said and the resources at its disposal.

      1249
      12 m.
      The hon. Gentleman made further points about signposting. This is a matter for the Minister of Transport. There are considerable powers under Section 55(2) of the Road Traffic Act and it would be duplication to deal with it in this Bill.
      Amendment No. 91 would have far reaching consequences going wider than the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I could not recommend the House to accept that either.
      Having had his opportunity of ventilating what some people feel is a great grievance and having been assured by me of the procedure concerning roads, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the motor cyclists have nothing to fear about their rights of representation. In the light of the assurance that I have given I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he has done his duty and will withdraw the Clause.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the new Clause is a new Transport Bill. If so, I prefer it to the present Transport Bill that the Government have brought in.
      I believe that the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to settle a number of the fears which have been expressed. Many of us have received communications based upon the fears held by many people that this Bill would take away some of their rights. The hon. Gentleman has helped us considerably by showing that many of those fears are unjustified.
      The view of the majority of the House is that in dealing with this matter we want to aim for a fair balance between all users. The Bill should not be considered as one which gives a charter to ramblers, to people riding horses, or to any one section, but as trying to maintain the balance between all who want to use the countryside for their own particular form of recreation. The way in which the Bill should be treated is by making certain that no one group enjoying its type of recreation interferes unduly with others who are also trying to enjoy their type of recreation. The balance has to be maintained, and the new Clause seeks to lay down that there will be some form of inquiry whereby all the people affected will have the right to be: heard. The fact that they have the
      1250
      right to be heard will not lead to a large number of objections being raised; it will considerably reduce the fears that are held by many people at the present time.
      I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He has set a lot of my fears at rest, and I think that the fears of others will be considerably reduced when they read his speech.
      Mr. Jopling: I am glad that the Minister said what he did, and I am particularly glad from a constituency point of view that he rejects the suggestion of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) that all forms of motor sport in National Parks should be banned. Of course, it should be well controlled, and certainly it is in the Lake District.
      I have been approached by officials of Westmorland motor cycle clubs. They have been running events in the Lake District area for 60 years and have maintained excellent relationships with farmers, landowners and public authorities. The events are extremely well run and controlled, and I am sure that that state of affairs will continue.
      Reverting for a moment to a new Clause which I moved earlier, it would be slightly anomalous to allow speedboat racing on Windermere while banning motor sport from the National Parks. Provided that it is properly run, I hope that it will be allowed to continue.
      Mr. Channon: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) for moving his new Clause and enabling us to discuss the sport of motor cycling and its position under the Bill. I imagine that all hon. Members have received representations from motor cyclists who, very properly, wanted to put forward their points of view.
      As I understand it, what the Minister has said makes it clear that the Government propose to do what my hon. Friend asks. They propose to conduct a survey of public vehicular rights of way. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that before there was any question of adopting the Gosling Committee's proposal to abolish the definition of roads used as public paths, these roads should

      1251
      be surveyed by the responsible authorities, who would then decide in each case the future category of a road. In effect, therefore, the greater part of my hon. Friend's Amendment asking for a survey of these rights of way is to be met by the Government.
      It is not surprising that the motor cyclists have been confused by some of these points. After all, the Gosling Report was not available in its entirety to the public until last Thursday. All that they had to go on before that were the remarks of Ministers as each separate set of interim proposals was published.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to my hon. Friend's remarks about signposts on these roads. As he suggested, I have looked at Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, and it is true that the appropriate Minister may give directions to highway authorities for placing traffic signs of a prescribed type on highways. In addition, the motor cyclists feel strongly that there are misleading signs on certain roads, and they suggest that there should be a proper form of sign, making it clear what vehicles are allowed on each road of this kind.
      I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for his reply, which has gone a great deal of the way to allaying our anxieties and those of the motor cyclists, when they have a chance of reading what he has said. In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer, it may be that my hon. Friend will not wish to press his Amendment. His main point will be met by the survey which is to be made by the Government, though not in the way that he suggests in his new Clause. If any motor cyclists write to me, I shall refer them to the Minister's remarks and say that there is no threat to them. If there is a threat to them in the future, the blame for it will be on the Minister's head, and I should not like to be in his shoes.
      Mr. Iremonger: If what the Minister was suggesting was a survey by the present authorities of the roads used as public paths, this would have been considered very disappointing by motor cyclists in particular, and other vehicle users, because they have lost confidence
      1252
      in the present authorities. They regard them, rightly or wrongly, as being dilatory and biased. The main purpose of the new Clause was to try to get an independent authoritative mind brought to bear on the anxieties of, and the representations by, motor cyclists. If I understood the Minister aright, he was saying that the matter would come to him in the last resort, and that anyone who had a feeling of grievance about the decisions of the authorities and the result of the survey would be heard by him.
      If I can take that as being the nub of what he was saying, and if I can say to motor cyclists that even if they cannot have exactly the kind of inquiry which they have suggested, at least they will have the Minister as their last resort—after all, they will be aware that Ministers are answerable to the House, which is a great protection—they may feel that they have been, not so much reassured. as given a substantial new right, the lack of which they felt before. I think, therefore, that at this stage it would be best for me to wish the Minister well in the carrying out of the proposals he suggested to the House, and to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 25.

      AMENDMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967.
      Before making an order under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, the authority shall consult with any body which appears to it to have an interest in the countryside, and the Minister may require it to consult with any body.—[Mr. Iremonger.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause is about trials, and the point is that Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1967, provides in subsection (1)(e) that road traffic regulations which restrict the right of the public to use roads may be made
      "for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot."
      Clause 25(2) of the Bill amplifies and adds to that provision by saying that regulations may be made
      "for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area, or of affording

      1253
      better opportunities for the public to enjoy the area for recreation or the study of nature."
      The object of the new Clause is to try to ensure that that subsection will not be used dishonestly to stop trials which are tests of riding skill and an essential part of the motor cycling sport. The trouble is that there is a history of suspicion behind this because the Road Traffic Act, 1960, Section 26, which was not intended for the purpose at all, was used in 1964, for example, to close a road to public traffic. I am referring to Wise's Lane, Ashtead, in Kent, and there are other examples in the Dartford Rural District in the case of Wood Lane, Darenth and Ash Church Lane, which was closed because one man went down it on a motor cycle one day. These roads were closed by this method—and one of them was used for the trials of the South-East Centre of the Auto Cycle Union—simply because it was thought that there was no other legal way of controlling the holding of trials.
      Trials are now controlled, as it is right they should be, under the Road Traffic Act, 1962, and the Minister of Transport has a standing committee to investigate any complaints against those taking part. So the control is strictly exercised and grudgingly, perhaps, but none the less wholeheartedly accepted by the motor cyclists.
      12.15 a.m.
      But the danger is seen here that the general use of roads could be stopped maliciously, or by individuals, against the public interest. For example, the frontager who had a property near the head of a dalehead road at the end of which was a car park could get the road stopped at the point where is came abreast of his property and so on, chopping backwards ore by one a few yards at a time, so that the road could be stopped and made no longer open to vehicular traffic. The British Motorcyclists Federation has evidence of malicious closures of this kind.
      There is another possibility in that it is sometimes found convenient to stop traffic or make traffic one-way traffic in such a way as to destroy a through route.
      It would be very helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that this is not the intention of Clause 25 of the Bill,
      1254
      that it will not be permitted for the Clause to be used in that way, and that if there is any doubt about the application of the Clause, consultation with the vehicle users could be put into effect to relieve it.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able either to accept the new Clause or to explain convincingly that its purpose can be achieved in another way.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I support the Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). As I said during the debate on the last Clause, Section 1(d) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, is important to the motor cycle riders and their union centres, and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to clear this matter up and make it clear beyond peradventure that these very responsible organisations should be consulted when there are inquiries about the closure of roads.
      Mr. Skeffington: I think I can again reassure the hon. Gentleman in the matter which is causing concern to him and those for whom he speaks.
      If I may very cautiously say so, and without in any way wishing to interfere in the workings of the organisations for which he speaks, I think that if they were able to consult someone who specialises in this matter they might realise that their fears are groundless because these matters are covered by legislation.
      The fact is that there has to be consultation before these orders can be made. The latest enactments in this connection are the Road Traffic Regulation (Procedure) (England and Wales) Orders, 1968, which were, I think, only issued in January, although there have been earlier Regulations.
      If the hon. Gentleman looks at Regulation 5 of these Regulations he will see this
      "Before making an Order, a local authority shall—
      (a) consult with the chief officer of police of the police area in which are situated the roads to which the proposed Order relates and with such representative organisations as they think fit,"
      This is mandatory, and there is a similar provision which I think relates to bridges, and which might be just as relevant, in Regulation 21.

      1255
      There is, of course, a further power in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 whereby the appropriate Minister—the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland—can lay down the procedure to be followed by local authorities making these Orders. So there is a clear duty to consult representative organisations. These powers will bite only as far as is laid down in Clause 25 (2), which refers to the making of Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, including
      "… the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area, or of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the area for recreation or the study of nature."
      It is possible to use the powers for particular forms of transport, but only as far as that subsection provides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Clause, since the matter is covered elsewhere.
      Mr. Iremonger: I think that the House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his exegesis of this baffling and complex traffic legislation, which I am sure will be studied with benefit in the relevant quarters. I hope that they will take his speech as an open invitation to seek his guidance, and that he will be able to help them if they are not clear. Perhaps this might be pursued further on another occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1.

      GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'National Parks and'.
      The Amendment reverses the Committee's first decision, in which, although I had the support of the hon. Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), I still failed by one vote to carry the Committee. I did not have the vote of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), as he said that he had a National Park in his constituency.
      The issue is whether the Commission should be called the National Parks and Countryside Commission or simply the
      1256
      Countryside Commission. I would not seek, on a matter like this, to reverse a decision of the Committee freely arrived at—I almost said, "too freely arrived at"—unless I thought that there were good reasons for doing so. One important factor is that, through ignorance, I could not then tell the Committee accurately what were the Commission's own views. I do not say that they would necessarily be decisive, but they are important, and the House will want to give them due weight.
      I came fresh to the Bill and started with no prejudices one way or the other. I think that it is an advantage to name a body of this kind with a title which is at once clear and an accurate description of its work. By those tests, there is no doubt that the advantages lie with the shorter title, the Countryside Commission. I realise that those who fought for years to get the original 1949 Act on the Statute Book and then made great efforts to make it a reality have an understandable attachment to the original title of the National Parks Commission. The emphasis at that time was on the National Parks themselves. They were the first great achievement in that sphere, and the Commission looked after questions of access to the countryside and so on.
      The fact that we have entitled this the Countryside Bill and are proposing to establish the Countryside Commission is indicative of what we believe to be a real widening in the scope of the Commission. In future the Commission will be closely concerned with the activities of almost every local authority in the country, and that applies to urban as well as rural authorities, since urban authorities will, in a sense, provide the customers.
      I must, therefore, advise the House that it would be misleading and confusing to people if the words "National Parks" appeared at the beginning of the title of the Commission, because a great many authorities will not be concerned with the National Parks activities of the Commission. They will be concerned with its many other functions: the advice and guidance the Commission can give them, the advice which the Commission will be giving to the Minister about questions of grant for these authorities and with countryside problems involved in the provision of picnic sites, camping sites and so on under the Bill.

      1257
      For the purpose of publicising its activities, the Commission would not easily get the message across to the countryside if it had to do everything under the longer title. The words which would stick would be "National Parks", and I predict that if we retained the longer title, it would continue to be called "The National Parks Commission", particularly since it is a mouthful to say "The National Parks and Countryside Commission". For practical and commonsense reasons, the advantage lies with the shorter title.
      I appreciate that some of those who are rightly passionately concerned for the interests of the National Parks feel that this change of title will mean a down grading of status of the National Parks. While I hope that I can understand their fears, I suggest that they are wholly unfounded aid that the change of title will not in any way reduce the parks' significance or importance. The National Parks will continue to be known as the National Parks. The planning committees and boards which are responsible for them will continue to bear the full title of their National Parks. These arguments point to the desirability of the shorter title.
      As to the views of the Commission, some time ago the National Parks Commission hoped to retain that title. I was given to understand that there had been some shift of opinion and that, as a result of the representations made on behalf of the Minister, the Commission had come to accept—I did not know how enthusiastically or reluctantly—the shorter title; and that was the way I informed the Committee in this matter. But other views were expressed. For example, the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said:
      "My information—admittedly not directly from the Commission, the Chairman or any member of it—is that the Commission have become convinced that there is nothing they can do that will move the Government any further, and that is why they have accepted this situation ".—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 28th November, 1967; c. 36.]
      That was said shortly before the Committee reached its decision. I was not then in a position to lay the true views of the Commission before the Committee. That decision was taken on 28th November.
      1258
      I received a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, Lady Wootton, dated 29th November, 1967, which I will read:
      "I understand that yesterday the Standing Committee carried an Amendment to change the title of the Countryside Bill to National Parks and the Countryside.
      The Commission ask me to let you know that since they endorsed their predecessors' views on this last year they have reconsidered the matter on more than one occasion when various views have been expressed. There is, however, now strong support in the Commission for the shorter title as being both better for publicity purposes and a more accurate description for the Commission's new responsibilities. They hope, therefore, that at a later stage it may be possible to reverse the Standing Committee's decision of yesterday."
      That is a very clear expression of views. The reasons given are the reason I urge on the House and which leads me to ask the House to reverse the decision taken by the Standing Committee.
      12.30 a.m.
      Mr. Channon: The Minister of State has persuasively suggested that we should reverse the decision taken at the first sitting of the Committee when, by 10 votes to nine, it was decided to call the Commission the National Parks and Countryside Commission. At that time I too was on the losing side. It is therefore not surprising that I welcome the Government decision, although I am never happy when Governments reverse Standing Committee decisions in this way.
      It has always seemed to me that the Commission is to have much wider powers than the National Parks Commission. The whole countryside will be its remit. If it were to have a longer title, I would prefer the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), to call it the Coast and Countryside Commission, but I expect that it is too late to put that forward now with any chance of its being accepted. The title, "Countryside Commission" is more accurate and I understand that it now has overwhelming support in the Commission itself. The House should have very strong reasons before deciding to overrule the Commission. Of course, what the Commission decides on is not final, but we would have to have very strong reasons for disagreeing with the Commission.

      1259
      I have some reluctance in asking my hon. Friends not to support the decision of the Standing Committee, but I hope they will agree that it would be wiser to have the name, "Countryside Commission". This will meet with approval from those who have to work the Commission and to carry out the tremendous transformation of the Commission which will have to take place when the Bill becomes law. Therefore, speaking personally, I do not wish to oppose the Government Amendment. This is not very surprising since it is the view I took in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friends who took a different view may now feel that it is not a matter worth pursuing in view of the so clear expression of the views of the Commission and now that we know a great deal more about the Bill than we did in November and have had an opportunity to study the effects.
      I hope that some of my hon. Friends will not wish to pursue the old idea of the National Parks and Countryside Commission. I do not pretend that there is a great deal in the argument or that it would be disastrous if the other decision were taken. I think the difference would be marginal and the Commission would function perfectly adequately if it were called the National Parks and Countryside Commission or the Coast and Countryside Commission, but I think the title now suggested is the appropriate one. I hope that it will not be felt at this stage when we have had so much agreement about the general principles of the Bill, that it is necessary to divide the House on this matter.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it churlish of me if, after the very reasonable way in which he moved this Amendment, I suggest that the attempt to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee will be met with substantial and profound regret in many quarters outside the House. The matter was fully ventilated in the Standing Committee. It is a matter of judgment, but it seems to me that it is not sufficient to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee merely because of a letter from the Chairman of the National Parks Commission.
      I am not sure that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is quite
      1260
      right when he says that that betokens overwhelming support for using the title "Countryside Commission". What the lady said in her letter was:
      "There is now strong support…"
      There is a substantial difference between strong support and overwhelming support.
      Mr. Channon: I was not basing my remarks particularly on that letter. It is my impression that there is now overwhelming support for the title "Countryside Commission".
      Mr. Johnson: My information is that there was a difference of view within the Commission. The expression of view may well represent the majority decision, but it is certainly not a unanimous decision. In those circumstances, one is entitled to ask what are the views of a large number of other bodies and associations which are intimately connected with the work of the Commission, whether it is the Countryside Commission or the National Parks Commission. I was very surprised to find the enthusiasm that was accorded to the decision of the Standing Committee to continue the use of "National Parks" in the title of the new Commission.
      As my right hon. Friend has referred to a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, perhaps I may refer to a number of organisations to whose opinions I am sure we would all wish to pay some respect. First, there is the Sheffield and Peak District Branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which states in a letter:
      "At a meeting of the Executive Committee of this Branch of the C.P.R.E. last night I was instructed to thank you for supporting the successful amendment to the Countryside Bill introducing the words 'National Parks' into the title of the new Commission. There is very wide support throughout the National Parks and among the informed public fir this amendment …"
      The letter goes on to say:
      "We would like to stress the importance of encouraging this loyalty and dedication, especially among those who are locally responsible for administration of National Parks and to whom the removal of the words 'National Parks' from the title of the Commission will be an indication that National Parks have less significance than previously."
      Then we have the Friends of the Lake District who write:
      "We were pleased to hear that 'National Parks' had been added to the title of the Commission and we sincerely hope that this will not be altered at the report stage."

      1261
      I have a letter from the British Mountaineering Council and one from the Cyclists' Touring Club. The letter from the Cyclists' Touring Club says:
      "There is really no need for me to tell you how much sentiment is attached to the term ' National Parks ', especially by those who fought so hard for the establishment of National Parks prior to the 1949 Act, and we think it would be a tragedy if the title were submerged, with the possibility that—in the course of time—the distinction between these areas and other parts of the countryside would lose its significance."
      Lastly I have a letter from a nominated member of the National Parks Snowdonia Committees, to which some respect ought to be paid and which, after making reference to the decision of the Standing Committee, says:
      "I do trust that the House will endorse this title which stands as the last defence for the natural beauty and the wilder areas of England and Wales, and of the Government pledge that these should be maintained."
      Therefore, it is important to many people that we should retain in the title of the Commission some reference to the National Parks. My right hon. Friend in moving the Amendment admitted that it is a matter of judgment. He advanced arguments why we should reverse the decision of the Standing Committee. I am not persuaded, and I think there are equally strong arguments on the other side for standing by the decision of the Standing Committee.
      Dame Joan Vickers: I am one of those who voted for the inclusion of "National Parks". In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment in Committee, I said:
      "We know that often on Report the Government put the Whips on and change the decisions of the Committee."
      I do not know whether the Whips are on tonight, but the Government are changing that decision of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are."] So I was right on that occasion. I withdrew my Amendment and left it open to table another. Unfortunately, I was overseas at a W.E.U. meeting and did not return in time to do so and the Government had not tabled their Amendments before I left.
      In Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this:
      "Indeed, if the Committee had the opportunity of reflection, they might have felt it better to add 'coasts' than to add 'National
      1262
      Parks', which are already amply provided for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 28th November, 1967, c. 46–52.]
      I think that "coasts" would stick in the public's mind. Would the Minister of State consider recommending, as the title of the Commission is being changed, changing its title again to "Countryside and Coast Commission" or to "Coast and Countryside Commission"? That would emphasise the two aspects—countryside and coasts—which we are very anxious should be borne in mind, particularly as this is an island.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing one Amendment and not another one.
      Dame Joan Vickers: I should be grateful if that point could be borne in mind.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: Even at this late hour of the morning I do not apologise for speaking briefly on this subject, because I think that it has real importance. It is not just a question of a rather romantic yearning after an old title. It is not merely the fact that many of us were concerned in the battle for National Parks and are sorry to see those words deleted from the title of the new Commission. The importance arises for practical reasons—the sorts of reasons on which my hon. and learned Friend argued the case for the Amendment.
      The Commission will do two jobs. It will have responsibility for implementing the Bill, which we all welcome. It is properly called "Countryside Bill", because it is concerned with a whole range of countryside problems and provides facilities for recreation. It is also concerned with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. A title which makes clear the functions and responsibilities of the new Commission should include both "Countryside" and "National Parks".
      This Commission is distinctive from the Commission operating in Scotland, for the very good reason that in Scotland there are no National Parks. That is why we give it a different title in England and Wales from that in Scotland. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we want to retain "National Parks" in the title because it has an international significance. I have on many occasions had the opportunity of meeting those concerned with National Parks and their development in

      1263
      many parts of the world. "National Parks" is a title which is clearly understood internationally, whereas "Countryside" is not. It would be a great pity, for all these reasons, if we lose "National Parks" from the title of the Commission. There is a justified suspicion that this means that the Commission as at present constituted will not have the same interest inin the wilder areas of the countryside which are comprised within our National Parks as was the original intention.
      I deeply regret the proposed Amendment, and I regret it for highly practical reasons, not for the reasons of romanticism and yearning for the past which my hon. and learned Friend suggested.
      12.45 a.m.
      Mr. Jopling: I have held strong views on this matter ever since Second Reading. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that, to be comprehensive, the name must be National Parks and Countryside Commission. With respect, if it is to be comprehensive, it should be the National Parks, Country Parks and Countryside Commission. That would cover the whole range.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. One Amendment is enough to discuss at this moment.
      Mr. Jopling: I take the point, Mr. Speaker. I dislike the name National Park very much. Although I love the places themselves, I hate the name. The people who live in National Park areas find that a good many of the visitors who come are not able to distinguish between the rights of private property in an urban park and in a National Park. I shall not weary the House with examples of what I mean. There is great confusion about it.
      I welcome the Amendment and shall support it, as I did in Committee. I hope that it is the first step in getting rid of the name National Park altogether. We are removing it from the title of the Commission at this stage. I hope that the next stage will be to think of a better name for the National Parks themselves.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I deplore the decision to reverse the decision which was taken in the Standing Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a great deal of the letter
      1264
      which he received from the new chairman of the National Parks Commission. I remind him that the previous chairman wrote a letter to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. It was dated 4th May, 1966:
      "The National Parks Commission think that the title proposed for the new Commission calls for reconsideration. The idea of National Parks is given statutory expression in the Act of 1949 and in the title of the present Commission. The expression 'National Park' has become part of the national consciousness, and around it there has grown a strong and widespread feeling of loyalty and dedication; this correctly reflects its international significance. The National Park Authorities have now achieved a sense of planning purpose which can stand comparison with that for any part of the country. This is giving a new momentum to the creative ideals of the 1949 Act. That the British National Park system has much to offer other long settled and densely populated countries in techniques of administration and management is shown by the recent award by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Peak Park Planning Board of the first European Diploma for protected landscapes.
      "It is important therefore that the name National Parks' should not be withdrawn from public notice, or that any impression should be given that the cause of National Parks will be allowed to go by default. The National Parks Commission have therefore strongly advised that the name to be given to the new Commission should be the 'National Parks and Countryside Commission'. This proposal was made by the National Parks Commission to the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he recently visited one of their meetings."
      That letter was written by Lord Strang. Now, my hon. and learned Friend tells us that the new Chairman has written in other terms. Why should we give greater cognisance to the views of the new Chairman, which we know are not the majority views of the existing Commission? As there are undoubtedly mixed views on this as between the old and the new Commission, the Committee should be entitled to make up its mind on the matter. It voted for the inclusion of the words "The National Park", and they should be allowed to stand.
      It has been suggested that the title should be accurately descriptive of the functions of the body. If we include the words "National Parks" that would be the case, for the Commission still has responsibility for National Parks, which cover about 10 per cent. of England and Wales. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the words should be included. It is

      1265
      also said that we should introduce a degree of precision into the title, but the new title accepted by the Committee is precise. I do not see that "National Parks and Countryside Commission" is in any way too long.
      I suggest a compromise. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that we should not put the words "National Parks" to the forefront. Will he therefore accept n Amendment which could be moved in another place—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That Amendment may be taken in another place—not now.
      Mr. Jackson: My suggested compromise is that perhaps my hon. and Learned Friend might consider introducing a revision—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman apparently did not understand what I said. We are discussing Amendment No. 1. He cannot make a further Amendment to it.
      Mr. Jackson: May I ask, in conclusion, if my hon. and learned Friend would be any more sympathetic to a different formulation, namely, "The Countryside and National Parks Commission"?
      Mr. MacDermot: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak again out of respect to my hon. Friends who have voiced their strong feelings on the matter. There is little I can add to what I said in opening, for I think that I anticipated most of the arguments.
      I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) that all the persons and bodies from whose letters he quoted are closely associated and connected with the National Parks. I fully understand their feelings in the matter, and do not seek to minimise them. But I do not think that that detracts from my arguments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) argues on practical grounds that the preference should be for the longer title. I cannot see why. The shorter title is comprehensive and includes the whole range of the Commission's activities. One does not want to produce a dichotomy between its responsibilities for National Parks and for other parts of the countryside. The
      1266
      National Parks form a vital part of the countryside and the work of what I suggest should be called the Countryside Commission.
      My hon. Friend said that the term "National Parks" had an international significance. But like many other terms with an international significance it is the source of much international confusion, I suspect. All may clearly understand the term, but I am sure that they all clearly understand it in a different sense. I do not believe that any other country uses it in the same sense as we do, a point which I think that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has in mind when he argues that he would like to see the term disappear. I do not agree. I do not want it to disappear, and I want it retained for our National Parks and our National Parks authorities. But I do not feel that the international argument is very strong, because there is no doubt a very different meaning here from that in America, for example.
      Mr. Blenkinsop: Over the whole continent of Europe "National Parks" means precisely the same as in this country, and even in America one should not exaggerate the differences. I know them very well.
      Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps we can agree to differ on that. In any event, I do not feel that in a matter of this kind the international usefulness of the term should be a determining factor.
      In answer to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) I must correct his impression. He suggested that the letter I read expressed the personal view of Lady Wootton, the present Chairman. That is not correct. She was writing—and she made this clear in the letter—on behalf of the Commission. She wrote:
      "The Commission asked me to let you know"
      and was expressing the considered and reconsidered view of the Commission. It is significant that the Commission have altered their view. I can assure the House that this is a fact, because I recently visited the Commission. They took this up and expressed the hope that the House would reverse this decision.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 14 leave out 'open air'.
      I do not intend, at this late hour, to speak at length on this Amendment. During the Committee stage we discussed, on 30th November, as is shown in columns 83 and 84 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A, the definition of "open-air recreation". I thought it was then the general impression in the Standing Committee that the present definition in the 1949 Act was "now unduly restrictive" and I quote the Minister of State in column 85. It was therefore my understanding that some Amendment was likely from the Government at this stage. If such an Amendment has come forward in a different way, I apologise for having missed it. I was not able to find such an Amendment and therefore put this down in the hope of drawing from the Government a statement of their intention. We have all discussed on previous stages of the Bill what should be in the country parks. There are many different kinds of country park, and as was said in Standing Committee, it would be wrong to stop all organised games in all country parks. My understanding was that the present definition of "recreation" might have that effect.
      The Minister agreed to look at this and see whether the definition could be altered to meet the point. It would be helpful to have information about the Government's attitude. Some amendment is required.
      Mr. MacDermot: I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the effect of Clause 16(3) which we added to the Bill in Standing Committee. We have already done what he wants us to do and what I undertook to do to meet the point about the definition of "open-air recreation" in the 1949 Act, excluding organised games. We recognise that it would be unduly restrictive when we wanted country parks to include some provision for organised games. Clause 16(3) confines the definition to Part V of the 1949 Act dealing with access orders to the countryside. In that case
      1268
      it is right to retain the definition. For all other purposes the exclusion of organised games is removed.
      1.0 a.m.
      Mr. Channon: I take it, therefore, that the ordinary definition of "open-air recreation" would include organised games. With that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end to insert—
      (6) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (which specifies offices the holders of which are disqualified under that Act) as it applies to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order the entry "Any member of the Countryside Commission in receipt of remuneration".
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 79, in page 38, line 7, Clause 40, at end insert—
      (4) The provisions of this Act amending or repealing any provision of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      Amendment No. 81, in page 38, line 10, Clause 40, after "and", insert:
      "subject to subsection (4) above".
      and Amendment No. 90, in page 46, line 49, Schedule 4, at end insert—

      5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

      The House of Commons Disqualification Act1957.

      In Part III of Schedule 1 the words' Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the National Parks Commission'.

      Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments are to give effect to an undertaking I gave in Standing Committee. We had some discussion about whether hon. Members should be excluded from service on the Commission in any event or merely excluded if they were to receive any remuneration for their services. The Committee came to the conclusion, which I accept, that hon. Members should be able to serve on the Commission provided they did not receive remuneration. That is the effect of the Amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.

      EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS OR SCHEMES.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 4, line 12, at end to insert—
      (3) Before approving any proposals made to him under the provisions of subsection 1 of this section the Minister shall

      (a) publish, in such manner as he thinks appropriate, notice that proposals have been made to him, and of the place where copies of the proposals may be obtained; and

      (b) have regard to any representations received by him regarding the proposals; and the Minister shall not approve the proposals or any of them before the expiry of a period of three months from the date of publication of the said notice or from the date upon which copies of the proposals are made publicly available, whichever date shall be later.

      Since the Committee stage, it has been drawn to my attention by people seriously concerned that the effects of Clause 3 are much wider than perhaps we have generally appreciated. In Committee, we had an explanation that the Clause empowers the Commission to deal with experimental projects, but subsection (3) has extremely wide terms which, for example, would allow the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, to set up or carry on through an agent any business or any undertaking whatever.
      It has been represented to me by, among others, the C.B.I., that the Minister should at least publicise any projects before he gives his approval. It is suggested that he should publish a notice that proposals have been made to him and let people know where it is possible to get copies of such proposals. It has been put to me that such proposals could be damaging to people concerned and that he should not confirm them until a period of three months has expired from the date of publication. It would then be possible for those concerned to make representations if they felt that they would be badly affected by an experimental project the Commission wished to undertake.
      Subsection (3) would allow the Commission to acquire or manage land, erect buildings, hire out works or equipment and to set up a business either directly or through an agent.
      These are extremely wide powers, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be some safeguard. We
      1270
      want to encourage the Commission to get on with its work and any unnecessary delay is to be deplored. I am not wedded to the figure of three months in the Amendment, but there is a case for publishing a notice that such proposals have been made, and for having some delay for approving these proposals in order that representations can be made to the Minister, so that he can consider them before coming to a final decision. I hope that if the Government cannot accept the exact terms of the Amendment, they will look at the points raised by it and consider publishing the proposals, so that people know what is going on. There is a real point here, and something ought to be written into the Bill, possibly in another place, to meet this point, in this or some other way.
      Mr. Skeffington: I sometimes refer to the odd Amendments which have been moved from the other side, particularly in Committee, as doctrinal, but there are other categories, one of which is the "grandmother" Amendment, of which this is one. I am very surprised that there is any alarm about the purposes of this Clause. It is true that there are a number of things which the Commission could undertake by way of experiment, but it is governed strictly by subsection (1) of Clause 3 which says that these experimental schemes must be designed to facilitate the enjoyment of the countryside, or to conserve or enhance its natural beauty or amenity. It goes on to specify schemes.
      This is not a whole range of activities in which the Commission might like to engage in a gay mood. It has severe restrictions. If there were to be a compulsory purchase order—and we have given constant assurances that this would be very unlikely indeed—there would have to be all the normal consultations and public inquiries. This seems to be an excessive requirement. These schemes have to be submitted to the Minister for approval, in part or in whole. The Commission is required to consult with other bodies, who appear to have an interest. We could be so long in doing all these things that the Commission might get tired before starting. I know I am exaggerating, but it is not necessary to add another provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he does not wish to

      1271
      press the Amendment, since I have drawn his attention to the limitation of the powers.
      Mr. Channon: The hon. Member is exaggerating the extent of the difficulties to which the Commission will be subject. He is right in saying that there are some limitations in the Clause. There is a case for such a proposal, but it is not a matter that I want to pursue at any great length now. I give notice that I am sure there will be some of my noble Friends in another place who will wish to raise it. At the moment I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 45 leave out
      'or in connection with'.
      Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss with this, Amendment Nos. 5, 21 and 22.
      Mr. Skeffington: The removal of these words would make the subsection read that the powers to be exercised by the Commission or local authority in connection with Clause 3 or Clause 6 should now be:
      "(a) on land belonging to them, or
      (b) on such terms as may be agreed with the owners and any other persons whose authority is required for the purpose."
      The reason why the words "or in connection with" have been taken out is because it has been suggested that in the case of a harbour authority those words might be imposing a power which would not be desired either by the Government or the authority. Therefore, we have removed those words.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 5, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'or in connection with'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 5.

      NEW POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 39, after 'this', insert:
      'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.
      No. 12, in page 6, line 3, after 'this', insert:
      1272
      'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.
      No. 13, in line 15, at end insert:
      'section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing) and'.—[Mrs. White.]
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 22, after 'shall', insert:
      'first seek the consent of the "National Parks and Countryside Commission and" '.
      All right hon. and hon. Members will recognise and freely acknowledge that country parks should meet the needs of the wider community. I should like to cite the example of Clumber Park, Nottinghamshire, which covers an area of 3,784 acres and has a high usage. The information that I have from the National Trust land agent is that during the Bank Holiday of Easter, 1964, 106,740 people visited Clumber Park. Obviously my assertion that people came from a large radius to visit this park would not be contested. No questions were asked of the people who visited the park, but it is estimated that the average range of persons travelling there was between 20 and 30 miles.
      The fact that the larger country parks serve the needs of a region is widely recognised, but there is some fear that the powers to set up country parks should not be restricted to county district authorities. Therefore, in Standing Committee, I put down an Amendment to exclude county district and urban district authorities from exercising powers concerning the setting up of such parks. In reply to the Amendment my hon. Friend assured me that the degree of co-ordination which I and other hon. Members sought would be taken care of by the fact that country district and urban district authorities would require planning permission. In other words, the county authority would provide a degree of coordination.
      My hon. Friend also said:
      "The Commission themselves, of course, are again bound to rationalise and bring their influence to bear with the county council and with the planning authorities, and this is one of the reasons we have the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; Tuesday, 28th November, 1967, c. 349.]
      My Amendment seeks to require that any planning authority, be it a county planning authority, the urban district or the rural district, will first seek the consent of the Countryside Commission

      1273
      before going ahead with introducing a country park. I understand that this will not overlap the machinery of the Countryside Commission. I am told on good authority that it is reckoned that there will be no more than a hundred country parks set up, and it is not unreasonable to expect the Countryside Commission to scrutinise that number of applications. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept the terms of my Amendment.
      1.15 a.m.
      Mr. MacDermot: What my hon. Friend seeks will be realised under the Bill as it stands. An Amendment of this character is not needed. Before embarking on the substantial capital expenditure involved in providing a country park, local authorities are bound to seek grant aid. My hon. Friend will remember from the provisions of Clause 29 that the Commission will have a vital rôle to play in determining to whom grant shall be payable. The Minister will have to seek its advice and will not be able to disregard it without entering into consultations with it. The effect is that authorities proposing to provide country parks will get in touch with the Commission and discuss their proposals with it at the earliest stage, because they will not want to waste time, money and staff effort on projects which are not likely to obtain support. That is the way in which the co-ordinating rôle of which I spoke in Committee will be achieved in practice.
      Apart from that, in the case about which I know my hon. Friend is concerned, which is the power of county district councils to set up country parks, under the provisions of Clause 5 they will need to obtain the consent of the county council of the area, which will be the local planning authority, before being able to establish a country park. In the rare event of such an authority wanting, to set up a country park and not requiring grant aid, it would not be right to insist on its obtaining the consent of the Commission. But, as I have said, that is an unlikely eventuality.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: In view of the terms of my hon. and learned Friend's reply, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 34, column 2, at beginning insert 'Where planning permission is required'.
      This deals with the position of rural district councils, about which we had some discussion in Committee. A number of hon. Members argued that it was unreasonable to have a provision in the Bill whereby councils of county districts should have to obtain the consent of the county council before they could exercise any powers in acquiring land for the purposes of a country park.
      We had a long discussion, towards the end of which I proposed a compromise solution. It was indicated by the Minister of State that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it would be necessary for a rural district council, in any case, to have planning permission for any such proposal, in which case there would be control in any event. I suggested that, where planning permission was required, consent should not be necessary under the Bill, but that on the rare occasions where there was no need for planning permission, the district council would have to obtain the county council's consent. During the debate the Minister of State said that there were 1,500 authorities which would bombard the Com mission with applications. I have checked the figures since then, and I do not think there is anything like that number. There are 58 county councils, 83 county boroughs, 259 non-county boroughs, 470 rural districts, and 524 urban districts. I think that the number of urban districts with sufficient countryside in which to provide country parks must be very small.
      The Minister of State said at Newcastle last September that country parks were likely to be situated in the green belt areas outside conurbations to syphon off the pressure on favoured areas such as Box Hill. Of the rural districts, some will be unlikely to provide parks because they are too near to towns, or have no suitable places. Others will be in National Parks, and more than 100 are maritime anyway, so the need is unlikely to arise because of the availability of beaches. It is unlikely that 1,500 authorities will rush to provide parks. About 150 might consider it, and it seems unlikely that they would all wish to do so. at any rate within a short period of time.

      1275
      It is unlikely that the administrative machine will be choked by a glut of applications, and I wonder whether it is possible to adopt a compromise solution along the lines I suggested in Committee, and which is reported in column 374. This seems a commonsense solution to the strong case which the rural district councils put forward, but which the Government were not prepared to accept at that stage. Perhaps the Minister will consider the compromise solution then suggested, and which I have tried to incorporate in the Amendment. If he is able to do anything to help the rural district councils, and to meet the point they have raised, even in this small way, I am sure that it will be appreciated.
      Mr. MacDermot: I do not feel that I can advise the House to accept the Amendment, because I think that the basis on which it has been put forward is misconceived. The effect of the Amendment would be to relieve a county district council of the need to obtain the consent of the county council, except where it required planning permission. I repeat that I think that in almost every case the council of a county district will need to obtain planning permission for a country park project, because it is likely that it will normally involve some development for which it will need such permission. However, there could be cases in which a county district could set up a park without planning permission, establish it, and then later seek planning permission for the development that it wants to do.
      The real point is that the consent provision in Clause 5 is directed to matters other than planning permission. As has been made clear throughout, starting from our White Paper, our intention is that country parks should serve more than local needs. It is for this reason that we think the prime agency in their provision should be the county councils. We have not made an absolute bar, as some have suggested we should, on their creation by subordinate authorities, but we think there must be some form of general strategic oversight if confusion and delay are not to occur, and, above all, if wasteful over-provision is to be avoided.
      1276
      If we were to leave consultation and consent until the stage of planning permission, I think that we would be inviting the wasteful deployment of scarce resources, which we want to avoid, and schemes which may prove to be too parochial in concept, or which duplicate or overlap others which were designed to cater for the same catchment area. It is for this reason, to get proper coordination and planning of the provision of country parks over a wide area, that we think it right to provide for this consent by the county councils. This is not intended as a derogation of the district councils. We think it right to place the main responsibility on the larger authority. Provided they obtain this consent they will, of course, be empowered to set up country parks, and if they think that consent has been unreasonably withheld they have power under the Clause to appeal to the Minister.
      Mr. Channon: I am sorry the Minister of State is not prepared to look at the Amendment I put forward because I did think it presented a compromise which might be acceptable to the House.
      In view of his attitude, however, I do not think I wish to press the Amendment at this stage, and therefore I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 18, at end insert:

      Any local authority

      If all or any part of the land is in a parish, inform the parish council or, in the case of a parish not having a parish council, the chairman of the parish meeting.

      This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). I do not think I need elaborate on it. It simply gives parish councils, or if there is no parish council, the chairman of the parish meeting, the right to be informed of projects for country parks.
      I think this will be welcome to the Parish Councils Association and, I trust, also to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.

      POWER TO PROVIDE COUNTRY PARKS.
      Further Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, leave out lines 10 to 12.
      No. 19, in line 13, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 20, in line 21, after 'section', insert 'and section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.
      No. 21, in line 22, leave out 'or in connection with'.
      No. 22, in line 25, leave out 'or in connection with'.
      No. 23, in line 33, after 'section', insert 'and section (Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing)'.—[Mrs. White.]
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 9, line 2, at end insert:
      (7) If it appears to a local authority that land provided or acquired by them before the coming into force of this section, as open country to be used for the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1949, can suitably be used as o country park, that land, or any part of it, shall, from such date as the local authority may determine, be treated for all the purposes of this Act as a country park provided under this section; and, if the land was acquired under section 76 of the Act of 1949 (compulsory acquisition for public access), the land so treated shall cease to be subject to that section, but—

      (a) this subsection shall not affect any trust, covenant or other restriction to which the land is subject; and

      (b) no grant shall be payable under this Act in respect of expenditure incurred before the date so determined.

      Mr. Speaker: I suggest it would be for the convenience of the House if we took with this Amendment Amendment No. 95, in page 8, line 35, after "ground" insert:
      "or land acquired under Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949".
      and Amendment No. 97, in page 8, line 38, after "ground", insert:
      "such land".
      Mr. MacDermot: The effect of Amendment No. 24 is to enable local authorities who have acquired areas of open country under Section 76 of the 1949 Act to treat such areas, if suitable for the purpose, as country parks. Having done so they are to be exempted from the provisions of subsection (4) of
      1278
      Section 76 which lays certain duties on the authorities in relation to management for the purposes of open air recreation.
      This Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee.
      Mr. Channon: I rise to say how grateful we are to the Minister of State for putting down this Amendment. I am sure it will be extremely valuable to some local authorities who have already acquired land which they will be able to use as a country park.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.

      POWERS EXERCISABLE OVER OR NEAR COMMON LAND.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 19, after "section" insert:
      "and Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to this Act".
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we should take Amendment No. 78, and Amendment No. 82, the New Schedule.
      Mr. MacDermot: This involves the new Schedule. These Amendments are of some importance and I should explain them to the House.
      The purpose and effect of the Amendments is to introduce a power of compulsory acquisition in relation to land other than common land which is in the neighbourhood of common land to which the Clause applies. Secondly, it simplifies and shortens the procedure for obtaining Ministerial authority for taking land out of a common while still preserving all the present safeguards and facilities for making objections. Thirdly, it is to make clear that the power to acquire commonable and other rights in or over common land does not apply to rights vested in statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertakings.
      1.30 a.m.
      By subsection (2), local authorities can exercise their Clause 7 powers on other land in the neighbourhood of the common to enable better use to be made

      1279
      of the common for open-air recreation. This power will sometimes be required where it is impracticable to provide the public facilities on the common land itself. An instance might be vehicular access which constituted a serious road hazard or a car park which might be objectionable on the common or on other planning grounds.
      Subsection (2), coupled with their existing powers of acquisition, will enable local authorities to acquire this land by agreement but it may occasionally be necessary for them to purchase such land against the wishes of the owner, so that the existing rights of public access over the neighbouring common may be used to better advantage. We hope that such instances will be rare and the local authority will be allowed to exercise compulsory powers over neighbouring land only if it were shown to be impracticable to put the public facilities on the common itself.
      On that understanding, we think it appropriate to give local authorities the necessary powers of compulsion; this is consistent with the other acquisition of land powers over parts of common land to which there are public rights of access.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned the procedure. The present procedure is complicated and may lead to unnecessary duplication, for instance of public inquiries. This is an attempt to streamline the procedure while ensuring proper safeguards for the individual and rights of objection. Paragraph 2(1) of the new Schedule provides for the local authority to publicise its proposals locally before applying for the Minister's authority. Thus, the Minister will be enabled to take all representations into account before determining the applications. This avoids the drawback of the present procedure, under which he must make a preliminary judgment of the application without the benefit of knowing local reaction.
      The discretion to hold a local public inquiry is retained; there is a precedent for this in Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and Section 22 of the Commons Act, 1899. Second, where a local authority invokes the compulsory powers to acquire part of a common or
      1280
      rights over a common, the Amendments would allow the necessary acquisition procedure to run side by side with the procedure for obtaining the Minister's authority under Clause 7. This will involve a combined public notice inviting representations and then, if the Minister decides to hold an inquiry, it can be a single joint inquiry dealing with both the Clause 7 authority and the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order.
      These Amendments do not disturb the present need for the Minister, before giving his authority, to be satisfied either that suitable land has been, or will be, given in exchange, or that exchange land is unnecessary; but it removes the need for him to give a preliminary certificate that he is so satisfied.
      A local authority will now be required, by subsection (2) of the new Schedule, to serve a copy of its proposals on the parish council or the chairman at the parish council meeting. This meets an Opposition Amendment which was tabled in Committee and which was accepted in principle by the Government. A protection for statutory undertakers appears in paragraph (6) of the new Schedule, and this is intended to remove a possible doubt of construction. This matter was raised in an Opposition Amendment in Committee and we undertook to consider it.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman went in some detail into the Clause and the powers which it gives. We have grave doubts about these powers, although we accept his assurance that only rarely will they be used.
      In Committee we argued the whole question of exchange land and whether, in the opinion of the Minister, it would be necessary to replace common land which was taken for a country park. The fact that the present law—I do not blame the present Government for this, any more than former Governments—applying to common land is still in the air and is likely to remain there for a considerable time to come obviously causes some difficulty in this respect.
      I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about proper warning being given, the need to publish notices and the proper inquiry procedure being

      1281
      adopted. I also note his remarks about parish councils being warned. As I have said before, my hon. Friends and I do not like the idea of compulsory purchase. No doubt we will have to accept the Minister's assurance that these powers will only occasionally be used. Nevertheless, we have grave doubts about this whole procedure.
      Dame Joan Vickers: In Committee I asked if local authorities must consult commoners before erecting anything on their land. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that there was a statutory requirement to consult commoners. He said that he would consider whether or not provision for this should be made and that he would look into the general principle. He thought that normally the authorities would consult, and he promised to seek further advice. Has further advice been taken, and, if so, what is the result?
      Mr. MacDermot: I should be in a position to answer that question. I am not. I apologise to the hon. Lady and I will write to her about it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 26, in page 9, line 36, leave out subsections (4) to (11) and insert—
      (4) Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section, and in that Schedule, "the principal section" means this section.
      (5) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land in the neighbourhood of the common land which is required by them for the purposes of their functions under this section and which is not common land.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 10.

      FACILITIES IN OR NEAR NATIONAL PARKS.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 7, at end insert "or in other waters".
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 29.
      Mrs. White: These two Amendments are again in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee when the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) raised a very sensible point as to why
      1282
      we had not made provision for works mentioned in the Clause to be constructed, if necessary, in fresh water. The Clause referred particularly to works constructed in the sea. I was advised, and informed the Committee, that from the legal point of view as the Act is to be construed with the Act of 1949, an Amendment was not necessary, but as there was some doubt—I observed that there was no provision for construction in brackish water—we have proposed these words. Now every degree of salinity will be provided for and I hope that these Amendments will meet with approval.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 29, in line 11, after "sea", insert "or other waters".

    Clause 11.

      AREAS OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
      Mr. Speaker: We can take with this Amendment the following Amendments: No. 32, in line 41, leave out 'without subsection (6)', and No. 30, in line 38, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      (6) Where land subject to an agreement under this section is also subject to an access agreement or order (whether confirmed or made by the Minister before or after the coming into operation of this section) and the Council considers it expedient that further restriction of public access should be imposed in the interest of conserving the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, the Minister may, on application by the Council and after consulting the local planning authority, vary the access order or agreement so as to impose as respects the land any such restrictions or further restrictions authorised by section 60(3) of the Act of 1949 as appears to him to be appropriate, or he may exclude the land or any part thereof from the land subject to the access agreement or order or may exclude parts of the land and impose restrictions on other parts thereof.
      Mr. Skeffington: The effect of these Amendments, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and others, is that access agreements or orders will be able to be made in respect of areas subject to agreement under Clause 11. This deals with areas of special scientific interest. After my

      1283
      hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment in Committee, further consideration was given to this matter in which there is a great deal of public interest. The National Environment Research Council came to the view that it would be right to agree to this Amendment although the Council had never envisaged it as applying to large areas. However, there was the threat as the Clause stood that large areas might have been excluded from the making of access orders. We felt that that was wrong. I am sure that the House will be glad to have this Amendment made.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: This deals with a very important matter which was the subject of a long discussion in Committee and a debate on an Amendment in identical terms. I am pleased that the arguments I put forward have prevailed and that the Minister has accepted them. I warmly welcome and support the Amendment.
      Mr. Jopling: As this was originally proposed by the Lake District Planning Council, I add my thanks to the Government for accepting the proposal.
      Since the sittings of the Committee, I have been told that areas of special scientific interest in the Lake District comprise 28,000 acres which are covered by these arrangements, and the proposed Skiddaw Forest would add another 24,500 acres. That is a very large area. The threat has now been removed and I am sure we are all grateful.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 32, in line 41, leave out 'without subsection (6)'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 12.

      ACCESS TO OPEN COUNTRY: RIVERS, CANALS AND WOODLANDS.
      1.45 a.m.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      (1) The definition of 'open country' in section 59(2) of the Act of 1949 shall include, if in the countryside, any woodlands.
      (2) Subject to subsection (6) below, the said definition shall include, if in the countryside—

      (a) any river or canal, and

      1284

      (b) any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river, runs, and

      (c) a strip of the adjacent land on both sides of any river or canal, or of any such expanse of water, of reasonable width, and where a highway crosses or comes close to the river, canal or other water, so much of any land connecting the highway with the strip of land as would, if included together with the strip in an access agreement or order, afford access from the highway to some convenient launching place for small boats.

      (3) The strip of adjacent land comprised in any access order shall be wide enough to allow passage on foot along the water and wide enough to allow the public to picnic at convenient places and, where practicable, to embark or disembark, and shall include—

      (a) the banks, walls or embankment along the water, and

      (b) any towpath or other way or track beside the water.

      (4) Local planning authorities shall exercise their powers under Part V of the Act of 1949 over any such strip of land with special regard to the interests of persons using small boats who must circumvent obstacles or obstructions on the water by passing round on foot with their boats, and in the interests of persons who wish to obtain access from a highway to convenient launching places for small boats.
      (5) In section 60 of the Act of 1949 (rights of public over land subject to an access agreement or order, other than excepted land) subsection (5) (a) (certain agricultural land to be excepted land) shall not apply to any land within subsection (2)(c) above.
      (6) Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply as respects land held with—

      (a) a reservoir owned or managed by statutory water undertakers,

      (b) a reservoir owned or managed by a river authority, or

      (c) a canal, or part of a canal, owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.

      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36.
      Mrs. White: These Amendments arise out of the discussion that we had in Committee about the position of canoeists, and are particularly directed towards the pledges given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) when he put forward a plea for better arrangements to be made in the interests of canoeists.
      We have endeavoured to do this in two particular directions: One is to include within the ambit of these provisions of Clause 12
      "any expanse of water through which a river, or some part of the flow of a river, runs …"

      1285
      This, I understand, would be particularly helpful to canoeists, We also include in the definitions in Clause 12 a strip of the land adjacent to any canal or river, or of any such expanses of water, and we provide that this should be of reasonable width,
      "and where a highway crosses or comes close to the river, canal or other water, so much of any land connecting the highway with the strip of land as would, if included together with the strip in an access agreement or order, afford access from the highway to some convenient launching place for small boats."
      I would not wish to weary the House with the other provisions of the Amendment, but they are all consequential on our endeavour to meet the needs and wishes of canoeists. We have included references to reservoirs owned or managed by statutory water undertakers or by river authorities, or canals owned or managed by the British Waterways Board. Reservations have been made in respect of all these authorities. Otherwise, I think we have gone a long way to meet the needs of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: At this late hour I do not think I need do more than welcome warmly this Amendment and say how indebted I am, as are canoeists generally, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office for having carefully noted the points that were raised in Standing Committee and for having sought to deal with them in the Amendment.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Lady, in moving the Amendment, spoke a good deal about the canoeists who have an important interest in our rivers. She did not say anything about the fishermen who have an equally important interest. I wonder if she would like to say something about them and explain how the fishermen will be affected by these Amendments, and if not, how not.
      Mr. Ramsden: I received a letter from my local angling club expressing apprehension on this point. The interests of fishermen were raised in Committee in the same context as those of canoeists, and, so far as I recollect, the Government undertook to consider how to solve the problem of reconciling what appear at fiat sight to be two possibly conflicting interests. I am sure that many people would be interested to hear the hon. Lady's reply.
      Mrs. White: We are only too well aware that there may be a conflict of interest in these matters. On the other hand, the efforts we have made to meet the interests of canoeists ought not to make life any more difficult for fishermen. I do not see that fishermen can object to canoeists being allowed to launch their canoes or to carry their canoes round obstacles. We had some discussion on this question in Committee. As with many other provisions in the Bill, what will determine the matter is good sense and tolerance on both sides. There are circumstances in which there are apt to be conflicts of interest and of enjoyment and we cannot legislate for all of them. We think that the provisions made in the Amendments are not unreasonable in the interests of canoeists. We trust canoeists to be considerate where the interests of fishermen are concerned, and we trust fishermen not to be selfish where the interests of canoeists are affected.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 34, in page 15, line 20, after 'comprises', insert '(a)'.
      No. 35, in line 21, leave out from first 'of' to 'the' in line 22 and insert:
      'or of land adjacent to, any river, or
      (b) all or any part of, or of land adjacent to, any canal other than a canal owned or managed by'.
      No. 36, in line 33, at end insert:
      (5) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as restricting in any way the definition of 'open country' in the said section 59(2) as originaly enacted.—[Mrs. White.]

    Clause 16.

      AMENDMENTS OF ACT OF 1949.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 18, line 3, at beginning insert:
      (1) Section 11(3) of the Act of 1949 (general powers of local planning authorities in National Parks: exclusion of powers under other Acts) shall cease to have effect.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss new Clause 17—General Powers of National Park Authorities—and Amendment No. 89.
      Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments honour an undertaking give in Committee when the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). Their effect is to remove a limitation on the general powers of local planning authorities which has inhibited them from providing certain facilities such as benches, litter receptacles and other useful objects.
      Mr. Jopling: This matter took two minutes in Committee. I think that it will take one and a half minutes tonight. I content myself with thanking the Government.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 18, line 7, at end insert:
      (2) In section 86(1)(b) of the Act of 1949 (information services to be provided by Commission) after the word 'architectural' there shall be inserted the word 'archaeological'.
      On 30th January in Committee we accepted an Amendment to allow objects of archaeological interest to be added to the list of matters about which information and educational facilities might be provided in study centres in National Parks. This is a consequential Amendment to Section 86 of the 1949 Act.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17.

      RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT WATER UNDERTAKERS' RESERVOIRS AND OTHER WATERS.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 18, line 29, leave out from 'undertakers' to end of line 3, and insert:
      'shall unless it appears to them unreasonable to do so'.
      The Amendment arises out of a discussion we had in Committee about the position of statutory water undertakers. Many hon. Members thought that the duty placed upon statutory water undertakers would be more appropriate if it was worded the other way round. As the Clause stands, statutory water undertakers may, if it appears to them reasonable so to do, permit the use by members of the public for the purposes of any form of recreation which the undertakers consider appropriate, and the Clause goes on to describe what this entails. I moved
      1288
      an Amendment in Committee to ensure that the Clause would read:
      "Statutory water undertakers shall, unless it appears to them unreasonable to do so, permit the use by members of the public"
      and so on.
      At that stage, we had an undertaking from the Minister of State, Welsh Office, that she would consider the matter. She said:
      "… we have a certain sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th January, 1968; c. 649.]
      I now look to the right hon. Lady to translate her sympathy into practical action, and I am a little surprised that it has not been done already. I know that the statutory water undertakers are worried by the terms of this Amendment, and, no doubt, it would be possible to find an alternative form of words which would meet the case and not worry them so much. I do not think they need be particularly worried, because they would still have the right to stop members of the public coming if they thought it unreasonable that they should.
      There is a case for putting the duty the other way round. The Government were sympathetic during the Committee stage. I hope that they will accept the Amendment, or something very like it, either now or at a later stage.
      Mrs. White: We have not put down an Amendment, and I am not in a position to advise the House to accept the one now moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The reason is that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, is to meet representatives of the British Waterworks Association shortly after Easter to discuss the best way of handling this matter. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there are certain apprehensions about his Amendment. We think it desirable that there should be further talks. We have not been able to arrange them earlier, but they are to take place shortly. On the outcome of the talks will depend whether we may feel able to go as far as the Opposition went when the Bill goes to another place. At this stage, I can go no further than that. We are seized of the point which was made in Committee, and we hope to be able to deal with it before very long.
      Mr. Channon: I am grateful that the matter is still receiving consideration. Perhaps the Minister of State will be good enough to let me know the result of the discussions. If all goes well, perhaps we may see an Amendment in another place.
      At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. White: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 19, line 7, leave out 'of any waterway'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
      2.0 a.m.
      Mrs. White: The Amendments arise from a discussion on what was then Clause 16 and is now Clause 17. It was said that in addition to charges being made for the use of a reservoir or other waterway, for purposes such as for sailing, it would be logical to ensure that charges could be made for any installations on land. This seemed to us a fair point, and we have dealt with it.
      It was also pointed out that it would be desirable to enable statutory water undertakings which permit the use of their reservoirs and gathering grounds for recreation to have some control over visitors' behaviour. This is also provided for with the provision of byelaw-making powers under Amendment No. 41.
      Taken together, the Amendments fulfil the promises we made in Committee, and I hope that they will be acceptable to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 19, line 7, leave out "and" and insert:
      "of any waterway or any land held with the waterway, and the use".
      No. 41, in line 22, at end insert:
      "and any land held with the waterway, for the preservation of order, for the prevention of damage to land held with the waterway, or anything on or in the waterway or such land, and for securing that persons resorting o the waterway or such land will so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the waterway or land by other persons, including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection) byelaws".—[Mrs. White.]

    Clause 18.

      PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 21, line 8, at end insert:
      (7) The provisions of subsection (2) above shall not apply to any land for the time being forming part of the open waste lands of the New Forest.
      I am sorry that we should have to deal with this very important matter at this late hour. I shall be as brief as possible, but I may have to take a little longer than I did in dealing with recent Amendments. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) will also wish to take part in the debate.
      There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about the New Forest. A proposed new Clause dealing with the New Forest, its special position, and how it would be affected by the Bill if unamended was debated at some length. It had the support of the verderers of the New Forest as well as of my hon. and gallant Friend, who was not a member of the Committee.
      My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, which also has the support of the verderers, is more restricted than the new Clause we considered in Committee, dealing only with Clause 18, which concerns the Forestry Commission and its powers in regard to trees and woodlands. Subsection (2) is the very large subsection that entitles the Forestry Commissioners to
      "… provide, or arrange for or assist in the provision of, tourist, recreational or sporting facilities …"
      and allows them, for example, to provide

      "(a) accommodation for visitors,

      (b) camping sites and caravan sites,

      (c) places for meals and refreshments, …

      (e) information and display centres,

      (f) shops …

      (g) public conveniences."

      The verderers have long been aware of the rapid increase in the use of the New Forest by the public for recreational purposes and have taken many steps to help this.
      They ask that they should be entitled to continue their present responsibilities on these matters and that it should not be left, as the Bill would have it, that the

      1291
      Forestry Commission should be empowered to provide these facilities on the open waste lands of the New Forest. Section 6 of the New Forest Act, 1964, enables the Minister of Agriculture, with the agreement of the verderers, to authorise the appropriation of land forming part of the waste land for camping sites and so on. That Act already includes ample power, and the principle that the verderers shall have control of this kind of activity within their jurisdiction was conferred by Parliament in 1964. After we had had a longer discussion in Standing Committee than we shall probably have today, a deputation of verderers had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Forestry Commissioners, on 8th March, in response to assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to the debate. I understand that an assurance was given that the Forestry Commission would consult the verderers before exercising Clause 18(2) in relation to the New Forest.
      However, I think there is no doubt that the verderers are concerned about losing the protection afforded by Section 18 of the New Forest Act, 1964, which later became the New Forest Act, 1964. The principle that verderers should have control in matters within their jurisdiction is important. Once it is allowed to be eroded, it may be that the New Forest, as it exists today, will be threatened. I hope that a method will be found of meeting the points raised by the verderers, discussed in Standing Committee, and raised by the deputation. If it cannot be done in the way suggested in the Amendment, I hope that other ways will be sought to achieve the aim of the verderers in this matter, for which I hope the Government have good will. I do not think it is a great deal for the verderers to ask for this protection. Other places get special treatment, like Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches which are specially mentioned in Clause 36, and they get special treatment which is not now afforded to the New Forest. It may be argued that there are historical reasons why this should be so, that it is easier to do this for Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches than for the New
      1292
      Forest, but any argument based purely on historical grounds is not sufficient to invalidate the arguments put forward for the New Forest. If it cannot be done this way, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to get something in the Bill to meet these special points.
      I have heard rumours that if an Amendment of this kind were made, it might make the Bill hybrid. That is the last thing we want to do, but Clause 36(4) of the Bill applies, in a similar way to what we are asking, to Epping Forest and Burnham Beeches, which are lands under the regulation and management of the Corporation of London as Conservators of Epping Forest.
      I also understand that in the Commons Registration Act, 1965, the provisions relating to registration are not to apply to the New Forest or Epping Forest and that the question of hybridity did not arise there. The merits of the case are self-evident. The New Forest is managed in a way much admired by those who know it. The verderers are entitled to the protection they seek and it is in the interest of all those who know the New Forest and want to preserve it.
      I am sure that the Forestry Commissioners have no wish to do anything damaging to the New Forest but the present more satisfactory system, enshrined in legislation as recently as 1964, should continue. The verderers are entitled to the support of this House for their keeping overall control of matters long within their jurisdiction.
      I hope that the Government will be able to find a way, preferably by this Amendment, of protecting the verderers. This is an important matter and I am sure that all those who know the New Forest support the principle involved, I hope that, even at this hour, the House will turn its attention to doing what it can to meet the point raised by the verderers. A solution along these lines would be in the interests both of those who live in the New Forest and those who visit it. I hope that the Government will not stick on the ground that it is difficult to do this because it would make the Bill hybrid.
      Mr. Skeffington: I hope I can short-circuit the discussion while doing justice to the arguments put by the hon. Gentleman. The powers of Clause 18 are very

      1293
      important new ones for the Forestry Commission and of great assistance to it, here as elsewhere. Anyone who knows the New Forest and the intense holiday pressure on the area realises that proper provision has to be made. The Forestry Commission has done and will do a great deal of work in this respect with the consent and agreement of the verderers.
      I had the pleasure of visiting the New Forest recently and of seeing the splendid work done there. It is true that the Forestry Commission could exercise the powers under this Bill for the attainment of the objectives of subsection (2), but, as I said in our interesting debate in Committee, unless, from the practical point of view, it secured the consent of the verderers, it would have no power unless it went through a very long procedure for the alienation of common rights. That would obviously defeat the whole purpose, so it should be done with the consent and agreement of the verderers.
      2.15 a.m.
      I am happy to give the undertaking that the Forestry Commission will, as it has always done, consult the verderers in any activities it proposes to undertake. It may find it easier to do so under the legislation which the hon. Gentleman prefers. On the whole the powers contained in Clause 18 are more widespread. It would be impossible from the commonsense point of view, to undertake these necessary developments in the New Forest without the consent of the very honourable and ancient verderers, who have for so long discharged important duties in the Forest. I am happy to give the assurance that the Forestry Commission will consult.
      Col. Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre: I find it difficult to follow the Minister. If he is genuine in the assurance that he has given, he has all the powers under the New Forest Act, 1949. Clause 18 (1) (c) reads:
      "with the agreement of the verderers authorise the use of land in the Forest for the purpose of recreation and the erection on such land of buildings or other works for that purpose and the enclosure of such land in so far as its enclosure is necessary to preserve the land for use for that purpose or to preserve buildings or works erected or constructed by virtue of this paragraph".
      1294
      That gives him all the powers he needs, but it means that he has to get the consent of the verderers first. How far in future does this Measure extend those powers? All that it means is that the Forestry Commission now takes the ultimate right in its own hands to decide what it is to do. Under the provisions in the 1949 Act, passed by a Socialist Government, it has all the powers it needs. But now it is taking these additional powers. Why?
      It would be equally fair to say that the Minister has not given any reason why he wants to extend the Act. If he can give me any reason why the powers of that Act are insufficient, I will give him an assurance on behalf of the verderers of the New Forest—and I should have said that I am a verderer—that we as verderers will support him. That is a rather generous offer. What he has said tonight sounds like the Government bulldozer. For over 300 years, the New Forest has had its own, separate, legislation, and has managed its own affairs. As the Minister was gracious enough to say, it has proved its worth. All those Measures have been hybrid. We have tried to avoid embarrassing the Minister by putting down an Amendment that would cause the Bill to be hybrid. We have had no response from him at all.
      Consultation is promised. If under all legislation up to the present moment there has had to be consultation or agreement, would the hon. Gentleman agree that to hand all powers to the Forestry Commission seems unfair? Not only that, but the Minister might agree, after studying the practice concerning parks in Canada and America, that to have a successful park one has to delegate authority to the people immediately responsible for it. One finds that throughout the whole range of Canadian parks, from the great wild parks to the parks near a city and finally urban parks. If this Clause is forced through, the Minister will be taking away local government and placing it in other hands. We are told it will be the Forestry Commission, but the whole temper of the Forestry Commission has changed in the last few years. It has had to change. Giving control to the Forestry Commission is in effect giving it to the Minister himself.
      I had the opportunity of talking to the ex-Minister of Agriculture. I told him

      1295
      of this position in the terms of the generous offers given in Committee on the Countryside Bill. I very much regret that he changed his office and his successor did not see fit to see me to discuss the problem.
      I will not ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment, but I do not think that the Government have given us a fair deal. They have not realised what the New Forest stands for and they have not honoured the pledges that they gave in Standing Committee.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 20.
      TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS; PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION.
      Amendment made: No. 43, in page 22, line 8 [Clause 20], leave out 'damage or expenditure' and insert 'loss or damage'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Clause 21.

      SIGNPOSTING OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLE WAYS.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 23, line 20, leave out 'or position'.
      With this Amendment you, Mr. Speaker, have grouped No. 44, No. 51, No. 53, No. 102, No. 55 and No. 113.
      These Amendments, which relate to the former Clause 20, have two effects. First, they permit a highway authority to erect signs or notices serving the purpose of signposts. Hon. Members who were on the Committee may recall that it was suggested that in a number of cases it was not necessary that there should be signposts in the case of indications along a path. This seemed to us to be right and we have provided for them in this series of Amendments.
      The second purpose of the Amendments would be to give express power to the highway authority to enter on land to carry out the work of positioning and maintaining signs and signposts. This is a matter which very much concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and other hon. Members. By the Amendments to
      1296
      Clause 21 we have provided that the power to discharge this duty shall be within the powers introduced in the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, so that the proper procedures can follow from that inclusion. These seem to be useful Amendments which were broadly supported by all members of the Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 44, in line 20, leave out from 'signposts' to 'along' in line 21, No. 51, in line 42, leave out 'signs or notices', No. 53, in page 24, line 2, leave out from 'signposts' to 'along' in line 3, No. 102, in page 24, line 3, leave out 'or position'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 24, line 4, at end insert:
      Provided that before giving their consent to any such proposal the highway authority shall consult with the owner or occupier of the land.
      This Amendment appears to be necessary because, in Clause 21(1), the Government admit that the highway authority should consult with the owner or occupier of the land concerned before erecting signposts to point out public rights of way. But subsection (5) reads:
      "With the consent of the highway authority, any other person may erect or position and maintain signposts, or other signs or notices serving the same purpose …"
      There is no mention of consultation with the owner of the land. The point was mentioned in Committee, and I can only think that the Government have overlooked it.
      Two questions arise. The first is why any other person should not be bound in this way to consult the owner of land. The second is to inquire who the Government envisage to be embraced in the term "any other person". Who would be putting up signposts other than the local authority? I think that, in almost every case, it would be the local authority.
      2.30 a.m.
      Mr. Skeffington: There are two points about the Amendment. First, the expression "any other person" has the usual legal definition. It can mean any body corporate or individual. However as the hon. Gentleman surmised, the most normal agent of the highway authority in this case would be the parish council.

      1297
      It is not thought necessary to provide for a second consent because in Committee we accepted an Amendment which provided that the highway authority should consult the owner-occupier. That will be done even in this case. What the highway authority is doing is suggesting that some other authority may more conveniently do the work. The owner-occupier will have the opportunity, when he is consulted, of saying where he thinks the sign should be posted. It therefore teems unnecessary to have the second consent, or the consent proposed by the Amendment. There will be consultation by the highway authority, which will still be the overall responsible authority.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he will admit that on the face of it it is most confusing to a layman. I am sure that my hon. Friends are satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman said. It appears that any other person, whether it is a parish council or anybody else, should have to consult, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that the person concerned will have to consult. I regret that the Government have not included this provision in subsection (5) also, but their draftsmen have obviously advised that it is unnecessary. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 24, line 7, leave out 'or other sign or notice'.
      No. 113, in line 9, at end insert:
      'and in section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (power to enter on land) 'traffic signs' shall include signposts for footpaths and bridle-ways.
      (7) In this section (and in the amendments made by this section in other enactments) references to signposts shall include references to other signs or notices serving the same purpose and references to the erection of a signpost shall include references to positioning any such other sign or notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 22.

      DUTY TO MAINTAIN STILES, ETC., ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 24, line 10, after 'other', insert 'similar'.
      1298
      I think that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 60.
      Mr. Speaker: So be it.
      Mr. MacDermot: The effect of the first Amendment is to limit the type of structure to be maintained across a footpath or bridleway to something similar to a stile or gate. It will exclude a bridge, and clarify any doubt there might be. This point was raised by one hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee.
      The second Amendment also meets a point raised in Committee, and makes the standard of maintenance of stiles and gates a more reasonable requirement. They will have to be maintained in a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of persons using them.
      Mr. Channon: We are grateful to the Government for fulfilling the undertaking they gave in Committee. During our discussions upstairs the Minister said that this was the standard requirement for repairs, and he undertook to substitute other words for those which we thought were too onerous. I think it will be generally welcomed that the Government have been able to bring in these Amendments. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for doing so, and give them our support.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 60, in page 24, line 11, leave out from in to 'persons' in line 12 and insert:
      'a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of the'.
      No. 63, in line 26, at end insert:
      (4) The highway authority shall, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) above, contribute not less than one quarter of any expenses shown to their satisfaction to have been reasonably incurred.
      (5) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any structure if and so long as the highway authority are, under an agreement in writing with any other person, liable to maintain the structure.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 23.

      PLOUGHING OF FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 25, line 17, leave out 'nor' and insert '(b) shall not'.

      1299
      It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment, Amendment No. 66. These Amendments to the former Clause 22 permit the temporary diversion of a path on to a neighbour's land with his consent. Everybody in the Committee thought this was an extremely good idea.
      This proposal gives effect to the intention of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), and I am sure he will be glad that we have adopted his suggestion.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 66, in line 18, at end insert:
      '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'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 93, in page 25, line 18, at end insert:
      (b) shall not affect the right of access of any statutory undertakers to any apparatus belonging to or maintained by those undertakers and situate on, over or under a path or way.
      This is another comparatively small point which we discussed in the Standing Committee, and I shall not weary the House with the arguments at great length.
      It limits the right of access of any statutory undertakers to apparatus belonging to them or maintained by them and situate on, over or under a path or right of way. There is some doubt about the right of access of statutory undertakers, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the results of his promise in the Standing Committee to look at this problem, and whether there is any need for concern about the position of statutory undertakers.
      If there is, perhaps he would indicate whether the Government will consider—even at this late stage—putting down an Amendment to make the position clear.
      Mr. Skeffington: I said in the Standing Committee that we would look at this proposition to see if there was any real need for it. It is perfectly true that in the Highways Act, 1959, Sections 110 and 111 do have a proviso whereby the rights of statutory undertakers can be considered and safeguarded. But the
      1300
      result of our general investigation has been this. These Orders are of a very limited period, and it is unlikely from the inquiries we made that the existing powers of statutory undertakers could be affected to any great extent.
      It is the Government's view that it is unnecessary, therefore, to make any further saving provisions.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 25.

      TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR SPECIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
      Mr. Jopling: I beg to move, in page 26, line 28, after 'area', insert 'of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the area by the public'.
      This is an Amendment which I moved in the Committee, and which stemmed from a desire to preserve within National Parks certain wilderness areas where people, vegetation, animals, and everything else, can be preserved from the rush of modern life.
      We have several of these areas in the Lake District, which I think are important. The unfortunate thing is that the peace of these areas has been shattered, or open to be shattered, in recent years by the construction and arrival of certain types of motor vehicles, such as Landrovers and other types of four-wheeled vehicles and the scramble motor cycle, which are capable of getting to these almost inaccesssible places.
      This is very new phenomenon, and I I think it is essential—and I hope this will be agreed on all sides of the House—to have areas in the countryside where no mechanical vehicle can get. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that powers to prohibit vehicles like this from these areas already existed, and that prohibitions for reasons including noise had already been made. There was some doubt about this and, in Column 740 of HANSARD, he said that he would look at it again, to make sure that these powers can be ensured. We will be glad to hear his conclusions.
      Mr. Skeffington: We have had another look at this and have consulted the Ministry of Transport which has had great experience of these regulations in different

      1301
      conditions and in testing their local impact. The Ministry thinks that the positive wording of Clause 25(2),
      "… the purpose of … affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area …
      would cover the substance of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and is thought preferable to the hon. Gentleman's own wording in securing his objective.
      What strengthens that still further is the fact that Clause 141 of the Transport Bill which is now before the House contains a new departure for the Ministry of Transport, in that it would add, as a reason for making a new traffic regulation order, the preservation of the amenities of the area through which a road would run. We think that these two powers will go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's objective, if not entirely to cover it.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given these assurances, but he is repeating the answers which he gave in Committee and which I did not find very satisfactory. He mentioned the reference in the subsection to the public using the countryside for recreation, but many members of the public want to enjoy the countryside noisily, aid this mere reference does not meet the point as many of us would like it met.
      I too would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Column 740, in which he said:
      "The regulating authority will always have to balance what is for the public good in making its order …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February 1968, c. 740.]
      Obviously, the views of the public good vary enormously. An ardent motor cyclist would see it in terms of better provisions for scrambling, which a botanist would abominate. There are problems of balance.
      Mr. Jopling: It is important not to get confused between a person going on a scramble motor cycle and organised scrambling, which is very different. There is little danger of organised scrambling in the areas which I have in mind; I am anxious to prevent the itinerant adventurers who want to see whether they can get from one valley to the next by way or a mountain peak.
      2.45 a.m.
      Mr. Jackson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I agree that there is greater danger from the freelance motor cycle scrambler than from organised scramblers.
      This proposal would bring to the notice of planning authorities the need to be mindful of the volume of noise which is permissible. I accept that this is declaratory, but in this context even a declaratory statement would be of great value. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in line 29, leave out "area for" and insert "amenities of the area or".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 69, in line 29, at end insert "in the area".
      Mr. Skeffington: In view of our earlier discussion the House will see that we have gone a considerable way to re-emphasise the powerful, though precise, sentiments expressed in the second part of subsection (2). Reference to "amenities of the area" will go a long way to meeting the point made in Committee by a number of hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). This is very much in line with the Commission's functions as defined at the beginning of the Bill.
      Mr. Jopling: As the Clause has been amended, and with the undertakings given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the previous Amendment, the case I made earlier seems to have been fully covered.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 69, in line 29, at end insert "in the area".—[Mr. Skeffington.]
      Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 27, line 3, at end insert:
      (5) The Commission may make submissions in respect of the making of a temporary order as respects any highway for a period of not more than seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes, and, if

      1303
      the Minister so directs, shall make such submissions.
      (6) Before the Commission or as the case may be the Countryside Commission of Scotland makes any such submissions they shall consult with all local authorities affected and with such other bodies as appear to them to have an interest in those matters, and the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons.
      Two important points are made in this proposal. The first is that before making any submissions for a traffic regulation order, the Commission must consult with the local authority and other interested bodies. If that consultation does not occur
      "… the Minister may require them to consult with any person or body of persons."
      Motor cycle and other vehicle users are concerned about these road traffic regulation orders. For this reason the Minister should make it clear that consultation must take place and that, if it does not take place, he will require it to take place.
      My second point is in subsection (5) about temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days in any one year for sporting or recreational purposes. I emphasise that this is for only seven days in any one year and it would therefore include practices. It is to cover such events as are arranged by legislation by the Manx Parliament in the Isle of Man, the Tourist Trophy Motor Cycle Races at the beginning of June and the Manx Grand Prix in September. It would cover such things as car rallying, cycle races, horse trials, fell foot racing in the Lake District and cross country athletics generally. It is desirable that this Amendment should allow such national events to take place. They attract tourists apart from the help they give manufacturers of machines for these trials.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the same sort of encouraging noises about this Amendment as he made when we discussed the earlier Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referring to motor cycles. From the point of view of public relations, it is essential that the proper bodies, the local authorities, should be consulted.
      Mr. Skeffington: This again is to some extent the kind of Amendment which probably arises from a feeling of lack
      1304
      of confidence in the way in which these matters are primarily operated, as I think they should be, by the local authorities concerned. Subject to the overall ministerial power, traffic regulations are a matter for highway authorities, not the Commission. As I said earlier when I reviewed the Commission's resources and personnel, this is not the kind of function which the Commission is equipped to undertake, nor which it would want to undertake.
      There are a number of points about the Amendment which I do not understand. It is difficult to visualise what is meant by "sporting purposes". I should have thought that most sporting purposes came within the definition of recreational purposes. Provisions are already made in this connection. If it were thought to mean motor racing on the highways—I have some suspicion that it may be, knowing the source from which the Amendment came—that is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. It would be difficult to accept the Amendment for that if for no other reason.
      It would be undesirable for the Minister to direct the Commission to make submissions for an order. That is not the way in which one envisages the Commission operating. Largely, it is a guiding body; it has influence and coordinates, but, except in relation to such matters as are in Clause 3, it has no executive powers. The Amendment is very much contrary to the view of the Opposition that traffic orders and regulations are to be made for the quiet enjoyment of the countryside rather than for the reverse.
      For all these reasons the Amendment is not practicable. It is not within the spirit of the relationship between the Commission and the Minister, and I do not think the Commission would have staff to do this work. Subsection (6) would place a very heavy responsibility on the Commission by requiring it to consult all the bodies affected in addition to all the other work it has to do. One understands that there is a problem which motor cyclists and others may have in arranging for their pastimes. I believe that the proper way in which this matter can best be dealt with is through the regional sports councils acting in conjunction with the local authorities. I know

      1305
      that the hon. Gentleman said that this had been tried before, but it has certainly not been pursued through the regional sports councils because they were not in existence. Relations between the councils and the local authorities are excellent, and I am sure that this is the better way of achieving the real purpose behind the Amendment.
      Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point concerning the temporary traffic regulation orders for seven days to allow racing to take place over a closed circuit on a public road.
      Mr. Skeffington: I do not see how I can deal with that, as racing is prohibited by Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If it is to be permissible, it must be made permissible in some other way, and certainly not on a public highway.
      Mr. Iremonger: In view of what the Minister has said, it would be a pity to subject the Government to the humiliation of a defeat, and therefore I shall not press the Amendment unduly. What the hon. Gentleman has said about the regional sports councils is helpful. As he says, these councils have not been in existence long enough for their usefulness to be fully tested.
      I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 27.

      EXCHEQUER GRANTS FOR COUNTRYSIDE.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 28, line 16, leave out from 'site' to second 'and' in line 18 and insert:
      'provided mainly as a stopping-place for those on their way to or from the place or area where they spend their holidays'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment can be taken Amendment No. 72.
      MacDermot: These Amendments are an attempt to honour the undertaking that I gave that we would see whether we could find wording which was slightly less restrictive than that at present in the Bill, but which would show that it was intended that these grant provisions should apply to camping sites and caravan sites respectively when they
      1306
      are used by holidaymakers in transit. It is clear that these grant provisions are for transit sites and that we are not seeking to provide grant for holiday caravan sites.
      Mr. Channon: I am sorry to delay the House, but I shall not be more than a minute or two.
      These Amendments go partially towards meeting the points that I raised in Committee. I have in mind one matter which I should like to raise, and perhaps the Minister could answer it. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
      It has been represented to me by people who are responsible in the caravan world that the short-stay transit and touring sites in which they are especially interested are sites which local authorities can provide under Clause 8 in respect of tent sites and Section 24 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1960, in respect of caravan sites. If the sites come within the rather narrow definition of Clause 27 under heads 1, 2 and 3, the local authorities will qualify for 75 per cent. grants.
      The Government have expressed the hope that the overwhelming majority of local authority sites provided under these powers will be entrusted to clubs such as the Caravan Club and other reputable clubs of that kind. They could, under Clause 8(3), lease a site to a club or keep more direct control and appoint a club as managers.
      Must the local authority bring the site into being on land which it owns or leases, or is it enough to give planning permission to someone else under suitable conditions? Does ensuring that there is provision come within the phrase "provide a site"? Perhaps it does, in the light of Clause 32, which allows a local authority to arrange for facilities to be provided by some other person.
      3.0 a.m.
      There is considerable doubt about this. There is the added complication that sites provided for caravanners under Section 24 of the Caravan Sites Act would not be facilities provided "under this Act". This question is not academic. The best people to provide many of the required transit sites may very likely be filling stations, hotels, etc., not the local authority, but without the grants there may not be enough inducement. Should it make any difference whether the site is owned by the local authority and run

      1307
      on a long lease by a club, or is owned and run by a private landowner under conditions laid down in the planning permission, the licence and the handing on of a grant? Either is capable of giving the service the public wants and which the Government say the public should have.
      I should be grateful if I could be told at some time, if not tonight, whether the Government's chosen pattern of encouragement through the grants via the local authorities is compatible with the views of the British Travel Association and other experts on how the necessary network should be built up from contributions of many kinds by many kinds of operator. These points are relevant to these Amendments, but the Government may prefer to study what I have said. If so, perhaps the Minister of State would kindly write to me. I should be grateful to receive further information about the caravan Clause, which has caused some complications.
      Mr. MacDermot: At the least,:here would have to be an agreement between the authority and the owner of the land, but I should like to consider the points the hon. Gentleman has made and write to him about them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 72, in line 23, leave out from "countryside" to "and" in line 25 and insert:
      "provided mainly as a stopping-place for those on their way to or from the place or area where they spend their holidays".—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 30.

      PROTECTION FOR INTERESTS IN COUNTRYSIDE.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 31, line 27, after "duty" insert "of every Minister, and".
      In Committee my hon. and learned Friend gave an undertaking—I invite attention to column 865—to effect a change of this kind. The Amendment has the effect of requiring every Minister exercising functions under the Bill and the 1948 Act
      "to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas."
      Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for having tabled this very satisfactory Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32.

      POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS AND RELATED PROVISIONS ABOUT WARDENS.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 32, line 32, leave out "Provided that" and insert "(4)".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 74.
      Mr. Skeffington: These Amendments have the effect of applying the proviso, that byelaws shall not interfere with the functions of statutory undertakers having functions in relation to the land or waterway affected, to all byelaws made under the Clause and not merely to bye-laws under subsection (3). We were pressed to take this step and are glad to have done so.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 74, in page 32, line 32, leave out "subsection" and insert "section".—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 33.

      GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO LOCAL AUTHORITY POWERS CONFERRED BY ACT.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 33, line 44, at end insert:
      Provided that no charge shall be made by a local authority for the use of any such facilities or services by statutory undertakers in the exercise of their functions.
      I have been asked to raise this matter by the water undertakers. They point out that statutory undertakers may frequently have to use facilities and services provided under the Bill, and they give as an obvious example roads and parking places. Where the statutory undertakers are simply carrying out their statutory obligation, it would be ludicrous if they had charges imposed upon them. My Amendment would provide that in such circumstances no charges would be made. I am sure that it would be wise to write such a provision into the Bill.
      Mr. MacDermot: So ludicrous would it be that there is no power to enable them to do it, so the Amendment is unnecessary. In other words, I cannot see how the situation to which the Amendment is directed could arise.
      Clause 33 empowers local authorities to make charges for facilities which they provide, or to empower someone else, acting as their agent, to make charges. The local authorities can make charges only for facilities provided by them in the exercise of their functions. If they arrange for facilities to be provided by some other person, they may authorise that person to make reasonable charges. For these reasons, the Amendment is not necessary.
      Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that what he says is correct and there is no danger of such an occasion arising. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 34.

      POWER TO AMEND LOCAL ACTS CONCERNING LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amend-m nit No. 77, in page 34, line 20, at end in insert:
      '(except so far as the provision relates to the water undertaking of a local authority)'.
      I shall not rehearse the general arguments about the merits of Clause 34, save to say that it would enable the Minister to repeal not only general local government provisions in local Acts but also provisions relating to local authority water undertakings. There is no need for such a power to amend water enactments to be taken in this Bill. In many ways, it would result in anomaly if the power were used. It would put local authority undertakings in a different position from company undertakings and some of the water boards.
      I do not insist on the wording of the Amendment, but I hope that the point is accepted. It is put forward by an Association whose membership includes the great majority of the local authority water undertakers.
      Mrs. White: We had some entertaining discussion on the Clause in Committee, with a good deal of lawyers' reminiscence, but this particular point was not raised at that stage. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there would be certain anomalies as between different types of water undertaker. There is also a point which he did not raise, that under Section 33 of the Water Act, 1945, the Minister may already, on the application of any statutory water undertaker, repeal or amend any local enactment relating to the supply of water by such undertakers.
      We are not entirely content with the form of the Amendment, but we should be happy to look at it. As I said earlier, my hon. and learned Friend is to meet the British Waterworks Association shortly. That might, perhaps, be an occasion to clarify this point as well.
      Mr. Channon: In view of the right hon. Lady's undertaking to look at the matter again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 36.

      APPLICATION OF GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ACT OF 1949.
      Amendment made: No. 78, in page 35, line 21, leave out 'section 7(5) of' and insert
      'Schedule (procedure for taking common land) to'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

    Clause 40.

      SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.
      Amendment made: No. 79, in page 38, line 7, at end insert:
      (4) The provisions of this Act amending or repealing any provision of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 38, line 8, leave out from 'except' to as ' in line 9 and insert:
      'subsections (1), (3) and (4) of this section, sections 11, 19, 20, section (Tree preservation orders: compensation), sections 25, 30 and 36(3), and so much of sections 36(1), 38 and 39'.

      1311
      The Amendment brings up to date the list of provisions which apply to Scotland. The changes are a consequence of matters we have dealt with, such as the Government's new Clause concerning the revised basis of compensation for tree preservation orders, the application to Scotland of the House of Commons disqualification provision, and the insertion of Clause 30, requiring that there shall be due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interest of rural areas.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 81, in page 38, line 10, after 'and', and insert 'subject' to subsection (4) above'.

    New Schedule.

      PROCEDURE FOR TAKING COMMON LAND.
      1.—(1) For the purpose of enabling a local authority to exercise their powers under the principal section on land taken out of the common land the Minister may in accordance with this Schedule authorise a local authority to acquire any part of the common land, including all commonable and other rights in or over the land, and, where the local authority already hold the land, to appropriate that land for the purposes of the principal section.
      (2) Where the local authority already hold the land, but subject to any commonable or other rights in or over the land, they shall not appropriate the land until they have, under sub-paragraph (1) above, acquired all those rights.
      (3) Land acquired or appropriated as authorised under this paragraph shall be held by the local authority free from the public right of access, but shall be used for the benefit of the public resorting to the common land.
      (4) The Minister shall not give his authority under this paragraph unless he is satisfied—

      (a) that there has been or will be given in exchange for the land other land, not being less in area and being equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable and other rights, and to the public, and that the land given in exchange has been or will be vested in the persons in whom the land taken was vested, and subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents as attached to the land taken, or

      (b) that the giving in exchange of such other land is unnecessary, whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights or in the interests of the public.

      Preliminary notices
      2.—(1) Before a local authority apply to the Minister for authority under paragraph 1 above as respects any part of the common land, they
      1312
      shall in two successive weeks publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality of the land a notice—

      (a) stating that the local authority propose to make the application;

      (b) giving particulars of the land which it is proposed to take out of the common land;

      (c) stating whether land has been or is to be given in exchange, and, if so, giving particulars of that land, and stating the respective areas of the land to be taken and of the land given or to be given in exchange.

      (2) If all or any part of the land to be taken is in a parish, the local authority shall, not later than the time of first publication of the notice, serve a copy of the notice on the parish council or, in the case of a parish not having a parish council, on the chairman of the parish meeting.
      (3) The notice shall name a place within the locality where a map showing the said land, and any land given or to be given in exchange, may be inspected, and shall specify the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from first publication of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the proposals in the notice may be made to the Minister.
      (4) The Minister shall before giving his decision on the application take into consideration every representation which has been duly made and which has not been withdrawn, and may if he thinks fit either afford to each person making such a representation an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, or cause a public inquiry to be held.
      Compulsory purchase
      3.—(1) A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land which is required by them for the purposes of their functions under the principal section, and which is part of the common land (or any commonable or other rights in or over that land), but the Minister shall not confirm a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this section except after giving his authority under paragraph 1 above as respects the land.
      (2) Any notice which relates to a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph and which is published or served under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 shall refer to the provisions of this Schedule and shall state whether land has been, or is to be, given in exchange.
      (3) The notice to be published under paragraph 2 of this Schedule may be combined with a notice to be published under the said paragraph 3 in the Act of 1946 in the same newspaper and relating to the same land.
      (4) If land has been, or is to be, given in exchange—

      (a) the notice to be published and served under the said paragraph 3 in the Act of 1946 shall give particulars of that land and state the respective areas of the land to be taken and of the land given or to be given in exchange,

      1313

      (b) the map in the compulsory purchase order shall show that land,

      (c) the compulsory purchase order may provide for vesting any land to be given in exchange in the persons, and subject to the rights, trusts and incidents, mentioned in paragraph 1(4) above.

      (5) A compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph may provide for discharging the land purchased from all rights, trusts and incidents to which it was previously subject.
      (6) Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 (special provisions for acquisition of common land) shall not apply to a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this paragraph, and section 22 of the Commons Act 1889 (consent of Minister required for purchase of common land) shall not apply to the acquisition of land in pursuance of such a compulsory purchase order.
      Acquisition by agreement and appropriation
      4.—(1) A local authority shall not acquire by agreement, or appropriate, any common land for the purposes of the principal section except as authorised under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
      (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, a local authority may appropriate any common land for the purposes of the principal section without compliance with the provisions of section 163 of the Local Government Act 1933 or section 104 of the Act of 1949 as amended by section 23 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 (under which the approval of the Minister is required).
      (3) On an appropriation of land under this paragraph such adjustment shall be made in the accounts of the local authority as the Minister may direct.
      Power to override restrictions affecting common land
      5. No restrictions apply to commons generally, or to any particular common, contained in or having effect under any enactment, and no trust subject to which the common land is held, shall prevent a local authority from taking part of common land in accordance with this Schedule.
      Protection for statutory undertakers
      6. References in this Schedule to commonable and other rights in or over common land shall not be taken as including references to any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking.
      Interpretation
      7. In this Schedule 'common land' has the meaning given by section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965.—[Mr. White.]
      Brought up, and read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1.

      PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES.
      Amendment made: No. 83, in page 39, line 6, leave out '6(3)' and insert:
      '(country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing'.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

    Schedule 2.

      PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
      Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 40, line 5, at end insert:
      Provided that the authority shall not take account of the evidence if satisfied that the person prejudiced by the public right of way, or his predecesor in title, could have produced the evidence before the relevant date mentioned in the said section 33(1) and had no reasonable excuse for failing to do so.
      The Amendment deals with a small but important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) and other hon. Members were concerned to see that with the provision in the Schedule for correcting errors we did not let in new evidence, so that matters which should have been raised in the normal procedure and be subject to inquiry got in by the back door, as it were. The Government were reasonably satisfied that that could not happen under the Schedule as drafted, but it was an important point, and to set at rest any fears we have tabled this Amendment, which further tightens up the provision.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Channon: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 40, line 7, at end insert:
      Section 37 (powers of Minister to expedite survey)
      The power of the Minister in s. 37 to expedite the preparation of maps and statements shall include the power to direct a surveying authority to prepare a revised map and statement in draft form where the period referred to in s. 33(3) has expired and where, after consultation with the surveying authority, it seems to the Minister that because of changes since the relevant date the definitive map, or the last preceding map prepared in definitive form, as the case may be, is no longer a reasonably accurate record of public rights of way in the area of the authority.
      The Amendment has the support of hon. Members on both sides. The present position is that the surveying authority

      1315
      should prepare a revised draft map within five years of the relevant date of the previous definitive map, that is, the date on which the original draft map was published. I understand that in nearly all cases this is a date in the early 1950s. I am told by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpath Preservation Society, which is anxious to sponsor the Amendment, that the procedure in reaching the definitive stage has taken so long that the map is often out of date before it is published.
      3.15 a.m.
      A definitive map published today often reflects the footpath pattern of 10 to 15 years ago and the provision becomes more urgent. It is possible to do these reviews quickly—and while some counties have managed it frequently and quickly, other counties have not. It would be invidious to mention names, but one county council, for example, published a draft map in 1953 and nothing had happened since. The Minister directed the council to publish the provisional map in 1966 and the definitive map in 1967, and on this were only the agreed paths. The disputed paths were left to be shown at a later stage. Yet nothing can be done to make the Minister expedite this. Other councils reached the definitive stage some time ago and have made no step towards a review. This is a useful Amendment and I hope that the Minister may be prepared to take powers to expedite the preparation of maps and statements.
      Mr. Carol Johnson: I support the Amendment. The hon. Member has shown, from the experience of recent years, that the obligations placed on certain authorities by the 1949 Act have been neglected to an extraordinary extent in some cases. It is surprising that the Minister has no power to intervene and expedite surveys as he should be able to do. I think the case is good and it might be that the Minister would welcome these powers. I hope he will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I welcome this Amendment and draw attention to the case of the delinquent authority, which is the East Riding County Council. Following a question I put down, the council was required by the Minister to produce its definitive map. We have an
      1316
      absurd situation where the definitive map has not taken into account 2,500 disputed paths. The position has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson). The Minister has no power to order the quinquennial review which is required by the Act and it need not be undertaken by the authority. It requires an Order for them to undertake this. If the Amendment is passed, he will have the powers. The East Riding example indicates that he needs them.
      Mr. Skeffington: I can understand the frustration felt by many people waiting a long time in some areas for these maps. They are perhaps slow in coming, as in the case of the East Riding, which has now been named. This review has to be dealt with urgently. Many paths were left off, but for some reason there are more inquiries requiring long procedures in this area.
      There has been long delay but, as the Gosling Committee pointed out in paragraph 12 of their Report, once the first definitive maps have been published the position should be better and the reviews
      "consist essentially of picking up details of subsequent creations, diversions and closures".
      There are only two specific cases where the power might be used. Apart from these we have had no general pressure for the default powers suggested here. There may have been a case for a power of this kind some years ago, but at this stage, where definitive maps are on the point of finality, the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Channon: This is a disappointing reply. I hope that the relentless pressure from both sides of the House will continue to be exerted until we get a better answer. I am sure that those hon. Members concerned will not let up their efforts until the Government crumble beneath their combined pressure. Meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Iremonger: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 41, line 33, at end to insert:
      Section 125 (Powers as to gates across highways)
      A highway authority may itself erect a gate of the minimum width across so much of a highway, not being a classified road, as consists of a carriageway.
      This would amend Section 125 of the Highways Act, 1959, which contains powers concerning gates across highways. It would allow a highway authority itself to erect a gate of the minimum width—ten feet—across a carriageway. It seeks to end the anomaly which allows a local authority to erect a cattle grid but not a gate across a carriageway. It is designed to deal with the situation which arises not infrequently when a farmer has two fields, one on either side of a carriageway.
      When the farmer drives his cattle out of the gate of one field and they have to cross the carriageway to go into the other field through the gate on the opposite side of the carriageway, they are apt to strong along the carriageway. To prevent this, the farmer asks the local authority to erect a ten-foot gate across the carriageway or a pair of gates forming a passageway between the two fields.
      But the local authority has not the power to erect a gate under Section 125 of the 1959 Act. It can put in a cattle grid or a pair of grids, but it does not like to do this because it is rather expensive. Therefore, the farmer erects a barbed wire barrier or double barbed wire barrier and then ramblers complain. He then appeals to the local authority under Sections 109 and 110 for an order to downgrade the carriageway to footpath, so that all he has to do is to leave the wire barrier and comply with the law by putting in a stile across what is now a footpath.
      In so doing, he has deprived the public of the carriageway and also of the bridle-way. Under the Amendment, he would only have to ask the local authority for a ten-foot gate or a pair of gates, and he would be more likely to get this, or at least the vehicle interests would have much more prospect of success in pressing the authority to give him a gate or a pair of gates. The request would be less easy to resist because it is less expensive than providing cattle grids. This useful Amendment would prevent the loss of a carriageway which otherwise does occur from time to time when farmers are in this situation.
      Mr. Skeffington: I admire the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in endeavouring to reform the transport legislation by means of the Countryside Bill. As this Amendment involves Section 125 of the 1959
      1318
      Act, we consulted the Ministry of Transport. It cannot understand—and I share the doubt—what benefit it would be to the highway user or the local authority to put gates across carriageways. If someone wants a gate, it surely must be the owner concerned. I am trying to relate the hon. Gentleman's strategy to this matter.
      I can see that there may be a case in respect of roads used as public footpaths. If these become defined in some way by the surveying authority, then there might be a case for gates. The advice of the Ministry of Transport is that if gates are required, which would not be the normal event, it is not for the highway authority to provide them. For those reasons I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment modifying transport legislation in the Countryside Bill.
      Mr. Iremonger: I know that it is late and that there is a piercing blast of chill air, which comes from I know not where, into this Chamber, making us anxious to go home, but I do not think that the Minister has followed the argument. It was my fault. This happens. It means the carriageways are downgraded to pathways because of the influence of the local authority not wanting to put up a gateway, which would meet a perfectly reasonable request by a farmer. It is not suitable to pursue this now, and I do not want the Government to be defeated. I do not wish to leave it there and I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment in order to register my dissatisfaction. I hope that this may be followed through the proper channels on another occasion.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I beg to move Amendment 112, in page 42, line 29, leave out '28 days' and insert 'two months'.
      The terms of a similar Amendment were discussed in Committee and this Amendment is in the nature of a compromise, which I hope will be acceptable. It deals with the amount of time available to objectors who wish to object to the draft map. The existing law is that objectors have a period of four months in which to lodge objections. The proposal in the Bill is that this is reduced to 28 days.

      1319
      The reduction is a very serious one. As I said in Committee, it will cause considerable difficulties to anyone who does not have professional staff working for them, to scrutinise proposals made by local authorities. I have had some correspondence with the Minister of State for Wales on this, and I would like to take issue with her. She seems to think, perhaps I do her an injustice, but I hope not, that we are dealing with odd objections which it is not unreasonable to expect interested bodies to take up within a matter of 28 days. I have to tell her that we are dealing with the draft map. In one instance we are dealing with something like 2,600 objections in the East Riding. I was told by the late secretary of the East Riding Rambers' Association that it would have taken him a month, working full time, to examine and transcribe the Council's decisions on such work.
      We are not dealing with the odd disputes, but often with large numbers. It is not enough to say that one can put in a holding objection. A great deal of work has to be done and this presents problems for voluntary bodies. It is not just the East Riding, either. I am told that the Hereford draft map was not satisfactory to many people. A great number of objections were lodged. A case has been made out for more time for these exclusions. The provisions of the Bill allow for delays on grounds of error or mistake. We shall possibly find that there will be various footpaths at issue because of this part of the Bill. The number of footpaths to examine will be in excess of what my hon. Friend thinks.
      3.30 a.m.
      My fourth point—and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) is not here, because I think that he would support me on this—is that there is a growing interest in equestrian sports and there is a desire on the part of horse riders to upgrade footpaths to bridleways. This will come up on revision, but various interested bodies will need time to prepare their cases and 28 days is not enough. I suggested three months in Committee and my hon. Friend suggested a compromise, which I would be happy to accept, of two months. This
      1320
      is the Amendment which has been tabled and I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to accept it.
      Mrs. White: This Amendment may appear on the Order Paper due to my warm and responsive nature, but at 3.30 a.m. I am not feeling so warm and responsive.
      When my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) first put forward his case it seemed to me that perhaps there was something in it, and I was especially concerned with what he said about parish councils. Since then I have looked into the matter further and it appears to me that in the circumstances that would apply concerning this Amendment, where we would be dealing with a revised draft map, not a definitive map, the difficulties which he has enumerated should not be as substantial as he suggests.
      As I explained in Committee, one can put in a holding objection. Objectors do not have to prepare their full cases in the 28 days. The organisations concerned, including parish councils, should be in a position to put in holding objections within the period. Long periods are given at the earlier stages in the preparation of these maps, but when we reach this stage in general we should keep to the 28 days, which is a standard period for this kind of operation.
      I wrote to my hon. Friend following our discussions in Committee and explained the position as it appeared to me. I do not feel that he has adduced any further evidence tonight which would make us change our minds. I appreciate that he is anxious, as we all are, that these draft revision maps should be properly prepared, but we feel that we are making reasonable provision for this in the Bill as it now stands. I am sorry, but I do not feel that we can recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Ramsden: I understand that the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), in moving the Amendment, indicated to the House that had I been here I would have supported him. I merely wish to say that I do not think he had any grounds for saying that.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 4.

      REPEALS.
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 46, line 17, column 3, at end insert: Section 11(3).
      No. 90, in page 46, line 49, at end insert:

      5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

      The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

      In Part III of Schedule, 1 the words Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the National Parks Commission'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      3.35 a.m.
      Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The House will not want a lengthy speech from me at this stage, and I have in mind particularly the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) has the Adjournment debate to look forward to.
      There are three matters on which I promised to give to the House such further information as could at this stage. The first is to indicate the Government's attitude on those parts of the Gosling Committee's recommendations which deal with the procedure for opening, closing and diverting footpaths.
      In Part III of its Report, the Committee recommends that the pattern and administration of footpaths should be considered as part of environmental planning authorities, and it suggests that the responsibility for considering footpaths under the provisions of Section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, should be transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
      The Government accept that, now that rural footpaths are almost wholly a recreational matter, it is sensible that they should be considered as part of planning, and we will introduce an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill to transfer the footpaths functions of Section 153 accordingly.
      The Government also accept in principle the Committee's fifth recommendation, that
      "Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath
      1322
      patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners."
      We foresee difficulties in applying the suggested detailed procedures proposed in paragraph 27 of the Report, which do not form part of the Committee's recommendations. We think that this recommendation require further consideration to see how it can best be related to the new structure and local plan system. We propose to do this and consult those interested, but we do not contemplate immediate legislation.
      In the meantime, the definitive maps state the footpaths position, and the reviews bring it up to date. Now we want local authorities to look forward to see what new paths are needed, what use is made of existing paths, and what alterations could be made to meet future requirements.
      The Gosling Committee recommends that footpath order procedures should be simplified. We intend to introduce into the Countryside Bill in another place a new clause to give local authorities greater autonomy in dealing with unopposed orders. We are now entering into the necessary consultations.
      The second matter on which I promised to give information to the House was on the application of the Bill and, in particular, Clause 25 to Crown land. Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, applies Section 1 of that Act to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown, but, at present, Clause 25 does not apply to Crown land. We are currently engaged in consultation with the various authorities to see whether the Clause could be made to apply to Crown land, and I can tell the House that I am hopeful that it will be possible to reach agreement so that we can move an appropriate amendment to the Bill in another place.
      The third matter on which I promised to give information was on the anticipated effect of the recent economy measures upon the implementation of the proposals in the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, which was published before Christmas, forecast Exchequer expenditure in England and Wales in 1968–69 as £650,000, of which £500,000 was attributable to expenditure under the Act of 1949. It looked forward to an Exchequer expenditure of £2 million

      1323
      in a full year. As the now printed Estimates show, the total Exchequer expenditure in 1968–69 is expected to be £544,000, instead of £650,000. Grant in respect of local authority expenditure under the 1949 Act and in future under this Bill is paid to local authorities annually in arrears, so that there will not therefore be and would not in any event have been any additional Exchequer expenditure as a result of this Bill in respect of grant in the year 1968–69.
      There is, however, likely still to be some additional expenditure direct by the Commission in the exercise of its new functions. The intention that Exchequer expenditure in a full year of operation should reach £2 million remains, but we now expect that it will not be reached as early as was formerly hoped. In fact, we now expect the total expenditure of the Commission and local authorities in the three years to be of the order of the following amounts: In 1968–69, £837,000; in 1969–70, £1,200,000; and in 1970–71, £1½ million.
      It is right that I should add that any estimates of expenditure in this field must of necessity be uncertain because they will depend on the decisions made by individual local authorities on the extent to which they are prepared to embark on expenditures of this kind in a period of economic stringency. Having said that, however, I hope the House will agree that the figures which I have given show that in spite of our present economic difficulties the Commission will have a real job of work to do in the coming years, and that it can help local authorities to lay their plans for future expenditure when greater resources can be made available.
      I conclude by expressing my gratitude to all who have helped to improve the Bill, as I believe it has been improved, during its passage through the House. I have found it very stimulating to find so many hon. Members on both sides who have a great interest in the subject and who speak from considerable knowledge. I have found it a somewhat exhausting experience. I do not think that there is anything quite so exhausting for a Minister as trying to pilot a non-controversial Bill through the House. Give me a Finance Bill every time. I am grateful in particular to the Opposi-
      1324
      tion Front Bench. They have been most helpful throughout in what has been a complicated matter.
      I pay a tribute, too, to my colleagues who have relieved me of a considerable part of the burden, particularly when I became preoccupied with the Town and Country Planning Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I think that in Standing Committee we all came to realise that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knew more about this subject than the rest of us put together.
      3.43 a.m.
      Mr. Channon: I, too, am grateful to my colleagues for the vast amount of work they have put in in an attempt to improve the Bill. We have had a very good relationship with the Minister of State and other Ministers.
      I do not wish to delay the House at this time of the night on a Bill which was so generally welcomed by so many people both inside and outside the House, but I must say to the Minister of State—and I am sorry to disagree with him at the end of our proceedings—that it was disappointing to hear this evening that paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report was not to be translated into legislation at the moment. One of our complaints was that there would have to be separate legislation for footpaths. The Government said that that would not be necessary because they would be able to deal with the whole question either in this Bill or in the Town and Country Planning Bill. I hope that the Government will reconsider this to see whether the proposals in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, or an amended version of them—they do not have to be in the form suggested in the report—can be included in the Town and Country Planning Bill, if necessary in another place.
      There is keen interest in the House in this subject, but it is not one to which the House will again willingly devote itself in the near future. I am sure that it will be a long time before we discuss another Bill dealing with these problems. I think that it will be a tremendous waste of everybody's time if we cannot finally settle this problem for a long time. I would have thought that whatever opinion

      1325
      one took of the Countryside Bill or the Town and Country Planning Bill, there must be a general wish on all sides of the House that we should implement Gosling and not just hang about and hope that one day there will be time for further legislation.
      I beg the Government to reconsider this decision and to see if it is not possible to get legislation into the Town and Country Planning Bill to implement the system that is referred to in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report. I hope it is not too late for a decision to be taken to include these matters in the Bill. This Bill, if it is to be implemented properly, is going to cost a great deal of money. We ought not to be under any illusion that it will not cost local authorities a great deal. I have been handed figures to show how much it will cost a medium-sized county council to implement the sign-posting regulations.
      The county council has eleven rural district councils, and they estimate that there are about 500 footpaths leaving public metalled roads in each of the rural district councils. They estimate that the total cost will be not far short of £33,000. That is one county council, and it shows the measure of the cost involved. I am not at all sanguine about the speed with which all these proposals are going to be implemented.
      We are grateful to the Government for telling us how their economic measures will affect the Bill. We were told originally that the Bill was not going to be one of sacrifices of the Government's economy measures, but there is some partial element of sacrifice involved. I would like the Minister of State, or one of his colleagues, to tell us, since the expenditure is going to be much smaller in the opening years, whether there are going to be priorities laid down. What sort of categories of expenditure does he expect the money to be spent on? There are certain portions of the Bill which it is more urgent to implement, while others could wait without any great loss.
      I was interested in what the Minister of State said about Crown land, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will, I know, want to make some comment on that, possibly at great length.
      1326
      I conclude by returning to the point I made at the beginning. I hope very much that the Government, who have been very helpful in suggesting that the Town and Country Planning Bill is to be the vehicle for a great many of the things in Part III of Gosling, will not at the last moment say they cannot do the whole job. I want to ask them if they will have another look at this to see if it is not possible to complete the job and put in the whole of the system in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report. If they cannot do it in exactly the way Gosling suggests, I am sure that with goodwill an acceptable solution can be found. But to leave this bit out now is, I think, going to be the worst of all possible solutions. One might not be able to do it for a very long time indeed, and I hope that as a final gesture, the Minister will say that they will look at this problem again and try to include this in the Town and Country Planning Bill. If they can do that, we shall be able to say that this problem has been thoroughly looked at and dealt with by the House, and that we would not have to return to it again for a considerable period.
      Finally, I should like to thank my colleagues for all the work they have done on the Bill—I think we have improved it—and also to thank the Government for the courtesy with which we have been treated at all stages of the proceedings.
      3.50 a.m.
      Mr. Ramsden: I would not detain the House but for the depressing statement by the Minister of State about the Government's intention over the latest Gosling recommendations. I understand that they do not propose to implement Recommendation No. 5, which is amplified in paragraph 27. This bears out my fears ever since the early stages, when I have argued for comprehensive treatment of the footpath law. The relationship between the timing of Gosling and the timing of the Bill has made this difficult.
      Halfway through our proceedings, the Government indicated a timetable which would have enabled the recommendations to be put into effect had they been agreed and arrived in time. Although that happened, the Government apparently do not intend to give legislative effect to those recommendations, and I regard this as a

      1327
      breach of faith with the Committee. It was in the spirit, if not the letter, of the undertaking which we were given on 1st February that something would be done to tackle this long-standing problem. I am disappointed at the Government's attitude: they have hotted this side of the House. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure me that this does not mean what it appeared to mean. If he cannot, I will see the Bill on its way with some disappointment and an unpleasant taste in the mouth.
      3.53 a.m.
      Dame Joan Vickers: This important Bill will please many people, and I was glad to serve on the Committee. I thank the Minister of State, Welsh Office, for her promise in our discussions on Clause 6 to circulate local authorities about provisions for old people. She has notified me that she has done this, and I think that it will be greatly appreciated.
      On Clause 5, the Parliamentary Secretary has been in correspondence with people about Dartmoor and is willing to deal with this matter urgently, so I suppose that some provision introduced in another place will put this on a better footing. The Crown agencies have been very helpful and there is no complaint against them, but the whole system, especially on Dartmoor, will be much easier if there is some agreement. I agree that the question of signposts is a particularly difficult matter because it will be enormously expensive in many counties, particularly Devon. The signposts in Devon seem to be pixilated, since they are often turned around the wrong way or pushed down—whether by animals or people, I do not know. But we have had considerable difficulties, so I know that it will not be easy to get the signposts in order.
      I am disappointed that the river authorities are to play such a small part. I gather that it is intended that they will be one of the classes of authorities consulted under Clause 6 (3). They would then have the right, under Schedule 1, to object to proposals with which they do not agree.
      This is not satisfactory, however, and it is contrary to the principle of one river, one authority, the principle on which the river autho-
      1328
      rities have relied in their evolution. That the river authorities are not consulted seems contrary to the Government's original intention. River authorities and the Water Resources Board have been pressing the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give the river authorities a more positive rôle. The White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" stated in paragraph 37:
      "The Department will seek to involve, in conjunction with the river authorities, public bodies and others concerned with the appropriate advice and comprehensive plans for developing the use of recreation of the country's waterways, natural and artificial."
      This matter was raised on several occasions in Committee, and while I will not detain the House at this hour, I refer hon. Members to columns 389, 406, 937 and 940 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. It is a pity that this matter has not been settled on a better basis.
      The assurances that were given in Committee were not considered satisfactory at that time and, in the event, it seems that the Government do not want to meet the issue by giving to river authorities the right to participate in the provision of recreational facilities. This is a pity and I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter. In the same way, I trust that the title of the Bill will receive more attention, since the present one is not satisfactory.
      3.57 a.m.
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: While I had not intended to speak on the Third Reading, I must express my disappointment at the failure of the Government to deal with paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report. We were led to believe that this would be dealt with. We gathered, from the original Clauses, that it was regarded as a separate matter and that the whole problem of footpaths would be covered comprehensively. We have ended up with an incomplete answer to this problem of footpaths and, despite the argument of the lack of time, this could have been covered in a small Bill designed for the purpose. The result is messy legislation and nobody can be certain about the future of footpaths. There will be occasions when individuals, local authorities and others will wish to create, divert and close footpaths, but after 30 sittings in Committee on the Bill we do not have the answer.

      1329
      The Government could still put this matter in the Town and Country Planing Bill, as we originally expected. After all, we were not responsible for setting up the Gosling Committee. Although I do not want to upset the peaceful atmosphere in which we have discussed the Bill tonight, the Government must be held responsible for setting up the Gosling Committee too late to enable this matter to be properly tackled. The Minister still has time, if he so wishes, to place this issue in the Town and Country Planning Bill, which is on its way through Committee.
      4.0 a.m.
      Mr. MacDermot: By leave of the House, I seek to reply to one or two points made in the Third Reading debate. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) complained that the Gosling Committee was set up late. It is better late than never, which was the record of hon. Members opposite in dealing with these problems.
      Paragraph 27 of the Report is not a recommendation. I do not think that hon. Members opposite who speak of it as if it were have quite taken that on board. Paragraph 27 says:
      "we suggest that the law should provide for the following steps to be taken".
      When the Report makes recommendations, it does not in fact make a positive recommendation based on paragraph 27. It was a suggestion only, and I have no doubt that the Committee realised the difficulties involved in the suggestion. It would be out of order, even if the House had the patience to listen, for me to try to explain why those suggestions would produce a quite unworkable position, but I would gladly meet hon. Members to explain my reasons for saying that. I cannot undertake, and it would be irresponsible of me to suggest, that we should bring forward legislative proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill based on recommendations which we believe would produce a wholly unworkable position and an anarchaic state of the law on this subject. All we can do, and what I have done, is to say that we shall at once enter into consultations with the parties concerned to see what procedure we can devise to implement the recommendations which we have accepted.
      We have accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the Report. Recommendation
      1330
      6 is a clear legislative recommendation which we accept and will implement. We accept that these matters should become a planning function. We are in the middle of devising a new planning system and we have to fit this into that new system. It is not that we are not doing anything about it, but it would be misleading for me to suggest that we could give some undertaking that out of the hat we could produce an answer in a few weeks, when in my view and the view of the Government the Committee has not succeeded in producing detailed proposals which would enable the suggestions to be implemented in a satisfactory way. It is right that I should tell the House that it is likely to require a longer period than that. We are not going to back down on this. We are anxious to see it implemented and we shall do all we can to bring legislation to the House as quickly as we can, or help it to be brought before the House.
      It would not be right for us to try to lay down priorities on expendtiure, particularly as we have set up the Commission one of whose main functions will be to advise my right hon. Friend on this question. In the light of the proposals which may come forward from local authorities, the Commission will be in the best position to advise how the relatively scarce resources that will be available in the early period can best be used.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (ALFRETON-RIPLEY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  4.4 a.m.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I find it a matter of regret that I have to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to the Dispatch Box at this unearthly hour of the morning. Nevertheless I do welcome him, for we have never exchanged angry words since we were both elected, and I hope that he will not have any angry words to say in replying to this debate.

  1331
  The subject for this Adjournment debate was, in a sense, chosen for me and, at first sight, it may appear rather parochial. I emphasise that I am not at this time raising the question of pit closures as such. If each pit closure were debated separately I am afraid there would be no time to debate anything else in this House. But there is a specific and particular problem which concerns my constituency and which relates to a much larger problem which concerns other constituencies. I want to define first the problem concerning my constituency.
  In December, 1967, the Alfreton Colliery closed and 560 men lost their jobs. Later Denby Hall Colliery closed and 500 men lost their jobs. I prefer to use the term "lost their jobs" instead of using the word "displaced" because I think it is more accurate. Now we have had the announcement that the Swanwick Colliery will close in September, and this will cause another 770 men to lose their jobs.
  Those of us who represent mining constituencies know quite well that as soon as the announcement is made that a colliery is going to be closed, a natural erosion takes place. Miners, or those who are fortunate enough, find other jobs within reasonable distances, and so the colliery tends to close earlier than the target date stated.
  By September in this part of my constituency we shall have a problem of the size that I have mentioned. It fits into a larger problem and I think I can best outline the nature of the problem by referring to the evidence given by the Derbyshire County Council to the Hunt Committee. It is pointed out in this evidence that the Erewash Valley—that is a fancy way of describing my constituency—contained 22 collieries employing 17,000 miners in 1951, that by March 1967 there were six collieries employing 6,300, and that by 1970 there will be only two collieries employing about 2,000. This is a massive rundown of a major industry and it has created tremendous problems for all people living in the area.
  As to the closures themselves and as to the precise action which has to be taken by the National Coal Board and by the Ministry of Power, I intend to offer no suggestion at this time. There is
  1332
  machinery in existence between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and I know that various suggestions are moving upwards through various pipelines to the Government at the moment concerning structural changes in two great nationalised industries.
  I want to narrow my argument down to those matters which concern my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I recognise, as he is bound to point out to me, that the development areas must have a high priority—indeed, the highest priority—when the distribution of industry is on the agenda. I understand also that the industrial development certificate system must again be utilised to give top priority, as far as industrial development is concerned, to the development areas. But it has been recognised that even before the Hunt Committee reported, there have crept into Parliamentary language terms like "grey areas" and "intermediate areas", which demand special treatment. The precise form of the treatment I have been told many times, must await the Hunt Committee's report.
  I suggest that action can be taken now. A few weeks ago I suggested to my hon. Friend's predecessor that it might be a good idea for the Board of Trade to begin to operate as a kind of location of industry bureau which would bring into effective and fruitful contact those industrialists who wanted to expand, who perhaps did not particularly want to go to a development area, who did not find the financial inducements sufficient to go to a development area but who could be guided in the direction of the grey areas. I suggested that fruitful liaison might be established by special machinery between firms which wanted to expand and local authorities which had prepared the ground for industrial expansion. The reply was to the effect that the regional offices of the Board of Trade can fulfil this function and are doing so.
  I emphasise that, having visited the regional office of the Board of Trade at Birmingham, I have no complaints whatever about my, reception or about the degree of understanding which the officials in that office displayed of my constituency's problems. I merely suggest that they should be armed with greater powers to guide industry, if they cannot direct it, in the direction of the grey areas. They should be armed with

  1333
  powers even to advertise what the grey areas, and my constituency in particular, have done for themselves.
  I represent four towns. They squabble quite a lot among themselves, but each of them has done a considerable amount of work on its own to prepare sites, to lay on water supplies, to develop a sewerage system, and to negotiate the necessary lines for other developments. Alfreton, in particular, recently bought a site of 60 acres. Three establishments have been granted i.d.cs for that industrial site. We are grateful to the Board of Trade for those i.d.cs and for that sanctioned development. When the last of these firms is in full operation, they will employ only 300 people. So, although we are grateful for what we have already received, we still require more to deal with the problem, which is on a scale that now begins to push our grey areas into areas that begin to look very black indeed.
  Our local authorities have prepared the sites and they offer a great deal. They do not ask for a lot, but they can offer a great deal. They can offer sites. They can offer what we call, in the jargon of the House, an infra-structure. In my case, they can offer very easy communication with the Ml. They can offer the most valuable asset of all—highly adapable labour. "Labour" is a term that refers to personal friends of mine, people I know by name and whom I have known for a very long time. Mining labour is highly adaptable labour, and this has beer proved time and time again in many firms in the East Midlands, and spectacularly proved in perhaps the best known firm in the United Kingdom today, the firm of Rolls Royce.
  These local authorities have these very tangible and very attractive assets to industrialists who wish to expand. Is it not possible for my hon. Friend, without going too closely into detail, to gear the work of the regional offices of the Board of Trade to providing the kind of link that I now demand between industrialists who want to expand and local authorities which offer facilities for expansion in areas affected by pit closures? This is a 'very modest request. It does not in any sense anticipate the possible findings of the Hunt Committee or any legislation which may flow from those findings.
  1334
  I make one final plea. As my hon. Friend will be well aware, because we have discussed this before, morale is very low. People are anxious and rumours are rife in the northern part of my constituency. I invite him to visit my constituency at an early date, so that he may see these problems on the spot, discuss what my local authorities have to offer to industrialists, and then take what they tell him back to his Department and transmit it to the regional offices concerned, generally giving the assurance, the living and visible assurance, to my constituents that what needs to be done will in fact be done. I appeal to my hon. Friend to come and look at the problem for himself.
  4.15 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) for his kind words. I am sure that there will be no angry words between us, though I express the hope that this, the first Adjournment debate which I have taken on behalf of the Board of Trade, is no guide to the sort of hour at which such debates regularly take place.
  My hon. Friend has not stayed up only tonight to argue his constituents' case. He has done a great deal to make the problems of Alfreton and Ripley known to the Board of Trade. He has constantly pressed for the introduction of industry to the area. He has led deputations to see my predecessor as Minister of State, one deputation from Ripley in June, 1967 and one from Alfreton as recently as 7th March, 1968. We are grateful to him.
  I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend had to say about his area tonight. This part of the Erewash Valley has already seen a considerable decline in coal mining. I can understand and sympathise with the concern of the local community when further pits close. However great the economic justification for closures in particular cases and the redeployment which follows, the effect on the individuals concerned is not something which we can ignore.
  Alfreton is still heavily dependent on coal mining, with about a quarter of the insured population engaged in the industry. I join my hon. Friend straight

  1335
  away in paying tribute to the enterprise of the urban district council, which has itself purchased a site of 60 acres for industrial development and has an option from the National Coal Board for the purchase of a further 33 acres adjacent to that site. Facilities of this sort are an essential prerequisite of development and should be attractive to industrialists.
  The urban district of Ripley falls partly in the Alfreton Ministry of Labour employment exchange area and partly in the Belper area, while it abuts on to the Heanor area. Belper is far less heavily dependent on coal mining than either Alfreton or Heanor, but Ripley has undoubtedly suffered from the decline in coal mining in recent years and, like Alfreton, is still heavily dependent on the industry.
  As my hon. Friend said, Alfreton colliery, which is near the urban district of Alfreton, and Denby colliery, which is near Ripley, have both closed this year. I understand that of the 410 men affected at Denby just over 140 were made redundant, while at Alfreton some 120 became redundant out of a total of 530. Swan-wick pit, also near Alfreton, currently employs 785. This pit has been in jeopardy since August 1967, and I understand that the National Coal Board has recently announced the closure date of 28th September.
  The Coal Board will, of course, try to offer alternative employment in coal mining to as many men as possible. In this connection, it must be remembered that there are about 20 other pits in operation within a 10-mile radius of Alfreton. In addition, there will be a number of men retained for a period on salvage work. I appreciate, however, that in spite of these efforts a number of men will become redundant. A high proportion of those made redundant will be 55 or over, most of whom, if not of retirement age, will benefit from the new scheme recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Power.
  Under these arrangements, the men of 55 and over who become redundant will have their pay made up to 90 per cent. of their former take-home pay for three years, at the end of which time they will become eligible for their mine worker's pension straight away.
  1336
  I also agree with all my hon. Friend said about the adaptability of miners. That is no doubt one of the reasons why, despite the rundown in the coalmining industry, unemployment has not reached high rates in the area, though I can understand the concern. The average for Alfreton for 1967 was 2·2 per cent., while in Heanor it was 2·1 per cent., and in Be1per 1·5 per cent. There has been an increase recently, and in Alfreton the rate was 3·3 per cent. in March, compared with 2·4 per cent. in Heanor and 2·3 per cent. in Belper. These rates are not high compared with those of many colliery closure areas in development areas, where some places are very hard hit. Industrial development in the Erewash valley area and the proximity of such industrial towns as Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield have undoubtedly helped the area to cope with the colliery rundown and helped reduce the unemployment problem arising from it.
  One of the solutions put forward to cope with the colliery rundown is that the area should be scheduled as a development area. My hon. Friend understands the priority that must be given to development areas. Even if the circumstances of Alfreton and Ripley were thought to be comparable with colliery closure areas in the development areas—and in our view they are not—we have moved away from the designation of small individual development districts to broader development areas, taking account of wider regional circumstances.
  My hon. Friend also spoke about the problem of intermediate assistance. Here we must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Hunt Committee, which is examining the problem of the intermediate areas. Its report is expected this autumn. We could not make an exception in favour of one area and we do not think that it would be right to take action in advance of receiving the Committee's advice. The Committee has received evidence from the East Midlands Economic Planning Council and although this has not been published I can say that it pays particular attention to the problems of the East Midland colliery areas.
  This does not, however, mean that there is nothing we can do for the area. While we must pay full attention to the needs of the development areas

  1337
  for new industry we can and do administer the industrial development control flexibly outside the development areas. From the beginning of 1965 to the end of February, 1968, 40 certificates were approved for projects in the three exchange areas of Alfreton, Heanor and Belper. The total area was 875,000 square feet, and the developers estimated their additional labour requirements at nearly 750, of which about 590 were for males. The action of Alfreton Urban District Council in providing land for industrial development should be of great help in attracting industry. While its efforts to do this have not so far been successful this task is essentially of a long-term nature, and I hope that it will continue and will be successful.
  For our part, the development areas must continue to have first priority, but subject to this any project suited to the needs and resources of the AlfretonRipley area would be granted an industrial development certificate. I hope that this assurance helps my hon. Friend. We shall not lose sight of the problems which have been put forward so tenaciously and ably by him. I assure him that we shall operate a generous industrial development certificate policy
  1338
  throughout the area. I must also emphasise the need for the local councils to do their utmost to help themselves. That is why I particularly commended. as did my hon. Friend, Alfreton's action in buying land for development and advertising it widely. There is also the problem of clearing up dereliction, on which the older miners can perhaps be employed.
  My hon. Friend referred to the desirability of the Board of Trade's becoming a kind of location of industry bureau. I am grateful for what he said about the Board of Trade regional office. I know that he and his local authorities have been active in drawing the attention of the Board of Trade's regional controller to industrial sites in the area and I am sure that the controller will likewise draw those sites to the attention of any suitable inquirers.
  I shall take note of all my hon. Friend's suggestions and take an early opportunity of accepting his invitation to visit his constituency so that I can study the problem on the spot.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Four o'clock a.m.

COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Kenya (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Kenya (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Malaysia (Joint Air Defence System)
  Malaysia (Joint Air Defence System)
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Fiji Minister's Visit
  Fiji Minister's Visit
  Gibraltarians (Immigration Control)
  Gibraltarians (Immigration Control)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
  British Steel Corporation (Union Rights)
  British Steel Corporation (Union Rights)
  British Steel Corporation (Pension Scheme)
  British Steel Corporation (Pension Scheme)
  Generation and Demand (Wales)
  Generation and Demand (Wales)
  Residual Fuel Oils (Import Costs)
  Residual Fuel Oils (Import Costs)
ELECTRICITY
  Transmission Costs
  Transmission Costs
  Underground Cables (Research)
  Underground Cables (Research)
  Hartlepool Power Station
  Hartlepool Power Station
GAS
  Supply Charges, Normanton
  Supply Charges, Normanton
  Naphtha (Average Price)
  Naphtha (Average Price)
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Algerian Methane (Price)
  Algerian Methane (Price)
  Production
  Production
  Industry Costs
  Industry Costs
COAL
  Undistributed Stocks
  Undistributed Stocks
  Pit Closures (Deferments)
  Pit Closures (Deferments)
  Energy Conversion
  Energy Conversion
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Sodium Fluoride
  Sodium Fluoride
  Meat Imports (Inspection)
  Meat Imports (Inspection)
  Personal Case (Mrs. Hamilton)
  Personal Case (Mrs. Hamilton)
  Medical Practitioners (Abortions)
  Medical Practitioners (Abortions)
  Overseas Medical Practitioners
  Overseas Medical Practitioners
  Exchequer Grants (Brighton)
  Exchequer Grants (Brighton)
HOSPITALS
  New Redditch Hospital
  New Redditch Hospital
  Maternity Cases, Leicester
  Maternity Cases, Leicester
  Queen Hotel, Harrogate (Regional Hospital Board Staff)
  Queen Hotel, Harrogate (Regional Hospital Board Staff)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Local Authority Building Contracts (Payments)
  Local Authority Building Contracts (Payments)
  Thames Towpath (Oxford and Berkshire)
  Thames Towpath (Oxford and Berkshire)
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  Ministry of Defence Land (Sale)
  Ministry of Defence Land (Sale)
  Land Availability (Land Commission Survey)
  Land Availability (Land Commission Survey)
  National Park and Countryside Commission (Title)
  National Park and Countryside Commission (Title)
  Wash Barrage (Study)
  Wash Barrage (Study)
  Green Belts
  Green Belts
  Allotments, Lutterworth
  Allotments, Lutterworth
HOUSING
  Notices to Quit
  Notices to Quit
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Rate Rebates (High Peak)
  Rate Rebates (High Peak)
  Rents (Gateshead)
  Rents (Gateshead)
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Brighton
  Brighton
  Rate Rebates (Brighton)
  Rate Rebates (Brighton)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Export Rebate
  Export Rebate
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Earnings Abroad
  Earnings Abroad
  New Construction (Public Investment)
  New Construction (Public Investment)
  Trade and Gold Reserve Figures (Publication)
  Trade and Gold Reserve Figures (Publication)
  P11D Forms
  P11D Forms
  Hong Kong (Monetary Arrangements)
  Hong Kong (Monetary Arrangements)
  Real Personal Incomes
  Real Personal Incomes
  Export Market
  Export Market
  Departmental Announcements
  Departmental Announcements
  Betting Duty (Checks)
  Betting Duty (Checks)
  Civil Servants (Alleged Offences)
  Civil Servants (Alleged Offences)
  Standard of Living
  Standard of Living
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Anguilla (Economic Aid)
  Anguilla (Economic Aid)
  University of Salisbury (Grant)
  University of Salisbury (Grant)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  YOUTH EXCHANGES (EUROPE)
  YOUTH EXCHANGES (EUROPE)
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉS (SCOTTISH VISITS)
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉS (SCOTTISH VISITS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  INCOMES POLICY
  INCOMES POLICY
  ALUMINIUM SMELTERS
  ALUMINIUM SMELTERS
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS (POLICY DISCUSSIONS)
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS (POLICY DISCUSSIONS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (PUBLIC SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (PUBLIC SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
  PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
  WEST HAM TRADES COUNCIL LETTER
  WEST HAM TRADES COUNCIL LETTER
  MINISTERS (POLICE ESCORTS)
  MINISTERS (POLICE ESCORTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Forestry (New Planting)
  Forestry (New Planting)
  Meat (Import from South America)
  Meat (Import from South America)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Radar Research Station, Orfordness
  Radar Research Station, Orfordness
  Overseas Defence Expenditure
  Overseas Defence Expenditure
  Service Safety Teams (Scotland)
  Service Safety Teams (Scotland)
  Holy Loch Base (Demonstrations)
  Holy Loch Base (Demonstrations)
  Contracts Office (Staff)
  Contracts Office (Staff)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Water Sports and Golf (Northern Region)
  Water Sports and Golf (Northern Region)
  Orchestral Activities (Arts Council Support)
  Orchestral Activities (Arts Council Support)
  Infants School, Wellingborough
  Infants School, Wellingborough
  Immigrant Scientists and Engineers
  Immigrant Scientists and Engineers
  Arts Council (London Expenditure)
  Arts Council (London Expenditure)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Arley Colliery (Redundant Miners)
  Arley Colliery (Redundant Miners)
  Kingsbury Colliery (Redundant Miners)
  Kingsbury Colliery (Redundant Miners)
POST OFFICE
  Postmark, Northampton
  Postmark, Northampton
  Sub-Office, South Shields
  Sub-Office, South Shields
  Postal Delays, Corby
  Postal Delays, Corby
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Pay Television
  Pay Television
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Deaths from Poisoning
  Deaths from Poisoning
  Bridges (Exchequer Cost)
  Bridges (Exchequer Cost)
  Architects (Public Projects)
  Architects (Public Projects)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Hearings)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (Hearings)
TECHNOLOGY
  Wear Shipyards (Grouping Proposals)
  Wear Shipyards (Grouping Proposals)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Aluminium Smelters
  Aluminium Smelters
TRANSPORT
  Bridges (Cost)
  Bridges (Cost)
  Fare Increases, London
  Fare Increases, London
RAILWAYS
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carl isle Line
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carl isle Line

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

MOUNTED POLICE AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
2.36 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: 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 under what circumstances mounted police can proceed against the flow of traffic in a one-way street.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, mounted police are not prevented by the law as it stands from proceeding against traffic in a one-way street, and they may of course be required to do so on occasion in pursuance of their duties. This statement of the situation does not apply to motorways, where horse-riding is prohibited.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the afternoon of March 17, at 3 p.m., a group of ten mounted policemen trotted as fast as trotting is I believe possible up Park Lane the wrong way in the fast lane, causing the whole of the fast lane and part of the second lane to be completely closed to on-coming traffic; and that only twenty yards to the left they could have proceeded along Park Lane the correct way? Is it not possibly a danger to public safety that they should proceed against on-coming traffic in this manner, when by proceeding twenty yards the other way they can proceed with safety?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly I cannot be expected to know whether police trotted up Park Lane on March 17. I would only say to the noble Lord that
158
if he had knowledge of a case of this sort it would be infinitely more economical if he had written to me, and I could have dealt with it. I hope that the noble Lord will take into account in future the cost to the taxpayer in answering Questions of this sort where clearly the noble Lord has something more in mind than the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that a great many of us are very willing to see the police ignoring regulations when carrying out their duties; and, also, that a great many of us would wish to express our admiration and appreciation for the manner in which they carry out those duties?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that we all join with the noble Lord in his appreciation, but I think I should correct him. The police do not break regulations: they are entitled, as I have said, to move against the traffic.

IMMIGRANTS: EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES
2.39 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unemployment figures, the alleged concealed redundancy in industry and the excessive pressure on housing, schools and other social services, they will suspend the issue of work vouchers to immigrants for an experimental period of twelve months.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): No, my Lords.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that exceptionally lucid reply, may I ask him whether, although of course there would have to be exceptions to an experiment of this kind—and exceptions not based on colour—nevertheless, since the basic problem of immigration is not colour but numbers, it would not somewhat ease our difficulties if the future flow of dependants were reduced? Will he also

159
bear in mind that it would undoubtedly be welcomed warmly by a large majority of the electorate?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not really think we can debate again the policy on immigration. If the noble Lord is satisfied that my reply is lucid, perhaps he will be content with that. Of course, many of the dependants who are coming in, and causing some of the pressure on the social services, are coming in because their husbands or parents are already here; and any reduction in the number of vouchers would not affect the position.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his reply means that Her Majesty's Government are not going to take any steps at all to relieve the pressure in future?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite did not find my Answer lucid. The Question was whether the Government will:
"suspend the issue of work vouchers to immigrants for an experimental period of twelve months",
and the Answer was, No, the Government would not.
LORD THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, arising out of that reply may I ask the noble Lord this further question? Of course, when a work voucher is issued it effectively gives a right to the man to whom it is issued to stay in this country with his dependants after him. Have the Government given consideration, on receipt of such an application, to inquiring how many applicants the immigrant proposes to bring in, and allowing that to be a factor in deciding whether the voucher be issued or not; and, if not, why not?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we cannot raise again now the whole question of policy behind the admission of immigrants, but obviously all relevant considerations are taken into account. It is expected that many of those who come to this country—and I take it that this relates to work vouchers as applied to Commonwealth immigrants—will bring their families in at the time or at a later date; and the numbers have been fixed with that factor in mind.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that the assumption underlying the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is false—the implication that immigrants take the jobs of British workers? This is not true. Surely, it is not true. They do the jobs that British workers either are reluctant or do not wish to do.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am trying to keep the Question as narrow as I can. I agree that the answer was implied in the noble Lord's Question. It is, of course, a fact that the particular arrangements for work vouchers for Commonwealth immigrants—and this does not apply to Kenya immigrants, where different criteria apply—meet their particular circumstances of need. But in relation to ordinary work vouchers, they come under a most carefully controlled scheme; indeed, in many cases employers have waited for some months for them to arrive. Presumably, therefore, they have not been able to fill the jobs in other ways.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, arising from the last answer given by the Minister, may we know whether the special needs of the Kenyan Indians are being considered before those of other immigrants?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that is really a completely different question.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House in a position to give a denial to published reports that in certain areas whence immigrants can come to this country more than one wife is permitted, which can inconveniently increase the number of applicants for entry here?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is an interesting speculation. Perhaps I might just tell the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, that in fact different criteria do apply in regard to East African immigrants.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that the implication behind my original Question is not that suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, of immigrants taking the jobs of native workers? Does the noble Lord not realise that it is in fact the steady

161
build-up of pressure on all our social services and the problems arising from excessive numbers due to a steady flow of dependants?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord in fact refers in his Question to the unemployment figures and the alleged concealed redundancy.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the experiment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were put into effect the hospitals would practically not be able to continue? We very much welcome Lord Shackleton's reply.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to answer ray question, or would he prefer me to put down a separate Question?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put it down on another occasion I shall welcome it.

IMMIGRANTS: EFFECT ON HOUSING PROBLEMS
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the appropriate Minister will receive a deputation from the London and Counties Tenants' Federation in order that it may make representations as to the hardships suffered by native tenants and houseowners as a result of immigration.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not been asked by the Federation to receive a deputation on these matters, but he knows that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs was asked to receive one and declined. The Federation sent a report to the Home Office at the end of January. The views expressed in that report had already been made known by the Federation in a number of letters to the Home Office and at a meeting with officers of that Department last October. Having seen the report, my right honourable friend is
162
satisfied that no useful purpose would be served if he agreed to receive a deputation from the Federation.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I think is reasonable, does he nevertheless not think that, particularly at a time when the Government are about to redress some of the undoubted grievances of immigrants in respect of housing, it might have a useful effect on public opinion if the Government were at pains, and known to be at pains, to acquaint themselves with the equally undoubted grievances of some of the native population?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government are fully acquainted with the grievances of tenants of both colours, and with the grievances of landlords of both colours and of all shades in between.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that immigrants help to build far more houses than they could ever possibly hope to acquire for themselves, and these houses are for the native people of Britain?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I would not be willing to endorse the precise calculations upon which the noble Baroness has based her supplementary question, but it certainly is a fact that immigrants help to build houses.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that although, of course, a sudden pressure of immigrants is undesirable, in that it increases our difficulties on every side, once the immigrants are here and are working they are contributing by means of income tax and ordinary taxation in regard to health, and so on, to the, social services which are being provided? In other words they share in the expenses.
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that a deputation such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would be more to the point if it were to meet with their coloured neighbours and, instead of making complaints, were to offer their help to their less fortunate neighbours?
LORD KENNET: Again, the answer is, Yes, my Lords.

PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
2.48 p.m.
LORD WADE: 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 in their view it is consistent with the public interest that an accused should be sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of murder without any of the evidence against him becoming available to the public at any stage of the proceedings.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary suggested in a circular to chief constables of November, 1967, and as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice made clear in his Practice Direction last week, the prosecution should state the facts in open court before sentence is passed on a person who has pleaded guilty to murder, or to any other offence, after being committed for trial, under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, without consideration of the evidence.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Does not the recent case at the Leeds Assizes, and the fact that it was necessary for the Lord Chief Justice to issue this Direction following that case, indicate that there are some anomalies in the operation of the Criminal Justice Act 1967? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have received any representations from the Institute of Journalists or other bodies on this subject, and on the closely related subject of the ban on Press reporting of committal proceedings and, if so, what has been the outcome?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not accept that an anomaly has been disclosed in the Sokol case, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is referring. Prosecuting counsel wished to give the facts, and both he and counsel
164
for the defence drew the attention of the judge to the Home Office circular, but the judge considered a statement of the facts to be unnecessary. What happened in this case did not arise from a defect in the provision of the law, but because guidance as to its implementation was disregarded.
With regard to the inquiry about representations, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has received a letter from the Institute of Journalists asking for immediate revision of the Criminal Justice Act. The letter was sent on April 1, which was the date on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice issued the Practice Direction. I am convinced that my right honourable friend's advice in this matter and the Practice Direction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice are entirely sufficient.
With regard to the noble Lord's third question on the reporting of proceedings, this arises entirely from a misconception. The Sokol case arose over Section 1 of the 1967 Act, and there was therefore nothing to report other than the man's name, the nature of the offence and the fact that he was committed. Even if there had been no Section 3 in the Criminal Justice Act there would have been nothing to report in the newspapers.
LORD WADE: My Lords, is it not conceivable that an innocent person might be persuaded to plead guilty by some criminal gang through threats to life and limb, and that such a gang would be encouraged in taking that course if it were thought that no part of the proceedings would be reported or even that the committal proceedings would not be reported?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is possible to devise theoretical and hypothetical cases which conceivably could get round the law. But I do not find it conceivable, even if such an unfortunate person under threats pleaded guilty in such circumstances, that he would not disclose the true facts between the committal proceedings in the magistrates' court and the actual trial in a higher court.

FUTURE BUSINESS: THEFT BILL
2.53 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question about business. I must apologise for not having given him notice beforehand. My question is whether he would tell your Lordships why the Government have found it necessary to put down the Third Reading of the Theft Bill for to-morrow and whether he would also tell your Lordships what the hurry is about this Bill. Would he also bear in mind three considerations: first, that the House finished the Report stage of the Theft Bill only late last night, and it has proved to be a Bill about which there has been a great difference of opinion—not a Party difference so far as noble Lords on this side are concerned?
Secondly, there is no precedent—there may be a precedent but it is a very bad precedent—for a Third Reading of a much discussed Bill to follow so closely on Report stage; and it may very well be that the Bill as amended will not be printed until to-morrow or to-night and so your Lordships will not have an opportunity of seeing the Bill as amended. Lastly, will he bear in mind that the Bill is down for its Third Reading after the economic debate to-morrow in which there are 17 speakers, and it means that the House will be taking this Bill very late. I wonder whether, in the light of these three considerations, he will not think it unreasonable to ask your Lordships to take the Third Reading to-morrow.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that both my noble friend the Chief Whip and I will always have the most careful regard to the convenience of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am very glad to see back (because I know that he has not been very well lately), probably is not personally aware—he may have benefited in this sense—of the amount of consideration your Lordships have given to this Bill, and not for one moment would I suggest that this consideration was not necessary. Indeed, if I may say so, it has given rise to some of the most fascinating debates, although it may be a little difficult for noble Lords to decide which side to support when a
166
noble and learned Law Lord goes into one Lobby and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice into another. But, at any rate, the Bill has been very thoroughly discussed.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on Committee stage himself spoke in total for well over four hours, which is equivalent to a sitting day in our House—and this is not to suggest that it was not very desirable. But the House considered the Bill in Committee on six occasions, and we had a further very lengthy discussion on Report. I could give some rather interesting statistics about this Bill. I do not know of any Bill of this kind which has ever been quite so exhaustively considered. My noble friend has, I think, accepted or made 34 Amendments. He has also accepted, so that the matter can come back to this House, the principle of an absolutely major Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, wanted to put down. If it is rejected in another place this House will have an opportunity to discuss it. It is perfectly within the rights of this House to take the Third Reading to-morrow, and we have every hope that the re printed Bill will be available to-day.
There is an urgency about this Bill, as there always is about all legislation, in relation to the timetable. I would suggest that this is a Bill which raises a number of very important paints, but most of them are individual points, rather than general to the Bill as a whole, and I should not have thought, after the thorough consideration that has been given, in which this House really has done a very thorough and, I think, very good job, that it would be necessary to do more than give it a formal Third Reading. I am well aware of the importance of reserving the rights of this House, but the Government have bent over backwards to be helpful—and. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne will
accept this. We have studied their convenience in every way; we have met at particular times which have not been very convenient to the House. All the Government are now asking is that, having completed the major part of the work on this Bill, we should now dispatch it to another place where it will be subject again to very thorough procedure. It will come under the Second

167
Reading Committee procedure there, and it will make considerable difference to the Bill's progress if we can get it through before the Easter Recess.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, is always very reasonable and very silver-tongued, but on this occasion I do not find him entirely convincing. What he is saying, so far as I can judge, is that because there has been considerable discussion, both in Committee and on Report stage, there is no need to have a Third Reading. That seems to me, if I may say so, to be a novel constitutional doctrine. The Third Reading is there for a particular purpose, and your Lordships will want to reflect on what has been said on Report and Committee stage, and to make speeches on Third Reading. If we have Third Reading to-morrow it will be very late indeed after a debate in which 17 speakers have indicated their wish to take part. We know how long speakers take on economic affairs, and I hesitate to say when that debate will be over. I wonder whether the noble Lord would have a look at it again and see whether some other time could not be found. Is there really all that much hurry?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know how far the Government can go in making concessions. As I have said, we have conceded an Amendment, so that there is no need to move it on Third Reading. What I put forward is not a novel doctrine at all. Of course the House always has the right to debate any Bill and can exercise that right on Third Reading. But I have made the point that, on the whole, most of the issues of this Bill are not so much of a Third Reading kind, and it is the usual practice—or perhaps I should say a frequent practice—that a Bill which has been exhaustively debated on Committee and Report frequently goes through on Third Reading "on the nod". The noble Lord shakes his head, but I can remember many occasions. If the noble Lord wants it, then I think, although we have tried to have regard to the convenience of the House, that as another place will be sitting on Thursday we can take it on that day. We have tried to avoid
168
doing this, but it may be that this is the only solution.
Looking at it, and having heard a great deal of the debates myself, I really do not believe that there is much more to be done to this Bill. This is a considered opinion. We do not stand on strict formality in this House unless it is necessary. If the House wishes to exercise its rights, then it is within the power of the House to do so. But when the Government have in fact made so many concessions and been so accommodating in regard to the convenience of the House, I think it is not unreasonable to ask at this stage that we let the Bill go through formally, or quite shortly.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is right for him to prejudge the wishes of the House in this matter? What is the objection to taking the Third Reading on the day when we return after the Recess?
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in his first reply the noble Lord the Leader of the House brought me into the discussion. I did not know that I had spoken for four hours, but I hope the House will allow me to say something which might last about five minutes. The noble Lord has spoken of "concessions" and "bending over backwards". Perhaps he will allow me to say that those of us who have taken part have done precisely the same thing. It would have been quite easy for the Report stage not to have
been concluded last night. Had we endeavoured to hold up the Bill it would not have been concluded, and we could not have had the Third Reading on Wednesday.
We have bent over backwards in the consideration of this most important Bill.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House says that a concession has been made with regard to one Amendment. I understand that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has made a concession in saying that he will not move an Amendment that he wanted to move on Third Reading. I just draw attention to this. It may be that the Bill itself, as amended, will not be in the hands of Members of this House until to-morrow. But one thing is quite certain. The Hansard of the Report stage in its completed form will certainly not be in

169
Members' hands until to-morrow. Surely it is right that we should have an opportunity of considering what has been said on Report before we have Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on his most important Amendment, concluded his speech with these words:
"I would ask permission to be allowed to withdraw this Amendment in order that it may receive further consideration in due course before it goes to another place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/4/68, col. 136.]
I have Hansard here. Under this present programme, the Bill will go to another place on Thursday. That does not allow much time for consideration. If the urgency is so great as the noble Lord suggests, I for one, as I think he knows, have not tried to hold up the progress of the Bill. I think it is unfortunate to take it so late after a long debate. Certainly I do not think that the Third Reading should be formal, because there are a few observations that ought to be made. But so far as I am concerned, so long as it is not regarded as a precedent and while I think it is most undesirable, if it is absolutely essential I can be here late tomorrow night.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Of course, the reference to the length of his speaking was intended to show his assiduity and thoroughness rather than to import any criticism. I acknowledge that throughout this Bill there have been continual discussions of an informal nature, some perhaps more satisfactory than others; and the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, have shown themselves in a mood of accommodation. I do not find the Hansard argument entirely convincing, since the noble Viscount has in fact quoted from the Hansard in question.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, this was the first part. Hansard concludes with the words:
"For Continuation of Proceedings see Official Report for Tuesday, 9th April."
That will appear on Wednesday.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, practically nothing of major significance happened after that point. Presumably noble Lords who were present at the time and were following the debate
170
would have some recollection of what passed. I would not ask noble Lords to accept this were there not a genuine urgency for it. The other place has a heavy programme. Noble Lords are aware that Governments are inclined to cram too much into a pint pot, but if we do not send it to another place it will delay the Second Reading there, and the Bill will not get into Committee until quite a time afterwards.
I know that the concessions that have been made on both sides have shown a willingness to meet the convenience of all concerned, and I hope that the House will accept this procedure. The point made by the noble and learned Viscount that there should not be a precedent is, I think, most important. It is no use saying that something will not be a precedent if in fact it is subsequently quoted as a precedent. The point is well taken, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. If he could be here to-morrow evening and we could pass this Bill through, it would be greatly for the convenience of this legislation and. I hope, would make for the reputation of this House in having due regard for its responsibilities, while showing a certain amount of flexibility for the convenience of Parliament as a whole.
3.6 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he appreciates this point? I say at once that I do not wish to stand in the way of, or do anything contrary to, the agreement just reached. The noble Lord has spoken about the concessions of the Government. But, after all, it is the right of this House, if it thinks fit, to move and have considered Amendments on Third Reading. It is impossible to put down those Amendments until a print of the Bill, as amended on Report, is available. Therefore, this cannot possibly be done in time for to-morrow.
I gather that I personally shall slightly benefit by what has been done, because I understand that the Amendment that is to be accepted by Her Majesty's Government is the one that I advocated on Clause 11 yesterday. But I think there was an even more important matter that was discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack promised, as one would expect, the most

171
careful consideration. The whole House understood that, as Lord Stow Hill understood it. to mean that we should get the result of that consideration by Third Reading, so that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, could consider what further action he should take in this House before the Bill goes to another place. I think it is most important that all these rights have been thrust aside.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to take up further your Lordships' time. There is some dispute as to what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said or meant. I know specifically what he has told us he meant; namely, that he would be content that this matter should be considered in another place. I would say that my noble friend Lord Stonham, in what I hope may be a brief debate to-morrow—although it will be in the hands of the House—will again list those matters on which the Government are willing to give the fullest consideration in another place.
Noble Lords may talk about concessions. We know that in your Lordships' House we operate a basis of making some concessions to one another. We have no control over the hours we sit, other than what your Lordships may decide. On the whole, I think this has worked out fairly reasonably, and I think that the particular issues that would have been the subject of amendment tomorrow have, in one way or another, either been postponed or disposed of so that it will not be necessary to move them. I have every hope that the Bill will in fact be in your Lordships' hands to-morrow.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not wish to continue this matter. I must say that I am totally unconvinced by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. Nobody could possibly have a more reasonable Opposition than he has in this House at present. Sometimes I think that we are a good deal too reasonable. When I cast my mind back and think of what the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough would have said if, when we were in government, we had proposed what the Leader of the House has proposed to-day, my imagination boggles. As a final shot, I would merely say this. Apparently we are
172
doing this out of consideration for the convenience of another place. I hope that the noble Lord will take it from me that in the latter part of this Session we shall be watching to see that the House of Commons gives as much consideration to this place as we give to them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I do not embarrass the noble Lord, may I say that among my blessings is the noble Lord himself. I distinguish a certain difference between the previous Opposition and the present Opposition. I am grateful for this, and it shows the responsibility which the particular strength which the noble Lord has sitting on his side may to some extent impose on him. I am accustomed to the noble Lord firing off in strong terms just when he is being particularly conciliatory. Although I can never guarantee that I shall secure all the consideration that your Lordships' House may feel is its due, I shall always do my utmost to get it. We are following this procedure not merely for the convenience of another place but for the convenience of Parliament as a whole.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, what special urgency has arisen since eleven o'clock last night? I find it difficult to believe that during the whole of the time between three o'clock yesterday afternoon and eleven o'clock last night Her Majesty's Government were not well aware that they were going to propose the Third Reading of the Bill within 48 hours. Would it not have been courteous to the House to have informed the House at some stage yesterday that this was going to be done? Valuable time has already been lost between last night and this afternoon on the part of those noble Lords who wish to take an interest in the Third Reading to-morrow.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government have always made clear that they hope to have this Bill by Easter. I am sorry that the noble Lord feels he has not employed his time as profitably as he might have done if he had known that the Bill was coming up for Third Reading to-morrow night. But I do not think that he has wasted much time. Presumably he has slept during some of the time, and some ideas for a brief speech may have occurred to him. I

173
suggest that the situation has in no way changed. For the reasons I have already stated, it would not have been possible for the Government to say—indeed it would be an act of hubris—that they expected to have the Third Reading on Wednesday, when we did not know whether we should get the Report stage completed last night. Where it not for the co-operation of noble Lords opposite we might not have done so, but now, happily, we are able to proceed.

BUSINESS
3.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope it will be for the general convenience of the House, and acceptable to all sides, if I say that dinner will be served between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. this evening.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, will there be any adjournment? I understand that on both sides of the House the same people will be involved all the way through. Unless we are going to starve them, a short adjournment will be helpful.
LORD BESWICK: On this occasion I thought that we should be assisting both sides of the Committee if we did not have an adjournment this evening. I hope that, despite the later start, we shall not be too late this evening.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I hope that the Chief Whip will make the same announcement about to-morrow night.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how he proposes to complete the business, in view of the fact that so far the noble Lord, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is the only person who has handled the Bill on the Government side?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are all filled with admiration for my noble friend Lord Hughes. The day when my noble friend says he wants assistance we shall rush to his side.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now lead 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I do not think that we ought to part with this Bill without my repeating what I said to a very small House at Committee stage; namely, that this is one of the biggest consolidations of English Statute law which has ever taken place. The Law Commission have taken the 24 Acts dealing with rent, repealed half of them and consolidated the rest. The whole of our Statute Law on this subject is now, at last, logically arranged and in one place—a great boon and blessing to man. If it is your Lordships' wish, I would inform the Chairman and members of the Joint Consolidation Committee of our appreciation of its work, not as a formality, but because the consideration of a Bill of this length in this kind of consolidation has involved much more work than usually is tin case. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now piss.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (51) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–5]
Clause 4, page 4, line 4, after ("master") insert ("or commander")
Clause 4, page 4, line 5, after ("ship") insert ("or aircraft")
Clause 16, page 8, line 41, at end insert ("and for the purposes of section 4 an aircraft,")
Clause 16, page 8, line 45, at end insert ("or aircraft")
In the Title, line 8, at end insert ("or aircraft").
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth now agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5. These Amendments are all related to each other. The purpose of Clause 4 of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty's Government to provide by Order in Council for the partial relinquishment of jurisdiction over certain disputes about wages and contracts of crew members on board foreign ships in British waters. Provision is made for this on a reciprocal basis in most of our consular conventions. The effect of the Amendments is to extend the clause so as to enable an Order to be made in the case of civil aircraft as well as in the case of ships. It is not usual for us to include civil aircraft in this type of provision, but we have two Conventions, one with Poland and the other with Bulgaria, signed on February 23, 1967, and March 13 last, respectively. We think it right that we should make this provision so that we may ratify those Conventions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having explained the Amendments to this Bill which were made in another place. Of course we accept them since
they were originally proposed by the Opposition there. I am glad that the Government have accepted the extension of the provisions of Clause 4 to aircraft, but I see that they have not accepted the extension in regard to Clauses 5 and 6.
I understand that the argument is that Clause 4 deals with civil proceedings, whereas Clauses 5 and 6 are concerned with criminal proceedings, but, apart from stating this obvious difference, the Minister in another place and the noble Lord to-day did not explain why a ship should be treated differently from an aircraft. Surely, with the great increase in air transport there is little point in differentiating between the two. The most
176
recent incidents concerning consuls have been in aircraft, not in ships. The case was argued fully in another place and I do not propose to repeat the arguments in this House, but I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord has anything to add on this point. Could he also say something about hovercraft? It is still not clear whether hovercraft are to be counted as aircraft or ships. As we know, there is likely to be a considerable increase in the use of hovercraft, so I hope the noble Lord may be able to tell us something about that point.
I hoped on this occasion to say something further about the cases of Mr. Gerald Brooke in Russia, and Mr. Watt, Mr. Grey and Mr. Barrymaine in China, but although their cases are certainly relevant to the Bill, and particularly to Clause 3, I do not think they are relevant to the Amendments which we are discussing. All I would say, therefore, is that those British subjects are a matter of great interest to your Lordships; their fate is of interest to us all, and I hope that the Government will continue to press for our consuls to have access to them. But so far as the Amendments are concerned, we accept them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I fear that I have nothing further to add about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, but the noble Earl may be assured that we have this matter very much in mind. I do not think I have anything further to add to what was said in another place in regard to bringing aircraft under the provisions of Clause 4. As the noble Earl himself said, this is a matter which was raised by the Opposition in another place, and after careful consideration we felt it right that we should accept their point of view. The subject of hovercraft is well beyond the scope of the Amendments which are before your Lordships. But I will confirm to the noble Earl that a hovercraft is neither ship nor aircraft; it is something which has a special nature of its own. I believe that there will be further legislation in future which will deal with the position of hovercraft. Having said that, I hope that the House will accept the Commons Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 26 [Supervision and care of persons put on probation or released from prisons, etc.]:
Debate resumed on the Question, That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: In supporting this Amendment to delete the clause, may I first say how sorry I am not to have been present at the Second Reading debate on this Bill, owing to the fact that I was abroad. May I also say how grateful I am to my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell—he was kind enough so to refer to me and I am happy to return the compliment—for his speech on that occasion, and for putting down this Amendment and introducing it so ably and convincingly last Thursday. I think it is a pity that discussion of the Amendment had to be interrupted then, since I know that some noble Lords who were here then have not been able to be here to-day. Equally, there are some noble Lords here to-day who were not here on Thursday. But I am sure that anyone who is interested in this subject will have read the report of what my noble friend said on that occasion, and therefore I do not propose to go over the whole of the ground again, although I should like to reinforce some of the points he made.
The view strongly held in the probation and after-care service in Scotland is that it would be a grave mistake not to keep an independent probation service for adults, and the main reasons for that are these. First, the probation officer is a specialist, requiring special training and using special techniques. He has to deal
178
with offenders against the law, either as probationers or as discharged prisoners requiring after-care, and now also on parole. This involves a disciplinary element in his approach which does not arise in, and is quite foreign to, the approach of social workers dealing with children or old people or people s Suffering from some disability or misfortune;. It is very important that the probation officer's client should see him as an officer of the court, responsible to the court and exercising the court's authority, and not simply as one more council official taking an interest in his affairs. A measure of authoritativeness is essential if the relationship between the probation officer and his client is to produce results.
The courts themselves attach great importance to their special relationship with the probation and after-care service. Speaking as a magistrate, I know how much we value the close links between the bench and the probation officers with whom we work, and how much we should regret any weakening of those links. It is significant that the sheriffs substitute, who I understand are the opposite numbers, as it were, of the lay b niches in England, have declared themselves as most anxious to avoid the abolition of the probation service. I have no doubt that my noble friends who know more about the Scottish judicial system than I do will be referring to this point.
But there are other reasons why it is important that the probation and aftercare service should be independent of the local authorities. From the point of view of the service, a probation officer making a report to the court must feel free to be entirely objective and truthful, and not be inhibited by any consideration of the policies or feelings of any department of the local authority. How can this be if he is himself an employee of the authority? The same applies from the point of view of the public. Consider the case of a man against whom proceedings are brought by the local authority or who is in conflict with some department of it, as very often happens. Is he likely to have much confidence in the impartiality of the person appointed to advise, assist and befriend him, if that person is himself a servant of his opponent, the local authority? For all those reasons I cannot believe that probation and after-care, which is a specialist

179
service dealing with offenders against the law as an integral part of the penal system, can continue to function properly as part of a local authority social work department. I am encouraged in this view by the knowledge that it was
shared by the Kilbrandon Committee. But I accept that responsibility for children should be handed over to the new local authority service.
One of the arguments against keeping an independent probation service for adults only is that it would not be large enough to provide a proper career structure for its members, but I do not believe that that is so. I have no national figures on the point, but in one large combined probation area in Scotland over two-thirds of their work is now concerned with people over 17 years of age. But after-care is still in its infancy, parole has only just begun, and it may well be that prison welfare will also become a responsibility of the service as it already is in England. With all these developments, it is surely clear that in a very short time a service will be needed for adults only quite as large as the overall service of to-day, and that the need will continue to grow.
This is a Scottish Bill and it may be that English noble Lords will think that there may be some special reason why the abolition of the probation service would be a good idea in Scotland, even though it would not be so in England; but that is not so. The only real difference between the probation and aftercare service in Scotland and England lies in its administration, and arises from the fact that the lower courts in Scotland are not served by lay magistrates. In all other respects the functions of the service are exactly the same as they are in England, and this applies in particular to its relationships with the courts and with its clients. I ask English noble Lords to bear in mind how they would feel about a proposal to do away with the independence of the English probation service and to make it part of a local authority department. I ask them to consider whether the proposal to do so in Scotland now is not a threat and a warning of what may be in store for England, too.
I have put forward a number of reasons for keeping an independent pro-
180
bation service, but what seems to me conclusive is that all those best qualified to know what they are talking about are of the same opinion—the service itself, the courts with which the service works, and the Kilbrandon Committee. I very much hope that your Lordships will take the same view and support this Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: I was indeed sorry that I was not able to be here last Thursday to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, urge the deletion of this clause. To my mind, this is an important point; and if your Lordships will forgive rne, as the debate on it has been interrupted. perhaps I might recall to your Lordships something of what has gone on over the past few years in relation to this matter. This Bill stems largely from the Report by Lord Kilbrandon's Committee, and I think we should be aware and quite clear as to the conclusions which Lord Kilbrandon, one of our most eminent and humane Judges and Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland, and his Committee, came to on this particular matter of the independence of the probation service. The Report says that probation,
"as one of the methods to be applied by the criminal courts … will, of course, continue … the probation service as such will in future be related solely to the courts, and will occupy no similar special relationship with the juvenile panels,…"
It also says:
"The final resolution of questions about the future of the adult probation services goes well beyond our remit."
To be fair, I should say that there were some sentences in the Report which showed that there were two sides to the question—and this is manifestly the case.
The Kilbrandon Report pointed out that the immediate result of following the recommendations of that Committee would be a reduction in the number of persons employed in the probation service. The Report says:
"…we are … looking to many serving officers of the probation service to fulfil an essential part by transfer to the new social education department."
It also says:
"… we view with considerable regret the division which will necessarily result in an increasingly highly-trained organisation which has been painstakingly built up over the years".

181
That shows that these difficulties were realised; and it was only right that when the White Paper (Command 3065) was issued from Sir Andrew's House it should deal particularly with this question. It had not really been finalised in the Kilbrandon Report, but I think that paragraph 27 came down in a somewhat loaded way against the probation service, reporting the Kilbrandon Report as saying
"that the future equivalent of probation supervision of children should be provided within the new local authority department."
That is what they found it on. The White Paper goes on:
"This, as the Committee realised, necessitates change for the probation service and for its administration …"
And it concludes:
"The possible choices are to place the responsibility for these functions also on the local authority … or to set up a new service to carry out the more limited functions".
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. So far as the probation officers are concerned, their dealings with the local authority represent a very small part of their job, and it is a very indifferent argument to say that, because a small part of their job is looking after the juvenile delinquents, the under-16-year-olds, the whole service should be brought under the local authority administration.
Since the Kilbrandon Report was published the White Paper has put forward as an additional argument for putting the probation service under the local authority, to use the words of the White Paper,
"the assumption by the probation service of … the after-care of offenders released from penal institutions".
I cannot see the argument there. The probation service is already doing precisely this. To extend the work that is being done by the probation service to the welfare of released prisoners makes practically no difference at all, because the probation officer, when he is looking after somebody on probation, is of course looking into the welfare and the home life of the person concerned, and is consulting with the local authority welfare department about that person; and he will be doing precisely the same thing for the released offenders. Extension from persons on probation to prisoners' welfare is hardly a sufficient material difference to put the whole probation service under
182
the local authority. In fact, I think that that point is completely illogical, and rather shows that the authors of the White Paper were straining to justify a conclusion which they had already reached.
If we continue to have an independent probation service, it does not follow that the probation service will not be able to work at the welfare level in the local authority. The medical services work that way. Nobody is suggesting putting the medical services which do welfare work under the new welfare department. The child guidance clinics, which are mainly run by the education authority, will continue to operate with the welfare department as necessary. The education psychologists and psychiatrists, and the psychiatric social workers, will still be independent; they are not being put under the new welfare department. They will link up very closely with the welfare department, as they have done in the past. Association has very seldom led to any friction at all. Then, what about the social workers employed by hospitals? They are beyond the scope of the Bill. I should have thought there would have been more justification for bringing them into the scope of the Bill, so that they could have better pay. At present, they are poorly paid. There are so many other persons working kit the welfare level in the local authority who are not included in the Bill that I find it very difficult to justify why they have had to include the probation service.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, appreciates this point. Perhaps; he will recall that he himself said:
"… although the formation of a local authority social work department under the Bill will provide an integrated service able to tackle any social work problem, this does not mean that the new department can or should become a self-contained group within the local authority. It will be able to do its job properly only if it develops good working arrangements with schools, hospitals, general practitioners, the local health authority services, the courts and the police, as well as with planning and housing authorities with the Ministry of Social Security and with voluntary bodies of many kinds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/3/68, col. 800.]
We are asking only that to that list of bodies which will be working in
association with the new welfare service there should be added, to ensure co-operation, the probation service. I do not think that is asking a great deal. It is very

183
simple, if all these persons can be housed in the same building.
I do not want to go over all the other arguments that have been adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, but I want to emphasise that the courts, which are the important bodies in this matter (we are talking of juvenile delinquency) know and trust the probation officers. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, are, I think, tremendously important: that inquiries by the probation officers are not influenced by the local authorities; that things may well go wrong in some of these institutions which the local authority is charged by this Bill to run; and that it is possible for the probation officer to draw attention to things which are going wrong without fear of losing his job or failing to get promotion.
I think there is an overwhelming case for giving the after-care and prison welfare services to a distinct service of men who are trained for that kind of job, and therefore keeping on the probation service to do that. I understand that something like 50 per cent. of the present 250 probation officers in Scotland deal almost solely with adult cases. I am not absolutely certain of it; but that figure has been given me. So it is not such a small service. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, said, with the extension of the prison parole scheme coming into existence it is going to call for a positive increase in the numbers; so even if only one-half of the present probation officers in Scotland continue as probation officers, and if the others who want to transfer to the welfare services do so, an increase will be required in the number of probation officers to meet the increased work which comes from released prisoner welfare, and in respect of welfare inside the prisons, and so on.
There is another point which I think has not so far been mentioned. Probation has in it a very strong element of discipline, whereas I understand that the whole basis of this Bill in regard to the welfare department dealing with under 16-year olds is that there should be a permissive and an accepting relationship. Without that I do not think it would work. Finally, I want to echo what the noble Lord. Lord Wells-Pestell, said
184
about the excellence of the present service. The probation service in Scotland has come through a "sticky" time, it has come through fire and has been forged, and is now a very good service. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—and he is an Englishman—said that the probation service in Scotland is now perhaps one of the best organised, if not the best organised, and efficient services in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will not lightly allow the probation service in Scotland to be knocked on the head.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am in some slight difficulty in speaking to this Amendment, because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to imply that all interested parties had been fully and carefully consulted. His remarks appear in Hansard of April 4, 1968 (col. 1333), and he says:
"I would remind noble Lords that the Bill embodies the decision in the light of all the comments that have been made by all authorities who have been consulted, both statutory bodies and voluntary bodies, since the White Paper has been published. I would not pretend, and my right honourable friend would not pretend, that it has been easy to arrive at a decision on this matter."
The noble Lord was speaking to the first Amendment, and I took him to mean that those remarks covered the whole Bill. I hope this is so; because it seems to me, and I think to most people, that it should be so.
My difficulty is this. A letter from the Central Council of Probation Committees for Scotland complains that their request for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to put their views on the Bill was not granted. In another letter, from the vice-chairman of the Sheriff Substitute Association, the vice-chairman complains that although the Council of the Association sent the Secretary of State for Scotland a memorandum (one of ten pages, 23 paragraphs and a summary) on the White Paper, they received an acknowledgment but were granted no consultation at all. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read two or three sentences from this mammoth document which I think are relevant. Part of it says:
"However, the proposal that this new local authority department should also be responsible for the work among adult offenders which is at present performed by probation officers

185
raises different issues of principle and of feasibilities. These issues were not within the Kilbrandon Committee's remit and it is not clear how fully they were considered in the preparation of the White Paper."
It goes on to say:
"Since most cases of serious adult delinquency are dealt with in the sheriff courts, the proposal is of major importance to this Council. We believe that for effective treatment of offenders and in the prevention of crime the continued existence of an independent probation service for offenders over the age of 18 is necessary. We do not believe that the supervision of adult offenders, whether on probation after-care or on parole from penal institutions, could be appropriately or satisfactorily undertaken by social workers of a local authority department."
Towards the end, the memorandum reads:
"The continuation of an independent and efficient probation service for adults is perfectly practicable and, with reduced case-loads, would make better preventive work among offenders and their families possible. The probation service in Scotland has been steadily improving. Its abolition would involve a serious setback in the advance which has been achieved in the last 20 years in the treatment of offenders."
And there is much more of it.
The third body that is against putting the probation service under local authorities is the National Association of Probation Officers which covers England, Scotland, Wales and also, perhaps (I am not sure), Northern Ireland. It seems to me that some bodies have been more fully consulted than others and that those responsible for administering the law have been consulted only very superficially. I regard this as being wrong, for the reasons which have been mentioned and which are set out in the document from which I have quoted. The problems of combining the functions of welfare services, which are looking after old people, children and young people and their difficulties, are quite different from the problem of dealing with tough young thugs—which is what the probation officers have to do. I maintain that in both fields an expert is required. I think the authorities must be joined together so that they are large enough to be able to support this system. I think this is something that must not be shirked.
Many old people would not freely consult a combined welfare and court officer, as their neighbours might consider that they were in trouble with the law. One
186
of the great difficulties in dealing with old people—at least with decent old people—is the need to overcome their pride. In 1962 the Morison Committee said:
"A principal cause of the failure of the probation service to develop in Scotland as it should have done is that it has been regarded not as a court service but as a relatively minor local authority service."
Since then, largely as a result of that criticism, the probation service has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. Probation committees are ad hoc committees, and although they include local authority representatives, they are definitely not local authority committees. Why put the clock back? Why fly in the face of the Morison Report?
More and more probation officers are being called on to make reports to courts. As an example, of the kind of thing that is happening, may I say that in our own tiny probation service the officers, last year made 537 reports to the courts. Quite often they have to make reports on young offenders whom the local authorities have placed in care. These officers must be free from all political, financial or any other kind of bias, otherwise they cannot possibly do their work. Life and human nature being what it is, local authorities are not free of that bias. The officers must appear to be independent in the eyes of the public, as at the moment they do. An offender must consider a probation officer as an officer of the court exercising the authority of the court, and not merely as a welfare officer exercising welfare functions.
For various reasons we in Scotland are behind England in developing the social services. If these services were combined with the probation service I know perfectly well which service would become the "Cinderella" of the outfit, and I think it would be wrong. If the sheriffs had no confidence in the probation officers, they would be reluctant to use the probation service when sentencing young offenders. They would send many young offenders to gaol, which would not be desirable, but they would do so because they felt there was no alternative as they had no confidence in the probation service. Several sheriffs have told me that that would be their reaction, so I think this would be a retrograde step.

187
A large body of opinion in Scotland still regards putting a person on probation as "soft". Although such opinion is being slowly overcome, this proposal would be an enormous set-back. Work in connection with welfare services in prisons, and the after-care service, and when prisoners are released to the care of the probation service, should be more closely linked, and the follow-up should be organised. There I think that the same kind of people are being dealt with and the work should be combined. It is not sensible to try to combine welfare work among men and women who are on parole, men convicted of crimes of violence and people who have been in borstals and similar institutions with work in connection with deprived children, unfortunate children, old people and other people who are dealt with in the ordinary way by welfare workers. There may be a similarity in the welfare work, but, my hat! there is a difference in the people to whom it is applied, and that is an important point. It is not that the work is not the same; it is that the people are different. Different officers are used to dealing with different people, and their work cannot be combined.
How the services have been used, and the extent of the confidence of the people in this matter, is shown by last year's probation officer's report in our own tiny unit. The statutory visits made during the year totalled 4,788. The non-statutory and more or less voluntary visits, because people have confidence in these officers and consult them, numbered 3,512. Statutory visits received by delinquents totalled 3,206 and non-statutory visits, which again are voluntary, numbered 1.326. Here we have a good service. If we do not accept this Amendment we shall set back by twenty years or more the administration of justice in Scotland.
3.58 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: I wish to saw a few words in support of Lord Wells-Pestell's Amendment. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. It is a pity that the debate has been interrupted, but I have no doubt that noble Lords will have read what Lord Wells-Pestell said. Following his speech, and after the speeches of other noble Lords, there is little left that needs to be said. It is fair to point out that
188
no speech has been made opposing the Amendment, but there is one point which has not been mentioned and to which I should like briefly to refer.
It should be remembered that the clause contains a provision whereby appointments to the service shall be in the hands of the local authorities. I made that point in my speech during the Second Reading debate. I believe sincerely, and I think that other noble Lords agree with me, that the office of probation officer is a highly skilled and important technical position. Even though the Bill has been improved by amending Clause 1, and even though, as a result, we refer to counties and counties of cities, I believe that the appointments to the probation service should remain as they are now, and not be put in the hands of local authorities. I firmly believe that the probation officer should remain a servant of the court, and I should like to develop in some measure what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said about discipline.
I firmly believe that the welfare services in terms of children and young people should be of the permissive, the leadership, type, but there must be an element of discipline when it comes to the young thugs, to whom my noble friend Lord Stonehaven referred. Probation officers should come under the panoply of the court in order that the disciplinary nature of their work be made clear. After all, the courts are the ultimate sanction in the administration of the law. Though we seem to be concentrating our minds on children and young persons, this is a wide-ranging Bill and, as other noble Lords have pointed out, probation officers have other things to do besides attending the very young.
In conclusion I should like to refer to what my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell said about the situation in England. If this proposal were to take shape in Scotland, there would doubtless be an attempt to apply it to England. One could speak for a long time on the difference between our two legal systems. We had an instance of it to-day in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the reporting of committal proceedings. I would only remark that the sheriffs-substitute are professional lawyers and are not the opposite numbers

189
of the lay magistrates in this country. The object of my mentioning England is that we are on the threshold of receiving the Report of the Seebohm Committee and probably interesting new lines of thought on the treatment of young offenders and children in care will come out in that Report; and I believe that the existing system in Scotland should be interfered with as little as possible until we have the findings of that Committee. I support the Amendment.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: In spite of my Scottish name I am afraid that I can speak only as an Englishman, but I cannot let my noble friend's Amendment go through without brief support. The arguments have been well put forward, and I will not go through them. I will simply stress two points. A number of noble Lords meet and are in close contact with probation officers and magistrates and I, from the angle of prisons and after-care, have much to do with the service. We are all unanimous in our admiration for this service, and for the individuals who work in it. Surely their opinion should count a little in what we do to them. I understand that the probation service in England is solidly in favour of this proposal, and that only a minority is against it in Scotland. That being the case, I think it is rash to go this far in opposition to what we all believe to be one of the best services this country has yet produced.
The second point I want to mention has also been made before. Social work is integrally different from probation work. It is like an ambulance arriving at an accident. Somebody is found in a mess, and something has to be done for him. Whether or not the driver was drunk in charge has nothing to do with the ambulance and the social workers, but it has very much something to do with the probation officer. His approach to his client has to be different, a good deal more different, than that of the purely social worker. These are the only two points I want to raise. If this had been brought in for our probation service South of the Border, I should have been obliged to vote against my leaders and everybody else, I am so certain it is wrong. As it affects our cousins North of the Border, I do not
190
feel that I can vote against my Government. They may know what their subjects North of the Border require better than I do. So I shall be content to abstain.
4.5 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to speak against the proposal to leave out Clause 26, and as I am also one of the Members of your Lordships' House who is tempted to put a foot across the Border I do so only because I feel so strongly about the intentions behind this Bill. It does set about a comprehensive approach to the social services, something about which I have been concerned some time. In this set-up the probation service is one of the nerve centres. The distinction between the human problems which result in
behaviour that is antisocial but not delinquent and behaviour that evolves into delinquency is becoming harder to define. This is right as we learn more about
the causes and motivations of delinquency and its treatment, and about the importance of catching people with problems in our social network before these problems deteriorates into delinquency and bring them into the courts. And this makes it even more important that the present probation services should be incorporated and integrated into any new scheme of social work. It also involves that these services must reach many people before they get to the courts. Therefore it seems to me that to exclude the probation service, and by so doing put a ring around delinquency would be to wreck—though I am sure that is not the intention of those who oppose this clause—the practical application of this Bill and the social philosophy behind it.
Perhaps I may turn now to one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and others. They refer to services left out. I think that this is a negative argument. The fact that some of the services have not yet decided to take a new look at the social services should not be used as a reason for the probation service's not coming in. Also, some psychiatric social workers do work with local authorities, and not always with the medical services. In his speech on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated that he thought

191
young offenders should be dealt with by court proceedings. If we start from that basis, the rest follows as a logical consequence; but I do not think that this is the intention of the other parts of the Bill.
On the question of adult offenders, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, mentioned that part of probation should be to stress the theme of discipline, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, talked about probation officers dealing with "tough young thugs". Surely the first job of a probation officer is to establish human relations with the offenders put under his or her supervision. Now that aftercare and supervision of prisoners on parole are to be part of the social services, it seems to me wrong to break this up. If I may quote from the White Paper which followed the Morison Committee Report—and in between a certain amount of water flowed under the bridges—it points out that if a separate service was set up for those over sixteen this would point to the establishment of a new service separate from the local authority social welfare department.
It goes on to say:
"One fresh consideration since the Committee reported has been the assumption by the probation service of a function not closely related to the courts, the after-care of offenders released from penal institutions. The Government's intention that all after-care supervision should be provided by the
local service which is also responsible for probation supervision has already been announced, and after-care would therefore grow and form a substantial part of the duties of a new service concerned with those over sixteen. On the other hand, the main duty of the probation officer—personnal work with the offender and his family in the community—is basically similar to that of other social workers."
Here I think it is entirely a difference of concept as to whether we think that this should all be part of trying to help the community, without putting the different sources of help into compartments, or whether it should still be divided up because it has been done that way historically. When we talk about the families of prisoners, it seems rather odd to me that they should be helped by one set of people, while the prisoner should be helped by someone else.
So far as training is concerned (and here I ask your Lordships' forgiveness,
192
because I am certainly not expert on training of social workers in Scotland), I understand that there are in existence six training courses, with another one starting in the autumn. A great deal has been said about the specialist training of the probation officer, but it is true that a number of successful probation officers had general training, then took a course of applied study, and were appointed by the Home Office. The whole movement in training now in social work is towards a more general training, followed by more specific shorter courses. The probation officer, under whatever other name, will still surely be doing a great deal of the same work, and it seems to me that a great range of flexibility is needed in order to ensure that a scheme prepared under Clause 26(2) is suitable for different localities. I was struck by the lack of rigidity of the clause. I think this is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and other noble Lords have referred to the possible problem of someone who is employed by the local authority and then has to speak against the employer. This can happen; and a case can arise in the care of the aged, or of handicapped children, or in any one of the many other functions for which local authority workers are responsible to-day. But, if I may say so, I think that to make too much of this is to underestimate the responsibility of the local authority and the character of elected representatives. They ought to be acting as watchdogs, as I am sure they will, as also will the sheriffs and the judge-substitutes in Scotland—because presumably there is always an appeal to the court. I cannot think that this is a very strong argument. It needs adjustment and adaptability; but in trying something new one always has to start somewhere.
A great deal has been said also about the different groups of people and organisations who are against this particular part of the Bill. But I think it is only fair to say that there are numbers of people, including a great many probation officers—and younger ones—whom I have met and talked to (and this has been discussed with reference to the proposals for change in England) who are with this idea, and who in fact see it as the deepening and widening of their own work and

193
their own possibilities. The impression seems to be that the present situation of probation officers is a very good and perfect one from their point of view. We know that this is not true. They are underpaid; they are overworked; they have a very high rate of drop-out, and part of this is due to the fact that there are not sufficient chances for promotion. If they were part of a much bigger service, I think that not only would they have more opportunities, but there would be more incentive for young people to come in.
Speaking as a magistrate in England, it seems to me that the probation officers, even the best of them, are at the moment hampered by the restrictions. In the first place, on the question of being attached to a court, there is a reverse side to that particular coin. There is an aura, there is a psychology about going to the court, and it is often difficult to persuade people with, say, matrimonial problems to see somebody to get help before they reach the stage when they have already made up their minds that they are going ahead with an order for separation or a court order of some sort. And, after all, why should someone with matrimonial problems come to see a probation officer? I think that this association with the court would make it harder for the probation officer to establish the sort of relationships that he or she needs to establish in order to help people over a wide range of problems. It is true that probation officers are already doing a great deal of the work of the social worker that is envisaged in this Bill. In many cases, where there is no question of putting somebody on probation, we—and I do not think we are unique—ask people to have a talk with the probation officer to see whether the probation officer can help.
There is another point on the present situation of probation officers. They may be independent to some extent; they are not employed or engaged by the courts. There is no reason why the courts should accept their recommendations; and there are many courts (I am happy to say not my own) where probation officers' recommendations are turned down time and time again. There are also still some courts where probation officers are not even asked for their recommendations. I feel that to strike out this clause would
194
do tremendous damage, not only to this Bill but to what 1 feel is the whole structure of the future of our welfare services. If this clause is struck out, the Bill will be not only seriously weakened but, in my opinion, castrated. I hope that your Lordships will reject any such proposal.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I did not want to interrupt my noble friend Lady Birk when she was speaking, but I must correct one statement which she made. She referred to the vast areas—that is not her expression, but mine—of social workers who will be left out of the Bill, and to the fact that I had said so, and then explained the reasons why they were not being brought in. That means that it is not accurate for her to say that this is going to be the beginning of comprehensive social welfare. This is not comprehensive. Were it comprehensive. then it might alter the attitude of a good many people. It is only linking the probation service to the existing local authority, and leaving out vast areas of social work, including, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, pointed out, certain psychiatric social workers, child guidance clinics, medical social workers and people doing social work in the educational sphere.
BARONESS BIRK: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. What I was saying—and I apologise if I expressed it badly—was, first of all, that there are some psychiatric social corkers employed by the local authority; and secondly, that this was the start: of the comprehensive approach. I feel that we have to start somewhere. To say that so many other people are not ready to come in does not seem to me to be a valid argument. Unless we get it started —and I happen to feel that the probation service, as I said at the beginning, is one of the most important nerve centres —we shall not be able to encourage the other workers and the other, perhaps more conservative, approaches to this question to take a different view.
4.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The liable Lord, Lord Hughes, must feel rather relieved that at last he has found a friend. I was wondering, after all the speeches we have heard, whether he would have to come to reply without any friend, and I was even considering coming to his aid

195
myself had it not been for the sharp rebuff I had received an hour ago when I tried to do so. I do not think we need apologise in any way for the length of time this particular clause is taking, because this is, after all, one of the key clauses of the Bill. Any reorganisation involves difficult problems, and this clause, as I see it, is an attempt to solve perhaps the most difficult one posed by reorganisation, which is the primary purpose of this Bill.
What I propose to do is to ask the noble Lord a number of questions in order to try to see how he thinks this clause is going to work out in practice. I wonder, however, whether I might start by indicating how I believe the system works at present, so that one can compare it. At the moment, as I understand it, the probation service is rather a hybrid sort of thing; that is to say, the service is trained by the Secretary of State, it is paid by the local authority with grant aid, and in Scotland it is appointed and supervised by an ad hoc local committee, which I presume it serves. The Bill, and particularly Part III of the Bill, as I understand it, involves the cessation of probation for children under 16. It involves the removal of detention as a punishment. So inevitably there seem to be two choices open: one is to absorb the remainder of the probation service into the social work service; and the other is to leave it as it is. That seems to be the choice. If this clause were carried, the service would be left as it is—that is, what is left of the service would be left as it is.
LORD HUGHES: If the clause were deleted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Deleted, I am sorry.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord said, "If the clause were carried".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I meant, "If the Amendment were carried"; I am sorry. From the information I have been given, it is fairly clear that the case load of probation at the present time is about half for the under-16s and about half for those above 16. The figure I have been given is that the total case load at the end of 1966 was 8,623, of which it is estimated that some 4,400 related to persons over 16. I say "estimated" because we know
196
what the figure was for the under-14s, but it is not quite clear for those between 14 and 16.
Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the expanding scope of probation officers' work; to the fact that prisoners released on parole became their responsibility from the first of this month; that statutory after-care of persons released from the detention schools, borstals, young offenders' institutions, and so on, is now their responsibility; and I believe there were about 1,400 of these cases at the end of 1966. Then there is the tendency at any rate evinced by what is happening in England and Wales, to absorb a growing volume of voluntary after-care; that is, assistance to any ex-prisoner who asks for it. Under the Bill, I suppose this would be the responsibility of the social work departments, but would presumably be carried out by those with special skills. If this clause is rejected, I take it that the responsibility for voluntary after-care work would more logically fall on the probation service in Scotland, as in England. In England and Wales probation officers are seconded to work as prison welfare officers, and this might also be done in Scotland if the service remains as it is.
Lastly, the courts, as has been mentioned, are now tending to ask for reports on adult offenders as well as young offenders. I rather think that the figure quoted by my noble friend Lord Stone-haven related to reports on adult offenders-500-odd.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: It was the total returned. I have not actually sub-divided it—we are a very small unit—but that is the total number.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. In any case, this practice seems to be expanding and is likely to continue to grow; and, given these developments, some present members of the probation service will seek and obtain work in social work departments. The remaining members of the probation service would probably not be in excess of what would be required to deal with the over-16s.
I should like at this point to ask the noble Lord some questions about the service in the future. I take it that, in so far as a department of the Scottish Office is responsible for the probation

197
service, the training and so forth, it is the Scottish Home Department, and will continue to be the Scottish Home Department under the clause as it stands. I should like to know whether it is envisaged that there will in future be a body of men and women within the social work service specially trained to work with the courts and to supervise adults who are put on probation or who have served a prison sentence. I am encouraged to think that this will be so by paragraph 11 of the White Paper. It says:
"As most prison social workers have acquired their training and experience in one specialty or another, the use of their specialist skills would continue."
It is not clear from that whether there will continue to be special training for the people who have to deal with this class of cases, and whether they will still be called upon to exercise their special skills; in other words, whether there will be within the social work department a body of probation officers, whatever we may call them.
Will there be officers specially designated under the probation schemes which the local authority are to submit to the Secretary of State under this clause? I should also like to know whether guidance is going to be given by the Secretary of State as to the type of probation scheme he would expect to see submitted. I think we should all like to know how the professional independence of the probation officers in the exercise of their duties is to be safeguarded.
It seems to me that the fundamental issue here is this. The sole concern—I hope I am right about this—of the social work service, other than the probation service for adults and young persons over 16, is the welfare of families and individuals in need. But that certainly should not be the sole concern of the probation service. Probation officers also must have regard to the protection of the community and the correction of offenders—by "correction" I do not mean punishment, of course; I mean putting the offenders right and keeping them right and from harming others. The probation service is, and in my view should continue to be, an instrument of justice as well as a social service, and if it ceases to be that the courts, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven has said, will be much less
198
willing to order probation as a suitable treatment of the offender. The effectiveness of the probation service as a social service depends, as he also said, on the confidence of the courts in its ability to perform its function as an instrument of justice.
What I suggest the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State has to do is to convince your Lordships that tie usefulness of the probation service as a probation service will be in no way impaired by making it part of the social work structure; that it will retain the confidence of the sheriff courts in its effectiveness in its role in the protection of the community. It is easy enough when we are concerned with welfare—and we are all concerned with fie welfare of the individual—to regard this matter purely from the point of flew of the individual and the family, without thinking of it in the context of the community. The protection of the community is very important. The balance of opinion among sheriffs-substitute seems to be that it will not retain that confidence if this clause remains in the Bill.
On the other hand, I do not thing there is any doubt that by their inclusion in the social work service the welfare work of probation officers will be widened and deepened, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. They will be better able to consider the welfare of the prisoner in the context of his family, his home and surroundings, and the welfare of his family. They may also be charged with his welfare when in prison as well as with his after-care. But what I am trying to suggest to your Lordships is that this is not the only or necessarily the overriding consideration. The welfare and protection of the community and the correction of the offender are at least as important, because this is the one service that does it. As I see it, this is not only a question of the professional independence of the probation officer in advising the court on the social background and history and character of the offender, but it is also a question of his efficiency as an instrument of justice and his effectiveness in the whole framework of the administration of justice in carrying out the duties which the court may place on him in relation to the offender.

199
The responsibility of the probation officer to the court should be his own personal and professional responsibility—not one which he is carrying out on behalf of, or on the instructions of, a local authority department. That is the sort of question with which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to deal in replying, because I am sure it is vital if he wants to get the clause.
For these reasons it seems to me desirable that a middle course should be worked out between the present system and the absorption of the probation service by the local authority social work departments. I do not necessarily accept that the two alternatives I have raised are the only possibilities. For example, it might be that the Secretary of State himself would not only recruit and train but appoint and post these probation officers to social work departments, on what I think in military parlance is called "attachment". The military parallel is an interesting and useful one that might be considered. In the Armed Forces, if I remember aright, there is a great difference between those corps like the Royal Army Service Corps, the Medical Service, the Physical Training Service, the Education Service, the Military Police, the Catering Corps, and indeed the Welfare Service, which have individuals attached to the fighting units and formations on the one hand, and to those corps which are integral parts of formations, on the other. The dual loyalty naturally gives rise to some difficulties, but the difficulties are accepted because they are considered to
be more than compensated for by the advantages. I suggest that this should be considered: that the probation service should be treated like one of those corps and attached to the local authority social work department.
The other point is that this Bill represents a great social experiment. Can we be sufficiently sure of success so far as the inclusion of the probation service in the social welfare service is concerned to warrant the complete disbanding of the probation service? Should it not be kept together, while attaching probation officers to the social work departments? Would this not ensure that the confidence of the sheriff courts, at present withheld from the proposed arrangements, would be maintained? And would it not also
200
maintain the morale of the probation service? I agree that the views of probation officers are divided on the merits of this clause, but that is surely all the more reason for seeking a compromise which will satisfy both sides. If the compromise does not work it will not be difficult either to go back to the present method or to move on to the proposed system. I ask the noble Lord to say that he will reconsider between now and the next stage of the Bill, the whole relationship between the probation service for adults and young persons over 16 on the one hand, and the social welfare framework on the other.
4.38 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am not quite certain what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, meant when he said that about an hour ago he wished to come to my assistance but received a severe rebuff. I hope it was not from me.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD HUGHES: Because, as he indicated, it looks as if I need any friends I can lay my hands on. But in fact that is not the case. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who, earlier on in the debate, said that there was very little left to say. The note which I put down
following that remark was "except, of course, to state the other side of the case". It may well be that, having expressed the view that he did on Second Reading, that he was against the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, he did not consider that anything that could be said in favour of Clause 26 was in fact worth listening to.
LORD FERRIER: That was not what I said. I said that there was little else left to say in support of the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: That may be what the noble Lord intended to say, but I think that if he looks at Hansard he will find it is not what in fact he said. However, I will take that as an acceptable amendment to his remarks.
There have been an extraordinary number of misconceptions about the probation service as it exists, and about the effect of this Bill, and in particular this clause, on the work of the probation service as it is to be carried out in the future. May I point

201
out right away about such remarks as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—how can a probation officer be objective and truthful (I am paraphrasing; these may not be his exact words but it is the sense of his remarks) if he is in the employ of the local authority—that the fact is that to all intents and purposes a probation officer in Scotland at the present time is an employee of the local authority.
The use of the words "ad hoc committee" does not alter the fact that the committee is appointed by the local authority from within its own membership and from without its own membership, frequently with a majority of the committee being from within its own membership, although not always so. The local authority have control of the finance of the probation committee, because at the end of the day they have to approve their estimates and can, if they feel so inclined, disapprove their estimates, disapprove the provision of money. I cannot see that there is any difference in the relationship which the probation officer will have to a committee consisting of elected members of the local authority and co-opted members calling itself a probation committee, and a committee called a social work committee which may also consist of elected members of the authority and co-opted members.
LORD BALERNO: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for information? I am not entirely au fait with the situation. May I ask him who it is who makes the appointment of a particular probation officer in a particular area? I believe the Secretary of State is responsible for the production of probation officers, but what body or which person makes the appointment of a probation officer to a particular area?
LORD HUGHES: A probation officer is appointed by the probation committee, just as the officers under this Social Work Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be appointed by the social work committee. If a man is to be doing probation work he will be in future appointed, in most cases, perhaps in all cases, by a committee which consists of local authority and co-opted members.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Surely the point really is that at the pre-
202
sent time the probation officer t links of himself as a member of the probation and after-care service. Under these new arrangements he will be an official of the local authority like all the rest of the officials of the local authority.
LORD HUGHES: I hope to elaborate on this point. What am wanting to make quite clear is that his technical position as an employee of tie local authority, or of a committee appointed by the local authority, will be no different under this Bill from what it is at the present time. I therefore cannot accept the argument. He is appointed by one committee coming to some extent under the jurisdiction of the local authority. I use the words "to some extent" advisedly, because the local authority appoint the committee and can control the finance, but they do not intervene in the work of the probation committee except at those points. It may well be that under a system of delegation they will no more intervene in the work of the social work committee, except on finance generally and on the setting up of the committee at the beginning of each local authority year.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I say that the situation is a little analogous to the area water boards and the area police boards. I happen to be on the North-Eastern Police Board and the East of Scotland Water Board. It is true that we appoint our own officials and we have to pay them. But the officials lose all identity with any one particular local authority, and this is the big point Certainly they must not be tied to one particular authority. In our case, they are not. They are not on the water board, they are not on the police board, and they are not on the probation service, because we split between two counties. This is the great safeguard, and this is what I want to see preserved.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Before the noble Lord answers that point, would he allow me to say that the Scottish Home Department has the overall responsibility for the probation service in Scotland. In Scotland at the present moment if a local authority says, "We will not appoint another children's officer", nobody can compel it to do so. But if the Scottish Home Department, which, has the overall responsibility for the selection

203
and training, in service training and further training, of probation officers, says, "There must be another probation officer at Court A and Court B and Court C", they must appoint them.
LORD HUGHES: That is not the information I have. After all, the local authority pays half of the cost of the probation service; it receives a 50 per cent. grant. The information which I received no later than 1 o'clock to-day was that if a local authority, in accordance with the fears which have been expressed in the service, were to hold back in the interests of keeping down the rates, if a local authority chose to do that sort of thing in the probation service when a vacancy occurred on account of someone going away to another authority, the local authority refraining from providing the finance to fill that appointment, the Scottish Home and Health Department cannot say to the local authority, "You must fill this vacancy".
LORD DRUMALBYN: Is it not the case that they cannot say that, provided the local authority is carrying out its functions properly? But if the result of their not appointing the officer is that they are not carrying out their functions properly, the Scottish Home and Health Department can and does say that.
LORD HUGHES: The Secretary of State will have powers of direction in many other cases, but the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, like many other people who have been and are Ministers, knows how easy it is for a Secretary of State to have general powers of direction but how difficult it is to find a specific occasion on which they can be exercised, and this would be one of them. It becomes a matter of opinion as between a local authority and the central Government Department whether a job is being carried out properly.
Having said that, I want to point out that from the time of the Morison Committee Report in 1962, to which reference has been made, there has been a considerable expansion in the efficiency and the size of the probation service in Scotland, but it is not, as one would have thought from some of the remarks made during this debate, because some time after 1962 there was a change in the
204
apparatus of the probation service in Scotland—the notion that it had been regarded as a minor local authority service. The machinery is exactly the same. We did not alter the law to make it become the same. All that happened was that the central department exercised pressure, gave advice to local authorities, which pressure local authorities could succumb to, which advice local authorities could accept. In other words, they were and are in exactly the same position as they will be under this Social Work Bill. The central department will be in a position to give guidance and advice, to exercise pressure. Why should we assume that the local authorities, in the exercise of their responsibilities for probation, accept that guidance and pressure and because the title is changed to social work discover that the pressure from the Scottish Home and Health Department has suddenly become intolerable and the advice has suddenly become bad? I do not accept this as an argument with any foundation at all.
The other point is this—and this is my principal objection to what is being argued. I cannot make up my mind whether what is being said is an unconscious insult to other professional employees of local authorities or an even greater insult to probation officers, because the argument is being advanced that unless a probation officer feels that he can stick his thumb to his nose to the local authority at all times in the exercise of his professional responsibilities he will not be an efficient probation officer. Other people do not find it necessary to be in that position. The Medical Officer of Health has professional responsibilities. He does not feel that he has in any way to abrogate the integrity he would have in any other direction by becoming an employee of a local authority. Many other professional people are in exactly the same position. Why should the probation officer need this special treatment in order to be able to make the best and the most honest use of his professional training? I think he has absolutely nothing to fear.
May I take another point—the references to the court and what is almost implied, that probation officers are appointed by the courts. They are not
appointed by the courts; they are appointed by this probation committee, and part of their duties is working for

205
the courts. It is perfectly true that the service as it exists is one on which the majority of courts in Scotland have learned to place full reliability, and that confidence which the courts have is well merited. It may well be that in a change of circumstances the courts, cautious as they are, may say, "Let us wait and see whether in fact the new service works with exactly the same efficiency as the old one so far as the courts are concerned." But it is a big step to go from that to say that the courts are going to assume that the new service will not work with efficiency; and this in fact has not been said.
On this question of the examination of what are the duties of a probation officer, I was most grateful to my noble friend Lady Birk for her contribution, not particularly because it was a change of accent or a change of view, but because she brought some much needed facts in relation to the need for change in welfare and in the viewing of welfare, into the debate, which up to the present had worked on the basis that in the probation service we have, on this particular aspect, reached the acme of perfection and that we ought not to touch it for fear that we should be replacing it by something worse. Had we worked on that basis in the past the welfare services would be still the same as they were under the first Elizabeth. Always when you change there must be fear; always there must be a risk that some things will not work out so well as they did in the past. But where a change does not turn out to be as good as one wants it to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has suggested, one can then carry on to make alterations.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: I wonder if the noble Lord would inform me, as a layman in this matter, whether or not the Bill which the Government are now putting forward will open the delinquent's home to the ordinary social worker?
LORD HUGHES: I hope to answer that question in due course. I would remind your Lordships that I said last time that I did not intend to speak other than briefly except on two occasions. The first occasion was on the first Amendment which we discussed, and this is the second. Both of them have been exceedingly important aspects, fundamental to
206
the Bill. Because of that, I wart to go into some detail about what the Bill and
this clause are intended to do. If I may come back to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell and what he said last Thursday, he said that this Bill would put an end to the probation service in Scotland as we understand it at the present day.
It may well be that what is happening in Scotland today will happen in England tomorrow. We are net discussing the end of the probation service. We are discussing its future, and we are discussing its future in Scotland. Ai I have had occasion to say recently, I do not for one moment accept the argument that because people may not want something to happen in England that is a sound reason for stopping it happening in Scotland. After all, if this is so good when it is put into operation that there is fear that England may follow it, who am I to prevent the English from getting the opportunity? If the English do not think it is good, when there is a Bill relating to England and Wales it will not be in the English Bill. If it is in, and Lord Wells-Pestell does not like it at that stage, then he will be just as free to move that it come out of the English Bill as he has been to move that it comes out of the Scottish Bill.
We are discussing the future in Scotland, and I want to emphasise the t what we are doing in Scotland is not necessarily the pattern that will be followed in England—not necessarily. The Government realise that there are a number of people whose points of view were ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and who view with misgiving the proposal that the new social work department should discharge the functions of the present probation service; and we appreciate that it would be too much to hope that their doubts can be set completely at rest by any assurance that I or any other Minister gives, that we do not expect that the discharge of those functions will be found to be as difficult in practice as they appear to be now.
The points I mean are those concerning the probation service as a court service, the independence of the probation officer and the risk of conflict with a local authority's policy towards crime and delinquency. We believe that the schemes provided for in Clause 26 will enable the

207
confidence of the courts in the new service to be built up. We do not believe that the fact that a probation officer will be an employee of a local authority through its social work committee, to whom it may delegate the power of appointment instead of through a probation committee consisting mostly of local authority members, will inhibit either his right or his ability to act as a professional adviser and to resist any attempt to influence his professional advice.
It was Lord Stonehaven who quoted from the Morison Report about the development of the probation service as a relatively minor service. I have already referred to that. But the one change to be made by this Bill is that the social work service will not be a "relatively minor" local authority service. The local authorities' duty under Clause 12 covers not only the alleviation of hardship among people who suffer from special disabilities or health risks, but also the welfare of the community at large.
May I say, in passing, that I doubt very much whether even those who sincerely wish to see the adult probation service continuing as a separate service would accept the point of view put forward by Lord Stonehaven, that basically what it would have to do is to look after "young thugs". In fact, what it is to do in relation to the adult service makes it so eminently part of a social work scheme, because it hopes to treat them as, and to create them into, if that should be the position, ordinary members of the community, and not to regard them as young thugs separate from the rest of the community who can only be given penal treatment. That is not how the probation officer approaches the task in relation to these young people at the present time.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I explain that what I meant was that probation officers are trained and used to being with youths who have erred in this way. This is a special skill that is needed, but not necessarily from the penal point of view, although they have still to reform these people. But I feel that the probation officer is better equipped than a welfare officer, who is trained more in the safety and health of children or old people.
LORD HUGHES: That is a different matter from implying (probably the noble Viscount did not mean to imply it, but it sounded as if he did) that all the adults with whom the probation officer was dealing came into the category of young thugs. One must accept that some of the people with whom he would deal would come into that category, and I freely
accept that part of the special training which he receives is designed to enable him to deal with that particular part of his duties. But it is only a part of
his duties just as his responsibilities in relation to the under-16s is another part of his duties. I would remind the Committee that we are not proposing to exterminate the existing probation officers. Their skills will not suddenly disappear; their training is not going to be abandoned.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked me whether there would be specialists in probation work in future. The answer is that the whole course of social work training is directed towards more generic training, plus specialisation, of which probation is likely to be one element. We shall therefore continue to train people in these skills. Young thugs, among others, will have to be dealt with, and there will still be people within the social work service who will have the training to deal with them and who will at the same time be trained to deal with the others. We do not at present select a certain number of probation officers to concentrate on that particular type of person. It is part of the training they receive to deal with the whole problem which they face.
The social work committee will have to look at other local authority programmes; and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, quoted my remarks on this matter on Second Reading. From the point of view of the community and its welfare as a whole (and this matter was touched upon by Lord Drumalbyn) it is not just the individual who has to be considered, but also the interests of the community at large. At a time when the relationship of environment to delinquency is becoming daily more apparent it is hardly credible that the new social work authorities will not have a far greater concern with crime and the community than was the case when the Morison Committee made their remarks in 1962.

209
I should like at this point to reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, about whether the Bill would open the homes of delinquents to the ordinary social worker. Inquiries into home circumstances of adult delinquents
will be made by officers providing social work service to the courts under probation schemes. Similar inquiries about child delinquents will be made by local authority social workers on a voluntary basis. If compulsory powers of any kind are needed, these workers will have to get the authority of the children's hearing.
To return to my main theme, I have made these brief comments because it would be wrong for me not to comment on the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. However, I am anxious to consider the matter not from the point of view of the difficulties to be overcome, but with regard to the great
opportunities which we believe will be open for social work as a whole, including probation, if all the services are integrated in the new departments. The essence of this argument is that a great deal of the work of the probation service is carried out away from the court and is basically similar to the work of other social work services. The work of about half of the present probation service is concerned with children and will necessarily be discharged by the social work departments as part of the new children's panel system. There is a real danger that if the remaining half—dealing with adults alone—is not brought in it will become isolated from the main developments in social work and be forced to rely on cooperation rather than direct participation in keeping up with the main stream of progressive thought.
The White Paper Social Work and the Community said:
The main duty of the probation officer—personal social work with the offender and his family in the community—is basically similar to that of other social workers".
I wanted to have some greater assurance about this, and therefore turned to a
publication which must be regarded as more authoritative on this subject than I would pretend to be. In it I found some passages which I should like to read to your Lordships. It says in a chapter on "Relations with the Community", at page 216:
"From the point of view of the community the first aim must be to promote the welfare
210
of its members as a whole, and whatever special provision is contemplated for offenders, the others must be considered in this context".
In concluding that section, it points out that the probation officer's approach stresses understanding of the offender rather than condemnation as the road to recovery.
Much of the book is concerned with the probation officer as a social case
worker, and on this it says:
"All that has been said about general principles of case work applies with certain modifications to the work of the probation officer whether it be with child or adult, first offender or old lag. There are, however, certain special demands made upon the case worker in the probation setting and on those subject to probation or supervision orders."
A little later it says:
"Delinquents have a particular need for friendship and the acceptance it implies, but we have seen that all clients are best helped by the special type of friendship, namely, the professional case worker relationship. Only the probation officer's warm and sincere concern fertilises the probationer's cape city for growth and change."
It seems to me that the work of the probation officer is social case work. Certain special demands are placed upon the probation officer and his client by the setting in which they find themselves, but, of course, precisely the same could be said of the medical social worker, the psychiatric social worker and the childcare officer. In each setting there are special demands on workers and client. The book from which I have take these extracts is The Probation Service, edited by Joan King, on behalf of the National Association of Probation Officers.
I have looked again also at the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service—the Morison Committee—and on this particular point I find it also very informative. The Morison Committee emphasised that in their view the probation officer was:
"a worker engaged in a wide range of social case work functions within the ambit of the courts".
They suggested that the Scottish probation officers could give a fuller service to the community than they were then called on to do, and among the duties which they regarded the probation officer as well suited to undertake, in addition to probation and after-care as generally understood, were the following: supervision of children in matrimonial proceedings; inquiries in adoption cases;

211
inquiries in summary domestic proceedings; inquiries into application for consent to marry, and matrimonial reconciliation.
I am well aware that careful selection can lead to distortion, and in these quotations I have tried to avoid distortion. I think the quotations I have read must leave your Lordships, as they left me, with the impression that the work of the probation service is without any doubt social work which is very similar, both in nature and in range, to that of other professional social workers. It has its, own special interests and demands, but so also have other branches of social work.
The difficulty about knowing that one has a major point to deal with is that one is provided with much more material than the patience of the House would allow one to use. We still have over 200 Amendments to deal with after we have finished with this clause—though I hasten to assure noble Lords on both sides of the House that we do not anticipate that any other Amendment will take this amount of time.
I conclude by saying that I have no doubt, as has been suggested by Lord Drumalbyn, that Clause 26 can be improved in detail by Amendments both here and in another place. I can assure the Committee that we are anxious to make it as good as we possibly can. For that reason, I suggested that we should not at that stage look at Amendments. The Amendments were not withdrawn because we did not think it necessary to have Amendments, or because we thought that Clause 26 was perfect, but because we thought that we ought to have a debate on whether or not Clause 26 should stand part of the Bill. But I shall be very happy to look at any Amendments put down at the next stage, either those already submitted or others which may yet be put forward, provided that they are put forward in the spirit of the Bill—that having the probation service as part of a general welfare service is a major step forward—and provided they are designed to make the probation service work more efficiently within that overall service. If your Lordships accept my view on this, then you will not delete this clause from the Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: As one of those whose name is down as a mover of this Amendment, there are three questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He referred to Clause 12 and spoke about the Bill's being in favour of the welfare of the community at large. That is precisely what I find to be wrong with Clause 12. It is extremely narrowly drawn, and far from being in favour of the welfare of the community at large it says:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to promote social welfare in their area by making available advice, guidance and assistance on such a scale —"
and so on. It then goes into a lot of detail, which is hardly what one would call the welfare of the community at large.
The second point I should like to make is this. The noble Lord claims that we were discussing the end of the probation service. Not one of us who is opposing this clause has been discussing the end of the probation service. We have been discussing its organisation and whether it has adequate opportunity to develop its scope, and that is what is in doubt. As to the independence of judgment of the local probation officers, the noble Lord made a perfectly reductio ad absurdum of that point. There is a fundamental difference between being under a county clerk and being under a committee which has a measure of independence of the county clerk and the local authoritity. Some county clerks in Scotland are very powerful persons, and we fear that what will happen is that the probation officers will come under the county clerk and the local authority.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot conceive of a wider definition of "welfare" than we have put into this Bill. In fact, the
comment which we have received from every direction is that for the very first time "welfare" has been defined in a Bill in such a way as to make it almost inconceivable that one could find something which would not fall within its ambit. As my noble friend Lady Birk said, we are departing from the position of legislating for particular needs as they arise and are seeking to anticipate all the possibilities by comprising them within a very general description. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno,

213
from whom I do not often find myself differing very much in principle, is that if he regards this as a narrow definition then I hope he never has the need to try to get a wide definition through the Treasury.
He also said that we were not discussing the end of the probation service. I said that we were riot discussing the end of the probation service; that what we were discussing was its future. One of the remarks made in support of the deletion of the clause was that the sheriffs-substitute were anxious to avoid the abolition of the probation service; and much of the debate was carried on as if the Bill contemplated the abolition of the probation service. So I was replying to the debate as it was made, although it may be that it was not what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said. My attention has been drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said last Thursday, in almost his opening remarks. He said:
"The thing that concerns me most, and I think concerns a number of your Lordships, is that whatever merit this Bill has—and it is not denied that there is a good deal of merit in it—it in fact puts an end to the probation service in Scotland as we understand it at the present day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/4/68, col. 1385.]
So I have replied in the context of the debate.
I cannot claim that everyone who has put the opposite point of view will necessarily have changed his mind. I accept that the point of view which has
been expressed is sincerely put forward and has been put forward because of misgivings. But I believe that the misgivings will prove in the main to be unfounded, and that some of the misgivings can be dealt with by amendment of the clause.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I should like to make one point before we divide. I think we are all agreed in trying to get the best service for delinquents that can be devised. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made the point that the probation officer is a social case
worker, and that it is therefore reasonable that he should be included in the local authority set-up with the other case workers. But the whole point that we on this side feel is that the probation officer is a case worker specially trained for work with delinquents, whether on probation or on after-care from prison or other institutions—or I imagine, in the future, in prison itself—and has a different type of training and experience from the ordinary social worker.
The important point is that the probation service should be independent, and should be seen to be independent, of the local authority. It is significant that in spite of the point which.has been made, that the probation officers will have a better chance of promotion and security and prospects in a local authority service, they still feel that their work can best be done as an independent service.
The noble Lord made the point that English noble Lords should not take the view that, because this was going to happen in Scotland, it would therefore happen in England. He seemed to he inviting them to take the alternative view; that English noble Lords should support him on the basis of "trying it on the dog" that they should let this happen in Scotland and then, if they liked it, they could encourage it in England, but if they did not like it they need not have it. I hope that English noble Lords will not take that view of the matter, but will judge the point on its merits. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was, I think, suggesting that the clause as it stands is imperfect and that quite different arrangements would he preferable. I have no doubt that anybody who feels as he does will support the deletion of the clause in order that a better one may be provided at a later stage.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2f shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 48; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bowles, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Beswick, L.

Burden, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Birk, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Blyton, L.

Champion, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

McLeavy, L.

Rowley, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Maelor, L.

Rusholme, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Mitchison, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hughes, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Moyle, L.

Silkin, L.

Kennet, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Peddie, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Latham, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lindgren, L.

Raglan, L.

Walston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Rhodes, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Longford, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Airedale, L.

Dundee, E.

Meston, L.

Aldington, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monsell, V.

Amulree, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Balerno, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Gridley, L.

Stamp, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L. [Teller.]

Stonehaven, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Byers, L.

Ilford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lambert, V.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lloyd, L.

Wade, L.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 26 agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Children in need of compulsory measures of care]:
LORD HUGHES: Clause 31 defines the grounds on which a child may be brought before a children's hearing. This Amendment, No. 50, is simply drafting—the insertion of a word linking two paragraphs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 42, at end insert ("or").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32:
Formation of children's panels
32.—(1) A panel shall be formed for every local authority area (to be called "the children's panel") for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(3) A local authority shall cause to be published a list of the names and addresses of members of their children's panel, and that list shall be open for public inspection at all reasonable times at the offices of the director of social work of the local authority, and at any place where an electors list for the locality is exhibited.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for more than one panel to be set up in a local authority area for the purposes of the Bill. This seems to be what Lord Kilbrandon meant in paragraph 92 of his Report. I think the point of it is quite clear. It would, for example, enable panels to be set up in large burghs within an area—within a county area or within a combined-counties area. It seems to me that this would be desirable. It would be appreciated by the large burgh; and administratively it would be much more satisfactory, rather than moving children and parents all round a large area, if they could attend a children's panel of their own burgh in their own burgh, which they could do quite easily. It seems to me that there may well be cases where it would be desirable to have more than one panel for a local authority area, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, after ("panel") insert ("or panels").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I could not quite understand what lay behind this Amendment, but it arises from a misconception of what a panel is. A panel is essentially a number of people from whom choices will be made from time to time to form

217
the children's hearings. There is no need, in fact, to have more than one panel for each authority. The panel, having regard to the size of the authority, will be sufficiently big and will be sufficiently widespread over the area as to enable members to be chosen from time to time under Clause 33 to form the children's hearings which will deal with individual cases as they are brought forward by the reporter. In fact, what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, indicates as being the desirable thing to be done is exactly what we expect will be done in the operation of the clause as it stands; and it will of course be made perfectly clear to all authorities in the administrative arrangements that it is not the suggestion that they should have a panel of two, three, four or five members sitting at one place and that everybody should come to them. The number of people involved will be chosen from the panel, and will sit as necessary in their area. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will accept my assurance that what he wants is what will in fact emerge from the operation of the clause as drafted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If there was a misconception, I am not certain it was not shared by
the Kilbrandon Report, which recommended that:
"Panels should be set up in each education authority area, their number — being determined in each case by the appropriate Sheriff."
However, we need not argue about that. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. If I understand him correctly, he will if necessary give guidance for the purpose of enabling those people who sit in a children's hearing in a particular place to be chosen from the panel as a whole. If that is what he means, then I shall willingly withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: That is what I mean.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must apologise for delaying the Committee. I cannot locate my notes.
LORD HUGHES: If it will help the noble Lord, I am prepared to indicate
218
that I shall accept Amendments Nos. 52 and 53.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I an much obliged to the noble Lord. Amendment No. 52 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, after ("panel") insert ("(to be called the children's panel")").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 53 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 7, leave out ("(to be called "the children's panel")").—(Lord Drnnzalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a small point. I do not know whether "offices" includes sub-offices, or whether "offices" is a term of art meaning "the office". It was suggested by the Kilbrandon Report that
for the purposes of decentralisation of social work in large areas there should be sub-offices. It was to elicit tint point that I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, after ("offices") insert ("and any sub-offices").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I expected this to be a probing Amendment. I confirm that the word "offices", so far as Parliamentary drafting is concerned, includes offices, sub-offices and so on; so technically the Amendment is not necessary.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:
Duty of children's panel with respect to juvenile delinquency
".The children's panel for each local authority shall have a specific responsiblity for the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency in the area of that authority and shall, yearly or as may be required, make reports to the Sheriff and to the Secretary of State concerning juvenile delinquency together with recommendations."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make explicit a recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report, that the children's hearings which are to take the place of the juvenile courts should also take cognisance of the state of juvenile delinquency in their area. This comes under the conception of welfare of the community at large, and I cannot see how the insertion of this new clause could in any way upset the Treasury.
The relevant part of the Kilbrandon Report is paragraph 250 in which the argument is stated for the community at large taking an interest in, and some responsibility for, delinquency and the reason for having the children's hearings well down in the grass roots of their area. A summary is to be found on page 108, in the final two paragraphs of the Report. I quote:
"Moreover, since the incidence of juvenile delinquency, the forms and patterns it takes, and in many cases the combination of factors apparently underlying it, vary widely from one area to another, these problems must in our view be tackled at local level and must he clearly seen to be a local community responsibility. These aims cannot in our view effectively be met other than through, in each area, a locally-based agency publicly charged with specific responsibility for the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency. The social education department, throughout the range of its activities (including the exercise of its continuous responsibility for children under the juvenile panel's jurisdiction)"—
that is, the children's hearing—
"would in fact be such an agency."
I would particularly draw attention to the words:
"a locally-based agency publicly charged with specific responsibility".
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Lord make clear whether, when he said, "that is, the children's hearing", he was still quoting or whether he was interpolating?
LORD BALERNO: I was interpolating. For what has now become known as the children's hearings and for what is discussed in the Bill as the children's hearings the words used in the Kilbrandon Report are, as I understand, "social education department". I was trying to clarify the difference between the wording of the Report and the wording of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Lord not feel that it is the social work department to be set up under the Bill rather than the children's panel, or the children's hearing, that is the equivalent of the social education department described in the Report?
LORD BALERNO: I entirely accept the correction and thank the noble Lord for it. It is a lesson in not thinking too rapidly. All I want is that this responsibility should be made a public charge on the panel; because it is the panel, or the panel from which the children's hearings are constituted, that is at the grass roots of the juvenile delinquency.
I fully realise that the main way in which the children's hearings will work, when they are faced with a problem of youth delinquency or children's delinquency, will be in making sure that there are better local family services for these can often be the major factor in preventing delinquency. Certainly fewer children would get into trouble were better recreational facilities available, particularly in areas of high density and in the multiple dwellings which are springing up and in which the activities of children are inevitably curbed. Unless we make this part of the responsibility of the children's panels because they serve on the children's hearing, there is grave danger that it will be forgotten altogether.
The first function of the law is to protect the innocent. Crimes of violence reported in Scotland have increased from 1,829 in 1962 to 3.500 in 1967—that is to say, nearly double in five years. I concede that there may be a difference in the reporting, but in Scotland there is a distinct disquiet because of the substantial increase that has taken place in crimes of violence and because the maintenance of law and order in Scotland is being
seriously threatened. Most of the crimes of violence are perpetrated by young
persons. I would say that we must give the police powers to search for weapons, but that is incidental to this debate.
At present there is considerable anxiety, and the people who look at the children's hearings and juvenile delinquency in the local authority areas should at the same time take a wide authority for the delinquents themselves and a wider view of

221
the community at large. They should have regard to the possibility of an increase in juvenile crime and to what steps may be taken to make the social environment better, so that crime is reduced. I realise that my new clause may require some amending but I put it down so that the children's panels would have an obligation to make a report of some kind to some body and that report, presumably, would be reported in the Press. Having to make at least an annual report would make the panels aware that they had a duty to the community at large as well as to the delinquent child. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 32 insert the said new clause.— [Lord Balerno.]
LORD HUGHES: The effect of the new clause would be to place specific executive responsibilities on the children's panel of each local authority for the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency in the area of that authority. It would also require them to make reports and recommendations to the sheriff and to the Secretary of State concerning juvenile delinquency. This is a matter to which Lord Balerno referred on Second Reading. Subsequently, in the note which I sent to many noble Lords, they will have seen that the points raised on Second Reading were dealt with. I stressed that there was already cover in the Bill for the important question of the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the Amendment, because it provides an opportunity to make this point clear to all those who are interested although his proposed solution is not acceptable for the following reasons.
The way we see it is that the responsibility for the prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency is part of the major responsibilities of local authorities for promoting social welfare in their area under Clause 12 and for making available advice, guidance and assistance which would enable them to deal positively with the problems of delinquency by trying to prompt and encourage the right types of community development; the provision of appropriate social recreational facilities, and so on. It will also have to deal with delinquency and its pre-
222
vention very specifically as the effective agency implementing the decisions of the hearings. The social work department of a local authority is the social education authority to which the Kilbrandon Report made reference, and in framing the Bill as we have done we feel that we have put into effect in this case what the Kilbrandon Committee asked for.
The social work department of the welfare authority will have the day-to-day responsibility and will be staffed for this responsibility: and to this work, in particular, it can be visualised that the present members of the probation service will have a particular contribution to make. This is not, as will be seen, to play down the role of the children's panel, but this panel, by reason of its membership and organisation, is designed essentially to run children's hearings and not to carry out this type of executive work. It should make its particular contribution by dealing through the children's hearings with the basic reeds of children in trouble at an early stage and therefore prove a most powerful line of secondary prevention. Beyond this the panel should be able, through the close links which the reporter, as a locally appointed official, forms with the social work department and the director of social work, to help and advise the social work department about the trends of delinquency as it sees them; and no doubt in appropriate cases can come to the help of the authority in forming suggestions as to action which might be appropriate.
That is how we see the machine working. To place the responsibility for this work on the children's panels would not work organisationally. I hope, however, that local authorities will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said, for undoubtedly the children's panel, through the reporter, has a contribution to make in this field beyond its responsibilities for individual hearings, and this fact will not be forgotten. If it should be necessary, this is the sort of point to which attention can specifically be drawn. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having emphasised this point, but I hope he may accept that the Bill as it is conceived is the best way of carrying out this very worthwhile and necessary objective.
LORD FERRIER: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of Lord Balerno's remarks. I should like to support his proposed new clause for two reasons. As your Lordships may be aware, I come from an area which has been having a very distressing time recently, due to juvenile delinquency of a major kind, which I believe might not have developed as it did had there been more publicity; if the local people had known more and if the Press had known more, and if there had been less keeping under cover what was going on.
It has been decided now that the probation service shall come under the local authority. I am not at all happy that this does not provide a further opportunity to keep things under cover and not allow the public to know what is going on. I have every sympathy with the social worker who believes that more should be done to improve the conditions and the treatment of young people, but I believe that it is important that the people themselves should be taken along with the authorities in sympathy with the work being done, and I believe that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, would be a contribution. I consider that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has gone some way to meet him, in pointing out that the Bill provides for certain machinery of communication between children's panels and the people, but I am still not happy about it, and I feel that more thought could be given to making it a statutory obligation upon the people who are responsible for administration to see that people outside the courts and panels know what is going on, and are advised whether or not it has been a success.
LORD HUGHES: I would say, briefly, that what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has asked for, and what I have said he will get under the Bill, is in fact that those responsible for administering the service shall do the job for which he has asked. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has brought in about the publicity which may or may not attend children's hearings is dealt with in another part of the Bill. One cannot by any stretch of the imagination regard an annual report to the Secretary of State or a report to the sheriff as being publicity for individual children's hearings.
LORD FERRIER: My noble friend Lord Balerno said that he imagined it would find its way from the court to the Press, and that is what I picked up.
LORD HUGHES: I assure both noble Lords that there is an Amendment which will enable this to be discussed.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his reception of my noble friend's idea. If it is a fact that the social work department will give guidance in the way my noble friend has suggested, I think that he will be amply satisfied. One or two things said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made me wonder whether the panel will ever meet as a body so that they can bring together their experience. I am sure that such a meeting would be valuable. The way in which it is subsequently transmitted from the reporter to the social work department is a different matter. But I think it would be worth while if they met from time to time and were not treated just as a panel from which names should be drawn for a hearing.
LORD HUGHES: I am not sure whether it is envisaged that they should meet from time to time, but I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord that it would be a great advantage for them to meet so that they may compare experiences, just as magistrates meet from time to time to discuss general problems in relation to the exercise of their duties.
LORD BALERNO: In the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct or make other arrangements whereby panels meet, I would be happy to withdraw my Amendment. I have little hope that any discussion of this nature in your Lordships' House would reverberate to such an extent that many months hence, when these panels come into being, anything said would be reported to them. My experience of being on a body set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland is that all the good advice he gave us when it was set up, and in which doubtless he reflected a great deal of the wisdom of the Parliamentary discussion in both Houses, I do not suppose I remembered within ten minutes of the meeting being over. It is good that warning should be held in front of those who are responsible for action. I

225
do not think that there was much of the executive in my Amendment, but I do not want to quarrel too much with the noble Lord and accordingly I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
Clause 33 [Children's hearings]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment is to subsection (3). I think that it is in the spirit of this part of the Bill that children's hearings should be detached as much as possible from the atmosphere of the criminal courts and police stations. Hence this Amendment would insert after "accommodation and facilities" the words, "dissociated from criminal courts and police stations". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, after ("facilities") insert ("dissociated from criminal courts and police stations").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: This is a Kilbrandon recommendation, and I agree that we should take a note of it in any general guidance that may be issued. However, having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said about the fate which meets general guidance from time to time, it is just as well that I had made up my mind to accept the inclusion of the specific reference to it in the Statute.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34:
Provisions as to time, place, privacy and notification of children's hearings
34.—(1) Any children's hearing shall be conducted in private, and, subject to the provisions of any rules made under this section, no person other than a person whose presence is necessary for the proper consideration of the case which is being heard, or whose presence is permitted by the chairman, shall be present.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out, "or whose presence is permitted by the chairman." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to reword subsection (1) so as to make it clear. We are dealing with the question of who should be allowed to be present at a children's
226
hearing. I would agree at once that the fewer present the better. Under subsection (5)(f) the Secretary of State will have power to make provision with respect to persons whose presence shall be permitted at a hearing. It must be a question of fact in every case as to who is necessary, but the two criteria in the clause are, first, whether it is necessary and proper in considering the case; and, secondly, whether it is permitted by the chairman.
Side by side with that, paragraph (f) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by rule whose presence shall be permitted. Obviously, in any particular case this leaves within the discretion of the chairman the question of whose presence is necessary in addition to those prescribed by the Secretary of State. As the subsection is drafted, it would allow the chairman to exclude somebody whose presence was in fact necessary to the proper consideration of a case. This is a case of either or: a person's presence is either necessary or the chairman permits it. I think that this is loose drafting, and my Amendment is intended to overcome the difficulty. I want to make certain that if a person whose presence is in fact necessary is excluded, the matter can be put right by appeal to the sheriff, which I think would be the appropriate remedy in this case. But if the chairman had said that a person's presence was or was not permitted, in this case that remedy would not exist. The end of the subsection, with my Amendment and my next Amendment No. 58, would then read:
"…no person other than a person whose presence is necessary for the proper consideration of the case which is being heard shall be present, provided that any other person may attend with the permission of the Chairman."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 34, leave out from ("heard") to ("shall").—(Lord Drumalhyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not think I can go along with the noble Lord Lord Drumalbyn, in his interpretation of the words as they are in Clause 34(1) as it stands, because I do not think that this gives the right to the chairman to exclude someone whose presence is necessary for the proper consideration, of the case. It says that no person other than a person whose presence is necessary

227
for the proper consideration of the case which is being heard shall be present, provided that any other person may attend with the permission of the chairman. There is no question of the chairman's having to give permission to somebody whose presence is necessary for the proper consideration of the case.
Again, the question of attendance, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out, is not left entirely to the chairman's discretion, because the noble Lord has drawn attention to Clause 34(5)(f), under which the Secretary of State can make rules for this purpose. A difficult question which
will be dealt with in the rules (and this is the point to which I was referring in relation to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, on publicity) is the attendance of the Press at children's hearings. Clause 57 restricts the information about hearings which may be
published, but the Bill says nothing about the attendance of the Press. In preparing rules under Clause 57 the Secretary of State proposes to consult representatives of the Press and to invite their advice on the necessary provisions. To allow completely unrestricted attendance by the Press might jeopardise the informal nature of the hearings, while the public and the Press will have a legitimate interest in the hearings and the Press will be able to do much to form public attitudes towards the hearings. A first approach to representatives of the Press in preparation for the drafting of rules about their attendance at hearings is likely to be made shortly.
Having said that, may I say that the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, has just raised a little doubt in my mind whether the drafting is exactly what we want it to be. If he does not press these two Amendments at this stage, I will certainly undertake to have another look at the matter before the Report stage, and either try to persuade him, for reasons which I will endeavour to elicit in defence of the drafting, that the drafting is right as it stands, or put forward an alternative drafting about which I should be happy to consult him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think he has raised an important point on the question of the attendance of the Press at children's
228
hearings. Subject to what any of my noble friends may want to say at this stage, I should like to consider with them what the noble Lord has said, and perhaps we can revert to this subject at the next stage of the Bill or possibly when we come to Clause 57. The spirit of the White Paper, I think, was that the proceedings in children's hearings should be private. Obviously, they could still be private, even though the Press were present. But the intention may be just to give the Press background and prevent them under Clause 57 from making reports that would identify the child. This is an extremely difficult problem, and I should not like to probe it any further at the moment. I take note that the noble Lord will look at it again, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: This is a purely drafting Amendment. To be consistent, the expression "children's hearing" should be written in full on each occasion. This is not done in subsection (5)(f). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 20, after ("a") insert ("children's").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: Subsection (4) of this clause, gives the Secretary of State a power to make rules for the constituting and arranging of children's hearings and for regulating the procedure of those hearings. The types of provision these rules may make are listed in subsection (5). The Amendment represents an addition to the Secretary of State's powers which would enable him, should it be proved necessary, to set time limits to the various procedures in the children's hearing to ensure that hearings do not allow cases to drag on too long. This power would be used only if there were evidence that it was necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 20, at end insert:
("() the continuation of a children's hearing for further investigation of a case before that hearing and the number and duration of such continuations").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [The reporter and deputies]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a local authority" and insert "the Secretary of State". The noble Lord said: We turn now to the appointment of the reporter and his deputies. This Amendment would have the effect of causing the appointment of a reporter to be made by the Secretary of State and not by the local authority. In a sense, the reporter is something like a sheriff clerk dealing with children, and I think I am right in
saying that the sheriff clerk is not appointed by the local authority. The reporter will not be a local officer in the same sense as a director of social work is a local authority officer, and it may be well to detach the administration of children's hearings from too close a link with the social work department and the local authority. This, again, is a probing Amendment, but this could quite easily be done in one of two ways.
I rather suspect that the reason why it has been decided to make the appointment by the local authority and not by the Secretary of State is so that the local authority can be made to pay for the reporter. I do not think that is a very respectable reason for doing it, if it would be better done the other way and the reporter service were to be a service for the children similar to the service of the courts for adults and young offenders. It seems to me it is more logical to do it in this way and have the reporter service a Secretary of State service rather than a local authority service. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, leave out ("a local authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I must hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not because we want local authorities to pay for the reporters that we give them the opportunity of making the appointment. The Kilbrandon Committee stressed that they were anxious that, so far as possible, there should be local bodies able to consider children against their environment and able to work closely with local authority services. Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment in connection with multiplicity of panels was another aspect of the design to ensure that the panels worked in this way.
230
It is true that it has been necessary for the Bill in one or two specific instances to lay a little stress on the local nature of the panels and reporters because of the desire to ensure that there is a certain guidance and uniformity of standard in the appointment of new types of persons for the children's panels and new officials as reporters. The Secretary of State has taken the responsibility of formally appointing members of the panels, although this is to be exercised in the closest association with a children's panel advisory committee. He has also taken the power to ensure that persons he considers to be qualified are appointed as reporters.
We find it difficult to envisage that the local authorities would find it acceptable that we should take the much more radical step of taking the appointment out of their hands altogether, as the Amendment would require us to do. It would not in fact be a logical thing to do unless we were seeking to make it a centrally organised service, and that is the reverse of what we are seeking to do. In fact, it would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill, which is to have close co-operation and "give and take" between the children's hearings and the social work departments in considering the best treatment for children in difficulties. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept my assurance that it is because of the genuine wish to have much local participation as possible, and not out of any ulterior desire to please the Treasury.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not entirely satisfied with the argument that the noble Lord has put forward. It seems to me that if you are going to have to produce any close relationship of this kind, it is not the right thing to have them both under the same umbrella, the umbrella of the local authority; it would be better to have one under the Secretary of State and the other under the local authority. I should like to consider further what the noble Lord has said on this. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.12 p.m.
The MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is a very small Amendment, and I am not certain even that it is necessary to move it, but the noble Lord will recall that I raised the matter on Second Reading because I thought there would be cases when a full-time reporter will not be necessary. I think the matter should be made quite clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, after ("officer") insert ("whole-time or part-time").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I am in fact assured that it is not strictly necessary to put these words in, but we find it is quite an acceptable Amendment and I am prepared to agree to it.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (2):
"and if he considers none of the applicants to be suitable for appointment, he shall require the local authority to re-advertise the vacancy, and the local authority shall comply with the requirement with or without any change in the terms and conditions of service offered."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next Amendment go together. This is the same point as we considered in relation to the appointment of the directors of social work, but here of course this is a continuing provision, whereas in the case of the director of social work there was only a provision that is to last until the Secretary of State makes rules about the qualifications of directors of social work. That being so, I think there is rather more point in this Amendment than there was in the last, though I also think it was valid in the case of the appointment of the director of social work.
I need not go over the purpose again, because the same argument applies. It the local authority is to have responsibility for the reporter, to appoint the reporter, then its choice should be a real one, and unless you put in the words in the Amendment it would of course be possible for the Secretary of State to send down a list of one person and give the local authority no option at all as to whom to appoint. That would be the case as the clause is worded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 32, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am assured that, notwithstanding the noble Lord's fears, what he is asking is in fact what will be done. I do not know how much trouble I shall get myself into by agreeing to accept something which I am assured is unnecessary, but it does not seem to me that this Amendment can do all that amount of harm, and I am prepared to risk accepting it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 36, after ("person") insert ("from among those").—(Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment to subsection (7) is necessary as the provisions of Sections 82 and 92 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 relating to tenure of office provide simply that that office is to be held during the pleasure of the council. The reporter, however, is provided with the additional safeguard that he cannot be removed from office or required to resign except with the consent of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 3, after ("1947") insert (", so far as these provisions are not inconsistent with any of the foregoing, provisions of this section,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: While agreeing with all the noble Lord has said, may I ask whether this will cover the point of the next Amendment, No. 67, which is to ensure that there can be only one reporter? Section 82(4) says in effect that the local authority may appoint two persons to fill an office jointly. I take it that this is not the intention in the case of the reporter. I also assume from what the noble Lord said that the intention is that there should be only one reporter; and if it is clear—and I am not sure that it is clear in the Bill as it stands—that there is to be only one reporter, that then would be at variance with the provisions of the Bill as he has indicated in this Amendment, and therefore it would cover my point. I am not quite sure.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 67 is a little different. Section 82(4) allows a county council to appoint two or more persons jointly to fill one office or one person to fill two or more offices; and the purpose of Amendment No. 67 is to preclude this in the case of the office of the reporter. The Amendment is not in fact a competent one, because Section 82(4) does not deal with remuneration or tenure of office, and therefore does not apply to the Bill by Clause 35(7). It is also unnecessary since the point is adequately covered by Clause 35(5) under which the reporter may not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by the local authority or any other local authority in any capacity other than that of reporter.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (7), "but section 82(4) of the said Act shall not apply to the office of reporter". The noble Lord said: I am bound to say that I do not quite understand the relevance of the last remark of the noble Lord in regard to this Amendment. But I gather in general that the Amendment is not necessary, and that there will be only one person appointed to the office of reporter. If that is so, I need not move this Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: The relevance of the last remark was really that we took it that the Amendment was designed to ensure that there should not be duplication of appointment. The reporter may not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, be employed by the local authority or any other authority in any capacity other than that of reporter. So in fact it is possible for this duality of appointment to be prevented by Clause 35(5).
LORD DRUMALBYN: Surely that cannot be correct. The mere fact that you cannot be employed in any other capacity cannot affect whether you have two people doing one man's job. They could both not be employed in any other capacity than that of reporter. They could both be doing the job jointly. I do not understand the relevance of that. However, I need not press this point at
234
the present time, but perhaps the noble Lord would have a look at it.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord appears to have a point here. It certainly will prevent the reporter from doing something else, but whether or not it prevents two reporters being appointed to one job I do not know.
6.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is one of the classical cases where we are generally told that "may" means "shall", but I cannot conceive that the Secretary of State can avoid making rules in relation to the duties of the reporter, and I should have thought Parliament could just as easily say "shall" here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the duties of the reporter. It is already clear from our consideration that the Secretary of State will have to make rules for constituting and arranging the children's hearings and for regulating the procedure of these hearings. These rules will be made under Clause 34(4) and (5). It seems possible that the bulk of the duties of the reporter will in effect be covered by regulations made under the rules in Clause 34 and that it may not be necessary to make rules regulating the duties of the reporter. In these circumstances we think it is wrong to oblige the Secretary of State to make the regulations when there is no requirement for them. Clearly if the need is seen these regulations will be made. It is the unfortunate experience of everybody concerned that Governments do not have to be encouraged to make regulations; rather they have to be deterred from making them, and I am certain that if there is the slightest excuse they will be made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I were a betting man I should be prepared to take a bet that they would be made. But in view of what the noble Lord has just said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Reports of cases of children who may require compulsory measures of care and the interim detention of such children in places of safety]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment is to make certain that if a child is detained after having been taken to a place of safety by a constable or authorised officer, not only the reporter of the case shall be informed forthwith but also the parent, if he can be found. He may not be found in all cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 20, after ("inform,") insert C the parent, if he can be found, and").(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I very much hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not accept this Amendment. I remember moving a somewhat similar Amendment to the original Children's Act and it was pointed out to me at the time that though normally the parent would be informed—for one thing, we want the parent to pay for the child while he is in care—there might be exceptional cases where it would be undesirable to let the parent know of the child's whereabouts, and it was really much better to leave that matter to the discretion of the officers concerned. My own experience in the field of child care confirms that view, and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will reconsider his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: This places me in a great difficulty. I had been prepared to say that I would accept this Amendment. It seemed to me that it was desirable that the parents should be informed as soon as possible and that in fact the police would normally do this.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Would they normally do it?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, and I felt that putting it in as a statutory reference might help to ensure that a real effort was made to find the parent, if he was not immediately available. I cannot imagine that this would be done in circumstances where it would be very much against the interests of the child for the parent to be pursued, but I must admit that in saying I was ready to accept this Amendment I had not thought of it from that point of view. That was why I looked
236
hopefully over to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to see whether he had had any second thoughts on the matter in the light of this wholly unforeseen intervention.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, the circumstances in which, in his experience, it has been thought justifiably undesirable to inform the parents. When I drafted this Amendment it seemed to be an absolutely natural and essential thing to do. However, I do not think we need pursue this matter now, and I shall not press the Amendment in view of what the noble Earl has said. We can always revert to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh is not here to move this Amendment and the other Amendments to which she has put her name, all dealing with the same general point. Besides Amendment No. 70, I refer to Amendments Nos. 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 98 and 106. The point is that where a reporter considers that for one reason or another a child may not turn up to attend a hearing, or that he may disappear while investigations are proceeding, under the Bill the reporter is entitled to ask the children's hearing to issue a warrant for the detention of that child. My noble friends and I consider that the power to issue a warrant should not be placed in the hands of a non-judicial body such as the children's hearing. We feel it would be much better if that power was reserved for the sheriff, and these Amendments would alter the Bill in that respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 31, leave out ("issue") and insert ("apply to the Sheriff for").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: These Amendments do not seem to have any objection to the detention of a child in such circumstances where it is necessary in his own interests or if there is reason to believe that he may run away. The objection seems to be solely to the right of the children's hearing to issue warrants, which the movers of the Amendment

237
advise should be left to the sheriff on the application of the hearing. It is true that the sheriff has an important part to play in relation to the hearings, as a precaution against any injustices arising. For example, Clause 41 provides that where the grounds on which a child has been referred to the hearing are not
accepted by the child or his parent, they must go to the sheriff to be established. Under Clause 48 appeals to the sheriff may he made by a child or his parent against the treatment decision arrived at by a hearing. In cases where interim detention is necessary on a warrant, as in Clause 36, the rights of individuals are safeguarded again, and if they appeal to the sheriff against such detention the case must be heard within three days.
The machinery is, however, geared to bring the sheriff in at the second stage as a safeguard. A point of the Kilbrandon proposals is that the lay body—that is, the children's hearing—should make the running, as in the vast majority of cases there is no dispute about the facts. In addition, the powers given to a children's hearing under Clause 43 to impose a supervision requirement requiring residence in a residential establishment is a power that goes well beyond any minor power of interim detention. It is very difficult to give them the major power and then deny them the procedural means of making sure that a child's case can be properly dealt with without his running away, or to prevent them from forming the view that his interests can be best served by keeping him in a place of safety. The use of this power will, however, be very carefully watched, and should it prove necessary the powers of the Secretary of State to make rules under Clause 35(8) could be invoked to impose such safeguards as might be felt to be necessary.
The children's hearing can issue warrants in the following circumstances. First, under Clause 36(3), where a child has been detained in a place of safety under Clause 36(2), or under Section 40(3) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, and where a children's hearing has been arranged for the first lawful day after the commencement of their detention, and where the hearing is satisfied that further detention is necessary in the child's own interest or be-
238
lieve that he will run away during the investigation of the case. Secondly, under Clause 39(4) where the reporter considers that a child may not attend the hearing of his case the hearing may issue a warrant to the reporter for the removal of the child from his home and detention in a place of safety. Thirdly, under Clause 39(5) where a child fails to attend the hearing of his case a children's hearing may issue a warrant for his apprehension. Then, under Clause 42(4), in order to investigate the case further, or where satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the attendance of a child at a subsequent hearing or is necessary in his own interests, a hearing may issue a warrant requiring a child to be removed from his home and detained in a place of safety or to attend any clinic, hospital or establishment. All these warrants may last for a maximum of twenty-one days, but may be renewed, on application, also for a maximum of twenty-one days.
The power, we feel, is a necessary one, given the major duties which halve been placed on the hearings. The appeal procedure and the ability to make regulations are such that we are quite certain that it is a power which will only be used wisely, and if necessary regulations can be made to ensure that the circumstances are such that it will only be used wisely, and for what is essentially in the interests of the child.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurances on this matter. I should like, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh, to reserve her position until she has had time to read what the noble Lord has said. I certainly do not intend to press these Amendments today. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.34 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (5), after "sheriff", to insert:
"under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, and the person named in the warrant may be apprehended as a person unlawfully at large in any part of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg to move Amendment No. 72, and perhaps I may

239
speak at the same time to Amendment No. 73.
This clause provides that a constable or authorised officer of the local authority who has reasonable cause to believe that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care may give the reporter any information he may have about the child; and that he may take to a place of safety any child against whom there has or is believed to have been committed certain offences involving immorality and indecency, cruelty or danger to life. The child may be detained in the place of safety until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing on the first lawful day, and by warrant for a further period not exceeding 21 days if the hearing cannot dispose of his case or it is necessary in his own interests or to prevent his running away. The effect of the Amendments is to describe more fully the "warrant of apprehension issued by a sheriff" to which subsection (5) refers, and to provide for the apprehension of any child subject to a warrant of detention who is unlawfully at large. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 40, after ("sheriff") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 41, leave out ("such a warrant") and insert ("a warrant issued by a sheriff as aforesaid").—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Initial investigation of cases by reporter]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are here dealing with reports to be made by constables of a police force to the appropriate reporter in addition to the Public Prosecutor. It seemed to me that it was quite possible that the child on whom a report was made would already be in the care of a social work department, and therefore that it would be reasonable for a copy of the report to be sent also to the Director of Social Work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"and shall send a copy thereof to the Director of Social Work."—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The effect of this Amendment would be to require the police to send to the Director of Social Work copies of the report that they will be required by Clause 37(2) to send to the reporter as well as to the prosecutor—that is the Procurator Fiscal—in relation to offences alleged to be committed by children. In the light of the way in which Clause 38 outlines the procedure for the reporter, such a provision seems at least at present unnecessary and may lead to duplication. Clause 38 places the onus firmly on the reporter to decide that no further action is required or to refer the case to the local authority, which means the Director of Social Work, in order to arrange for advice, guidance and assistance; or, where he thinks the child is in need of compulsory measures of care, he must arrange a children's hearing. In other words, the Director of Social Work can expect to be involved informally at an early stage in many cases. Once a children's hearing has been arranged under Clause 38(3) he will be brought in formally and reports will be requested. To bring the Director of Social Work in immediately in cases where offences have been committed will give the police extra work; will give the Director of Social Work's officials extra work; and, more important, may blur the issue of where responsibility lies.
Of course it is impossible to be sure how events will turn out in practice. They may show that the Director of Social Work is not being brought in by the
reporter at an early enough stage. Should there be any signs that this was so, then the Secretary of State has power to make regulations under Clause 35(8) in relation to the duties of the reporter. It would then be open to him to make it a matter of routine that in certain types of cases or in all cases the reporter should pass the report he receives from the police to the Director of Social Work. This is certainly a possibility which will be watched most carefully.
In these days we have a tendency to encourage multiplication of paper work on the part of everybody concerned. This is a case where we think it most

241
likely that the Director of Social Work will get those things which he really needs, and we do not see any reason why the police, burdened already, as they are, with a multiplicity of duties for which they are inadequately staffed, and social departments who will have a great many duties to undertake, should have to deal with any paper work unless it is absolutely necessary. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be at one with me in that. Perhaps he will therefore accept my assurance that we are content with the object of his Amendment and will take the necessary action to ensure that what he desires is in fact brought about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Of course duplication is exactly the purpose of this. I do not think it would be difficult to have a copy sent to the Director of Social Work. The point was that where the Director of Social Work received a copy which referred to somebody whom he was already supervising in one way or another, he would then be able to get in touch right away with the reporter and say, "I see you have a report about somebody that I am at present dealing with." I daresay that it may be a matter of routine for the reporter to telephone the Director of Social Work at the time he gets a report and to say "Do you know anything about so-and-so?". But the purpose of this Amendment was simply to establish the point of liaison. I do not want to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Action on initial investigation by reporter]:
6.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"() Where a case has been referred by the reporter to the local authority in accordance with the foregoing subsection, the local authority may, if they are of opinion that the subsequent conduct of the child is such as to indicate that he may be in need of compulsory care, refer the case back to the reporter, who shall, after making such further investigation as he may think necessary, proceed with the case in accordance with the provisions of the next two subsections."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) enables the reporter to refer the case to the local authority for
"advice, guidance and assistance of the child and his family."
What I want to know is, what happens if the child and his family do not accept the advice, guidance and assistance? This was a point which the noble Lord may remember I made on Second Reading. It seems to me that this is the counterpart of placing a child on probation as an alternative to punishment under the present system. If the reference to the local authority does not work, ought the case to come back to the reporter? In other words, if the child or the parents are recalcitrant, ought not the case to come back to the reporter? I recognise that Clause 36 seems to go some way to cover this point, but it does not seem to me to cover it completely. This seems to deal with rather a different set of circumstances from those envisaged by Clause 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: If the local authority decide that a child who has been dealt with under Clause 38(2) by voluntary action, under Part II of the Act, requires a compulsory measure of care, the reporter will be obliged to arrange a children's hearing. It is a matter of policy that the decision to arrange hearings shall rest with the reporter. In fact, the Amendment does not achieve this purpose, since the reporter's discretion is re-established in the next part of the clause, subsection (3). I therefore invite the noble Lord not to pursue this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not quite understand that. Subsection (2) says:
"Where the reporter considers it to be the proper course, he shall refer the case to the local authority with a view to their making arrangements for the advice, guidance and assistance of the child and his family in accordance with Part II of this Act."
What I am saying is that it may well be that the parents or the child refuse to accept this "advice, guidance and assistance." In that case, this particular Amendment would provide for the matter to be referred back to the reporter. It does not seem to me that Clause 36 in

243
itself does that, unless there is a fresh incident. So it seemed to me that there would have to be some machinery for the matter, having been referred to the local authority, to come back to the reporter in case of need.
LORD HUGHES: The advice which I have is that in those circumstances Clause 38(3) cites:
"Where it appears to the reporter that the child is in need of compulsory measures of care, he shall arrange a children's hearing for the consideration and determination of the case."
In other words, he has tried to deal with it under Clause 38(2). For the reasons envisaged by the noble Lord, it does not work. He then proceeds to deal with it under Clause 38(3) as a case where the child is in need of a compulsory measure of care. That would arise if the opportunity is not taken to deal with the matter without compulsion.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see that this point could just be interpreted in that way; but subsections (2), (3) and (4) seem to me to be clear alternatives, and I still think that the only way in which, as the clause stands, the matter can come back to the reporter at all is where the local authority reports it back to the reporter under Clause 36(1):
"Where a constable or authorised officer of the local authority has reasonable cause to believe that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care"—
that is to say, where he is not taking the "advice, guidance or assistance"—
"he may give to the reporter such information about the child as he may have been able to discover."
When you are setting out procedures in alternatives, as this clause clearly does, it seemed to me that you needed a link in Clause 38, if subsection (2) failed, to take it back to the reporter again, otherwise it rests with the local authority. However, I do not need to pursue that any further now. If there is anything in it no doubt we shall hear more about it from the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out, "for the consideration
244
and determination of the case", and insert:
"to whom the case shall stand referred for consideration and determination".
The noble Lord said: This clause sets out the courses of action which are open to the reporter when he has received a report of a child who may need to be brought before a children's hearing. The effect of this drafting Amendment to subsection (3) would be to establish clearly that it is the hearing's function to consider and determine the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 18, leave out from ("hearing") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out
"which may contain information from any such person as the reporter or the local authority may think fit."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to leave out the last phrase. The clause reads:
"…it shall he the duty of the authority to supply the report"—
that is the report that is requested by the reporter. In regard to that report it says:
"which may contain information from any such person as the reporter or the local authority may think fit."
This is the report for a children's hearing that we are talking about. As it stands, it seems to me that this is unsatisfactory. The reporter may request information to be obtained from a particular person, but as the clause stands that person is under no obligation to give the information. If he does not give information, then obviously the report cannot contain the information. Therefore these words are not valid. As for the local authorities, the report can contain any information from any such person as is thought fit. One does not need to put that into the Bill since it seems to be unnecessary. The only purpose in putting it into the Bill would be to preclude the reporter from forbidding the inclusion of any such information, which I should not have thought was the intention. These words are unnecessary and impracticable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 23, leave out from ("report") to end of line 24.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: This would appear to be a case in which we are going in the opposite direction from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, generally seeks to go, and where he requires us to be a little more explicit in what we want to do. We have in fact already done what he wants in this particular case. The words which this Amendment seeks to exclude make it clear that the report which the authority are under a duty to provide to the children's hearing may contain information from persons other than members of the staff of the director of social work. As amended, the report might only express the views of the director, whereas it might be highly desirable that the views from the child's doctor or his headmaster should be included. It may be argued that the words to be omitted do not add much and that a good director of social work will include all the information which should be made available to the hearing. It seems desirable, however, to emphasise the point that the report should canvass views other than those of the director's staff, and, as worded, it would enable the reporter to ensure that where he thinks that the views of a particular person should be taken, this will be done. We feel that if the words are not included, some people will say: "It is not there, so I have no right to ask for this", and that, no matter how desirable it may be, it will not be asked for. We think that there will be cases where it would be desirable that other opinions should be canvassed and that it is of value to make it explicit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I take it from what the noble Lord has said that the person is under no obligation to give the information requested by the reporter. If the reporter indicates that he would like information to be obtained from such and such a person, this puts an obligation on the local authority to try to get it, but it lays no duty or obligation on the person to give the information—it is purely voluntary.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, that is so. A doctor or headmaster cannot be compelled to give the information.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Attendance of chill at children's hearing]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 82 raises a very small point, and seeks to delete the words "children's hearing can meet", which give an unbusiness-like and slightly ridiculous impression, and if they remain in the Bill it may be difficult to get a children's hearing together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 11, leave out ("children's hearing can meet") and insert ("case is heard").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: We looked at this Amendment on the basis that it was being put forward purely as a matter of drafting. The
advice which I have been given is that it is not a satisfactory Amendment,
simply because of the indefinite nature of the words "until the case is heard". It could be interpreted as meaning either the first hearing, which might need to he continued to a further hearing while more information was collected, or "until the case is disposed of". We believe that the present drafting us pre-able, since it clearly refers only to the first hearing after the child is apprehended. That hearing is able to decide the case finally, or that the child should or should not be kept in a place of safety until a further hearing takes place. This matter is a little complicated, and perhaps what I have said does not sound very informative. But after the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has read what I said—and assuming that he does not press it at this stage—I am satisfied that he will not find it necessary to put down this Amendment again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. This is tied up with the continuation of hearings, and so on, but it is an important point from the point of view of the liberty of the young subject. Perhaps I can follow the noble Lord's advice and have a look at it, and, if necessary put the Amendment down again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment, No. 83, relates to the same point, dealing with what happens when a child is apprehended and kept in a place of safety pending the hearing. The question in these circumstances is how soon the hearing should take place. This concerns a case where a child has failed to attend the hearing of his case. The reason I picked upon a period of 72 hours was partly because it occurs in another part of the Bill, and partly because of the idea in the Kilbrandon Report that the children's hearings will take place often on Fridays and Saturdays. Therefore 72 hours seems a reasonable maximum which one could impose, since the period from Friday to Monday might be a limiting factor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 12, at end insert ("providing that the child may not be so detained for a period exceeding seventy-two hours").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I would agree with this Amendment in principle, but I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it now, and I undertake to put something else in its place. The subsection as it stands provides that a warrant may be issued for a child's apprehension and detention in a place of safety until a hearing can meet. As the clause is drafted, there is no limit on the time which may elapse between his apprehension and hearing, and it is necessary to prescribe such a limit. On the other hand, we are not at all certain that 72 hours would prove to be a practical period of time to meet the purpose. We should like to look at the matter to find out what is a reasonable period to lay down. I accept that the clause as it stands, without limitation, is not satisfactory.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for accepting the principle of imposing a limitation of time. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Attendance of parents at children's hearing]:
7.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (1), "whether the child is
248
required to attend or not." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) says:
"A parent of a child shall have a right to attend at all stages of a children's hearing who are considering the case of his child."
The Amendment seeks to add the words:
"whether the child is required to attend or not."
I attach a good deal of importance to this.
Clause 39(2) says:
"Where a children's hearing are satisfied in a case concerned with an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 that the attendance of a child is not necessary for the just hearing of that case, or in any case where they are satisfied that it would be detrimental to the interest of the child to be present at the hearing of his case, the case may be considered and determined in the absence of the child."
It seems that a case can be considered when the child is not present. These words seek to cover that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, at end insert ("whether the child is required to attend or not.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made clear that his intention in moving the Amendment was to give the parent a right of attendance at all stages of the children's hearing, whether or not the child is required to attend. We do not need this Amendment, because Clause 40(1) confers upon a parent an absolute right of attendance at all stages of the consideration of the child's case before a hearing. This right is in no way affected, whether the child is absent or present. We had this possibility clearly in mind when the Bill was drafted, and the point is covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged for that assurance. I wanted to make certain that it was fully covered. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (1), to insert as new subsections:
"() A child, whose case is being considered by a children's hearing, or his parent shall have a right to object on any reasonable grounds to the participation in the hearing of any member of a children's hearing.
() At the commencement of any hearing the chairman shall inform the child and his parent, if present, of his right under the foregoing subsection, and, if objection is taken,

249
the hearing shall, unless the children's hearing is of opinion that the grounds of objection are unreasonable, forthwith be adjourned, and in arranging for another hearing the reporter shall give effect to the objection."
The noble Lord said: With permission I will also deal with Amendment No. 86. These Amendments are designed to secure a right to the child or his parents to object to the presence of a particular member of a children's hearing, adjudicating in the case. Some of the representations that I have received would make the right absolute, but it seems that it should be limited to objections on reasonable grounds, that is, of prejudice or too close knowledge or something of that kind. It seemed also that if the chairman decided that the grounds were not reasonable, it would in any case be open to the child or his parent to appeal to the sheriff against the children's hearing's disposal of the case. There would be a means of challenging the chairman's decision that the grounds were not reasonable. I hope that this is so. The main purpose is to give a right of objection to the participation of a particular member of the children's hearing in the adjudication of the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that the effect of his Amendment would be to enable the child or his parents to object to a member of the panel on any reasonable grounds, and if they did so the hearing would have to be adjourned and rearranged without the person objected to. I am not cavilling at the aim behind the noble Lord's Amendment, but feel that it is unacceptable because at each hearing an objection could be raised requiring an adjournment. The child and the parents would have an effective power to frustrate the work of the hearing. It would be better to secure the interests of the child and parent in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes, by rules made under Clause 34(4). To this end we should like to consult the Council on Tribunals for the best form of rule for this purpose. There is nothing at issue between us about the objective, but if the Amendment were accepted there could be a case of complete obstruction and frustration
250
of the purpose that we both have in mind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged for that explanation. It was not my purpose to secure the obstruction of children's hearings in this way. The course that has been suggested is most suitable, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If a parent has a right to attend, the fact that in the opinion of the children's hearing his attendance would be detrimental to the hearing of the case seems irrelevant. The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out the words "or detrimental" in line 20. To include them might mean the reporter in the children's hearing bringing pressure on the parent not to be present, and this would be a serious infringement of the parent's right to be present under Clause 40(1). If a parent applies to be excused from the hearing under the clause the sole criterion for granting or refusing the application should surely be: Is his presence necessary? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 20, leave out ("or detrimental") —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord is
perfectly right. The words which he seeks to delete are irrelevant, and it is sufficient for the children's hearing to be empowered to decide whether or not the presence of a parent who wishes to be excused or has difficulty in being present is necessary. For that reason, I would advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that a parent should not be fined for non-attendance at a children's hearing if he did not receive notice requiring him to attend. I dare say that if he could prove in court that he did not receive notice he would probably not be fined anyway, but it is just as well to make this specific. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("person") to first ("shall") in line 22 and insert (", having received notice requiring him to

251
attend a children's hearing and not having been excused in accordance with the foregoing subsection, fails to comply with the notice")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: The Amendment draws attention to the notice which the parent should receive of the hearing. In the Government's view, subsection (3) read with subsection (2) is adequate. The business of drawing attention to it would be provided for by rules under Clause 35(5) and the complementary requirement on the parent to attend is by subsection (2) of this clause. Nothing can be achieved that is not already achieved by the Bill as drafted. If the noble Lord were to insist that the matter should be spelled out in more detail, I must point out that the Amendment is defective since it would have to include: "…having received notice under this part of this Act." This would be necessary in the same way as there is a reference in subsection (1) of Clause 39 to the procedure whereby the child receives the notice. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not in the least surprised to know that my Amendment is technically defective. I am quite satisfied with the noble Lord's assurance that this matter will be covered by rules. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Conduct of children's hearing and summary application to sheriff for findings]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "accept" to insert:
"or if his parent is not present the child accepts,".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 94, to leave out subsection (8). It seems to me that the drafting of the Bill is, in general, clear and intelligible, but at the end of Clause 41 there seems to be a sudden lapse. In my view, subsections (7) and (8) are decidedly sub-standard. Subsection (8), which Amendment No. 94 seeks to delete, reads as follows:
"The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to pro-
252
ceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present."
In any event, I do not see why this should be put in as an after-thought in the clause. My Amendment would bring it to the forefront of the clause so that at
line 33, page 25, it would read:
"where the child and his parent accept or it his parent is not_present the child accepts, the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed".
That seems to me to be perfectly clear and to make subsection (8) unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 33, after ("accept") insert ("or if his parent is not present the child accepts,"). —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord will, I think, accept that if his Amendment No. 89 is unacceptable—and I regret to have to tell him that it is—his Amendment No. 94 to delete subsection (8) falls. The effect of the deletion of subsection (8) would be to make it impossible to proceed with a hearing unless a parent were present, even if the parents could not be found. In our view, that would be wholly unacceptable. With regard to Amendment No. 89, apparently the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wants to make it clear that if a parent is not present and a child accepts the grounds stated for referral of a case, the hearing should proceed. The difficulty here is that it is, presumably, the intention of the noble Lord that the hearing should similarly proceed in subsection (2)(b) and (c) in the absence of the parent, but the absence of specific provision there would certainly cast doubt upon this. In our view, the aim of Amendment No. 89 is already achieved by subsection (8), which the noble Lord wishes to delete. In these circumstances, I feel either that his apprehensions have no foundation or that his aim is misconceived.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My æsthetic sense is offended, if I may put it that way. I quite agree that if we amended paragraph (a) as I should like, we should also make an Amendment in paragraph (b). I am sorry that I did not put down such an Amendment. It would obviously follow. I do not attach a very great deal of importance to the Amendment. I merely think that subsection (8) is very inelegant and that the Amendment

253
would be a more elegant method. However, the noble Lord does not agree. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from the beginning of paragraph (c) to the first "sheriff" in subsection (3) and insert:
"(c) in any other case, unless they decide to discharge the referral, the children's hearing shall direct the reporter to make application to the sheriff for a finding as to whether such grounds for the referral, as are not accepted by the child or his parent, have been established having regard to the provisions of section 31 of this Act.
(3) An application under the last foregoing subsection shall be heard by".
The noble Lord said: I should like the Committee to consider also Amendment No. 91, to substitute a new subsection (6). The clause makes it a duty of the chairman of a children's hearing to explain to the child and his parent the grounds stated by the reporter for bringing the child before the hearing and to find out whether they accept the grounds either in whole or in part. As the clause stands, the procedure to be followed, in cases where a child or his parent does not accept, or a child whose parent is not present does not understand the grounds, is that the hearing—unless it is decided to discharge the referral—must refer the case to the sheriff for a finding on the facts of such grounds as are not accepted or understood.
Such reference is to be by way of summary application to the sheriff in chambers, who is given specific power to ask for reports and who may make one or other of the following findings: (a) that the grounds are established, in which event he must refer the case back to the reporter to arrange a hearing to proceed with it; or (b) that the grounds have not been established, in which case he must dismiss the application and discharge the referral. Amendment No. 90 would have two effects. First, it would make more explicit that what the sheriff is required to do in response to an application for "a finding on facts" is to establish whether the grounds for referral as defined in Clause 31 have been made out. Secondly, the Amendment to subsection (3) removes the reference to summary application and leaves it open for a different, uniform and simpler procedure to be laid down.
Amendment No. 91 would meet a point raised by the sheriffs that it is important that the standards of proof required should be clearly laid down. The procedure before the sheriff is clearly a civil procedure to which normal civil standards of proof of "balance of probability" might be expected to apply. The difficulty arises in cases where the ground for the referral is the commission of an offence, as stated in Clause 31(2)(g). The proposed solution is that the sheriff, in hearing an application in relation to such a case, must apply the standard of proof required in criminal procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("the sheriff") in line 2 on page 26 and insert the said new words —(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having moved this Amendment. But I think he will agree that this is rather a complicated matter, and I should like time to examine it before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 91.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Where the sheriff is satisfied on the evidence before him that the grounds in respect of which the application has been made have been established he shall remit the case to the reporter to make arrangements for a children's hearing for consideration and determination of the case, and where a ground for the referral of the case is the condition referred to in section 31(2)(g) of this Act, the sheriff in hearing the case shall apply to the evidence relating to that ground the standard of proof required in criminal procedure.")—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 17, leave out ("and").— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 93.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 18, after ("present") insert ("and").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (8), after "by" to insert "a child or". The noble Lord said: This is by way of being an exploratory Amendment. Taken with No. 96 it would make subsection (8) read:
"The acceptance by a child or a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the child or the parent, as the case may be, is not present."
Am I right in thinking that the hearing cannot proceed unless the child is present, except in the circumstances prescribed in Clause 39(2), which relates to Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act; that is, where an offence has been committed against the child? In other words, in any case where the child has committed an offence, or for some reason or another is in need of compulsory care, then the child will always be present at a hearing and the child's acceptance is an invariable prerequisite to proceeding with the hearing. Incidentally, I much prefer the word "prerequisite" to the word "requirement". However, that is a matter of taste. But is this so? The purpose of this Amendment is to elicit this important information in connection with the whole conduct of children's hearings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 26, after ("by") insert ("a child or").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is perfectly clear. It would be to allow a children's hearing to proceed with a child's case without the child's or his parent's acceptance of the grounds if neither was present at the hearing. This would not be acceptable—
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will forgive me, that is not so, be-cause the words are "a child or the parent, as the case may be". Obviously, the words could not be interpreted to mean "neither". It must be one or the other. The key word is "or".
LORD STONHAM: I think that is exactly what I said. The noble Lord's Amendment could not be accepted, because the purpose of subsection (8) is to make it clear that a hearing can proceed with a child's case without the acceptance
256
of the parent if he is not there. Apart from cases where the parent may simply
have disappeared, his attendance, as subsection (2) of Clause 40 provides, may not always be required by the hearing if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable or unnecessary. But in those circumstances the child's acceptance would still be required. It is entirely appropriate that either a child should have to accept the grounds or that the matter should go to the sheriff. I do not suppose the noble Lord needs me to enlarge on the kind of case where it would be unreasonable to expect the child to accept the grounds, as he can well imagine such a case. But that is the position as we see it, and though my noble friend Lord Hughes will certainly consider what the noble Lord has said, on my understanding of the case his Amendment is unacceptable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I understand what the position is. Of course there are cases—and the Bill provides for these—where the acceptance of the child is not necessary, because the child cannot be expected to understand the grounds of the referral; and that I understand. As I said, this Amendment is exploratory and to make quite clear that, apart from such a case, and the case covered by Clause 39, the child must be present and must accept the grounds of a hearing before the matter can proceed. I hope the noble Lord can tell me that is so, because it is crucial to the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: I am happy to be able to say that the answer is, Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power of children's hearing to order further investigation after consideration of the facts]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 36, after ("decide") insert ("that").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a question of the time that a child can be held during further investigations. Earlier in the Bill a period of 21 days is laid down for investigations, but we are now dealing with the case where there already has been a hearing and further investigations are required. It seemed to me that perhaps 21 days was rather long and that 14 days would be more appropriate. On the other hand, there is the question of holding a child for assessment, and I have no idea how long that would take. It might he expected to take more than 21 days in certain cases, and in that event I wonder what the procedure would be. 'There could be a case of mental health or something of that kind. But an absolute 21 days seems either too much or too little, and this Amendment would reduce the period to 14 days. Of course, I imagine the period could always be continued in cases of need. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Lord has made clear, the effect of his Amendment would be to restrict detention for further investigation to 14 days under subsection (4)(a) of Clause 42, and to restrict further detention to a similar period. I do not think the Amendment is either necessary or helpful, and I want to explain why. First of all, the circumstances in Clause 43 are such that interim detention for further investigation is to be embarked on only when it is either necessary to secure the attendance of the child or is necessary in the child's own interest. In the vast majority of cases further investigation will not require interim detention, or even a requirement to attend a clinic. Where it does so require, the circumstances will normally be circumstances of non-co-operation, mainly of the child, where the reports obtained have not been particularly helpful. The interim detention will provide the first opportunity for a careful assessment of that child. The first reason, as it were, justifies the detention; the second reason justifies the period.
The professional advice available to the Secretary of State leads us to the belief that in most cases it should be possible to complete the necessary assessments by three weeks, but that two weeks
258
is perhaps not quite enough in some cases. We are talking about a maximum period: we are not talking about a minimum. We think it would be a pity to have to bring in the hearing again after two weeks when the case would perhaps be completed very shortly thereafter. Needless to say, the guidance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would make it quite clear that such detention should last no longer than was necessary for the investigation required. I hope that, in view of that explanation, which convinces even me, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am glad that the noble Lord has convinced himself. He has also convinced me, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Disposal of case by children's hearing other than by discharge of referral]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 32, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Rules as respects transmission of information and conveyance of children to residential establishments etc.]:
7.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 101—and I am delighted to have exceeded the century. Clause 44 deals with the mechanics of transferring information about children subject to supervision requirements from the reporter to the persons who are to be in charge of them, and of the conveyance of such children to residential establishments and to other places where they may be required to reside. The aim of this rule-making power is to provide guidance, and thus to avoid difficulties between the various authorities concerned. The effect of the Amendment which I
am now moving would be to

259
ensure that rules made under this clause enable temporary accommodation to be provided where a child cannot go immediately to the particular residential establishment in which the hearing has decided he should be placed. I think this is a very useful provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 23, after ("them") insert (", for the temporary accommodation, where necessary, of such children,").—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Duration of supervision requirements and their variation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask a question about subsection (2) of this clause, which is a rather important one. It says:
"A supervision requirement shall cease to have effect in respect of a child when he attains the age of eighteen years",
and so on. The point I have in mind is that a person might be still under supervision when he was between the ages of 16 and 18, and then, being under supervision, and being subject to the children's hearing jurisdiction and not, normally, to the sheriff's court's jurisdiction, he might towards the end of this period commit some serious offence. Yet, despite that further serious offence, he might still continue to be simply under supervision as a child because he had been under supervision before he was 16 and the supervision ran on. In a case like that, it would seem to be wrong even to contemplate that the supervision requirement should end at 18. Of course, the answer may be that in such circumstances if he committed a serious offence he would probably be prosecuted on the instructions of the Lord Advocate, and that would be that —this case would not then arise. But I think this point is of sufficient substance to make it worth raising, in order to see what would happen in such a case.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for raising this point, and I am quite certain that it is of sufficient substance to justify his raising it. I would ask him to allow me to look into the point and to inform him in due course—at least, my noble friend Lord Hughes will inform him—of the result of our consideration of his point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Review of requirement of children's hearing]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a relatively small drafting Amendment. It seems to me that the wording as it is:
"and where there is a failure to review a supervision requirement within the period of one year"
might well he an unjustified slur on somebody. It implies an omission or oversight, or neglect. The child may have been quite deliberately left under supervision for a year, and there may have been no failure at all on the part of anyone. I should prefer the neutral words which I have put down, so that the clause would read:
"where a supervision requirement is not reviewed within the period of one year".
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 25, leave out from ("where") to ("within") in line 26 and insert ("a supervision requirement is not reviewed")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: I do not accept that this would be an unjustified slur, but I accept that this is a useful drafting Amendment which I should advise your Lordships to accept.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Appeal against decision of a children's hearing]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, and I should be grateful if your Lordships would consider at the same time Nos. 107 and 108, on page 30, at lines 30 and 32, respectively. These Amendments have the effect of

261
deleting the reference to procedure by way of summary application to the sheriff, which has also been deleted from Clause 41 by Amendment No. 90. They are not precisely consequential, but are almost equivalent thereto. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3, leave out ("by way of summary application")—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment—it may not be necessary, but the purpose of putting the Amendment down is to find out whether it is necessary—is, I think, self-explanatory. I propose to insert a new subsection in the following terms:
"Where a child appeals in accordance with the foregoing subsection,"—
that is, to a sheriff in chambers—
"the reporter shall inform his parent of the time fixed for the hearing of the application, and the parent shall have a right to attend".
It seems to me that it is right that the parent should be present at a hearing by the sheriff in chambers just as much as at a children's hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, at end insert—
("() Where a child appeals in accordance with the foregoing subsection, the reporter shall inform his parent of the time fixed for the hearing of the application, and the parent shall have a right to attend.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STONHAM: It is quite right and proper for the noble Lord to raise this point. If his Amendment were accepted, it would give the parent of a child, in addition to his right to attend all stages of a children's hearing, a right to attend when an appeal against a
decision of a children's hearing was being heard by the sheriff in chambers. But it would not be appropriate. The sheriff, sitting in chambers for any purpose, has complete discretion as to whom he may or may not admit, and it is felt that it might be inappropriate to impose upon him by Statute a duty to admit parents to the hearing of appeals under Clause 48.
There seems no objection in principle to the proposal that the child's parent should be informed of the time fixed for the hearing of the application, but the parent's admittance or otherwise to the hearing would be for the sheriff to decide, and it might he expected that the attendance of the parent would usually be re-
262
garded by the sheriff as of advantage. As to the mechanics of informing the parent, it may be that this should be done by the reporter or possibly by the sheriff clerk. This is a matter we should like to consider and in due course to work out with the various authorities concerned. But with regard to making it a duty by Statute imposed on the sheriff, we feel we must say "No". I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will share that view.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not at all sure about that. The child appealing to a sheriff is presumably entitled also to legal aid. It seems very illogical that the parent should have to be present at the children's hearing but that if the appeal should be made in the name of the child or if the child himself should appeal (whichever the lawyers decide) the parent would not then have the right to be present. I imagine the answer is that it will be the parent who appeals in that case, if he is not getting his rights. I do not think we should be unduly frightened of making an innovation in regard to imposing a right to attend at a hearing by the sheriff in chambers, even if that right is unprecedented at the present time. We are setting up entirely new machinery and it would not be surprising if we had new procedures. It might be more appropriate to do it by Rules; but it seems to me to be tidier to have provision for it in the Bill. However, as the noble Lord has said he is going to look at it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment 105 on behalf of my noble friend. This is a drafting Amendment designed to tie in reference to appeal with a particular decision of a children's hearing in respect of which it has been made.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 27, leave out ("such a") and insert ("that").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 107 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("a summary application") and insert ("an appeal").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 32, leave out ("application") and insert ("appeal").—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Appeal to Court of Session]:
7.43 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: With the Committee's permission I should like to move Amendments Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 together. These are associated Amendments. As it stands, this clause provides for appeal to the Court of Session at the instance of a child or his parent, or of the reporter, in two circumstances: first, against a decision by the sheriff in a case which is referred to him for a finding where the grounds for referral to a children's hearing by the reporter are not accepted by the child or his parent; and, second, against a decision by the sheriff in relation to an appeal against a decision of a children's hearing heard by the sheriff under Clause 48(1). The Amendments to page 30, lines 36 and 38, would withdraw the power given to the Court of Session by subsection (1) to give leave for an appeal if the sheriff had previously refused it. This was a slightly unusual provision and following consultation with a number of legal interests—these included sheriffs principal and substitute, principal clerk of Session, clerk of Justiciary, sheriff clerks and procurator fiscals, who were all seen at a meeting chaired in Edinburgh by the Lord Advocate—it was decided to leave it out.
The Amendment to page 30, line 41, would remove the right of appeal on a question of public interest. Legal interests are of the opinion that this would be an unusual power and can think of no cases that might arise which could not otherwise he dealt with by the sheriff certifying that a point of law was involved. The Amendment to page 31, line 3, would provide that appeals to the Court of Session are to be by way of stated case. The opinion of legal interests is that this would be the normal and the best course. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 36, leave out from ("sheriff") to ("at")
Page 30, line 38, after ("sheriff") insert ("under this Part of this Act, and no other appeal shall be competent")
Page 30, line 41, leave out from ("decision") to the end of line 43.
Page 31, line 3, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 5 and insert (". and any appeal under this section shall be by way of stated case").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is puzzling to know why this was first put into the Bill and later, after consultation, taken out. It is very puzzling to a layman to know why it is thought by lawyers that a question of public interest can never be involved in an appeal of this type. If a question of public interest cannot be involved there is no particular reason for giving the Court of Session a power to override a refusal of the sheriff to give leave to appeal—because I think that could happen only on a question of public interest. That is a surprising view. The difficulty here is that we are moving in uncharted territory. I should have thought it impossible to predict what sort of cases of public interest might arise. No wonder the legal experts cannot think of a case; it has not happened yet; it is uncharted territory. For my part, I am somewhat reluctant to let this go through. I have the feeling that a case of public interest is likely to arise. It is quite impossible to foresee it. I think it would be better to keep these words in.
LORD HUGHES: The difficulty we were in, having decided to consult these legal interests about these rather novel legal points, is that having obtained their advice it was difficult not to accept it, particularly when this very powerful gathering, with their legal experience and background, could not think a case would arise which could not be dealt with by the sheriff certifying that a point of law was involved. They do not think that circumstances can arise which cannot be dealt with under the procedure as it is at present. If my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate was persuaded, then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would not expect me to venture into these troubled waters.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Rehearing after appeal and subsequent appeal]:
LORD HUGHES: This is a drafting Amendment consequential to the removal of the references to "summary application" in Clause 48 by a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 17, leave out ("by way of summary application").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Power of Secretary of State to terminate supervision requirement]:
LORD HUGHES: With permission, I will refer also to Amendment No. 115, as they are related Amendments. These are purely drafting Amendments, designed, respectively, to generalise the reference to a case in line 22 and to remove any ambiguity in the word "him" in line 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 22, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 115.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 24, leave out ("him") and insert ("the child").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think we can let this Amendment go without comment. I cannot believe that there could be any ambiguity in fact. It could not mean that the Secretary of State is satisfied about his supervision. But we will accept the Amendment.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Legal aid in proceedings before the sheriff and any appeals to the Courts of Session]:
LORD HUGHES: I might say about the previous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that if the draftsman expresses the view that there is ambiguity about his own wording, who am I to argue with him? This again is purely a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the proceedings before the sheriff or
266
in any subsequent appeal to the Court of Session are proceedings in respect of a decision of a children's hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 28, after ("of") insert ("a decision of").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was not certain that this was purely a drafting Amendment. Might it not be about the procedure at a children's hearing? It may well be that the procedure is not right and I should have thought that the procedure at a children's hearing should also be covered. I hope that these words will not be inserted, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would reconsider the matter.
LORD HUGHES: I have not yet caught up with the place. Would the noble Lord like to leave this matter on the basis that I will have a look at it? I do not think he is right, but I should not like to be dogmatic without taking time to look at the Amendment alongside the Bill, which would be rather time wasting at this stage. If the noble Lord will allow the Amendment to be made, if there is substance in his point I will put down another Amendment at a later stage.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Transfer of cases to another children's hearing]:
LORD HUGHES: Once again this is listed as a drafting Amendment. I do not know whether he is doing it intentionally, but the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is beginning to shake my confidence in my notes. I am informed that this is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the children's hearing has the power at any stage in its proceedings to transfer a case to another hearing. The words, "during their consideration of the case" in Clause 53 made this somewhat doubtful, as Clause 41 separates "consideration of the case" from the ascertainment as to whether the facts are accepted. It might not be possible, therefore, as the Bill stands, to transfer cases after facts have been established, although that is the occasion when the power is most likely to be used. The

267
Amendment will enable transfers to take place at any time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 37, leave out from ("during") to ("request") in line 38, and insert ("the course of the hearing").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I merely wish to ask what kind of order under the dispensation the court will be able to make. If there is to be no imposition of detention as a punishment, I am wondering what kind of order the court will be able to make in respect of children, except to refer the case back to the reporter as is said here. My remarks relate to line 3 in Clause 55.
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that I cannot answer that point off-hand. I have now received a note, which I thought I should get eventually. Unfortunately, although the first word on the note is "fine" and the last word is "caution", I cannot read the second word. Would two out of three satisfy the noble Lord?
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings]:
7.57 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), after "justice" to insert "or in the public interest". The noble Lord said: We are here dealing with prohibition of the publication of proceedings. Subsection (3) of Clause 57 states:
"The Secretary of State may in any case, if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, by order dispense with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section to such an extent as may be specified in the order."
Subsection (1) limits the right of anybody to
"reveal the name, address or school; or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification of any child "
concerned in a hearing. The Amendment would put in the words, "or in the public interest." The fact is that even boys of 14 to 16 could be dangerous.
The noble Lord will be aware that there has been considerable interest focused on what happens when people escape from prison in Scotland and the amount of publicity which may be given to that. In the same way it is conceivable that in the public interest it might be desirable for the Secretary of State to dispense with the requirements of subsection (1). I take it that "the interests of justice" relate to a case where a child of between 14 and 16 is obviously culpable and is charged and prosecuted before the sheriff. In such cases it may well be that there will be a public interest, and that it would be in the public interest that publication should be made. I am not sure whether it would not be better to deal with the next Amendment also—or even with the whole of this clause at one time. I am seriously concerned about whether this clause is workable at all.
We started by having a clause which was to extend not only to Scotland but also to England and Wales. This is a clause which places a ban on the publication of the proceedings of a children's hearing or proceedings before a sheriff under Clause 41. From the next Amendment, it seems that it is proposed to leave out the application to England and Wales, so that we are to have the totally ridiculous situation that it will not be permissible to publish what happened in a children's hearing in Scotland but that it may be published in England and Wales. That would be all right if the case had not already received some notoriety, and there is no ban, and cannot be a ban, on the publication of the details of an incident which may give rise to a children's hearing.
Suppose there was a notorious case of arson or of causing a rail accident. At the time when it occurred nobody would know whether the person concerned was a child or an adult and full publicity would be given to the incident. The public would want to know what happened subsequently, but under this Amendment it is going "under the carpet" entirely. Surely this is the kind of case where it would be in the public interest that the facts should be published in Scotland. Public alarm might be aroused and ought to be assuaged by being told that appropriate action had been taken. That is going to happen in

269
England if the matter was originally reported in England as well as in Scotland and if public interest was aroused there. We may be certain that Press reports will appear in England and Wales, yet under the Bill they will not be allowed to appear in Scotland.
This does not seem to me to be workable at all. I understand the object of keeping children's hearings private, so far as possible. The noble Lord has said that all this is to be worked out with the Press, but when it comes to the bit they are not to be allowed to publish anything about the culprits. In the large majority of cases it would be right that these hearings should be treated privately, both in the interests of justice and in the public interest, but there will be a number of cases where it will be in the public interest that the full facts should be disclosed. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this point again and will be able to give us a better idea of how this clause is intended to work.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 16, after ("justice") insert ("or in the public interest").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am afraid that my next Amendment. No. 119, has rather confused the position for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. May I say right away that the only reason I shall be moving that Amendment is that it was found on closer examination that subsection (4) is not required, as the extension of Clause 57 to England and Wales is provided for in Clause 95. Subsection (4) has to come out only because we are doing it twice. We have not changed the position in relation to England and Wales, as I think the noble Lord was entitled to assume from the proposed excision of this subsection.
If I may return to Amendment No. 118, Clause 57, as drafted, is based on Section 54 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, which empowers the Secretary of State to dispense with the prohibition of publication only in the interests of justice. The corresponding provision for England and Wales is in identical terms. To import a new concept of public interest in this context could be done only after much more careful thought than has been given to it up
270
to the present, and our present view is that it is wiser to adhere to the reasons which are in the existing legislation, both in England and Wales and in Scotland. Having said that, may I let the noble Lord know, quite irrelevantly, what was the missing word in regard to his question on Clause 55? He will never believe me when I tell him that I genuinely could not read the second word which was "probation".
LORD DRUMALBYN: In view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. In regard to the second thing he said, somewhat out of order, on probation, I had been under the impression that probation no longer applied to children. Now I understand that it is only children's hearings which cannot order probation, but that courts will still be able to do so.
LORD HUGHES: That would appear to be the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 19, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Control of residential and other establishments]:
LORD HUGHES: This clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations as to the conduct of residential and other establishments managed by local authorities, voluntary organisations or any other person and which provide accommodation for persons in need. The aim of the rule-making power is to secure the welfare of persons in such establishments. The Amendment is purely drafting. The word "and" in line 22 has been found to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 22, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Registration]:
LORD HUGHES: This is a purely drafting Amendment. To be consistent, the singular form is appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").—(Lord Hughes.
8.9 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out from "establishments" to the end of the subsection. The noble Marquess said: This Amendment concerns the powers of local authorities to cancel the registration of a person in respect of an establishment. I can see that the first part of subsection (4) is perfectly reasonable, in that it enables a local authority to cancel a registration on the ground that the person registered has been convicted of an offence against this Act or against the regulations under this Part of the Act concerning the use of these establishments or their conduct. What I fail to understand is why the ground that any other person has been convicted of an offence in respect of that establishment should affect the cancellation of the registration of the first person. My Amendment seeks to leave out the second proviso. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain what is behind that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out from ("establishments") to end of line 21.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I must agree with the noble Marquess that it is not clear on a first or even a second reading of this clause why we should wish to include these words, but in fact there is a perfectly simple reason. It could be that someone other than the person registered had been convicted of an offence in relation to an establishment. It is always difficult to talk about cases, for fear that people think you are talking about a case that really exists. I want to make it quite clear that I am not doing that. The sort of case one has in mind is that an assistant matron might have been found guilty of cruelty to a child in the establishment. It might, therefore, be reasonable that it should be part of the continued registration that that person no longer continue
272
in this employment. But the registered person, for reasons which seem perfectly good to him or her, might not be willing to dispense with the services of that particular person. We think there could be circumstances where such an offence not being dealt with should be reason for cancelling the registration. It is really a sanction against an unsuitable person's being continued in employment in the place. As noble Lords will appreciate, there are appeals against the cancellation of a registration. We do not think that any hardship is being imposed. On the other hand, we think it is a necessary safeguard which could arise in some circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this matter. I now see the point behind it. But, to be frank, I am not absolutely happy about the wording of the subsection as drafted. Perhaps I can have another look at it, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration]:
LORD HUGHES: With your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 together. These are drafting Amendments. The mandatory "shall" is the appropriate word on page 38, line 11 and the substitution in page 38, lines 29 and 30, provides a more accurate reference to a notice of intention to appeal. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 38, line 11, leave out ("will") and insert ("shall")
Page 38, line 29, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 30 and insert ("to which the appeal relates").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Removal of persons from establishments]:
LORD HUGHES: With your Lordships' permission I will move Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 together. Again these are drafting Amendments. The

273
Amendment to page 38, line 44, is necessary because it is also a contravention of Clause 61 for a person who ought to be registered to carry on an establishment without being so registered, and the Secretary of State may in such circumstances require the local authority to act. The Amendment to page 39, line 6, provides a more accurate form of wording, as subsection (1) places a function with a local authority rather than a duty upon them. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 38, line 44, after ("him") insert ("or ought to be so registered").
Page 39, line 6, leave out from ("For the") to ("of a") and insert ("performance of the functions").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Inspection of establishments by local authorities]:
LORD HUGHES: This clause provides the authority for any duly authorised officer of a local authority to enter any establishment registrable under Part IV of the Bill, or which he has reasonable cause to believe is being used as a registrable establishment, to see how the place is being run, its general condition and the condition and treatment of persons in it, and to inspect records or registers. The Amendment is purely drafting in order to be consistent in using the word "officer". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 21, leave out ("person") and insert ("officer").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Escape from a place of safety, or from the control of a person imposed by a supervision requirement]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 129, 133 and 134 go together. In each case it is proposed to substitute the word "absconds" for "escapes". I am informed—I am not certain whether it is right—that "absconds" is the technical term here. It seems to be a better word in the context. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 5, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: There is not much in this point, but the information that I am given is that it may be that the word "absconds" does not always fit very closely with the concept of the kind of establishment that the child is removing himself from. The word "absconds" is also, apparently, from a drafting point of view, to some extent restrictive in its meaning. Perhaps the best I could offer to your Lordships is to ask that the clause stands as it is at the moment, and we will have another look at it to find out whether we can get another word which combines the virtues of "absconds" and "escapes" which is acceptable.
I know the reasoning behind the preference for the word "absconds" on the part of some of the officers—for instance, they think it is perhaps psychologically a better word to use. But if noble Lords will accept my suggestion, we will see whether we can think of something else. I may say that one of the suggestions which was made was that we should put in the very simple term "runs away". But that suggestion fell clown because it might be that if he walked out or went out on his hands and knees you could not do anything about it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I remember rightly, the words "runs away" come into the Bill somewhere. The word "escapes" implies that the person who escapes is being held in some way Dr another. I do not know what is the right word, but I agree to what the noble Lord has suggested, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: This is a drafting Amendment. The phrase to be omitted has no relevance in relation to a supervision requirement which includes a condition of residence in a residential establishment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 18, leave out ("either 10 that person or").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is thought that it may not be practicable to return a child right away to the residential establishment from which he has escaped or

275
absconded; and in addition, in some circumstances it might not be desirable, as the child might have a justifiable cause for complaint, if not for actually absconding. If the noble Lord agrees that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate to return the child to the residential establishment from which he has escaped, then perhaps he would think fit to add these words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 19, at end insert ("or to a place of safety").—(Lord Drutnalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The difficulty which we see in this Amendment is that if we were to accept it we might be placing ourselves in the position that a person would be taken to an establishment where there was no direct machinery in the Bill for dealing with him, and no provision for his being brought before a hearing within a set time. It is thought that this can be dealt with by the power which the director of social work will have to act under Clause 43(7), which allows him to transfer a child in urgent circumstances.
However, we are not in fact completely satisfied that Clause 43(7) might not be subject to the same difficulties as we see in the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward, and it is only on a close examination and comparison of these two things that we are satisfied that there is something to be looked at here. But we have not yet found what would be the most satisfactory answer. If, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw Amendments Nos. 131 and 132, we will certainly look at the matter and in due course either explain why we find that the present situation is satisfactory, or alternatively submit an Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought that Amendment No. 132 was on a slightly different point, but if the noble Lord would like to look at that as well, I beg leave to withdraw No. 131.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Harbouring]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 135 is drafting, and gives one syllable instead of four. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 3, leave out ("conduct himself") and insert ("act").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is very satisfactory.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Supervision of children moving to England or Wales]:
8.22 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved in subsection (1) after "Wales" to insert "or in Northern Ireland". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141, all deal with the movement between Scotland and England or Wales of children subject to a supervision requirement of a children's hearing or its equivalent in England and Wales. The general aim of the provisions is to ensure, now that systems for dealing with children who need compulsory measures for treatment or care will be different in each country, that suitable arrangements exist for transferring from one system to the other children who change, or whose parents change, their country of residence.
Clause 72 deals with a child who is subject to a supervision requirement of a children's hearing, which does not require him to live in a residential establishment—that is Clause 43(1)(a). If such a child intends to live or is living in England or Wales, the children's hearing can either discharge the supervision requirement or send notification of the requirement to the juvenile court for the area in which the child intends to live or is living. The juvenile court concerned may then make a supervision order making the child subject to the supervision of a probation officer for a period of one year from the date on which the court received notification of the supervision requirement. On the making of such an order the supervision requirement of the children's hearing will lapse. The Amendment would extend these provisions to such children intending to live or living in Northern Ireland where the system for dealing with children in need of compulsory measures of treatment or care is similar to that in England and Wales. I beg to move Amendment No. 136.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 16, after ("Wales") insert ("or in Northern Ireland").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 137 is a drafting Amendment. "Child ", not "person", is the more appropriate word to use in relation to a supervision requirement of a children's hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 23, leave out ("person") and insert ("child").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 140 and 141 I have spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 136. I beg to move these Amendments together.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, line 27, after ("1963") insert ("or, as the case may be, of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 ")
Page 42, line 27, leave out ("they") and insert ("those provisions respectively") line 29, after ("1963") insert ("or to a supervision order within the meaning of section 63(1)(d) of the said Act of 1950").
Page 42, line 36, after ("1963") insert ("and in relation to Northern Ireland means 'petty sessions district' within the meaning of Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Supervision of children moving to Scotland]:
LORD HUGHES: This clause makes provisions similar to those of Clause 72 but for children moving into, instead of away from, Scotland. If a juvenile court in England or Wales is satisfied that a child subject to a probation or supervision order intends to live or is living in Scotland, it may either discharge the order or send notification of it to the reporter for the area in Scotland where the child is or will be living. The reporter must then arrange a children's hearing to consider the child's case and to determine it under Part III of the Bill. When this is done, the original probation or supervision order ceases to have effect. The Amendment would extend these provisions to cover children moving to Scot-
278
land from Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 37, after ("Wales") insert ("or in Northern Ireland ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Whether Clause 73, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether this clause is not a bit too rigid. Does the noble Lord think that in all circumstances it is necessary for this rather elaborate procedure where a child in respect of whom a probation order or supervision order is in force proposes to reside, or is residing, in Scotland, the probation order having been imposed in England? It seems to me that there may be many circumstances where it could be possible to deal with this matter rather more flexibly. There does not seem to be any particular reason why a probation order or supervision order should be discharged simply because the parent moves to Scotland. The alternative is to send a notification of the order to the reporter and to have a hearing in Scotland, when the case would have to be heard all over again. What will be the effect of this on the child? Will not the child rather resent a second hearing, and being dealt with in an entirely different way? Would it not be easier simply to arrange for the supervision order to be carried on without a children's hearing, just to transfer the responsibility for the child, whether it is a probation order or a supervision order, to a continuing supervision order in Scotland when he moves? I should have thought that it was not really necessary to have the case heard all over again where the juvenile court is satisfied that the probation or supervision order should continue. Surely it should continue whether he moves or not. Is this procedure not unduly inflexible and cumbersome?
LORD HUGHES: I would be inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but the advice I have is that with this procedure we cannot in fact accomplish what is intended, and it would obviously be undesirable that simply by reason of a change of residence, which would have nothing to do with the child's needs, the order should otherwise lapse. I am

279
quite certain that if we could have done it in a simpler way we would have done so; hut it just does not appear to be possible. The first part of the note that has just been handed to me I have already anticipated, and it goes on to say that it may be advisable to change a supervision order at a children's hearing—for example, to release the child to make a new start in a new country. So what the noble Lord has said about the virtual rehearing of the case necessarily resulting in the same decision does not follow. It might well be that the circumstances were such that the children's hearing decided not to continue with the order.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Parents of a child in a residential establishment under a supervision requirement moving to England or Wales]:
8.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This is a drafting Amendment. The Interpretation Clause, Clause 93, provides that in the Bill "parent" means either or both parents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("parents") and insert ("parent").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 144.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 15, leave out ("propose") and insert ("proposes").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: This and a number of Amendments which follow all have the same effect, merely changing from the plural to the singular, the change being consequential on the Amendments to substitute "parent" for "parents". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 15, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 146 to 160 are consequential on Amendments which have already been made, and with your Lordships' permission I
280
will move them together. They are all references to Northern Ireland, and so on. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 16, after ("Wales") insert ("or in Northern Ireland")
Page 43, line 35, after ("Wales") insert ("of in Northern Ireland")
Page 43, line 37, after ("1933") insert ("or, as the case may be, a training school within the meaning of the Children and Young Per. sons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950")
Page 43, line 38, after ("authority") insert ("or, as the case may be, of the welfare authority")
Page 43, line 16, leave out ("parents") and insert ("parent")
Page 43, line 16, leave out ("propose") and insert ("proposes")
Page 43, line 16, line 39, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 43, line 16, line 41, after ("1963") insert ("or, as the case may be, of the said Act of 1950")
Page 43, line 16,line 43, after ("school") first occurring insert ("or of a training school")
Page 43, line 16, after ("approved school") insert ("or a training school")
Page 44, line 1, after ({"1933") insert ("or section 75 of the said Act of 1950")
Page 44, line 2, after ("school") insert ("or in a training school")
Page 44, line 4, after ("1963") insert ("or, as the case may be, of the said Act of 1950")
Page 44, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("or, as the case may be, of a welfare authority")
Page 44, line 7, after ("Acts") insert ("or that Act").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Parents of a child subject to an approved school order or a committal order moving to Scotland]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), after "State" to insert: "or the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland." The noble Lord said: This clause makes provisions similar to those of Clause 74, but for children subject to an approved school or a committal order whose parents move or intend to move to, instead of away from, Scotland. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the parents of a child subject to an approved school order in England or Wales intend to live, or are living, in Scotland he may refer the case, giving particulars of the order, to the reporter for the area in which the parents intend

281
to live or are living. The same provisions are made for referral to the reporter, by a local authority to whose care a child has been committed, of the committal order. In either case the reporter must arrange a children's hearing to consider and determine the child's case. Once this is done the original order ceases to have effect. The Amendment would extend these provisions to cover children subject to a training school order or committed to the care of a welfare authority in Northern Ireland whose parents intend to live or are living in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 8, after ("State") insert ("or the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: Amendments Nos. 162 to 179 form another series in reference to Northern Ireland, and so on, and again are consequential on Amendments already approved by your Lordships. With permission, therefore, I beg to move Amendments 162 to 179 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 9, leave out ("parents") and insert ("parent")
Page 44, line 9, after ("school") insert ("or training school")
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("propose") and insert ("proposes")
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("parents") and insert ("parent")
Page 44, line 12, leave out first ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 44, line 12, leave out second ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 44, line 17, after ("Wales") insert ("or of a welfare authority in Northern Ireland")
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("local")
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("parents") and insert ("parent")
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("propose") and insert ("proposes")
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 44, line 19, leave out ("local")
Page 44, line 23, after ("school") insert ("or training school")
Page 44, line 24, after ("or") insert ("as the case may be,")
Page 44, line 25, after ("local") insert ("or welfare")
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("as the case may be")
Page 44, line 31, after ("Wales") insert ("or in Northern Ireland").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Procedure]:
LORD HUGHES: Amendments 180 to 184 are associated Amendments. Clause 76 makes a number of fairly standard and unexceptional provisions in relation to the procedure of a children's hearing or of a juvenile court acting under Part V of the Bill, and in relation to the duties of various persons or bodies to ensure the sending of documents, the transfer of the child from one country to another, and the attendance of the child at a children's hearing if that is called for.
The Amendment would extend these provisions to cover children moving from Scotland to Northern Ireland or the other way about. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 43, after ("Wales") inert ("or in Northern Ireland")
Page 45, line 4, after ("school") inert ("or training school")
Page 45, line 6, after ("Wales") insert ("or of a welfare authority in Northern Ireland")
Page 45, line 7, after ("school") inert ("or of the training school")
Page 45, line 7, after ("local") insert ("or welfare").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Meaning of child for the purposes of this Part of this Act]:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is necessary to make it clear that in Part V of the Bill, which deals with the movement within the United Kingdom of children subject to a supervision requirement of a children's hearing or its equivalent, and of the parents of such children, the word "parent" includes a guardian. The meaning of a guardian for the purpose of the Bill is set out in the Interpretation Clause, Clause 93. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 14, at end insert ("(2) 'Parent' in this Part of this Act includes a guardian.") —(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask whether the same applies in Part III? What happens if a child under Part III, so far as children's hearings are concerned, has no parent but has a guardian?
LORD HUGHES: I asked that question this morning, and the information I have been given is that the use of the word "guardian" applies only to this Part, and that is why it has been imported only at this point. I do not know why it does not apply in the other Part, but it does not.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Enforcement of duty to make contributions]:
LORD HUGHES: With permission I will move Amendments Nos. 186, 187 and 188 together. The Amendments to page 46, at lines 20 and 26, are to make it clear that entitlement to receive contributions payable under a contribution order in respect of a maintainable child is restricted to the local authority. Overall responsibility for any child who becomes a maintainable child by virtue of being received into care or by virtue of a supervision requirement rests with the local authority, whether or not the child is boarded out or placed in a foster home, and it is to the local authority, therefore, that contributions to his maintenance should be made. The Amendment to page 46, at line 34, is drafting. The reference is to Part II of the Bill, not to a section. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 7, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("local authority").
Page 45, line 26, leave out ("person" and insert ("local authority").
Page 45, line 34, leave out ("section) and insert ("Part").—(Lord Hughes.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Provisions as to decrees for aliment]:
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 1, leave out from ("Where") to ("and") and insert ("a maintainable child is illegitimate").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Variation of Trusts]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to leave out "required by a supervision requirement to reside in a residential establishment", and insert "under a supervision requirement". The noble Lord said: This clause provides for the situation where a child is obliged under a supervision requirement to live in a residential establishment and the person who formerly had care of the child is entitled under a trust to receive money for his maintenance. In such a case the sheriff who has jurisdiction in the area in which that person lives may on application by the local authority which has taken over the care of the child order the money to be paid to the local authority and to be applied to the benefit of the child in such a way as the sheriff, having regard to the terms of the trust, may direct.
As it stands, the clause provides for the diversion of trust money to a local authority only in a case where a child is required to live in a residential establishment. These provisions do not cover the case of a child subject to a supervision requirement which does not impose such a condition—for example, a child who is subject to a supervision requirement requiring him to stay with certain foster parents—and the Amendment would extend the provisions of the clause to enable them to be applied in the case of a child subject to any supervision requirement of a children's hearing. This would have the effect of bringing the clause more closely into line with the corresponding existing provision; that is, Section 95 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 42, leave out from ("is") to (",and") in line 43 and insert ("under a supervision requirement").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:
LORD HUGHES: This is purely a drafting Amendment. The reference is to the provisions "of" any local Act, not "or" any local Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 28, after ("or") insert ("of"). —(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 [Adjustments between authority providing accommodation et cetera and authority of area of residence]:
LORD HUGHES: This, again, is a drafting Amendment. Part II of the Bill deals with the provision of services and facilities. For that reason we add the words "and facilities". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 28, after ("services") insert ("and facilities").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Whether Clause 85, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I raise one point on the last subsection:
"Any question arising under this section as to the ordinary residence of a person shall be determined by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State may determine that a person has no ordinary residence."
There is a decreasing number of people with no settled way of life in this country, but it seems a bit hard that if a person has no ordinary residence because he has an unsettled way of life, if one may put it in legal terms, the loss lies where it falls; that is to say, wherever the chap lands up, the local authority has to pay for him, which I take it is what this subsection means.
Is that really right? People who go about with no ordinary residence come to rest some time or other. I had some experience of this in my constituency, and it did not seem to me that the matter was ever settled satisfactorily. It seems to me that people who have no ordinary residence and do not have a settled way of life ought not to be a charge on the local authority where they land up. It is wrong in principle. There has been a lot of bickering about this matter, and it seems to me that the only solution is for the State to make itself responsible.
LORD HUGHES: That is the sort of suggestion which is frequently made by local authorities and is perhaps more acceptable to them than to central government. I think that, by and large,
286
this works out on the swings and roundabouts principle. They do not all finish up in the area of one authority, and I doubt very much whether the application of this provision is going to create any severe hardship for any particular authority. I think it is preferable that the Secretary of State should say that the person has no ordinary residence, rather than that he should, as he could presumably, say that the place where he happens to he is his ordinary residence; because so far as the type of person to whom the noble Lord is referring is concerned, his ordinary residence is in fact the place where he happens to be at the given time. So these people will land within a particular authority one way or the other, and I think most authorities will have their share of them at one time or another.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The trouble is that this is a positive disincentive to providing decent accommodation for people of this kind, because the grapevine works and word gets round. If a local authority does provide decent accommodation, they will all be, round like bees in a honey pot. That is not satisfactory.
LORD HUGHES: I know it is not satisfactory, but this is not the way to deal with it. At the present time I believe there is a Bill before another place. seeking to provide permanent accommodation for people of this type and placing a duty or obligation on local authorities to do it, but as at present drafted that Private Member's Bill applies only to England and Wales. It has not been a problem North of the Border of the severity that it has at least in certain parts of England and Wales, and it is for that reason that the Bill is having only an England and Wales context at the present time. But it may well be that the problem will develop to such an extent that a similar provision is necessary in Scotland, and if it should arise I think the way in which it is being tackled in that Private Member's Bill is the correct way to deal with it, rather than taking the matter out of its present position, as the noble Lord would suggest.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: While having considerable sympathy with the noble Lord opposite and his ideas—one can see

287
exactly what he means and the force of his argument—may I suggest that to do what he wants would require a very considerable central authority and a very considerable increase in officialdom in central organisations. Surely that cannot be what the noble Lord would desire to happen.
LORD HUGHES: May I add this? I received this note after I sat down. The determination of "no ordinary residence" is a well recognised technical matter for the Secretary of State. This is the point which I think will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Special financial sharing arrangements are at present sometimes made by order, for this kind of difficulty. The matter having been raised by the noble Lord, I will certainly undertake to look at it from the point of view that where there are circumstances in which it is desirable we should consider sharing arrangements. That will certainly not be overlooked.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, it is not a question of providing accommodation; in a case of this kind it is a question of paying for it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: But, surely, to make arrangements for payment would involve some considerable increase in central authority officialdom to determine who should be paid. Payment out always requires a large number of people to make sure that it is correctly done.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 86 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: This clause picks up quite a large section of the responsibilities under the National Assistance Act and, in a sense, transfers them to the Secretary of State. The hour is late, and I do not want to go into this in detail; but it seems to me that it would have been appropriate to take over all these sections of the National Assistance Act. They are rather out of date. By and large, they are expressed in terms of England and Wales, with cumbersome application clauses to Scotland, and I should have thought that this would be the right time to rewrite them into this
288
Bill, as for example, the clauses of the Children's Act have been rewritten into the Bill. It would have been much neater and far easier to refer to.
I know that local authorities are well accustomed to handling matters under the National Assistance Act, but the fact is that the National Assistance Act inevitably still has an aura of the Poor Law about it, and it is not really satisfactory in the context of this particular Bill. I should have liked to see it rewritten for Scotland in the context of this Bill. I need not say more about it, but I should be quite willing to have a talk about it with the noble Lord and to outline my ideas in that respect.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Duty of parents to notify change of address.]
LORD HUGHES: I should like to move Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 together as drafting Amendments. Subsection (2) of this clause should refer to a parent of a child who has been transferred under Part V of the Bill which deals with the transfer of children to and from Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("or") and in-sent ("of").
Page 51, line 5, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part V").—(Lord Hughes.)
8.53 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause:
"() In any case where custody of the child has been granted to one parent, this section shall not apply to the other parent."
The noble Lord said: This is a small point, but it seems to me that where custody of a child has been granted to one parent this section should not apply to the other parent. I appreciate that this can be readily understood in terms of subsection (1)(a) and (b)—that is, where the child is received into the care of a local authority under Part II of this Bill or where he is subject to a supervision requirement—but it may not be quite so applicable in the case of subsection (1)(c) where a contribution order or a decree for aliment has been made.
It may be thought that it is not unreasonable to prosecute somebody for not

289
sending aliment that he is due to pay under a court order to the other party, and now, because the child is in supervision or something of that kind, he has to pay it to the local authority, but I am bound to say that to me it seems inappropriate that a person should be fined in those circumstances when he cannot be fined for not paying aliment to the party to whom he is ordered to pay it. It seems to me quite inappropriate that lie should be fined for not paying it to the local authority. So I think that in none of these three circumstances a spouse who is obviously separated from the other spouse or, if they are not married, is obviously not together with the other and who has not the custody of the child, should be liable to supply this information as to his address, or should be fined if he does not. To me, it seems rather absurd, and I think this provision should be taken out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 13, at end insert the said bsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: We should be sorry if any of these three circumstances were taken out, because the reasons go beyond finance. It is perfectly true that finance is one of the reasons, because, irrespective of who has custody, there is an obligation on parents to contribute to the maintenance of the child, and notification may be required on that score. Secondly, even where contributions are not an issue, the local authority are undertaking a considerable burden if they have a child in care or are administering a supervision arrangement. There may be occasions when they have to consult or seek the help of either parent, or they may wish to try to create conditions where the child or children can return to a new family atmosphere.
All that the subsection does is to require that the parents' whereabouts should be known, and it seems reasonable that local authorities should be able to act in a way which would be possible if they had the information about the location of both parents rather than having only the information about the parent to whom custody had been granted. This is one of those cases where we are seeking in fact,
290
as is quite necessary in legislation, to provide not for the sort of circumstances that are going to arise every day, but the sort of circumstances which may quite conceivably arise. We think there are circumstances where it would be greatly in the interests of the child that a local authority could proceed in one or other of these ways; and they could be prevented from doing so if they had access only to the address of the parent to whom custody had been granted. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will accept it that we are not just gathering information for the sake of having information.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, I do not say that at all; but it seems to me there is a difference between parents who are living together, having joint custody of the child, and a parent, say a father, who has no remaining connection at all with the wife or the child, except possibly that he has to pay aliment. I cannot conceive that in matters of interest to the child, as opposed to the interest of the pocket of the local authority or the approved school, the local authority would be getting in touch with the parent who had not the custody of the child. They would be bound to get in touch with the parent who had. It is as simple as that.
LORD HUGHES: I do not think I can accept it that where one parent has the custody of the child this deprives the other parent of all rights and interest in his or her child. There can be circumstances in which the parent who has been deprived of custody still has an interest and has a right to be consulted on certain things, and where the child might wish that other parent to be consulted. If we were to accept what the noble Lord suggests, it would simply mean that once one parent had been granted custody the other party should in fact be considered as having no further interest or rights iii the child's welfare. I cannot accept that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I believe that the noble Lord has a point there, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 88 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Interpretation]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or the context otherwise requires ". The noble Lord said: I do not know how common are the words "or the context otherwise requires" in legislation. They always suggest to me loose drafting or lack of confidence of the draftsman in his own drafting. The reason why I put forward this Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 198 to leave out "non-residential" in the definition of "establishment". The word "establishment" comes very frequently indeed in Part IV of the Bill. The heading is "Residential and other establishments". I cannot make out which are residential and which are non-residential. There is either something the matter with the definition of "establishment", or there is something very much the matter with the words, "or the context otherwise requires". Nobody is going to be able to sort this out. The courts will have to decide what the context requires, whether it is non-residential or residential establishment, or both. I was prepared to let the words go by until I came to the definition of "establishment" and looked back at the context and could make nothing of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 26, leave out ("or the context otherwise requires").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has a certain right to be a little mystified on this matter, and yet it can be sorted out—at least to the satisfaction of the draftsman. There will be a consequential Amendment at the next stage which will satisfy the draftsman still further. The effect of the Amendment would be to cast in doubt some of the definitions in the clause. An example is the definition of "establishment" as being non-residential accommodation in Clause 93, which obviously is not appropriate for the word "establishment" in page 41, line 28, where the establishment referred to is clearly a residential establishment. The
phrase which the noble Lord wishes to omit is well precedented in interpretation clauses. As he well knows from his former experience as a Minister, nothing commands so much respect in drafting as precedents. And when it is a precedent of his own
292
Government it should commend itself the more forcibly to the noble Lord. The phrase appears in Section 111 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960. and in Section 145 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. There are a number of things which have been done by the previous Administration with which I do not agree, but I do not think it is necessary to go charging over the Highlands disagreeing with the use of that particular phrase, which I am happy to adopt.
In regard to Amendment No. 198, I shall read the note which I have on that which I hope will be helpful to the noble Lord. The effect of Amendment 198, to leave out "non-residential", should be resisted as leading to possible confusion with the definition of residential establishment. The definition of "establishment"—and this is where the draftsman has picked himself up a little—has, however, to be amended slightly to ensure that day establishments run by Government Departments are not subject to local authority inspection. Therefore, I can give the promise that we will look again at the whole question of definition and try to make it certain that residential establishments, non-residential establishments and day establishments of Government Departments are in no danger of being confused with each other. If the noble Lord will accept that assurance, I think that what will emerge will be something which will be as acceptable to him as are Amendments Nos. 196 and 198. and also will have the added merit of being acceptable to the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I want the context to make clear what is required. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: The effect of Amendment No. 197 is to insert in the Interpretation Clause the meaning of the term "approved school" as used in Clause 74, which deals with the transfer of a child who is subject to a supervision requirement of a children's hearing and whose parents move to England or Wales. One of the courses of action which may be taken in
relation to such a child is for the Secretary of State, on the basis of a recommendation made by the hearing,

293
to make an order transferring him to the care of the managers of an approved school in England or Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 27, at end insert—
("'approved school' means a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 79 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.").—(Lord Hughes.)
9.6 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in the definition of "person in need", to leave out "or age". The noble Lord said: During the Second Reading debate I expressed dismay at the suggestion that the care of the elderly person should become the responsibility of the new social welfare department. It seemed peculiar to me, on reading the Bill and the White Paper for the first time, that the elderly seemed to have been popped rather casually into the White Paper and the Bill because they might need care and attention. But they seemed to be a long way away from delinquent children on probation, and from all the other matters dealt with by the White Paper and the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, went some way to allay my fears when he wrote and told me that there was no question of the general responsibility of the health department being taken over by the new social welfare department. I did not expect that there would be any question of that happening, so that did not give me a great deal of consolation. I have found in the past that the close cooperation of doctors and medical social workers in the health department and the welfare department has been of enormous value in the care of the elderly, but I feel that to put them under the social welfare department is a retrograde step.
As I explained on Second Reading, the old will not become in need of care merely by the fact of being old. There is no need for any care. But when you are old and your physical and mental health begins to fail, you become in need of some kind of care from the voluntary bodies or local authorities. That is why I hoped that this category would be kept firmly under the medical umbrella rather than under the social work umbrella, and that is why I put down this Amendment to delete the old from this subsection of Clause 93. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 39, leave out ("or age").(Lord Antlree.)
LORD HUGHES: Periodically there has cropped up the impression that the main purpose of this Bill is to deal with children. This is, first of all, because we re-enact in the Bill many of the provisions of the Children Act, and secondly, because we are setting up completely new procedures for dealing with children. But that must not obscure the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities to look after the well are of all, and it is not the case that: elderly people are just being tacked on as a sort of after-thought.
The noble Lord has indicated that he would like the welfare of elderly people to be taken away from the social work department, on the ground that more frequently, if not all the time, they require help for reasons which fall more within the purposes of the health authority or a hospital board, or some similar organisation. But the provisions of this Bill go much further than providing accommodation for them. The provision of "advice, guidance and … facilities (including the provision of residential … establishments)" would remain the responsibility of the social work department in relation to elderly people as well as to other social groups under Clause 12(1). It is a central feature of the Bill that, as I have said (it seems to me much too frequently), it does not seek to define the functions of the local authority discharged through its social work department in terms of categories of people. The local authority's duty to promote social welfare includes the duty to promote the welfare of elderly people.
I think we should look at what are the purposes of the welfare services and the facilities provided for elderly people. There is a certain misconception about this, and nowhere is it more clearly demonstrated than in relation to old people's homes. The welfare departments of Scottish local authorities provide at present nearly 8,000 places in home; for elderly people, and registered voluntary and private homes provide a further 5,600 places, of which 1,500 are occupied by residents sponsored by the local authorities. The welfare departments are therefore at the present time substantial providers of residential accommodation for

295
elderly people no longer able to live in their own homes. This is the point. These places are intended to be a substitute for an elderly person's own home.
As a matter of Government policy, medical services to the people in those homes are provided where possible by their own general practitioners, and nursing facilities for short-term illnesses which do not require admission to hospital are provided by the domiciliary nursing services. So that, to all intents and purposes, the old person going into one of these old people's residential homes of a local authority is in all health matters treated, so far as possible, as if he remained a resident in his own home.
The criteria for admission to these homes are social, not medical. Were this not appreciated, the priorities for admission (because I can assure your Lordships that the demand for admission to these homes is very much in excess of the capacity available) could be biased to favour those with the most pressing medical condition, with the risk that the homes would thus become small geriatric establishments. These homes are neither designed nor staffed for that purpose. Where a person is in need of medical or geriatric attention, the place to which he or she should be taken is a hospital, and this Bill will not interfere in any way with that provision. But it would be a waste of hospital resources if someone who needed only the support that he could get in a residential establishment, to enable him otherwise to be as he would have been if he could have continued in his own home, were forced into a hospital. We do not want that to happen, and the noble Lord quite rightly, also does not want that to happen.
On the other hand, we have to make certain that these homes are for those who are in social need, not medical need, and therefore do not become an overflow for those who cannot get into hospitals. These is a need for more accommodation of both kinds; but where the medical condition is not a condition which requires admission, then the responsibility is clearly a welfare one, just as it is in the case of a younger person or a child who requires the protection of a residential home.
296
I hope that with these remarks the noble Lord will feel that we are leaving the medical responsibilities where they properly rest and where they are at the present time. The social responsibilities will continue where they are at the present time—in these social residential homes of local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment. I am very sorry that such a simple Amendment as the deletion of two words should have required so long an explanation from me, and I apologise to your Lordships if it has been too long.
LORD AMULREE: It is extremely kind of the noble Lord to give me such a long explanation. I entirely appreciate every word he has said, but I repeat what I was trying to say before: that I should have preferred that things should remain as they are. Many of the welfare and health departments in Scotland are joined together, and this, I think, gives the best service for these old people. I do not think they will get such good service from the social work department operating by itself. But I do not intend to press the Amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("and").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I agree.
LORD HUGHES: I think that Amendments Nos. 201 to 206 may all be moved together. The general effect of these Amendments is to add to the interpretation clause the meanings of "probation order", "supervision order" and "welfare authority" in relation to Northern Ireland; and to extend subsection (2) to cover references to enactments of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 201 and 203 are necessary to distinguish probation and supervision orders made in England and Wales from those made in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 12, after ("' order'") insert (",in relation to an order imposed by a court in England or Wales,")
Page 54, line 13, after ("1948") insert (",and in relation to such an order, imposed by a court in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950")
Page 54, line 20, after ("order") insert (",imposed by a court in England or Wales,")
Page 54, line 22, after ("1963") insert (",and in relation to an order imposed by a court in Northern Ireland, has the meaning assigned to it by section 63(1)(d) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950.")
Page 54, line 24, at end insert—
("'training school' means a school approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland under section 106 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950,
'training school order' means an order made by a court in Northern Ireland sending a child or young person to a training school,")
Page 54, line 27, at end insert ("'welfare authority' means a welfare authority constituted under the Public Health and Local Government (Administrative Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.")
Page 54, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, any reference in this Act to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or to an enactment which that Parliament has power to amend, shall be construed, in relation to Northern Ireland, as a reference to that enactment as amended by any Act of that Parliament, whether passed before or after this Act.").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and savings]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 3, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I agree.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
9.18 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 94, to insert the following new clause:
Power of Parliament of Northern Ireland to make consequential amendments of this Act
". Notwithstanding any limitation imposed on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, that Parliament may, by any Act re-enacting (with or without modifications) or amending the law in force in Northern Ireland with respect to children requiring compulsory measures of care, make such amendments of the provisions of this Act which extend to Northern Ireland as may be necessary for the purpose of bringing the said provisions into conformity with the provisions of that Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would insert in the Bill a common form provision which would enable the Northern Ireland Parliament, in re-enacting or amending the law in Northern Ireland relating to children in need of compulsory measures of care, to make any necessary amendment to those provisions of the Bill which extend to Northern Ireland—that is, Clause 95, as amended—to enable them to be brought into conformity with the provisions of the re-enacting or amending Statute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 94 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 95 [Extension of certain provisions of Act to England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man]:
LORD HUGHES: I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 209 and 211. On further examination, we find that they are in part defective, and will require to be tabled in a slightly amended form at Report stage. Amendment No. 209 is therefore not moved.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This Amendment seeks to extend to England and Wales the provision; of Clause 87, which places on the parents the duty of notifying any change in their addresses to the person responsible for the care or supervision of their child. I am not quite certain of the position at the moment. I imagine that if the parents moved from Scotland to England they would have to notify; but it seems clear that if they then move again from one address in England or Wales to another address in England or Wales they would

299
not have to notify. It seems to me important that this provision should be extended to cover England and Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, at end insert ("section 87").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I appreciate the intention behind this Amendment. It seems a reasonable one. I also accept that it would not appear to be possible to achieve this object without including Section 87. However, doing it this way is a rather cumbersome way to bring it about. We should like to look at the matter further to find out whether the object can be brought about in a simpler way, if it can be brought about at all. If the noble Marquess is prepared to withdraw this Amendment, I will certainly undertake to consider what can be done about it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96:
Commencement
96.—(1) This Act (except this section) shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE moved to add to subsection (1),
"but not earlier than six months after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland under the chairmanship of Lord Wheatley."
The noble Earl said: I hope I can persuade the Minister to accept this Amendment but I rather doubt it. The necessity for it seems to be overwhelming where the Highland counties are concerned, and desirable in the case of the other Scottish counties. With his customary courtesy the Minister sent me his reply to the many points raised at the Second Reading of this Bill, and he may argue that as the timing of the Act's implementation is to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland that would be an adequate safeguard. I do not consider that to be the case. If, as is implied, delay in implementation is
300
inevitable, what is the objection to this Amendment?—especially when we remember the noble Lord's words during the marathon Second Reading of this Bill that only those parts which were adaptable to the structure that might emerge would be implemented.
Briefly, may I stress the importance of not rushing the implementation of this Bill from the specifically Highland point of view? If the Wheatley Report suggests that, for example, Ross and Cromarty should join up with the County of Sutherland, the population affected would be 70,303, inhabiting an area of 5,117.4 square miles. If, on the other hand, it is decided that the five mainland crofter counties (Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Caithness) should be amalgamated, the combined population will be 241,861 and the area 13,975 square miles. Perthshire might also be included. If this were to take place considerable reorganisation of the single-county set-up would become necessary, with the consequent trouble of considerable redundancies and also very heavy expenditure. That, in itself, makes it worth while to consider putting in a specified time of implementation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 25, at end insert ("but not earlier than six months after the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland under the chairmanship of Lord Wheatley").—(The Earl of Cromartie.)
THE EARL OF MAR: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, that the Bill should be delayed. We are both county councillors and both have the same problems. I have read Lord Hughes's memorandum with special care for the timing, but I am still completely unconvinced, and shall be until we have all seen the Report of the Royal Commission. It will be up to date with the present position, which possibly the Government and St. Andrew's House are not. With further reorganisation during the next year or two it is almost certain that alarm and despondency will be created among the staff and very few will join our service. The Kilbrandon Committee was set up six years ago. I see no reason why this Bill should not be further delayed until we have all fully studied the Report of the Royal Commission.
LORD HUGHES: I completely appreciate the reasons which led the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar, to put their names to this Amendment, but it is quite an unworkable suggestion which they put forward. They are seeking to delay the implementation of an Act of Parliament until six months after a completely indeterminate time. No one knows when the publication of the Wheatley Commission Report will take place. In fact we cannot even guarantee (although there is little likelihood that it will not happen) that the Wheatley Commission will publish a Report. There have been cases when, for one reason or another, a Commission has not reported, even after it had done as much as Wheatley has done, because of some circumstance which had arisen and which made it impossible for the Commission to complete its work.
If we accepted the Amendment we should be in the ridiculous position of having passed an Act of Parliament which would come into effect six months after a date which was never going to arise. While that might commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has made no bones about the fact that he does not like this Bill at all, to put in such a provision would be tantamount to having denied the Bill either a Second or a Third Reading, because it would be of no effect. Let us assume that the likely, or what is virtually the certain, does happen, and the Wheatley Commission Report is received. The date of the receipt of the Report has absolutely nothing to do with the reorganisation which may or may not take place. The noble Earl used the words "the sort of local government which is likely to ensue", but who is to say, even on the receipt of the Commission's Report, what is likely to ensue?
Not everything which has been recommended by a Royal Commission is the subject of ultimate legislation by Government; sometimes the recommendations of a Commission are accepted in part and sometimes legislation bears not very much reference to what has appeared in the Report. The varieties of action which may follow on the receipt of such a Report are almost infinite. What is quite clear—and I think that I have stated this before—is that after the receipt of the Commission's Report there will be
302
a long period of preparation and discussion with the local authorities on the implementation of the effects of this measure. I have also made clear that neither the Act nor any part of it will be brought into effect immediately. I think I have made clear that different Parts may be brought into effect at different times. It may well be that the ordinary operation of the procedures which are necessary to implement a Bill of this kind when it becomes an Act will achieve what the noble Earl desires, and at the end of the day he may say, "Well, I told you so. I asked for it to be delayed until six months after Wheatley had reported. Wheatley has reported, and your first appointed day is in fact more than six months after the date when Wheatley reported. You could have agreed to my Amendment." But that would be merely a coincidence. We should be accepting it for a reason which has no relevance. The change of local government will take place after a great deal of activity following the publication of the Report.
I mentioned on Second Reading that at least part of these proposals arise from a recommendation in relation to children in need stated in 1961 to be urgent. If we accept the noble Lord's Amendment, we should be delaying the implementation of the Act until local government had been reorganised, and that means until 1974 or 1975. It is intolerable that we should add another seven years of needless delay to the implementation of proposals which we were advised in 1961 were already urgent. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Earl that while I am not accepting the form of words, I am certain he will never have any cause to complain that what actually happens will necessarily be any different from what would happen if this Amendment were accepted. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Earl not to press an Amendment which, in terms of legislation, is meaningless and would only frustrate the whole operation of the Bill.
LORD FERRIER: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, though I had great sympathy with the noble Earls, Lord Cromartie and Lord Mar; but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has chosen to point the finger of scorn at me—not for the first time to-day. He misinterpreted words that I used, when he

303
stated that I had said there was nothing left to be said on the subject of an Amendment and then added that I had opposed the Bill lock, stock and barrel—words which I did not use.
LORD HUGHES: The only reason I mentioned the noble Lord's name was because he will recollect that when we were talking at dinner I said that at least we had got the worst part over, and the noble Lord said, "Oh no, I still have my lot which I intend to pursue". The last thing I should wish to do at this hour would be to provoke the noble Lord into making a speech which he had not intended to make, but I am convinced that nothing I might say would prevent him from speaking. If I am wrong, I am sorry. I would remind the noble Lord that I did not misrepresent him because, in concluding his speech on Second Reading, he said that, while he would not divide the House on the Bill, if other noble Lords chose to divide he would he happy to vote against the Second Reading. To vote against the Second Reading of a Bill in your Lordships' House is to be against it lock, stock and barrel.
LORD FERRIER: The noble Lord has chosen to misinterpret my words for a third time this evening, and I propose to go on with the speech which, until I was provoked, I had not intended to make. We have been dealing with a Bill of 94 clauses, to which in this Committee there have been 212 Amendments, and of 7 Schedules. with another 24 Amendments. I think that I am entitled to say that is clear evidence that what I said on Second Reading is correct; that the Bill ought to have been rejected then because it was a muddled Bill. I took that view then, and I take that view now. I want to say most emphatically that this is not because I resist the idea of advance in regard to the care of young people and children, but because the Bill is badly drafted. If 212 Amendments and 94 clauses is not fair enough proof of that, I do not know what is.
I go further. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has left, because he put his finger on another omission in the Bill to which I referred on Second Reading. I do not think that enough care has been given to the problem of old
304
people. Why I said on Second Reading that the Title required to be amended was because I felt that we were concerned with children and young people; and the Bill should have concentrated on them. It is for that reason that I said on Second Reading, and I say now with the noble Earl, that when we come to Third Reading I.reserve my right to speak in support of a move of this nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, the Bill as drafted gives extreme latitude to his right honourable friend to introduce this or that at whatever time he chooses. I think this is very wrong in regard to Parliamentary control of affairs in Scotland, and I feel entitled to say so. Therefore, I am saying it.
I think it is fair to say that the whole treatment of this Bill has been muddled —and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, here. What happened on Second Reading? It was on the Order Paper for the first item after Questions, and it came on at the end. We began, I think, at 8.40 at night. What happened in Committee?—the Committee stage was truncated at 6.30 for the Theft Bill, the Bill on which we have spent hours and hours in this House, at great cost to the State, on all sorts of subjects: as to how to spell"and"or something like that, with the most eminent lawyers in the land disagreeing and going into different Lobbies. Why on earth could that not have been dealt with upstairs? I believe that could have been done under the Regulations. And if the Regulations today are not such that it was capable of being handled in Committee upstairs, then it is time, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will agree, that something was done about it.
The fact is that Scottish Peers have these problems of residence and travel. It is all very well the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, saying that he has missed his train, but he has quarters to go to. Many of us have to give up our rooms in our clubs, and if we miss our trains we are pretty well stuck.
LORD HUGHES: Would the noble Lord—
LORD FERRIER: May I continue? For a Bill of this nature to be treated in this way is to my mind unsupportable. I am speaking in this way only because I feel that it is being suggested that those

305
of us who, like the noble Earl, have said, "Let us put it off", are trying to hold up the advances in regard to the treatment of young people. This is not so. We want to see young people treated properly, and treated in a way that is within the capacity of the State. The noble Lord himself has said that there are not sufficient places for young children. He has also told the noble Lord, Lord Amulree: "It is all very well talking about age, but the accommodation in old people's homes is simply not sufficient to meet the demand".
I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at such great length, but I feel that it is fair to face the fact that people are entitled to hold their views in this House, and to state them without being accused of trying to be retrograde in the views they hold. If the noble Earl moves his Amendment at another stage, I will support him for the reasons I have stated.
9.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I am very sorry indeed that misfortune should have placed me opposite the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, at dinner, because had it not been for that accident I should never have mentioned his name, and we should not have had the last ten minutes or so of complete irrelevance, so far as the Amendment is concerned. It is only the fact that it is almost impossible to be out of order in your Lordships' House that has enabled this to happen. The noble Lord would not give way to me, and I am not going to give way to him. I wanted to get up during his second set of remarks only to contradict his statement that it was all very well for me to say that I had missed my train, but I had quarters to go to, and that he, like others, had lost his place in the club. Like him, I did not know until I left here whether I had a hotel room to go to. So I was in no different position from that of the noble Lord, and he should not be so ready to impute to Ministers things which he is not prepared to accept for himself.
At one time the noble Lord criticised the inadequacy of the Bill, and almost immediately went on to say that it is far too wide in its scope; it gives the Secretary of State power to do virtually anything. And then he comes back and says that there is not enough provision
306
for all people, and that I had admitted it. Of course I had. This is part of the justification for the Bill: that so much more needs to be done. We are widening considerably the powers to enable local authorities to do these things, and we hope that when this Bill has been in operation for some time some of the deficiencies which at present exist for children, for the handicapped and for the elderly, will have been overtaken. That is why the Bill is being introduced.
The noble Lord seeks to defend what he said on Second Reading. I still maintain that I did not misinterpret hire. He made it quite clear that he was against the Bill as a whole. But no useful purpose will be served by pursuing that. The noble Lord puts a different interpretation on the attempt to have the Bill rejected at Second Reading from my interpretation. We must rest content on what we each think that that means. But he went on to justify his remark by saying that the fact that all these Amendments have been submitted is clear evidence that the Bill was badly drafted. The noble Lord—and I am not blaming him for this—is in the same position as I was in until three and a half years ago, when I had no experience of the drafting of Bills—a position which he is still in. I could have made exactly the same mistake then. But the position is that some of the Amendments could not possibly have been drafted until after the Bill was published, because they are Amendments which arose, and could only have arisen, after the people concerned—the other Departments concerned and other Government Departments concerned—had seen the Bill. First the Bill has to be published, then there is an opportunity for people to come forward with drafting Amendments; and out of all the Amendments which are put forward a most every one which has come from the Government side has been a drafting Amendment.
I accept that there has been a certain amount of carelessness, to the extent that sometimes the word "or" has appeared instead of the word "of". But I should have thought it would be obvious even to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that there has been a mistake of the printers. The draftsman, obviously, knows the difference between the meaning of the word "or" and of the word "of", but

307
we have to amend printers' errors as well as to make changes which arise as a result of representations which are made.
I made it perfectly clear that there has been very considerable consultation in relation to this measure over a long period of time. But—and perhaps the noble Lord will continue to listen to me—consultation does not stop when the Bill is published. People have legitimate points of view to express—people outside the House and inside the House. It would be quite wrong if the Government took up the attitude, "We have published the Bill, and it does not matter whether you have drawn our attention to a better way or an alternative way of doing this, we are going to adhere to the Bill".
Many of the Amendments I have accepted are Amendments which could just as easily have gone one way as the other. But I have not been difficult in this. Where an Amendment moved by a noble Lord opposite was one that I could just as easily accept as my own wording, I think I have gone out of my way to accept the alternative words. But if I am to take the attitude of the noble Lord as being the response which is to be shown to this, then both my noble friends and I myself will take it that to be reasonable in accepting reasonable Amendments means laying ourselves open to the charge of incompetence. I do not accept this, any more than I accept that I have been unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
I am very sorry to have replied at this length, at this time, with words which are relevant only to the noble Lord's irrelevancies, because in this speech, like him, I have made no reference at all to the Amendment which is before us, and which I invite the noble Earl to withdraw.
LORD FERRIER: I would only say how well it is that our Scottish motto is, "Nemo me impune lacessit".
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: Having been somewhat reassured by the Minister's assurance that this Bill will be implemented with common sense, and although I am not saying that it may not be necessary at the next stage for somebody—not necessarily myself—to put down an Amendment as to timing, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Children's Panels]:
9.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of Amendment No. 216, which, if the Committee will agree, I will take together with the next Amendment, No. 217, is to provide for the period for which persons shall be appointed as members of children's panels. Paragraph 2 says:
"A member of a children's panel shall hold office for such period"
and then after those words I would insert the words
"not exceeding three years".
It is felt that there should be an opportunity for reviewing these appointments at regular intervals, and three years seems to be a reasonable period. It might be that, to start with, some people would be appointed for a shorter period, and if a person is coming up to retirement age he might be appointed for the residue of the time, not being more than two years.
The next Amendment goes on to say
"and shall be eligible for reappointment, but no member of a children's panel shall continue to hold office after he has attained the age of 65".
The idea of a children's panel was that people should not stay on them too long. I have not attempted to cover that point in my Amendment, but it seems right that they should be eligible at least for one period of reappointment, and also it is fairly strongly held by the official side—children's officers, and so on—that it would not be a good thing for people to continue to hold office and to deal with children after they get into their later old age. I hope the noble Lord will agree to these Amendments, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 8, at end insert ("not exceeding three years")
Page 58, line 9, after ("State") insert ("and shall be eligible for re-appointment, but no member of a children's panel shall continue to hold office after he has attained the age of 65 ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: The purpose behind these Amendments is eminently reasonable. They are very constructive points.

309
Notwithstanding that, I wish to invite the noble Lord not to press them, for reasons which I will state. Obviously, it is desirable that people should be appointed for a fixed term, and, as the noble Lord knows, that is the practice. It is not necessary to have to specify the period of years, because the Secretary of State has full discretion. Also it has been found desirable, in bodies where there is a reasonable number of people, to make provision for people ceasing to be members, or coming to the end of their term (which is not necessarily the same thing) at different times, so that there is not too much change all at once. In quite a number of bodies, say twenty years ago, three years was fairly generally accepted. Some people in the beginning were appointed for one year, some for two and some for three, so that eventually you had a situation where one-third of the appointments were being considered each year. But recently it has been found—I rather think this happened in the previous Administration, but I know we are certainly carrying it on—that to be having changes at such frequent intervals sometimes leads to disruption in the proceedings of the body, and in some we have gone on to four years with changes every other year. It may be that four years would be accepted as better, and two and four year appointments with a possible change every two years would be even better. The point is that as soon as we put a fixed period of this kind in we deprive ourselves of the flexibility which is so very important in voluntary bodies of this kind.
Similarly, on the question of age, having regard to some of the things I have myself said on this, we see merit in these problems of children's panels not being in the hands of too old people; when I say that I mean people who have become too old and been perhaps too long on the job. There is considerable merit in having at least some of the people of a comparatively youthful age. But as soon as you put a definite limit in and say that nobody shall continue over the age of 65, sooner or later you come up against the case where you say,"I wish I had had the power to continue this man because, notwithstanding his age, he is so very obviously the suitable person ". The present Government have continued people in office, although not in a category of this kind, of an age far
310
beyond the normal retirement. It would be wrong for me to mention individuals, but noble Lords can think of a case where someone was continued by this Government in appointment well beyond the three score years and ten, and a very satisfactory chairman he made for many years after he passed that stage. It would have been a disaster if we had had a fixed age which would have deprived us of the services of that individual. And it can happen so very often.
I readily concede that when a person reaches 65 he is more likely not to be a suitable person for this particular kind of work, but it is so important that the Secretary of State of the day, in continuing legislation of this kind, should have the maximum freedom for so ordering the terms of appointment, the length of time, the age at which people can continue to serve, or even the periods which they may serve, that it may be a mistake to put in any limitations. I would remind your Lordships that there are very considerable powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to remove people from membership if he finds that that is necessary. I hope that with those remarks the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will find it possible to accept that what he has in mind will be the general principles on which successive Secretaries of State, I would think over many years, I would seek to work, and that will be accomplished without putting words of this kind into the Bill.
LORD BALERNO: I should like, to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in his Amendment. It is all very well to say that the Secretary of State is given power to remove from office any member of the children's panel, but in fact this is a power which is very seldom exercised because of the ignominy that accompanies such a dismissal from such a committee or panel. Because it is seldom exercised it is very wise to have a natural period at which that person can drop out gracefully without any heal ignominy. It is this local association that matters. The whole point of these panels is that they are local panels. The local people know the people who are on them, and they in turn know the parents of the delinquent children. To allow a graceful demission from the children's panel is a wise thing. Therefore I strongly support my noble friend

311
in stating a term of years which can be renewed by the Secretary of State.
LORD HUGHES: I thought I made it perfectly clear that that part of it presented no difficulty. It is not necessary to fix a period to accomplish that. What I was really taking the strongest objection to was fixing an age limit which would mean a compulsory retirement. Although it is true that I referred to the fact that the Secretary of State has power to remove a person, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord that that would not be the normal way of bringing a person's membership to an end. The normal thing would be where a person was approaching the age where another term would take him beyond the age of 65 and it was felt in his particular case that there was no special circumstance requiring his continued membership, and he would not be appointed for another term. But you can accomplish this in, if I may use the noble Lord's own phrase, a more graceful way than saying to a man, "I am sorry; you are aged 65 and Parliament considers that at the age of 65 you no longer have any useful purpose to serve in relation to a children's panel.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's attitude on this matter. One can take one of two views on this question, and there are conveniences, advantages and disadvantages in both methods. I think he has made quite a reasonable case on this matter, and I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "but may be removed from office by the Secretary of State at any time", and insert:
". The Secretary of State may remove a chairman, deputy-chairman or member of a panel if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, he is guilty of misconduct or neglect in the performance of his duties as a member, or he is through age or infirmity no longer capable of performing them, or he is convicted of an offence (other than an offence under the Road Traffic Acts)."
The noble Marquess said: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee
312
with this Amendment. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said about the last two Amendments and the need to give the Secretary of State as wide a discretion as possible in this matter. I feel, however, that there is something to be said for defining the position a little more precisely, which I think this Amendment does; and even if he cannot accept it, I would ask him to comment perhaps a little on it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 9, leave out from ("State") to end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: I do not know whether I can give the noble Marquess a satisfactory explanation. It is the customary Government explanation, and when I say "Government" I mean any Government. It is that when a Minister is given a discretion in matters of this kind, particularly affecting membership of the voluntary bodies, because it is probably more important in this direction than anywhere else he should really have a fairly wide discretion rather than a discretion which can be exercised on certain grounds. If I were a member of one of these panels and I thought that I was in danger of being removed on any ground, I would want to get out as quickly as possible, because I should not like people to be speculating as to the reason why I was being removed: that I had been guilty of misconduct or guilty of neglect in the performance of my duty, or that I was aged or infirm and was no longer capable of performing my duties. It would be little satisfaction to know that everybody knew that I had not been removed because of an offence under the Road Traffic Act. For these reasons, it would be much better that the Secretary of State's discretion should be unfettered.
I couple that with what I said in concluding my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, with whom I agreed that in practice the power to remove a person is a power which is seldom exercised because it is almost impossible to do so without inflicting almost unnecessary suffering and hardship on people who, after all, are there in the first place because they have been willing to give voluntary service. Generally speaking, no great difficulty arises. I say "generally speaking" because it could arise. There

313
is no great hardship allowed in permitting the person to serve out the rest of his term, but this is to make certain that he should not be called upon too frequently to exercise his duties during the rest of that term.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Appeal Tribunals]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF L1STOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 220, I must point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 221.
10.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in paragraph 6, to leave out sub-paragraph (2), and to insert instead:
"() In any proceedings before an appeal tribunal a person shall have a right to be represented by another person."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to put it definitely in the Bill that one person may be represented by another person. It does not seem proper to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State whether he shall make rules allowing one person to be represented by another person in any appeal proceedings under Section 64. In my view, the Bill should offer the right, even if the Secretary of State is left with the power to make rules as to the procedure for such representation, for one person to be represented by another.
Legislation often does not confer this right in regard to tribunals. There are tribunals before which there is not a power for one person to be represented by another, but it seems without doubt to be right in this case, and I think that it should be clearly stated in the Bill. No doubt the Secretary of State will make rules of procedure, but he is not bound to make provision as to the representation of one person by another. I think that we should make it quite clear in the Bill that one person may be represented by another in these particular proceedings before this particular tribunal. I
314
suggest that, if the noble Lord dies not feel disposed to accept this Amendment here, it ought to go in as a substantive provision in Clause 64. He can then, if he wishes, keep the powers to male rules on procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated, the power to make such a provision is in the Bill in paragraph 6(2). If it should prove necessary to set up a tribunal— and I would point out that we have been able to go from 1948 right up to date without having to set up a tribunal—the Council on Tribunals must be brought in. The Council have been given by Clause 88(b) powers of supervision over thee tribunals. The Council will certainly have views as to how representation should be covered, and it may be taken that they will have particularly in their minis the interests of appellants. I can certainly give the assurance that any views which the Council on Tribunals express in relation to the way in which a person should be represented before tribunals will be given effect to by the Secretary of State.
I think that that assurance should be satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but in case it is not I have an alternative suggestion to make to him. I do not see any reason why I s could keep this up my sleeve and invite him to make a second speech saying that he does not like the first proposal. The second proposal is an alternative way of dealing with the matter; that is, that I would give an undertaking that we will in the meantime consult the Council on Tribunals about their views on this matter with a view, if they think it desirable, to the Government's putting down an Amendment at a later stage. What I cannot undertake, if we take the second course, is that that will necessarily mean that information will be available for us to act on in your Lordships' House. But if the noble Lord prefers the second course, then I will certainly undertake that my right honourable friend will have a consultation of that kind and will act upon it in another place in due course.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his two

315
suggestions. As I say, I think there should be a substantive provision as to the right of representation. The noble Lord has suggested that he should consult the Council on Tribunals about the rules as to procedure, and I think that that would be very helpful. I think it will help his colleagues in the other place to know the answer when he comes to pilot the Bill there. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provisions]:
10.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have put down this Amendment because I should like to know what are the circumstances that the Secretary of State has in mind to prescribe under this paragraph. It says:
4.—(1) On the coming into operation of Part Ill of this Act it shall be the duty of every local authority in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State to arrange for the case of any child who is—

(a) subject to an approved school order.

(b) committed to their care as a fit person under an order of a court,

(c) under a supervision order, or

(d) under a probation order,

to be brought before a children's hearing for his case to be considered and disposed of under Part III of this Act.
Can the noble Lord say how many children there are at the present moment who fall into those four categories? If I understand the position aright, there are something like 4,000, but I do not know. However, it seems to me to impose a very heavy load indeed on children's panels at the outset of their work if a high proportion of these children are to be brought before them. It would therefore be useful if the noble Lord could give some indication of what circumstances the Secretary of State has in mind to prescribe under this paragraph.
I quite appreciate that the Bill is intended to abolish detention as a punishment, and for that reason it may be theoretically desirable for children's panels to see the children who have been sent to an approved school as a punishment by the courts. There would be a change
316
there. But I should have thought that the sorting out of children at approved schools was primarily an administrative matter. I should like to know whether court orders for detention will be automatically converted into supervision requirements when the Bill comes into force, or is that the kind of case that the Secretary of State has it in mind to prescribe? If they were to be automatically converted, then the child and the parent would have 'their right to require a review in accordance with Clause 47, and therefore it is possible that they would be brought before the children's panels. In view of the relatively large number of children affected, it would be useful to know what circumstances the Secretary of State has in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 43, leave out paragraph 4.— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: If we were to accept this Amendment, the effect would be that any of the orders mentioned in paragraph 4 would cease to have effect from the date the Bill became an Act. I do not think that is the noble Lard's intention. I think it would be nearer his intention that the orders should be allowed to continue in the normal course. The first of these would be the effect if the Amendment were carried, but it does not seem to us that either of them is appropriate. It is just as wrong that they should all come to an end on the Act coming into force as that they should all continue. For example, if we made provision that they should all automatically continue, then we would have a very fair measure of injustice as between one child and another. We have to picture the circumstance that one child might have been put on probation for three years a few days before the Act came into operation, in which case, if we continue an order, that child is stuck with that provision for three years, whereas another child might be dealt with a few days after the Act comes into operation, in which case it will be placed under the supervision requirement and will have regular rights of review and rights of appeal which the other child is going to be denied.
I think that what we expect to happen, and what we are seeking to make provision for happening, is in fact what the noble Lord wants. He has said that it

317
would be an impossible task for all these cases to be considered at once. With that I agree. Because of the numbers involved, that would be a sheer impossibility. So what we provide in paragraph 4 is to take power to prescribe that in certain circumstances children subject to the various orders should be brought before the hearings. This will have to be fully worked out in rules, but the kind of solution that is likely to be found is that, say, orders which have over one year to go would be allowed to stand, orders for one year or less would be allowed to run out and the other cases would be reviewed during the year that followed and would be either turned into supervision requirements, as appropriate, or, alternatively, discharged. This seems to be a reasonable way of dividing up the existing cases in a way that has a certain amount of justice as between one child and another and yet does not place on the hearings an impossible burden. I hope that this explanation will provide the noble Lord with a picture of what is going to happen which is consistent with what he would like to see happening.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation of the intentions in this matter. We will study these. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 41, after ("of") insert ("a large burgh or").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 2, at end insert—
(". In section 41(2)(a) for the words `large burghs' there shall be substitued the words counties of cities'.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment is put down for information. I
318
understand there is only one remand centre in Scotland. Is that correct? It seems a rather odd provision in this context. I do not think remand centres are mentioned at all in the White Paper. Assessment centres definitely are. I wonder whether this word will be more appropriate than "remand" centres. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 43, leave out ("remand") and insert ("assessment")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment. As I understand it, there is no remand centre in Scotland, and the remand centre will be nonsense it relation to this. The only purpose of remand centres is to provide accomodation for remands under Section 28 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 which has not yet been brought into force. Remands are still carried out under Section 41 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, and as yet there are no establishments in Scotland designated as remand centres. The remand institution at Longriggend—and this is probably what the noble Lord has in mind—is technically a prison, although it performs this function acting as a place of custody on remand for all under-21s including unruly and depraved children from the West of Scotland. I can say that Section 28 is likely to be brought into effect before this Bill is brought into effect. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: The effect of this Amendment is to give a Scottish court jurisdiction in proceedings against persons residing in England or Northern Ireland for a contribution order under Clause 80 of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment is to continue the jurisdiction of Scottish courts relating to the making of contribution orders against persons residing in England or Northern Ireland by substituting for reference to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 a reference to the present Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 18, at end insert—
("Maintenance Orders Act 1950
In section 9, in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substitued the following paragraph—
(a) for a contribution order under section 80 of the Special Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (enforcement of duty to make contributions by parents in respect of their children while in the care of a local authority under Part 11 of that Act or under a supervision requirement'").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 29, after ("or") insert ("in Scotland").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a fairly simple point. It is difficult to understand the repealing of either "young person" or "person"'. It is not sense to leave out "person" except where it first appears, without there being something in its place. It occurs seven times in that subsection. If you remove it every time it occurs except once, it does not seem to be sensible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, leave out from first ("person") to end of line 33.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I accept that the drafting is an improvement on our own.
LORD HUGHES: The effect of this Amendment is to delete from Section (1) (1) (d) of the Police, Fire and Probation Officers Remuneration Act 1956 the effects of the Third Schedule to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 which the Bill repeals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 42, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c.1.

The Police, Fire and Probation Officers Remuneration Act 1956.

In section 1(1)(d), the words from 'or' to '1949'")

10.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Section 69(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act deals with persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention in approved schools where they have been sent to hospital for treatment for mental disorder and they no longer require treatment. Paragraph (b) gives the Secretary of State power to exercise any power of releasing a person on license or discharging him under supervision as he would have done if the person had been returned from hospital to the prison or the approved school, or to authorise the managers of the approved school to exercise that power. Now that detention is being abolished as a punishment for children, I see that the provision as to approved schools may no longer be necessary, though I should have thought that if the court had ordered a child prosecuted under the instructions of the Lord Advocate to be detained in an approved school, it might still apply. What I do not understand is why the provision as to imprisonment should cease to have effect in this Bill. It seems to me right outside the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, leave out line 7.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I am in grave difficulty. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not think it necessary to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to what I am about to say. This is a mistake. It is Section 69 (1)(b) that should be repealed and we shall proceed to repeal that in due course. I therefore accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a very small point. I am not clear why the accountant should cease to include in his annual report which he submits to the Secretary of State abstracts of accounts of all bodies of managers of approved schools. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can explain why it is necessary to make this omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, leave out lines 16 to 18.—(Lord Drurnalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: Section 80(1)(e) must be omitted because it requires the Scottish Education Department accountant to

321
submit in his report details of the accounts of approved schools. But since approved schools as such will no longer exist, such a report would be inappropriate. During the transitional stage envisaged in Schedule 5 grant would still be payable. It can, however, be safely assumed that there will be quite adequate investigation of accounts before grant is paid, just as there is at present. Similarly the words "(in an approved school)" must also be removed from Section 104 as there will be no approved schools. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, with Amendments.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  REDEVELOPMENT OF OLDER HOUSING
  REDEVELOPMENT OF OLDER HOUSING