Sitting of 20 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  VIETNAM
  Dr. David Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will dissociate Great Britain from the use of chemical and biological warfare by the United States of America in Vietnam.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I am not aware of any American activity in this field to warrant our dissociation.
  Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend inform those who advise him that one Australian officer has died during a gas attack in Vietnam and that the use of defoliants in Vietnam cannot be categorised as other than the use of chemical and biological warfare, warfare which is not against military targets—although the excuse is used that to defoliate exposes guerillas—but which is, in fact, occasioning starvation among an already starving population?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has already given one of the most important reasons for the use of defoliants; and if this stops ambush raids, it is saving life. It is inevitable in the operations of war that there will be an interdiction of food supplies. I am not aware of any use of lethal gases.
  Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, about the willingness of the Government of North Vietnam to accept the good offices of the United Nations, with a view to the early cessation of hostilities.
  Mr. M. Stewart: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 1st April, North Vietnam has consistently rejected any suggestion that the United Nations should concern themselves with the affairs of Vietnam; and I regret to say that I have received no information of the nature described in this Question.—[Vol. 762, c. 2.]
  Mr. Dewar: While this Question, perhaps fortunately, has been out-dated by recent more hopeful developments, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the United Nations we still have a very useful rôle to play in getting an ultimate settlement?
  Mr. Stewart: Certainly. As I think the House knows, the United States has long been willing to submit the Vietnam question to the United Nations and to keep

  3
  the Security Council informed of their actions.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, with his co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, he has been in touch with the three Control Commission members to ensure that if required they are prepared to play their part in reaching a settlement?
  Mr. Stewart: I have from time to time been in touch with the International Control Commission members. What part they and the co-Chairmen may have to play is, I think, one of the things we may know more about in future.
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy in relation to the proposed peace talks on Vietnam.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Reply to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 180.]
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the chaos in France, will the right hon. Gentleman issue an immediate invitation to the participants in the Vietnam talks to move their talks to London where, thanks to the Parliamentary system, order can be assured?
  Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think not.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Mr. Harriman was correctly reported as saying in a public statement that the N.L.F. could have no share in the future Government of South Vietnam? If so, will my right hon. Friend represent to the United States Government that many people will feel it difficult to believe that they are seriously interested in peace if they stick to this point of view?
  Mr. Stewart: I should like to check that report before commenting. I do not think that it would be wise for me at present to make public statements on the attitude of either side.

  RHODESIA
  Dr. David Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic initiatives he has taken in non-
  4
  Commonwealth countries to secure adherence to the United Nations resolution on sanctions against Rhodesia.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley): As has been made clear on many occasions in the House, Her Majesty's Government are in regular touch with other Governments, including non-Commonwealth countries, about the implementation of the Security Council resolution on sanctions.
  Dr. Kerr: Since being in touch with countries is not the same as bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on them, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that what is happening over the breaking of sanctions—not the least alarming report of which came over the weekend from Germany—is causing us a certain amount of despondency at the failure of the Government to take the necessary initiatives with other countries?
  Mr. Mulley: Whatever my hon. Friend may think about the course of our communications, one thing is certain and that is that they would be of no value if they were not confidential. On the broad question of the implementation of sanctions, it is, of course, a matter for the Security Council to determine whether members of the United Nations are in breach of their obligations under Article 25.
  Mr. Ridsdale: What is the attitude of the Japanese Government to sanctions? Is it not a fact that they are very sceptical of this policy succeeding? When will Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the situation and realise that this policy is a very unrealistic one and is not getting the support of some Asiatic countries?
  Mr. Mulley: On the contrary. There is every evidence that a number of African and Asiatic countries want further sanctions to those now proposed. As I have already said, it is a mistake to think that it is our responsibility, or that we have the means, to enforce sanctions resolutions of the Security Council. This is a matter for the U.N. and very recently the matter was reviewed there, when it was shown that the majority of members are carrying out the mandatory resolution concerned.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend believe, in the bowels of Christ, that he is wrong about private conversations? Will he try, instead, public debate in the Security Council, calling on Governments to ensure that their nationals do not violate the sanctions and, at the same time, show the evidence we have that this has happened; and then he would get a real result?
  Mr. Mulley: My reference to confidential discussions was on the basis of representations between one Government and another. There have been many public discussions in the Security Council and, as my hon. Friend reported to the House on 24th April, one is now going on about our proposal for further sanctions.

  OUTER SPACE TREATY
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Outer Space Assistance Treaty which he recently signed.
  Mr. Mulley: The Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space stems directly from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty which came into force on 10th October, 1967. The Agreement is both of value in itself and as an example of international co-operation. Her Majesty's Government, who are one of the three depository powers, signed the Agreement on 22nd April.
  Mr. Hooley: While this is a modest and useful advance in international co-operation, may I ask my right hon. Friend what contribution Britain will be able to make in the rescue of astronauts and how many countries are now signatories to this Treaty?
  Mr. Mulley: To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, 56 States had, by the middle of last week—the latest date for which we have figures—signed the Treaty. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, about what part we can play, that depends very much on where the emergency landings of astronauts
  6
  take place. The purpose of the Treaty is to get an international procedure so that the maximum assistance can be given and the country concerned notified as early as possible; and, of course, the United Nations Secretary-General would be notified.

  REFUGEES (UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL)
  Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to accede to the United Nations Protocol on the Status of Refugees.
  Mr. Mulley: Shortly, we hope, and in any event before the end of Human Rights Year.
  Mr. Archer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he accept that merely sending food to refugee camps touches only the fringe of the problem; and that every month during which these people remain in the camps is a very wretched month out of their lives?
  Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, but the delay in the implementation of the Convention does not affect that issue. It extends the date during which these people would be classified as refugees. But we hope very soon to sign. The delay on our part has been due to the need to consult all the dependent territories which would be covered as the result of our signature.

  MIDDLE EAST (UNITED KINGDOM EMBASSIES)
  Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what countries claims remain outstanding for compensation for damage to United Kingdom embassies during the Middle East crisis last summer.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): A claim has been presented to Kuwait and claims will be presented to the Lebanon, Libya, the U.A.R., Iraq and Syria as soon as possible.
  Mr. Dewar: Can my hon. Friend explain why there have been these very long delays in these countries and various

  7
  other countries whilst Tunisia, for instance, settled very promptly, when in all cases the claims are of comparatively minor financial importance?
  Mr. Rodgers: We must all regret the delay. It is partly due to the fact that there has been an absence of diplomatic relations between Britain and several of these countries, and also real difficulties in assessing the damage which was incurred.
  Mr. Fortescue: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House whether any claim was made or compensation offered in respect of the aeroplane of our military attache in Jordan which was destroyed on the ground at Amman airfield by the Israeli Air Force?
  Mr. Rodgers: Not without notice.

  JERUSALEM (MILITARY PARADE)
  Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations Security Council on the resolution regarding the decision by Israel to proceed with a military parade through Jerusalem.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government made their disapproval of this parade quite clear by voting for the Security Council Resolutions of 27th April and 2nd May.
  Mr. Walters: Is not a militaristic display of this kind in a city that does not belong to Israel to be thoroughly deplored?
  Mr. Stewart: I think my first Answer made that clear.
  Sir B. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend consider why, when Jordan violated all the rules of decency in that part of Jerusalem which she had annexed, the Security Council did not take a similar step in respect of Jordan?
  Mr. Stewart: I would agree that this matter of the parade in Jerusalem is only one aspect of a very great problem in which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The solution of the problem depends upon the removal on both sides of a great weight of suspicion. We deplore this particular action because it was liable
  8
  to give colour and weight to these suspicions.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Foreign Secretary instruct his representative not to indulge in the passing of totally absurd resolutions which will never be carried out?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not believe that if we treat the United Nations in that way we shall get the growth in the rule of law which is essential in the long run if world peace is to be preserved.

  MIDDLE EAST
  Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Middle East.
  Viscount Lambtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the position in the Middle East.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government have been pleased to note that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Middle East, Dr. Jarring, has secured the agreement of the three principal parties to continue his current contacts with them in New York. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a further statement at this juncture.
  Mr. Walters: Should the Jarring mission fail, have the Government any alternative proposals for reaching a settlement? For instance, do they have a view about the proposals mentioned in The Times of 17th May, which envisaged temporary international custodianship of those parts of Palestine, including Jerusalem, which have been occupied by Israel after the June war?
  Mr. Stewart: We have considered this proposal and other proposals, and what line of action might be necessary if Dr. Jarring's mission should not be successful. Fortunately, at present this is hypothetical.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the continued Russian infiltration in the Middle East, including the large-scale supply of arms to the Yemen and the proposed introduction of a naval base in the Gulf?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that comment arises out of this Question.
  Mr. Henig: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the long term the only real hope for peace must lie in direct negotiations between the two sides rather than by mediation by Dr. Jarring or anyone else? Will the Government, therefore, do all in their power to press on countries in the Middle East the importance of taking at least the step of starting some form of negotiation between themselves?
  Mr. Stewart: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the objective he has in mind could not be reached immediately. I believe that what Dr. Jarring is now doing could be helpful to that end. At this moment, therefore, I have taken the view that the best service we can render is to urge on the parties concerned that they should give all support to Dr. Jarring's work. Of course, further steps would be necessary later on.
  Sir Dingle Foot: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's view, expressed at the United Nations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), that there can be no satisfactory settlement without a withdrawal from the territories which were occupied last summer?
  Mr. Stewart: I would agree with that view, but the danger of stopping short of agreement with that is that the United Nations resolution referred to a good many other things besides withdrawal. What we want, I take it, is a settlement in which Israel and her neighbours can live side by side with such relations between them as ought to exist between fellow members of the United Nations. That was also involved in the United Nations resolution.

  SUEZ CANAL (DETAINED SHIPS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action is being taken in order to free British vessels held up in the Suez Canal.
  Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the British ships detained in the Suez Canal.
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a direct approach to the authorities in Egypt and Israel with a view to obtaining the release of the four British ships at present detained in the Suez Canal.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel, with other ship-owning countries, and with the United Nations. We are doing all we can to get arrangements made for the release of the ships, but I cannot forecast when we shall see practical results.
  Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend will agree that these talks have been going on for a very long time. Is any progress being made? Is any pressure being brought to bear on the United Arab Republic? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government now find themselves in a hopeless and helpless position, and does not that also apply to the United Nations?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I think that my right hon. Friend is taking too pessimistic a view here. The reason for the difficulties is that this is not an isolated problem: it is part of the whole Arab-Israel problem. We have been in touch with the Government of the United Arab Republic and, indeed, with all those who are concerned.
  Mr. Marten: What is the cost to the British economy in the first quarter of this year of these blocked ships? As they have now been there a year, can the Foreign Secretary say which of the two Powers would object if a United Nations force tried to get the ships out by unblocking the south of the Canal?
  Mr. Stewart: To a proposal for a United Nations force I do not think that there would at present be agreement by either party. As I say, we have to regard the solution of this matter as part of the solution on the whole Arab-Israel question. I think that the losses at present to our economy are in the neighbourhood of £20 million a month.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Since it may be a matter of years before the Suez Canal is opened, if ever, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider starting a special

  11
  "operation-release" to get our four ships out, even if they prove the last to leave.
  Mr. Stewart: Among the possibilities we have examined is one for getting out the ships that are at present there, which would be a different operation from completely clearing the Canal. There are possibilities there on which we are still engaged.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a question to be brought before the United Arab Republic, but that both the United Arab Republic and Israel have some responsibility for the fact that the ships are still there?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have very recently been in touch with both Governments about this matter.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Foreign Secretary said that this is not a problem that can be isolated, but might it not be isolated? Was not there at one time a plan, with which it seemed that the Egyptians and the Israelis would agree, of a dredging operation to the south, which is the natural outlet?
  Mr. Stewart: I should have said that an operation to get out the ships at present there could be isolated from the rest of the problem. The actual complete opening of the Canal is bound up with the whole problem. As I say, with regard to the smaller question, there are possibilities on which we are now engaged.
  Mr. J. T. Price: If we are held to ransom in any way by the Egyptian authorities in this matter—and is it not a fact that the Egyptians are looking to this country to provide them with a massive loan—what is the extent of the terms we are being asked to meet for the release of British ships?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can answer that question. I do not think it should be put entirely in that way. There will be need for help from more than the Egyptians if this is to be solved.

  CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (LONDON MEETING)
  Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the
  12
  outcome of the Central Treaty Organisation meeting held in London in April.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The Council of Ministers of the Central Treaty Organisation met in London on 23rd and 24th April. There was a useful exchange of views, both on matters directly affecting the Central Treaty Organisation region, and on wider international matters and general agreement on the policy the Central Treaty Organisation should follow.
  Mr. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that since we are withdrawing from the Persian Gulf and the Far East there seems little point in remaining in membership of C.E.N.T.O., with so many conflicting interests?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It is true of course that the countries which compose C.E.N.T.O. have each a wide range of interests, but it is generally understood that it is not the purpose of C.E.N.T.O. to deal with all those problems. It has the limited but useful objective of giving stability and confidence to the regional countries and promoting economic development among them.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since one of the purposes of C.E.N.T.O. is to safeguard its member nations against possible Soviet aggression, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the brush-off which he gave to my noble friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) when he asked him to comment about the presence of the Soviet Navy in the Gulf? Surely that is important?
  Mr. Stewart: I did not say it was unimportant, but I did not think it arose out of the Question on which it was asked.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Alan Lee Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British citizens were stranded abroad and repatriated through the action of British Consuls during 1967.
  Mr. William Rodgers: 2,398.
  Mr. Williams: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bossley,

  13
  who found themselves involved in the Middle East war last June had to pay £242 of their own money to bring themselves home? Would he agree that there should be some responsibility on the carriers at least to refund part of the return fare and not to escape responsibility entirely?
  Mr. Rodgers: The responsibility of the Government in this respect is to make sure that no undue burden shall fall on the taxpayer, whatever the unhappy circumstances anyone finds himself in. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a different one and I think that he might find it worth while to pursue it.

  BRITISH FORCES (ROAD BUILDING OPERATIONS)
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the successful road building operations for civilian purposes of British troops in Thailand, carried out in co-operation with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development, he will seek to ensure that comparable teams are available for similar aid elsewhere.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir. Army teams are carrying out similar projects in the British Virgin Islands and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A further party is leaving shortly for Malta.
  Requests for help of this nature will continue to be dealt with sympathetically within the limitations of the Army's strategic commitments and training programme.
  Mr. Lyon: Are the requests dealt with through the Minister of Overseas Development or the Ministry of Defence? Would it not be welcome if schemes of this kind could be expanded at a time when the ceiling for overseas aid has been fixed for the next two years?
  Mr. Rodgers: We have to consider here the total ceiling for aid of any kind whatever agency is used, but it is certainly the case that there is full co-ordination of the Foreign Office with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development to ensure that where a job is to be done it is done in the quickest and most effective way.
  Sir Frank Pearson: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the use of British Forces for this purpose can be only limited and that if we carry it too far we will soon find that we have no British troops left?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think there is some misunderstanding of the attitude of the Army to this sort of work. I want to make clear that it has been widely welcomed by the Army and the road building operation in Thailand has been a most useful training exercise.

  SOUTH YEMEN
  Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations with South Yemen.
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Government of South Yemen.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 182–3.]
  Mr. Marten: Does the Minister recall that a number of British officials were dismissed by the South Yemen Government on the occasion when the British Ambassador asked our pilots not to fly over the South Yemen frontiers? This was not in the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker). What is the position about compensation for the British officials who were dismissed?
  Mr. Stewart: The interim settlement we made and the further settlement we intended to make carried certain obligations on the Aden Government of the kind which the hon. Member and others have mentioned.
  Mr. Wood: Although there is a further Question later on the Order Paper about the position of individuals in South Yemen, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has anything further to say now about the security of British installations and property in the Republic?
  Mr. Stewart: The South Yemen Government said at the time when the negotiations were broken off that they wished their relations with this country to remain normal. I believe that is so and I do not think there is ground for anxiety on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his consideration of the effect on the negotiations with South Yemen of the prosecution and sentencing to death, or to long terms of imprisonment, by that Government of former servants and members of the Aden Administration because of their service to, and work for the former British Administration; and whether he will refuse help of any sort until a satisfactory reply is received.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The political trials were one of the factors taken into account in deciding on the timing and content of the recent negotiations on aid. As the negotiations ended without any agreement the question of future aid does not now arise.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while people are being persecuted and prosecuted for the offence of having served our own regime it would be intolerable to give any aid or comfort to such a regime as the present?
  Mr. Stewart: We were engaged in negotiations to give some aid beyond the interim aid. We took into account the facts—and they are serious and deplorable facts—to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. We do not believe, for reasons which have been given to the House, that, for that cause, we should not have made any offer at all. However, the offer was in my judgment unwisely rejected and the question of aid therefore now does not arise at all.
  Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so long as we remain patently impotent to protect our friends, it is not much use having a fleet of Polaris submarines?
  Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure of the moral my hon. and learned Friend is endeavouring to draw from that. I make no bones about the fact that we
  16
  were not able to give those who had been friendly to us the protection we should have done, but in consequence of representations we made—I think that it was in large measure due to them—the political trials came to an end and no death sentences were carried out.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As there is no question of any further negotiations or further aid, can the Foreign Secretary say whether Her Majesty's Government now assume responsibility for pensions to some of these people, who are very deserving and were being paid by Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Stewart: These are obligations which are accepted by the South Yemen Government and are part of the Geneva Agreement governing interim aid, and they are not affected by the fact that the negotiations for further aid have not come to any conclusion.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Now that the Foreign Secretary states that no further aid will be given in any circumstances, what steps does he propose to take in response to the threat of the South Yemen Government to nationalise the British oil refinery without compensation?
  Mr. Stewart: That is a hypothetical question. I stated earlier that the attitude of the South Yemen Government is that they wish relations between our two countries to be normal.

  GIBRALTAR
  Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are his plans to alleviate Spanish pressure on Gibraltar.
  Mr. William Rodgers: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting Gibraltar from 22nd to 24th May to continue discussions with Gibraltar Ministers on this and other questions.
  Mr. Tilney: As most sensible people would like to see a friendly Spain and expansion of trade between Gibraltarians and Spaniards, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the balance of trade, taking tourist revenue into account, is very much in favour of Spain at present?
  Mr. Rodgers: Yes. That is certainly one of the considerations we have in mind.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the all-party Motion on Gibraltar based on a Motion before the Assembly of the Council of Europe and signed by all parties from nearly all the national delegations?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think the Leader of the House is fully aware of that most important Motion.
  Mr. John Lee: If the Spanish Government persist in harassing Gibraltar, will the Foreign Office do something about making an inventory of Spanish assets in this country with a view to pressure on them by way of retaliation?
  Mr. Rodgers: Without necessarily saying that the method suggested by my hon. Friend would be a practical and desirable one, certainly we do not rule out the possibility of retaliation, although we are also considering positive help to the people of Gibraltar to sustain them in their difficult times.

  GUATEMALA (DRAFT TREATY)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no copy of the annex to the draft treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala was deposited in the Library of the House of Commons on 29th April 1968; and whether he will ensure that the British text of the final treaty is in English.
  Mr. William Rodgers: We received the annex from the mediator some time after the draft treaty, but copies have now been placed in the Library of the House. I am sure that the language of any final treaty will avoid any infelicities which the hon. Member finds in the present draft.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, before the Foreign Secretary claims that proposals have been put before the House in the Library, the proposals do exist in this country? It is not good enough to offer that sort of thing to the House when no one can see what the full proposals of the mediator are.
  Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. We placed the draft treaty in the Library as soon as it was available. The annex was not available—that was not our responsibility— but we placed it there as soon as it was in our hands.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with the Republic of Mexico to ensure that dormant Mexican claims to part of the territory of British Honduras do not subsist after the projected treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala comes into effect.
  Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Bethuel Webster proposals to make British Honduras subordinate after independence to Guatemala in foreign affairs and defence.
  Mr. M. Stewart: We have for long had informal consultations with the Mexican Government regarding British Honduras, and these consultations continue.
  In my statement to the House on 29th April, I said that we would study the mediator's proposals in consultation with the Government of British Honduras. That Government have now asked Her Majesty's Government not to accede to the proposed treaty, and this request has been unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives. We have consistently made clear that the dispute with Guatemala would not be settled on a basis which was not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras.—[Vol. 763, c. 798.]
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Foreign Secretary ensure in any future negotiations that the result must be complete independence for British Honduras, not economic domination by Guatemala, and will he note that, unless this is achieved, the old claims of Mexico to the northern portion of British Honduras remain subject to revival?
  Mr. Stewart: The Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I repeat what I said at the end of my Answer, that we have consistently made clear that the dispute would not be settled except on a basis acceptable to British Honduras.
  Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Parliamentary delegation to British Honduras found a unanimous sentiment in that country that the only danger to its defence would come from Guatemala? That being so, what on earth is the good of proposing a defence pact between British Honduras and Guatemala?
  Mr. Stewart: In view of the request from British Honduras that we should not accede to the treaty, and the British Government's view on the whole matter which I have just stated, that is a question which does not now arise.
  Viscount Lambton: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in stating that Mexico has declared that it has no claim on any part of British Honduras? Has it not said that it has no claim so long as British Honduras remains attached to the United Kingdom and did it not say that it would not make a claim if British Honduras became attached to Guatemala, but it has never said that it had no claim if British Honduras itself remained independent?
  Mr. Stewart: As I understand it, the Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras.
  Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the much larger population of Guatemala, the entirely different cultural attitude there and the fact that it is an unstable police State, does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us are surprised that this draft treaty should have been taken so seriously for so long?
  Mr. Stewart: It was right that the mediator should do his work. It is to be regretted, I suppose, that he was not able to find a solution acceptable to both parties; but, since the draft treaty is not acceptable to British Honduras, it is not acceptable to the British Government either.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANSATION (WELLINGTON MEETING).
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the outcome of the meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation at Wellington.
  Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary attended the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Wellington on 2nd and 3rd April. The Council noted that, in spite of difficulties, encouraging economic and social progress had been made in the area which had been facilitated by the steady growth of regional co-operation. They also noted our decision to withdraw from Singapore and Malaysia by the end of 1971 and welcomed our assurance that we would continue to contribute to the progress, stability and security of South-East Asia.
  Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that information about these matters in the British Press or available in London was minimal? If there is any advantage in our continued membership of the Organisation, will my hon. Friend endeavour to persuade the Organisation to issue fuller documentation?
  Mr. Rodgers: I shall certainly take up that point.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As this was the first meeting of the S.E.A.T.O. Council since the Government's decision to pull out east of Suez, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the S.E.A.T.O. Ministers were pleased by the British Government's action, and will he explain why his right hon. Friend came back and did not feel it right to tell the House of Commons what had transpired at this important meeting?
  Mr. Rodgers: Our allies in S.E.A.T.O. fully understood the circumstances which had determined us upon our withdrawal by the end of 1971, and, as I explained, they were reassured when they were told that we intended to play our part in a number of other ways in the Far East in the period after that.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend meant no discourtesy to the House. This has been the first occasion on which an hon. Member has asked for information.

  OVERSEAS MISSIONS (PERSONNEL)
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the likely percentage change in the number of

  21
  United Kingdom-based personnel serving in British missions overseas during the course of the current financial year.
  Mr. Mulley: The current United Kingdom-based establishment overseas is more than 2 per cent. below that in the last financial year. During the current financial year, there will be further redeployments of United Kingdom-based staff to meet our changing tasks, for example, in giving increased attention to work to promote British exports.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the foreign exchange cost of these services has increased 12 times since before the war? Does he suggest that our responsibilities and influence have increased proportionately over that period? Second, has he noticed that the United States Government are able to announce a 10 per cent. cut in the foreign exchange cost of their foreign service in the course of a single year? Why cannot we do the same?
  Mr. Mulley: On the first point, although there has been a large increase in costs since the period to which I referred in my Written Answer on 17th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring, he will recall that in that Answer I showed that there are more than double the number of countries in which we have representatives, in addition to the development of big missions at the United Nations and elsewhere.
  The broad question of how much one can cut depends on how much waste there is to start with, and I should not like to make an observation about the size of United States overseas representation, but the fact remains, as the hon. Gentleman knows, having been a member of the Service, that our overseas representation is inspected regularly every three years. While we are seeking and shall obtain further reductions in these establishments, we have been primarily engaged in the last year or two in changing people from political to commercial work. I think that that is the wish of the House. It is certainly the wish of British industry that we should do it.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's present policy concerning the British application to join the European Economic Community.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 1st April.—[Vol. 762, c. 6–7.]
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the dead end which the British application to join the E.E.C. has unfortunately reached, will the Foreign Secretary order a full-scale inquiry into the possibilities of the proposed North Atlantic free trade area?
  Mr. Stewart: As the House has been informed, the possibilities of this have already been studied; but I think, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, that it would be a dead end.
  Mr. Shinwell: In the light of the present state of affairs in France, will my right hon. Friend send a message to President de Gaulle informing him that we are not prepared to enter the European Economic Community until France puts its affairs in order?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir.
  Mr. Turton: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's original Answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 82 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have pressed for a new feasibility study for an open-ended free trade area? As the Prime Minister said that the earlier one was conducted before he made the application, now is the time to have another one, is it not?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the use of time and resources in that manner.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: As the situation in France has become a great deal more flexible, would not it be the right moment to take any opportunity that arises to press our desire for association with Western Europe?
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend used the term "association"; I do not

  23
  think that he was using it in the technical sense. Our application is for full membership of the Community. Meanwhile, we are giving particular attention to the Benelux proposals, and would do so to any line of action which would bring us closer to Western Europe and lead directly to our membership of the Community.
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to convene a conference of the Foreign Ministers of the States that are members of the European Economic Community and of those that wish to be, on the lines of the proposals made by the Italian Government on 23rd February, 1968.
  Mr. M. Stewart: We welcomed the Italian proposals and are ready to take part in such a conference. At the moment, however, the members of the European Economic Community are still continuing their own discussions and I think we must await the outcome of their next meeting.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the feeling is growing in Europe that the time is ripe for a British initiative and that we could possibly help to break the European deadlock if the Government were to take the steps leading towards such a conference?
  Mr. Stewart: I understand and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think at present we should let the members of the E.E.C. continue their own discussions.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Prime Minister has said that the Government will consider any proposal emanating from the Six—from the Community as a whole— whereas the Foreign Secretary has said that these proposals to be acceptable must lead directly to full membership of the E.E.C. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in this case it is the Prime Minister who is expressing the Government view?
  Mr. Stewart: The two propositions are not in conflict. We should want proposals from the Six and should not want them to be a substitute for full membership, which is the objective of our policy.
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he
  24
  has now taken in reply to the initiative of the Governments of the Benelux States for a regular procedure of consultation between member and candidate states for the European Economic Community.
  Mr. M. Stewart: We have made it clear both to the Benelux Governments and to the other Governments concerned that we warmly support this proposal and are ready to play our full part in every channel of consultation open to us.
  Mr. Ridley: In view of the paralysis created by France, not only in the Common Market but in France also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must begin to put pressure on to get European unity moving again and that this also is another way in which he could help by supporting these proposals?
  Mr. Stewart: We have made clear our support of these proposals. The rest of my answer must be the same as that which I gave the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago.
  Mr. Henig: In view of my right hon. Friend's initial position—that we are only interested in listening to proposals from the whole of the Six—does not he feel that it is odd for the Government to listen to and, apparently, actively to encourage proposals from the three smallest countries in the E.E.C? Does not this jeopardise our whole European strategy?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I do not think that that is so at all.

  EASTERN EUROPE
  Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has to visit Prague, Belgrade, Budapest and Bucharest.
  Mr. M. Stewart: As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st April, I shall, at the invitation of the Governments concerned, be visiting Belgrade in June and Budapest, Sofia and Bucharest in September. I have no plans at present to visit Prague.—[Vol. 762, c. 12–13.]
  Mr. Biffen: Do not recent events show how much more beneficial it would be for the Western world if this country rather than France were responding to

  25
  the welcome and exciting initiatives being undertaken politically and economically in Eastern Europe? Will he bear in mind that he will have very wide goodwill going with him on the visits he proposes to undertake in Eastern Europe?
  Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It has been our policy for some time to have Ministerial exchanges with the countries of Eastern Europe. I visited Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1965, and can now undertake this further group of visits.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely essential to respond very quickly if Czechoslovakia were to ask for financial assistance? Would he agree to consult other European countries to see whether a loan could be floated if it is requested?
  Mr. Stewart: That is going very wide of the Question.
  Mr. Marten: When the Foreign Secretary visits these countries, could he particularly discuss with them the proposal which he has just rejected of the Atlantic Free Trade Area, which is open-ended and which these countries could join, when they could never join the Common Market for political reasons? We want unity in Europe, not half unity in Europe.
  Mr. Stewart: We discussed on our visits to these countries the possibility of closer links between Eastern and Western Europe. It is only that I am doubtful of the particular channel the hon. Gentleman proposes.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the idea of a European security conference be discussed during the visit?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend knows that these exchanges are usually confidential, but I think that one could say that it would be quite likely that that subject would be discussed.

  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on disarmament in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
  Mr. Mulley: The resumed session of the General Assembly is considering the revised draft of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was submitted by the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. I made a statement on 1st May urging the endorsement of the Treaty by the General Assembly with a view to its being opened for signature as soon as possible. The text of this statement is available in the Library and I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Whitaker: Could my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask that we might have a debate on this subject, which is of somewhat more importance than most that we talk about in this Chamber?
  Mr. Mulley: I should very much welcome a debate, but I am not sure that I have that amount of influence with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May I press on my right hon. Friend that he should represent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House should have adequate influence to get such a debate?
  Mr. Mulley: I am very encouraged by these statements, but I would point out to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend that in these matters back-benchers often carry more weight than frontbenchers. Perhaps we could do a joint exercise.

  WEST GERMANY (EMERGENCY LAWS)
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had, or has been asked to have, with the West German Government under the Allied rights of reservation regarding the emergency laws which Bonn wishes to introduce.
  Mr. Mulley: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 19th February, the draft emergency legislation now before the Bundestag has been prepared by the Federal Government in the knowledge of the views and requirements of the United States, French and British

  27
  Governments. Consultations with the Federal Government have been carried on through Her Majesty's Embassy at Bonn.—[Vol. 759, c. 9–10.]
  Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger involved in these totalitarian, if not Fascist, powers? Will Her Majesty's Government refuse to sanction these dictatorial measures, which are bitterly opposed by the trade unions, the peace movement and the students throughout West Germany?
  Mr. Mulley: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is not a matter for us to agree or not to agree. In the Convention of 1955, it was envisaged that there would be emergency powers relating to the protection of the security of our Armed Forces stationed in the Federal Republic, and that is our position. Our powers in other respects will not be affected by the emergency legislation proposed. I think that my hon. Friend grossly exaggerates the character of the proposed emergency laws. Similar contingency legislation is characteristic of most Western democratic countries. I understand that under these laws a two-thirds Parliamentary majority will be required before a state of emergency can be declared, and throughout the emergency a joint commission representing both Houses of the Federal Parliament will be sitting, so that I think my hon. Friend's description of them is less than just.
  Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the logical consequence of the Western Powers' surrendering these residual rights in West Germany must be a formal recognition of East Germany as a separate State?
  Mr. Mulley: The powers we are asked to give up in Article 5 of the Bonn Convention on Relations relate only to the stationing of British troops in the Federal Republic. Responsibilities and rights under the other Articles of that Convention are not affected, particularly those under Article 2, so that I cannot agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend arises.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE MEETING (DELEGATE)
  Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was with his authority, and at
  28
  the expense of his Department, that an ex-delegate to the Council of Europe who was replaced on 30th November, 1967, attended a meeting of a Committee of the Council in Paris on 14th December, 1967.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Authority was given at a time when the hon. Member concerned was still a delegate and the Foreign Office was unaware of a change in status until after the expenditure had been incurred.
  Mr. Jeger: Is not this an example of the confusion that has occurred in the appointment of delegates to the Council of Europe and their replacement? Is this confusion deliberate, so that the Foreign Office can say that it is done by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and the Patronage Secretary can say that it is done by the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Rodgers: I am not aware that there is any confusion. Therefore, the question of whether it is deliberate does not arise.
  Mr. Webster: Had the matter been cleared by the Credentials Committee of the Council of Europe?
  Mr. Rodgers: It did not come within its jurisdiction.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
  Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many days the Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union met during the session 1967–68; and on how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present.
  Mr. William Rodgers: Twenty-three and 14 respectively.
  Mr. Jeger: I asked three questions, and I have had only two answers. May I have an answer to the latter part of the Question? On how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present?
  Mr. Rodgers: I repeat my reply: 23 and 14, respectively.
  Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the European delegates to

  29
  these Assemblies do not take very seriously the British delegation, or our protestations that we wish to get into Europe, when our representation is so meagre and we take our responsibilities so lightly?
  Mr. Rodgers: It has not been my experience that those who attend the Council of Europe think that we take our interests lsss than very seriously. Our delegation as a whole, including the period daring which my hon. Friend was a Member of it, had a very good attendance record and a very high level of participation.
  Mr. Webster: Who is the leader of the delegation?
  Mr. Rodgers: I am, Sir.

  GERMANY-CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FRONTIER)
  Mr. Raymond Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to recent Czechoslovak representations on the matter of the German-Czech frontier; and if he will given an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will maintain the present frontier in negotiations with Germany for a peace treaty.
  Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 8th May, no recent representations have been received from the Czechoslovak Government on this matter. As I informed the House on 24th April, 1967, we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and consider that discussions for a peace treaty must start from the basis that Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question.—[Vol. 764, col. 106; and Vol. 745, col. 207–8.]
  Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question was prompted by the statement, made in a television interview by Adolf von Thadden, leader of the West German neo-Nazis, that the Munich Agreement was still, in his eyes, valid? Can we have from Her Majesty's Government in this House, although preferably in Prague, a clear and categorical statement to the effect that they regard that infamous Agreement as, to use the correct Germanic expression, no more than a disastrous scrap of paper?
  Mr. Mulley: I made such a statement over a year ago when I said that we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and that the peace treaty negotiations must start on the proviso that the Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question. We cannot put it more clearly than that.
  Mr. Molloy: In all these tremendously important matters, in an effort to get genuine and sensible negotiations conducted in all the matters affecting Europe, would it not be a sensible thing for Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider recognising the German Democratic Republic?
  Mr. Mulley: That is a different question. We take the view—and it has been generally accepted—that to get all these frontier questions right one must have a peace treaty, and that is contrary to the course my hon. Friend proposes.

  SOUTH AFRICA (MAJOR-GENERAL VAN DENBERGH)
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the purpose of the recent official visit to his Department of Major-General Hendrik J. van den Bergh, head of the South African security police.
  Mr. Mulley: General van den Bergh did not call at the Foreign Office during his recent visit to London.
  Mr. Hooley: In that case, will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to say why permission was given for the head of the South African Gestapo to visit this country at all?
  Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained last week that Major-General van den Bergh came as a visitor and stayed with the South African Ambassador. That seems to me a proper ground on which to admit him.
  Mr. Sharpies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain prosecutions resulting in very long sentences in British courts could not have taken place without the co-operation of the South African police?
  Mr. Mulley: That is not within my knowledge, but I have no doubt that their co-operation is of value.

GERMANY (KRUPP COAL AND STEEL INTERESTS)
Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement about the position with regard to the 1953 order for the disposal of the Krupp coal and steel interests in Germany in the light of the situation that has arisen following the death of Alfred Krupp.
Mr. M. Stewart: Following the death of Alfred Krupp last year, the Krupp concerns have been radically reorganised. The profits of the enterprise, which will now be a joint stock company, are to be paid to a charitable foundation of which the trustees are leading German citizens. All control and ownership has passed out of the hands of the Krupp family. In the changed circumstances of today, these new arrangements finally render the deconcentration order irrelevant. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly felt it right to enter into discussions with the other Governments concerned with a view to terminating the order.
Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be some pleasure at the outcome of the protracted negotiations and discussions which have taken place about the future of the Krupps empire in the last 15 years, and that we hope that the discussions which are to take place with other Governments about the order will underwrite his statement?
Mr. Stewart: I think that this is the right and proper outcome.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL)
Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the total cost to public funds and to the United Nations of the recent journey to Africa of the United Nations Council for South West Africa.
Mr. William Rodgers: This information was given by my hon. Friend
32
the Minister of State on 13th May in reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 764, c. 181.]
Mr. Longden: Is the Minister aware that these people, about a dozen of them, flew all the way to Dar-es-Salaam to discover, after wasting a certain amount of time there, that South Africa would not give them landing permission at Windhoek, that the Secretary-General said, after consulting several United Nations organs, that the matter would take some time to clear up, and that they then had to fly back to New York? Cannot this nonsense be stopped?
Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the broad circumstances of the visit, but I think it is right that we should honour our obligations under Article 17 of the Charter and not behave as others do in similar circumstances.
Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend make it clear to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) that it would be more in accord with the interests of Her Majesty's Government to support the detachment of South-West Africa from the control of South Africa rather than to simply connive at the present situation?
Mr. Rodgers: We have made it clear that we are in favour of any action which is clearly practical and positive.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT SITE (INQUIRY)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Government's proposals for the inquiry into the siting of the third London airport.
The form of the inquiry must meet two requirements. On the one hand, this is one of the most important investment and planning decisions which the nation must make in the next decade; this points to an expert, rigorous and systematic study of the many and complex problems involved. At the same time, the decision will profoundly affect the lives of thousands of people living near the chosen site; and this calls for an adequate method of representation of the local interests affected.
We have sought to find a form of inquiry which will meet these two, to some

33
extent conflicting, needs. We have had discussions with the official Opposition, and I must acknowledge the constructive help which they have given. We have reached a broad agreement.
The Government propose a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected.
In order to meet the two requirements which I mentioned earlier there will be two sides to the Commission's work. For part of the time, it will sit as a normal committee of inquiry, commissioning research and analysing its findings, sifting expert evidence, forming its own judgments, and finally preparing its report. But there will be other phases of the inquiry when interested parties can be represented by counsel and have the right to cross-examine, both at a series of local inquiries once the possible sites have been reduced to a small number and also before the main Commission itself.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a more detailed note of the way in which I envisage that the Commission might set about its task, though I have no wish to impose upon it an unduly rigid procedure.
I shall direct the attention of the Commission to the following matters which are of special relevance to its inquiry:
General planning issues, including population and employment growth, noise, amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property; aviation issues, including air traffic control and safety; surface access; defence issues; and cost, including the need for cost/benefit analysis.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Roskill has agreed to act as Chairman, and I shall announce the names of the other members as soon as possible.
Mr. Corfield: The Opposition have throughout taken the view that it is highly desirable that the Commission should be in a position to reach a conclusion on the most suitable site without the risk of that site subsequently being rejected by a local planning inquiry. We therefore welcome the approach being adopted by the Government and we also very much welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Roskill as Chairman, along
34
with the apparent intention that there should be a senior planning inspector of the Ministry of Housing as a member of the Commission.
For the purpose of clarification, would the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions at this stage? First, although we appreciate that it is not possible for him yet to name the other members of the Commission, can he give some indication of the skills or expertise which he thinks should be represented by the members of the Commission? Secondly, will the Commission be free to take evidence from the Ministry of Defence? Thirdly, can he give some idea of the time-scale that will be involved, how long he thinks all this will take and when he expects the Commission to announce its final conclusion?
Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As to the skills we think should be represented, the kind of membership I have in mind would include perhaps a traffic engineer, an aviation expert, an economist, a businessman, and a regional planner, in addition to the planning inspector to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
As for the Ministry of Defence, that Department will, no doubt, submit some evidence of a classified character and this will, of course, have to be considered in camera. As to the time likely to be taken by the Commission, I envisage that perhaps up to two years will be needed.
Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that ample opportunity will be given to cross-examine all the expert witnesses who will be called, remembering that so often in the past such expert witnesses have given testimony which has afterwards been shown not to be fully acceptable?
Mr. Crosland: I would not necessarily accept what my hon. Friend says about the past. However, I can give him the reassurance he needs about the future. There will be opportunities both at the local inquiry and before the main Commission for interested parties to cross-examine the expert evidence put forward.
Mr. Kirk: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) in expressing complete

35
satisfaction at the form of the inquiry. Will it be possible for some of the stages of the inquiry to take place simultaneously? Will this inquiry obviate the need for a public local inquiry at the end of it into the site chosen?
Mr. Crosland: The answer to the first part of that question is "Yes, subject to the views of the Chairman." To answer the second part, I would hope that the answer is "Yes"; in all probability the Government will decide to give planning clearance for the selected site by means of a Special Development Order. There is no obligation to hold an inquiry in respect of such an Order and, after all that is now proposed, I would hope that no further inquiry would be considered necessary.
Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that in this case the Commission must proceed with the greatest possible measure of speed in view of the fact that Heathrow Airport is becoming less and less possible of development and that Gatwick is in a similar position? Would he agree that speed is necessary because of the increasing air traffic coming to this country?
Mr. Crosland: I completely agree that the greatest possible speed is necessary —that is, the greatest possible speed that is consistent with an inquiry that is not only actually thorough but is also seen by all the parties concerned to be thorough.
Mr. Bessell: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement on behalf of the Liberal Party, may I ask him when an announcement about the sites under consideration will be made? Can he also say whether the inquiry will consider the new phases of aviation—for example, the development of the Jumbo-jet and the vertical take-off type of aircraft—and ensure that the airport is sited at a place which is reasonably accessible to London?
Mr. Crosland: The answer to the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question will be for the Commission to recommend and not for me to decide in advance. The answer to the second part is "Yes, of course". The answer to the first part is that I would imagine that it would take the Commission between
36
six and eight months to narrow the very large number of sites that it will initially consider down to the very small number of sites which I hope will then be subject to local inquiries.
Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in aviation circles there will be a general welcome for his announcement? However, does he really think that this inquiry will be able to complete its work without knowing what is the policy of the Board of Trade for a national airports plan? In other words, does he really believe that the Commission can work in isolation in that respect?
Mr. Crosland: It is generally agreed by all those who have expressed views on this matter that whatever plans one might have for other airports there is almost certainly a need for a third to serve the London area. Therefore, the terms of reference which I have given will, I think, be adequate for the inquiry.
Sir J. Rodgers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, but does he realise that the period of two years which he envisages seems to many of us to be much too long? Can he not speed it up? Would he also give a categorical assurance that the site of Stansted will still be included in the deliberations?
Mr. Crosland: On the timetable, I merely wish to guard against over-optimism. If it takes less time, no one will be more delighted than I, but I think that it could take that long, nevertheless. I find it impossible to conceive that Stansted will not be at least one of the candidates seriously considered by the Commission.
Mr. Whitaker: Will the inquiry be able to consider the desirability of eventually moving Heathrow and Gatwick to the east of London, so that the noise of landing aircraft does not disturb the maximum population, as is the case at present?
Mr. Crosland: I have drawn the terms of reference reasonably widely and we must see what the Commission makes of them.
Sir S. McAdden: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the

37
most canvassed sites is adjacent to my constituency? Would he resist the present pressure to substitute noise transference for noise abatement, since the problem will not be solved merely by transferring it?
Mr. Crosland: I have noticed the reluctance of hon. Members whose constituencies might be affected to grasp this precious prize which is dangled in front of them, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's feelings will be brought to the attention of the Commission.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: May we take it, from one of my right hon. Friend's earlier answers, that the Commission will be able to consider sites which were previously rejected, for example, Black-bushe, which has great climatic and geographical advantages?
Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, there are no restrictions on the sites which the Commission can consider.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the timing for a third London airport must to some extent defend on the way in which the traffic can be handled at Heathrow Airport and at Gat wick? Will it be within the terms of reference of the Commission to examine methods of improving the aircraft traffic handling capacity of the two existing airports, since this should be pushed as hard as possible before the country is asked to invest in a new centre of noise and nuisance?
Mr. Crosland: What the hon. Gentleman says is very relevant, but I hope that he will consider that the terms of reference cover his point. The first sentence refers to inquiring into "the timing of the need" for a third four-runway airport, so I think that his point will be covered.
Sir C. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, make a full study of a link-up between central London, by a hovertrain or monorail, and these areas?
Mr. Crosland: This matter interests many hon. Members. We study it fairly continuously. How far it will be for the Commission to study, we had better allow the Commission to decide.
Mr. Hooley: Will the terms of reference entirely exclude the possibility of
38
siting the airport outside the South-East, since it could gravely aggravate the congestion which it is designed to relieve?
Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, they do not entirely exclude that. It would be open to the Commission to say that there was no need for a third airport, or that it should be indefinitely postponed. This is unlikely in practice, because almost everyone who has discussed this matter is convinced that, some time in the middle 1970s, there will be a need for a third London airport.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why, since all this will take quite a long time, has it become much less urgent than it was before to make a final selection of the site?
Mr. Crosland: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision to set up an inquiry, which he was kind enough to welcome when I announced it, or to the fact that some weeks elapsed after that earlier statement before I made this statement.
The reason that some delay has occurred is partly that we wished to consult the Opposition, which has, of course, taken time, partly because, in view of the tangled history of this question, it is extraordinarily important to find the right kind of inquiry, and partly because I have consistently taken the view that some delay is to be expected and is well worth incurring if, as a result, we get the right decision and one which everyone admits to be right.
Following is the Note:
Inquiry into Siting of Third London Airport— Constitution, Terms and Reference and Procedure
Constitution of Commission
1. The Government will set up a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference: —
To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected.
The Commission will be provided with staff and will be authorised to commission research into matters relevant to its investigation.
The Commission will have its attention directed to the following points which appear to be among the matters particularly relevant to its inquiry:

(a) General planning issues, including population and employment growth, noise,

39
amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property;

(b) Aviation issues, including air traffic control and safety;

(c) Surface access;

(d) Defence issues;

(e) Cost including the need for cost/benefit analysis.

Procedure
2. The Government envisage that the Commission will proceed broadly in the following manner, though they do not wish to impose an unduly rigid procedure: —
3. Stage I. At this first stage, the Commission will consider in a broad way the whole range of alternative sites, eliminate those which are clearly unsuitable and identify the small number which require more detailed consideration. The Commission will carry out this process of preliminary selection on the basis of general evidence that may be put to it and of information that it may itself seek. At this stage, there will be no right of representation before the Commission; though the Commission itself will be free to seek oral evidence if this is required to elucidate the matters it is considering.
4. At the end of Stage I, the Commission will announce the sites it wishes to investigate in greater detail, and will, for the purposes of that examination, define the approximate boundaries of the sites in question, and give such other general indications as may be necessary (e.g. flight paths and runway alignments) to enable those living in the localities to understand how they would be affected.
5. Stage II will consist of the hearing of evidence of a local character concerning the short-listed sites. This would probably be undertaken by a senior planning inspector, who would be a member of the Commission, visiting the locality and holding a public local inquiry. Subject to the general reservations mentioned in paragraphs 8–10 below, the interested parties will be entitled to be represented at this stage. As these proceedings will take some time, they will continue while Stages III and IV are going on.
6. Simultaneously, a start will be made with Stage III and the subsequent stages. Stage III
40
would consist of investigation and research into matters relevant to the choice to be made between the sites (e.g. air traffic patterns, surface transport, noise, regional planning etc.). Some of this work might be undertaken by the Commission and its staff; some commissioned from consultants; and some produced in the form of written evidence by the parties concerned or by bodies having an interest in these matters.
7. Stage IV. The Commission would consider the material produced during the course of Stage III. It will, if necessary, examine the experts who have produced it. If differences of opinion emerge from the expert evidence the Commission will, in the first place, invite those concerned to consult together with a view to reaching agreement.
8. Stage V. The purpose of this stage is to enable the interested parties to test the material produced during the earlier stages. At this stage, they may, by leave of the Commission, be represented by counsel or otherwise. Since the number of interested bodies is potentially large, it is hoped that bodies with similar interests will, wherever possible, be represented by the same counsel.
9. Counsel representing the parties may, by leave of the Commission, lead evidence on relevant matters, and cross-examine witnesses appearing on behalf of other parties or experts responsible for reports which are being taken into consideration by the commission.
10. Before giving leave, the Commission will need to be satisfied that such new evidence is useful and relevant; and that the proposed examination and cross-examination of wit nesses is not repetitious.
11. Finally, the Commission will consider the whole of the evidence, including that produced at the local inquiries. The Commission will then prepare its report and recommendation.
Procedure after the Commission has reported:
12. The Government will decide in the light of the circumstances of the time whether formal planning clearance should be given by way of a Special Development Order or whether they should require the British Airports Authority to make a specific planning application for the recommended site which would be called in for decision by the responsible Ministers, if necessary after a statutory local inquiry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have, as is my wont, posted my selection of Amendments to the first three parts of the Bill, up to Amendment No. 66.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

    New Clause 1.
    PUBLICITY IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF STRUCTURE.
    (1) When preparing a structure plan for their area and before finally determining its content for submission to the Minister, the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—

    (a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to the report of the survey under section 1 above and to the matters which they propose to include in the plan;

    (b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and

    (c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;

    and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period.
    (2) Not later than the submission of a structure plan to the Minister the local planning authority shall make copies of the plan as submitted to the Minister available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed, and each copy shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the plan may be made to the Minister.
    (3) A structure plan submitted by the local planning authority to the Minister for his approval shall be accompanied by a statement containing such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed—

    (a) of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with subsection (1) above; and

    (b) of the authority's consultations with, and consideration of the views of, other persons with respect to those matters.

    (4) If after considering the statement submitted with, and the matters included in, the structure plan and any other information provided by the local planning authority, the Minister is satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1) above, he shall proceed to consider whether to approve the structure plan; and if he is not
    42
    so satisfied he shall return the plan to the authority and direct them—

    (a) to take such further action as he may specify in order better to comply with that subsection; and

    (b) after doing so, to resubmit the plan with such modifications, if any, as they then consider appropriate and, if so required by the direction, to do so within a specified period.

    (5) Where the Minister returns the structure plan to the local planning authority under subsection (4) above, he shall inform the authority of his reasons for doing so and, if any person has made to him an objection to the plan, shall also inform that person that he has returned the plan.
    (6) A local planning authority who are given directions by the Minister under sub section (4) above shall forthwith withdraw the copies of the plan made available for inspection as required by subsection (2) above.
    (7) Subsections (2) to (6) of this section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to a structure plan resubmitted to the Minister in accordance with directions given by him under subsection (4) as they apply in relation to the plan as originally submitted. —[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.46 p.m.
    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.
    This new Clause, together with new Clause 2, replaces Clause 3 so as to meet some points raised in Committee. It was thought that it would be more convenient for the House if we presented Amendments in this form, setting out the Clause afresh, instead of tabling a series of different Amendments. We have taken the opportunity to divide the Clause into two, which will make for greater clarity. The changes made by the new Clause spring entirely from suggestions made by hon. Members in Committee.
    The new Clause will amend the old subsection (1) in three ways. First, it is made clear in subsection (1) of the new Clause that the steps required for publicity and participation shall take place during the preparation of the structure plan and before its contents are finally determined in representations for submission to the Minister. We agreed in Committee that the important thing was to see that the public were consulted and could make representations before the local planning authority became committed. That is the intention of this

    43
    wording. Of course, it can and will be supplemented as necessary by guidance in circulars.
    Second, the words "having an interest in "have been replaced. They had been misunderstood to mean having an interest in property, as if only people with a property interest would have the right to make representations. That meaning would, of course, be far too restrictive and was not intended. The words have, therefore, been altered to make it clear that any persons, whether organisations or individuals, who may be expecting to want to make representations are to be made aware of their opportunity. This Amendment is wide enough to cover both persons resident in the area of the local planning authority and those persons, including amenity or other regional or national societies, who are based outside it.
    Subsection (2) merely repeats the existing subsection (2) of Clause 3. Subsection (3) differs from the existing subsection (3) only in that it requires the statement sent to the Minister with the submitted structure plan to deal with all the steps taken to comply with the provisions of subsection (1).
    Subsection (4), with the supplementary provisions in subsections (5) to (7) of the new Clause honours my undertaking to bring forward Amendments to give effect to the proposal in an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). First, it requires the Minister to satisfy himself that the local planning authority has complied with the requirements as to publicity and hearing of representations set out in subsection (1) of the new Clause. Only if he is so satisfied may the Minister go on to consider the merits of the submitted plan. He has, of course, to consider the statement submitted and must consider the matters included in the plan, for the nature and the content of the plan will have a bearing on what is adequate by way of arrangements for public participation. He can also take account of any other information provided by the planning authority, and this will enable him to call for further explanations from the authority and to consider them if he is not completely satisfied by the statement itself.
    44
    If the Minister is not satisfied that subsection (1) has been adequately complied with he is under the duty to return the plan to the authority and to give clear directions about further action to be taken by the authority to comply with the subsection and about resubmission of the plan afterwards. He has power to set a time limit for resubmission and the authority can resubmit the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit.
    Subsection (5) provides that the Minister shall give reasons for returning the plan and notify any person who has made an objection to the plan that he has done so. The return of the plan does not invalidate the objection, but the notification alerts the objector to the possible need to reconsider his objection in the light of any modifications made to the plan for resubmission. Regulations will be made in respect of the validity and consideration of objections to plans which are withdrawn, and these regulations can be made under Clause 11.
    Subsection (6) seeks to prevent the confusion which could arise if a plan returned by the Minister were left on deposit and continued to be the focus of attention in preparing objections. Any copies made available for inspection are to be withdrawn when the Minister issues a direction under subsection (4).
    Subsection (7) provides that the procedure followed on resubmission of the original plan to the Minister shall be repeated on its resubmission. In this way the authority is required to give a statement of the further steps it has taken and to afford a fresh opportunity for further objections. Indeed, if it were necessary—I hope it will never be—the Minister will have power to return the plan yet again if he is not satisfied that steps have been taken to comply with his objection in an adequate manner.
    Mr. Speaker: I have just been reminded that the Amendments listed as selected are Amendments not only to the first three parts of the Bill, but also to Part IV of the Bill.
    Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: With the purpose of this new Clause, namely, to give publicity in connection with the preparation of development plans, we have no quarrel. Indeed, this Clause, and some other of the Amendments on

    45
    the Notice Paper, give effect to a number of representations which were made in Committee, although it will be noted that, as the Minister explained matters, there are a number of complexities and technicalities to be considered.
    But I want to protest—I have given the Leader of the House notice that I intended to do so this afternoon—at the very short period of time given to Members of this House to consider 52 pages of new Clauses and Amendments to a Bill which, although it is not controversial in a party political sense, raises matters of very great importance to the public and to the many interests concerned.
    These new Clauses and Amendments were available in draft last Tuesday to the Opposition, but the rest of the House and the public did not see them until Thursday. This really gives a totally inadequate: amount of time, even for those Members who served on the Standing Committee, to consider in detail what is proposed, and for the rest of the House it is absolutely intolerable to be faced with this sort of situation.
    The position is equally difficult for outside bodies concerned, whether it is the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Town and Country Planning Association—and all the other bodies which have a vital interest in these matters—because of the short amount of time afforded by the Government for consideration of these matters. There have been other controversial matters before the House in recent weeks, but this protest must be repeated in regard to this Bill.
    There must come a time when this Government, if they will not take any notice of representations by the Opposition, must surely listen to people like Lord Chorley and Lord Goodman. Parliamentary democracy has been absolutely broken down by this Government, and what is happening in the name of reform is that Parliament is being destroyed: if it is desired to set up a dictatorship you call it a people's democracy. It really is intolerable that we should be faced with the need to consider matters of this kind in such inadequate time.
    Lord Chorley is reported in the Observer yesterday as speaking of the
    46
    harmful effect of the extensive speed of legislation, and saying, with reference to the Companies Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, that it has reached "almost catastrophic proportions". His arguments were applied specifically to the Companies Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, but they can be presented again about the Transport Bill.
    This Bill, although one about which there is a measure of agreement, raises exactly the same principle about the speed of passing a complex Measure, and I hope that the Government will sooner or later take note of the strong feeling which there is outside as well as inside this House that legislation must be considered properly in the public interest. Now we have 52 pages of Amendments which the Minister has just slapped in front of the House, which is already absolutely drowned in a spate of controversial legislation which the Government persist in trying to force through the House in an absolutely outrageous way.
    I had to make that protest, but I do not dissent from the fact that the Ministers immediately concerned with this Bill have tried to make a number of Amendments which we on this side of the House will welcome, perhaps with modifications largely of a technical nature, and ones which, in the ordinary course of events, we could settle without too much difficulty. It may be that the Ministers immediately concerned with the Bill are in no way to blame that they have been obliged to squeeze the Bill into the Parliamentary programme, which is already in such a state of confusion, and I would say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we entirely acquit the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of any attempt to bulldoze legislation through Parliament.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and others of my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee will readily acknowledge the way in which the proceedings there were conducted and the good will and helpfulnes which Ministers themselves showed. The responsibility rests on the Leader of the House to see that these things do not happen, and to see that the business of the House is so conducted that these matters can be properly considered.
    As I have said, we welcome this new Clause, which represents an attempt to

    47
    meet representations made in the Committee and elsewhere. I would say that we have to be careful that in securing publicity of this sort we do not put such a burden on the local authorities as to delay the planning processes, but with that reservation, and knowing that there will be other Clauses and Amendments designed by the Government to ensure continuity of activity in the planning process, I have nothing more to say about the Clause.
    Sir Frank Pearson: I have a very short point I wish to raise, but before I do so I want to give the fullest support I can to the protest which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) has made. I speak on behalf of the Parish Councils' Association. This new Clause was put on the Notice Paper last Thursday and there has not been time for me or anybody else to consult the Association about the details of the Clause, and today I am totallv unbriefed about this very important Clause. I hope that every single parish council throughout the country— and I remind the Minister that the parish councils command a vast number of votes —will note that, because of this short notice of this Clause, it is not possible today to represent, as they ought to be represented, the interests of the parish councils, and that is due purely to the fact that the Government have been rushing this legislation through.
    Very briefly, I would ask for clarification of one point in subsection (1). The Minister of State said, I think, that the word "persons" in paragraphs (b) and (c) includes organisation as well, and I take that to be so. Does it also include statutory bodies like parish councils?
    Will there be an absolute right for the parish council to be informed of when the schemes are made, to be shown the schemes and to be given the same opportunity of making their protests and making their recommendations as any other body? It is a very brief point and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify it.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I feel that there should be a word from this side of the House both in support of
    48
    the new Clause and also in objection to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. We have become accustomed to sound and fury from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but if anyone makes a protest about the time available he should not do so. We do not normally have the pleasure of his company, even when he is an official member of the Committee. Therefore, I would have thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the last person to make any comment about the opportunities for debate in this House, or anywhere else.
    It is quite normal for this period of time to be given. Those who have the opportunity of attending the Committee know, and others could have found out from the reports of the Committee, that this new Clause and many others follow on the debates there, and are at the request of hon. Members both in Opposition and on the Government side of the House. They are not new matters, and, therefore, the opportunity given is not unreasonable if we are to make progress with the proposals before us.
    Mr. MacDermot: May I answer the hon. Gentleman's question? The answer is, yes, parish councils are included, by virtue of the provisions of the Interpretation Act, in the word "person", and they will have exactly the same rights as any other body to make representations and to participate in the formulation stage of plans which will affect them. It is precisely for this purpose that we are making the Amendment.
    Sir Frank Pearson: Would the plans be specifically forwarded to them?
    Mr. MacDermot: This may be done as a matter of internal arrangement. It is not required in the Act but parish councils would be included in the words:
    "… persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority …"
    Therefore, the duty is imposed on the planning authority to make sure that the publicity they give is such as is likely to reach them. They may find that the most convenient way is to send it to them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2.
    APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF STRUCTURE PLAN BY MINISTER.
    (1) The Minister may, after considering a structure plan submitted (or resubmitted) to him, either approve it (in whole or in part and with or without modifications or reservations) or reject it.
    (2) In considering any such plan the Minister may take into account any matters which he thinks are relevant, whether or not they were taken into account in the plan as submitted to him.
    (3) Where on taking any such plan into consideration the Minister does not determine then to reject it, he shall, before determining whether or not to approve it—

    (a) consider any objections to the plan, so far as they are made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act;

    (b) afford to any persons whose objections so made are not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose; and

    (c) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the local planning authority and such other persons as he thinks fit.

    (4) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, on considering a structure plan the Minister may consult with or consider the views of any local planning authority or other persons, but shall not be under an obligation to consult with or consider the views of any other authority or persons or, except as provided by that subsection, to afford an opportunity for the making of any objections or other representations or to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause is intended to replace, with a few adaptations, the provisions of the existing subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 3. The adaptations are made to take into account the fact that the structure plan may now need to be re-submitted, and this is met by the new wording of subsection (1) of the new Clause.
    The only other change occurs in subsection (3) of the new Clause, which relates to the consideration of objections. Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of the present Clause 3 obliges the Minister to
    "consider any objections made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act to the plan by persons who may be expected to have an interest therein ".
    50
    As I said a moment ago, this phrase has caused difficulty, and it has been found possible to discard it, retaining the limitation of the Minister's obligation to objections which are made in accordance with regulations. The principal matter of those regulations will be the time and manner of lodging objections. For the rest, the Clause repeats the provisions of Clause 3(4) to (7).
    Mr. Graham Page: As I understand it, the new Clause is to take the place of the second part of Clause 3 as printed in the Bill. The previous new Clause 1 took the place of subsections (1) to (3) of Clause 3, and this Clause takes the place of subsections (5) to (7). What it does not disclose is exactly when the structure plan comes into operation. We are still left in some doubt on this, even after a very long Committee stage on the Bill.
    The new Clause deals with the approval, or the rejection, of the structure plan, but particularly with the approval. At that point, as I understand, the plan will come into operation, and, at that point, I presume that certain Sections and parts of the Act, as it will then be, will be brought into operation, but until then they will be suspended. At this point, where the structure plan is approved, I assume that the development plan previously in operation for that area will die. This is the sort of thing which those who read the Bill will want to find out at an early stage. It is not disclosed, and I am not certain whether I have it right or not.
    It is true that the Clause, like the previous one, has been redrafted to take into account matters which hon. Members put forward during the Committee stage. It is absolutely necessary for us to have an opportunity to look at the details of and the manner in which those proposals are brought into operation. It is not easy to grasp Clauses of this nature in the short time that they have been before us.
    The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) commented on the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend from the Committee, stage. At least, he is here on Report stage.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: He is not now.
    Mr. Graham Page: He was here. He has gone out to telephone and he will be back in a moment, but that is more than the Minister has been, anyway.
    Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister is abroad on official duties.
    I do not think that the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised arises under the new wording. The wording in the

    New Clause 3.
    PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS.

    (1) A local planning authority who are in course of preparing a structure plan for their area, or have prepared for their area a structure plan which has not been approved or rejected by the Minister, may, if they think it desirable, prepare a local plan for any part of that area.

    5

    (2) Where a structure plan for their area has been approved by the Minister, the local planning authority shall as soon as practicable consider, and thereafter keep under review, the desirability of preparing and, if they consider it desirable and they have not already done so, shall prepare a local plan for any part of the area.

    (3) A local plan shall consist of a map and a written statement and shall—

    10

    (a) formulate in such detail as the authority think appropriate the authority's proposals for the development and other use of land in that part of their area or for any description of development or other use of such land (including in either case such measures as the authority think fit for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic); and

    15

    (b) contain such matters as may be prescribed or as the Minister may in any particular case direct.

    (4) Different local plans may be prepared for different purposes for the same part of any area.

    20

    (5) A local plan for any area shall contain or be accompanied by such diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter as the local planning authority think appropriate for the purpose of explaining or illustrating the proposals in the plan or as may be prescribed or as may in any particular case be specified in directions given by the Minister; and any such diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter shall be treated as forming part of the plan.

    25

    (6) Where an area is indicated as an action area in a structure plan which has been approved by the Minister, the local planning authority shall (if they have not already done so) as soon as practicable after the approval of the plan prepare a local plan for that area.

    30

    (7) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the local planning authority shall, if the Minister gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to a part of an area for which a structure plan has been, or is in course of being prepared, as soon as practicable prepare for that part a local plan of such nature as may be specified in the direction.

    35

    (8) Directions under subsection (7) above may be given by the Minister either before or after he approves the structure plan, but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to take any steps to comply therewith until the structure plan has been approved by him.

    40

    (9) In formulating their proposals in a local plan the local planning authority shall secure that the proposals conform generally to the structure plan as it stands for the time being (whether or not it has been approved by the Minister) and shall have regard to any information and any other considerations which appear to them to be relevant or which may be prescribed, or which the Minister may in any particular case direct them to take into account.

    45

    (10) Before giving a direction under the foregoing provisions of this section to a local planning authority, the Minister shall consult the authority with respect to the proposed direction.

    (11) Where a local planning authority are required by this section to prepare a local plan, they shall take steps for the adoption of the plan.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Clause follows that for this purpose in the Bill as it stands.
    What he says is correct. A structure plan comes into effect when it is approved and to the extent that it is approved. It may be approved in part or in parts, and therefore different parts of it can come into effect at different times.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: With new Clause No. 3, I suggest we take the Amendment to line 36, leave out from first ' to' to ' until' and insert' adopt such local plan '.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause and the next one similarly are intended to replace Clause 5 which has also been divided in the same way and for the same purpose.
    Subsection (1) contains an important new element. It permits, but does not require, a local planning authority who are in the course of preparing the structure plan for their area, or who have submitted such a plan to the Minister but who have not yet received his decision on it, to get to work on a local plan and to start preparing that local plan for any part of their area. At present, Clause 5(1) enables work on a local plan to commence only after the structure plan has been approved.
    The general feeling in Standing Committee was that this would be unduly restrictive, and that local authorities ought to be able to start work on their local plans while awaiting the Minister's approval. This could hold up, to the public disadvantage, useful work which has already been set in motion in some areas on an informal basis. The authority will not be able to put its local plan on deposit and take the formal steps leading to its adoption. But it will be able to carry out all the preliminary stages, including the publicising of proposals and the receipt and consideration of representations.
    It may be that, in a few isolated instances, the Minister's decision on the structure plan will be such as to necessitate a different local plan from that which the authority has been preparing. In that case, it will have to start again. But the savings in time and labour that the new provision will permit are likely far to outweigh any isolated cases where the Minister's decision on the structure plan renders abortive the preparatory work on the local plan. I stress that the power given to the local planning authority under this subsection is a discretionary one.
    The Amendment which we are considering with this is proposing, in effect, that the Minister should be able to re-
    54
    quire the local planning authority to prepare a local plan during this period and also to take the formal steps leading up to adoption and everything other than the actual adoption of the local plan. We feel that this would not be right and that, until the Minister has himself given a decision on the structure plan, he should not be in a position to dictate to the local authority what it should do by way of work on a local plan, having regard to the fact that there is an element of risk that that work might be abortive in the way that I have just indicated. Therefore, we think that it should be a matter for the local authority's discretion.
    Subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause contain only drafting changes. I hope that the House will agree that they are an improvement. Subsections (4) and (5) contain no change from the provisions which they replace. Subsection (6) contains a consequential amendment flowing from the possibility that the local planning authority will already have prepared an action area plan under subsection (1). Subsection (7) adapts the provisions of what is the present Clause 5(5) to the decision that work may start on preparing a local plan before the structure plan is approved.
    Subsection (8) is new. It enables the Minister to give a direction under Subsection (7) either before or after approval of the structure plan, but provides that no such direction shall require a local planning authority to comply with it until the structure plan has been approved. The principle here is that, although a local planning authority is put on notice and is enabled to prepare a local plan before the structure plan is approved if it wishes, the statutory obligation to prepare a local plan exists only after the structure plan has been approved.
    Subsection (9) is reworded. It now requires the local planning authority to ensure that the local plan conforms generally to the structure plan. There was criticism in Committee of the provision that the planning authority should "have regard" to the structure plan in formulating its local plan. It was thought possible that a local plan could be prepared under this wording which was inconsistent with the structure plan. The wording which we propose does not go so far as requiring absolute consistency with the structure plan, which we think

    55
    would produce undesirable rigidity and could give rise to much argument. I hope that the wording achieves what is generally felt to be the result that we want to obtain.
    Subsection (10) repeats Clause 5(7). Subsection (11) obliges a local planning authority to take steps for the adoption of any local plan that it is required to produce. The object of that is to avoid a new generation of "bottom drawer" plans arising by the failure of local authorities to complete the necessary statutory procedures.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. James Allason: The Minister is very wise to split the old Clause 5. We have a considerable length of Clause as it is, without anything about publicity in it.
    There are three changes in the Clause which we welcome. The first appears in subsection (1), where it becomes permissive to start preparing a local plan before the structure plan has been approved. This was pressed in Committee, and I am sure it will be helpful. The second one occurs in subsection (7), where the Minister may direct that the local plan should be prepared for part of an area where the structure plan has been prepared but not yet approved. Again, this was suggested in Committee and will be helpful. The third one occurs in subsection (9), which provides that the local plan should conform generally with the structure plan. That again is a considerable improvement.
    However, I have one or two criticisms. The first relates to subsection (7), which provides that the Minister may give a direction to prepare a local plan for which a structure plan is in course of being prepared. It seems rather extraordinary that an authority which has not a structure plan even prepared, let alone submitted to the Minister, should be able to go ahead with the preparation of a local plan on that. It is something quite new, and I feel that it should be looked at again. It is difficult to see how it can conform generally to the structure plan if the structure plan has not been prepared.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I was not a member of the Committee, so I am not an expert, but I thought that the
    56
    hon. Gentleman said that he approved of subsection (1), which gives a local planning authority power to prepare a local plan where it has not yet got a structure plan. Now he is saying that he does not like the Minister to take powers to issue directions in that sense.
    Mr. Allason: There are several stages. First, there is the preparation of the structure plan. Then it has to be submitted to the Minister. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has read the report of the proceedings in Committee. If he has, he will remember that the Minister of State said that up to two years might elapse between the preparation of a local plan and its submission to the Minister and the Minister approving it. In other words, there may be a period of two years after the structure plan has been prepared and submitted during which it will not be possible for the authority to start preparing a local plan unless the Amendment is accepted. There is all the difference between a structure plan which has been prepared and submitted to the Minister and one which is merely in the course of preparation and not yet completed.
    Then, as regards subsection (11), the Minister said that he does not want to see a number of local plans hanging about. However, all that subsection (11) says is that the local planning authority shall take steps for the adoption of the plan. What is meant by the phrase "shall take steps" is a little vague. Steps can be taken which do not end up by going through the doorway. There can be an item on a council's agenda for the adoption of the local plan, but that does not mean that the council will adopt it. I would say that just putting it on the agenda would be taking steps for the adoption of the plan. I wonder whether the words are entirely happy.
    I turn now to the subsection (8). The Minister has explained that, having given directions under subsection (7) that he would like a local plan prepared, nevertheless, under subsection (8), the local authority need not comply with these directions. These seem funny directions to give. Is it desirable for the Minister to take power to give directions and to give an exemption in the following subsection from complying with those directions? The directions are to prepare a local plan ahead of the adoption of the

    57
    structure plan. Consequently, we have put down an Amendment, and here I formally beg to move—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not move his Amendment. It has, however, been selected for discussion with this new Clause.
    Mr. Allason: The Amendment is to leave out the words "comply therewith" and substitute "adopt such local plan". It would then read:
    "… but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to take any steps to adopt the local plan until the structure plan has been approved by him."
    This seems to be more sensible. If the Minister gives directions to prepare a local plan, surely it should be optional whether a local authority adopts such a local plan, but it should be incumbent upon it to go through the motions of looking at the Minister's proposals. The Minister does not give directions for fun. He gives them because he is anxious that a particular local plan shall be prepared. He is saying, in effect, "Let us get on with preparing it". Without this Amendment, subsections (7) and (8) do not hang together.
    Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has read his own Amendment very carefully, because it says:
    "leave out from first ' to ' to ' until'".
    Therefore, the words "take any steps" are also intended to be left out. It does not alter the sense of the Amendment, and I think that I understand what he is trying to get at.
    Mr. Allason: I apologise. The hon. Member is correct. It does have the same effect. I misquoted it.
    Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It does not seem to alter the sense of his Amendment, but it would now read:
    "… but no such directions shall require a local planning authority to adopt such local plan until the structure plan has been approved by him."
    I listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully and I was grateful for the explanation which he gave for his concern about subsections (7) and (8). However, at the beginning of his speech he said that he wholly approved of subsection (1). I understand that was inserted in
    58
    response to representations made in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman explained that there was a distinction between the case where the structure plan had been prepared but was in the course of getting approval from the Minister and the case where the structure plan was in the course of preparation.
    I should point out that both in subsection (1) and subsection (7) provision is made for the two alternatives. We have decided in subsection (1) that the local planning authority does not have to wait for the completion of its work on the structure plan before going ahead with preparation of a local plan if it thinks it desirable. It appears to me that the provisions of subsection (7) are analagous where the Minister can give a direction if the structure plan has either been prepared but not yet approved or, alternatively, is in the course of preparation. It seems unsatisfactory in a single Clause to have different provisions in two subsections. It would be impossibly confusing.
    What is a local authority expected to do in the intervening period between a direction being given under subsection (7) and the date of approval of the structure plan, between which times it does not have to take any steps to comply with this direction? In moving the Clause the hon. Gentleman said that this would act as a kind of warning order. I am paraphrasing him, not quoting directly. If he expects a local authority to get on with the preparation of its plan, notwithstanding that he is saying it does not have to take any steps to comply with the direction, some happier wording might have been devised.
    The kind of issue in this direction is that, soon after approval of the structure plan, he will come back to the planning authority and say, "We gave you a direction a couple of years ago. We want to know what you have been doing about it", and the local planning authority will be able to reply, "But, Minister, under subsection (8) we did not have to take any steps to comply with this direction until you had approved the structure plan, and we have only had a couple of months to do this work". There seems to be a conflict here, and I would be grateful if the Minister would clear it up before leaving the new Clause.
    Mr. MacDermot: The first point raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) was that it seemed odd for the Minister to give a direction about the preparation of a local plan while the structure plan was in the course of preparation. It is the same point that I made before, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) alluded just now. This is intended as a procedure whereby the Minister gives a warning to the authority that it will be required to produce what will probably be an action area plan for a particular area which is being considered. This will be useful knowledge to have when it is preparing its structure plan, or the part of it for that area.
    For example, one might have a new system applying to an area round a conurbation. Let us suppose that it has already been agreed and decided that there shall be, under overspill arrangements, an expansion of a town situated in a county somewhere outside the conurbation. The Minister could say, "When the new structure plan is approved, we will want an action area plan for this area where there is to be an expanded new town".
    Passing on to further points, we do not think it is right that the Minister should be able to compel a local planning authority to start preparing that action area plan in advance of the approval of its structure plan. We think it is more than likely that in most cases planning authorities will be glad of the warning and will make a start. The reason we do not think it right to be able to compel a local planning authority to start on the formal procedures is that this involves the public, and it would not be right for the Minister to be able to involve the public in formal action about the plan until the authority has the assurance that it is properly drawn in conformity with the structure plan.
    It cannot have this assurance until the structure plan, or that part of it, has been approved. We envisage that the local authority, if it so wishes, can make a start on the preparatory stages of the action area plan, including public consultation and receiving representations,
    60
    but that the formal procedures for its adoption should await the approval of the structure plan.
    4.30 p.m.
    That fits in with the requirement of the Bill, namely, that in cases where the authority is acting not as the result of a direction by the Minister but purely on its own initiative it will not be able to start its formal procedures and put the plan on deposit for public inspection until it has received approval of the relevant part of the structure plan.
    It is said that it seems strange to give directions and then exempt an authority from having to comply with them. That is not quite the picture. This provision enables the Minister to give a direction well in advance of the time when the local planning authority will be obliged to comply with it. In our opinion this will be for the convenience of planning authorities, and we feel that the procedures can be made quite clear to them without giving rise to any confusion.
    I was asked about the words
    "take steps for the adoption of the plan."
    I am not quite sure what wording it is suggested should be put in their place. We cannot have wording which would provide that the Minister can require an authority to adopt a plan, which would be the effect of the Opposition Amendment. An authority might say, "This is a matter for us to decide", and it would be within its rights, at that stage, to reject the plan itself.
    What the subsection intends to do— and I believe that it will achieve its object—is to see that when a local authority has gone through all the stages of public consultation and has received representations it does not, at that stage, say, "Everybody seems agreed about this; we need not bother to go through the formal procedures for adoption." That could lead to another generation of bottom-drawer plans, and that is one of the things that we are trying to avoid under the new system.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4.
    PUBLICITY FOR PREPARATION OF LOCAL PLANS.

    (1) A local planning authority who propose to prepare a local plan shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—

    5

    (a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to any relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area carried out by them under section 1 of this Act and to the matters proposed to be included in the plan;

    (b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the authority with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so; and

    10

    (c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;

    and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period.

    15

    (2) When the local planning authority have prepared a local plan, they shall, before adopting it or submitting it for approval under section 7(2) of this Act (but not before the Minister has approved the structure plan), make copies of the local plan available for inspection at their office and at such other places as may be prescribed and send a copy to the Minister; and each copy made available for inspection shall be accompanied by a statement of the time within which objections to the local plan may be made to the authority.

    20

    (3) A copy of a local plan sent to the Minister under subsection (2) above shall be accompanied by a statement containing such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed—

    (a) of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with subsection (1) above; and

    25

    (b) of the authority's consultations with, and their consideration of the views of, other persons.

    30

    (4) If on considering the statement submitted with, and the matters included in, the local plan and any other information provided by the local planning authority, the Minister is not satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1) above, he may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the statement, direct the authority not to take any further steps for the adoption of the plan without taking such further action as he may specify in order better to comply with that subsection and satisfying him that they have done so.

    (5) A local planning authority who are given directions by the Minister under subsection (4) above shall—

    35

    (a) forthwith withdraw the copies of the local plan made available for inspection as required by subsection (2) above, and

    (b) notify any person by whom objections to the local plan have been made to the authority that the Minister has given such directions as aforesaid.

    —[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The suggestion is that the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in line 15, after first ' plan ', insert:
    'so far as it applies to the area of that local plan'.
    and in line 25, at end insert: 'and
    (c) if (here shall have been an inquiry or other hearing under section 6 of this Act, a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry or hearing and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings of that person which
    62
    have not been accepted by the local planning authority and the reasons for non-acceptance.'
    should be discussed with the new Clause and that, if so desired, there should be a separate Division on the second Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I can deal with this new Clause much more briefly than I did with the previous one. It replaces, with Amendments, subsections (8) to (10) of Clause 5, dealing with publicity for the preparation of local plans. Subsection (l)(a) of the Clause requires publicity to be given to relevant matter arising out of a survey of the area under Clause 1. The previous provision referred only to relevant

    63
    matter in the report of the survey. The new wording will admit of matter other than that previously included in the report associated with the structure plan.
    The rest of the alterations parallel those that we have already discussed under previous new Clauses, and provide, in particular, that publicity is to be given to the opportunity for representations as well as to proposals, and that the Minister may direct an authority not to proceed towards the adoption of a plan if he is not satisfied that it has adequately complied with the necessary steps required to secure adequate publicity and the opportunity for participation.
    As for the Amendments, it may shorten matters if I indicate that I shall advise the House to accept the first one, which will result in improved wording.
    The second Amendment is misconceived, for reasons that I can explain if necessary.
    Mr. Allason: We welcome the importance given to publicity for local plans by putting them into a separate Clause. Publicity for local plans is of even greater importance than is publicity for structure plans. Structure plans are fairly complicated, and are for experts, but local plans deal with the real guts of the matter, and everybody is interested in them. There is a strong feeling in favour of public participation in planning, and the proposed Clause is intended to ensure that everybody's rights will be safeguarded, so that a person may see what the local plan intends for his town or locality and will have an opportunity of objecting. This is what planning is all about.
    Although subsection (4) has some reference to publicity it is really much more concerned with what happens when a local plan is put to the Minister. This happens under Clause 7, and it is rather complicated to have to read subsection (4) of the proposed Clause in isolation from Clause 7 as it now stands. Subsection (4) provides that the Minister may, within 21 days, direct a local authority not to take any further steps for the adoption of a local plan.
    What happens if the local authority has already adopted the local plan? I cannot find any provision in the Bill to say that a local authority cannot adopt
    64
    a local plan the day after it has been submitted to the Minister. It seems rather peculiar that there is a time limit on the Minister but not on the local authority.
    I am glad that the Minister of State welcomes the Amendment in line 15, which means that it is not necessary for the whole structure plan to be adopted; the adoption of that part of the structure plan which refers to the area in question will be sufficient to enable the local authority to proceed.
    As for the other Amendment, because of a later Amendment a local planning authority will no longer be the judge and jury in its own cause. That later Amendment provides that a local authority will not have a completely free hand to decide who shall be the inspector to conduct the inquiry into its local plan. Nevertheless, it still will be judge in its own cause, because there is no requirement that it should accept the decision of the inspector. If the inspector finds that the local plan is highly undesirable the local authority can still adopt it.
    I do not suggest that local authorities will be in the habit of doing this, but for the protection of local authorities themselves it would be desirable to make it quite clear that they have not an absolutely free rein. A great deal of criticism has been expressed at the fact that local authorities have power to be judge in their own cause. If a local authority did not accept the findings of the inspector and proceeded against those findings, the Amendment would ensure that
    "… a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry … and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings … which have not been accepted … and the reasons for non-acceptance "
    would have to be submitted. Thus, if a local planning authority was judge in its own cause, there would at least be a court of appeal in that the Minister would be informed and could consider the matter further.
    4.45 p.m.
    Since local planning authorities have considerable interests—they take steps to dispose of their own land, grant planning permission for buildings on their land, and so on—this curb should exist in the Bill. When considering the actions that

    65
    a planning authority can take, including the development or sale of its land, it is necessary, after such an inquiry or hearing, that there should be this type of appeal in view of the fact that certain steps may be to the detriment of the local community. Although an authority might consider it is acting in the best local sense, its actions might be detrimental and, without any sort of appeal, it might be heavily criticised at a later stage.
    I trust, therefore, that the Minister will see the wisdom of having the sort of curb that the Amendment to line 25 would provide.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: The revised Clause is related mainly to publicising of local plans. This question of publicity and public participation was debated at length in Standing Committee and I raised on one Amendment at that stage the question of including in the publicising of the Bill the need to publicise financial arrangements, and particularly those involved in local plans.
    At that time, my proposal was criticised and the Minister pointed out that such financial arrangements would be more involved with local than with structural plans. Finally, towards the end of our third sitting, a measure of agreement was reached about financial arrangements which related to local plans and it was agreed that they should be seen, that they should be publicised and that this information should be made available to the public at the beginning and upon completion of any plan.
    At that stage, my hon. and learned Friend said:
    "I should need to take advice on the matter before undertaking to write any legislative provision into the Bill or the Regulations. I will certainly consider how we would deal with that aspect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G. 27th February, 1968; c. 146.]
    I note that there is no provision in the revised Clause saying that local authorities should, by Statute, inform the public of the financial arrangements that have been made with, for example, a developer, in implementing local plans. Can we take it, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend has decided to include this information in the regulations rather than in the Bill?
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked what happens when a local plan is put to the Minister if the local authority has already adopted it. His question is misconceived, since the procedure is that a local authority has a resolution provisionally adopting the plan, and then that resolution must be sent to the Minister. A period must elapse—I have given an assurance that it will be not less than 28 days—before formal adoption and the Minister can consider the matter finally and even at that stage call it in.
    The Amendment proposes that where an inquiry has been held
    "… a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry … specifying the recommendations or findings … which have not been accepted …"
    should be sent to the Minister at that stage.
    This rests on a misunderstanding. After the phase of public participation in the formative parts of the plan, the planning authority finally determines its content. It then places it on deposit for public inspection—it will be required by Regulations to give notice of having done that—and then there is the period for the lodging of objections. At the same time, the local authority sends a copy to the Minister with a statement of the steps it has taken to comply with the requirements for public participation; so that it could not, at that stage, give a report of the local inquiry because it would not have taken place. Hon. Members should remember that there is, at that time, still a minimum period of just under 28 days to run to the end of the objection period.
    We intend to make regulations requiring local authorities to send us copies of the reports made by inspectors—and, of course, they must have resolutions giving their reasons for rejecting any of the inspectors' recommendations. All of these matters would have to be sent to the Minister and there would still be adequate time for the Minister to call in the matter if he received representations urging him to do so and if he thought that that was the proper course to follow.
    I again deplore, as I did in Committee, the use of the phrase about local authorities being judges in their own cause.

    67
    We are saying that, within certain spheres, these are proper matters to be decided by local authorities. The whole shape of the Bill is delegation to local authorities of local plans subject to certain checks and safeguards. Those have been strengthened in the Bill. The basic idea still is that these are matters which local planning authorities are the right authorities to decide. We do not want to begin by creating hostility, doubt and suspicion about their ability to do this by saying that we are making them judges in their own cause—any more than the Minister is a judge in his own cause in connection with matters he must decide. We are trying to get a planning system with the right structure and the right degree of decentralisation.
    It is not right, either, to talk in terms of the authority rejecting the inspector's decision. There is no decision by the inspector. That power is and must be with the planning authority. The inspector is an independent person investigating objections and making representations. The local authority must be free, as must any other democratically-elected planning authority to decide what it thinks is right at the end of the day.
    We have written in safeguards to ensure that the authority will not be able to ride roughshod over objections. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in this, but the procedures which we now have require an independent inspector, in the early stages appointed by the Minister, who can inquire into objections and make representations. The planning authority must then consider those recommendations and decide what to do in each case. If it rejects any, it must give reasons. After all that, the Minister, if he thinks that the thing has not been dealt with properly, can still call the matter in for his own examination.
    Therefore, I hope that all hon. Members will give their support to this basic principle of delegation and not derogate from it.
    Mr. Lubbock: All the points raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) could have been dealt with in the Bill and not left until subsequent regulations. For example, he did not see how one could provide for the possibility that the Minister would not decide
    68
    until 21 days from receipt of the statement, as he is entitled to do, in which time the local authority could have decided and it would be too late. The Minister of State said fairly that it was intended to prescribe 28 days for objections in the regulations. Will he take steps, when the Bill goes to another place, to have words inserted in subsection (2) to make this clear, so that people will not have to look elsewhere?
    The same goes for the hon. Member's Amendment, which, as the Minister of State explained, is misconceived, because the inquiry or other hearing would happen after the statement had been submitted to the Minister under subsection (2) of the new Clause and not before, but it will have to be provided in the regulations that a copy of the report of such an inquiry should be submitted to the Minister, whatever he does with it. I am asking whether these two provisions —there may be others later—could not be incorporated in the Bill, instead of somewhere that it would be difficult to find them.
    Mr. MacDermot: I hope that I have not exhausted my right to reply, since I should like to answer the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands). He raised this point in Committee, when I said that I doubted whether it could be properly embodied in the Bill. I confirm that view. It is a matter on which we can usefully give some administrative guidance. Fundamentally, the local authority must be allowed to act as the representative of its citizens. We agreed in the end that the whole basis of commercial negotiation would be impossible if the local authority were required to disclose details of current negotiations, but that it was desirable that the financial agreements eventually reached should be made known. They are, of course, available in the council minutes, but we had in mind more general publicity, which can be dealt with by administrative guidance.
    Mr. Graham Page: I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that much of what the Minister of State said about the regulations should have been embodied in the Bill, but he can rely on support from this side in his desire to leave with local planning

    69
    authorities the right to decide their own affairs when producing local plans. That must be so.
    But let us consider the reality of this process. At the end of the day, the Bill will give the Minister power to refuse to allow planning authorities to adopt their local plan as they may wish to do. If that default power is to mean anything, the Minister must be wholly informed of what has gone on in the preparation of the plan and what objections have been made. If there are objections, they will be to proposals made by the local planning authority, to its draft plan. An inquiry will have considered those objections, the planning authority will have appointed an inspector, albeit someone approved by the Minister, but he will be the authority's inspector and will report to it. He will have no obligation to report to the Minister about his inquiry, but will be the servant of the planning authority.
    Therefore, default powers are retained by the Minister to consider what has happened in the publishing of and inquiries into the local plan. He should have a full opportunity—and this should be provided in the Bill—to consider the objections put before the inspector if the local planning authority turns down the recommendations of the inspector upon those objections. I understand that the local planning authority will publish the facts—that is to say the survey, so far as it relates to the area of the proposed local plan—and its conclusions on the facts and its intentions with regard to a proposed local plan. That is in subsection (1).
    The next step is for the local planning authority to prepare and publish its proposed local plan, the formal plan which has evolved from the survey and from its conclusions. At that point, no doubt, there will be objections—perhaps major perhaps minor—but, in almost every case, I should think that the local authority will have to meet some objections and that, in most cases, there will be an inquiry.
    The Minister of State told us that the procedure will be for the local planning authority to report to the Minister about its proposed plan and the publicity which it has given to it before the inquiry, but this seems to put the cart before the
    70
    horse and is the point which our Amendment tried to improve. The local planning authority should not only report what it has done about the publicity given to its plan, and not only report on the proposed plan which it is putting before the public as its idea for the local plan, but should also report the objections on it and whether it has turned down any of those objections.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that if those concerned have not done their publicity properly in the preparation stage, they should be made to go back and do it properly before they embark on the formal stages, and before the public get involved in the expense relating to the local inquiry. We must, therefore, have two stages—reporting to the Minister on the publicity on the informal stage and, when that is cleared out of the way, proceeding to the formal stages, on which there must also be a report.
    Mr. Graham Page: I find nothing in the Bill about the second report, if I can put it in that way. First, there is the report by the local planning authority that it has carried out its publicity and has come to the conclusion that this should be the plan, and it submits a copy of the plan to the Minister. After that, there is nothing in the Bill imposing on the local planning authority an obligation to report to the Minister on the inquiry that has been held, the objections that have been made to the plan, and its decision on those objections.
    Whether or not that should be in a separate subsection I should not like to guess, but it comes quite conveniently into subsection (3), and makes certain that the local planning authority has an obligation at some stage to report to the Minister what inquiry it has held, what objections were made, and whether it accepted or rejected those objections.
    The Minister has said that he intends for this purpose to cause regulations to be made which will oblige the local planning authority to report the result of the inquiry. If he intends to make those regulations, let it be provided for in the Bill. This is such an important point, which has been raised by so many responsible bodies outside the House, that something ought to be stated categorically in the Bill. It should not be left

    71
    to some regulations which may or may not come before the House, because they will be subject to the annulment procedure and will not require an affirmative Resolution—in which case it will be just luck if they are ever discussed by the House and the public are sure that the Minister will have the time, opportunity and knowledge to intervene if the local authority is going wrong.
    Mr. MacDermot: I will consider that point. For the reasons I have indicated, the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment would clearly not be workable, but I will consider his request that this matter of regulations should be written into the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Division No. 145.]

    AYES

    [5.4 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Astor, John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Pym, Francis

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Balniel, Lord

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Bell, Ronald

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Biffen, John

    Heseltine, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Boardman, Tom

    Holland, Philip

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hordern, Peter

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWaller

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Scott, Nicholas

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Kirk, Peter

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Kitson, Timothy

    Silvester, Frederick

    Burden, F. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Langford-Holt sir John

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Speed, Keith

    Clegg, Walter

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stainton, Keith

    Cooke, Robert

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Stodart, Anthony

    Costain, A. P.

    Marten, Neil

    Tapsell, Peter

    Crouch, David

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Dance, James

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tilney, John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Monro, Hector

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Eden, Sir John

    More, Jasper

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Walters, Dennis

    Emery, Peter

    Murton, Oscar

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Webster, David

    Eyre, Reginald

    Onslow, Cranley

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Farr, John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Foster, Sir John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant, Anthony

    Pounder, Rafton

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Binns, John

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

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Blackburn, F.

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

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Booth, Albert

    Chapman, Donald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Boyden, James

    Coe, Denis

    Barnett, Joel

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Beaney, Alan

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Bessell, Peter

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Amendment made: Line 15, after first 'plan', insert:
    'so far as it applies to the area of that local plan'.—(Mr. Rippon.)
    Amendment proposed: Line 25, at end insert:
    'and
    (c) if there shall have been an inquiry or other hearing under section 6 of this Act, a copy of the report and recommendation of the person who held such inquiry or hearing and a statement specifying the recommendations or findings of that person which have not been accepted by the local planning authority and the reasons for non-acceptance'.—(Mr. Rippon.)
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 156.

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Dell, Edmund

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Dempsey, James

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Dewar, Donald

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

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lawson, George

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

    Dickens, James

    Ledger, Ron

    Roebuck, Roy

    Doig, Peter

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Sheldon, Robert

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

    Lubbock, Eric

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Eadie, Alex

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ellis, John

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Skeffington, Arthur

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

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Slater, Joseph

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Small, William

    Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Snow, Julian

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fowler, Gerry

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

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Freeson, Reginald

    Marquand, David

    Symonds, J. B.

    Cardner, Tony

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Taverne, Dick

    Garrett, W. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Thornton, Ernest

    Gregory, Arnold

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Tinn, James

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Tomney, Frank

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Urwin, T. W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Moonman, Eric

    Varley, Eric G.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Moyle, Roland

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Hamling, William

    Newens, Stan

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Hannan, William

    Norwood, Christopher

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wallace, Georgo

    Haseldine, Norman

    Orbach, Maurice

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Orme, Stanley

    Whitaker, Ben

    Hazell, Bert

    Oswald, Thomas

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Hooley, Frank

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Horner, John

    Paget, R. T.

    Winnick, David

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Park, Trevor

    Woof, Robert

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Vatee, Victor

    Hunter, Adam

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Hynd, John

    Pentland, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5.
    RESTRICTIONS ON ENTITLEMENT OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS TO COMPENSATION FOR ADVERSE PLANNING DECISIONS.

    (1) This section applies to the following planning decisions, namely—

    (a) any decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act (statutory undertakers' planning applications and appeals in respect of operational land to be dealt with by Ministers), whereby planning permission is refused or is granted subject to conditions; and

    (b) any decision made by a Government department in a case where the department's authorisation is required for the development of operation land of statutory undertakers, being a decision—

    (i) to refuse the authorisation on the grounds that planning permission ought not to be granted for the development, or

    (ii) to grant the authorisation and direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted subject to condition other
    74
    than conditions imposed as part of the authorisation.

    (2) Regulations under this Act may specify the descriptions of development which, in the case of named statutory undertakers or statutory undertakers of any specified class, are to be relevant for the purposes of entitlement to compensation for decisions to which this section applies.

    (3) Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall be made—

    (a) by the Minister, if he alone is the appropriate Minister in relation to statutory undertakers named, or belonging to a class specified, in the regulations; and

    (b) in any other case by the Minister and any other Minister of the Crown who is the appropriate Minister in relation to statutory undertakers so named or belonging.

    (4) Subject to subsection (6) below, where after the first coming into force of regulations made for the purposes of this section there is made in respect of any development by statutory undertakers a planning decision to which this section applies, the undertakers shall be entitled to compensation under section 170(1) of the principal Act only if the development is (whether wholly or in part) of a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section as relevant in their case for the purposes of entitlement to compensation;

    75
    and if the development is not wholly of that description, the compensation shall be assessed by reference only to the part of it which is of that description.

    (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where statutory undertakers are entitled to compensation in respect of a planning decision to which this section applies, being a decision made after the commencement of this section (whether before or after the first coming into force of regulations made for the purposes thereof), the amount of the compensation shall, instead of being an amount calculated in accordance with section 171(2) to (5) of the principal Act, be one half of an amount so calculated.

    (6) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall not apply in the case of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act refusing planning permission for the development of operational land of statutory undertakers, or granting such permission subject to conditions, where—

    (a) planning permission for that development has been granted by a development order, but has been withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers in that behalf conferred by the order; and

    (b) the development has not received specific Parliamentary approval (within the meaning given to that expression by section 58(3) of this Act).

    (7) Section 119 of the principal Act (compensation on refusal of planning permission or its grant subject to conditions) shall not apply in relation to planning permission for the development of operational land of statutory undertakers.

    (8) If any question arises whether development proposed to be carried out by statutory undertakers falls within a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section as being relevant in their case to entitlement to compensation under section 170(1) of the principal Act, the question shall be determined by the Minister, if he is the appropriate Minister in relation to those undertakers and, in any other case, by him and the appropriate Minister in relation to them.

    (9) In section 221(2) of the principal Act (determination of questions relating to position of statutory undertakers under the Act) for the words from 'determined by the Minister' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'determined by the Minister, if he is the appropriate Minister in relation to those undertakers and, in any other case, by him and the appropriate Minister in relation to them'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new Clause we can take the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to leave out subsection (8).
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    76
    This Clause is intended to take the place of Clause 60 in the Bill as it stands. Clause 60, which was introduced in Committee, reduces from 100 per cent. to 50 per cent. the compensation payable to statutory undertakers in respect of two kinds of planning restrictions on the development of their operational land. It reduces the compensation where planning permission, or a direction that it shall be "deemed" to be granted, has to be sought and is refused, or granted conditionally after appeal to Ministers jointly.
    Secondly, it reduces the compensation where a general authorisation under a private or local Act or Order to carry out development has been made and automatic permission is withdrawn by direction and specific planning permission is refused or granted subject to conditions. In other cases—for example, the revocation of permission—the compensation remains 100 per cent. as in the case of people other than statutory undertakers.
    The Clause received a general welcome in Committee, but there was also virtually unanimous feeling at the end of the discussion that it did not go far enough. Hon. Members were not quite so unanimous about what should take its place and how it should be extended. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) wanted to remove statutory undertakers altogether from the provision. Some, such as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), proposed that compensation should be calculated by reference to a sliding scale relating to the rateable value of the local authority. As an alternative, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) suggested at one point a ceiling relating to the authority's resources.
    These suggestions would produce highly arbitrary results inconsistent with the special compensation basis. I undertook to look at the matter to see if we could find a way of meeting the feeling of the Committee and to confine the statutory privilege, reduced as it is to a 50 per cent. compensation right, to what seemed to be the more meritorious cases.
    Another suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North

    77
    was that we should seek to draw distinctions between different types of development on operational land. The basis of this argument was to point out that there are at the moment a number of developments on what qualifies as operational land which are hardly within the spirit of the original statutory undertaker privilege. They are not matters which relate to any of the primary functions of statutory undertakers. Some may be very ancillary to their main functions. Nor are they necessarily matters in which the statutory undertakers are inhibited by technical considerations from carrying out an activity at one of quite a number of different places.
    The proposal we put before the House in this Clause is to provide for the making of regulations jointly by the appropriate planning Minister and the appropriate sponsoring Minister to specify types of development for each class of statutory undertaker, or even for single undertakers. Where the development is covered by the regulations 50 per cent. compensation will be payable in the circumstances to which the present Clause 60 applies. In the same circumstances, if the development does not fall within the limitations, there will be no right to compensation.
    The House will want to know something about the general principles the Government propose to adopt in framing the regulations. It is worth while to go back to the ideas which were in the mind of the Government when the special statutory undertakers' privileges were first laid down in 1944. The Government were influenced by two main considerations. First, there was the extent to which statutory undertakers had statutory duties to provide public services often at prices regulated by the Government, or by a Government agency. They were not free agents like shopkeepers or manufacturers. Secondly, they tended to be influenced to an unusually high degree by technical considerations as a result of which they could not easily pick and choose where to place a development.
    One cannot put new railway sidings just where one chooses. They have to be alongside an existing railway. A power station has to be sited where fuel can be brought to it in the prodigious quantities which it consumes without making
    78
    nonsense of the network of operations. This is the kind of development one usually associates with statutory undertakers.
    The legislators of 1944 foresaw situations in which planning control might frustrate the duties of statutory undertakers and provided machinery by which they could be relieved of statutory obligations. It is an indication of the good sense with which planning control has been exercised that this provision has not been needed. Not all these developments by statutory undertakers concern railway sidings or power stations. Many other things have to be considered such as administrative offices, showrooms, and houses or canteens for employees.
    Within reason, developments like this can usually be sited almost anywhere and, if planning control were applied to them, statutory undertakers could not really say that the consequences would be embarrassing to them in financial terms or that they were being impeded in carrying out their statutory duties.
    That is the conception to which the definition of operational land was intended to give effect. All development was to be subject to planning control, but where the proposed development formed part of the undertakers' primary business, they were given special safeguards against unreasonable restrictions. On the other hand, these safeguards were not thought necessary where a development was not part of the primary business—for example, showrooms.
    The Clause deals not with operational land but with certain kinds of development on operational land. These kinds of development, which are to be described in regulations, are the only kinds of development which will qualify for compensation on a simple refusal of planning permission. For convenience, I shall call any such developments specified development. In framing the regulations, the Government propose to follow the principles underlying the original 1944 legislation. Specified development will be development necessary to enable an undertaker to carry out a primary statutory function and, in particular, in the siting or design of which operational considerations seriously limit the undertaker's freedom of choice.
    It may help the House if I give some examples. I have already mentioned

    79
    houses for employees. If a water board wished to build a house within the precincts of a waterworks for an employee for security or for round-the-clock duties, that would probably be specified development because that house must clearly be on the site. Houses for general employees, on the other hand, would not be specified because there is no need for them to live on the site. Next, an example from the transport world. Under the Transport Bill, now before the House, the proposed new passenger transport executives will be statutory undertakers. They will have a wide variety of powers and they will certainly have operational land. I should expect a general extension to a city bus station to be specified development because the station is necessary to enable the executive to do its primary job, and the places where the extension could be sited would be considerably limited.
    Equally, I think that a new waiting room building at the station would be specified development. But a petrol filling station at a car park serving private car owners would not be. It would not be part of the primary function to provide transport services, and, if there were objection to it by the local planning authority, I do not think that the executive could claim that the primary operations for which it was set up would be seriously or unreasonably impeded.
    Now, an example from airports. The British Airports Authority is a statutory undertaker and its airports, or the greater part of them, are clearly operational land. Equally clearly, the terminal buildings would be specified development, and I imagine that we should all accept that reasonable facilities for refreshment are essential in the terminal buildings. But if the Authority wanted to provide entirely separate facilities solely for spectators such as a viewing gallery with its own restaurant and car park some distance away from the terminal buildings that might well be a different matter.
    From what I have said about houses for employees and restaurants at airports, the House will appreciate that whether a development is specified development or not may depend upon whether it serves the primary function and where it is to be sited. This illustrates why it is neces-
    80
    sary to go into some detail in order to produce fair and sensible results. That is why we have to provide for the making of regulations. Before the regulations are made, we shall consult the local authority associations and the statutory undertakers or their representative associations. I hope that the explanation I have given will show the House the lines on which my right hon. Friends intend to work.
    It will take some time to negotiate all the regulations with the other Departments. The effect of subsections (4) and (5) of the new Clause is that, between the time when the Clause comes into force and the time when regulations come into force for any particular statutory undertaker, that undertaker will in the cases to which the present Clause 60 applies receive only 50 per cent. compensation. In other words, these subsections keep alive the present provisions in Clause 60 until they are replaced by more restrictive provisions under the regulations.
    The Amendment to the new Clause would omit subsection (8). Taken at its face value, this would be unacceptable as it would leave out the provisions for determining who should decide a dispute about whether or not a particular development fell within the regulations. Some provision must be made, and I suspect that the Amendment is probing. Perhaps I should explain the reason why it is proposed that this matter, like planning appeals in this field, should be determined by the planning Minister and the sponsoring Minister jointly instead of, as at present, by the sponsoring Minister alone. In this respect, we are going back to the 1944 legislation, which made it a joint responsibility of the two Ministers. We think this the better way for two reasons.
    First, it will enable the planning Minister to see that there is general uniformity in the application of the regulations among the different activities of statutory undertakers. Second, it will enable the planning Minister to see that planning interests are taken properly into consideration in the application of the regulations.
    Mr. Lubbock: I have one question to put to the Minister about power stations. He said that, because of the restrictions

    81
    on their siting, power station developments would be specified in the regulations and would qualify for compensation. He explained that a power station consumes enormous quantities of fuel which must be brought to it, generally speaking by rail, sometimes by water, and this imposes considerable restrictions on the choice of land to be used for operational purposes by any generating board.
    Will a distinction be made in the regulations between conventional stations, which do require an enormous amount of fuel and which require land associated with the station where supplies of the fuel can be stored for periods of up to several weeks at a time, and stations fuelled by nuclear means which do not carry any of these limitations? I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Minister of Power has recently relaxed the siting restrictions for nuclear stations so as to permit them to be constructed closer to large centres of population. Thus, the only remaining restriction on the siting of nuclear stations depends upon the availability of water. So long as a nuclear station is on an estuary or a river with a substantial flow of water, its siting requirements are properly met.
    Is it the Government's intention to make that distinction in the regulations? I ask that question haying particularly in mind the example which the Minister of State gave, in which he put great emphasis on the need for rail access for supplies to be brought to power stations.
    Mr. John Ellis: I direct attention to subsection (2) of the new Clause. The Minister of State has not yet mentioned the position of lessees of statutory undertakers. I should not wish to detain the House with a constituency case unless I thought that it impinged on the general principles which we are discussing, but I have a matter to raise which, I think, the House will regard as demonstrating a point of some importance and on which I want an assurance.
    In my constituency, there is a small railway yard and station at Shirehampton. The railway undertaking was a statutory undertaker enjoying the privileges to which we are now referring. Because of the centralisation of its handling methods, the railway no longer wanted this yard
    82
    and it negotiated a lease—I do not know the terms of it—with G.T. Western, a company concerned with fuel oils for domestic heating appliances. We are about to see a gas holder type of fuel tank, 30 to 40 feet high, go up in a residential area.
    There is no doubt that but for the provisions relating to statutory undertakings this development would not have been allowed, but because the company was lessee of the statutory undertaker it has the same kinds of privileges as the statutory undertaker. There was no necessity for it even to consult the planning authority. It merely started to make what was in effect a major fuel bunkering station. Other developments could take place were it not for an agreement with British Railways, which has now given certain pledges that it will at least consult the local planning authority.
    5.30 p.m.
    Therefore, I ask whether the Bill also covers lessees. I notice that in the Clause the considerations likely to be taken into account when regulations are being considered are not spelt out though some instances have been given. Would the kind of case I have mentioned qualify? I believe that with British Railways increasingly centralising its operations it will be giving up many more station yards and buildings, as in the case to which I have referred. G.T. Western acquired the lot; it took the station buildings for administration purposes as well. I foresee that when British Railways centralises its shunting yards it will no longer use many small and medium-sized yards. It may be that they will be in areas where there is industrial development, but, as in the case I have mentioned, they may be in an area otherwise designated, or which may be designated for housing development and certainly not for industrial purposes.
    We must tighten up the legislation here. I do not think that it is realistic to expect the local authority to find the compensation, even at a 50 per cent. level. As matters stand, I can go into a residential area and get a lease from British Railways, and as lessee I do not need to apply for any kind of planning permission; so long as I leave one railway line down to say that I am using the railways, I can build a biscuit factory over the

    83
    whole of that operational land, and I have only to say that I will bring in my raw materials to take out my finished goods by rail.
    The new Clause is good, and goes some of the way to what we want to see. But it is urgent that we press on with negotiations on the Minister's regulations. I should like the assurance that this legislation, even as it is now before us, will include lessees in its provisions, and that when the Minister considers the kind of orders he will make under the Clause his consideration will cover the point of British Railways getting rid of land that it no longer uses, and which is made available to lessees who do not need planning permission on the tenuous ground that they still have some connection with bringing in their materials by rail. I hope that he will see to it that the legislation is so tight that it is not possible to go so far away from the primary functions of railways as has happened at Shirehampton in the recent past.
    Mr. Oscar Murton: The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) gives great point to the anxiety which all of us feel about the problem of compensation and what a statutory undertaker can do at present. I feel very tempted to recount the story of the long and anxious struggle I had on behalf of some of my constituents over the question of a coal concentration depot. But I have already told it once in Committee, and I believe that the matter is now going the way I would wish.
    I am rather disappointed with the form of the new Clause after the long and full discussions we had in Committee. I should almost say that it is a defeatist Clause in many ways, because I believe that a simpler and better method of compensation could have been worked out. I fear that we shall be completely bogged down by a series of complex regulations. However brilliant may be those occupants of the Treasury Bench who will have some say in the formulation of the regulations, and however talented may be those in the Ministry who will assist them, I have great fears as to whether the regulations can be made comprehensive enough to cover all the possible aspects and facets of the various plan-
    84
    ning problems which can arise in the future. I cannot see that in all respects the Clause will do what it is intended to do. There will be many loopholes, and many cases will arise from it.
    The Minister said that he disapproved of our Amendment proposing to leave out subsection (8), and gave the reasons why he thought it wrong to do so. We think that it should be left out because it seems totally wrong that a Minister, or a Minister acting with a second Minister, should be both judge and jury in an important case such as might well arise over the question of compensation. We believe most strongly that this is a matter which should be considered only in the courts. It is wrong in principle that a Minister should be able to make a decision in a matter affecting a Department in which he has a direct interest. Therefore, we strongly press that the subsection be removed and that a court should decide where there is a conflict of interest.
    Mr. John Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend very helpfully gave examples of distinctions between one kind of development on operational land and another. I want to give others for consideration by the House. Going out of London on many of the main railway lines, one sees archways beneath the lines where engineering and other fairly noisy activities take place. I understand the posititon to be that, because the railway line is operational land and zoned for railway purposes, there is no control over the commercial use of the archways beneath. Nor is there any control over the use of the railways above. This is one example of the use of railways above and a yard below.
    Another example is that of the development of the periphery of railway land which may have grave effects on residential amenities. For example, in such a case the planting of a screen of trees or the erection of some screen or barrier bordering the operational land and the statutory undertaker could make a great deal of difference to the amenities of the adjoining residential land.
    Thirdly, there are coal yards where tippers' coal loading devices can be installed and will not be refused by the local authority for fear of having to pay compensation. There is, therefore, a case for distinguishing between coal loading

    85
    which could go to a more convenient place and the use of the sidings by the railways.
    I do not ask for answers to these examples at the moment, but I do ask for an undertaking that my hon. and learned Friend will receive a deputation from local authorities about the way in which the regulations are to be drafted and that there will be negotiations with the statutory undertakers themselves.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: I do not share the disappointment about the Clause expresed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I think that the Minister has achieved a remarkable feat by drafting a Clause which in any way covers the problems which faced us on this issue in our tortuous Committee stage. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend translated it. I had difficulty in appreciating fully what the Government have been able to do until he did translate it.
    My hon. and learned Friend said that he would embody in the Clause the philosophy of the responsibilities given to statutory undertakers by Parliament but would distinguish between those services which, by statute, they have to provide and those which are permissive. This is a most valuable step forward. There will be a great sigh of relief from many local authorities when faced with these sports of situations and the reduction in compensation will be most valuable.
    Finally, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, in the case which has been discussed and which I shall not go over again, the regulations would include the gas holder as being one where there would be no compensation, or whether there would be 50 per cent. compensation?
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: With respect to the Minister, I think that he has funked the issue. He has produced an admirable Clause empowering him to make regulations but that is not what we wanted. This matter has been under discussion for a considerable time—since before this Bill and then in detail during the Committee stage. The principles have been thoroughly thrashed out. Yet we are now presented—and such a situation puts the House into considerable difficulty—with a Clause which says that the Minister will make regulations.
    86
    Until the Minister spoke a few moments ago, as far as I know no one in the House had the slightest idea of the principles on which the regulations were to be made. We are to decide, not even with a piece of paper before us setting out the principles, whether we give the Minister a blank cheque to make these regulations. Listening to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and speaking off the record, I would agree with the way his mind is working in thinking about the preparation of the regulations. But it is difficult to ask us to commit ourselves to the spoken word across the Floor of the House without having had an opportunity to consider the matter in detail.
    This is a very technical and important matter. Large sums of money are involved, as we know from cases in the past few months. This is not a small matter of planning procedure but a major problem of policy and finance. We should have had an opportunity of considering on paper exactly what the Government intend in these regulations.
    The new Clause describes operational land in subsection (1). It then goes on to describe what is to be development. The Minister made an important point concerning categories of development which will be compensatable development. If I understand him correctly, in future the consideration is not to be whether it is development on operational land but what is to be the development. This will meet the point put by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). I understood his case to be that the railways can develop anything on their operational land under the law as it stands. If, indeed, in future it is not the fact of operational land but the nature of the development on it that is to be considered, this will, I think, meet the point he made. I hope that it will.
    It may also meet the case put by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I almost called him the hon. Member for "Flanagan and Allen" after the way be talked about "underneath the arches". I did not realise until he spoke that these are not the subject of planning permissions. These places are really not on operational land, and surely the nature of the development should be taken into account. If such development is to be the subject of planning

    87
    permission, it will meet many difficulties. Undoubtedly there is a clear distinction, if one can define it, between such development and the operations or developments which there is a statutory duty to carry out and for which there are technical reasons for their being carried out in a certain way. If statutory undertakers are obliged to carry out development of that kind, they should not be frustrated by planning control.
    Indeed, Parliament should not be frustrated by planning controls because those cases in which Parliament has given the statutory undertakers the right and duty to carry out this work will be those which, I should think, will be defined in the regulations as compensatory. How the definition is to be drawn is the Minister's duty to decide.
    I remind the House that the regulations will not necessarily come before Parliament. They are to be subject to annulment procedure and will not require affirmative Resolution. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter again. We should require the regulations to be by affirmative Resolution, since they will be very important. They will not merely set out a procedure for planning or for some scheme. They will be a major change in the policy of this House and we should be asked to pass an affirmative Resolution in respect of them and not merely have them rest on the Table until some hon. Member sees fit to initiate a Prayer against them.
    Subsection (6) refers to the previous subsections, which relate to the types of development which shall be compensated, and says that they
    "… shall not apply in the case of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act …".
    If the compensation provisions do not apply, does that mean that, in those cases, statutory undertakers will get 100 per cent., or nothing? If they do not apply and the present law continues in respect of these events, it means that statutory undertakers would get 100 per cent. On the other hand, had it said that the compensation provisions did not apply, one would normally think that they would not get any compensation. I am not sure of the meaning of subsection (6) in this respect.
    88
    The Opposition Amendment would delete subsection (8). If the Minister makes regulations and the House approves them, either by an affirmative Resolution or by not laying a Prayer against them and annulling them, it seems that the Minister is then overriding the decisions of Parliament by interpreting the regulations as he chooses. Subsection (8) allows him to determine a matter
    "If any question arises whether development proposed to be carried out by statutory undertakers falls within a description specified by regulations made for the purposes of this section…."
    If the right hon. Gentleman makes an ambiguous description in the regulations, he will then be able to decide what he meant by the regulations and not what the House meant should be passed by way of delegated legislation. This is a wrong constitutional principle of which the House should not approve. If the Minister is to make regulations and if they are passed by the House, either specifically or passed by not being objected to, then they become law. It should not be for the Minister, but for the judges in the courts, to decide what the law is.
    We are put in the gravest difficulty in considering an important new Clause of this sort by not having before us something to study so that we can consider, with the care this important matter deserves, the intentions of the Government when they come to make these regulations. We are asked to give a blanket cheque merely on listening for the first time today to the Government's intentions by word of mouth. It is not easy for us to legislate on a matter of this sort on that basis.
    Mr. MacDermot: This is not an easy matter on which to legislate on any basis. One of the few matters on which we were agreed in Committee was that the complexity of this problem is considerable.
    The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked which side of the line nuclear power stations would fall under the new regulations. I believe that what he had in mind was a new nuclear power station, and he may have missed the fact that, under other provisions already written into the Bill, the power of statutory undertakers to acquire land and then

    89
    say, "We want this for our operational purposes", and thereby avoid the need for planning permission, is being removed. Consequently, if a statutory undertaker wants to set up a nuclear power station in future he will have to get plannng permission like everybody else, and if permission is refused he will not have any right to compensation.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is that so?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes. It comes under Clause 58. In other words, as soon as planning permission is given in respect of any new land to be acquired or acquired by a statutory undertaker which can then qualify as operational land, privileges will attach to it; but he cannot claim compensation just for the refusal of planning permission on newly acquired land. I believe that that covers the point the hon. Gentleman had in mind. If one had the situation of an existing nuclear power station, which is already on operational land, and in respect of which a developer wanted to expand, by way of further development, it would then depend on the nature of that development, on the principles I have explained, whether or not a refusal of compensation would qualify under the new system of regulations for compensation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) raised a question which was raised in Committee, as the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) pointed out, and which I know is concerning many people: the planning privileges attaching to the lessees of statutory undertakers in some cases. These privileges derive from Class 17 of the General Development Order. The regulations which are proposed under the new clause would not touch or deal with the problem because where statutory undertakers have rights which, broadly speaking, are co-extensive with the rights of other industrialists which are not statutory undertakers, then if those rights are withdrawn—for example, by an Article 4 direction—they will be entitled to full compensation, just as an ordinary industrialist would be.
    Class 17 is, broadly speaking, comparable to rights which other industrialists have under the General Development Order. I say "broadly speaking" because I agree that in some respects it goes further than the rights which other industrialists have, and the case to which my hon.
    90
    Friend referred is probably the type of case which gives rise to the most worry and objection. I repeat what I said in Standing Committee, that it is our intention, when the Bill becomes law, to review the provisions of the General Development Order; and I assure my hon. Friend that we will look at the point that he raised in that review and consider whether the wording of Class 17 in the General Development Order should be so wide so as to cover the sort of case to which he referred.
    The hon. Member for Poole said he was disappointed at the form in which our solution was presented and that a more simple method would have been better. I entirely agree and I was looking forward expectantly, hoping that he was about to propound that which has eluded us all—namely, a simple method of solving this problem—but I notice that he kept a discrete silence.
    6.0 p.m.
    The argument about the Amendment to leave out subsection (8) is whether the courts or an appeal to Ministers should determine a dispute between a planning authority and a statutory undertaker as to whether a class of development for which planning permission is refused should attract compensation under the new regulations. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was wrong to have the appeal to the Minister for the sponsoring Department and suggested that the Minister would have a financial interest. That is not the right way to put it. He may be the Minister for the sponsoring Department for a public corporation whose interests are at stake, but it is in order, to see that his concern with protecting the legitimate interests of the statutory undertaker is balanced by an equal concern to uphold proper planning principles, that we propose that this should be done jointly by the two Ministers.
    It may be asked whether this matter is better dealt with by Ministers or by the courts. I suggest that it is better done by Ministers; otherwise it will mean a tremendous burden for planning authorities who would have to fight what would necessarily be long and extensive litigation to determine an issue. One of the complaints, particularly for smaller planning authorities, is that there is too

    91
    much pressure on them and we are seeking to remove some of it, particularly in the 50 per cent. provisions. But if we compel them to take any disputed case to the courts, that would be a very heavy burden. This can surely be much more simply and fairly determined by the two Ministers jointly. There is a precedent in the appeals system for planning applications, which is from statutory undertakers to the two Ministers jointly and that works satisfactorily on the whole.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) mentioned a number of examples, like railway arches and coal yards where tipping devices are used. These are cases of rights arising from Article 17 of the General Development Order and they will be carefully considered when we review the provisions of that Article.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) gave a general welcome to this Clause, for which I am grateful, and asked what would be the position under it of the Abingdon gasholder case. I think that that is a case to which the 50 per cent. compensation provision would apply under the proposed system.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was a little unkind to say that I had funked the issue. We have grasped it, and in a way which will, I am afraid, put a lot of work on us in preparing these regulations. However, as I said in Committee, I could find no simple formula which could be embodied in a statute to draw a distinction between those classes of activity by statutory undertakers which should be "compen-satable" and those which should not. I then drew attention to the fact that we have already made provision under the 1962 Act to define by regulations for the National Coal Board which classes of activity should attract these privileges, and I am afraid that it is inevitable that we must seek a solution along those lines. I would have liked to be able to write in simple criteria, but I cannot do so.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that the matter should be dealt with by affirma-

    Division No. 146.]

    AYES

    [6.7 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Barnett, Joe!

    Allen, Scholefield

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Beaney, Alan

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bessell, Peter

    tive rather than negative Resolution. There will be quite a number of these Orders, however, and they will all relieve the ratepayer and will not put any additional burden on the citizen. In that case, it is proper that they should be dealt with by negative Resolution.
    Subsection (6) deals with the situation to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West—the kind of case in which a statutory undertaker has planning permission, under the General Development Order, which is withdrawn by an Article 4 direction, and where it falls within Clause 17, which is, in general parallel with a similar class which affects private industry and in which it is, therefore, right that they should have 100 per cent. compensation. I know that there is a general feeling that that class is perhaps too widely drawn, and we will therefore look at that when we review the General Development Order.
    Mr. Rippon: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. We all understand that the Government have made a real effort to improve the law in this regard, but although it is right to cut down the special privileges of the statutory undertakers, many people still hold that they should enjoy no privileges at all, compared with other developers. This is more arguable but, with the best will in the world, the Government have not yet succeeded in making the law entirely satisfactory.
    I am disappointed that the Minister of State cannot accept our Amendment to leave out subsection (8), which would have been an improvement. We are not happy about the limitation which he mentioned of a 50 per cent. grant in the case of the Abingdon gasholder. That needs looking at again. Therefore, it may be for the greater convenience of the House if we do not press the Amendment, but in view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, simply divide the House on the Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 117.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Henig, Stanley

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hooley, Frank

    Pentland, Norman

    Boyden, James

    Horner, John

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hoy, James

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George

    (Belper) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

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

    Hunter, Adam

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

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

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

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stecnford)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kelley, Richard

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sheldon, Robert

    Coe, Denis

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Darting, Rt, Hn. George

    Ledger, Ron

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dempsey, James

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph

    Dewar, Donald

    Lubbock, Eric

    Small, William

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Snow, Julian

    Dickens, James

    MacDermot, Niall

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Doig, Peter

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mackie, John

    Swingler, Stephen

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

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Eadie, Alex

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Taverne, Dick

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Thornton, Ernest

    Ellis, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Tinn, James

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

    Marquand, David

    Tomney, Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Moonman, Eric

    Wallace, George

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Moyle, Roland

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Gardner, Tony

    Newens, Stan

    Whitaker, Ben

    Garrett, W. E.

    Norwood, Christopher

    Whitlock, William

    Gourlay, Harry

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Orbach, Maurice

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Orme, Stanley

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Winnick, David

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.

    Paget, R. T.

    Woof, Robert

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Hamling, William

    Pardoe, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Park, Trevor

    Mr. J. D. Concannon and

    Haseldine, Norman

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Eden, Sir John

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Marten, Neil

    Astor, John

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

    Maude, Angus

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Emery, Peter

    Mawby, Ray

    Bell, Ronald

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Biffen, John

    Farr, John

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

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Foster, Sir John

    Monro, Hector

    Boardman, Tom

    Goodhew, victor

    More, Jasper

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Grant, Anthony

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Murton, Oscar

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Holland, Philip

    Percival, lan

    Burden, F. A.

    Hordern, Peter

    Peyton, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Clegg, Walter

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cooke, Robert

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Costain, A. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pym, Francis

    Crouch, David

    Kirk, Peter

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Currie, C. B. H.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Dance, James

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, 8tr Henry

    Langford-Holt Sir John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    94

    95

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Speed, Keith

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Stainton, Keith

    Walters, Dennis

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Stodart, Anthony

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Webster, David

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Scott, Nicholas

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

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Sharples, Richard

    Temple, John M.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Silvester, Frederick

    Tilney, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sinclair, 8ir George

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause 6.
    MATTERS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE MINISTER IN LISTING BUILDINGS UNDER SECTION 32 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.
    In considering whether to include a building in a list compiled or approved under section 32 of the principal Act, the Minister may take into account not only the building itself but also—

    (a) any respect in which its exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part; and

    (b) the desirability of preserving, on the ground of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building consisting of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.15 p.m.
    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.
    Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I referred in passing to Government Amendment No. 71, in Clause 33, page 27, line 6, at end insert:
    (3) For the purposes of this part of this Act, any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall be treated as part of the building.
    If the House were good enough to accept the new Clause the Bill will require a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: We may take them together, if there is no objection. So be it.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am much obliged.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), on 2nd April, asked whether the definition of building in Section 221 of the principal
    96
    Act was wide enough to cover all the surrounding features of a building which it might be desirable to bring within the confines of Clause 33 so that the whole character of the building might be preserved, and I undertook to look at the matter. The Government have, therefore, decided that it would be advantageous to have this new Clause, which is divided into two parts, paragraphs (a) and (b), to deal with the point which he raised. It would enable man-made structures attached to a building to be included, and they are now specifically included by the definition. It could be an item of machinery. One might say, what has an item of machinery to do with a historic architectural building? It may be an ancient pump or something of interest to the industrial archaeologist.
    Further, the definition in paragraph (b) deals with other man-made structures fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building. This might be a terrace, or cobbles, features of that kind. I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased that his intervention has led to the improvement in this Part of the Bill.
    At the same time we have taken advantage of the opportunity to put into legislative form a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Earl of Iveagh v. Ministry of Housing, where there was a dispute on the Minister's determination on appeal as to whether a group of buildings acquired historic and architectural interest by the circumstances of their being part of a group. The Master of the Rolls decided that this was within the general planning provisions, but it was not specifically spelt out in legislation. We have taken advantage of the Clause to incorporate that decision in paragraph (a).
    The Government Amendment No. 71 to which I have referred makes the consequential Amendment in Clause 33 were this Clause to be accepted.
    Mr. Allason: During the Committee stage I declared a provisional interest on the basis that I did not know whether my house was listed or not, and the Minister of State said that he would inquire and let me know. He let me know by the Ministry sending to me last Friday a notice of listing. What is interesting is that the listing that he sent me is only for the courtyard before my house and not for the house itself, so I am still unaware whether or not my house is listed. All I know is that it is intended to list the courtyard, which seems very peculiar, in view of the terms of Section 32 of the 1962 Act which refers to listing a building, and of this Amendment, which seeks to extend the building so that other matters can be listed.
    I wonder whether the Minister will admit that he is acting ultra vires in attempting to list the little courtyard in front of my house. Otherwise, I would imagine that paragraph (b) of the new Clause is unnecessary.
    We all welcome paragraph (a), which provides that an architectural facade should be protected even though what lies behind the facade may have little merit. The Regent's Park terraces are not of great historic value, but the facade is magnificent.
    Paragraph (b) says that the Minister may take into account
    " the desirability of preserving, on the ground of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building consisting of a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building."
    I understand that the curtilage of the building means the full extent of the garden. If there is a summerhouse half a mile from the house, I cannot see how it can possibly be a feature of the house.
    Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. This refers to a separate feature. Anything which was a long way from the house would have to be the subject of a separate listing.
    Mr. Allason: How is a summerhouse a feature of the building if it is close to the house;? It must be the wording, "a feature of the building", which is at fault. Perhaps the Minister would look at that again.
    98
    Provided that the feature is close to the House, so that the building and the feature which is desirable are closely integrated, it is desirable that it should be preserved. A fine terrace running round the front of the house clearly ought to be preserved. I am glad to see that the intention is that this refers to something close to the house and in those circumstances I welcome the Clause.
    Mr. John Fraser: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for these Amendments, which I find acceptable, and which arise from undertakings he gave in Committee stage. The attitude of the Front Bench has been both receptive and cooperative.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 7.
    PART-TIME ENGAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE.
    Where planning permission has been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, subject to the condition that the building is to be occupied by a person engaged in agriculture as defined in section 221 of the said Act, or by the dependant of such person, the condition shall be satisfied by the occupation of the building by a person, or by the dependants of a person, who is engaged part-time in agriculture.—[Mr. Turton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Clause deals with the problem that arises where planning permission is given under Section 17 of the principal Act, subject to a restrictive condition on the dwelling being used by someone engaged in agriculture. The view originally held was that this would be satisfied in cases where a person was not a whole-time farmer or farmworker, but where his dwelling-house was surrounded by agricultural land and he lived in the house and cultivated that agricultural land. It now appears that this is not a correct interpretation of the restrictive condition, and a number of problems have arisen from it.
    I would like to say at the outset that I put this new Clause down in order to

    99
    have the position clarified and not because I thought that my drafting would necessarily satisfy the Minister. I hope that by putting the new Clause down, and explaining the case to the Minister, if he feels that I have made a point, perhaps he will introduce a new Clause in another place.
    When one is dealing with a restrictive condition in an area where the only industry is agriculture, I do not believe that any great difficulty results. In those areas there will always be a large number of people requiring dwelling-houses who will be able to satisfy the condition of being engaged whole-time in agriculture. But when this condition is applied in areas where there are other industries, or in dormitory areas, then considerable difficulty occurs when this restriction has been laid down.
    In the area surrounding York, in my constituency, the interpretation of this restrictive condition has resulted in houses being built which are unoccupied and unsaleable. This is a highly undesirable state of affairs in parts of the country surrounding York which are either dormitory areas or have some industry in them.
    6.30 p.m.
    Let me give two specific instances to make the position clear. In one case, a developer obtained permission under Section 17 to build a house. He sold it with 1¾ acres of land to a prominent solicitor in a nearby town. The value of the property was about £7,000 or £8,000, which indicates that it was a fairly expensive house and not a cottage. Intending to fulfil the condition, the solicitor took advice from the planning authority and from other members of his profession. As soon as he entered the house, he did what he could to cultivate the 1¾ acres by making it pasture and meadow. However, he was told that that was not consistent with the condition, because he could not be engaged whole-time in agriculture if he continued to be a solicitor. As a result, he was forced to attempt to sell the house. Unfortunately, he could not find a purchaser who was prepared to take on this fairly expensive house and be required to satisfy the condition.
    100
    The other case concerned a house with three acres of land. It was bought by the manager of a construction firm, who tried to fulfil the condition by turning the three acres into piggeries with a view to developing pig production. Unfortunately, the venture failed, because he discovered that the land was subject to flooding. Pigs not being aquatic animals, he was obliged to abandon his plans. He then tried to turn the land into a forest nursery. However, he was told that, to comply with the condition, he would have to give up his job as manager of a very well-known firm of building constructors, retire at once to his house, and do nothing but grow forest trees.
    That was not a very attractive proposition to him, and the only alternative was to sell the house. He found a man wanting to buy it who was engaged in selling feeding stuffs to farmers, and he wished to cultivate the three acres and grow crops. However, he was told that, as he was not engaged whole-time in agriculture but was merely a salesman of agricultural feeding stuffs to farmers, he could not qualify under this restrictive condition.
    By quoting those examples, I hope that I have shown that there is doubt about the way in which these restrictive covenants work. I think that the law on this matter, which is contained in the Section 221 definition, requires amendment in certain cases. I can see the difficulty. One does not want Section 17 permissions granted to people in agricultural areas whose connections with agriculture are too tenuous. On the other hand, if a planning authority attempts to operate the condition in a dormitory area such as I have referred to, it should be widened to give the authority greater latitude than it has at present. In such areas, housing accommodation is very short. There is a great demand for it from those working in local industry or requiring it for dormitory purposes. It cannot be in the public interest for houses to be unoccupied in those areas.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the terms in which he has moved his Motion. There is a problem here, but, as is so often the case in planning, it is a matter of getting the balance right.
    In developing his argument, the right hon. Gentleman pointed to some of the

    101
    difficulties that any widening of the existing provisions might bring in its train. They are particularly important in areas of green belt outside our great conurbations, though it is a less urgent problem in his part of the country. Whenever I travel between York and Scarborough, I am reminded how fortunate he is to represent such a remarkably attractive area.
    Nevertheless, in green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty near conurbations, there is a very difficult problem in which the local planning authority has to balance the legitimate and genuine needs of agriculture with preventing the kind of pepper potting which one sees even now in some parts of the country under the existing provisions. From time to time, I indulge in fairly low-level flying over some of these areas, and I am horrified at the degree of pepper potting which exists. It is a very difficult and delicate exercise in power which a local planning authority has to carry out in these matters.
    Perhaps I might put on record the form of condition which is usually put into a planning permission. Obviously, it is there because one must meet the demands for accommodation of persons employed in agriculture or forestry. It is usually in connection with stock, but there may be other very good reasons where there is no alternative. The form of the condition is generally along these lines:
    "The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person employed, or last employed, locally in agriculture as defined in section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him (but including a widow or widower of such a person)."
    That is the condition, and it is one which is necessary and right.
    The condition is generally not interpreted as stipulating that the occupant shall be a person exclusively or whole-time engaged in agriculture. For that reason, I was interested to hear the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. What he told us is not my experience of the way in which the condition normally operates.
    It is true that there has to be a substantial interest. A planning authority would not normally contemplate cases
    102
    where someone was engaged in agriculture very much on a part-time basis. The condition relates to a new building, and it is of particular importance in the sensitive areas to which we are referring. There would have to be a fairly substantial commitment to agriculture. However, it need not be a whole-time one. Since the right hon. Gentleman put down his new Clause, I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied that that is the way in which the condition is interpreted.
    I see difficulty in accepting the new Clause. Obviously, one has to provide new accommodation for agricultural workers. I have evidenced what I have seen from the air. Anyone taking a train from London and going in any direction will see the amount of pepper potting that has taken place in the green belt. Any further weakening of the provision in the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment might open the door very wide. This is what worries the Government and the planning authorities in these sensitive areas.
    I was surprised and sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman referring to houses remaining empty because of this condition. Section 20 of the 1962 Act provides that permission can be obtained to retain buildings or works when the original condition no longer applies. Applications made under this section are sympathetically treated by local planning authorities. This gets over the major difficulty of empty properties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will direct the attention of those concerned to this provision, which may be of help to them.
    Concerning the other cases which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand—and I will be glad to look at any particulars he cares to send me— that while there must be a substantial commitment to work in agriculture, it does not have to be whole time. Because of the dangers, the Government are of the view it would open the door too wide. Therefore, with regret, but for sound reasons, I could not advise the House to accept the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause. However, I am glad that he has given us the opportunity to discuss it.
    Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. As always, he tries to give a considered

    103
    reply to points raised in Committee or elsewhere, but I am not sure that he has altogether met the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
    There is great difficulty in the country. There is, first, the consideration of what provision needs to be made for agricultural dwelling-houses for full-time agricultural workers. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the dangers of pepper potting in areas of outstanding natural beauty. There may be cases when it is right that the most stringent steps should be taken to prevent any dwelling-house being erected. I always fear, in debates of this kind, that Ministers and local planning authorities are apt to treat the green belt as an area which should be absolutely sterile and in which no activity, agricultural or otherwise, should go on and there is great difficult in many areas in establishing with local planning authorities the need for an agricultural dwelling-house. I think that the view they take is often too stringent.
    It is against that background that the Parliamentary Secretary has said there is anxiety about a Clause of this kind. The anxiety arises because, if the provision regarding residence is weakened in any way, local planning authorities may be even more difficult about granting planning permissions. I concede that difficulty, but I should like to think that the Ministry would give rather clearer guidance to local planning authorities about the circumstances in which they ought to allow what must be sporadic development in rural areas but which serves an essential agricultural purpose.
    I do not think that the public visiting the countryside are in any way put off by seeing a certain number of dwelling-houses properly sited. We should not be afraid of allowing properly sited dwelling-houses in the countryside. It may be that we could do a great deal more by allowing the natural expansion of villages, though notionally into the green belt. We need to emphasise sometimes that the green belt was not meant to be a sterile area in which no activity takes place. However, I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that this new Clause might be dangerous in that it might induce local planning authorities to be even stricter.
    104
    The Parliamentary Secretary was helpful in what he said about a dwelling-house and whether it should be used exclusively for an agricultural worker. It would be reassuring if the Ministry would give some guidance to local planning authorities in interpreting the concept of an exclusive or whole-time agricultural worker. If the Ministry is fairly elastic in its definition of what is a substantial part of the time, that might meet the situation.
    6.45 p.m.
    There is a need in many areas to take administrative, if not legal, action in the form proposed by my right hon. Friend to see that more is done to meet the residential requirements of part-time agricultural workers. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend wishes to push this matter to a Division. I do not think that we need do that on this matter. I hope that the debate will have helped to show that we are concerned about a real problem. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take some administrative action to bring the problem to the attention of local planning authorities, so that they can make greater efforts to provide more agricultural dwelling-house permissions and to interpret as fairly and reasonably as possible the concept of what is a substantial part of the time of the occupant engaged in agriculture.
    Mr. Skeffington: Before the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) makes any further contribution, I should inform him and the House that we intend to put out a further statement on particular aspects of the new planning legislation which will cover this matter. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken to mean that the local authority must not plan properly for the expansion of agriculture in the right places. As the right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted, the more expensive type of property tends to be in isolation. Therefore, the siting of it, unless controlled, can ruin a whole prospect. This is where the planning authorities want to be particularly careful, though weighing up all the matters I have mentioned.
    Mr. Turton: In view of the clear explanation given by the Minister, and the further assurance that he will take administrative action to bring the present

    105
    state of the law to the attention of planning authorities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8.
    ALLEVIATION OF HARDSHIP ARISING IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE COMPENSATION FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS LESS THAN FULL OPEN MARKET VALUE.

    (1) Where a local authority acquires owner-occupied residential property which forms part of an area of town development (as referred to in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation Act 1961), and where the compensation payable is less than full open market value, then, subject to the provisions of this section, the local authority acquiring the property shall (if so required by the vendor) provide an interest free loan to the vendor not greater than the difference between the compensation paid and the full open market value of the property acquired by the local authority.

    (2) The said loan shall only be made if and when the vendor completes the purchase of a replacement residential property for his own occupation within two years of the completion of the acquisition of his property by the local authority.

    (3) The replacement property shall be situate in the vicinity of the acquiring local authority.

    (4) The said loan shall not in any case exceed 90 per cent. of the value of the replacement property which value shall be assessed and certified to and at the expense of the authority by a competent professional valuer to be instructed by the authority.

    (5) The said loan shall automatically become a charge on the replacement property and must be registered as a Land Charge against it or, in the case of Registered Land, recorded in H.M. Land Registry.

    (6) The said loan shall be repaid—

    (a) if the vendor ceases to reside in the replacement property;

    (b) on the death of the survivor of the vendor and his spouse:

    Provided—

    (a) that if the vendor ceases to reside in the replacement property, in circumstances where he sells it and within 12 months completes the purchase of another replacement property then the local authority which first acquired the original property shall on request grant another interest-free loan within the terms of this section which shall thereupon become a charge on the property under this section and be subject to the other provisions of this section;

    (b) the replacement property may itself be replaced as contemplated in this proviso without limit to the number of occasions
    106
    until the death of the survivor of the vendor and his spouse.

    (7) In cases where the property acquired by the local authority is occupied by the vendor partly for business and partly for residential purposes the interest-free loan shall be granted in proportion to that part of the whole property which is occupied for residential purposes only.

    Any apportionment of value for this purpose shall be decided in the manner provided in subsection (8) of this section.

    (8) The full open market value of the property acquired shall be as may be agreed between the parties or in default of agreement as settled by an arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950 (as amended at any time) or under any enactment replacing the same.

    An Arbitrator under this section shall be appointed by agreement between the parties or in default of agreement by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Basingstoke is an important town. Not only because Gilbert and Sullivan drew attention to it, but it is of special importance regarding town and country planning, because it is one of the most forward towns being built under the expanded towns procedure in the Town Development Act, 1952. It takes a large number of Londoners in for rehousing at present.
    First, I will explain the problem which has arisen in the application of compensation relating to expanded town purchases and then I will set out the method which the new Clause proposes for dealing with it. The 1961 Compensation Act, under which compensation is assessed in cases of this kind, provides that the local authority—or the district valuer in valuing on behalf of the local authority—has to disregard the increase in value which has been caused by the decision to make it into an expanded town. When one examines the situation one can see justifiably the idea in Parliament's mind when it laid down this provision in the original Act.
    For example, if a farmer has a large farm and the planning authority decides to create a new town in and around that farm the value of his land may rise suddenly from £400 an acre to perhaps

    107
    £40,000 an acre—or to £4,000 an acre if it is a smaller development. I can appreciate the feeling that existed in the House in 1961 that the happy farmer who owned that land ought not, suddenly, to get this vast increase in capital wealth as the result of a decision over which he had no control. There was an obvious sense of justice and fair play in the original legislation.
    But when that argument is applied in the case of an expanded town—where a population already exists, with all the interwoven activity that is associated with the neighbourhood—the effect is very different. The best way to explain the situation is to mention the case which was drawn to my attention by two constituents, who asked me, "What are we to do? The most dreadful thing has happened to us. We have discovered that our house and garden is required by Basingstoke Corporation for their town expansion." I said, "I am very sorry. Although I understand how these things happen, nevertheless, you will receive compensation which will enable you to buy a house somewhere else."
    We then proceeded to discover the amount of compensation to which they were entitled, and we found that because, in valuing the property, the district valuer had to disregard the increase in value occasioned by the fact that Basingstoke was an "expanded town", the compensation paid was totally insufficient for them to rehouse themselves in the same locality.
    In other words, such a person would have to pick himself up from the town where he had lived and worked all his life and move miles away into the country, where land prices were not inflated by the value of the new town. In fact, a new town of the size of Basingstoke can affect the values of land in all the villages within a radius of eight miles. In such a situation the person concerned has to move right away from his friends, neighbours and work if he is to obtain a similar property to that which he had before.
    On a number of occasions I have suggested to this Minister of State—and gave him notice of this new Clause—when he was in his other guise as Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the
    108
    district valuer at Basingstoke might have been unreasonably tough in his negotiations and in his valuation of the property in the town. As a result of my plea an investigation was undertaken, although I am by no means happy with the result, as the Minister of State knows.
    But that is not the point I am raising now. The point is that the answer which came from the Government was to the effect that there was nothing wrong with the valuer's valuation; that was correct. The fact was that the law was unfair. Now the Minister has been transplanted from the Treasury and from being able to say that the financial assessment was correct to another field where, as Minister of State for Housing and Local Government he has an opportunity to put right the wrong which is still being done as a result of the existing form of valuation.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will seize his opportunity and accept the Clause. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. If parts of the Clause are not phrased as they should be I shall be happy to accept from the Minister an assurance that, suitably adjusted to fit in with the correct draftsman language, he will bring in a new Clause of his own at a later stage, when the Bill goes to the Upper House.
    Perhaps I may illustrate the need for my new Clause by giving two examples. The first example concerns the Elston family. Mr. Elston is a retired naval man. He retired to a site in Basingstoke. I have a photograph which I can give the Minister if he would like to see it. It is a nice situation, facing south with a good view over open country. Mr. Elston had his couple of acres. He kept rabbits and pigs and had some fruit trees. He was enjoying a nice, quiet retirement in a delightful spot.
    The valuation of his property was about £3,500. If he wants to buy an equivalent property in the Basingstoke area it will cost him about £5,500—approximately £2,000 more than he has received in compensation. As a result, he has had to sell up and move away from Basingstoke. I am appalled to have to tell the House that far from his being able to find an equivalent property a little distance from Basingstoke he now has to live in a caravan with his wife, in their old

    109
    age. This cannot be the sort of thing that the House intended.
    The other example is a more tragic one, which should persuade the Minister that he cannot delay this matter any longer. It concerns the Ilsley family, who lived on a similar smallholding. Mr Ilsley was ill advised, or well advised—I do not know which—to buy himself a bungalow on the other side of the road which was not subject to compulsory purchase and was similar to that in which he had previously lived. Again, it cost him £2,000 more than he received in compensation. This fact weighed upon him so much and the financial difficulties that it brought with it caused him so much sadness and wretchedness that he committed suicide.
    Mr. Ilsley's case aroused a great deal of local concern and worry and brought home to me the need for a change in the law. That is why I have put down the Clause and why I beg the Government not to delay but to seize this opportunity of putting right the injustice that arises in the situations.
    The method I suggest in this Clause is quite simple. There would be a good case for saying that in the circumstances we should allow the people concerned to obtain the full market value. If a person's property is devalued because of development he does not receive compensation, and in my view what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. But I have put forward a much simpler and more moderate case. I suggest that such people should be given an interest free loan to enable them to buy equivalent property just for the length of their lifetime. Not so that they make a capital gain. It would simply enable them to live in an equivalent property for the remainder of their lives.
    In subsection (1), the Clause provides that the local authority should make this interest free loan. This would not be a great hardship for a local authority because it would have bought land cheap at the old price, before values were inflated by the development. It is also selling expensively at the inflated values caused by the town development. It makes all the capital appreciation which comes from the increase in value because of the new town.
    Subsection (2) limits the loan to alternative property which is bought within
    110
    two years. Subsection (3) limits it to a property bought within the vicinity of the local authority area in which the man or woman previously lived. The purpose of the Clause is to help people who are otherwise forced to move.
    Subsection (4) is a security to ensure that the local authority can eventually be fully repaid. Subsection (5) provides for a charge against the deeds of the property, giving adequate security for the loan. Subsection (6) makes the loan repayable when the man or his wife, whoever is the survivor, dies. Subsection (7) apportions properties which are partly residential and partly commercial, such as shops with living accommodation above. Great hardship can be suffered in such cases. Subsection (8) provides for arbitration.
    This is a matter of considerable interest and urgent need in the Basingstoke area and in other areas which have not reached our advanced stage of town development. I hope that the House will agree that the Clause should be accepted, since it is an example of moderate, inexpensive, simple justice.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), because this is a very good compromise in a difficult situation. This problem arises not only in the case of new town procedure but in many others. I do not know why the Government will not pay reasonable compensation for a property which they need for their own benefit. If they fail to do that, my hon. Friend's alternative is very reasoned, and I think that the Minister of State is bound to accept it.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for this new Clause. There is no provision in the computation of compensation in compulsory purchase for the person concerned having to live further from his job. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) mentioned the personal hardship involved in having to move when compensation is inadequate to enable the dispossessed person to buy a similar property in the same area. There is also the financial hardship which can result and can probably be avoided only by such a measure as this.

    111
    If someone has to move eight or 10 miles—that means 16 or 20 a day travelling to and from work—simple arithmetic will show how much that would be in a year, and it is a considerable expense. Apart from the inequity of having to move, not because there is no accommodation, but because the compensation is inadequate for the accommodation which is desired, my hon. Friend's proposal of an interest-free loan is the absolute minimum which the community owes the dispossessed individual or family. As it is a loan which would be paid back on the death of the survivor of the family unit, the local authority or the community would get a magnificent bargain, even if the full wording were accepted.
    I hope that the Minister of State will not say that the Clause applies to any property, large or small, since the principles of justice are not particular to given sizes of property but have general application. I hope that, whatever brief, ending with advice to reject the Clause, the Ministry may have produced as a reply to my hon. Friend's able speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman will thrust such a brief where is properly belongs, into the waste paper basket, and advise us instead to accept the Clause. It is the minimum which, in justice, is owed to those suffering the distressing experience of dispossession. Even if no financial hardship is involved, it is still very distressing.
    Mr. MacDermot: As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has said, this is not the first time that he and I have debated problems arising from compensation payable to his constituents because of the extension of that town. Our previous debates arose chiefly out of his wholly unjustifiable attacks on the district valuer, as a result of which I instituted a special inquiry which completely failed to support his allegations. I am sorry that he still, by implication, appears to want to attack the district valuer.
    The hon. Member then put into my mouth today words which I have never used, saying that I had told him, "It is not the fault of the district valuer, but of the law, which is unfair." I have never said that the law is unfair. I told him that the district valuer merely takes the law as he finds it and that if the hon. Member thinks that it is unfair he can
    112
    change it. But he should not put words into my mouth. I know that he is asking today that the law should be changed.
    The Government have made it clear that this is a planning and not a compensation Bill. It contains some compensation provisions, because it was inevitable, when we changed to the structure plan system, that we should revise the provisions for compensation for blight so as to fit them into the new planning system. The compensation provisions in the Bill are a necessary consequence.
    Many proposals are being mooted for revision of the compensation code in the 1961 Act—which, I would remind the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), is their Act and not ours. I do not want to be thought to be prejudging the present consideration of these matters. The hon. Gentleman has persuasively argued this proposal, which is contained in the Memorandum submitted by the Chartered Land Societies to our Ministry and it is already being seriously considered in the Government. This is a very complicated field and not a matter which can or should be dealt with piecemeal.
    That can be illustrated here. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is attacking one of the basic principles of our compensation code, a principle of considerable antiquity and which is to be found in the rules contained in the 1919 Act—that is, that where land is publicly acquired for a particular scheme of development, any alteration in the value of that land in consequence of that scheme is to be disregarded in assessing the compensation. One may criticise that, but it is a basic principle running right through our compensation code and it would not be right for us to deal piecemeal, in the way the hon. Gentleman is seeking us to do, with that principle.
    Underlying the principle, and the reason why it has been found in all our compensation Acts, certainly since 1919, is the fact to which the hon. Member for Basingstoke alluded: that where a public authority itself, by its own action, is enhancing the value of land, it does not seem reasonable that, when it is acquiring that land, it should have to pay the enhanced value resulting only from its development. In accordance with the general principle of our compensation

    113
    code, what is payable is the market value as it was before the scheme affected the value of the land.
    The solution which the hon. Member for Basingstoke has proposed follows closely the proposals which have been put to us by the Chartered Land Societies and I would prefer, therefore, not to comment on that one way or the other, except to say that they are receiving attention along with the many other matters to which our attention has been drawn.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the position in his constituency. There have been some problems. He raised some, and some have arisen out of the compensation payable under this type of development. They have, in the main, been problems concerned with owners who have had to sell the smaller type of substandard house. I am not alluding to any cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because I am not familiar with the details of those cases. Nevertheless, it is in this sphere that the problem about which he was speaking arises.
    As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said, this problem is not confined to new towns or town development schemes. It can also arise in slum clearance. In our White Paper published the other day we accepted the principle of paying the market value on owner-occupied houses in slum clearance schemes. It would still leave this problem, however, in the sense that people getting that market value might, where an area is being redeveloped, find it difficult to find another comparable property in the same area at the same price. Such property may not exist.
    Mr. Costain: From the rehousing point of view, had they been tenants of a council they would have been found alternative accommodation. Are we not penalising those who have been thrifty and, as a result, have bought their own homes?
    Mr. MacDermot: We are not penalising them. We are paying them the value of their property as it is on the market. One might say that because of the situation of compulsory purchase they will be put to other expense or have to move from the area. Nevertheless, from
    114
    the point of view of the assessment of compensation for the value of the property concerned, they are getting the market value, which is the general principle accepted throughout the compensation code.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raises another factor in suggesting that we should compensate people for extra travelling expenses incurred at their new abode. I do not know how far he would carry this complication. If they moved nearer to their work and had less travelling expenses, would he have them give credit for that when assessing the compensation payable on the value of their homes? In any event, this all departs from our basic principles of compensation.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was not saying that compensation should give given for travelling to and from work. I was saying that because people are put to this extra expense when they cannot rehouse themselves locally, our proposals should be adopted so that they could rehouse themselves locally and would not be put to additional expense for which there is no compensation.
    Mr. MacDermot: For the reasons I have indicated, this is not a Clause which the Government could accept in this Measure; and, in any event, we could consider the question of legislating on it only within the context of a revision of the compensation code.
    Mr. Allason: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the provisions of the 1961 Act are complicated. Our fear is that when compensation is assessed it tends to be done by rule of thumb. Too often I have heard the fraction "half" mentioned and one hears that half the normal compensation shall be paid in respect of new towns. This is a highly dangerous principle to follow and is not in any way related to the 1961 Act.
    The Minister explained that the increased value of land due to a development scheme should not be paid in compensation. That may be so, but the fact remains that in a new town or in neighbouring towns new houses and building plots are roughly at the same value. One would, therefore, expect that

    115
    for a going concern, so to speak—a house, garden, and so on—full compensation should be paid because there is no added value as a result of the coming of the new town, except where there is a large garden, in which case I accept that a considerable increase in value might occur. Although one would expect full compensation to be paid for a building plot or one house, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) pointed out that compensation has been roughly half of what one would expect to be the actual figure, and this is bound to cause suspicion.
    Had the Minister said that he had investigated the cases of compensation mentioned by my hon. Friend, and that a fair market value had been paid, his arguments against the Clause would be strong, but he said no such thing. One is left with the suspicion, therefore, that inadequate compensation is paid as a result of the 1961 rules.
    The danger here is that what is happening will get around. The Government will suffer in the long run, because expanded new towns must be in the interests of the nation. If the news gets around that inadequate compensation is paid in the event of land being taken as the result of an expanded town scheme, the local inhabitants will not want to know about such a new scheme. In North Devon recently a general poll was held on the question of an expanded town scheme and it was rejected by the local inhabitants, who said that they did not want the expanded town.
    I appreciate why the Minister does not want to deal with the matter in this Measure, but I wish that he had given a warmer welcome to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I am very disappointed that the Minister should have turned down such a very reasoned and fair proposal on the ground that it would be a breach of a principle which was enshrined 40 years ago in other circumstances. I wonder when it was suddenly decided by this Government that because something is hidden in about 40 years of antiquity it must automatically be right in regard to future events? In any event, my case is not one of old prin-
    116
    ciple but of practical humanity and of righting an injustice which I see day by day in my constituency advice "surgery", or deal with by post—
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a case of 40 wasted years?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am interested to hear the hon. Member's intervention, but, in fairness, it should be stated that the problem has not existed for that length of time, and was not foreseen by those who enacted the compensation legislation.
    I am interested to hear from the Minister that the Chartered Land Agents' Society has made proposals similar to mine. I was not aware of that fact, but I am glad that, independently, we have arrived at the same conclusion. I hope that that may fortify the Minister into taking his brief back to his Ministry and asking his officials there to read what has been said in this debate, not just by myself but by my hon. Friends; and to see whether they cannot produce some practicable proposals for alleviating the problem in the form of new Government legislation in the course of months, not years ahead.
    I urge the Minister to look at this problem quickly. How many tragedies must we have? How many cases must I have of people coming to me in tears? How many cases must I have of people who are driven literally to a doctor's surgery because of their troubles, anxieties and worries in this connection? How many cases before we have Government action?
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 9.
    PUBLICISING OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS.
    (1)A person submitting a planning application to his local planning authority shall before doing so obtain from the owner or owners of the land specified in the application written consent to the erection on that land of a notice of a kind specified in this section and shall submit that written consent to the local planning authority together with his application.M
    (2) Not later than seven days after the receipt of such application and consent it shall be the duty of the local authority to erect on that land in a position conveniently visible from the nearest public right of way a notice indicating that a planning application has been

    117
    submitted in respect of that land and that particulars of that application may be obtained at the offices of the local planning authority.
    (3) The Minister may by regulation prescribe he size of such notice, the size of the lettering and the wording of the inscription.
    (4) The local authority shall not determine a planning application until a period of not less than seven days has elapsed since the erection of the notice.
    (5) If the planning application is called in by the Minister or is the subject of an appeal to the Minister or to a person appointed by him the Minister or the person appointed by him (as the case may be) shall not determine such application or appeal without first satisfying himself that a notice in respect of the application has been displayed in the manner prescribed by this section.
    (6) Not less than one month and not more than forty days after the final determination of the application the local planning authority shall enter on the land and remove the notice.—[Mr. Macaonald.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause I propose that the House should discuss new Clause No. 12, Notice of planning applications:
    (1) Upon receipt of an application for planning permission the local planning authority shall cause notices thereof to be displayed for not less than 21 days in conspicuous positions in the vicinity of the land which is the subject of the application and such notices shall state the name and address of the clerk to the authority and that written representations may be made to him concerning the application and the names and addresses of the councillor or councillors of the ward in which the land is situated and such other information as the Minister may prescribe.
    (2) The local planning authority or their delegate under section 53 of this Act, as the case may be, shall take into account such representations as aforesaid, if any, before determining the application provided that they are received within the period stated for this purpose in the said notices.
    Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I cannot truthfully say that it has been a lifelong ambition of mine to move this Clause, but it has certainly been my ambition for 10 years—ever since I first went on the planning authority of my local authority and discovered, to my amazement, there there is no necessary requirement for the people affected by every proposed development to receive an advance notification when a town planning application comes forward. My amazement has not diminished with the passage of years, but has increased.
    118
    In very many cases a development begins, and the first thing that neighbours, and people further away, hear about it is when the building starts going up. When they get in touch with the town hall, they find that planning permission has been given and that nothing can be done. An opportunity should be available for representations to be made. We have been told on many occasions that one of the objects of the Bill is to increase the participation of the ordinary citizens in the decision-making of town planning, so it is perfectly reasonable that those affected by a proposed development should have an opportunty to make reasonable representations to their planning authority. I am conscious that in no sense is it the business of the planning authority to arbitrate—its business is to determine whether or not an application should be permitted —but there should be reasonable opportunity for representations to be brought forward.
    I could quote many examples from my correspondence but I will confine myself just to two or three to indicate the kind of grievance that may arise when no advance notification is given to those neighbouring the development concerned in a town planning application. I draw these examples from my own constituency because they are known to me and I have been able to check them. I would not like the House to suppose that I was wasting its time by putting forward merely a constituency point. I could quote examples from outside my constituency, but I think it proper to put forward cases that I am satisfied are genuine.
    The first case is that of a lady from Chislehurst who wrote complaining that a development took place next door to her. The first she knew of it was when a bulldozer arrived on the site. As the site is on a slight slope and her house is lower than the development site, all the earth from the bulldozer rolled into her garden. When she telephoned the people of the town hall they told her that planning permission had been given. The building went up on the site. The lady writes:
    "We now have about four inches between, so it is impossible even to get to that wall of the garage should repair ever be necessary. …"
    I have no wish to take sides in the matter. The representations of the lady

    119
    might on examination prove not well-founded. That, however, is by the way, because whether her representations were well-founded or not, she had no opportunity to put them forward. That is what I might call a standard case.
    There is the case of a gentleman from Sidcup who wrote observing that a notice for sale had appeared on a property on the other side of the road to him. This is an old property standing in a fair amount of ground, and he feels, I suspect correctly, that there may be substantial development on the site—perhaps a fairly tall block of flats. He wants to reassure himself that the development will not unduly affect his present amenities. So this poor man is reduced to going minutely through the town planning applications listed each week in the local Press. He lives on tenterhooks lest he should overlook an item and development take place of which he has no knowledge. It seems most unfortunate that a man should have to spend his time in that way. If a notice appeared on the site, as I suggest, his anxiety might well be allayed.
    The third case is that of a gentleman from Blackfen who had a vacant site at the end of the garden. Suspecting that development might take place, he went to the offices of the local authority and found that an application was in. He examined the plans. The plans were for an old people's home. He saw that they had no injurious effect whatever on his property, and went home with peace of mind. Some time later the development took place. The gentleman looked over his fence and thought that the development did not seem to be quite in line with his memory of the plans he had seen. He writes that, in fact, different plans have subsequently been approved:
    "… it is obvious that the original plans were changed although … no announcement either publicly or to the owners of adjacent property was ever made. …"
    The' final example seems to me to be the most extraordinary of all. It concerns a property in North Cray, in my constituency—a semi-detached house. Behind and to the side of this property planning permission was given for a development. To get access to the
    120
    development it was necessary to tear down half of a semi-detached house. This was included in the planning permission. The man living in the other half had no knowledge whatever that all this was going on. Further, I am amazed to discover that he has no statutory right whatever to be informed either by the council or by the developer that half the house in which he lives is to be torn down. The council informed him, but merely as an act of grace; there was no statutory requirement.
    7.30 p.m.
    There are existing methods of giving publicity to town planning applications, but my contention is that a notice on the site is the only satisfactory method. I will deal with the existing methods because I do not consider that any of them fully meets the situation.
    A method which I am glad to say my local authority adopts is to issue a sheet once a week, or every so often, giving brief details of the planning applications which have come in. Local organisations, residents' associations, political parties, and tenants' associations may apply on payment of an annual fee to receive the lists as they are prepared. It will be appreciated, however, that not everyone is or wishes to be a member of a residents' association or a political party.
    There is also the difficulty of where the line should be drawn and of deciding which is and which is not a bona fide residents' association. To give an absurd example, suppose my wife and I formed the "79 Oakdene Avenue Residents' Association". Clearly that would be a farce, but how can a local authority distinguish between those which are and those which are not proper residents' associations to which such a notice should be sent?
    A method which is quite widely adopted by local authorities is to issue lists of planning applications to the local Press, but the local Press is under no duty to print all or any of the applications. It may be imagined that in any given week some "hot" news may come in and the Press, in finding room for an important item of news, would be tempted to cut out some of the small print of the applications. Not everyone is a close student of the local Press.

    121
    Another method which is good so long as it works is for the man who is proposing the development to tell the man next door what he has in mind. When neighbours are on good terms that is excellent; the difficulty arises when they are not on good terms. On those occasions the neighbour is the least likely to be told of the development by the man next door.
    The fourth method is for lists of planning applications to be displayed at the town hall, the local library or at similar civic buildings. The first three methods I have described are good although they do not go quite far enough, but the fourth method is definitely bad. This is what not to do because no citizen lives his life going every week to the local library to look at lists of town planning applications in terror that the man next door will build something overlooking his property.
    Citizens do not live their life in that way; yet when a development takes place and the citizen concerned protests too late, he is told by the local authority that he could have found out about it if only he had looked at the lists. That produces a feeling of outrage similar to that to which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council referred when he introduced proposals for a Parliamentary Commissioner. A list of that kind is the façade rather than the reality of democracy.
    The local authority may issue a circular to residents in the locality. I quote from a letter I received from the predecessor of my hon. and learned Friend:
    "In the Department's Circular No. 21/61 planning authorities were asked to make publicly known, by direct notification to persons affected or by local publicity, any application for development which would be of wide general interest."
    This is an entirely subjective test and places the responsibility on the local authority to determine what is and what is not of wide general interest. Clearly, a monstrous block of flats is of wide general interest, but a small garage may be of no general interest at all, though it may be of tremendous importance to the man next door to it.
    I care nothing for a subjective test made in this way, which places the responsibility on the local authority. In my
    122
    view, a notice appearing on the site is the only adequate way to ensure that those affected, or who are likely to be affected, by the development may have proper notification beforehand and an opportunity to make representations.
    To save the time of the House, I will demolish some of the objections which I suspect my hon. and learned Friend will bring forward. He can then cross them out of his brief and we can see what he has left. He may argue that it is the responsibility of the councillors on the local authority to represent the interests of the people of the area. That is excellent in theory, but in my local authority, the London Borough of Bromley, there are 70 members, and the town planning committee has only 23. Therefore, not every one is represented on the town planning committee.
    Because there are so many applications, the town planning authority is unable to deal with all of them and it has split into sub-committees of seven. Even that has proved too many and panels of three have been appointed. Some planning applications are considered by only three councillors. I do not criticise my local authority for doing that, for it has a large number of applications, but not every councillor is in a position to make representations.
    My hon. and learned Friend may suggest that some of the representations which are made prove groundless or frivolous, or even spiteful, but in my knowledge and experience some will prove well grounded. I think of one application which came before us and which we were minded to approve. Then a letter came from the man next door and we discovered that, although the plan attached to the application was entirely accurate so far as it concerned the site, it was inaccurate because the next door property was appreciably nearer than the plan suggested. I give that as an example of a kind of reasonable representation which may be submitted.
    I accept that my proposal would involve a measure of delay, but, since once a planning application has been made the resulting development may be there for 50 or 100 years, it does not seem unreasonable to allow a week or two for people in the area to have an opportunity to make their views known. There is also the question of cost. I understand that there

    123
    are 400,000 town planning applications a year. To put up notices on every site would involve a measure of expenditure. This, of course, cannot rest on the developer for we have to remember that the purpose of giving notice of the development is to give an opportunity for anyone who objects to do so and this may prevent the development being carried out.
    If the developer had to put up a notice he might be tempted to hide it behind a bush where no one would see it. The responsibility must rest on the local authority. I have had discussions with people in my district and with the Chislehurst Residents' Association. They accept that they should bear the cost. Because this is something they want, they are prepared to pay for it. That is a reasonable attitude.
    In some cases under our existing arrangements there is an obligation to notify people of proposed developments. This is so where we can define certain categories. So far so good. But if we accept, as we must, that in some categories it is proper for people affected to be informed, how can we say that it is possible to draw a rational line between those who ought to be informed and those who need not be informed? As I have tried to show, even the smallest development may be grievous for the amenities of the man next door.
    I shall take another minute or two now to refer briefly to the text of the new Clause. In the main, it is self-explanatory. The House will note that I have asked that written consent should be obtained from the owner of the land. I suspect that, in practice, this will prove to be a time-saving provision. If a would-be developer has to obtain written consent from the owner of the land before he can put in his application, this will save the time of the town planning authorities in considering applications which in the event turn out to be abortive because developers cannot obtain ownership of the land and cannot, therefore, proceed with the development they want.
    As regards regulations, I have suggested that the Minister should have power to prescribe the form and size of the notice. I hope that in such regulations he would require a simple statement on the lines of the familiar "To let" or "For
    124
    sale" notice, not a close typescript giving details of the application. It should be a simple wording with which people would become familiar, so that they would be alerted to approach the offices of the local authority.
    Next, I have suggested that there should be a period of between 30 and 40 days before the notice is removed. I regard this as necessary in order to provide for the possibility of appeal against the development. The notice ought not to be taken down too soon. I have had constituents complain to me that they thought that a scheme had been cut and dried by the local authority and then, suddenly, the whole thing was thrown into the melting-pot again so that they ought to make further representations. So long as the notice is on the site, they will be aware that the matter is open and that representations are possible. That is the reason for the period of between 30 and 40 days.
    I am sorry to have taken so long, but this is a matter which has been burning in me for the last 10 years, ever since I went on the planning committee of my local authority. I am aware of the objections, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will accept at least the principle of my proposal.
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have many new Clauses and many Amendments to consider. It would help the House if they were moved with reasonable brevity.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Lubbock: I promise that I shall not say more than a few words, but I wish to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) in his admirable proposal which he put forward in an admirable speech, which, I am sure, convinced both sides of its merits. I shall not give a great many examples, but I confirm that my experience is parallel with that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Time after time, at one's advice bureaux, people come and say, "Here is something which is very harmful to the amenities of the area where we live and to our own property in particular. We knew nothing about it until the builders arrived on the site and the development began. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, so long as we limit ourselves

    125
    to the means which he described, people will inevitably not be aware of development which is about to take place. They do not all read the Orpington and Kentish Times, which circulates in his constituency and in mine and in which one can find quite long lists of planning applications submitted.
    In my view, the Kentish Times is to be congratulated on the public service which it does in devoting space to these applications. But there is a host of them in small print, and it is quite possible for a householder, watching the lists to ensure that nothing is proposed which might affect his property, to miss the particular issue, or not to see an application which is of great significance for himself. He might be away on holiday at the time when notice of the particular application appeared in the local paper, with the result that he would have no knowledge of it.
    The hon. Gentleman's proposal would be both simple and inexpensive compared with the means adopted now. If the number of applications is as large as he says, notices in the prescribed form could be mass-produced and be no more expensive than, for example, the 30 m.p.h. speed limit sign which is already in use in large numbers. The Minister should not, therefore, object on grounds of expense. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman said, the proposed procedure might well result in some saving because abortive applications would not have to be considered if applicants had to obtain the consent of the owner of the land in the first place.
    Here is one case from my constituency which upset me greatly. Adjacent to the property of a lady living in the village of Farnborough it was proposed to erect an electricity line. The proposal went through and the work began, but she happened to notice that the poles were being put much closer to the boundaries of her property than the position shown in the original plan. Being a lady of some spirit, she objected vigorously to the workers who were putting up the poles and said that they did not correspond with the original plan.
    After considerable trouble with the local authority and the Ministry of Power, we succeeded in having the application by the electricity board recon-
    126
    sidered. The matter has now gone all the way through the London Borough of Bromley and the Greater London Council to the Ministry of Power, so that it now lies on the Minister's desk for him to see whether the position of the line ought to have been varied or the original line ought to have been adhered to.
    If that lady had not noticed what was happening—if, for example, she had been away on holiday at the time—the scheme might have gone through in the altered form and there would have been nothing she could do about it. I am happy to say that the Minister of Power is giving full consideration to the objections which she has made, but the matter might well have gone the other way. That is an example showing the need for a procedure of the kind described by the hon. Member for Chislehurst. If the electricity board had been compelled to put a notice on the site that it intended to vary the route of the line, my constituent would have known at once and would have been able to take action much earlier.
    I am sorry to take more time, but I must mention one other example. A constituent of mine living in the village of Cudham was surprised to find that a building was being erected by his neighbour adjacent to his boundary, and this building came within six feet of his cesspool. We are still fairly primitive in some parts of my constituency and we do not all have main drainage, I do not have it myself. My constituent had always thought that there was a rule that one did not erect buildings within 20 feet of a cesspool, and he went round to the local authority to ask how it happened that his neighbour was putting up an extension to his house which came within six feet of his cesspool.
    The local authority said, "We are very sorry, but you are too late. It is within all the byelaws. There is nothing we can do about it. The health inspectors have been out and they say that it is quite within the regulations. You will have to put up with it".
    As a result of the erection of that building, not only is my constituent hemmed in by a large structure at the side of his property but all the water now comes off that building and flows into his cesspool, with the result that it has to be emptied very much more frequently than in the past. As the hon.

    127
    Member for Chislehurst knows, charges for the emptying of cesspools in the London Borough of Bromley are increased almost without limit. I sometimes think that the matter ought to be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Because my constituent knew nothing of the proposal, he could not go down and argue with the town planning department before it actually happened. Now, he has this large building next door to him, which everyone says is within the building regulations, and he has no power to do anything about it
    Those are two cases out of many dozens which have come to my notice during the past year. The Minister of State ought to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which offers a sensible and reasonable way of making sure that that kind of thing happens no more.
    Mr. MacDermot: This debate alarms me in its projected length. As Mr. Speaker said a moment ago, we have a great deal of work to get through.
    The subject matter of the new Clause was discussed at considerable length in Committee, and I do not wish to have to repeat all the arguments I put forward there. I have not heard a new argument in principle in the two speeches so far. They were all put in Committee, and I would refer hon. Members to the OFFICIAL REPORT for the answer to any of their arguments which they feel have not been answered sufficiently here.
    I think that there is a case to be looked at, but, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), I think that he has greatly exaggerated. What he proposes is utterly unworkable. The first subsection of his Clause would practically bring development in this country to a full stop, because it would mean that no one could make a planning application for land which he or she did not own without the consent of the owner. This would mean that my hon. Friend's own authority, or any other housing authority which was not a planning authority, that wanted to put in a planning application in respect of undeveloped land would not be able to do so unless the owner of that land consented to their doing
    128
    so. It gives the owners of land an absolute veto on development.
    I think that my hon. Friend voted for and supported the Land Commission Act, which gives the Commission considerable powers to put in planning applications and apply for compulsory purchase orders for land. All of this would be rendered nugatory by the new Clause. If my hon. Friend has been cogitating on the matter for 10 years, I am surprised that he has not thought out a little more carefully the implications of the new Clause.
    What my hon. Friend is saying is very simple—that no one should be allowed to apply for planning permission to do any kind of development unless the application is brought to the notice of every person who might in any way be affected by it, and then there is a sort of litigation. I see my hon. Friend shaking his head, but what is the point of telling a neighbour that the application is in unless the neighbour is to have some rights to be heard? The neighbour will say, "This is a farce. What is the point of writing in a statutory right for me to be notified if I cannot make representations to anybody?" Therefore, in effect the planning authority would become judge in litigation between quarrelsome neighbours, for it is particularly with quarrelsome neighbours that these sort of difficulties arise. This is not my conception of what planning is about.
    Before we had town and country planning anyone was entitled, subject to the laws of nuisance, to do what he wanted on his own land and erect what buildings or carry out whatever other developments he wanted on it. That has been altered by planning law. We have set up planning authorities with qualified staffs whose job it is to apply planning control and to give or refuse permission according to accepted planning principles. They are democratically elected bodies, and are responsible for what they do.
    Agreed, there are classes of development which, of their nature, are such that they will affect the character of an area, or otherwise affect a very large number of people, and where it is right that people should be given an opportunity for representations. In Standing Committee—and this covers some columns of HANSARD—I set out the very numerous and full provisions covering that kind of case. I have undertaken that when we

    129
    review them I shall be willing to look at any additions to those classes which may be proposed.
    To try to turn the whole of our planning machinery into a kind of quasi-judicial organisation for listening to disputes between neighbours would be very time-consuming for the staff, who are busy, expert staff, and would involve a great deal of additional cost. What could well come from it? If there is an empty plot of land next-door to a house, it is 100 to I that the owner of the house will object to its being developed. He would prefer it left empty, particularly if it gives him a view. But the planning authority must decide on planning principles whether it is right that that piece of land should be developed. Why should it be compelled to receive representations—for this would be the result of the procedure suggested—when it must know already that the person next door would prefer that the development did not take place? Therefore, I would strongly resist anything as universal as is suggested.
    One of the criticisms made in Committee was that in these special classes of development one needs additional procedures for safeguarding the public. I said then, and repeat now, that we need to look at these criticisms. The form of notice required by law is just notification, usually in the local press, by a formal announcement, which is not read, except by professional bodies who find it worth their time to study such notices. There is in at least some of these cases, if not all, a case for extending the provisions about putting up notices. This is something we shall have power to do under a general development order.
    I undertake that we shall look again at these provisions under the general development: order to consider improved notification by a notice on or near the site. That dispenses with the need for the owner's consent. If he will not consent to its going up on his land, it is stuck on a lamp post nearby or something like that. We shall consider an extension of that, and also to look again at any particular cases hon. Members draw to my attention which they think should be added to the special classes requiring notification. I invite them \o write to me if they wish.
    I am certain that to adopt the suggestion in the new Clause and make
    130
    it apply universally to every one of the 400,000 planning applications a year many of which are over quite minor matters, will involve an incredible waste of time of skilled staff, who are in short supply, and to very little benefit.
    Mr. Murton: I believe the Minister to be peculiarly intractable tonight. He says that the proposals should not be put into effect either in the form in the new Clause suggested by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) or in the form suggested by my right and hon Friends and myself in new Clause 12.
    It is not sufficient to deal with this planning problem through Ministerial circular, which is how it is done at present. The Minister says that the proposal would cause difficulty. If the clerks of local authorities were to comply with the circular to the letter of the law, there would indeed already be not much difference in the amount of work undertaken, than if the Clause were accepted but they do not always avail themselves of the guidance which the Minister gives in that circular.
    One can judge from the feeling which has been aroused in the House on this question that it is a major issue affecting our citizens. It is a cliche to say that every man's home is his castle, but it is true that everybody is peculiarly sensitive —quite rightly so—to the effects which other people's development have on his home. The way to avoid litigation is to give the individual the chance to make representation when his neighbour does something.
    8.0 p.m.
    I cannot see that this raises a quasi-judicial problem because the council or officer delegated under Clause 53 has only to read the representations put in. If he does not agree with them, all he has to do is to say so. That means that the aggrieved neighbour will at least know that his representations have been considered and are understood. It is much better to provide that a notice should be displayed upon the property in a prominent manner than that a neighbour should find out by chance—by rumour, for example, or from his councillor—that there is something afoot.
    Under new Clause 12, councillors would have a part to play in the system. Of course, councillors are busy people

    131
    and many wards are very large. But if these notices were displayed prominently, anyone failing to read them would have only themselves to blame if ultimately some development took place. I cannot see what extra work and difficulty there would be. If a notice were put on property stating that a person wished to apply for the erection of a garage, it could conceivably affect the next door neighbour but not the whole street.
    On the other hand, a proposed development could affect a whole street. In my local authority, if there is a major project it is the council's policy to circularise the owners of adjacent properties so that they may know what is to happen. They are invited to state their views. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not be so intractable over this point. If he cannot go the whole way on the issue, let him give an undertaking that he will do something about it and not just hide behind his remark about the quasi-judicial position.
    Mr. MacDermot: I have given it.
    Mr. Murton: But on his own admission the hon. and learned Gentleman will only do it in the case of major schemes. We want the individual to have the right to know what is going on in his road and that is the least that the Government should give to the people.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: We discussed this matter very fully in Committee, where I exhausted my own personal examples. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will be glad to know that. I, too, am surprised that, once again, he has taken a hard line on the issue. He says that he will consider whether classes of application should have to be notified but, as he admitted in Committee, these cover only a small area of planning by comparison with the sort of cases we are considering here. There is need for additional forms of notification where the individual is concerned with individual planning applications.
    My hon. and learned Friend says that he has heard the arguments before. We certainly had them in Committee. In new Clause 9 we have tried to meet some of the points he raised then. In particular, we have tried to meet that
    132
    objection—although I think new Clause 12 does it better—about a quasi-judicial element which would be foreign to our legislation.
    I liked the idea, put by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee and now again in new Clause 12, that we should bring local councils into this process. This gets over the argument about the serving of a written notice and about the quasi-judicial proceedings which would have to follow. New Clause 12 suggests that, after the notice, individuals who wish to make certain representations should do so in the normal way through their local council.
    I see no great principle in this simple proposal that would shake town and country planning. It is argued that there are thousands of applications and that this proposal would cause delay. But the mere fact that there are thousands of applications shows the importance of the matter. In the vast majority of cases, individuals are affected and come into contact with planning only on these small matters. We should not lose the opportunity of the Bill to provide some additions to the safeguards to the individual whose property may be affected by planning applications.
    Mr. Frederick Silvester: I want to take up the Minister of State's challenge, not once more to go over the arguments which were put in Committee, but to read something which he said in Committee and to develop my argument from that. One of his strongest arguments in Committee was that people should not be given the impression that they had a right which they did not possess. He said:
    "We must draw a distinction between the objection which is merely an objection based on one's own private property interests and the objection which is on grounds of real planning policy which involve planning principles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 30th April, 1968; c. 1205.]
    But I suggest that that is not a real distinction. For most planning authorities, the applications come in fairly thick and fast and are decided upon very local matters, one of these being the extent to which the planning authority receives representations against them. The rights the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about are rights which arise not so much

    133
    on grounds of law, but on grounds of chance—lor example, whether someone happens for some reason to have heard of a planning application. We may say that there is a right or not, and may set it down in statute. But it is not a proper decision for us to take to allow procedure to continue in which a right may happen to some man but not to another merely through the operation of chance.
    The Minister of State has made some concessions and I understand that he is willing to look at the circumstances set out in c. 1186 of THE OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee G. But they cover only a limited range at the moment— things like the disposal of refuse, slaughter houses, knackers' yards and Turkish baths. He may have in mind some extensions but these are not the sort of planning applications most of us are talking about. We are talking about minor things which may nevertheless have a major influence upon the people who happen to live next door.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman's major objection—and we sympathise with him—has always been that we would gum up the works by this proposal and that the whole machinery would grind to a grisly halt. But in new Clause 12 we have tried to provide machinery—simpler than that proposed in new Clause 9— which is pre-eminently simple. It does not involve long and complicated participation of third parties in planning applications. It provides a simple machinery whereby they might get to know what was going on. At that point, they could write to their councillor, who would then make their representations known. If those representations were groundless, the council would treat them as such and award the application on straightforward grounds of planning principle. It may be that neighbours will have a genuine point to make and they will be able to make it in a written application.
    We are not seeking to extend it. There is no suggestion in this Clause that we should involve them in questions of appeal. While that has been mooted, it would be going much too far, and would take things to absurd lengths. This is a much simpler procedure, and seems eminently reasonable. It is certainly worth a try. If the Minister were to argue, as he did in Committee, that it would snow-
    134
    ball and demand more participation, then that is a time for him to argue that it has gone far enough and should be stopped. Let us deal with the specific problem that most of us are facing with a specific remedy. I cannot see why he cannot go that little bit further and accept new Clause 12, if not the rather more extensive new Clause 9.
    Mr. Tony Gardner: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend is pressed for time, but we are now discussing the right of an individual to protect his rights and property against encroachment by another private individual.
    Mr. MacDermot: What rights of encroachment is my hon. Friend talking about?
    Mr. Gardner: I hope to quote a simple case in a moment. We assume that an individual has the right to defend himself. I am not suggesting that there is an existing right in law, but here we have an individual seeking to defend his rights against encroachment. We must find time to discuss these problems. I appreciate the concession that my hon. and learned Friend made when he said that he would look at the extension in certain directions, but I hope that he can be persuaded to go a little further. All of us who have been in public life know that this area of planning causes more trouble than anything else. I would suggest that the costs of this procedure would not be greater when one remembers the costs incurred by local authorities already.
    I want to mention one simple case that occurred recently in my constituency, when a constituent purchased a very nice bungalow in a quiet residential area. He did so to get away from the hurly-burly of the town centre, and paid a great deal of money for the bungalow. Shortly he discovered that works were going on on the site next door. Upon inquiry he found that a two-storey block of flats was being erected. He protested vigorously, but he had not a leg to stand on, because he had protested too late.
    Having given up the struggle, he went away on holiday for a fortnight. When he returned he discovered that on top of the second floor, to which he had objected, a third floor was being erected. While he had been on holiday there had been an application for a variation of the consent, and a third storey was going up,

    135
    with picture windows looking straight into his bedroom, only a matter of feet away. At this stage he came to me, and of course there was nothing that I could do. One would not dream of criticising the local council, because it was acting expressly within the law. Indeed, if it had changed its mind, it would have been involved in very expensive compensation.
    I must accept my hon. and learned Friend's argument in relation to subsection (1) of the new Clause. We do not want to bodge up the machinery by spreading out the time-scale for planning applications. We are talking about a period of seven days and a fairly simple procedure. While I appreciate that many of these planning applications are small items, there are larger items, more exceptional, which cause considerable public outcry. The cost of this will not be very great. As I have suggested it will be largely overcome by taking into account the existing costs to which local authorities are put.
    There is a distinction to be drawn between the wealthy organisation and the humble individual. If it is a wealthy organisation, or community association, then clearly it will have its own contacts with the council, it will have people scanning the council minutes and watching notice boards. The ordinary individual does not have such opportunities. There is a case, in justice, for the small individual to be distinguished from the large organisation. Whatever the difficulties are about this new Clause, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider his earlier reply in the context of the flood of inquiries and complaints which we all get as Members of Parliament. If he will accept something like this, he will become a national hero overnight.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Mac-donald) on raising this matter. I do not congratulate him on his drafting or upon his arguments, but he has certainly given us a very good debate on an important subject. The House cannot disregard the demand from the public that those affected by planning applications should be enabled to make their voice heard in some way before the local planning authority. We as individual Mem-
    136
    bers cannot disregard this demand: we have it every week. Every Member gets correspondence on this when development is affecting a constituent or is to take place.
    The Minister cannot disregard this demand, as has been shown by the weighty pleading in the house. It is a matter of particular importance in the future having regard to the power of the local planning authority to delegate its functions in dealing with planning applications. This will make the public feel that not even their own councillor knows anything about it, but that it is in the hands of an official. They will not know anything about it, and will feel that the council knows nothing about it. It will not necessarily be true, but this will be the general feeling of the public in future when powers are delegated.
    There is no doubt that it is desirable that people should be made aware of planning applications and able to make their voice heard. Is it practical? How can the notice be given? If subsection (1) of this new Clause is not quite practical, does it really matter at this stage? There is a very practical one in new Clause 12. If the Minister likes to substitute one for the other when it gets to another place, that will be all right. We want to see this in the Bill now. We want an assurance that this will happen, and that the Clause will be tidied up later.
    At present, one way that the public is notified, if it is one of those harmful types of development coming within Section 15 of the Act, is when there is a Press notice, and in this case I acknowledge that the Minister has given an undertaking to look at this again, and perhaps extend Section 15 to make the notice more effective. This is not enough. It does not meet the case of the ordinary development in the ordinary street.
    Then there is Section 16 of the 1962 Act, where notice has to be given by service upon the owners or agricultural tenants, if either of those is not the applicant for planning permission. Otherwise neighbours are not likely to know about a development until it starts. It may be that the requirement of notice on the land on every occasion is impractical. Notice in the vicinity of the land, on the lamposts in the street, is one of the most effective ways of telling people what is

    137
    happening. I do not think that it can be denied that it is impractical to let members of the public know.
    Secondly, having been informed, what are they to do with the information? If they use the information, will they "gum up" the works of planning? I am not using the Minister's words, but that is, in effect, what he suggested—that if the neighbours or anyone else were allowed to make representations it would make planning impossible. I do not think that that is so. Written notice to the local planning authority of the objection and warning one's local councillor and putting him on his guard to see what is happening on behalf of his constituents is always necessary with an obligation such as we mentioned in new Clause No. 12, that the local planning authority shall consider the representations before coming to a decision.
    I do not suggest a hearing or litigation between the parties. I merely suggest that those affected by planning applications should have the right to make representations to the people who have to decide them. Nor do I want to produce property rights. This is where the hon. Member for Chislehurst went wrong. He argued too much for the protection of property rights which do not exist. There is no right to a view. There is no right to privacy. Those are not legal rights. We should not use town planning law for that purpose. Certainly we should use it for the protection of the amenities of a district and of a community, even if the community is only a road, but not necessarily for the protection of individual rights of property.
    It is rather a legalistic argument to try to distinguish between the rights of the individual property owner and the rights of a neighbourhood. We can leave such matters to the local planning authority to decide when it receives the representations. Do not let us lay down rules about this. Let people send in any objections they like, and let us leave it to the good sense of the local planning authority and the officer whom it appoints to consider these matters to

    Division No. 147.]

    AYES

    [8.24 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barfcston Ash)

    Bessell, Peter

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    AHason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Biffen, John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

    Astor, John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Boardman, Tom

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    decide whether it is a good objection and whether development should be stopped because the neighbour objects to being overlooked. But let the neighbour make that representation and put forward his objections, and give him the opportunity to do it by giving him notice.
    Although I should not be satisfied with the drafting of either new Clause No. 9 or new Clause No. 12, I want to see this provision in the Bill now and let it be tidied up later.
    Mr. Macdonald: I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that I was aware that this matter had been discussed in Committee, and I read the report of the proceedings there with great interest and attention. But I am not aware that it is wrong for any hon. Member to be assiduous in pressing something about which he feels strongly, however many times it has been discussed. Many reforms might have fallen by the wayside if the reformers had been faint-hearted.
    Since both Front Benches have told me that my draftsmanship is no good, it is as well that I am not vain about my capacity in that respect, and I had better not say anything about it. However, I should like to say a few words about the principle behind what is involved in these proposals. This is nothing to do with litigation, quasi-judicial or otherwise. Citizens are perfectly well aware that it is councillors on local planning authorities who determine town planning applications. But they would like their views to be made known to those councillors before a decision is made. That is all that is involved in these proposals. I thought that that was what the Bill was about—local participation.
    I very much regret that my hon. and learned Friend should suggest that this sort of thing was a waste of time. I cannot regard it as a waste of time.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
    The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 152.

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Burden, F. A.

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Clegg, Walter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Lubbock, Eric

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Costain, A. P.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Scott, Nicholas

    Crouch, David

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Sharples, Richard

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Marten, Neil

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Dance, James

    Maude, Angus

    Silvester, Frederick

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Sinclair, Sir George

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Eden, Sir John

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

    Speed, Keith

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

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Stainton, Keith

    Emery, Peter

    More, Jasper

    Tapsell, Peter

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Munro-Lucac-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Farr, John

    Murton, Oscar

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Fletcher-cooke, Charles

    Nabarro, Sir Cerald

    Temple, John M.

    Foster, 8ir John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Goodhew, Victor

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Tilney, John

    Grant, Anthony

    Pardoe, John

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Percival, Ian

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Peyton, John

    Webster, David

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Holland, Philip

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pym, Francis

    Wright, Esmond

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jennings. J. C. (Burton)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Mr. Timothy Kitson and

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefleld

    Freeson, Reginald

    Newens, Stan

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Galpem, Sir Myer

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

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Gardner, Tony

    Norwood. Christopher

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Ogden, Eric

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gregory, Arnold

    O'Malley, Brian

    Barnett, Joel

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Beaney, Alan

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Orme, Stanley

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwetl)

    Owen Will (Morpeth)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hamling, William

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hannan, William

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Boyden, James

    Harper, Joseph

    Park, Trevor

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Haseldine, Norman

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Henig, Stanley

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Hooley, Frank

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

    Horner, John

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Buchan, Norman

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

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

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Robinson, w. 0. J. (Walth'stow,E.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hunter, Adam

    Roebuck, Roy

    Chapman, Donald

    Hynd, John

    Rose, Paul

    Coe, Denis

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay. Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Sheldon, Robert

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Kelley, Richard

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. Jotin (Deptford)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lawson, George

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dempsey, James

    Lee, Rt, Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph

    Dewar, Donald

    Loughlin, Charles

    small, William

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Loyn, Alexander W. (York)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dickens James

    MacDermot, Niall

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Doig, Peter

    Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Dunnett Jack

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Swingler, Stephen

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

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Symonds, J. B.

    Eadie, Alex

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

    Taveme, Dick

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thornton, Ernest

    Ellis John

    Marquand, David

    Tinn, James

    English, Michael

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Urwin, T. W.

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

    Mavhew, Christopher

    Varley, Eric G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Millan, Bruce

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wallace, George

    Fowler, Gerry

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

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Moyle, Roland

    WatKins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Whitlock, William

    Winnick, David

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Woof, Robert

    Mr. J. D. Concannon and

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Yates, Victor

    Mr. Harry Gourlay.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next new Clause is No. 10.
    Mr. Murton: On a point of order. Would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should have a vote on new Clause 12 which was coupled with new Clause 9?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. It has not been selected for a Division. It was selected only for debate.

    New Clause 10.
    DAMAGE BY SURFACE WATER TO LAND.
    (1) A Planning Authority shall not consent to an application for planning permission unless they are first satisfied that the applicant or some other person has made suitable arrangements for the disposal or discharge of the extra flow of water which may reasonably be expected to derive from the creation or extension of an impermeable area covering any part or all of the land in respect of which the application is made (in this subsection referred to as the ' relevant land ') and which might otherwise be expected to cause or increase flooding or waterlogging of other land (in this section referred to as the ' affected land').
    (2) In this section 'suitable arrangements' means an agreement between the applicant and the owners or occupiers and such other persons as may have any compensatable interest in the affected land by which the applicants as soon as may be after or before the carrying out of the development of the relevant land contracts either to undertake or to contribute an agreed amount towards the cost of undertaking works designed to minimise or eliminate damage or injury attributable to such flooding or waterlogging or both.
    (3) Any condition made pursuant to this section and attaching to a planning permission shall be enforceable by the Planning Authority notwithstanding that it may relate to land outside the relevant land.
    (4) Any person who owned, occupied or was possessed of a compensatable interest in the affected land at the date of the granting of the planning permission for the relevant land and who complains to the Planning Authority that he has suffered or can reasonably be expected to suffer material injury as a result of the failure of the Planning Authority to comply or to have complied with the requirement imposed upon them by subsection (1) of this section, shall be entitled to claim compensation therefrom in respect of the damage suffered to that person's interest in the affected land.—[Mr. Clegg.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Walter Clegg: In 0normal circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have made a long and powerful speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."]—but I am, unfortunately, one of those hon. Members who are closeted in a Committee Room—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and so I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) to move the Second Reading of this Clause and to deploy the arguments which otherwise I would myself have put for the Clause
    Mr. Murton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Clause deals with something which has the extraordinary name of urban run-off. It is essentially a matter for the farming community, although the same problem arises to a lesser degree amongst urban dwellers. The cause of the problem is usually a housing development or the creation, widening, or re-cambering of metalled highways. The surfaces become basically impermeable, and the water which flows upon them is not absorbed and tends thereafter to flow on to other land which becomes waterlogged. There is at present no machinery whereby this matter can be controlled by the local authority.
    The water which runs off the surfaces is, in some cases, in agricultural areas swollen by discharge from septic tanks and it overcharges into a ditch or stream. The capacity of the stream is limited by the diameter or the level of a culvert which was never designed for the additional flow of water which, through urban development or the re-cambering of roads, now occurs. A serious problem may also arise where the backing up of streams occurs, to the detriment of riparian land for a considerable distance up the watercourse.
    The problem has in the past been explored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing, on the last occasion in July 1960. At that time it was suggested that Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, and Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936, together with remedies available at

    143
    common law, should give adequate protection to anyone suffering injury through the increase in run-off.
    The National Farmers' Union, quite rightly, were not satisfied with the answer which was given to them by the two Ministries. Section 7 of the 1951 Act was never designed to deal with this problem. It deals with storm water overflows, and it was meant to operate only in the case of a substantial flow discharged directly into a main river. Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936 imposes a duty on local authorities to reject plans for buildings or extensions of buildings unless satisfactory provision for drainage has been made, but basically it deals with public health and safety.
    As a result of the dissatisfaction with those answers, the National Farmers' Union drafted a new Clause to the Land Drainage Bill, which was presented in the appropriate Committee in 1961. The Government gave a number of reasons for rejecting the proposal. Apart from what I have already said, the third suggestion was that the objection to the discharge of water from highways on to farm land would be met by the provisions of Section 103 of the Highways Act, 1959. But, when it was looked into, it was found to be merely a consolidating Measure and that the Act had been on the Statute Book since 1835, so that it was not of much help to anyone.
    Finally, the Minister decided that the best way to deal with the problem was by means of a Government circular, and he issued Circular 52/62 entitled, "Liaison between planning authorities and river boards". Paragraph 13 of the circular referred to the representations made on the subject and specifically asked planning authorities
    "… to bear this in mind when considering applications for development near agricultural property to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off."
    Again, that was not sufficient to meet the problem. The N.F.U. does not consider that the availability of a common law right of action against upstream discharges is a satisfactory solution—and that is the only other possible solution to the problem—mainly because of the uncertainty caused by the costs and delays attendant on a common law action and,
    144
    basically, because one cannot institute such an action until after the damage has been done. For that reason, the N.F.U. has attempted on a number of occasions to persuade Members of Parliament to produce adequate legislation to put an end to the problem.
    In a recent debate, on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it was admitted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to be a planning problem. It is a planning problem, and this might be considered to be the correct Bill in which to incorporate a clause putting an end to it by making it a positive duty on planning authorities and not merely a discretionary power not to grant planning consent unless it is satisfied that provision has been made for the disposal of surface and imported water in a fashion which will not injure other land, and also to oblige authorities to make it a condition of the granting of planning consent where run-off will be discharged on to land. In other words, first of all a developer must satisfy the authority that no damage will be caused and, secondly, that suitable arrangements will be made to deal with any discharge without detriment to third parties.
    That is the agricultural side of it, but there is the secondary problem in connection with individual householders which affects an urban constituency like my own, where a developer banks up a road to a certain standard that he is under contract to build by order of the local authority before he develops a piece of land. I have had cases in my constituency where water has banked up behind such a road and flooded people's gardens. There have been cases where developers have turned more water into an existing culvert than it can stand. I have know other cases where developers have bulldozed ditches out of existence so that water has no means of draining away.
    If this Clause, or something like it were to be incorporated into the Bill, we on this side consider that it would go a considerable way towards meeting the case of the N.F.U., which represents the agricultural interests of the country, and also deal with the problems of the citizen living in an urban environment. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause in its present form.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), in his interesting speech said, I thought a little too pessimistically or inaccurately, that there was no adequate machinery by which a local authority could deal with the situation which the new Clause is designed to prevent. On reflection, I think he will realise that this is not so. The major movements of water are the statutory responsibility of the river boards, both in relation to the flow of large-scale water and main drainage. The river boards are charged by Parliament to consider these matters the whole time. They are not so concerned with the minor works which come within the general responsibility of local authorities. It would be wrong for the impression to go out from this House that this matter is dealt with only casually or by chance, because there is extensive legislation.
    I agree that there is a problem where there is development and where perhaps large areas of the surface become impervious, by reason of foundations or road works, or whatever it may be, and water saturates where it would not normally have done, being diverted through other causes. This is where the first line of defence comes into operation under the existing law.
    The local planning authority is under a duty, when giving planning permission, to consider carefully all the material circumstances specified in Section 17(1) of the principal Act. It is a matter of material concern whether a development is likely to cause the kind of difficulties to which reference has been made— particularly flooding. These are proper planning matters, and the authority, not only when considering planning permission but when considering the consequences of planning permission, has to bear in mind its existing and proposed drainage in the vicinity.
    It is important to realise that this is the responsibility of several bodies, acting under various statutes, and that it is generally satisfactorily discharged. Nevertheless, new developments sometimes may get ahead of proposed drainage works, and this has to be continually borne in mind by the authorities.
    In 1962, during the life of the previous Administration, the attention of local
    146
    authorities and river boards was drawn to a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with this problem, because it is of paramount importance. In the past, though I doubt whether this is so today, it had not been given sufficient attention.
    The first point, therefore, is that there is a problem, but, broadly speaking, there is adequate machinery to deal with it. However, because it is a growing problem, we propose to draw the attention of local authorities to it again. I have the first draft of a circular which is being discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and which will in due course be discussed with the local authority associations. Although the machinery is there, one wants to be sure that local authorities realise that the speed of development today, the record number of houses being built and so on and the consequent road systems, is bound to have a considerable effect on rainfall and the diversion of water from the land which it would normally saturate.
    In addition, there are two features of the new Clause which would be a breach of what have hitherto been considered very important planning principles. The first is contained in subsection (3) which, almost for the first time, would allow a condition made by a planning authority to be attached not to the applicant's land but to somebody else's land. This is quite outside the planning Acts. The only existing circumstances in which a condition may be applied to land which is not the applicant's land are those provided for in Section 18(1) of the principal Act, but in those circumstances, where a condition is attached to other land, that other land must be in the ownership or under the supervision of the developer. That is quite right.
    Hon. Members have only to think of a situation in which A is a developer and B, who lives next door, is affected by the development; A makes a planning application, and the application is granted on condition that B carries out certain works. The problems of enforcement if B objects would be tremendous. Why should not he object? In those circumstances, the position of the planning authority would become ridiculous. Public opinion would not support the extension of the principle as laid down

    147
    in subsection (3) of the new Clause. I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of hon. Members opposite. I hope that it will be extended in the Lobbies if the matter is pressed to a Division.
    Subsection (4) contains an equally undesirable principle. The Clause makes it a statutory obligation upon a local authority not to permit development unless it is satisfied about the provisions made for run-off, and it is suggested in subsection (4) that any consequent damage, owing to the fact that the provisions made are not adequate, should be borne by the ratepayers. This, again, is a new principle, which I am sure would not find support in the minds and hearts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    If a person's development damages the land of another person that other person can go to court and claim damage. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will remember the immortal case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Amongst its other propositions, the Bill is proposing to overturn this principle and to substitute a novel proposal under which the ratepayers would make good any damage that might arise on the land of another person. That is quite wrong. The position must be that he who reaps the benefit should pay for any damage caused. It is the developer who is benefiting and not the ratepayers.
    For these reasons it is clear that subsections (3) and (4) breach principles which would not be lightly overturned by either side of the House, and certainly will not be overturned by us in this Bill.
    Mr. Murton: Where does the hon. Gentleman find the word "ratepayer", or the implication that the ratepayers will have to pay? It is the developer who will have to pay.
    Mr. Skeffington: No, the clear implication of subsection (4) is that the local planning authority would be obliged to compensate anyone whose land was adversely affected. This is a novel and wholly objectionable principle. I do not want to suggest that there is no problem with the present large-scale urban development. There is, simply because it often takes time for drainage works, particularly for a large volume of water, to be constructed. The planning autho-
    148
    rity must bear this in mind when giving its permission.
    Second, it will, if not satisfied, say that, because of certain consequences of the development, it must see the drainage proposals before considering the application further; or perhaps other arrangements can be made with the water board. We propose to draw the attention of the authorities again to this matter because of the difficulty, but it does not call for machinery and certainly not of the kind proposed. Therefore, I could not advise the House to accept the new Clause.
    Mr. Rippon: This is an important matter, and the Parliamentary Secretary has treated it as such. Therefore, we very much regret that our hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), in whose name the Amendment stands, could do no more than refer to it formally before returning to his duties elsewhere. This illustrates the difficulties for hon. Members—apparently on both sides —who now find their commitments in Standing Committees so pressing that they cannot give the time which they would wish to these matters.
    I say this because of the merriment of an hon. Member opposite, who, apparently, is not interested in this subject and sits here only because the Government are paying him to do so. I speak for my hon. Friends, who are present in large numbers and who would be augmented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde if he were not on the Finance Bill Standing Committee. Government supporters are apparently so jaded that they do not wish to appear anywhere. They are certainly not here this afternoon.
    My hon. Friend's Amendment has drawn attention to a real problem, which was fully explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone into this in some detail and raised points worth considering, but the Government are not, apparently, aware of what is happening and his reply was not wholly satisfactory. He was very unfair to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole was misleading to say that there was no adequate machinery, since he was stating the truth. There is none. It may be hard to establish it,

    149
    but we must face the fact that machinery does not exist.
    It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there are several bodies acting under statutory powers. There are several statutory bodies with responsibility and powers, but they do not cover the situation. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged this by referring to another circular, to that of 1962, which was issued in good faith by the then Government, but which has not proved sufficient. Now, the Government propose to issue another, which we are told is in draft. But we do not know what is in it. We know that there have been no discussions with the National Farmers' Union, which has tried unsuccessfully to learn what is in the Government's mind. It has got no information from the Ministry. In these circumstances, it seems that mere exhortation and circulars is not enough and that we should have some new legislation.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Government have indicated that they recognise the serious damage which is caused to agricultural land by various forms of development. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated this on several occasions. That Department says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because it is a question of planning. On the other hand, the Ministry of Housing says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with by different machinery. This is not good enough
    In criticising subsection (4) of the new Clause the Minister referred to the private developer. He should appreciate that it is often the public authority which is responsible for a major building or highway scheme which causes the mischief to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred; namely, the creation of large impermeable areas from which there is a great discharge of flood water to the damage of downstream land. I can see that there is real difficulty in imposing upon local planning authorities the duty of applying conditions relating to land other than land which is the subject of planning consent. But this problem is so serious that it cannot be dealt with adequately by a circular, even assuming that the Government took the
    150
    trouble to consult the appropriate authorities about its terms.
    Mr. Skeffington: The circular is in its very early stages. Like the other circular to which I referred, it is a joint document and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no question of shuffling off responsibility from one Ministry to another. When the draft of the circular is far enough ahead there will be the usual consultations. I believe that I said this but, if I omitted to do so, I wish to make the position clear.
    Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has been perusing the matter for some time and the Government knew that the subject would be raised throughout the passage of the Bill. They should have prepared the draft circular and satisfied the House and the interested bodies that they intend to propose some effective action. It is not satisfactory for them simply to ask us to rely on an assurance given now that a circular, which is at present in preliminary draft form, will be of help and that there will be adequate consultation later. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to press for legislation on this subject.
    I agree that some changes will be required in the drafting of the new Clause. This could be dealt with by the Government accepting our proposal and making the necessary changes in another place.
    Mr. Hugh Rossi: I did not intend to speak until I heard the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister. He said that under Section 7 of the Rivers Prevention of Pollution Act, 1951, river authorities were charged with the duty of dealing with matters of this kind. He said that they would contact local authorities to ensure that proper schemes were made to deal with flooding. He did not say that the river boards were concerned only when there happened to be substantial flow of discharging water directly into a main river.
    Mr. Skeffington: I made that precise point. I tried to define the responsibilities of the statutory bodies.
    Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the main complaint of the N.F.U. was in connection with

    151
    minor ditches and streams overflowing and flooding land.
    It has nothing to do with the outlet of main courses into main rivers. The Minister has missed the point entirely if he feels that this Act is the basis of the whole matter. I ask him to direct his mind particularly to the very many representations that have been made to his Department and to the Ministry of Agriculture, because it is quite clear that by concentrating on this Section of this Act he has misled himself completely as to what the problem is.
    The Minister stated that the matter could be dealt with administratively most conveniently by a circular from his Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture exhorting local authorities to deal with this problem; and that this would be the cure. He told us that a circular is already in draft. In 1962 a joint circular was issued by his Ministry and by the Ministry of Agriculture—Circular 52—entitled "Liaison between Planning Authorities and River Boards." Paragraph 13 of that circular asked local planning authorities to bear in mind the problem of run-off and flooding.
    "… when considering applications for development near agricultural property and to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off."
    The matter was dealt with by circular in 1962. What will this new circular add to the situation? Local authorities have been apprised of the problem, and exhorted to do something about it. They have been asked to bear it in mind when dealing with planning applications where this sort of thing might happen. Yet the problem continues, because we are told by the Minister of Agriculture that case after case is still coming before him. If the local authorities had heeded the circular issued those years ago, one could have expected a diminution of this kind of complaint, but that is not the case.
    In the debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) referred, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said:
    "My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made it clear to planning authorities that the effect of development on land drainage is a
    152
    material factor to be taken into account when granting consent."
    He said that the Minister of Housing
    "… is already in touch with local authority associations, seeking their views on the problem of drainage…."
    It was not only the Minister of Housing, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that
    "… the Minister of Transport has drawn the attention of local authorities to the need for caution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1968; c. 498–9.]
    So we have had one Minister after another telling local authorities, exhorting them, and drawing their attention to this problem, yet still the complaints come in. I venture to suggest that another circular will not improve the position one jot or tittle, but will just be another piece of paper on the files of local authorities, joining the existing circulars and the existing exhortations.
    It is for this reason that my hon. Friend has put forward this new Clause which would put on local authorities and developers a positive obligation to take action that would stop this nuisance. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the farmers have common law remedies. They may have an action in law, but they may not wish to go to court to sue for damages. All this has happened after the flooding. Their concern is to prevent flooding, and injury to and waterlogging of their property. That is not prevented by legal action. This happens after the event. We know that the problem continues, because the cases are continuing to come into the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stating, "Despite your circulars, we still have this problem. When will you face up to it?"
    Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), on his rather late arrival in this debate, completely misunderstood the speech I made. I drew attention to the fact that there was a problem which is growing because of the pace of urban development and the fact that land drainage cannot keep pace with that development. It is important to draw the attention of authorities to that, but I did not rely on it as the solution to the problem. Rainfall, as Noah

    153
    discovered, is an act of God and whatever measures we take they do not get over that fact.
    I brought in the question of compensation because that was part of the new Clause to which I was replying. I quite agree that compensation is unsatisfactory, but we want in the first place to prevent excessive flooding. I believe the combination of actions by river authorities and local authorities is the best guarantee we have for keeping the balance right between the development which is allowed and dealing with the problems which arise.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES

    [9.13 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pounder, Rafton

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grant, Anthony

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Astor, John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Bessell, Peter

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Biffen, John

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Holland, Philip

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Boardman, Tom

    Hordern, Peter

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Brewis, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Sharpies, Richard

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Kirk, Peter

    Silvester, Frederick

    Burden, F. A.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Speed, Keith

    Clark, Henry

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

    Clegg, Walter

    Lubbock, Eric

    Tapseli, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Costain, A. P.

    Maude, Angus

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

    Crouch, David

    Mawby, Ray

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

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

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Dance, James

    More, Jasper

    Tilney, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

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

    Murton, Oscar

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Nabarro, sir, Gerald

    Ward Dame Irene

    Eden, Sir John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Whotelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Emery, Peter

    Pardoe, John

    Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wright, Esmond

    Farr, John

    Perclval, Ian

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Foster, Sir John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Mr. Hector Monro and

    Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefield

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

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Buchan, Norman

    Dickens, James

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

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

    Doig, Peter

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Bamett, Joel

    Chapman, Donald

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

    Beaney, Alan

    Coe, Denis

    Eadie, Alex

    Bid well, Sydney

    Concannon, J. D.

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Blackburn, F.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Ellis, John

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    English, Michael

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

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

    Boyden, James

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Dell, Edmund

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Dempsey, James

    Fowler, Gerry

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

    Dewar, Donald

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    I make quite clear that there is no question of one Department trying to shuffle off this matter on to another Department. It is a problem which we want to tackle jointly, as we have done in the past. The very fact that a public authority may by development cause a problem is one of the reasons why there should be a legal remedy as well as taking steps to prevent flooding if that is possible.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
    The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 157.

    Freeson, Reginald

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Gardner, Tony

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Courlay, Harry

    Marks, Kenneth

    Slater, Joseph

    Gregory, Arnold

    Marquand, David

    Small, William

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Snow, Julian

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W)

    Hamling, William

    Millan, Bruce

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Hannan, William

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Haseldine, Norman

    Moyle, Roland

    Symonds, J. B.

    Henig, Stanley

    Newens, Stan

    Taverne, Dick

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hooley, Frank

    Ogden, Eric

    Tinn, James

    Horner, John

    O'Malley, Brian

    Urwln, T. W.

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Varley, Eric C.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Orme, Stanley

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Hoy, James

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

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Owen Will (Morpeth)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hunter, Adam

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Wallace, George

    Hynd, John

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Walking, David (Consett)

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

    Park, Trevor

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Whitlock, William

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Kelley, Richard

    Pentland, Norman

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Winnick, David

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Woof, Robert

    Loughlin, Charles

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

    Yates, Victor

    Lyon, Alexander W, (York)

    Roebuck, Roy

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rose, Paul

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Mr. Charles Carey.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Sheldon, Robert

    New Clause 11.
    PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
    In exercising their powers under this Act a local planning authority shall as respects public rights of way to which Part VI of the Highways Act 1959 applies have due regard to the need for the creation, closure and diversion of public rights of way, and to initiate changes in footpath patterns where they are needed.— [Mr. Channon.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

    The Clause deals with public rights of way, particularly footpaths and bridleways. We move away for a short time from the more urban matters which have been interesting the House for most, though not all, of this afternoon. I urge on the Government the merits of this Clause, even though I expect that it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to raise drafting points against it.
    All hon. Members who have been following the proceedings on this Bill and on the Countryside Bill will know that the question of footpaths and bridleways, their creation, closure and diversion, has exercised many hon. Members during this Session and in the past.
    156
    It would be generally agreed that the present system of footpaths and bridleways is totally out of date. Most evolved centuries ago. They were paths to and from the farms and the villages. Some were old pack-horse routes. It is true that a minority were planned deliberately, but most just grew up and in the course of time became legal rights of way. I will not go into the historical details, but a haphazard pattern has grown up.
    The need has changed. Footpaths used to be needed for severely practical purposes. Now, for the most part, although not entirely, they are needed for recreation. The number of people who walk in the countryside using these footpaths ha? grown enormously, and will go on growing. This has led to conflicting interests in the countryside. It is common ground that we wish to see an adequate number of footpaths. We wish to encourage walkers. Walking is a healthy and enjoyable exercise, and more hon. Members should take part in it. At the same time, we must realise that the livelihood of the farmers, and those who live and work in the countryside, must not be put at risk. This is especially so now, when food production is so vital and agricultural interests are so crucial to our country.

    157
    The differences between these conflicting interests must and can be reconciled. The Government agree with that. They have agreed in the past that changes are required. In discussing footpaths and bridleways, the Government White Paper "Leisure in the Countryside" said:
    "It is clear that some amendments to the legislation, which is in some respects out-of-date, are required … some simplification of the procedure for the creation, diversion and closure of footpaths is necessary in the interests both of users and of landowners and occupiers …
    But in the Government's view a more radical reform may well be needed, to provide a legislative framework which would permit the development of a system of footpaths and bridleways, some based on existing routes, but others newly created, which would be more suited to modern needs."
    They then stated that they intended to have consultations and would try to bring forward changes in the law, including, if necessary, the creation of new administrative machinery to achieve their purpose.
    Unfortunately, I think that the Government have not completed the job they set themselves to do in the White Paper. The Gosling Committee on rights of way concluded that, for what it called utilitarian footpaths—which are now perhaps in the minority—the convenience of pedestrians should be paramount. The majority of footpaths are now needed for recreational purposes and a fair balance needs to be struck between the interests of the farmers and of those who are going to use the footpaths, because they can present very serious difficulties for the farmers.
    There is, I think, general agreement that the present arrangements for the creation and closure and diversion of footpaths are out of date and difficult to understand and implement. They are largely embodied in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and have subsequently been consolidated in the Highways Act, 1950. I need not describe in detail what the legal arrangements are, because they are set out fully in Appendix 2 of the Gosling Report, but there is a procedure whereby magistrates' courts can stop up or divert footpaths if necessary or whereby they can be developed to make them more commodious to the general public. This, under the present law, can only be done on the application of the local highway autho-
    158
    rity. An individual can make application to that authority and, if he manages to persuade it, it must then convince the magistrates' court that this procedure should be followed.
    The local authorities have also been given powers to make public path extinguishment orders, which have to be confirmed by the Minister. Is it any longer necessary to have this confirmation power for these orders? The Minister may have to have a local inquiry in a case of this kind, and this procedure also applies to diversion orders. There are also powers to create public bodies through public path creation orders, which also have to be confirmed by the Minister.
    I welcome the new procedures in Schedule 3 of the Countryside Bill, now in another place, which would add county councils to the list of local authorities with the power to create footpaths. Previously this has been restricted to district and urban councils.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide. He must now come to the new Clause.
    Mr. Channon: I will do so immediately, Mr. Speaker. The present system is extremely unsatisfactory and my argument is that local planning authorities, in respect of the rights of way, should have particular regard to the need for these matters to be considered and to initiate changes in patterns where these are needed. It is my case that, as the law stands, the local authorities, although they have these powers do not really have placed upon them the duty to give proper consideration to the whole pattern of footpaths in their areas. The local authorities should be made to ask themselves two questions on this. First, are all the footpaths at present in their areas needed? Second—the corollary to that, are the ones that exist in their areas adequate?
    9.30 p.m.
    We had high hopes some time ago that in these two Bills, which are very related in this matter, the Government would take steps to improve the situation. There was the White Paper which I have quoted and the setting up of the Gosling Committee on rights of way. I have no wish to be critical of the Government, especially after the good start they made by

    159
    setting up the Gosling Committee and producing the White Paper. But it is a great pity that this matter should subsequently have been handled as the Government chose to handle it. Having set up the Committee, they introduced the Countryside Bill before it had reported. That was extraordinary. They were then faced with two possible solutions—either to delay the Countryside Bill until the Gosling Committee had finished and its Report could be adequately studied—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing this Bill, not the Countryside Bill.
    Mr. Channon: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying, in passing, to make the point that in a way this Clause is connected with the Gosling Report and the Countryside Bill. The Government could either have dealt with the Clause I put forward in the Countryside Bill or in the present Bill. My criticism of them is that I understand that they have taken neither course.
    I was saying that I had wished they had taken the course in the Countryside Bill, but since they have not decided to do that, I still feel that there is a need for legislation. The rights of way Clauses in the Countryside Bill should have been taken out of it and proper legislation along those lines and along the lines of our new Clause should be introduced. That is the course we urged on the Government both during that Bill's passage and tonight.
    I think that what the Gosling Committee recommended is directly relevant, because the whole purpose of the Committee was to report on the creation, closure and diversion of public rights of way. In recommendation 4 of its Report it said:
    "Creation, diversion and cosure of footpaths and bridleways should be regarded as aspects of land use and become planning functions and the responsibility of the local planning authority."
    That is the approach that I tried to incorporate in the new Clause.
    In recommendation 5 it said:
    "Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners."
    We should like to see the Government do that, and it is another feature of the Clause we put forward.
    160
    Throughout the consideration of this Bill and the Countryside Bill we have had repeated assurances from the Government that they would implement any unanimous Gosling recommendation along the lines which I have quoted. The Minister of State said in the Committee proceedings on the Countryside Bill, when he argued that this matter would be more properly dealt with by this Bill:
    "But I can give this assurance: if, on those matters,"—
    these are the ones I am describing—
    "which, as hon. Members know, are very complex, we were to receive agreed recommendations from the Gosling Committee, which, in the Government's view, would lead to a simplification of these complex legal positions and would provide for a better system, then it certainly would be the Government's hope that they could bring forward new Clauses to the Town and Country Planning Bill based upon those recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st February, 1968; c. 706.]
    I only wish that the Government had brought forward those new Clauses.
    To those of us interested in this problem, it came as a shock to learn from the Government on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill that, in spite of the assurances we had been given, it was not intended fully to implement the Report of the Gosling Committee along those lines. Will the Government give a full explanation of their reasons and expound their alternative plans for this important matter? How soon will they bring forward a plan alternative to the one which Gosling recommended? We were told on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill that there were no plans even then for early legislation. No wonder that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) expressed himself very forcibly on that occasion and spoke of the shock and disappointment which hon. Members felt.
    It appeared that there was one paragraph in the Gosling Report which the Government were unwilling to accept. I refer to paragraph 27, setting out the detailed procedure which Gosling suggested people should follow when applying to the local planning authority for an order creating, diverting or closing footpaths. The Government, as I understand their case, base their refusal to do anything on the ground that that paragraph is impractical. In that case, will they

    161
    suggest an alternative rather than leave the problem as it stands now?
    I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the Gosling Committee in paragraph 22, that planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes and power to consider applications for changes from both users and land owners. My hon. Friends and I do not wish to stand on paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report if alternative and more satisfactory arrangements can be found, but we certainly ask that that recommendation be implemented even if the Government cannot accept the detailed proposals for implementing it which the Gosling Committee wanted.
    The position now is that, as a result of the Bills going through Parliament, the matter is more urgent than ever. Under the old procedures, there were many footpaths which were little used, with a haphazard pattern, some paths probably not having been used for years. With the advent of the present legislation, all this controversy has been publicised and activated. There is now a duty to put signs on every footpath. Farmers have a duty to maintain stiles on every footpath. We need a quick and flexible procedure which the planning authorities will be able to use either on an application from fanners, if need be, to close a footpath, or on application from the general public to create other footpaths where there is inadequate provision at present.
    We all agree that the present procedure is unsatisfactory. Some impetus must be put behind this matter. We want local authorities to have to look at the whole picture and periodically to review the pattern of footpaths generally in their area. Unless further steps are taken along the lines of the new Clause, the whole position will remain unsatisfactory. If the Government cannot accept the detailed proposals in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, they have a duty to produce an alternative. Otherwise, they will have done three-quarters of the job of tackling footpaths, bridleways and public rights of way, but they will have left out the key to the whole procedure for the future. They will have caused a vast amount of unnecessary expense. There will be all these signs on footpaths, a lot of which are conceded by everyone
    162
    to be unnecessary, there will have been a lot more muddle, and the situation, instead of being improved, will have been made worse.
    The Government must tell us clearly how they envisage the question of footpaths being dealt with under the new planning system created by this Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends are disappointed that the Government have so far shown themselves unwilling to accept the Gosling proposals, but they will gladly welcome constructive alternative suggestions from the Government. However, should we hear nothing from the Government tonight, my right hon. and hon. Friends who take an interest in this important matter will be bitterly disappointed that the Government, having set out to deal with the problem, have failed to tackle by far the most important aspect of it.
    Mr. Skeffington: It seems a little bit like old times to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) speaking on this subject which, I know, is very close to his heart. I should like to make a marginal comment on the first part of his speech which, if I may say so, came, I thought, a little oddly from him, a member of the Council of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, for he seemed to hanker so much after a kind a regular pattern of footpaths.
    The hon. Gentleman pointed out how they had developed over the centuries, and that nowadays people wanted to use them, and that once upon a time they had to use them. I am glad that he has indicated now that, perhaps, it was not so, but he left me with the impression that he was thinking in terms of a very regular pattern, and all I wanted to say was that I do not think this is what a great many people want, although some change, some rationalisation, particularly for easier opportunities to use footpaths, certainly is required.
    Mr. Channon: I am very sorry if I gave that impression. I certainly did not intend to. I based myself on the Gosling Committee's Report, which itself said there should not be too rigid regularisa-tion, and that the haphazard pattern was to some extent one of the charms of these footpaths.
    Mr. Skeffington: That was the alternative point I was coming to, that one cannot hope for too much system here, although, quite clearly the new requirements for recreation, as well as the former use of these paths, are very much to be encouraged.
    I think that I can very briefly summarise the position. I do not want to comment on the drafting of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause. I do not think that that really matters, but it does put footpaths, as it were out on a limb, apart from everything else which local authorities and planning authorities have to consider under the Bill. There are a thousand other matters which they have to consider but the hon. Gentleman would separate out this question of the creation and alternation of footpaths.
    However, in the whole of his argument I think that the hon. Gentleman overlooked some very important parts of the Bill, points I want to come to in a moment, and which will go a very long way, I believe, to meet the main point of his new Clause and that contained in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report.
    As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said on Third Reading, on 9th April, the position is that the Government accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6, and some provisions are being made elsewhere. It would be out of order to refer to them in detail, but I think that they are not unknown to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. It would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman were allowed to tell us what is happening. We certainly do not know of any action other than the Bill which the Government are taking in implementing recommendations 4, 5 and 6.
    Mr. Skeffington: I think that if I were to refer to proceedings in another place on another Bill I would be out of order, but I think that this matter is generally known, and we have already indicated that certain changes are to be made in relation to responsibilities of the Ministry of Transport—responsibilities which will be passed to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—under the Highways Act. This is one of the provisions being made elsewhere. I can certainly say that recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of
    164
    the second interim Report of the Gosling Committee were accepted, as my hon. and learned Friend made quite clear.
    Paragraph 27 was not a recommendation, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman suggested. He suggested certain procedures might be introduced. That paragraph was a suggestion, it was not a recommendation. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that we could not contemplate immediate legislation on this. He said that in a speech made in Committee on another Bill. He said, in relation to this matter, that there were recommendations which, in the Government's opinion, would lead to an improvement in the situation. My hon. and learned Friend on 9th April said it was impracticable, in the Government's view, to introduce the suggestion in paragraph 27 and that, in the Government's opinion, this would not be a practicable procedure. This, I am sure, is the reason why the hon. Gentleman has put down a new Clause. I want to spell out the reasons why we do not think this can be acceptable.
    The suggestion in paragraph 27 of the Gosling Committee's Report comprises these elements. First, any person or body could apply to the local planning authority for an order for the creation, diversion or closure of a footpath. The initiative is no longer to come after consultation with or investigation by the local authority. It can come, not even by a recognised society, but by an individual. When that application was considered the planning authority would have to notify the owner, as would the person or body applying for a footpath procedure, and advertise in the local newspapers and in the London Gazette. After a period of time, if there were objections, they would have to be considered, and then the authority would make its decision.
    A very interesting suggestion in para-27(d) was that, whether the planning authority granted or refused an application, any interested party which had made representation on the original application should have a right of appeal to the Minister. Almost certainly there would be an appeal. There would be an appeal by those who wanted the footpath. To a great extent this would give impetus to walkers and ramblers to ask local authorities for more footpaths. It might be

    165
    opposed by landowners and allotment owners through or near whose land a footpath was sought. There would be orders which would be secured by agreement and not contested, but there would be a great many cases where, inevitably, there would be a right of appeal, either by the individual whose application had been refused, or by the owner across whose soil it was suggested the new right of way should be created. One would have a mass of appeals flooding into the Ministry.
    There are two consequences which must have struck the hon. Gentleman. A major part of the Bill is designed to prevent thousands of appeals cascading into Whitehall. By adopting this series of suggestions we would be creating a new series of appeals to the Minister. There are at least some criteria by which to judge the appeals which now come forward. But in this case there would be no background corpus of knowledge by which the Minister could judge them. There would be an intermediate stage between the appeal and the decision of the local authority, since there would have to be a public inquiry under the proposals. When he had received the report of whoever heard the appeal, the Minister would be expected to judge it against a background of which he has relatively no knowledge.
    For the reason that they would undoubtedly create very large numbers of appeals in a Measure which is designed to ensure that such matters should be decided locally, the Government took the view that the suggestions—I emphasise they are not recommendations—in this part of the Gosling Report were not practicable. This was stated by my hon. and learned Friend on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill, and it is our position today. Does that mean that we do nothing about it? No, it does not. As I have already said, recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of this group of recommendations have been accepted by the Government.
    In connection with this matter of a system of footpaths—I do not want to call it a plan, because I do not want to fall into the trap of the hon. Gentleman by using that phrase—it will be perfectly proper, under the major provisions of the Bill, that footpaths should be considered both at the structure and at the
    166
    local planning stages. It is true that they will not often be a prominent feature in a structural plan, except in the case of a long-distance way, a coastal route, or something like that. However, the existing pattern of footpaths will be an important matter to consider in the recreational and rural areas when looking ahead as far as it is possible to do. In making its local plan, it will be possible for a local planning authority to take full account of it and make the necessary provisions.
    Furthermore, all the emphasis that we put in the earlier part of the Bill and such recommendations as are brought forward by the Committee which I have the honour to chair, will mean that the public will have a bigger say about footpaths than ever before when a local planning authority is making its local plan. All of this gives an opportunity within the Bill to deal with a system and pattern of footpaths in a given locality.
    That is the immediate answer that I can give as to the way in which we feel that it is best to deal with this provision in the Bill. When the Bill and the other Measure receive the Royal Assent, specific guidance will be given about this matter so that local authorities can take it into account.
    The proposals which I put before the House on paragraph 27 of the Gosling Report, which is the hon. Gentleman's major point, will be met within the body of the Bill, and I think that that will be an extremely effective way of doing it.
    With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his Clause.
    Mr. James Ramsden: In an admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) put our point of view so clearly that I can be quite brief.
    In essence, the issue that he raised was a perfectly simple one. It sought to ask why the Government, having given the Committee considering the Countryside Bill to understand that there would be legislation to take account of our point of view, had now decided not to bring forward that legislation.
    In a very long speech, the Parliamentary Secretary explained to the House why the suggestions made in paragraph 27 of

    167
    the Gosling Report are not workable, in his view. It may be true that they are not workable, but that is beside the point. At a very late hour, the Minister of State said on Third Reading that the Government accepted in principle the Committee's fifth recommendation—
    Mr. Speaker: With respect, we cannot have the Third Reading debate on the Countryside Bill over again, any more than we can have the Second Reading of another Bill which has not yet come before us. The right hon. Gentleman must come to the Clause.
    Mr. Ramsden: I am in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend. We seek to argue that the Government should have introduced legislation, having undertaken to do so. They have not done that. By moving the Amendment we are seeking to do it in their stead and getting the House to accept it. With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is to that point I am addressing my argument. My argument is relevant because the Minister of State said that he accepted in principle the need for legislation. He told us that on Third Reading of another Bill. He went on to say that the Government did not contemplate immediate legislation. The simple question I ask is: Why not? If there is no good answer, the Government should accept the Amendment so that we get the legislation.
    The Government's position seems to be that what was suggested by the Gosling Committee is not acceptable and they will have to find some other way. I regret that they have not so far found another way and are not prepared to make recommendations to the House to implement that which they accept as being desirable. I regret this all the more because, in my view at any rate, the Government put themselves in the position on the Committee stage of leading us to believe that if Gosling came up with an acceptable recommendation and they accepted it, there would be legislation.
    On reflection, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must regret having got into that position. As a result of what was said in Committee, the proceedings both on the Countryside Bill and on the Town and Country Planning Bill were considerably facilitated. It would be a pity if. having eased their position regarding
    168
    these two Measures, the Government were not prepared to follow up the spirit of the undertaking that they gave. I think they should, if it is not too late, have second thoughts. I am sure they regret not having done so.
    Mr. Rippon: This is one of the most serious matters which we have to discuss tonight because the Government, unfortunately, have behaved throughout in a thoroughly devious and unsatisfactory way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, there was a clear understanding that the Countryside Bill should be expedited on the assurance of the Government that when Gosling made its recommendations, matters which could not be dealt with in the Countryside Bill would be dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Bill.
    Accordingly, I wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 27th March, saying:
    "I will be grateful if you can let me know when you intend to table the necessary new Clauses in the Town and Country Planning Bill to give effect to those recommendations of the Gosling Committee which the Government accept. I feel that it is important that the position should be cleared before the House deals with the Report stage of the Countryside Bill."
    I got no answer to that letter. However, I was told informally that the Minister of State would be able to deal with the matter on Third Reading of the Countryside Bill, although there had not been time to frame the necessary or possible Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill at that stage.
    On 9th April, as we have heard, the Minister of State made clear:
    "We have accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the Report. Recommendation 6 is a clear legislative recommendation which we accept and will implement. We accept that these matters should become a planning function."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c.1330.]
    We were clearly led to understand that it would not simply be a minor amendment of the law which would be made in the Town and Country Planning Bill, but that the real substance of the Gosling Committee's recommendations concerning this matter would be dealt with.
    Recommendation 5 in the Gosling Report is set out more fully in paragraph 22:
    "We recommend that in future the creation, diversion and closure of footpaths and bridleways should be regarded as aspects of land use

    169
    and so become planning functions. This means that the powers now vested in district councils by virtue of the Highways Act, 1959, should be transferred to local planning authorities. We also recommend that planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns when they are needed and, equally, power to consider applications for changes both from users and from landowners "
    That is a perfectly clear recommendation. The Government had a clear duty, in view of their undertakings at every stage in our discussions, to table the necessary Clause—
    It being: Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Rippon: In the light of all the discussions that have taken place and the undertakings that they gave to my hon. Friend and myself at every stage of the proceedings, the Government have a clear duty to table the necessary legislation. We have had to do their duty for them. The case for the new Clause rests on the recommendations of the Gosling Committee which the Government themselves set up to deal with this matter.
    On 25th April—a considerable time after the discussions which took place on the Third Reading of the Countryside Bill—the Minister of Housing and Local Government said:
    " I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 27th March about the tabling of new Clauses in the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Countryside Bill. We found it impracticable no take action on the Gosling Committee's final recommendations at the Report Stage of the Countryside Bill, but we intend to make some further amendments in the Lords."
    The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to that tonight, but we do not regard it as a satisfactory position, and there is no indication that the recommendations will be dealt with.
    The Minister went on to say:
    "The Minister of State explained in his speech on Third Reading that we intend to make provision in the Town and Country Planning Bill for transferring the functions of the Minister of Transport, dealing with footpaths under section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government."
    170
    That is relative to recommendation 6.
    " We think that the other major proposal in paragraph 27 needs further consideration and consultation with the authorities affected and we do not contemplate immediate legislation."
    That is a rather different way of expressing the position from that which the Minister of State put forward in the Third Reading debate of that Bill. He said: referring to paragraph 27 of the Report,
    " I do not think that hon. Members opposite who speak of it as if it were "—
    a recommendation—
    " 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 suggest-tion 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 upon recommendations which we believe would produce a wholly unworkable position and an anarchic 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." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 1329.]
    The recommendations that were referred to were Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
    The Minister of State says that paragraph 27 relates only to a suggestion but the Minister of Housing and Local Government says
    " We think the other major proposal in paragraph 27 needs further consideration and consultation with the authorities affected and we do not contemplate immediate legislation."
    He did not rule it out altogether, and it would be quite intolerable to deal with a responsible body like the Gosling Committee by saying that simply because in paragraph 27 it makes a suggestion it is not to be regarded as a recommendation of any sort. My hon. Friend put the matter clearly in saying that we are not standing, any more than the Committee did, on the exact form of that suggestion. We are saying that the matters (a) to (g)

    171
    in paragraphs 27 should be the subject, as the Minister of State promised, of further consideration and consultation. There is nothing in paragraph 27 to over-ride or undermine paragraph 22 and recommendation No. 5, which it is the main purpose of the new Clause to implement.
    Therefore, I hope that, even at this stage, in view of all they have said to me and my hon. Friends, the Government will accept this Clause. This should be done and I hope that they will honour their obligations.
    Mr. MacDermot: Since an attempt has been made to attack my honesty, I think, in this matter, let me make it clear that there is nothing which I have undertaken to do which has not been done. I said that we accepted recommendations 4, 5 and 6. Only one of those, No. 6, points clearly to a requirement for legislation and that is embodied in the Bill. Recommendation 4 says that these matters, dealing with the closure and diversion of footpaths and bridlepaths and the creation of new ones, should be regarded in future as planning functions.
    Recommendation No. 5, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman worked himself into such a state of indignation says:
    "Planning authorities should have the power and duty to initiate changes in footpath patterns and to consider applications for changes both from users and landowners."
    I entirely agree with the whole approach described by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). This is a matter on which we must be careful, but I accept that the pattern of many of our footpaths is out of date. I believe that, in the machinery of local plans under the new planning system, local planning authorities will be able to do what recommendations 4 and 5 asked.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, there must be a survey of the existing pattern of footpaths against present day needs, to see how the two measure up. Where they do not, the authorities can, under the new system, in the form of a local plan, produce an alternative pattern, and this must be subject to all the procedures for publicising, publication and consultation and for receiving representations from interested parties, including agricultural
    172
    and amenity interests, before the plan is accepted and approved.
    Then, we will have the coherent framework against which to do the individual closures, diversions and creation of new footpaths, as to which I am assured that adequate legal powers exist. We will consult the authorities on these matters and if some additional powers are required, that can be dealt with.
    I am certain that, for a substantial period ahead, the task is one for the local planning authorities, as the hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned. With respect, I do not think that the new Clause would have much effect and it would be misleading if written into the Bill. What we want to do is to make use of the new planning system to achieve what we all agree is a desirable objective.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that these matters could be dealt with "in some way". In what way? In our debates on a Bill which we must not mention tonight, I would have taken a very different view if I had thought that these matters would not be dealt with in this Bill. I am now told that they will not be dealt with under this Bill, but somewhere else. Where will they be dealt with?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know to which matters the hon. Gentleman is referring. I am saying that if, in the working out of this, it should later be found that some addition to the powers is required, then that matter can be considered and discussed. I am advised that there are adequate powers in the authorities now for the opening, closing and diverting of footpaths, but that they lack coherent judgment against which to base their decisions in individual cases.
    Mr. David Gibson-Watt: During an earlier debate the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with this subject throughout. It is, therefore, with him, rather than with the Parliamentary Secretary, that we have a quarrel tonight. The points made by my hon. Friends are well known and I will merely repeat that whereas throughout our discussion of the Countryside Bill we were promised—not only in Committee but elsewhere—that the matter would be dealt

    173
    with, it is clear that, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, it has not been dealt with, either in this Measure or in the Countryside Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that.
    Mr. MacDermot: I do. The whole of the new system of structure and local plans, which this Bill is mainly about, is concerned with the machinery that is required to implement the recommendation of Gosling to which I referred.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked him whether, in this Bill or in the Countryside Bill, this matter has been put right. The answer is "No", and he knows that only too well. The reason why we set such store by this—I accept that the wording of the new Clause is not perfect; no new Clause ever is—is because we hold this to be important in view of the new situation which will arise for local authorities when the Government tell them to signpost all existing footpaths throughout the

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES

    [10.12 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barktton Afh)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pounder, Rafton

    Allason, James (Hemel Hetnpstead)

    Crant, Anthony

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Astor, John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Biffen, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Holland, Philip

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Boardman, Tom

    Hordern, Peter

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Brewis, John

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Scott, Nicholas

    Burden, F. A.

    Kirk, Peter

    Sharples, Richard

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Kitson, Timothy

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Silvester, Frederick

    Clark, Henry

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Clegg, Walter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Speed, Keith

    Cooke, Robert

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Stainton, Keith

    Costain, A. P.

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Crouch, David

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Crowder, F. P.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Currie, G. B. H.

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

    Temple, John M.

    Dance, James

    Monro, Hector

    Tilney, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    More, Jasper

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

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

    Mimro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ward, Dame Irene

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Murton, Oscar

    Webster, David

    Eden, Sir John

    Nabarro, Sir Gorald

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Emery, Peter

    Onslow, Cranley

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Farr, John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wright, Esmond

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Percival, Ian

    Foster, Sir John

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and

    Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    NOES

    Alten, Scholefield

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Beaney, Alan

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bessell, Peter

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Bidwell, Sydney

    country. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made no provision whereby local authorities—planning authorities as they will become—can, before this is done, have an overall decision about which footpaths shall exist and which shall not.
    The framework created by the Countryside Bill, and, to an extent, reinforced by this Measure, should be completed. This method of proceeding is unsatisfactory. The way in which it has been handled by the Government is atrocious and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that Ministers had been devious, I can only say that my hon. Friends and I were led to believe all the way through that we would have a satisfactory answer at some time to this question. We have not received that and I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will divide the House.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
    The House divided: Ayes, 102, Noes 155.

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Park, Trevor

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hooley, Frank

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Horner, John

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Boyden, James

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pentland, Norman

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hoy, James

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

    Hunter, Adam

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hynd, John

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rose, Paul

    Chapman, Donald

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Coe, Denis

    Kelley, Richard

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sheldon, Robert

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (stretford)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dell, Edmund

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph

    Dempsey, James

    Lubbock, Eric

    Snow, Julian

    Dewar, Donald

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    MacDermot, Niall

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Dickens, James

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Doig, Peter

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Dunnett, Jack

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Taverne, Dick

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Thornton, Ernest

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

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

    Tinn, James

    Eadie, Alex

    Mapp, Charles

    Urwin, T. W.

    Ellis, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Varley, Eric G.

    English, Michael

    Marquand, David

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wallace, George

    Fowler, Gerry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Moyle, Roland

    Whitlock, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Newens, Stan

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Gardner, Tony

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

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Norwood, Christopher

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Gregory, Arnold

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Orme, Stanley

    Woof, Robert

    Hamling, William

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

    Yates, Victor

    Hannan, William

    Owen Will (Morpeth)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Haseldine, Norman

    Paget, R. T.

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Henig, Stanley

    Pardoe, John

    Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

    New Clause 13.
    REFUND OF BETTERMENT LEVY WHERE COMPLETION NOTICE IS SERVED.
    Where a builder or developer has paid betterment levy in respect of land on which planning permission ceases to have effect as a result of the service of a completion notice in accordance with section 57 of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power to refund to him the entire amount of the levy.—[Mr. Rossi.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The object of the Clause is to grant the Land Commission a new power. It is a wonder that the day has come that anyone from this side of the House should be seeking to give a new power —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general round of conversation when an hon. Member is addressing the House.
    Mr. Rossi: —to the Land Commission. We would have a far more interesting fate for it.
    So that we can consider the new Clause fully, I must refer the House to Clause 57. This provides that, where planning permission has been granted subject to a condition that the development must be begun before a certain date and the development is begun but not completed before that date, the local planning authority, is of opinon that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period, may serve a notice stating that the planning permission shall cease to have effect. That notice, known as a completion notice, has to be confirmed by the Minister.
    This situation can arise. A developer is granted a conditional planning permission, conditional in the sense that he must begin his work before a certain date. He complies with that condition and commences the development. Having commenced it, he is then liable to pay betterment levy under Case C of the Land Commission Act for carrying cut a material development. Having done both those things, having started his development and having paid the betterment levy, he then finds that for some reason he is unable to continue
    178
    the development for the time being. Perhaps bad weather has stopped his operations. Perhaps he is affected by a strike. Perhaps he has difficulty in obtaining materials.
    If the local authority considers it expedient and considers that he will not complete his development within what it regards as a reasonable time, it may withdraw the planning permission. Having his planning permission withdrawn under Clause 57, the developer is then left with nothing. He cannot continue his operations, and he has paid a sum of money to the Land Commission.
    It is the object of the new Clause to assist a person left in that position by giving the Land Commission a right to do something which it has no right to do at the moment, namely, to repay the levy which has been extracted from the developer who now finds that he cannot continue with his scheme because his planning permission has been withdrawn. This matter exercised the Standing Committee, and the Minister admitted that it created a problem. On 9th April— this is column 1000 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—he said that it seemed to be a legitimate case that should be dealt with. He added that it was being looked at, but it was extremely complex because of the complexity of the betterment levy conditions. We all know where the blame lies for that.
    Because of the complexity, the Minister could not undertake to deal with the matter in this legislation, but he undertook that in due course new legislation would be forthcoming to deal with it. We do not accept that that is a satisfactory way of proceeding when the matter can be easily dealt with now. It can be dealt with now not by putting an obligation on the Land Commission to repay, but by giving it a discretion to repay. The wording of the new Clause is directed to that end.
    10.30 p.m.
    We suggest that the Land Commission should have the power to refund the entire amount of the levy, and that gives it the right to investigate all the circumstances of the withdrawal of planning permission land all the circumstances relating to the amount of development

    179
    that may have taken place, and still remains to continue. For example, if an estate of 300 houses has been half completed, the Land Commission may well take the view that part of the betterment levy should remain payable. There is no obligation on it to refund the whole of the levy. It is given a discretion to do so.
    We hope that the Minister will unbend on this matter. There is no legal obstacle in the way, as far as we can see, to giving the Land Commission an absolute discretion and power to investigate to consider all circumstances and then, if it thinks it right and proper, to remit the levy which has been taken from a developer frustrated, possibly through causes outside his control, from continuing with his scheme.
    Mr. MacDermot: I have already given an undertaking in Committee that this matter will be dealt with at the proper place. I do not think that this Bill is the proper place to introduce provisions about betterment levy. There is no urgency about this, for the simple reason that it will be some years before the first completion notice is served, and when one is served there will be at least 12 months, and perhaps more, during which the developer will be able to complete the development. It will only be after all that has transpired that a situation could arise where he would want to claim repayment in whole or in part of the levy he had paid. This is a matter to be brought forward in a Finance Bill. I have given an undertaking that we shall bring it forward.
    The hon. Gentleman said that it is a simple Clause that can easily be introduced here. It is simple, but it is defective. It begins by saying:
    "Where a builder or developer has paid betterment levy …".
    I do not see that it should be limited to such people. If the principle is right, it should be right for everyone. The Clause does not deal with cases where it would be right for only part of the levy to be refunded—it is all or nothing —nor with the position of successors in title. Perhaps that is enough to show that the matter is a little more complicated than hon. Members opposite have said.
    180
    As I have said, we have given an undertaking, and it will be implemented.
    Mr. Rippon: That was an extraordinarily disappointing reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) put forward the new Clause very reasonably and moderately. It is drafted far more narrowly than the Amendments which were suggested in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg).
    The Clause's purpose is very limited. It is to deal simply with the situation whereby a builder has paid betterment levy under Case C of the Land Commission Act, 1967 for material development of land on which he has begun work, and subsequently loses his planning permission because a completion notice has been served on him. The Minister indicated the justice of this in Committee, and my hon. Friend has quoted what he said then.
    No one doubts for one moment that the Minister is right in talking about the complexity of the betterment levy conditions. He talked of the matter being extremely complex. No one differs from him about that. Now he says that there are many other anomalies which should be dealt with at the same time. However, we thought that we should be relatively modest and stick to the one he conceded required action.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not the proper place to do it. That was not one of his arguments in Committee. He said then that this was a very complex matter and that the Government must have plenty of time to consider. They have that time because the Land Commission has taken so long to get under way—and we also understand that. Now he says that the proper place to do this is in a Finance Bill.
    Some of our colleagues have good reason to know that a Finance Bill is going on upstairs. We know that the Government are not anxious to have their legislation discussed to any great extent. At the same time, I do not see why they have not taken the opportunity to make this amendment to the law in the current Finance Bill upstairs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to do that, we might be satisfied, but

    181
    simply for him to say that the Government will do something in a Finance Bill some time in future is not satisfactory.
    It is desirable that the Government give immediate effect to amendments to laws which they themselves have passed and which have been found wanting, and they should do it at the earliest opportunity. They now have such an opportunity and we shall press them to take it.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I intervene briefly because, having listened to the previous debate, I learnt with some dismay that assurances given by Ministers on the Bill are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. The hon. and learned Gentleman has just asked us to accept that, if he gives an undertaking that this matter will be taken care of, we can rest content. But in the light of the obvious going back on assurances so carefully enumerated by my hon. Friends in the previous debate, one can have little confidence in such undertakings. If the Government go back on undertakings in one Clause they must not expect to be believed when they give further undertakings on another.
    My concern is that local authorities are to be given, under Clause 57, considerable powers. Surely that business of developing sites has enough risks without adding to them the risk that a man can lose his planning permission because, through no fault of his own, he has suffered delays in construction.
    A developer may be subject to delays by three possible causes—acts of God, acts of men, and acts of this Government. I can visualise a developer faced by inclement weather. I remember working on a building site during the winter of 1958. The weather became extremely harsh and we were delayed through no fault of our own. It is disturbing to feel that a man's planning permission can disappear because of an act of God in bringing harsh weather.
    Then there is the possibility of acts of men delaying completion of the building. For example, such things as withdrawal of labour through inter-union disputes could cause delay through no fault of the developer. Yet he is to be subject to the loss of his building permission and may well find himself with a half-completed structure which he cannot sell and which he might not even
    182
    be allowed to demolish, but on which he will, nevertheless, have given up a substantial portion of his own funds in order to pay the development charge. Surely this must be quite clear to Ministers as being hopelessly unfair.
    Then, too, I mentioned possible delays arising out of acts of the Government. We have recently seen the impact of the squeeze on the building industry. Surely, this has produced more delays in development than anything for a very long time. Is it to be contemplated that a developer shall lose substantial sums of money because, through no fault of his own, the whole momentum of building is held up by a credit squeeze, by a new Bill pushed through this House, and over which he can have no possible control and which he could not possibly have foreseen?

    As my hon. Friend pointed out to me a little while ago, as a result of an act of the Government a developer might find himself with a load of bricks 101 miles away from the site, and possibly, under the Transport Bill, if it is passed, the road haulage contractor would not be able to get a licence to bring those bricks to the site. So, once again, there would be delay arising out of acts of the Government. It seems to me that the possibilities of delay are so great, unfortunately, that to leave a developer in a situation where he might be caused serious losses through no fault of his own, and not to accept the simple and straightforward Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, is to do an injustice, and that it will not help with this Bill, as I am sure, both sides of the House wish.
    The Minister picked one or two technical holes in my hon. Friend's Amendment. He said it did not catch all categories of persons concerned. This may be, but I remind him of the point I made at the beginning, that since his assurances on a previous Clause, assurances given, as far as I know, solemnly to hon. Members of the Committee, have not been implemented, since those assurances have fallen to the ground, it is really very difficult for this side of the House to accept a new group of assurances given at this time. I, for one, would be more than happy if he would reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend, but if he is not willing to do that I certainly hope my hon. Friends will indicate their views in the Division Lobby.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: For my part, I am perfectly prepared to accept the undertakings of my hon. and learned Friend, the more so having regard to the fact that, as he pointed out, the proposed Clause would not cure the evil which is complained about and which is recognised as being one which ought to be cured.
    I rise, therefore, only to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether any further legislation is really necessary in dealing with this matter. As I understand the position, under Case C betterment levy is charged having regard to the value of the planning permission which is granted; the calculation, normally speaking, is based upon the value of the land in the light of the planning permission.
    Under Clause 57 (4) the original planning permission is invalid except in so far as it authorises development carried out up to the date specified in the completion notice. It follows that there is substituted for the original planning permission a different planning permission, and, in many cases, a substantially less value. It follows from that that the betterment levy has been charged upon the basis of a planning permission other than that which the developer will have if this procedure goes through. In these circumstances, is it necessary to have any special legislation to enable the developer to recoup the extra amount of levy which he has paid over and above that which he would have paid if, in the first place, he had had the planning permission as it will not become?
    Mr. MacDermot: The short point is, as I explained in Committee, that, where a builder is levied on commencing operations, he is levied on the assumption that he will complete those operations. If that assumption is falsified in the event, it seems to be right that he should be able to reclaim pro tanto the levy that he has paid.
    Mr. Graham Page: That is not clear in the Bill before us. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) put forward a very ingenious argument that further legislation might not be necessary. It is doubtful whether that argument would hold water, with
    184
    great respect to him. I would much rather see specifically stated in the Statute that the Land Commission has power to return the levy.
    The point I really wanted to make was this. The Minister said, first, that the Bill was not the proper place for this Clause and, secondly, there was no urgency. Surely, when the law is altered to the detriment of the citizen, the proper place to put it right is in the Bill and not in a later Bill. According to the Long Title of the Bill, betterment levy can be dealt with, and it ought to be dealt with when the law is changed in this way.
    With regard to the point about no urgency, Clause 57 is what new Clause 13 deals with, because it deals with completion notices. Clause 57 reads:
    "… planning permission for development is granted or deemed to be granted subject to a condition …"
    Any existing planning permission is to be deemed to be granted subject to a condition that it expires at a certain future date, and that comes in Clause 54(1).
    Immediately the Bill becomes law, existing planning permissions are subject to a condition, and they come under Clause 57. Work being undertaken under those planning permissions becomes subject to a completion notice immediately the Bill becomes law. The completion notice cannot take effect for twelve months, but that is a possible 12 months from the day on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent; so there is urgency. It must be included in an Act of Parliament if it is to be corrected within that period of time.
    It might be squeezed into the next Finance Bill, but I am not prepared to rely on the Minister, even with the best will in the world, to get a Clause into a perhaps overcrowded Finance Bill and into law in July, 1969. This is the soonest date that he can give us when this might become law, and even that is not guaranteed in the undertaking which he has given.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that there is no urgency about it. There is urgency when there is a possibility of it taking effect within the next 12 months. Therefore, I press for its inclusion in the Bill.
    Mr. MacDermot: I would like to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. If it is well founded, I will see what can be done.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES

    [10.50 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Foster, Sir John

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pym, Francis

    Astor, John

    Grant, Anthony

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Bessell, Peter

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn, Sir Peter

    Biffen, John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Boardman, Tom

    Holland, Philip

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hordern, Peter

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Brewis, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Sharpies, Richard

    Buck, Antony (Cotchester)

    Kirk, Peter

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Burden, F. A

    Kitson, Timothy

    Silvester, Frederick

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Speed, Keith

    Clark, Henry

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stainton, Keith

    Clegg, Walter

    Lubbock, Eric

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Cooke, Robert

    Maude, Angus

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

    Costain, A. P,

    Mawby, Ray

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Crouch, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

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

    Tilney, John

    Dance, James

    Monro, Hector

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

    Murton, Oscar

    Ward, Dame Irene

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Onslow, Cranley

    Webster, David

    Eden, Sir John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

    Pardoe, John

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Emery, Peter

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wright, Esmond

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Percival, Ian

    Eyre, Reginald

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Farr, John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Pounder, Rafton

    Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefield

    English, Michael

    Lawson, George

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yard-ley)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Femyhough, E.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Bagier, Cordon A. T.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bamett, Joel

    Fowler, Gerry

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Beaney, Alan

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Freeson, Reginald

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Galpem, Sir Myer

    Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Gardner, Tony

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Garrett, W. E.

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Boyden, James

    Courlay, Harry

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gregory, Arnold

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

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Mapp, Charles

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marojuand, David

    Buchan, Norman

    Hamling, William

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Hannan, William

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Millan, Bruce

    Carmichael, Neil

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Coe, Denis

    Haseldine, Norman

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Henig, Stanley

    Moyle, Roland

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Newens, Stan

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hooley, Frank

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Homer, John

    Norwood, Christopher

    Dell, Edmund

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Dempsey, James

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Dewar, Donald

    Hoy, James

    Orbach, Maurice

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Orme, Stanley

    Dickens, James

    Hynd, John

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

    Doig, Peter

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Durmett, Jack

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Paget, R. T.

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Park, Trevor

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

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Eadie, Alex

    Kelley, Richard

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Ellis, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pentland, Norman

    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 146.

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Slater, Joseph

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Snow, Julian

    Whitlock, William

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Sprigge, Leslie

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow,E.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Roebuck, Roy

    Taverne, Dick

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Rose, Paul

    Thornton, Ernest

    Winnick, David

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Tinn, James

    Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Urwin, T. w.

    Woof, Robert

    Sheldon, Robert

    Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)

    Yates, Victor

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Walden, Brian (AH Saints)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Walker, Harold (Dorvcaster)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Silverman,' Julius (Aston)

    Wallace, George

    Mr, Concaonon and

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Mr. Ernest Perry.

    New Clause 14.
    VALIDATION OF CONDITIONAL OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSIONS.
    An outline planning permission granted before the commencement of this Act shall not be held to be invalid by reason only that it was granted upon condition that it would cease to have effect if approval of matters not particularised in the application had not been given within a specified time.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    A decision of the courts recently has thrown into chaos a large number of planning permissions, and this Clause seeks to try to put right the law on this subject. The Clause seeks to validate planning permissions which have been granted upon condition that they would cease to have effect if the details of an outline planning permission had not received approval by the local planning authority before a certain date.
    The problem arises out of the case of Kingsbury Investment (Kent) Ltd. v. the Kent County Council, in which the council granted outline planning permission in 1952. The permission had attached to it a condition that it should cease to have effect if approval of the details of the application had not been notified within three years. This type of condition is a little unusual except, I believe, in Kent. Normally, the permission would be granted on condition that the details were submitted to the local planning authority within a certain period, but in this case the condition was that approval must be notified by the council to the applicant on his outline planning permission within three years.
    That was granted in 1952, but the time was extended by letter and agreement between the parties over some years, but the council eventually refused to
    188
    extend the permission beyond September, 1962. The applicant then applied to the court for a declaration that the condition in the permission was invalid, on the grounds that it did not give them time to appeal from that condition. If the permission became invalid at the end of three years because the local planning authority had not approved the details, that could cut off the right of appeal at that moment.
    The applicant succeeded in convincing the court that the condition was invalid and the court so held, but the court also held that the permission was inseparable from the condition and that, therefore, the permission itself was invalid. So the unfortunate applicants, having applied to the court for removal of the condition from their permission, had the permission itself removed.
    I understand that the Kent County Council, and perhaps others, have used this form of outline planning permission since 1950, on the grounds of a circular from the Ministry advising that this sort of condition could be attached to permissions and outline permissions granted on the basis that it would cease to have effect if the approval of the details were not granted by the local planning authority within a period of years—in this case, three. So there must be thousands of planning permissions issued on this basis which are invalid. Many of them will have been completed, and no one will question their validity now, but there are probably many applicants holding plannning permisisons of this sort who will not have read the Law Reports and will think that they are valid. If they develop, the county council may not serve an enforcement notice, will accept the development, and that will be that, and no one will worry any more.
    But the real problem is that, if these planning permissions are invalid, there

    189
    has been a withdrawal of planning permission by a court decision. It may be that Kent County Council or other county councils will be grateful for the court's action in withdrawing planning permission, in other words, revoking planning permission without compensation. This may be used by local planning authorities as revocation of planning permissions which were thought to be valid without having to pay any compensation. That is a real danger. After all, however unfair it may seem that a public authority should take advantage in that way a public authority is the trustee for all its citizens, and it must act according to the law, and for their best benefit, and if it is for the benefit of all the citizens in its area that a planning permission should be treated as invalid and revoked, it should do so, regardless of what seems unfair to the individual.
    If the law is on the side of the public authority, it should not act to the detriment of the majority of its citizens, so it would be quite right for any county council to take advantage of this legal decision to the detriment of individual applicants. This is a stage at which Parliament should step in and put the law right. It may be that it has to be put right in a retrospective fashion, by saying that what the law has now found to be illegal planning permissions should be made legal, but it is surely the right thing to do. It should not be left in this chaotic state.
    We cannot leave a number of developers holding planning permissions they think are valid, and then, when they submit details of what they want to do on their outline planning permissions, they are told that the permissions have been revoked, not by the county council, but by decisions of the courts.
    This Clause is an effort to put right a mistake in the law which will leave a chaotic situation, unless it is put right.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman has done a service in drawing attention to this decision and the difficulties to which he has referred. I can see that there is force in his argument, that it

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES

    [11.9 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield

    Bagier, Cordon A. T.

    Blackburn, F.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Barnett, Joel

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Boyden, James

    would be wrong that developers should lose the benefit of their outline planning permissions merely because of the defect in the condition, but equally, on the other hand, it does not follow from that that they should have the benefit of such permission without the condition. That would be the effect of his new Clause. But it is a complicated and difficult matter and we should all benefit from an opportunity to sleep on it. So, partly for that reason, and partly for others, I beg to move,
    That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.
    Mr. Rippon: On a point of order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am required to put the Motion that is moved forthwith.
    Mr. Rippon: May I put a question afterwards?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question to the House. I am bound by the Standing Order.
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] (Sittings of the House): —
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Rippon(seated and covered): On a point of order. In view of what I said at the opening of the debate earlier today, is the House to be afforded no protection whatever by the Chair against the quite arbitrary, dictatorial, bloody-minded way in which Parliament is being treated, with the Government, in handling the business of the House, interfering with the proper processes of our business and holding up a vital discussion on an important Bill when 52 pages of new Clauses and Amendments have been laid before us?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is not a point of order. The Chair must apply the Standing Orders, which it is doing.
    The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 100.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Horner, John

    Pentland, Norman

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

    Hoy, James

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Buchan, Norman

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Price, William (Rugby)

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

    Hynd, John

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Irvine, Sir Arthur

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

    Coe, Denis

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rose, Paul

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Kelley, Richard

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sheldon, Robert

    Dell, Edmund

    Lawson, George

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Dempsey, James

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dickens, James

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Joseph

    Doig, Peter

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Snow, Julian

    Dunnett, Jack

    MacDermot, Niall

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Eadie, Alex

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Taverne, Dick

    Ellis, John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Thornton, Ernest

    English, Michael

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Tinn, James

    Ennals, David

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

    Urwin, T. w.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Varley, Eric G.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marquand, David

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wallace, George

    Freeson, Reginald

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Molloy, William

    Whitlock, William

    Gourlay, Harry

    Newens, Stan

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Gregory, Arnold

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

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Hamling, William

    Orbach, Maurice

    Woodburn, Rt Hn A.

    Hannan, William

    Orme, Stanley

    Woof, Robert

    Harper, Joseph

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

    Yates, Victor

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Haseidine, Norman

    Paget, R. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Henig, Stanley

    Park, Trevor

    Mr. Concannon and

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans

    Hooley, Frank

    Pavitt, Laurence

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pym, Francis

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grant, Anthony

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Astor, John

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Ren ton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bessell, Peter

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Biffen, John

    Holland, Philip

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Boardman, Tom

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Brewis, John

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Sharples, Richard

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Kirk, Peter

    Silvester, Frederick

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Burden, F. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Speed, Keith

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stainton Keith

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor,Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Clark, Henry

    Lubbock, Eric

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

    Clegg, Walter

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Cooke, Robert

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Temple John M

    Costain, A. P.

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

    Tilney John

    Crouch, David

    More, Jasper

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Dance, James

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Murton, Oscar

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Webster, David

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

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Pardoe, John

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Eden, Sir John

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wright, Esmond

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

    Percival, Ian

    Emery, Peter

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Farr, John

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Mr. Hector Monroe and

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Pounder, Rafton

    Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    Foster, Sir John

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  CHANNEL TUNNEL (TERMINUS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I am grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to the need for a decision on the actual location of the English terminus of the Channel Tunnel. The House will appreciate that it is nine years since it was announced that there was a probability that the Channel Tunnel would at last be constructed, for as long ago as 1961 the British and French Ministers of Transport set up a working party of British and French officials to report on two specific proposals from private interests for a fixed Channel crossing and to establish how far they showed promise of financial viability.
  It will be readily appreciated that the construction of a tunnel would have a profound effect upon the Borough of Folkestone in general and the harbour in particular. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in passenger traffic through the harbour, and even in 1959 the lack of Customs and immigration facilities created a serious problem.
  British Railways are the owners of the harbour and any pressure which the borough council and I have put upon them to make improvements has always been countered by the fact that if the Channel Tunnel was to be built, these facilities would not be required. It is ironical that in the year when it looks as though a decision to build the Channel Tunnel might be made, at least limited improvements to the harbour itself have been carried out, although the final plans for the surrounding development still leave much to be desired. Now that we have the assurance of the Government that the Channel Tunnel will be built, other uses for the harbour are being considered, but if I were to expound on these proposals I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order.
  The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the fact that the Government's indecision, or their reluctance to announce their decision, on the site of
  194
  the terminus installation of the tunnel is having a serious effect upon the development of the Borough of Folkestone.
  For some years now it has been assumed—more by rumour and conjecture than anything else—that the portal of the Tunnel would be on the westerly side of Sugar Loaf Hill, but the actual offloading points for motor cars and passengers would be in the vicinity of Sellindge, which is approximately halfway between Ashford and Folkestone. Indeed, the recent Buchanan Report on the development of Ashford stated that the Channel Tunnel station would be on the eastern side of Sellindge, which gave credence to these rumours. There was considerable consternation lest these installations would be sited on the Folkestone racecourse, thus depriving the borough of an important amenity. From the information that has now reached me, however, I am led to believe that this assumption is incorrect, and the promoters are working on the assumption that the railway loading points will be immediately adjacent to the Tunnel portal.
  As this could be within the town area of Folkestone, the failure to get a decision is seriously hampering the development plans. As an example, the Ministry of Transport has only recently agreed to what is virtually a bypass of Folkestone station as part of the A20 at Folkestone along Churchill Avenue. As this improvement has been so long delayed, the borough is naturally anxious to proceed with this road construction, but if the passenger vehicle station is to be sited in the proximity it may well be necessary for this road to be widened or realigned.
  It is also necessary for a firm decision to be made as to where the marshalling yards for the goods wagons is likely to be. The borough of Folkestone is very anxious that this should not be adjoining the built-up area for, while there is a plausible argument for placing a passenger station as close as possible to the portal of the tunnel and also giving access for passengers to use the facilities of the town, there would seem less of an argument for the marshalling yard to be constructed in this area. Indeed, there seems to be little purpose in building a marshalling yard immediately

  195
  adjacent to the station, and I should have thought—from my experience as an engineer who has built railways and marshalling yards in the past—that there was a stronger case for this to be located nearer to a main line junction.
  I should also make mention of the fact that the link between the Tunnel and the main Folkestone to London line will, of necessity, have to cross land which is under consideration for development, and equally I should point out that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has designated this area as one of outstanding natural beauty.
  At the moment, I have dealt only with the need for a decision on the location of sites for the permanent structure, but I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the actual siting of the offices and workshops of the tunnel builders is of vital importance. I suggested, when the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was Minister of Transport, that his Ministry should take the opportunity of acquiring the Hawkinge Airfield, which was up for disposal, and I understood that this suggestion had been accepted by him. Subsequently, however, the major part of this land was disposed of, and this excellent opportunity has been lost by the delay in arriving at a decision on this matter. Those of us who have been working closely with Government Departments for a number of years know only too well how opportunities are lost and public money wasted because of a Department's inability to give precise decisions.
  The need for a decision on the Channel Tunnel affects not only Folkestone but, quite naturally, adjoining towns, and I am delighted to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I have no doubt that if time is available they will be able to explain how the actual location of the Tunnel will affect the road pattern in their constituencies. In order to make time available, therefore, I would conclude by saying that those who are familiar with the town planning of Folkestone will realise that by careful planning which has evolved over the past hundred years
  196
  a town has been designed to maintain a proper geographical balance between residential, commercial and industrial siting, a town which in common with the best seaside resorts, has a carefully prepared distribution of parks and sports amenities which are the envy of many.
  Because of the changes which the Channel Tunnel will impose upon the labour requirements at the harbour, the proposed closure of the local Mackeson Brewery, and the Small Arms School at Hythe, and the Government's deliberate policy of dissuading industry from coming into the South-East, we face in Folkestone in the near future a serious problem with the rapid increase in unemployment.
  We therefore welcome this new hope for employment opportunities. We realise, however, that the siting of the Channel Tunnel termini is governed more by geographical contours than by any man-made plan. The borough is therefore anxious that its future plans should be designed to accommodate these new developments. This can be done only if we are given the key facts which must dominate our planning proposals. For this reason I consider we are entitled to information. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is tonight prepared to give this to enable us to plan economically and wisely.
  I have noted that since I asked for this Adjournment debate the Minister of Transport—on 14th May—made reference to a planning council being responsible for the planning of the United Kingdom terminals. I should have thought that enough was now known about the general line of the tunnel to enable the two Governments, in consultation with the railway and local authorities, to get the approximate location of the terminals. I hope that in reply the Parliamentary Secretary will not evade the issue by saying that it is being carefully considered by the planning council. If he cannot announce a decision now, can he give the date when he expects a decision to be made?
  If he cannot tell us the definition location of the terminal, can he assure us that it will not be on Folkestone Racecourse? If he cannot tell us where it will be, can he tell us where it will not be? I hope that if they are fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, my

  197
  hon. Friends will raise the question of the roads leading to the terminal.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in his plea to the Government for more information about this enormously important project. Over the months during which we have known that a great dual has been going on, the Government have shown some lack of candour over this project which is of first importance to the economy of the country and will have an enormous impact in this region.
  In some respects I appreciate the Government's reluctance to give news about the exits of the tunnel, but to give more news about the project generally and to submit the subject to public debate would ventilate the misgiving a number of people feel as to whether in the changed circumstances the project should run at all. I see the attractions which the Channel Tunnel has for the Government. In part they are political. The tunnel would have the effect of giving rail a substantial advantage over road, indeed the tunnel railway would have a monopoly. That would be in keeping with the Transport Bill and other matters.
  What I question is whether, in the absence of other evidence, those are sufficiently good grounds for going ahead without further discussion of what new circumstances lie behind the project. It bears stressing that this Government have made no official case for the Channel Tunnel. The sole public justification is the Joint Report of British and French officials in September 1963—five years ago. There has been no revised estimate made available as to the cost and no revised estimate as to the traffic which might be expected. Are we to understand that, between 1963 and 1968 there has been no change in any of these circumstances?
  What I fear—particularly in view of what my hon. Friend said about the exit from the tunnel and the impact on the region—is that when the plans are known, especially about the road structure required, there will be a degree of public outcry. Then we shall be told that it is too late to make a protest, as with the Stansted project. This brooks no delay. We are entitled to know more about what
  198
  the Government have in mind, what their case is for this costly project. For that reason I warmly welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend in raising this matter tonight.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in what they have said about the need for a public debate on the whole concept of the Channel Tunnel. As my right hon. Friend said, this is an enormously important decision involving very large factors in our whole transport strategy, rail and road. The House must have time to consider the matter now as one of urgency. We are left in the air and we do not know what the Government intend.
  From the point of view of my constituency, there is one factor of particular importance. At present, the motorway from London which has virtually replaced the old London-Dover road, the M2 motorway, ends in an orchard about seven miles north of Canterbury. This is hardly the way to take the tourist and freight traffic to Dover, Britain's busiest port today. The Government will be forced to say—I hate to put words into the Parliamentary Secretary's mouth —that the decision on ending the motorway where it is now and not to continue it is held up by a failure to make a decision on whether to proceed with the Channel Tunnel. When they can say whether they will go ahead or not go ahead with the Channel Tunnel, they will be able to say what their stategy for road planning in relation to the new entrance and the Channel crossing will be.
  Until we know whether the tunnel is to proceed, we shall have no extension to the M2. Thus, we shall see a continuation of the terrible congestion of traffic leading off the excellent M2 into the very narrow A2 road running into the old City of Canterbury. This in itself is a matter of high urgency. It would be out of order in this debate to discuss the need to by-pass our prime cathedral City, but that need is plain for all to see. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind as one of the elements to be considered in the whole question of the road strategy for the South-East.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will realise that, although I fully appreciate their worries in connection with the wider question of whether there should be a Channel Tunnel, this debate is about the terminal of the tunnel. The question of principle regarding the Channel Tunnel will be decided only when the House has debated the matter in full. Hon. Members will be aware that next week may afford a further opportunity to discuss some of the preliminary machinery involved and certain other facts required before a decision one way or the other can be taken on whether there should be a Channel Tunnel. We are not in this debate at liberty to discuss the merits one way or the other of the principle of whether there should be a Channel Tunnel.
  However, I welcome this opportunity to let the House know more about the terminal facilities likely to be needed for the Channel Tunnel, their possible location, and the machinery for consultation and decision. My right hon. Friend is as anxious as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the facts should be known and that there should be a proper opportunity for public discussion and for taking into account the views of local and regional interests before final decisions are reached in this matter.
  The trouble with early notice in cases of this kind is that, while some people think it gives the public plenty of time for constructive discussion of proposals at the formative stage, others look upon it as scaremongering publicity for half-baked ideas and as liable to cause needless local anxieties.
  It is a question of striking the right balance. My right hon. Friend believes, and so do I, that in this particular case it is better to make the facts known sooner rather than later.
  But first we must be clear about what these facts are. It may help hon. Members to see the problem clearly if I briefly describe the arrangements covering the project as a whole, because these establish the field for decision on the terminals.
  200
  The British and French Governments agreed in 1966 that the tunnel should be financed by a company in the private sector, which would also manage the construction; but that the completed tunnel should be handed over to an Anglo-French public authority which would run it. Our first task is, therefore, to choose a private group which will finance the tunnel and arrange for its construction on mutually acceptable terms. We hope that it will soon be possible to make that choice.
  The Governments will then agree, with the chosen financing group, the basis for carrying out the final phase of studies needed before we can go ahead. Hon. Members will know that we are currently seeking powers to set up a Channel Tunnel Planning Council to act as the forerunner of the public operating authority during this phase and to work in parallel with a study company to be set up by the financing group. This study phase will be carried out under the supervision of the Governments. It will no doubt include work on the detailed design and location of the terminal facilities. But I must make it quite clear that the commitment to the Study phase is not commitment to the Tunnel. There can be no final commitment to the project, or to the exact terminal requirement, until Parliament has been asked for and given its consent to construction of the tunnel.
  Before Parliament can authorise construction, or approve the proposed terminal requirements, an Anglo-French treaty must be drafted setting out the constitution of the joint public operating authority, agreeing on the line of the tunnel and regulating the relationship between the public authority and the construction company. Full legislation will have to be introduced in this country at that time to allow the provisions of the treaty to be implemented and, in particular, to give any powers that may be needed to acquire land compulsorily for the terminals.
  It should be clear, from what I have said, that there is no question of determining the site of the tunnel terminal in the final, legal sense, until Parliament itself has passed the enabling legislation for the tunnel. This makes it equally clear that it is impossible to do as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe

  201
  asked and say where it will not be. It is just as difficult to say one thing as the other, because we are dealing with land where people may be blighted because of difficulties of making decisions one way or the other. Until legislation is passed, we can talk in terms of proposals, but not of an authorised project.
  So I must make it perfectly clear that any infoimation about terminal sites released at an early stage, long before the presentation of an enabling Bill, can only take the form of provisional proposals. It would have the great advantage of giving an opportunity for public opinion to be heard well in advance; but it could cause uncertainty and perhaps hardship to some property owners who will know that their land might be wanted and who might be unable to sell it at a reasonable price in the ordinary way, if they wanted to leave their location.
  That is why there is a Clause in the Transport Bill to enable my right hon. Friend to buy, by agreement, land which is likely to be required for the Tunnel. When that becomes law, my right hon. Friend will have discretion to buy land at the request of owners who might otherwise suffer hardship.
  So much for the context in which the planning of the terminals must be carried out. I come now to what is being done in that context by the Ministry of Transport, to prepare the ground for the study period. I can say already that whether the undersea section is a bored tunnel or an immersed tube, it is almost certain that for engineering and geological reasons, the tunnel will surface somewhere in the escarpment of the North Downs to the north of Folkestone. It is also clear that, for practical reasons, the bulk of the tunnel traffic must join either the existing main railway line between Ash-ford and Folkestone or the A.20 road route. These are the arteries through which the tunnel will link the railway and road networks on both sides of the Channel and will enable freight to move deep into Europe direct from our manufacturing areas whether in Scotland, Wales, the North, the Midlands or the South. Much of the A.20, west of Maidstone, has already been improved to a high standard. Schemes which would provide for the improvement of the remainder of this route between the
  202
  Channel Tunnel terminal and the London area are already programmed or included in the announced preparation pool. These schemes will be completed by the time the tunnel opens.
  These two factors, the siting of the portal, and the junctions with the main railway and road, have the effect of limiting the possible terminal sites to the general area between Ashford and Folkestone.
  The main facility to be provided is a road vehicle ferry terminal for private cars and commercial vehicles, which will be driving on to the trains at one terminal and off at the other. The choice of the best site in this area of Kent is not easy, particularly when stringent railway operating requirements have to be met. The countryside is hilly, fairly densely populated, and, in parts, of high amenity value. The terminal site has, moreover, to be located close to the main line railway and to the improvement or relief of the A20.
  The choice has to strike the best balance between operating, economic, and general planning and amenity considerations. We also have to allow for other possible requirements such as terminal and interchange facilities for railway passengers and railway freight. Much the same considerations would apply to these.
  In order to prepare the ground for the final studies, which will begin when the study company and the Planning Council are set up, the Ministry of Transport have already arranged an aerial survey. Also, to ensure feasibility from an engineering point of view, a number of specific studies—for example, geological and soil surveys—are in hand to establish the most suitable line of the tunnel approach railway. This factor is likely to have considerable bearing on the final choice of sites suitable for the various terminal facilities.
  Extensive studies, consultations and soundings have been and are still in progress with officers of the major interested parties. Apart from other Government Departments, these include British Railways, the Kent County Council, and other local authorities and statutory undertakings. The South-East Economic Planning Council has also been kept informed.

  203
  These consultations have not yet been completed, and are still at the confidential stage. We have to be reasonably confident, before making any proposals public, even on a provisional basis, that they are sound from an engineering point of view and meet the operational and general planning requirements.
  Once the consultations have been satisfactorily concluded at an official level, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to consult formally with the various local authorities concerned, who will at this stage be able to discuss the proposals, in the light of all the operational, economic, and planning considerations which have so far emerged, and to make their views known in plenty of time for them to be taken fully into account.
  I hope that we shall be ready to consult local authorities in this way within the next few months. At that moment, it is my right hon. Friend's intention, again in consultation with those authorities, to make jointly acceptable arrangements for publication, in a suitable form and at a suitable time, of information on the pro-
  204
  posals under consideration—always bearing in mind, as I have said, that they will be strictly provisional and subject in due course to the approval of Parliament.
  I have now sketched out the general area in which we are interested, as well as the factors which at present limit an announcement about the terminal site. I have also indicated the various steps we are taking to make our planning public at the earliest opportunity while guarding against any possibility of hardship.
  I hope, as I have said, that it may not be too long before we can publish. But the studies are complex and I am sure hon. Members will understand that It is not open to me today to name a precise date for publication.
  The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at a quarter to Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock Tomorrow pursuant to Order.

  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GERMANY
  NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GERMANY
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  SAUDI ARABIA (MR. HORACE PHILLIPS)
  SAUDI ARABIA (MR. HORACE PHILLIPS)
  MOSCOW (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  MOSCOW (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)
  SEA BED
  SEA BED
  ROUMANIA (STEAUA ROMANA COMPANY CLAIM)
  ROUMANIA (STEAUA ROMANA COMPANY CLAIM)
  UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING
  UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  SOUTH AFRICA (TRADE UNION RIGHTS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (TRADE UNION RIGHTS)
  POLAND
  POLAND
  EAST GERMANY
  EAST GERMANY
  UNITED NATIONS (MEMBERSHIP)
  UNITED NATIONS (MEMBERSHIP)
  GIBRALTAR
  GIBRALTAR
  THREE POWERS (RIGHTS)
  THREE POWERS (RIGHTS)
  SPAIN (MR. JOHN EVERSON)
  SPAIN (MR. JOHN EVERSON)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Unemployment (West Riding and County Durham)
  Unemployment (West Riding and County Durham)
  Retail Price Index (Report)
  Retail Price Index (Report)
  Co-operative Insurance Society (Pay Agreement)
  Co-operative Insurance Society (Pay Agreement)
  Early Warning System
  Early Warning System
  Pay Increases (Notifications)
  Pay Increases (Notifications)
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Training Centres, Midland Region (Waiting Lists)
  Training Centres, Midland Region (Waiting Lists)
  Wage Increases (Criteria)
  Wage Increases (Criteria)
  Mercury Hearing-Aid Batteries
  Mercury Hearing-Aid Batteries
  Prices (Nationalised Industries and Public Utilities)
  Prices (Nationalised Industries and Public Utilities)
  Redundant Miners (Arley and Kingsbury)
  Redundant Miners (Arley and Kingsbury)
  Women's Employment (Survey)
  Women's Employment (Survey)
  Child Care Facilities
  Child Care Facilities
  Prices and Charges (Notified Increases)
  Prices and Charges (Notified Increases)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Motor Neuron Disease
  Motor Neuron Disease
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
TECHNOLOGY
  Atomic Energy Authority (Consulting Engineers)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Consulting Engineers)
  Northern Region (Projects)
  Northern Region (Projects)
  British Hovercraft (Latin America and Africa)
  British Hovercraft (Latin America and Africa)
  Nuclear Reactors (Select Committee Report)
  Nuclear Reactors (Select Committee Report)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Falkland Islands (Geological Survey)
  Falkland Islands (Geological Survey)
SCOTLAND
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  School Classes (Maximum Numbers)
  School Classes (Maximum Numbers)
  Aluminium Smelter Project
  Aluminium Smelter Project
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Motorways
  Motorways
  House Rents (Fife County Council)
  House Rents (Fife County Council)
  Offensive Weapons (Powers of Search)
  Offensive Weapons (Powers of Search)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parole (Criteria)
  Parole (Criteria)
  Police Surgeon (Resignation)
  Police Surgeon (Resignation)
  Drug Offences (Oldham)
  Drug Offences (Oldham)
  London Taxis (Control)
  London Taxis (Control)
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossings (Road Research Laboratory Report)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Road Research Laboratory Report)
  New Road Construction (Building Demolitions)
  New Road Construction (Building Demolitions)
  Ml (Traffic Figures)
  Ml (Traffic Figures)
  A46—Catthorpe and Coleshill
  A46—Catthorpe and Coleshill
TRANSPORT
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
  Abandoned Motor Vehicles
  Abandoned Motor Vehicles
  Omnibuses (Advertising Material)
  Omnibuses (Advertising Material)
  Waterways (Transport Bill)
  Waterways (Transport Bill)
  Leicester University Report
  Leicester University Report
  Accidents (One-Way Streets)
  Accidents (One-Way Streets)
  Motor Vehicles (Re-licensing)
  Motor Vehicles (Re-licensing)
  PAYNE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  PAYNE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat: (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations
  Meat: (Staining and Sterilisation) Regulations
  Drivers' Hours
  Drivers' Hours
  Milk Producers (Leicestershire)
  Milk Producers (Leicestershire)
  Fat Cattle (Deficiency Payment)
  Fat Cattle (Deficiency Payment)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Warrington New Town Order (Appleton Area)
  Warrington New Town Order (Appleton Area)
  Manchester Conurbation (Overspill Population)
  Manchester Conurbation (Overspill Population)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Departmental Activities
  Departmental Activities
  Rail Travel Warrants, Catterick and Richmond
  Rail Travel Warrants, Catterick and Richmond
HOUSING
  Rents (West Ham Trades Council Resolution)
  Rents (West Ham Trades Council Resolution)
  London Housing Survey
  London Housing Survey
  Trunk Road Construction (Housing Land, Salford)
  Trunk Road Construction (Housing Land, Salford)
  Slum Clearance Areas (Redevelopment Costs)
  Slum Clearance Areas (Redevelopment Costs)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Annie's Bar
  Annie's Bar
  Educational Films of Scotland
  Educational Films of Scotland
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Tinned Goods (Marking)
  Tinned Goods (Marking)
  Metric Quantities
  Metric Quantities
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Tariff Protection
  Tariff Protection
  Board of Trade Journal (Readership)
  Board of Trade Journal (Readership)
  Exports (Scotland-Scandinavia)
  Exports (Scotland-Scandinavia)
  Airline Operators (Safety Performance)
  Airline Operators (Safety Performance)
  Liquid Bottled Goods (Marking)
  Liquid Bottled Goods (Marking)
  Hodgson Committee
  Hodgson Committee
  Ljubljana Air Crash (Report)
  Ljubljana Air Crash (Report)
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
  Departmental Staff (Wales)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment Incomes
  Investment Incomes
  Selective Employment Tax (Waste Paper and Scrap Steel Processing)
  Selective Employment Tax (Waste Paper and Scrap Steel Processing)
  Dividend Restraint
  Dividend Restraint
  Rent Act, 1957 (Availability)
  Rent Act, 1957 (Availability)
  Civil Service (Employment)
  Civil Service (Employment)
  O.E.C.D. Countries (Civil Current Expenditure)
  O.E.C.D. Countries (Civil Current Expenditure)
  Non-Industrial Civil Service (Wages and Salaries)
  Non-Industrial Civil Service (Wages and Salaries)
  O.E.C.D. Countries (Retail Price Increases)
  O.E.C.D. Countries (Retail Price Increases)
  Prices and Incomes Policy (Departmental Staffs)
  Prices and Incomes Policy (Departmental Staffs)

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

KRUPP COAL AND STEEL INTERESTS
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in the absence of Lord Henderson, who is ill, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the obligations undertaken by the Federal German Government in the Bonn Settlement Convention regarding the deconcentration of the Krupp coal and steel interests, in the light of the situation that has arisen after the death of Alfred Krupp.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, may I first say how sorry we are to hear that Lord Henderson is unable to be here to-day. I am indebted to my noble friend for his Question which is a very pertinent one, in view of the death of Alfred Krupp. Under his will the Krupp concerns have been radically reorganised. The profits of the enterprise, which will now be a joint stock company, are to be paid to a charitable foundation of which the trustees are leading German citizens. All control and ownership has passed out of the hands of the Krupp family. In the changed circumstances of to-day, these new arrangements finally render the deconcentration Order irrelevant. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly felt it right to enter into discussions with the other Governments concerned with a view to terminating the deconcentration Order.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while not dissenting from the statement which my noble friend has just made, may I ask him has it not always been considered most important to prevent the development of a German war potential? Could he tell
446
the House why the 1953 Order has never been acted upon?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords I agree with what my noble friend has said, and that was indeed the aim of the deconcentration Order. As he will recall, an independent mixed committee of experts was appointed under the Bonn Settlement Convention with a mandate to examine year by year the position under the Order which was made in 1953, and every year they have concluded that the terms of the Order were incapable of fulfilment. This was to do with an analysis which they made in depth of technical and financial conditions prevailing in Germany. They concluded that it would be impossible to carry out the terms of the 1953 Order.

NIGERIA: CEASE-FIRE TALKS AND ARMS SUPPLY
2.39 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 view of the peace negotiations at Kampala, they will use their good offices with the Federal Government to bring about a cease-fire in the Nigerian civil war and, to this end, will cease to provide further arms and will approach other Governments to do the same in respect of both sides in the conflict.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the possibility of a cease-fire will no doubt be much in the minds of those talking part in the negotiations due to start at Kampala on May 23; conditions for ending the hostilities have a prominent place on the agreed agenda. Her Majesty's Government have all along called for the earliest possible end of the fighting, and the Federal Government are well aware of our views; but whether a cease-fire can be negotiated will depend on the willingness of both sides to find an agreed formula.
With regard to arms, we do not consider that imposing a unilateral ban on further supplies from this country would advance the prospects of a cease-fire in present circumstances. If both sides were

447
to agree on a suspension of arms supplies from all sources, we should willingly co-operate with them and with other suppliers.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords. But is not my noble friend aware that the policy which I have advocated for some weeks, not only of a unilateral stopping of arms, but of an approach to other Governments to do so, is now practicable? Are not the Foreign Office aware, through their intelligence and diplomatic services, not only that the Czechoslovakian Government has decided to stop arms supplies to Nigeria, but that other Governments also are reconsidering this matter, one from the point of view of political attitudes and the other from necessity?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government are aware of developments in other parts of the world on this subject. I can only say that arms have been reaching both sides from a very wide range of sources. Of course, these sources are not only Governmental; arms are reaching Nigeria from private sources as well. I know that my noble friend, with his wide experience of these matters, will know how difficult it is to arrange international arms control of a multilateral kind, especially in a case like this. If we could get some declared wish from both sides in this civil war in Nigeria about this matter, then it might be easier to carry out an initiative; but so far there is no sign of that.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will certainly take no action that is likely to have any adverse effect upon the forthcoming peace talks?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. Of course, it is true that, with these talks about to begin in a few days' time, we should be very careful about doing or saying anything now which would make the chance of success there more remote.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, if the Minister were persuaded that the Biafrans are prepared immediately to cease fire, and that the reluctance to cease fire
448
is on the other side, would that affect the decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the supply of arms?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that is an extremely tendentious and hypothetical question, and one which I am not prepared to answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in the present situation, where the airfield at Port Harcourt has been taken, there is not a very great danger of a long continued guerrilla war, in which genocide might be possible, unless the utmost pressure is exerted to bring the Kampala negotiations to a peaceful solution?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course unless the Kampala talks are successful we face the awful possibility of a prolonged civil war in Nigeria. There is nothing Her Majesty's Government want more than to see these talks succeed and to see this possibility removed. For that reason I say that at this stage I think we should be very careful about making judgments or doing or saying anything that would make this more difficult.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the suggestion that something is achieved by silence on this matter has been made by the Government several times? May I venture to suggest to him that this is not a situation which is improved by refraining from stating the facts? I think the facts need to be stated.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by "the facts". There are some very acute and agonising arguments in this case, and Her Majesty's Government are well aware of them. I would only point out that the Federal Military Government of Nigeria is the Government with which we deal. We must continue to deal with it until the agonising situation there is solved, and I hope that we can get it solved very soon.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that, whereas the House appreciates the difficulty about the sale of private arms, a great difference might be made if Her Majesty's Government gave a moral lead in this direction by saying that they would not supply arms

449
to either side, although we know that in fact they do so to only one side?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the context of what my noble friend has said I should like to mention only one thing, and that is that it would seem to me, at this particular stage in the proceedings, that if we rewarded the Federal Military Government of Nigeria for coming to the conference table by suddenly changing the policy which we have been following for some considerable time, it might have quite the opposite effect from the one we desire. I am not trying to make, I hope, moral judgments about this. I am saying only that if this initiative came from them, if both sides in the struggle were prepared to say that they would no longer receive arms from anybody, that would be a different matter. But I believe that to make unilateral moves of this sort at the moment might have quite a different effect from the one which we all want.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is it not a fact that, now that the airport at Port Harcourt has fallen, it is impossible for any arms to reach the Biafrans, and that therefore there can he no question of supplying both sides? The Biafrans can no longer receive any more arms.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, what might happen in the future I am not prepared to speculate about. All I can say is that arms have been reaching both sides from a great multiplicity of sources, and if we could get this thing done multilaterally no one would be more anxious to do it than I.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall be making a Statement on the third London airport at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. May I also say, on the subject of our business to-day, that dinner will be available tonight from 7 until 8.30 p.m. It is hoped to make good progress with the Report stage of the Countryside Bill this evening, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is not proposing to ask his Unstarred Question to-night, but will ask it on Wednesday instead.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my acme on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Theatres Bill from Thursday the 30th to Tuesday the 28th instant.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Emmet of Amberley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increase of Maximum Payments for children]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM) moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and insert:
"() The enactments described in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in the second column of that Schedule, being amendments removing the limits of fifty shillings and seven pounds ten shillings imposed by those enactments upon the weekly rate of the payments for the maintenance of a child, and for the maintenance of a party to a marriage, which may be required by order of a magistrates' court thereunder."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. When I spoke on the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I made two promises. The first was that I would move some Amendments to give effect to the main recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Statutory Maintenance Limits; namely,
"that the financial limits prescribed by Statute for orders which may be made in magistrates courts for the maintenance of wives and children should be abolished".

451
The second promise was that I would say something about the question of tax on small maintenance payments. I should like now to fulfil both those promises.
May I first deal with the Amendment which I now move, Amendment No. 1; and if it would suit your Lordships' convenience, may I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which are all designed to give effect to the main recommendation of the Graham-Hall Committee that limits should be abolished? Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are purely drafting changes which are necessary to take account of the change in the character of the Bill which would be brought about by acceptance of Amendments Nos. 1 and 7. I say "change in character" advisedly, since I think it right to admit that by moving these Amendments the Government are seeking to change the character of the Bill.
In the form in which it was introduced by the noble Baroness—and that is the same form in which it was introduced in another place by Mr. Quintin Hogg last year—the Bill was intended to increase the existing limits on the amounts which magistrates' courts may order to be paid in respect of a child, and to allow the Home Secretary to increase the limit on the amount which may be paid in respect both of a child and of its parent. The Amendments are to change the character of the Bill so that its purpose is to abolish all limits on amounts which may be ordered by magistrates' courts in the circumstances detailed in the Bill. Such a fundamental change was deliberately allowed for when the Long Title of this Bill was drafted, because although the Committee had not then reported, the possibility of a recommendation to abolish the limits was envisaged and provided for. Noble Lords will remember that I summarised the Committee's reasons for their recommendation in my speech during Second Reading.
The most important reason, and the only one which I wish to repeat now, was the Committee's desire to ensure that no child should be allowed to suffer hardship through the existence of statutory maintenance limits. That is a wholly laudable intention which I feel sure all noble Lords will support. At
452
present, in cases where there is no entitlement for a woman to receive maintenance on her own account (and this is so in guardianship and affiliation proceedings) the present limit of £2 10s. on the amount which may be paid in respect of a child is quite insufficient. The Committee thought that as much as £10 might be necessary, and pointed out that in the case of a large family this would amount to virtually no limit at all. They could find no rational criteria for a new higher limit and concluded that abolition was the only sensible and defensible recommendation. The Committee received unsolicited arguments in favour of abolition from such bodies as the Association of Children's Officers, the Justices Clerks' Society, the Magistrates' Association, the National Association of Justices' Clerks Assistants, the National Association of Probation Officers and the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child.
The recommendation for abolition of limits is put into effect by Amendment No. 1, which must be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 7, which introduces a Schedule into the Bill. It deletes from the Bill the provisions which would have increased to £5 the existing limit of 50s. on the amount of weekly payment which may be ordered by a magistrates' court for the maintenance of a child and also a provision which would have allowed the Home Secretary to increase the new limit of £5 to a higher figure. The new Schedule 1 specifies all the enactments in which such limits are prescribed, and the effect of the new subsection (1) of Clause 1 and the new Schedule 1 is to delete all references to limits in the legislation specified in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I think there is no need for me to delay your Lordships on this Amendment. You would like to know, I am sure, that I have consulted with my right honourable friend in another place. This Bill passed through another place before the Graham-Hall Committee had reported. My right honourable friend entirely supports the Amendment and I am sure that

453
the Committee will do so. The suggestion with regard to the limit placed on small maintenance payments seems to be a reasonable one, and I would suggest that we accept the Amendment on the lines explained by the Minister.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I wish merely to say how many people will welcome the Amendment that my noble friend has moved. We have all been waiting very impatiently, month after month, for the Final Report of the Graham-Hall Committee. We realise that the Bill introduced in the other place merely anticipated that Report. Therefore, I am delighted to learn that the Minister has accepted it in toto.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, to delete Clause 1(3) or the Bill. The Amendment proposes to remove from the Bill a provision which would have treated the increased payments of up to £5 for children, which the Bill originally authorised, as "small maintenance payments" for tax purposes. Under income tax law, payments within the definition of small maintenance payments are payable in full without deduction of tax. This is a great convenience to the mother whose income normally may well not be large enough to be liable to tax. Under income tax law, the recipient pays any tax which may be due on the allowances, depending on her income, and the person making the payments is given a deduction for them in computing his taxable income. The limits on the amount of small maintenance payments which are subject to these arrangements are at present the same as those on the amounts of maintenance which may be ordered by magistrates' courts; namely, 50s. for a child and £7 10s. for a spouse.
The Graham-Hall Committee considered the effects of abolishing limits on the law relating to the taxation of small maintenance payments and they concluded that there should be a limit on the amounts which could be paid without deduction of tax. They recommended that the tax limits as regards payments for a child should be raised from the current maximum of £2 10s. weekly (which the Bill as at present drafted would have raised to £5 weekly) to £7 10s.
454
weekly. In other words, it is proposed that that should still be a small maintenance payment and that the tax should not be deducted at source before the payment is made. This would have the effect of making the amount payable for a child's maintenance which ranks as "small maintenance payment" for tax purposes the same as the amount which now qualifies as a small maintenance payment if payable to a spouse—I need to use the word "spouse" for it could be paid either to a woman or to a man, according to the circumstances. The Government agree with this recommendation and have decided to deal in the Finance Bill with all the taxation consequences of the Graham-Hall Report. Appropriate Amendments were tabled in another place on Friday to amend Clause 17 of the Finance Bill so as to bring into the category of small maintenance payments amounts up to £7 10s. a week in the case of a child.
I am sure that the Committee—and in particular my noble friend Lady Summerskill—will be pleased to know that the Finance Bill will also implement the two other tax recommendations of the Graham-Hall Committee; namely, that the small maintenance payments tax arrangements should no longer be restrioted to orders expressed to be payable at weekly intervals, and that Treasury Ministers should be given powers to make changes by Statutory Instrument in the definition of small maintenance payments.
I understand that Clause 1(3) of this Bill, which treats as small maintenance payments those payments which it would have authorised in its original form, was included in the Bill because it was expected that the Bill would become effective a considerable time before the Finance Bill. Indeed, we had all hoped that it would be so; but in the event it seems to be working out very well, because the Maintenance Orders Bill was first introduced in another place in November of last year and the Government wished to avoid the possibility of orders at the increased amount having to be paid with tax deducted. Without the changes I have just mentioned, if the child's allowance had been £7 10s., tax would have been deducted. It now seems most likely that the Finance Bill and this Bill will become law at about

455
the same time and we have decided that it would be most convenient if all the Amendments to the taxation law which arise from the Graham-Hall Report were dealt with in the Finance Bill. This decision fortunately relieves me of the necessity of inflicting upon your Lordships further statements about complicated tax questions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Stonham.)
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: It is not often that one finds oneself in complete agreement with the Treasury on any matter; but in this case I am sure that your Lordships would all agree that this is a very good arrangement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to increase maximum payments to spouses]:
3.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move that Clause 2 be deleted from the Bill. From what I have said it will be obvious that as there are now to be no limits we do not require this clause which provides for limits.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out subsections (1) and (2).—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Act") to ("may") in line 32.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at end add—
("(4) Section 15 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 is hereby repealed.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I apologise to your Lordships that in my speech on the first Amendment I referred constantly to Amendment No. 7 and there is no Amendment of that number of the Marshalled List. I should have looked more carefully. I knew that I had seven Amendments to move but had momentarily forgotten that when we move to leave out a clause it is not numbered on the Marshalled List. I hope that this has not occasioned any confusion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  ENACTMENTS AMENDED
  The Guardianship of Infants Act 1925. (15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 45.)

  In section 7, in subsection (1), paragraph (c) of the proviso shall be omitted.

  The Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957. (5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 55.)

  In section 4, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the words 'not exceeding fifty shillings a week' shall be omitted.

  The Maintenance Orders Act 1958. (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 39.)

  In section 4, in subsection (3), for the words from 'whichever' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'the rate of payments specified by the order as made or last varied by the original court'.

  The Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. (8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 48.)

  In section 2, in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), the words 'not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings' shall be omitted; and in paragraph (h) of that subsection for the words from 'payments by way of a weekly sum' to 'fifty shillings' there shall be substituted the words 'weekly payments'.

  The Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. (1965 c. 72.)

  In section 24, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the words 'at a rate not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings a week' and the words' at a rate not exceeding fifty shillings a week in respect of each such child' shall be omitted; and in paragraph (b) of that subsection for the words from 'at rates' to'rate aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words 'an order increasing'."—(Lord Stonham.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  House Resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

  COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  3.4 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 1:
  General functions of the Commission
  1.—(1) The functions of the National Parks Commission shall be enlarged in accordance with this Act and in future their name shall he the "Countryside Commission".
  LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (1), after "Countryside" to insert "and National Parks". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Strang and Lord Chorley. I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage, As a result of a suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, as a compromise, I did not press the matter on that occasion, although I have every intention of pressing the Amendment which I have put down for to-day and which embodies his compromise.
  This Bill is to a large extent an amendment and an extension of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. It has been made quite plain by the Government that they are building
  458
  upon the experience of that earlier measure, and I do not wonder that they do so. It was passed by a Labour Government and was supported at that time by many who did not belong to the Government side. In the opinion of every impartial observer that Act has been an unqualified success. It has done a great deal to remind people of the outstanding beauty of many parts of our countryside and of the need, in these days of industrial and commercial development, to safeguard the most beautiful parts of our countryside.
  We who are pressing this Amendment welcome the fact that this Bill, introduced by the present Labour Government, is carrying the same process further and that the Commission set up under the 1949 Act to deal with the National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are to have their scope extended in order that they may be responsible for preserving the beauty of the whole of our countryside. That is entirely to the good, and we welcome it. We are very glad that the responsibility of the Commission is being extended and that the word "Countryside" is to be included in their title. But we feel very strongly that none of that is a reason for dropping the title which the Commission have had for the last twenty years, particularly since, in the opinion of all impartial observers and of successive Governments of both the main political Parties, the National Parks Commission have discharged their duties so well. When we are extending their responsibilities do not let us disregard an honourable and successful tradition.
  We do not press this Amendment merely because of the name, important as that is, and not solely for the purpose of preserving traditions, honourable and distinguished as they are. We do so because it is important to maintain our priorities. So long as there is a shortage of money—and I cannot see the lime when there will not be some shortage of money—it is important that money should be spent according to priorities. I think it was Mr. Aneurin Bevan who said that Socialism depends upon proper priorities. A great many other things besides Socialism depend upon proper priorities. All sound administration of every kind depends upon proper priorities, especially when, as I say, there is likely to be a shortage of money.
  Since this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, we have been warned by the Government (and I make no complaint about it: on the contrary, I commend them for their realism) that the amount of money which they originally hoped to spend under this Bill will have to be restricted. If that is so, it is surely of great importance that the limited amount of money available should be spent with some degree of priority on those parts of the country which have been selected as of such particular beauty and interest that they have been made into National Parks. I am thinking of the Lake District, the Peak District, Dartmoor and Exmoor, to mention only a few of them; and, of course, in Wales, Snowdonia, in all its beauty. If there is to be a limit upon the amount of money spent, it is important that this new Commission should bear in mind the importance of giving some priority to those parts of England and Wales which have been under the special care of the National Parks Commission during the last twenty years.
  I do not attach exaggerated importance to names, but I think there is more in this than a name. It would be true to say that almost all—indeed, so far as I know, all—of the amenity societies like the old name, National Parks Commission, and are in favour of preserving it, because of what it has implied in the past and what it ought to imply in the future. We welcome the extension of the Commission's responsibilities, but we consider it of great importance to preserve the continuity of an honourable and successful and distinguished tradition. I beg to move this Amendment, which is a compromise suggested by my noble friend Lord Swinton, giving priority to the bold idea of the countryside and yet preserving the words "National Parks".
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 8, after ("Countryside") insert ("and National Parks").—(Lord Molson.)
  LORD STRANG: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which stands in my name as well as in that of my noble friend Lord Molson. I will not repeat all the arguments that I used on Second Reading and in Committee. The main argument I used was that as this new Commission will operate under two separate but connected Acts—the Act of
  460
  1949 and this new Act of 1968—that duality ought to be preserved in the name given to the new Commission with their extended functions.
  The Amendment discussed in Committee was that the title should be National Parks and Countryside Commission. As my noble friend has said, a compromise suggestion was made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who has expressed his regret that it is not possible for him to be in the House to-day. It seems to me that the compromise suggested has a good deal to commend it. It preserves the duality; it gets rid of one of the difficulties which was urged against the earlier Amendment: that this double title was such an awful "mouthful" that no one would ever know quite what to call the Commission. It seems to me that this proposed new title provides a possible solution.
  The full title of "Countryside and National Parks Commission" would appear on all official documents, and on the stationery of the new Commission, but in everyday practice people would probably call it, for short, the Countryside Commission. There is a precedent for that. The full title of the 1949 Act is the "National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act" but, except on official papers and on official occasions, no one calls it by this full title. It is always referred to as the "National Parks Act" Similarly, the new Commission would commonly be called "the Countryside Commission", but for official purposes it would bear its full name. All the arguments which were advanced by my noble friend Lord Molson, with whom I entirely agree, would be met by this extended title with the revised order of the two parts of it. It seems to me that the new proposed title ought to satisfy everybody, and I hope that the Government will change their minds about it.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments I put forward at the last stage, but I have been thinking about what was said by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, the present Chairman of the National Parks Commission, and I can see that her contention that the name "Countryside Act" is simpler is obviously true. But there is a certain emotional element—a morale element, as I called it—and I can see that the new Commission who are

  461
  just taking up their work would prefer to have themselves thought of as the Countryside Commission, just as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and that happy band of warriors who work with him have an emotional feeling in favour of preserving the title of the Commission tinder which they work.
  It seems to me that the noble Earl's compromise suggestion was a happy way out of this difficulty and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. The noble Baroness's suggestion that "Countryside" is simpler is a better argument than that put forward by the Minister in Committee below, when he said that it was simpler and more accurate. I do not think that it is more accurate. If we look at this important Bill, we see that a substantial amount of it is taken up with amending the National Parks Act and with the actual work of the old National Parks Commission. Therefore, it certainly is not more accurate to leave "National Parks" out of the title; in fact, I should have said it was the opposite. Leaving it out fails to bring home to the person or the organisation coming to the study of the Act what will remain undoubtedly the most important part of the work of the Commission, whether it is called the Countryside Commission or the Countryside and National Parks Commission, and that is important.
  The other point which was made by the noble Baroness was that, from a publicity point of view, "Countryside" was a more useful title. I have been thinking about that, and I doubt whether it is true. My friends who are in the publicity movement have always told me that it is a cardinal rule of advertising, which I suppose is publicity, that there should be something concrete on which the mind can work. "Countryside" is a very general term; "National Parks" is much more concrete, and it is something which the out-of-door public of this country has come to know about and attach importance to. I should have thought that it was a considerable advantage, from the point of view of impingement on the mind of the person to whom you are addressing yourself, that it should have some concrete subject attached to it like "National Parks", in addition to the rather general and vague word "Countryside", which may mean one thing to one person and an entirely different thing to another.
  462
  Therefore I felt that this was a fallacious argument. In view of all these considerations I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the compromise put forward so felicitously by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on the last occasion.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I hesitate to get to my feet, as really I have nothing to add that I did not say on the Committee stage, but what I said then has not been touched on and I think it is the most important part; that is, that the countryside should be regarded as single and indivisible. I do not want to have bits of the countryside a country park, bits of it places you are allowed to spoil, and other areas where you may earn your living upon it. It is all one and the same. If we are going to make the best use of it and get the best co-operation from farmers, landowners, rambler and tourist interests, and all the rest, I think we must regard it as something single and indivisible. My only reason for not agreeing to this addition of "National Parks", although I see the strength of the noble Lord's argument and the sentiments behind it, is that I think it militates against trying to regard the countryside as one single thing.
  3.22 p.m.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think all sides of the House must be in complete agreement with the reasons for which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, introduced this Amendment, but whether they outweigh the reasons on the other side is a matter on which I think the House is divided. There is clearly agreement that the National Parks are the most special and most important bits of the countryside from the point of view of public access and public enjoyment. There is clearly agreement, also, that the National Parks Commission, as it now exists and has existed for twenty years, has done a magnificent job in interpreting and applying the 1949 Act. There is clearly agreement that it would be most undesirable were there to be any suspicion of a demotion of the place of National Parks in all the categories with which we are dealing in the present Bill and with which the Countryside Commission, or whatever it is called, will be dealing.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that there will always be a shortage of money and when there is a shortage of money you must pay attention to

  463
  priorities. I agree with him about that. I agree with him, also, that National Parks must remain a very high, if not the highest, priority in all this work of protecting the countryside and making it accessible. But I do not think you really secure proper adherence to priorities by means of short titles. I think the short title ought to pay attention to what is most easily memorable and repeatable and what gives the most accurate picture of the whole range of subjects dealt with in the Bill and the whole range of subjects dealt with by the Commission which is to be the main instrument for progress in this field.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the countryside is single and indivisible, and the Commission which will be taking over from the National Parks Commission must deal with it as single and indivisible and must be able to handle the relationships between all the special categories of land which are to be found in the countryside; namely, the National Parks, the existing areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas of special scientific interest, areas with a high landscape value, and the proposed new country parks, picnic places and all the other designations. All these are special parts of the countryside, and there will be the rest of the countryside in which access agreements and access orders may come about, and to which we wish to encourage people to go in the right way, at the right time and place, on all of which it will be the Countryside Commission's responsibility to design means of progress.
  That being so, I think the House would be right to give priority in this discussion to neatness of phraseology and compendiousness of meaning in preference to a recognition of the great work done by the existing National Parks Commission and in preference to ensuring that a danger, which I do not believe is real, is avoided; namely, that of a demotion of National Parks themselves within the structure. All that being so, I would advise the House not to amend this wording but to keep it as the "Countryside Commission".
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has set out the issues very clearly and some of your Lordships may feel that they are
  464
  nicely balanced. I was against the Amendment in Committee to call it the "National Parks and Countryside Commission", because it seemed to me desirable that one should bring the countryside concept to the fore. But I am much more favourably inclined towards this Amendment, because I, for my part, should be sorry, like my noble friend Lord Molson, to see the reference to "National Parks" dropped out entirely. It seems to me that we can very easily keep it in, though I grant that in practice probably the Countryside and National Parks Commission would be commonly called, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, indicated, the "Countryside Commission". I think, if I were to be invited in some years' time to come to join a body of this character and I had a special interest in National Parks, as many people have, I should be more inclined to accept the invitation if it were called the "Countryside and National Parks Commission" than if it were just called the "Countryside Commission".
  The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that this was a unitary undertaking. There is another aspect to that. It so happens that on Friday last I was in the Brecon Beacons National Park, on the road that leads over from Ebbw Vale to Llangynidr, where one gets magnificent views into Carmarthenshire to the West and across the Usk valley to the Black Mountains to the East. Frankly, if I had been asked to describe that view, I should not have described it as a view of the countryside. The Welsh countryside which I picture is something quite different from that. This was a panorama of rolling hills and sharp cut mountains—exactly what the concept of a National Park conveys to me.
  Bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, himself said that National Parks would probably always have first priority in the Commission's order of importance, I think we should not exclude them from the title. I conclude by saying that with this Amendment I cannot conceive that any considerations of Party controversy or Party philosophy are involved. I should not dream of advising anybody to vote one way or the other on Party grounds from the Opposition Front Bench, but for the reasons I have given, if it comes to a Division, I myself will vote for the Amendment.
  3.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Clause 3:
  Exercise of functions of Commission in Wales and Monmouthshire
  3.—(1) The Commission shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint a Committee for Wales.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD MAELOR LORD MAELOR moved, to leave out subsection (1), and insert:
  "(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission for Wales, as is the case for Scotland."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have been rather reluctant to table my Amendment because I know that the idea of establishing a separate Commission for
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 41.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Effingham, E.

  Mills, V.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Milverton, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Molson, L. [Teller.]

  Amherst, E.

  Foot, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Blackford, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  St. Helens, L.

  Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

  Horsbrugh, Bs.

  Sandys, L.

  Caccia, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Carrington, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Somers, L.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Ilford, L.

  Strang, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  Kings Norton, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Loudoun, C.

  Thurlow, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Derwent, L.

  MacAndrew, L.

  Uvedale of North End, L.

  Devonport, V.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Mar, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Wedgwood, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Henley, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Archibald, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Rea, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Klloracken, L.

  Rhodes, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Latham, L.

  Ritchie-Calder, L.

  Burden, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Rowley, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

  Royle, L.

  Crook, L.

  McLeavy, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Denham, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Mitchison, L.

  Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

  Faringdon, L.

  Moyle, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Gaitskell, Bs.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Stonham, L.

  Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Pargiter, L.

  Summerskill, Bs.

  Granville-West, L.

  Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Plummer, Bs.

  Williamson, L.

  Wales was rejected by the Minister of State in another place. I fail to understand why she opposed what I regard as a most reasonable request. One has not to be a Welsh Nationalist to be a good Welshman, and, as I have repeatedly stated in this House, I am first and foremost a Welshman, and proud of the fact. By the establishment of the Welsh Office the present Prime Minister has recognised the nationhood of Wales once and for all. We are a different people in many respects—indeed in most respects. We have our own language, our own traditions, and our own way of life. We take a great pride in our country. It is the only democratic Socialist country in the world, because 80 per cent. of our representatives in the other place belong to the Labour Party. That shows that it is an intelligent nation. A third of our beautiful country—I want to repeat

  467
  this: a third of Wales—is within a National Park.
  I should declare an interest and state that I was personally responsible for persuading Mr. Harold Macmillan when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government to allow the Snowdonia National Park to be administered by a Committee composed of representatives of local authorities in that area. Up to that time it was administered entirely by the Commission here in London. That Committee carried out an excellent job of work. This was because all the members were interested in the Park, and each one of them resided within the National Park. The Committee obviously did not have the powers of a Commission.
  It is now proposed to have a Commission for England and Wales, and for a Committee under the auspices of the Commission to be in charge of Wales. This set-up does not apply to Scotland. Scotland is to have its own Commission. I contend that what is good enough for Scotland should not be denied to Wales. I am sure no one would suggest for a moment that we have not the men and women in the Principality capable of administering the National Park. Indeed, we have already shown our prowess by the manner in which we have controlled other national bodies. For instance, we have the Welsh Joint Committee of Education in charge of Welsh education, which is an example to anybody outside the Principality. We have the Welsh University, with its four constituent celleges. We control all these. Then we have the Welsh National Museum and other similar institutions. We have already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that, given the power, we are capable of exercising it to the advantage of the institution concerned. Why, therefore, can we not have all the powers and the prestige of a Commission to take charge of our National Park, especially now that the Secretary of State for Wales has bought the mountain of Snowdon for the nation. That mountain now belongs to you and to me. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, refer to the area in South Wales where he was last week. In fact the whole of Wales is fit enough to be regarded as a National Park. It is
  468
  beauty everywhere—wherever you go you are confronted by beautiful countryside.
  It was put forward by the Minister of State in another place that by being placed in the charge of a National Commission for England and Wales we should have the advantages of a large organisasation for scientific research, information and education. I hope to goodness my noble friend will not repeat that argument this afternoon, because I do not understand it and I do not follow it. I am sorry to have to cross swords with the honourable lady in the other place, because I have always held her in the highest regard, and once publicly declared her to be the most intelligent woman in the House of Commons; but I was very surprised indeed to find her advancing this argument in order to support her objection to the establishment of a separate Commission for Wales. Surely Offa's Dyke is not so insurmountable as to prevent any good ideas passing from London to Cardiff.
  I would remind your Lordships that until recently the Welsh Department of Education was attached to the Ministry here in Whitehall. Until recently the Permanent Secretary lived in London; now he and his staff have been transferred to Cardiff. I am sure no one would dream of suggesting for a moment that because of this move anything of value that is known to the Ministry here in London will not be conveyed to Cardiff. The very idea of it is ridiculous. The Ministry in London are not going to say: "Now we must not tell our Welsh counterpart anything about this. It is a good thing, but do not let them know about it." There is bound to be consultation, and of course there is consultation. Indeed, I was speaking on the telephone just now to the Ministry for confirmation of what I have just said, and they told me that the Permanent Secretary regularly comes up from Cardiff for consultation here in London. If we had a Welsh Commission it would of course be working in full consultation and in perfect harmony with the English Commission.
  This Amendment is so reasonable and so justifiable that I am presumptuous enough to believe that this afternoon I shall have the full support of your Lordships on all sides of the House. I have no desire to divide the House on this issue,

  469
  and if my noble friend can assure me that he will look again at this clause I shall certainly not divide the House. Otherwise I shall feel compelled to do so—I cannot help myself. I would not be worthy of my country and my nation if I did not put this to the test here this afternoon. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Maelor.)
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the Minister speaks I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Maelor. There is no reason at all in these days why Wales should not have its own Commission, as England and Scotland have. In fact I think the noble Lord has been modest; I cannot see why the headquarters of the Commission should not be either in Edinburgh or Cardiff. Why should it always have to be in London? All the activities are concentrated here in the "great wen", in London, and it is causing great dissatisfaction in other parts of the country that everything should have to be referred to Whitehall and Westminster. Other parts of the country are treated as if they were reservations where the Red Indians roam, and I think it is time that our nation, the nation of Wales, should be regarded equally with England or Scotland. For these reasons I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, and I hope that if it is not accepted he will press this Amendment to a Division.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the discussion so far has taken place without any reference to the fact that the Bill has already been amended in another place to allow for a statutory Committee of the Countryside Commission for Wales. Let me take up some of the points which have been made. First, I should like to say that it seems obvious (does it not?) that there should be a separate Welsh Committee. One can get a false picture of the matter by listening to only one side of the question. The purpose of the Government in this has been to provide the best arrangement as between England and Wales for getting the best services and the best system for Wales. If it were clearly better from the Welsh point of view, in terms that would be understood and accepted on both sides of the Border—and I do not think the English are unreasonable about this sort
  470
  of thing—for there to be a separate Welsh Commission, then that is what the Government would have done. But it is not, and for the following reasons.
  Let us first consider the analogy with Scotland. Why is it right to have an entirely separate Scottish Countryside Commission but not right in the case of Wales to go further than having a separate statutory Committee of the Commission for England and Wales which will be responsible for Wales? In Scotland until this year there was no Countryside Commission at all. The question that had to be faced, therefore, was how shall all this be started up in Scotland; do we expand the United Kingdom National Parks Commission to cover Scotland, perhaps with a statutory Scottish Committee, or, since they are starting from scratch, whereas in England and Wales there has been 20 years' experience, should Scotland have an independent Commission of a slightly different character? In that case it seemed only reasonable, because of the 20 years' time lag in Scotland, because they were starting from the beginning, to provide for a separate Commission in Scotland. That is not the case as between England and Wales.
  If there were to be a separate Commission for Wales one would be tearing apart an arrangement which has worked, and in my submission and I think most noble Lords would agree, has worked very well over the last 20 years. Would it be justified completely to saw up the fabric of the Commission and its technical staff into two entirely independent halves after 20 years of successful operation? I think not; and that is why the Government have proposed the halfway house of a statutory Committee for Wales, sitting in Cardiff under a Chairman with special knowledge of Wales who will be a member of the Commission itself, and with Welsh members in it to the number of four, who need not even be members of the Countryside Commission; they can be persons brought in for that purpose because of their knowledge and experience of the Principality.
  One wants to consider what would be likely to happen if there were a separate Countryside Commission for Wales. At the moment, since there is one Commission nobody inquires very closely how much money and how much eflort is

  471
  going into England as opposed to Wales. If there were two entirely separate Commissions everybody, English, Welsh, public opinion and Parliament would be forced to inquire who is getting the better deal in terms of acreage, resident population in the National Parks and town-dwellers likely to want to go to these parks in the country. Once that question was asked you might get a body of opinion building up that Wales was, and had been for some time, getting too good a deal, a deal which could not be justified on strictly numerical canons of equity. If, on the other hand, it remains under one overall umbrella and a single Commission with a statutory Committee for Wales, those questions are less likely to arise and pressures for unwelcome solutions less likely to occur.
  For instance, I expect most of your Lordships know that the first two experimental projects which are likely to be carried out by the Countryside Commission are going to be in Wales—two running in Wales before there is one in England at all. They are a land management scheme in Snowdonia and an experimental day centre in the Pembrokeshire National Park. Suppose there were two separate Commissions, what likelihood would there be of the first two experiments being in Wales? I think public opinion would demand—it would be difficult to do otherwise—to have one in Wales and one in England. These considerations should not be absent from our minds. But most important is the question of the technical staff, the staff base of the Commission. It is unitary; much of its work, but not all, is really unitary as between England and Wales. Geological strata nip under Offa's Dyke and come up the other side. Many other aspects of its technical work are absolutely single, and it would be quite false, in technical staff management terms, to carve it up into two separate halves.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, does not the same argument apply to Scotland? If this applies to Wales, should there not be, in fact, one Commission which embraces Scotland as well?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the same argument does apply, and if it were the only argument then I should not feel on strong ground in asking the House to maintain the distinction between Wales
  472
  and Scotland. But in my submission the other argument about Scotland, namely that they are starting from scratch, overrides this one. That argument is absent in the case of Wales.
  For all these reasons it seems right to the Government to have a Countryside Commission for England and Wales. The fact that the Commission is all one is not very important. What is important is that the Countryside Commission staff, the technical people, the experts for England and Wales should be all one. If you started dividing the staff up on a per capita basis, or any other basis, you would find that only a small minority would be able to go to Wales. There is a clear gain in efficiency and the commonsense running of the service in having one body of technical people under the direction—here is the main point—of two groups, which is what the Commission will be to all intents and purposes, the main body of the Commission, which will deal with English business and joint business which will be only of a technical nature, and the statutory Welsh Committee which will meet in Cardiff and be manned by persons with special Welsh knowledge who will be able to call fully on the unitary body of technical ability available to both halves. You will get the Welsh will in it, but not restricted to the technological base available in Wales or which can be posted to Wales without detriment to the rest of the country.
  LORD CACCIA: My Lords, are we to understand from that that the expertise available in London will be totally denied to Scotland when they have their own Commission? Are they going to start absolutely from scratch, without any benefit from London?
  LORD KENNET: No, my Lords, of course it will not be totally denied. There will be, and indeed there is already, close collaboration between the English and Welsh Commission and the Scottish Commission, and technical exchanges and visits of every sort. That is to help the Scottish Commission to start up in many technical respects. This should not override the aim of maintaining a unified body of staff where it has been for 20 years, although the directory political will be de facto divided up between England and Wales by the clause as it

  473
  stands. The Government and the Secretary of State for Wales do not think that Wales would be the gainer by a separate Commission. I would ask the House to maintain the arrangement reached after a very full debate in the House of Commons. It seems the right one: a division between the overall political and social direction, which will be virtually separate for England and for Wales, and the underlying technical and expert basis, which will continue to be unitary as it has been for 20 years with good results.
  LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I, of all people, am under no illusion as to the importance of the work to be done in Wales. I well recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, stated, that something like one-third of the whole land surface of Wales is National Park, and I had the privilege of helping to administer the National Parks there. I remember appointing at least two Welsh people to the old National Parks Commission, one of whom at least has made such a reputation there that she has been continued in office under a Government of a different political complexion, and I nave no doubt at all that my choice of her has been amply justified.
  It seemed to me strange in the extreme, when I first saw this Bill as introduced in another place, that the Secretary of State for Wales had seen no necessity to introduce into it any special provision at all for Wales. The matter was raised by the Opposition on Second Reading, and on the Committee stage Mr. Gibson-Watt, on behalf of the Conservative Party, moved an Amendment designed to divide the Commission into two divisions. The Government were not willing to accept it, and the Amendment was rejected. The arguments that were used on behalf of the Government at that stage were not convincing. They certainly did not convince the Opposition, and they appear not even to have convinced the Government themselves, because on the Report stage the Government brought forward what is now Clause 3 of this Bill. Thanks to that Opposition pressure in another place a considerable advance has been achieved. I think the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, will himself accept that Clause 3 is a vast improvement on the Bill as it stood at the beginning.
  474
  The question now is whether we should go further and accept his Amendment that "The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission for Wales, as is the case for Scotland". If I thought that that was going to be an improvement here and now for the administration of the countryside and National Parks work in Wales, I should not hesitate to support him. But in the particular circumstances I am not convinced that it would be. I am not convinced largely on the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned, that it would mean the splitting up of scarce staff. There is not a great deal of accumulated expertise on the sub ect of National Parks and countryside administration, and if it is a case of administering the same law in two countries with a limited but extremely valuable staff of experience, I doubt whether it would be right and to the advantage of Wales if, here and now, that staff were split. In years to come it may be different. If this subject were being debated again in five years' time, I might easily be led to take a different view—that there ought to be a Commission for Wales, when the work has been built up.
  The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has moved an Amendment saying that
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission for Wales, as is the case for Scotland."
  With great respect to him, that does not seem to me a good form of words to move into the Bill. The Commission for Scotland is really one charged with different duties under widely different legislation, and it appears to me that it would be misleading to imply by those words that the Commission for Wales was, under this Bill, to be an exact parallel with the Commission for Scotland. The Commission for Wales and the Commission for Scotland would in fact be administering different tasks under different laws. On that maybe technical ground, I do not feel that I can support this Amendment.
  But I have a most important question to put to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, speaking on behalf of the Government. In Clause 3, subsection (1) says that
  "The Commission shall … appoint a Committee for Wales."
  Subsection (3) says
  "The Commission may … delegate any of their functions in Wales or Monmouthshire to the Committee for Wales."

  475
  I want the Government to tell us what is meant by subsection (3), because it appears to me that the new Commission could strictly abide by the letter of the law and delegate nothing to its Welsh Committee, thereby rendering its Welsh Committee abortive. Why does not subsection (3) say that the Commission shall delegate their functions in Wales or Monmouthshire to the Committee for Wales? If this is one of these technicalities about which I have often argued in Committee from both sides, as between the legal desirability of putting in "may" or putting in "shall", which has determined the Government, can they say that in practice this word "may" will be so interpreted as to mean "shall"; that is to say, that it is the desire of the Government, in the administration of this Bill when it becomes law, that the Countryside and National Parks Commission shall make the fullest use of their Committee for Wales and shall, so far as humanly possible, delegate their functions? I should be much more content if I could have an assurance of that kind from the noble Lord.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, yes, I can of course give that assurance. That is the intention of the Government. It is the desire of the Government that the Commission should, so far as is humanly possible, delegate their functions in regard to Wales to the statutory Welsh Committee. One reason against using the word "shall" as opposed to the word "may" in the body of the Bill is that if we used "shall" we probably have to have a Schedule in the Bill saying which of their functions the Commission "shall" delegate to the Welsh Committee as opposed to the functions which they shall not. The Government did not want to do that because they wanted to leave the matter to be discussed between the Commission and the members of the Welsh Committee when it is set up, in order to get a sensible system which might be changed and revised from day to day in its operation, as circumstances and experience develop. That is the reason. It certainly is the intention that the fullest sensible use of these powers to delegate functions should be made. I draw to the attention of the House that the clause goes on to mention the advisory powers in Clause 2 specifically
  476
  —that the fullest possible delegation of those powers shall take place. The House will have noticed that the advisory function can be to the Secretary of State or not, through the Commission, as shall be worked out at a later time.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 4:
  Experimental projects or schemes
  4.—
  (3) For the purpose of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this section the Commission may—
  (g) with the approval of the Minister and the Treasury, acquire by agreement and carry on or set up and carry on, directly or through an agent, or themselves carry on as agent, any business or undertaking, and, subject to the approval of the Minister and the Treasury, may dispose of any such business or undertaking.
  4.7 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (3)(g), after "undertaking" to insert "relevant to the experimental project or scheme". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. I hope that the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment, because it seems to me to be of an uncontroversial character. In paragraph (g) of subsection (3) of Clause 4 the Commission are being empowered to
  "acquire by agreement and carry on or set up and carry on, directly or through an agent, or themselves carry on as agent, any business or undertaking."
  I invited the attention of your Lordships in Committee to the width of those words. The only limitation at all in the subsection is that the Commission can do those things only
  "for the purpose of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this section."
  But I suggest that it would be sensible to insert the words
  "relevant to the experimental project or scheme "
  after the words
  "any business or undertaking"
  so as to limit this power to acquire or set up and carry on any business or undertaking to businesses or undertakings that are relevant to the experimental project or scheme.
  If it is argued that those words are unnecessary because the subsection begins with the words
  "For the purpose of their functions … the Commission may",
  I would reply that within that definition the Commission might set up a steelworks on the argument that they were going to make a big profit out of those steelworks and that would all help to finance and to further the experimental project or scheme. In fact, I do not think that the Commission would be likely to get the approval of the Minister or the Treasury for setting up a steelworks, but they could go quite wide if they were limited only by the words
  "For the purpose of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this section."
  I am not intending by these words to create awkwardness for the Commission. I think it is reasonable to suppose that this paragraph (g) is inserted to enable the Commission to acquire or carry on businesses or undertakings that are relevant to the experimental project or schemes. If that is so, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 21, after ("undertaking") insert ("relevant to the experimental project or scheme").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am at one with the noble Lord in his desire to keep the Countryside Commission out of the steel industry. Our advice in the Ministry was that this purpose would be achieved by the clause as drafted, but since I am always loth to differ from the noble Lord, except on occasions where there is an issue and I think I am right and he is wrong, I would advise the House to accept his Amendment because it will make this aim doubly certain of achievement.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I should like now to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in another place on the Government's proposals for the Inquiry into the siting of the third London airport
  The form of the Inquiry must meet two requirements. On the one hand, this is one of the most important investment and planning decisions which the nation must make in the next decade; this points to an expert, rigorous and systematic study of the many and complex problems involved. At the same time, the decision will profoundly affect the lives of thousands of people living near the chosen site; and this calls for an adequate method of representation of the local interests affected.
  We have sought to find a form of Inquiry which will meet these two, to some extent conflicting, needs. We have had discussions with the official Opposition, and I must acknowledge the constructive help which they have given. I think we have reached a broad agreement.
  The Government propose a non-statutory Commission with the following terms of reference:
  "To inquire into the timing of the need for a 4-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected."
  In order to meet the two requirements which I mentioned earlier there will be two sides to the Commission's work. For part of the time, they will sit as a normal Committee of Inquiry, commissioning research and analysising its findings, sifting expert evidence, forming their own judgments, and finally preparing their report. But there will be other phases of the inquiry when interested parties can be represented by counsel and have the right to cross-examine, both at a series of local inquiries once the possible sites have been reduced to a small number and also before the main Commission itself. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a more detailed note of the way in which I envisage that the Commission might set about its task, though I have no wish

  479
  to impose upon them an unduly rigid procedure.
  I shall direct the attention of the Commission to the following matters which are of special relevance to their inquiry:
  general planning issues, including population and employment growth, noise, amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property; aviation issues, including air traffic control and safety; surface access; defence issues; and cost, including the need for cost/benefit analysis.
  The Honourable Mr. Justice Roskill has agreed to act as Chairman, and I shall announce the names of the other members as soon as possible.
  Following is the note referred to by Lord Beswick:
  align="center">Inquiry into Siting of Third London Airport—Constitution, Terms of Reference and Procedure.
  Constitution of Commission
  1. The Government will set up a nonsatutory commission with the following terms of reference:—
  "To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area, to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected".
  The Commission will be provided with staff and will be authorised to commission research into matters relevant to its investigation.
  The Commission will have their attention directed to the following points which appear to be among the matters particularly relevant to their inquiry:—

  (a) General planning issues including population and employment growth, noise, amenity, and effect on agriculture and existing property;

  (b) Aviation issues including air traffic control and safety;

  (c) Surface access;

  (d) Defence issues;

  (e) Cost including the need for cost-benefit analysis.

  Procedure
  2. The Government envisage that the Commission will proceed broadly in the following manner, though they do not wish to impose an unduly rigid procedure:—
  3. Stage I. At this first stage, the commission will consider in a broad way the whole range of alternative sites, eliminate those which are clearly unsuitable and identify the small number which require more detailed consideration. The commission will carry out this process of preliminary selection on the basis of general evidence that may be put to them
  480
  and of information that they may themselves seek. At this stage, there will be no right of representation before the commission; though the commission itself will be free to seek oral evidence if this is required to elucidate the matters they are considering.
  4. At the end of Stage I, the commission will announce the sites it wishes to investigate in greater detail, and will, for the purposes of that examination, define the approximate boundaries of the sites in question, and give such other general indications as may be necessary (e.g. flight paths and runway alignments) to enable those living in the localities to understand how they would be affected.
  5. Stage II will consist of the hearing of evidence of a local character concerning the short-listed sites. This would probably be undertaken by a senior planning inspector, who would be a member of the commission, visiting the locality and holding a public local inquiry. Subject to the general reservations mentioned in paragraphs 8–10 below, the interested parties will be entitled to be represented at this stage. As these proceedings will take some time, they will continue while Stages III and IV are going on.
  6. Simultaneously, a start will be made with Stage III and the subsequent stages. Stage III would consist of investigation and research into matters relevant to the choice to be made between the sites (e.g. air traffic patterns, surface transport, noise, regional planning etc.). Some of this work might be undertaken by the commission and its staff; some commissioned from consultants; and some produced in the form of written evidence by the parties concerned or by bodies having an interest in these matters.
  7. Stage IV. The commission would consider the material produced during the course of Stage III. They will, if necessary, examine the experts who have produced it. If differences of opinion emerge from the expert evidence they will, in the first place, invite those concerned to consult together with a view to reaching agreement.
  8. Stage V. The purpose of this stage is to enable the interested parties to test the material produced during the earlier stages. At this stage, they may, by leave of the commission, be represented by counsel or otherwise. Since the number of interested bodies is potentially large, it is hoped that bodies with similar interests will, wherever possible, be represented by the same counsel.
  9. Counsel representing the parties may, by leave of the commission, lead evidence on relevant matters, and cross-examine witnesses appearing on behalf of other parties or experts responsible for reports which are being taken into consideration by the commission.
  10. Before giving leave, the commission will need to be satisfied that such new evidence is useful and relevant; and that the proposed examination and cross-examination of witnesses is not repetitious.
  11. Finally, the commission will consider the whole of the evidence, including that produced at the local inquiries. The commission will then prepare its report and recommendation.
  Procedure after the Commission has reported
  12. The Government will decide in the light of the circumstances of the time whether formal planning clearance should be given by way of a Special Development Order or whether they should require the British Airports Authority to make a specific planning application for the recommended site which would be called in for decision by the responsible Ministers, if necessary after a statutory local inquiry.
  VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord just repeating the Statement which has just been made in another place. It is not easy to appreciate its effect unless one has available the note to which the noble Lord referred giving more details of the proposed procedure. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for allowing me an opportunity of considering those notes and that procedure, and I should like just to make this comment. This is clearly going to he not only a most important inquiry but unique in character and, I think, really without precedent. A good deal of time has been taken in drawing up these terms of reference and considering the form of this Inquiry, and I do not think that the time has been wasted. If this Inquiry is going to function in the way we all want it to do, a great deal of thought and a great deal of work had to be devoted to considerations of procedure.
  As I understand it, the procedure now envisaged will give full opportunity for consideration not only of national interests but also of local interests. It will allow for various interests affected, such as agriculture, and various national, as opposed to local, interests affected to make proper representations and have their views considered and investigated. If I may say so, I am sure that those parties which took such an active part in opposing the Stansted procedure will welcome the proposed procedure and will not wish to put forward any criticisms of it. I am also sure that they will give all the help they can to make this Inquiry doubly effective and to ensure that it gets on with its task as speedily as possible.
  My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord to confirm two things? The procedure envisaged proposes that there shall be something in the nature of local inquiries into the sites which the Commission itself regards as possible runners. Will the noble Lord confirm that those
  482
  will be, where required, very full local inquiries? I stress that, because the procedure says that at the end of the day, when the Commission have come to a conclusion, there is a possibility that there will be a further local planning inquiry. I hope that he will confirm that the inquiries held by the Commission into local sites will be full and ccmplete, and that it is not the intention to leave matters over to the local planning inquiry which is to take place later on (if one is going to take place), because I am sure that it will be the view of many of us, and it is certainly my own view, that local planning inquiries will not be necessary following the local inquiries by the Commission, if those inquiries are as effective and as thorough as I am sure they are intended to be. If that be so, I would ask the noble Lord to consider—and I think there will be a great deal of support for this—whether, at the end of the Inquiry, instead of envisaging further local planning inquiries it might be possible to proceed by a Special Development Order.
  I do not think there is anything else that I need or would wish to comment upon, except to wish the Commission well in their formidable task. It is bound to take some time, but I am sure everyone will want to get on with it as quickly as possible.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Viscount far his very helpful welcome to this Statement? The Statement itself made reference to the constructive help which had been given by the Opposition, and I suppose it is quite in order for me to say that that help was largely forthcoming in the person of the noble and learned Viscount. I agree with him about the uniqueness of the problem with which we are faced, and whereas at one time it might have been possible to deal with it by the form of Inquiry which is now being envisaged by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I am quite certain that, having reached the situation which we had reached, we required something tailored to meet a situation which had its technical and its political aspects. I think we have succeeded, and I personally am very grateful for the attitude which the noble Viscount has adopted all along.
  I was asked about the local inquiries. The idea is that the local inquiries

  483
  should be conducted fully, openly and completely, so far as the local issues are concerned. The intention is that they will be held by the inspector, who will be a member of the Commission, together with, if he so wishes, the Chairman. They will be complete so far as local issues are concerned, but some of the wider, national, issues which will be gone into at the next stage by the various consultants or by the expert researchers will be matters which will not be considered at the local inquiries but which will be open for examination by representatives of the local authorities at a later stage. I hope that as a result of all this it will not be necessary at the end of the day to have another local inquiry. In all probability the Government will decide to give planning clearance for the selected site by means of a Special Development Order. There would be no obligation to hold a further inquiry in connection with such an Order. I hope that this will meet with the general approval of the House, in view of the thoroughness with which it is envisaged this Inquiry will be held. There is, of course, an alternative. The British Airports Authority could make a planning application which would be called in for ministerial decision. In that event the British Airports Authority and the planning authority would have the right to he heard. But in all the circumstances I hope that that alternative will not be necessary.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that this is a very satisfactory outcome. May I also add this comment, because I know that the Government will not say it—and I do so even at the risk of spoiling the harmony which has been shown so far. None of this would have happened without your Lordships' House, without the powers of your Lordships' House, without the interest shown by Members of this House, and without the indication given by Members of this House when the Stansted site was debated here. Stansted, but for your Lordships' House, would be the third London airport to-day. We have rendered a signal service in forcing the Government—and they have done so with great grace, and I admire them for it—to have
  484
  this Inquiry, and I hope that the outcome of the Inquiry will be satisfactory to all concerned.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord the leader of the Opposition is not going to manœuvre me into a position in which I appear to be saying anything which diminishes the standing of this House. I should prefer simply to accept the kind words at the end of his remarks.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, which is satisfactory; and I should like also to confirm what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to compliment the House once more on a very satisfactory piece of work. Long may it continue to have the powers to do so!
  I should like to ask two questions. First of all, in view of the wide powers which the Commission have, rightly, been given, has the noble Lord any idea of when they are likely to report? Secondly, will the Commission be entitled, if they so wish, to recommend a site which is not either in Essex or Kent, or anywhere particularly near London, in view of the fact that we are soon to have aircraft carrying anything up to 800 people, and bearing in mind the effect of the sonic boom which will come from these supersonic aircraft? In view of these two factors, if the Commission thought that it might be more desirable to have the airport further away from London—for example, on Severnside—would they be entitled so to recommend?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in regard to the timing, the best estimate that can be made is that the Commission's Report ought to be available within two years. As for the scope of their Inquiry, it is not limited geographically, and if, in the light of technical evidence before them, the Commission thought that the airport ought to go outside the immediate London area, there is no reason why they should not make a recommendation in that sense.
  LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, with the benefit of a certain amount of hindsight, the existing planning machinery appears to have been inadequate and in some ways inappropriate, and that, although that difficulty has now been met

  485
  in this particular and important case, there remains a very strong case for looking at the planning machinery in connection with national decisions of this importance?
  LORD BESWICK: I agree with my noble friend, and I think that when the legislation which is about to come before this House dealing with planning is considered he will see that these matters have been thought of; and I am sure that the solution will be acceptable to him.
  LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I take it that it will be more revolutionary than any attempt yet made to reform the House of Lords?
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the Chairman has been appointed to this Commission. Can he give the House some guidance about the type of person who will be appointed to this Commission?
  LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. The Chairman, as I have said, will be a judge, and members of the Commission are expected to include a planning expert, a Housing Ministry inspector, a businessman, an economist, an engineer and an aviation authority.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I, as an Essex person who has been interested in this matter from the beginning, express my thanks to my noble friend for his Statement, which I think will give widespread satisfaction, at least throughout Essex and parts of Hertfordshire. Does he realise that local authorities will very much appreciate the great value of being represented by counsel at the early stages of the inquiries before the site is ultimately decided upon by the Commission? I should have liked to ask him what is likely to happen after the Commission have announced their decision, but as he has gone a long way towards answering that question in reply to the noble and learned Viscount, I will not waste any more time.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his words of welcome. With his local authority background in the Essex area, I am quite certain that what he has said, together with what has been said elsewhere, will
  486
  help to ensure that the Commission have a very good send-off.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, is there any hope that during the next two years research will be able to produce an aircraft which is silent and capable of vertical take-off?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I content myself by saying that in this world nothing is impossible.
  LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, as one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who supported the Government's original decision to proceed with Stansted, may I express my regret that it has been thought necessary to appoint this Commission, and my even greater regret that it is going to take as long as two years for them to reach their conclusions? However, the arguments of the noble Viscount and others are appreciated, and those with whom I earn my living will offer their fullest support to this Commission.
  LORD BESWICK: I thank the noble Lord for the help he gave earlier on. Without in any way prejudging this issue, I would say that it is still not beyond the bounds of possibility that what he said then may be proved right by the findings of the Commissior.

  COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  4.30 p.m.
  Report stage resumed.
  LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (3)(g), to leave out "subject to" and insert "without". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment to the same paragraph in Clause 4, and I hope that it will receive the same happy fate as that received by the last Amendment. This paragraph empowers the Countryside Commission, with the approval of the Minister and of the Treasury, to acquire any business or undertaking. But it goes on to say that the disposal of the business by the Commission shall be subject to the approval likewise of the Minister and of the Treasury. I should have thought that, once a responsible body like the Countryside Commission had embarked upon a business in connection with an experiment, the Commission alone should be

  487
  the judge of whether the business was to continue to be carried on or should be disposed of, according to whether they decided that the experiment had succeeded or was likely to fail and should therefore cease.
  The Commission alone will be saddled with the responsibility for running the business—the Minister will not have that responsibility and neither will the Treasury—and I should have thought it was most undesirable that the Minister and the Treasury, either of them or both of them together, should have power to saddle the Countryside Commission with business in connection with an experiment which the Commission, who were running the experiment and running the business, had decided ought to be brought to an end. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment which seeks to free the Countryside Commission from having to seek the approval of the Minister and the Treasury in order to dispose of the business or undertaking, in the event of the experiment having succeeded or failed and, in the eyes of the Commision, being ready to be wound up and concluded. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 21, leave out ("subject to") and insert ("without").—(Lord Airedale.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord's Amendment goes very far. It would make a Government agency, and an agency which we all hope will be independent in its policies and proposals but which, nevertheless, is financed by the Government at public expense, free to dispose of its assets without any control whatsoever by the Government. I think I should be right in saying that such a provision would be entirely unprecedented, and I would not recommend the House to make a precedent in the case of the Countryside Commission, however well we wish it and however great a freedom we all hope it will have in those respects where the public interest will depend on its freedom; namely, advice and ingenuity.
  I think the noble Lord had in mind a picture of a Minister of Housing and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had deliberately forced the Commission to maintain enterprises which had proven not to be possible, in order to teach them a lesson or something like that. That
  488
  would not happen, of course, and I can assure the House that the Government will not force the Commission to keep doing something which is against the public interest and against its own wishes. Why should they? If the undertaking does not turn out to be a success, the Commission will wish to cease it and part with the assets. But if it turns out to be a success the Commission will wish to put it on a permanent basis, in which case it will perhaps part with it to a local authority or some other body in such a way that it stops being experimental and goes right ahead on its proven successful basis. But for the Countryside Commission or any Government agency to be free to part with assets which have been acquired and, perhaps, maintained at public expense, without Government control, is a principle which should not commend itself to your Lordships' House.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am bound to say that I wish Her Majesty's Government were not apparently rather nervous about allowing this Commission to stand on its own feet. I think they are being a little over-cautious in wanting to have the Countryside Commission "nursemaided" rather too much. But I shall not pursue this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 [Country parks and commons: preliminary]:
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (3):
  "and no local authority may acquire compulsorily under these sections land which is situated outside their own area".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 6, which deals with new powers of local authorities. In subsection (3) it is laid down that:
  "A local authority may exercise the powers conferred by the three next following sections inside or outside their area, except that only the council of a county borough may exercise those powers wholly or partly within the county borough."
  My Amendment suggests that we should add at the end of that subsection a further exception:
  "and no local authority may acquire compulsorily under these sections land which is situated outside their own area."

  489
  First, let me make it clear that this Amendment does not raise the principle of compulsory purchase; that has been accepted. It only calls in question who should make a particular compulsory purchase. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee the point was raised in debate by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here to-day, but no Amendment was tabled at that stage and that is why I am raising the point on Report.
  I have made it clear that I am very much concerned throughout the whole working of this Bill with the maintenance of good will locally and the avoidance of ill will. What I am suggesting to your Lordships is that if, let us say, a remote city seeks to make a compulsory purchase order for land which is to be part of a country park in a different part of the country, it is liable to generate extreme ill will which will not be greatly diminished even if the county council concerned has given its consent. I appreciate, of course, that under the later subsection it would not be possible for the county borough to proceed in that way without the consent of the council of the county where the land was situated.
  May I invite your Lordships to consider this matter in practical terms? Knowing the strong feeling that has, rightly or wrongly, existed in the Lake District over many years against Manchester, do the Government really believe that a country park could be established by good will on the edge of the Lake District, even though, let us say, the Lancashire County Council had approved, by means of a compulsory purchase order imposed on the land in question by the Manchester City Council? Do the Government believe—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, is not in his place at the moment, because I am sure he would back me up on this—that good will could be maintained if the Liverpool City Council, wishing to establish a country park in Merionethshire with the consent of the Merionethshire County Council, clapped a compulsory purchase order on some Welsh land in Merionethshire?
  One only has to state the matter in those practical, identifiable terms for it to be seen that that is the very way to create
  490
  ill will, and surely it is essential that the whole working of this Bill should go on with the maximum of good will. That is why I am suggesting in this Amendment that the powers in relation to country parks and commons should not be exercised in a way that would involve a local authority making a compulsory purchase order outside its own area. I am not now demurring at all to a compulsory purchase order made by a local authority within its own boundary, but I think my noble friend Lord Inglewood was absolutely right when he drew attention to this in Committee, and pointed out how much damage might be done if county borough councils started making compulsory purchase orders outside their own boundaries. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 4, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord has slanted the issue his way by speaking always of a remote city. The two examples he mentioned were certainly examples of remote cities—that is, Manchester and the Lake District, and Liverpool and Merioneth. Just to get it out of the way, I am sure the House realises that the power we are talking about here is not a power for a city authority to exercise compulsory purchase against a country authority. That is to say, it is not power compulsorily to purchase land belonging to that authority; it is power compulsorily to purchase land which may belong to anybody, typically a private landowner, within the area of the country authority. Secondly, the power we are discussing is not power for the city to go in, regardless of who says what, and, looking only to its own interests, compulsorily to purchase land in the countryside in the area of another authority. As the noble Lord rightly conceded, it must have the consent of the county council in the countryside before it can exercise this compulsory purchase power.
  To take the noble Lord's two examples, I am not at all sure what the Lancashire County Council or the Merioneth County Council would say to Manchester or Liverpool if they turned up proposing to exercise these powers against general public opinion in those counties. I should have though they might easily have withheld their consent; and, even if they

  491
  did not, as is universally the case with compulsory purchase the landowner against whom the powers were proposed to be exercised has his ordinary right of appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, in giving his decision, would no doubt take into account the remoteness, whether geographical or psychological, of the city in question from the countryside area in question, and would take account of the representations made by the landowner and, no doubt, by those who thought like him, in spite of the fact that the landowner's own county council thought the opposite way—all of which, I must say, seems to me extremely unlikely.
  Now let us turn the argument for a moment to the case not of a remote city but of a nearby city. I will name no names, because it is perhaps easier that way. Let us take a big city which has countryside quite close to it in a county, and let us suppose that the city and the county put their heads together and decide it is right that a country park should be set up in the county. Since the city is usually richer and, virtually always in the case of a country park, will be the authority exporting the people, as it were, to enjoy it—that is the purpose of a country park—it would probably seem right to both that the city should bear the expense of that country park on its rates, and not that the county should bear it on its rates in the countryside. That being so, one wants the city to be armed with all the powers which are normally found necessary for the pursuit of major social purposes; and, as we have said earlier, this includes compulsory purchase, if only because some of the places may have a large number of small landowners and it may be a tiny minority of those, or one man, who is sticking out against it.
  I think it would be an unjustifiable complication if one were to take this power of compulsory purchase away from, as it were, the exporting authority, typically the city, and say that in this one respect the county ought to do it for them because only those local authorities who are having country narks in their own areas should have compulsory purchase powers. This would very much complicate things, and I would advise the House that in the opinion of the Government the clause as it stands is so un-
  492
  likely to give rise to any trouble in practice that it would be better to maintain the unity of powers and grant as laid out in the Bill, without making a little exception in this one respect.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has encouraged me by indicating, if I understood him aright, that he thinks it is unlikely that great use will be made of the power to which I am objecting. I appreciate his point that there is a greater affinity between a big city and its surrounding countryside than there is in other cases. I would ask him to appreciate the point that, though Manchester seems remote from the North Lancashire countryside, North Lancashire does not seem remote from Manchester people, and although Liverpool seems remote to Merionethshire, Merionethshire does not seem remote to Liverpool people who are out at the week-end.
  There may be some marginal advantage, as the noble Lond has indicated, in retaining a power which could be used to deal with a situation in the rare case that may arise, but I hope I have convinced the noble Lord of the danger of ill will, and I would urge that local authorities be advised not to use these compulsory powers unless they are quite certain that there is general good will in the whole locality for a country park to be established there by an external authority, and that these compulsory powers should be used simply to clear up the situation in the case of a small part of the proposed land which is owned by an owner who is not as willing to cooperate as other owners are. I am not completely content about this point, but we want to get on with the Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided that a local authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefore are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to subsection (2) of

  493
  Clause 7, which deals with country parks. That subsection says:
  "A local authority shall have power … in particular … to provide facilities and services for the enjoyment or convenience of the public including meals and refreshments",
  et cetera. I think we should insert here the proviso that is set out in my Amendment. It will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that this Amendment is taken virtually word for word from Section 12 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, where it was inserted by a Government of the same colour as the present Government. It is an improvement on the somewhat similar Amendment that I moved at the Committee stage, because I have taken out the words "in the neighbourhood" to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took objection, and I think rightly took objection.
  My Lords, it is not only by Section 12 of the 1949 Act that this proviso is precedented. Your Lordships will see that the same proviso, mutatis mutandis, occurs in Clause 9, on page 11, line 26; and I can assure your Lordships that it has also been enacted by Parliament within the past twelve months in a similar context in the Countryside (Scotland) Act. I am therefore not proposing any new feature: I am simply seeking to bring Clause 7 into accord with the existing precedents elsewhere. I submit to your Lordships that this is a sensible proviso. It is proved to be sensible by the fact that it has operated perfectly satisfactorily for 19 years in the 1949 Act, that it has been accented by the Government as recently as the Scottish Act of 1967, and that it has been inserted in Clause 9 of this Bill. I have no idea why it was not inserted by the Government originally in this place in the Bill, where I suggest it should be inserted, but on grounds of uniformity I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that it should be here.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, uniformity is a beautiful thing, but it does not always override all other considerations. The noble Lord is seeking to achieve uniformity and certainly the form of words has uniformity; but the effect of that form of words, because
  494
  of the surrounding words in the legislation, is not such as to achieve uniformity.
  The noble Lord referred to Section 12 of the 1949 Act and to the Scottish analogy. Section 12 of the 1949 Act relates to the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments in National Parks. These cover areas up to 866 square miles. A limitation on the freedom of local authorities to provide these facilities in such enormous areas can, it seems to me, be justified. But the country parks that we are talking about in the present clause will be very much smaller in area and, accordingly, different considerations should be applied when we are considering the freedom of those providing country parks to provide facilities with or without checking on the adequacy of others round about. Uniformity is not something that would be achieved by the noble Lord's Amendment in respect of the 1949 Act. That applied to National Parks and this clause applies only to country parks.
  To turn now to the analogy with the Scottish Act, this enables a local authority in Scotland to provide accommodation, meals or refreshments in the countryside in their area and subjects them to the limitation we are talking about: that is, to check on the adequacy of existing arrangements. The countryside in the Scottish Act is something even bigger than the National Parks in the 1949 English Act. It is so defined as to comprise virtually the whole of Scotland outside the built-up areas. So if the limitation on the freedom of the local authorities were to be removed from the Scottish Act it would mean that they could provide these facilities where they wanted without bothering to see whether the existing facilities were adequate.
  So we have a progression. We have, first, Scotland where the local authorities may provide facilities over virtually the whole country and must check on the adequacy of existing ones. We have, second, the English Act of 1949 where the local authorities may provide those facilities in 866 square miles, the National Parks, and must check on the adequacy of existing ones. And we have, thirdly, the Bill which is now before your Lordships where the local authorities may provide facilities in country parks (which will be very small indeed compared with the National Parks)

  495
  in the Government's submission, need not check on the adequacy of existing and surrounding facilities. I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind this progression and that he will agree with me that if we were to bring the conditions on the local authorities into line with Scotland and the National Parks uniformity would not be achieved, because Scotland and the National Parks are so very much bigger than the country parks that different conditions ought to apply.
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am sorry but I find the noble Lord's explanation for resisting the Amendment unconvincing. I do not know whether noble Lords are cleverer than I and feel that he made out his case. His case appears to be that Section 12 of the 1949 Act applies to the National Parks; that National Parks are very big places and that therefore the proviso here is unnecessary. I do not follow that argument. Surely, what has to be considered in the 1949 Act, and in this Bill, is whether the local facilities, the strictly local facilities, are satisfactory and adequate or not. It seems to me to be of little use to try to compare the facilities on one edge of the Snowdonia National Park, for instance, with the facilities on the other edge; because people are not going to travel right from one side of Snowdon to the other in search of meals or refreshments. There is a limited field of interest in respect of both accommodation and refreshments wherever one is considering whether a proviso of this kind is required.
  As I take it, the 1949 Act directed the local planning authority to consider whether in a particular place where the local authority had in mind to provide accommodation, meals or refreshments within the National Park, the facilities for those were inadequate or unsatisfactory; and if they were adequate or satisfactory they were not to proceed. Here, I should have thought, the same question would present itself to the local authority establishing a country park. Of course the country parks are likely to be smaller than the National Parks, but the field of interest, so far as meals and accommodation are concerned, is not going to be necessarily smaller in a particular case. I can see no reason at all why the local
  496
  authority should not be discouraged from providing accommodation, meals or refreshments itself if, in fact, the existing facilities in and close to the proposed countryside park are adequate and satisfactory already. I did not note—I may have missed it—that the noble Lord addressed himself to Clause 9 of this Bill. Clause 9 inserts the proviso which I want in Clause 7; and Clause 9 is dealing with powers exercisable over or near common land. I should have thought that much of this common land might be of much the same size as a country park and that exactly the same consideration; would apply to the provision of meals and accommodation there, under Clause 9, as here under Clause 7.
  This is not just a theoretical matter. We want to encourage holidaymakers and tourists in this country. We want to provide more accommodation and more facilities for them and I think that on that we all agree. Not everywhere are those facilities yet adequate or satisfactory. But if those who are in a position to start restaurants or cafés or hotels in a particular area see that by Act of Parliament the local authority are empowered to provide competitive facilities —even though the facilities are, without the local authority's provision, adequate and satisfactory—then the money required of those who could invest it will not be forthcoming; it will be moved elsewhere. Therefore we should be failing to achieve the result that it is desirable to achieve; that is, to encourage those who are in a Position to do so to develop the facilities that holidaymakers and tourists require. There seems to me to be an exact parallel between Clause 7 and Clause 9 and I would invite the House to bear in mind that we have at no stage had an explanation from the Government as to what distinction they perceive between the conditions in Clause 7 and in Clause 9.
  LORD KENNET: May I interrupt, before the noble Lord leaves that point? Commons have been there for a long time and, almost without exception, have been common land with public access. And if they are at all close to towns, generally speaking, facilities of this sort —accommodation, meals, cups of tea and the rest of it—will have grown up round them. It seemed to the Government, therefore, that it ought to be incumbent on local authorities proposing to provide

  497
  more facilities to examine whether the existing ones were good enough. Country parks, on the other hand, have not been there at all; that is why we have a Bill to make them possible and, prima facie, one may assume that there will be no cups of tea, or at any rate inadequate provision for cups of tea, meals and beds in those places. That is why it seemed to the Government unnecessary to impose on local authorities the duty of examining existing facilities.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If that is so, there is no reason for the Government to resist my Amendment, because if, as the noble Lord says, facilities are inadequate and unsatisfactory the proviso will not bite, and the local authority will go ahead. In fact, I cannot help thinking that most of these country parks will be established in places where people already go, in certain numbers at any rate, to enjoy themselves. The difficulty will be that the numbers will become much greater. Therefore I should have thought that, rather than commit public money to the provision of additional facilities, it was more desirable to attract private money, money at risk, money put forward by people who were prepared to risk it. I certainly would not in any way seek to bar local authorities from proceeding under this subsection if the existing facilities were inadequate or unsatisfactory. I am seeking to avoid duplication of facilities, and that is why I feel I must press this Amendment.
  LORD KENNET: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I are possibly coming closer together on this matter in the successive stages of this Bill. If the noble Lord will agree not to press his Amendment for the moment, I will have a third or fourth look at it, and perhaps the noble Lord will agree, if he can find time to meet me, to discuss it once again, and we can come back to it again later. Although I dislike postponing a decision from stage to stage like this, we could come back to the point on Third Reading.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I always yield to an invitation of that kind, but the noble Lord will, I am sure, perceive that I take this matter seriously, and if it is not possible to reach agreement "out of school" there will be an
  498
  Amendment down in my name on Third Reading. In view of that undertaking by the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 [Country parks: sailing, boating, bathing and fishing]:
  5.4 p.m.
  BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA moved, in subsection (4), after "consult with "to insert," such river authorities and with". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment and Nos. 10, 15 and 35 which follow will have the effect of giving specific mention of river author ties in the context of the clauses which confer powers on local authorities in relation to waterways. They are designed to give recognition to the role of river authorities in river management. They have been included in view of the very persuasive, and indeed persistent, representations made by the noble Lord Lord Nugent of Guildford, at the various stages of this Bill, and following the reception of a deputation to my noble friend the Minister of State which was led by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on May 15. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 30, after ("with") insert ("such river authorities ties and with").—(Baroness Scrota.)
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment so persuasively and acknowledge immediately that, so far as it goes, it is welcomed. I think that a slightly unfair weapon has been used against pie by the Government in putting up the noble Baroness to move the Amendment, because I suspect that the Government side are well aware that it in no way meets the case of the river authorities. If I might have a minute to recoup: the circumstances, the point, 'which was, discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, is that the river authorities, became they are the managers of rivers, should play a substantial part in the setting up of country parks where rivers are concerned. I suspect that this would be the case regarding a large number of country parks, and therefore the Bill should be drafted to require the consent at the river authority where a country park

  499
  was to be set up in an area which included a river. This would ensure that the river authority was brought in from the start and that their expertise and knowledge of the recreational matters with which we are directly concerned would be brought in with the local authority to make sure that the country park was set up in the best possible way.
  As a result of various Amendments which I moved, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, invited me to confer with him in the interim between the Committee and the Report stages, which I did. When I saw him with his right honourable friend the Minister of State, and after much detailed argument by a delegation of river authority representatives which I led, the point was conceded that the consent of river authorities should be written into the Bill. On that, I agreed to withdraw all the Amendments and not to put down any more, because that was the substance of what river authorities were asking for. This afternoon, at about 2 o'clock, I received a copy of a letter which the Minister of State had written on Friday, May 17. It tells me that the Minister of State has run into drafting difficulties and that, because time is so short, he has been unable to put down an Amendment to meet the point he had conceded. I should add that the reason why this letter never got to me was, apparently, because it was addressed to my noble namesake, Lord Nugent, as opposed to Lord Nugent of Guildford. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, sitting somewhere in Chelsea, is very interested in the letter, but probably also rather puzzled as to what it is all about.
  However, a copy of the letter has reached me now, and this is what it says:
  "I am afraid I have run into too great difficulties over the suggestion we discussed requiring river authorities'`consent'—not so much because it would offend other authorities (though this might occur) but because of the drafting difficulty in the short time available. It would need a great deal of consequential amendment to Schedule 1 and elsewhere."
  Well really, my Lords! what are draftsmen for, but to put Bills into the state in which we think they ought to be? If there is a short time between Committee
  500
  stage and Report whose fault is that? The Government asked us to shorten it in order to suit their convenience, and that we have agreed to do. I want to make it quite plain that this undertaking was given to me by the Minister of State, and it was only upon that undertaking that the delegation—and I have consulted the members—agreed to drop the rest of the Amendments, because they had secured this concession. The last thing I wish to do is to embarrass the Government on this matter, but it is a point which I am sure will improve the Bill and give river authorities their proper role.
  I think I can make a very helpful suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with regard to the drafting difficulty. I suggest that he looks at his Bill, at Clause 6, and studies the machinery we have just been discussing, about which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor spoke and which provides for the case where a local authority wishes to set up a country park in another area. The noble Lord will see in Clause 6 of the Bill, on page 7, a Table under which a county council wishing to set up a country park in another area must obtain the consent of the council concerned. If we turn over the page to page 8 we see that subsection (6) of Clause 6 says:
  "A local authority may apply to the Minister on the grounds that a county council or National Park joint planning board have unreasonably withheld any consent so required, and the Minister, after affording the county council, or the board, an opportunity of making representations, may if he thinks fit direct the county council, or the board, to give the consent to which the application relates."
  That is an exact parallel of what I am asking for here. All the noble Lord has to do is to put into Clause 8 two additional subsections, one requiring the consent of the river authorities where country parks are set up in these areas and the second exactly repeating Clause 6(6). If he does that he will have covered the whole thing. I do not hold myself out as a Parliamentary draftsman. I do not have to, because I am taking this straight out of the noble Lord's Bill. I look to the noble Lord to fulfil the undertaking that was given, and if it assists the noble Lord I shall be only too glad to put down Amendments to this effect for Third Reading so that he can then fulfil the undertaking he gave.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I hope the Government will accept that suggestion and withdraw this Amendment. When the noble Baroness moved the Amendment, she did it in such terms as though she was conceding everything the noble Lord asked, and it was only when I looked a second time at the Amendment that I realised that she was not. The Government, it seems to me, promised everything that the noble Lord had asked for. I think that the river authorities must be included in this Bill. If not, it is going to leave a great part of the administration of water and its use and enjoyment at a loose end. There is no reason why the Government should not give the noble Lord what he wants, and by Third Reading produce Amendments to meet him.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, we are all at the mercy of a mistake which has been made. A letter was sent by the Minister of State to the noble Lord and it was sent to the wrong address. I am very sorry about that, and I convey my apologies to the House for taking up your Lordships' time by what has been a bureaucratic slip. We had not heard again from the noble Lord, and we thought that what we had proposed was all right. I am sorry to hear that it is not so, and I understand the reasons. In order not to detain the House further, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Would it not be right to say that the noble Lord wants this Amendment in any case, whatever happens? If so, would he not agree to the passage of this Amendment now and, since the letter went astray and he received it only immediately before we started on Report stage this afternoon, as to the other matter we shall be in touch again between now and Third Reading. I think that it would not be Fight to ask the House to divide on an issue which is still not clear and is clouded by what was an inexcusable and regrettable slip in communication between us.
  LORD NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, with permission, may I reply to the noble Lord's question? I suggest that the right thing to do is to withdraw this Amendment. This Amendment will not give the substance of the undertaking which was given to this delegation. I am sure that the right way of dealing
  502
  with this is to write in two new subsections: first, to put in a requirement for inserting river authorities and, secondly, to put in subsection (6) of Clause 6 and thus put in the appeal machinery. The problem to which the Minister refers in his letter, of redrafting Schedule 1, is removed altogether. We need not touch the Schedule. The Schedule does not refer to river authorities but applies to the other statutory authorities affected. I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better to withdraw this Amendment—I agree that it is innocuous, but it does not touch the substance of the case—and that he or I put down for Third Reading new Amendments which will really deal with the substance.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should like to have time to consider, and the only way to get time is to withdraw and start things afresh. I will not press this Amendment. But I should not leave this topic before recording this comment on the noble Lord's use of the, word "undertaking". I was not present throughout the meeting and it is rut for me to influence the noble Lord's choice of words, but I wonder whether it was an "undertaking" or an "understanding" that a certain way would be the best way to deal with this problem. Obstacles later appeared which made it impossible to give effect to that understanding. I hope that the noble Lord will not be waving the word "undertaking" at us in the next few days.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 [Powers exercisable over or near common land]:
  LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "in the neighbourhood of" and insert "beside". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to Clause 9, which deals with powers exercisable over common land. It is an Amendment to subsection (5) which says:
  "A local authority shall have power to acquire compulsorily any land in the neigh-bourhood of… common land …".
  I put down this Amendment at the Minister's invitation and I hope than it will prove acceptable. I think that everyone agrees that compulsory purchasing

  503
  powers are at best a necessary evil. Noble Lords on this side of the House have probed every instance of the seeking of compulsory purchasing powers by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill because we must be certain that the evil is necessary before granting the power.
  The Minister was questioned about subsection (5) and here is what he said:
  "…what we are talking about here is something just on the edge of a common …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1463; 7/5/68.]
  The words in the subsection have nothing to do with "just on the edge of" and no court or tribunal could ever accept that the words "in the neighbourhood of" are in the least synonymous with "just on the edge of". They would say that Parliament could easily have said "just on the edge of" if that was what was meant, or could have said "beside a common "or" adjoining a common "or" adjacent to a common". I suppose it would be unarguable that any place within a mile of a common would be in the neighbourhood of it, and I suppose it would be arguable that any place within five miles of a common was in the neighbourhood of it, If what we are talking about is something just on the edge of a common for which compulsory purchasing powers are sought, let us say so in the subsection. I have chosen the word "beside". "Adjacent to" would be just as well, perhaps, but the expression "in the neighbourhood of" is surely much too wide for an extension of compulsory purchase powers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 36, leave out ("in the neighbourhood of") and insert ("beside").—(Lord Airedale.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, to put it in a nutshell, the land might be on the other side of the road. I am at one with the noble Lord in not giving local authorities compulsory purchasing powers a mile or two miles away from common land, but I am advised that the phrase "in the neighbourhood of" is the safest one to use to give local authorities the powers we need, not only literally contiguous to, across the fence from, the common, but also on the other side of the road from the common, because it may be that if you want to make a loop in a road, an access road or something like that, you do not need compulsory
  504
  purchase powers over the actual strip of land—it may be a highway, or it may not —but you do need it a few yards away because of the sweep of the road. I am advised that it is safer to keep the words "in the neighbourhood" 'rather than "beside" for fear of being tripped up by a landlord who is resisting this, who we have already agreed is the last cussed odd man out, who says: "Ah, but it is not actually beside, because 'beside' means 'contiguous'. It does not touch." I do not think the House should accept that it always should be necessary for it to touch. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a case in mind which makes him think this, but, so far as I can see, for that reason it would be better to stick to the words "in the neighbourhood."
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the case I have in mind is the Tower at Blackpool, which I would say is beside the seaside and beside the sea, notwithstanding that there is a road between them. I should have thought any piece of land that is divided only by a road from a common is nevertheless beside the common. But if the Minister is really worried about this and thinks that it will not do, and as I have not been supported by any other noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 [Conservation of natural beauty]:
  5.22 p.m.
  LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved to add to the clause:
  "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section if it appears to a local planning authority in relation to any land in their area comprised in a National Park that it is expedient to make provision for the conservation of the existing character of any such land they shall, after consultation with the Commission, pass a resolution designating such land (hereinafter referred to as an "amenity conservation area") for the purpose of this section.
  (3) As soon as may be after the passing of a resolution under this section the local planning authority shall submit the resolution to the Minister for confirmation.
  (4) Upon the Minister's confirming the resolution the local planning authority shall publish in a newspaper circulating in the area to which the resolution relates a notice stating that the resolution has been confirmed and the general effect thereof and after the date of the publication of the notice no person shall execute or

  505
  cause to be executed any agricultural, afforestation or other operation which would alter the existing character of any land in the amenity conservation area unless at least three months before the works are executed but not more than six months before they are begun notice in writing of the proposed works has been given to the local planning authority.
  (5) Where a local planning authority receive notice of any proposed works under this section they shall, as soon as maybe, send copies of the notices to the Minister and the Commission, and to such other persons as the Minister may specify.
  (6) If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of conserving the character of any amenity conservation area designated and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this section, and having regard to the interests of agriculture and forestry, they may make an order (hereinafter referred to as an "amenity conservation order") prohibiting as may be specified in the order the carrying out in that area of agricultural or afforestation or other operations which would alter the existing character thereof.
  (7) An amenity conservation order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Minister and he may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient.
  (8) Provisions may be made by regulations under this section with respect to the form of amenity conservation orders and the procedure to be followed in connection with the submission and confirmation of such orders, in particular, requiring notice to be given to any owner and occupier of the land comprised in the order, for publicising the making of the order in a local newspaper, and for any representations made in accordance with the regulations to be considered by the Minister before the order is confirmed by him.
  (9) If it appears to the Minister that an amenity conservation order should take effect immediately ,he may confirm the order provisionally without complying with the requirements of any such regulations with respect to the consideration of objections and representations; but any order so confirmed shall cease to have effect at the end of six months from the date on which it is so confirmed, unless within that period it has again been confirmed, with or without modifications, after compliance with those requirements.
  (10)—(a) The local planning authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any person having an interest in any part of the land comprised in an amenity conservation area in respect of any damage or expenditure caused by or incurred in consequence of the making of an amenity conservation order or in respect of the loss of income consequent on the making of such order;

  (b) Any question of disputed compensation under this subsection shall be determined in accordance with section 128 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (reference to Lands Tribunal).

  (11) If any person contravenes the provisions of subsection (4) of this section or of any
  506
  amenity conservation order he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £250.
  (12) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is almost identical with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in Committee. There are some minor alterations, but I do not think they are of any significance. I should explain that the only reason why I am moving this Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is not here, is that it is imperative that he should be elsewhere for the moment. But he allowed me to say that he in no way withdraws his support of the Amendment which I am now putting before the House.
  I fear that I shall have to trespass upon the time of the House for a little longer than has been taken on some of the previous Amendments, because this is an important Amendment which involves a matter of principle and a change in the present planning laws as they apply in National Parks. I hone your Lordships will think that it merits due and careful consideration, because the Amendment is the product of the consideration which has been given to their problem by the Devon and Somerset County Councils over a long period of time. They are the two Councils who, through their joint committee, look after and manage Exmoor, National Park. It is what has been happening in Exmoor during these past five or six years which has caused these Councils and the committee to conclude that Exmoor, in the form in which it has existed, I suppose, for hundreds of years, is disappearing under their eyes. They regard what is proposed in this Amendment as absolutely imperative if they are to stop the erosion of the face of Exmoor. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will feel that the Amendment merits careful consideration.
  The problem arises because, as your Lordships will know, under our present town and country planning legislation there are certain alterations in the face of the land for which planning permission does not have to be sought. The chief of these, of course, are the activities

  507
  of agriculture. No doubt your Lordships will think it is perfectly reasonable that, in the main, a farmer farming his land, ploughing up this field and putting another to pasture, or whatever it may be, ought not to have to seek planning permission before he does it. That, I am sure, everybody will accept. But there is one form of farming activity 'which is doing grave damage in the Exmoor National Park, and that is the fresh, new ploughing up of what has previously been open moorland. When that happens it makes a major alteration in the landscape of the moors. Your Lordships may think it is a little anomalous that the Exmoor Planning Committee, who are the planning authority looking after the moors, are able to say "No", if somebody comes to them and wants to acid a little shed to his bungalow, or if they consider that a sign upon an inn is injurious to the amenities, but cannot say, "No" if somebody comes along and proceeds to plough up 500 acres of open heather-growing moor, so changing the whole face of the landscape.
  What this Amendment proposes is that the matter should be coped with in this way: that the park committee, the planning authority, should be allowed to designate those particular stretches of open moorland in their park which they regal(' as having the highest amenity value. That is something which, as a matter of fact, the Exmoor National Park authority have already done: they have made a careful survey and have marked out the areas which they think are of exceptional amenity value. It is proposed by the Amendment that when a local planning authority have designated the areas of high amenity value, and if that designation is confirmed by the Minister, from then onwards anybody who wants to plough or alter the features of that land must give notice of his intention to do so. And if a farmer or landowner gives notice of his intention to plough it up, then the planning authority can seek a conservation amenity order in respect of that land. If the landowner objects to such an order (and it would be an order prohibiting the proposed ploughing), he can appeal against the order, and an inquiry will be held, with all the ordinary safeguards, so that the point of view of amenity and the point of view of the landowner can be argued
  508
  out and will be preserved. It is only if the Minister is satisfied after the inquiry that it is in the public interest that amenity should prevail over the request to plough that the order can be made to prohibit him.
  It seems to me that this is a very modest proposal indeed. Not only is it a modest proposal, but incorporated in the Amendment is the proposal that if the landowner is prohibited by one of these amenity orders from ploughing up the land, then he shall be paid proper compensation. The matter is very limited. It is limited only to the National Parks and has no application outside the National Parks. The number of acres which may be made the subject matter of amenity orders is limited, even on Exmoor where the problem is most acute. The percentage of land which has been selected as of high amenity value is only 20 per cent. of the moor, which is only some 33,000 acres. As I say, all the safeguards to preserve the rights and claims of the landowner are preserved. That is the substance of it.
  At the Committee stage the argument, if I may say so, received a brief reply from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I do not think it was a contemptuous reply, but it was certainly a very brief one. The noble Lord contented himself by saying that he adopted what had been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. She had said that she did not like the idea of a planning authority being able to exercise these powers over landowners even in this limited way, because she, in her capacity as Chairman of the National Parks Commission, thought that they had built up a happy relationship with the landowning and farming community. The noble Baroness thought that this problem could be met by the planning authorities' discussing and negotiating with farmers who might be intending to plough, and that, in the main, it would be possible to arrive at access agreements whereby the farmer or landowner would give up his right to plough, and therefore in this way the situation would be safeguarded. That was the suggestion, and the answer which was given by the noble Baroness and which was adopted by the noble Lord.
  Since then I have been given some figures by the Somerset County Council

  509
  which, in my submission, completely destroy the suggestion that this matter can be coped with by negotiation and by agreement. I should like to give these figures to the noble Lord for his consideration, because the idea that it is pos3ible to cope with this problem by way of negotiation and agreement with the landowners is not borne out by what is happening on Exmoor to-day. The figures which I have are, I think your Lordships will agree, interesting, and really alarming. They show what has been happening in Exmoor between March last year and this month of May.
  During that time 140 acres of open moorland country have been ploughed up, with the agreement of the planning committee. I emphasise that last point, because it indicates that the Exmoor planning committee will not want to prevent ploughing in any open country. They recognise that there are about 10,000 acres of open moor country which it would be perfectly reasonable to plough up because the damage to amenity would be minimal. There are then two areas, totalling 94 acres, which have been ploughed up, and in one case the heather has been burnt in preparation for the ploughing up. Although negotiations took place with the planning committee, and the planning committee disliked the idea of ploughing, because they considered it injurious to the amenities, and asked the landowners to defer it, the ploughing was not in fact deferred. Then there is a third category of 40 acres which has been ploughed up by someone who did not ask for the consent or agreement of the planning committee at all; and, of course, he is under no obligation to ask them.
  I come to the last figures I shall give, and these are perhaps the most significant figures of all. There are no fewer than 783 acres where the park committee know that ploughing is intended and where they have been told by the owners that they intend to plough. All those 783 acres are land which, in the consideration of the park committee, is high-amenity value land. In the case of 203 acres—one of these three pieces of land —the park committee have asked the owner to defer ploughing. He intends to go on. but he told the park committee, "Well, if you would like to
  510
  acquire my land, of course I shall prepared to sell it to you". The committee then inquired what would be the cost of the 200 acres of open moorland, and were told that it would be £200 per acre. In the case of both the other two lots of land (the three totalling together 783 acres) the committee have requested the landowner not to plough, but have had it indicated to them that he is certainly going to plough.
  That is the experience of co-operation in the National Park, and of how far one gets by trying to deal with these matters by agreement. I suggest that it. demonstrates that it is idle to suppose that the park committees, either in Exmoor or in Dartmoor, can carry out the statutory duty imposed upon them by the Act, to preserve in their natural state these places of exceptional beauty and to promote their enjoyment by the public. It is utterly impossible for these bodies to carry through and perform that statutory duty unless they are given some powers of the kind which are expressed in this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that when the noble Lord comes to reply to this Amendment he will be able, if he continues to reject this proposition, to give us some othet and better reason for rejecting it than that it is possible to cope with this problem by agreement; because it is demonstrated beyond all doubt that that is nol the case.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 37, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Foot.)
  5.37 p.m.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I feel sure that it would be for the convenience of the House if we considered this Amendment together with Amendments, Nos. 14 and 17 which are down in my name to be dealt with later on. On the, assumption that that is so, I propose to speak now formally on the new subsections of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and informally on the other two Amendments; and then perhaps, as a result of the discussion we shall now have, it will be possible for the House to proceed fairly quickly to make up its mind about Amendments Nos. 14 and 17 when we come to them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made out, as he did last time round, a very

  511
  persuasive case for the measures he proposes, and he has painted a truly alarming or horrifying picture of the defects of the present situation of Exmoor. But he has also performed the unusual feat of defending his own Amendment without making any mention at all of a Government Amendment that comes a little further down the Order Paper which has very much the same effect as his own, although I must agree that it does not go quite so far. All that was said on Committee stage of this Bill about the undesirability of going so far and so fast that you forfeit the sympathy and cooperation of any sector of the population concerned with the working of the new system in the countryside remains valid. I still think, as I advised the Committee then, that to adopt what had come to be known in the trade as "the Somerset clauses", which are what Lord Foot has just proposed, would be going too far and too fast. The House will no doubt remember what my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger said about the desire of the Countryside Commission that we should not go so far and so fast because it would prejudice the co-operation over the greater part of the field which already exists and which it is the ardent hope of the Commission and the Government, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, to build up over the whole of the field, including the remaining small sectors.
  What I contend would be the right thing to do instead would be to introduce a system as proposed in the new clause in Amendment 14, to be added after Clause 13, which is down in my name. Let me describe what this would do. It would empower the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make an order in respect of land situated within a National Park which appears to him to be predominantly moorland or heath. It leaves the judgment to him. When the order is made, anyone proposing to convert land covered by the order—this being land which has not been used for an agricultural purpose, other than rough grazing, during the preceding twenty years—must give the local planning authority six months' notice of his intention. That means, of course, anyone who proposes to plough the moorland. If he converts the land without giving notice, or within
  512
  the six months without the written consent of the planning authority, he will be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £200 or on conviction on indictment to a fine of unspecified amount. Conversion of land covered by an order, in breach of the order, will not thereafter exempt the land from the provisions of the order on the grounds that it has been used for the agricultural purpose within twenty years.
  Orders under this clause would be made by Statutory Instrument, subject to annulment by statutory Resolution of either House of Parliament, so there is a good deal of guarantee for the farmer. During the six months' grace it will be open to the local planning authority to explore the possibility of safeguarding the character of any area by means of the provisions of Part V of the 1945 Act. Since 1949 there has been provision for access agreements and access orders, and for various arrangements which, to a rather limited extent, prevent ploughing, because it is always open to the farmer to say "O.K. have your access, but I will still plough. You can tramp over the ploughed field if you like". Since that Act it has always been the case that whenever a planning authority published its intention of making an access order, before it could be made the farmer has nipped in and ploughed up. I should say, of course, that this does not happen in the great majority of cases. In most cases the farmer co-operates well with the planning authority, but I regret to say that it does happen in the small minority of cases where the farmer has used the weaknesses of the existing system to deny the public the rights that their democratically elected representatives think they ought to have.
  This situation has worried the Government and it has led us to put down this new clause, which will provide that when the planning authority wishes to make its order or to propose its agreement (and the Government hope that it will usually be a matter of agreement) the six months, provision will "bite" on the farmer so that he cannot go ahead and plough until the matter is concluded between him and the local planning authority. This then will frustrate—that is a strong word, but I am talking about a strong situation among a small number of people—the tiny minority of farmers from going ahead

  513
  in defiance of the democratically expressed will of the people in that part of the country.
  Before going further let me emphasise the extent to which the Government regard this as a last resort. It is a rather tough procedure, although not as tough as some that Parliament has passed in regard to other categories of the population, but the Government clearly intend it to be for the last resort. The Government consider that the powers conferred on the Minister by this clause are most important because they provide a reserve power which can be used in those cases where local arrangements for voluntary co-operation fail to achieve a satisfactory result. These powers are there, and I hope they will be used only in the minimum of cases but that their presence will facilitate the reaching of voluntary arrangements, because the six months' delay can also be a help in reaching an access agreement. I do not need to remind the House that in both cases, either that of the agreement or the access order, compensation is payable which in point of fact works out to the full value that the farmer would have received if he had been free to carry on and plough up his land for the other sort of agriculture. This is the more important of the two Amendments moved by the Government on this contentious matter of ploughing moorland. I hope that the House will find it a sensible resting place between opposing views after much argument, both locally upon Exmoor and in other parts of the country—because this situation will also hit us further North a little later—and after much discussion in both Houses of Parliament.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that it is not clear to me exactly what the powers are to which he is referring. If negotiations take place with a land owner with a view to an access agreement and the landowner says, "No", is the noble Lord then saying that there are powers by which an access order can be made against the will of the owner which would then preclude the owner from ploughing up that land?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the detailed wording governing the powers will remain the same as it was in Part V of
  514
  the 1949 Act. Turning to Amendment No. 17, this virtually has the same effect as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in the Committee stage, and it fulfils an undertaking that I gave that the Government would put down something to the same effect if he then withdrew his Amendment.
  The effect of the Amendment is to remove the existing statutory obstacle to the making of access agreements, whereby the landowner may bind himself to refrain from activities, such as ploughing, which would render the land "excepted" —that is, not open to public access—and the local authority may recognise this additional factor in determining the terms on which the agreement is negotiated. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said on the last occasion, at the moment however much a farmer wishes to sign away his freedom to except the land, he cannot do so because the wording of the Act would always over-ride the effect of any agreement he might enter into with the local authority. This enables him to sign away his right to except the land, and also enables the local planning authority to pay him such sums in consideration of his ability irrevocably to sign away his right to do that as may be agreed between them or as may be decided by the Lands Tribunal in the usual way.
  The House has one Amendment before it, but I hope your Lordships will bear in mind three Amendments. The first Amendment—the Somerset clauses—I advise the House not to accept, because it would jeopardise the co-operation which has been built up between farmers and the Countryside Commission. In not accepting this Amendment, I hope the House may see fit to accept Amendment No. 14, which goes most of the distance desired by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and Amendment No. 17 allowing a valid "deal" to be done on access agree rents between the local planning authority and the farmer, and having the same effect as that proposed at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
  5.50 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in the first place I should like to thank the Government for tabling Amendment No. 17. This effects what I was seeking to effect in an Amendment which was moved on the Committee stage

  515
  on my behalf by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I think the proposed new clause will improve the situation. As the noble Lord says, it removes a statutory bar to sensible arrangements, and I hope that, whatever may be true about Amendments Nos. 9 and 14, there may be universal agreement that Amendment No. 17 effects an improvement in the law. All these matters, particularly Amendments Nos. 9 and 14, deal with complicated situations.
  I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not define in clear terms the differences between the Government's new clause and the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which is now before your Lordships. The Government hesitated to do that. I certainly shall hesitate; I am sure that discretion is the better part of valour here. Nor shall I seek to expound in detail a matter on which I am quite sure I could not get 100 per cent. in an examination paper. Indeed, if any of your Lordships could at this stage in the debate I should be extremely surprised. I except Lord Foot, who I think probably could get 100 per cent. on this and many other detailed questions.
  The point which I think your Lordships need to bear in mind here is that there has been for some time, particularly on Exmoor, an unsatisfactory state of tension, very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which is to some extent poisoning the atmosphere there and is liable to spread to other National Parks. Various possible solutions have been put forward to this. One was the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Molson in Committee and moved again to-day, in slightly revised form, by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in the Amendment now before us. Another suggestion, which overlaps to a considerable extent, is the Government's new clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has spoken.
  The most important difference between these two, to my mind, is that if we accept the Government's new clause we shall be doing so with the knowledge that a considerable amount of good will on all sides exists towards this solution. I am not saying that everybody welcomes it; I am not saying that everybody thinks it the right solution or the necessary solution. But my information is that there has been
  516
  a great deal of discussion about these matters and that the Government's new clause is acceptable, not only to the Government but also to the Country Landowners' Association, speaking for the owners, and to the National Farmers' Union, speaking for the farmers. I have emphasised throughout the proceedings on this Bill how exceedingly important it is to try to secure and maintain and cherish good will between all the interests concerned, particularly in a National Park. It is no good minimising the clash of interests; it is there, and one can see it come to the surface on Exmoor. But we should all the time be trying to reach solutions which, though they may not give all parties everything they want, will be generally acceptable to the warring interests. My information is that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, does not pass that test and that the Government Amendment does. I am not saying that the Government's new clause is the perfect solution: I think we shall have to see how it works.
  I greatly regret that we are having to discuss all these complex issues under such pressure of time. There I hold the Government responsible, because we finished the Committee stage of this Bill only last Monday, and we are now taking the Report stage of a long Bill just a week later. When we come to Clause 14 it will emerge that this Amendment was first available to be seen by your Lordships as recently as Saturday, so I certainly should not hold the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to blame if he failed to perceive from reading this clause what were the sanctions behind it. I understand that he is disposed to move manuscript Amendments, when we come to that clause, to ensure that there are sanctions. As I understand it, the sanctions are those contained in Part V of the 1949 Act. I hope the Government will realise that not all your Lordships carry the whole of Part V and its provisions in their heads, and not all your Lordships had immediate access to the 1949 Act between Saturday and Monday, even if they were fortunate enough to see the Marshalled List on Saturday. I was not—I did not receive mine until this morning.
  This is not a good way to legislate, and I think it has been harmful to the progress of this Bill that we have had so short a space of time between the

  517
  Committee and Report stages, and I certainly should not take it amiss if any noble Lord, from any quarter of the House, were to seek to move manuscript Amendments to these new clauses or other Government Amendments which we have only just seen. I did all I could to get my Amendments down in good time, but I am well aware that some of them could be considered by your Lordships only over a comparatively short space of time. But my advice to my noble friends would be, if any of these comes to a Division, to support not the Amendment which is now before us but the two new clauses which will be moved, when we come to them, on behalf of the Government.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I associate myself with what has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about the way the Government are treating the legislative process? They do not show any signs of improving. They have been under constant and valid criticism about this for the last year or two, and as times goes on it gets worse rather than better. And although they often put on a white sheet, they very quickly take it off again. It is absurd that we should be expected to deal so quickly with these very complicated problems. I should not like myself to talk about getting 100 per cent. in an examination—I doubt whether I could get to the pass level. This is largely because one has no time to master these complicated problems and the distinctly complicated solutions which are brought forward.
  Passing to the actual problem which is before the House, I take it that if a local planning committee has, in effect, to buy out some of these ploughing proposals the finance for this will be forthcoming, or at any rate a very substantial contribution. Will it be up to 75 per cent., or will it be more than that? We must remember that the local planning authorities in these National Parks areas are in the poorer parts of the country. National Parks exist in areas which are free of heavy rating assessments, and it is very much within the minds of the local councillors who man the planning committees that if they try to make use of some of these compensation provisions provided they may well be subjecting their ratepayers to very heavy financial burdens,
  518
  This seems to me to be an important point, because it is no good providing these powers for the local authority unless they feel they can afford to use them; and the present is a time of financial stringency. I should like to be re Assured on this point.
  I am not at all clear myself that access proposals are altogether the solution. Looking up at Exmoor from down below, it is not entirely a question of providing access to people who want to walk over it. It is a most beautiful piece of country, and the whole character of it may well be completely destroyed. At an earlier stage somebody referred to the beauties of wheatfields. Such may be the case. But they are beautiful in the right place. Not that anybody is going to try to grow wheat on Exmoor! If they did they would lose their money. What one might call the arable type of countryside is quite different from this beautiful countryside which depends so much on its heather and its wild rugged nature; and it may well be that to make use of access provisions is no real solution for what the local planning authority is after.
  The noble Lord says that we must not minimise this clash between the farming interests and the local planning authority, and I suppose we must not. But I do not know how much it is a real clash and how much it is a sham fight. There are always some people who are prepared to contend for some particular rights, even if they are not likely to want to use them. These are the sort of, things that one ought to know more about and not be expected to take the ipse dint of someone. After all, the local planning authority is chosen by the people of the area in question and it should represent the interests involved. I should not like to say from. my own knowledge—because I have little close local knowledge of this part of the country—that there is not such a clash, but I have a feeling that it is not so strong as has been represented.
  On the whole, I think it would be sensible to leave it to the local planning authority, which is an elected authority, or substantially an elected authority, to represent the local interests involved, and to trust those councillors on the spot rather than a circular that the National Farmers' Union sends round, which does not necessarily represent the views of the

  519
  people on the spot so well as those of the local councillors.
  6.2 p.m.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I am totally in sympathy with my noble friend Lord Foot, with the Government side and with Lord Brooke on this question of natural beauty; but I think we should explore one direction more fully. As I understand it, if a farmer on Exmoor wants to plough up he goes to his agricultural association and asks for permission and he receives a marginal grant of, I believe, £12 an acre. If the Minister of Agriculture tightened up in regard to marginal grants, would he not save himself a lot of money? It is all very well giving a marginal grant of £12 an acre; but in order to receive that the farmer should not only plough and clean the land, but also drain it, otherwise it will revert to the barren Exmoor which I described last week, and no good will come out of it at all.
  The other point I should like to make is that throughout the country more and more grass is being ploughed up, and the cattle population of this country will be affected. Only this morning on Romney Marsh my neighbour told me that he was going to plough up 100 per cent. It is only a matter of 50 acres of grass, but it means that he is not going to keep sheep any more. Sheep provide the golden hooves that put back the fertility into the soil. If certain parts of Exmoor and other moors can be encouraged to maintain more sheep, I think it would be a good thing.
  The third point about which I am not happy is this. Although in this debate we have been talking mainly about Exmoor, there are many other areas of England and Wales which will be affected. Therefore, I am against this Amendment. I think it is going to cost either the national Exchequer or the Countryside Commission a lot of money. I ask the Minister to consider my three points.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before we leave this subject, may I ask the Government to consider whether, as has been implied in this debate, the plough is "Public enemy number one", and that its use results in an obscenity. I cannot see that conversion of rough grazing into
  520
  good grazing is in the least detrimental to the view or anything else. It is entirely beneficial to the nation. Rough grazing cannot by re-seeding be converted into good grazing without the use of a plough and without draining, and this process has been going on on Exmoor for over 100 years, with nothing but good results. If what is implied is that the use of the plough is an obscenity, it is not. I would remind noble Lords of the saying, "Fair waved the golden corn". Oats grow on Exmoor at a height of 1,500 feet and provide a quite decent crop.
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, the Liberal Party is in the interesting but not unusual posititon in which it appears to be dividing three ways. Unfortunately, there are not three Lobbies. Therefore, I ask my noble friend whether he would think again about the Government's view. If one looks at the two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, they nearly cover all the points that my noble friend wants to make. He is worried that they are not strong enough. I think they are. When he first made this point to me I think I was looking only at the first Amendment and not at the second one. But if these two Amendments are taken together, and we consider the indications of the first Amendment and of the 1949 Act, we should be in a position to do nearly all that my noble friend wants.
  I, too, have great sympathy with what he is trying to do. But I also have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is trying to do, which is to try to make this thing work. We have heard from her that she thinks that she can make this thing work better on the Government's proposals than on the proposals of the noble Lord. I hope, therefore, that he will have another thought about it.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, before we leave this subject I should like to say a word about the points raised by the penultimate speaker. "May the corn flourish", and so on! Yes, of course, over most of the country. He asked, "Is the plough an obscenity?" It is certainly not, except in tiny parts of the country. I would remind the House that the Government's Amendment No. 14 does not cover the whole country, anywhere where anybody may object to ploughing.

  521
  It is exercisable only within National Parks; it does not even cover the whole of any given National Park. It applies only within those parts of National Parks which, to the Minister, appear to be composed mainly of heath and moor. In other words, in practice these provisions would only touch the hilltops in Exmoor, and possibly later on the northern moorland National Parks. If they are open to criticism on the grounds of geographical incidence, I think that criticism could only be that they will be applicable in two small parts of the country and not two wide parts.
  6.11 p.m.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said about the way we were having to deal with this business. I did not see the noble Lord's Amendments until a quarter to three this afternoon because I come from some distance, and I have had little opportunity of studying Part V of the 1949 Act under which the noble Lord says that the sanctions exist. From what study I have made of them I am of the opinion—I do not claim that this is in any way necessarily right—that Part V of the Act provides no sanction at all. I am wondering whether the noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would have advised his colleagues to vote against my Amendment and support the Government's Amendments if it be the fact that there is no sanction whatever behind the Government's proposals.
  If I may, I will explain to the House the reason why I take that view. Amendment No. 14 provides—and it was read substantially by the noble Lord—that if anybody wants to plough land which has hitherto not been agricultural land he must give six months' notice. If he fails to give the notice, or if he ploughs up during the currency of the notice and before the six months has expired, he commits an offence and is liable to a fine. That is as far as that clause goes, and I ask the noble Lord where, at the end of the six months, is the sanction? How do you stop it? He says that you stop it by making an order under Part V of the 1949 Act. I take it that when he says that he is referring to Section 76 of the 1949 Act, which deals with the acquisition by local authorities of land for public access.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me a moment, it might simplify and shorten things if I told the noble Lord that that is different from my meaning. What I meant was Section 65, dealing with access orders. It is not concerned with compulsory purchase; it relates to orders saying that access shall be allowed.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, that is the trouble of trying to deal with these things in this way. The noble Lord may be right. Of course, I cannot possibly now read through Section 65, which covers a whole page, to see what it does mean. But there is a grave danger that we are going to vote upon this Amendment under a misapprehension as to what we are doing. If I am right in thinking that the provisions of Section 76 might not be invocable to acquire land then it may be that it would not be open for an order to be made under the earlier section to which the noble Lord referred, Section 65. But in so far as the Government are saying that Part V gives a local authority power to acquire access land compulsorily, may I read the section to the House? It says:
  "Where it appears to a local planning authority, as respects any open country in their area, other than excepted land,"—
  that means agricultural land—

  "(a) that it is requisite that the public should have access thereto for open-air recreation; and

  (b) that in the circumstances it is expedient that such access thereto should be secured by the acquisition of the land by the local planning authority,

  the authority may acquire the land compulsorily."
  Now I ask myself this question: supposing a farmer gives six months' notice of his intention to plough, and supposing that during the currency of that notice the local planning authority decide to invoke the provisions of Section 76 to acquire this land compulsorily—that is certainly one of the sanctions that is open to them, as the noble Lord would agree—they make their compulsory purchase order and then there is an inquiry because the landowner objects to the order being made. The matter then comes before the inspector at the inquiry. Suppose that the real reason why the local authority want to acquire the land is not so that the public can have access

  523
  to it but so that its character and its appearance will not be altered or destroyed, what is the first question that will be addressed by the advocate for the aggrieved landowner to the representative of the local authority at the planning inquiry? The first question he will ask him is, "Are you saying that you want to acquire this land because it is requisite that the public should have access thereto for open-air recreation?" The representative of the local authority would be obliged to say, "No, we are not seeking to acquire it for that purpose. We are seeking to acquire it to preserve its present character." The inevitable result would be that the Minister would feel obliged to say that he could not make that compulsory purchase order because they were seeking to use these powers for a different purpose than that for which the Act provided them.
  Therefore, on my reading of the matter at the moment, I suggest that this House is in grave danger of rejecting my Amendment, and accepting the Government's Amendments in advance, on a false and erroneous assumption, and I suggest that this is not the way in which the matter ought to be dealt with at all. If I may revert for a moment—
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord gets on to another point, may I say that I have been following this debate with great interest and he has got me completely tied up. Is he maintaining that the local authority, by making an access agreement, cannot do anything to the farmer and that land except by purchase? As I read the Act of 1949 I would say that they can make the access agreement and say, "Thou shalt not plough".
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, as I understand it there are two ways in which one can go about this. Suppose that the indication is given that the farmer or landowner is intending to plough; there are two ways in which the matter might be attacked. If the Government's proposed Amendment is passed and accepted, then one would be the procedure thereunder, which is the procedure for requiring notice to be given.
  LORD HAWKE: And then Amendment 17?
  LORD FOOT: And then No. 17. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said just now, gives six months' grace, and I take it that the grace is given and its purpose is to enable the planning authority and the farmer to get together to see, first of all, whether they can come to an access agreement. Then I understood the noble Lord to say that in the case of the few recalcitrant landowners who were not prepared to enter into agreements the local authority or Ministry as a last resort could invoke Part V of the Act. Among the things which they can invoke under Part V is the compulsory acquisition of access land. I do not believe that that sanction is effective at all. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would have advised his Party to reject my Amendment in favour of the Government's Amendments if he knew that in fact there was no sanction behind the Government's Amendments.
  I agree with what has been said about the importance of maintaining good relations with the landowning and farming community, but it has to be recognised that occasions will inevitably arise when there is a conflict of interest between amenity on the one hand and agriculture on the other. When a conflict does arise, is the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, saying that it should always be resolved in favour of agriculture and against amenity? That is the effect of rejecting my Amendment and maintaining the present law. Under the present law, where there is a conflict it is always the will of the agriculturist which prevails. Surely there must be a few precious acres in this country of particular amenity value where the claims of amenity are stronger than the claims of agriculture. Would anybody be prepared to accept the ploughing up of Hyde Park? There are acres in Exmoor and on Dartmoor which are as precious as Hyde Park and which at present are entirely unprotected by planning control. There is bound to be conflict. We are asking in our Amendment simply that we shall be given ordinary planning control over some of the most precious acres in this country.
  I conclude by saying that my Amendment is the logical, simple way of meeting this matter. It does not involve the acquisition of land. Is it not unreasonable that we should have to acquire land

  525
  to protect amenity? In all ordinary planning matters we protect amenity by refusing to allow people to do things which are injurious to amenity. Why should we not adopt exactly the same principle in the protection of the acres of which I am speaking? Why go to devious means of trying to deal with the matter as a matter of access when we are not talking about access at all but about the protection of amenity? The Government are trying to cope with the matter by the roundabout fashion of dealing with it under the heading of access. I am obliged to carry the question to a Division, and, if the Amendment is voted down, it may be that at the end of the day the Government's Amendments will be found to contain so many holes that they will not hold any water at all. In that event we shall have made a decision about this matter under a complete misapprehension.
  LORD STRANG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has told us that in the last resort the Government have a sanction in reserve. It would help the House to know precisely what that sanction is.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the local planning authority have a sanction in reserve. This is a complicated matter. I appreciate that we are dealing with it at short notice, but I feel it incumbent upon me to give the House the best explanation I can. Section 66 of the 1949 Act says:
  "A person interested in any land comprised in an access agreement or order, not being excepted land, shall not carry out any work thereon whereby the area to which the public are able to have access by virtue of the agreement or order is substantially reduced".
  There are two concepts in that which require definition. The first is the concept of excepted land. The way one excepts land under this provision is by ploughing it. The provision goes on to say:
  "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the doing of anything whereby any land becomes excepted land".
  The farmer in Exmoor or in any other National Park was able to except his land from this provision by ploughing it. He cannot now do that in any clause in this Bill because Clause 16 provides that ploughing shall not in itself except land unless the Minister agrees that it
  526
  should. That puts ploughing in a different context.
  The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made the point that the local authority might want to make one of these orders, not in order to ensure access or create access but in order to keep the countryside looking as it does now. We are all agreed that in this matter we are concerned primarily with Exmoor. This is where the issue has become a difficult one locally. Although it may become difficult later on in other places, for the moment we shall be right to devote our consideration to the evidence of what is happening on Exmoor. On Exmoor what happens is that farmers plough the heatherland—the high moorland with heather and scrub on it—to seed it with grass so as to get better grazing. What changes the appearance of the land is that it goes over from this purplish, brownish, wild-looking moorland, which many people love, to neat, green pasture; but it has to be ploughed before this can happen. The ploughing is what changes its appearance.
  Hitherto ploughing has constituted an exception, and a farmer could except his land whenever he chose. Typically, the psychological moment to do so was when the local authority started to talk about an access order. Now he cannot even except it, unless the Minister agrees that ploughing should constitute an exception in this particular case under the Bill. Under my Amendment he will not be able to nip in and do anything at all to it which would affect the access within six months, during which time the local authority can carry to fruition its attempts to secure access (and therefore a fortiori to keep the appearance the same) either, as we should prefer, by reaching an access agreement with him, or, in the extreme case, if that fails, by making an access order on the land.
  I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is quite wrong in saying that the Amendment does not attract any compulsion. It does attract compulsion under Section 66 of the 1949 Act. I hope that the compulsion would rarely be used, but I think that the House would be right to pass Amendment No. 14 when we come to it, because it will be useful in the case of acute public interest and social need to have compulsion in the background. The compulsion is not always or solely compulsory purchase but also the access

  527
  orders which I have just been describing to your Lordships.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is important that we should not be confused here. Ploughing is not the only way one can turn heatherland into the neat, green pasture which the noble Lord mentioned. This can be done by chemical means. Would that be an exception, too?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should require notice of that question; but I think that the effect of the chemical means on the degree of access available to the public would come into the matter.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, access is another point. All I can say, and I say it without any fear of contradiction, is that it is not necessary to use mechanical means. With modern sprays you kill off the existing pasture, furze, heather or whatever it is, and then without any mechanical means at all you can in some cases plant grass seeds and have your neat pasture. That is possible and it may affect the argument.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I understood him to say that it was under Section 66 of the 1949 Act that access orders could be made. He will be aware of subsection (2) of Section 65, which provides that an access order shall not be made in respect of any land; first, where there are existing access agreements and, secondly,
  "where such an agreement or agreements are not in force with respect to the land, unless it appears to the said authority impracticable to secure the making of such an agreement or agreements".
  Is it not a fact, and is the noble Lord aware, that the word "impracticable" in the phrase,
  "impracticable to secure the making of such an agreement or agreements",
  has been interpreted as meaning impracticable physically, because there are a number of owners concerned, and that an agreement is not impracticable merely because the landowner does not want to enter into it? If that interpretation of the law is right, as I believe it to be, it means, surely, that if the objection to an access agreement is simply the recalcitrance of the landowner, then it is impossible to get an access order against him.
  528
  Does the noble Lord agree with that interpretation?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, we are really getting almost to the point where we are trespassing here on the function of the courts. But, as I read it, subsection (2)(b) of Section 65 of the 1949 Act says that an access order cannot be made unless it has proved impracticable to make an agreement, which carries to my mind the sense that if it proves impracticable to make an agreement, whether by the difficult nature of the farmer or by any other cause, an access order may be made. On the last point raised by the noble Earl, I am informed that the Government's Amendment No. 14, which I am commending to your Lordships' House, uses the language "by ploughing or otherwise", and "otherwise" ought to include the chemical treatment which he was speaking about just now.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I must ask leave to speak again, because I believe that under Standing Orders there are restrictions on the number of times one may speak on the Report stage, but I wish to say again that the Government have got themselves into trouble to-day simply and solely through tabling this new clause at such a late stage. It really is impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or other noble Lords who are interested in this subject, to do justice to a complex matter and to conduct the necessary research in time so that any of us can speak with authority. I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously, and that we shall never again have the experience of a complex clause like this being tabled simply over the weekend. Having said that, I for my part, if these matters go to a Division, will support the Government both on this Amendment and on the new clause, Amendment No. 14.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  6.34 p.m.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, as on an earlier occasion in our proceedings this afternoon it was suggested that the Government might be hiding behind my skirts, may I hasten to assure the House that Amendment No. 11 is a minor technical Amendment to the Bill which will empower local planning authorities providing recreational facilities in the sea

  529
  bounding National Parks to enter into agreements with any other authority, such as a harbour authority, on whom powers to carry out works in the sea are conferred under any other enactment, whereby that other authority may act on their behalf. This Amendment is tabled at the request of the Ministry of Transport, who are anxious that in appropriate cases it should be possible for harbour authorities to carry out any necessary works in their area associated with the provision of recreational facilities in the seas bounding National Parks. Without this Amendment, the type of agreement described could be made only in respect of waterways other than the sea. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 20, at end insert—
  "() Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 13 of the Act of 1949 (carrying out work on behalf of local planning authority by some other authority) shall apply to any part of the sea bounding a National Park as they apply to a waterway.")—(Baroness Serota.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Lakes in National Parks: control of boats etc.]:
  6.36 p.m.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved, in subsection (1), after the first "Park", to insert:
  "or a local authority who own wholly or mainly the bed of a lake or within whose area there is the bed or part of the bed of a lake".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal. As your Lordships will see, Clause 13 deals with the making of bylaws to control the use of boats, and so on, on lakes within National Parks, and also by-laws with regard to the preservation of amenity. The motive behind this Amendment is really a plea that those who will be most affected by those by-laws shall have an effective say in drawing them up.
  Your Lordships will see that the matters to be dealt with are safety of persons resorting to a lake, regulating sport or recreation, and preventing nuisance and, in particular, noise. Also, the by-laws may prescribe rules with regard to navigation, imposing speed limits, requiring the use of silencers and making reason-
  530
  able charges. If your Lordships will look, in particular, at paragraph (e) of subsection (3), you will see that those by-laws may:
  "make different provision for different circumstances, and in particular may impose different restrictions in different parts of the lake and at different times or seasons."
  I cannot imagine anything more likely to affect the people living around or near the lakes.
  To illustrate my point, let us take the case of the Windermere Urban District Council, since everybody knows Windermere and its lake. The residents of Windermere will obviously be very much affected by what goes on in the lake, but as the Bill is drawn at present they will have absolutely no say in the making of the by-laws to govern the use of boats on the lake: only the local planning authority will have these powers. Apart from the question of the inhabitants, it so happens that the Windermere Urban District Council own the bed of the lake, so that the owner there is not to have any say in the making of by-laws with regard to the use of the lake.
  There is already a precedent in the Bill for dual powers shared by local planning authorities and county district councils, so I do not think that by bringing in the county district councils we are creating any new principle. I hope that I have made the point reasonably clear. It is only right that the people who will be most affected by the making of the by-laws should have a real say in drawing them up. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 26, after "Park" insert the said words.—(Lord Grimston of Westbury)
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is under a misapprehension as to what this Amendment will do, because, if I am right, it will do exactly the opposite of what he wants. Under it, the local authority will have no powers over Windermere except those relating to traffic under the 1894 Act, which deals with navigation. They will be able to cope with matters of navigation and safety of boats, but all the other matters concerned with controlling what goes on on the lake will be lost to them if this Amendment is passed, because it is only by the powers in Bill hat those activities can be controlled. If you

  531
  exclude Windermere from this Bill (this seems to me to be the effect of these words) then you make the local authority powerless to control its own lake.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not understand. The Amendment does not exclude Windermere from the Bill. All this is saying, in effect, is that the Windermere Urban District Council shall have a say in drawing up the regulations providing for what is to happen on Lake Windermere. It does not exclude Windermere. I am sorry, but I think the noble Lord has got it wrong.
  6.41 p.m.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, the intention of the Amendment he has moved on behalf of Lord Wakefield of Kendal is to give local authorities in National Parks within whose area there is located a lake, powers, concurrent with those conferred on the local planning authorities for National Parks, which would enable them to make by-laws under Clause 13 for the control of boats or vessels on the lake or lakes within their area. If that is the object of the exercise, I am afraid that the Amendment is defective, in that it empowers a local authority anywhere in the country within whose area there is the whole or part of a lake to make by-laws under Clause 13 in respect of any lake in any National Park. One could think of some very absurd ways in which this particular power might work out, and I am sure it would not be the wish either of the noble Lord who put this Amendment down or of the noble Lord, Lord Grimston, who moved it on his behalf, to see it working in such ways.
  But quite apart from the drafting deficiencies there are other aspects of this Amendment which the Government do not find acceptable. For example, if the local authority owns a lake or part of a lake (which is the first category in the Amendment) they are perfectly able, subject of course to any rights of navigation there may be over the lake, to control the use of the lake or part of it as they please by virtue of their ownership. If the authority do not own the lake but wish either to have a say in the content
  532
  of the by-laws or to share in their enforcement, then these points are already covered. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was aware of that particular point. Once the local planning authority have made the by-laws, they must be submitted to the Home Secretary for confirmation, and the local authority may make representations to the Home Secretary. But in any event the Government have already undertaken during the Committee stage of the Bill to invite the local planning authorities to consult the local authorities at the earliest stage before making by-laws under Clause 13. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has probably convinced your Lordships that the Amendment would go too wide, and I do not imagine that my noble friend intended to give such sweeping powers to any local authority which owns a lake or part of a lake in any part of the country. But I think that what the noble Baroness said afterwards indicates that she appreciated the point at which this Amendment was evidently directed. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. There are probably other cases besides Windermere, but in the case of Windermere, which was mentioned by my noble friend, although the Windermere Urban District Council claim to own the bed of the lake, I must say that it is difficult for me to see, reading this Bill, how they can have an effective say in the making of by-laws. I am not sure how far the ownership of the bed of a lake gives power to do the things which the owners want to do, or power to insist on the things they want to insist on, upon the surface of the lake. It certainly appears to me that the local planning authority, in this case the Park Planning Board, is to be given by Statute complete power to make by-laws, and I do not see on the face of the Bill any requirement for them to consult the district councils which may be affected, unless Amendment No. 13, which we have not yet reached, is accepted.
  I can see no reason why a council like the Windermere Urban District Council should not be given concurrent powers with the Park Planning Board to deal

  533
  with these subjects which are mentioned in subsection (2) and elsewhere in the clause. If it is the case that the local authority—that is to say, the district council—has powers over any lake that it owns, perhaps the Government will be able to explain in what way it can exercise those powers under existing legislation; because, if so, no Amendment of this kind may be required. Secondly, it may be that my noble friend will not wish to press this until we come to the next Amendment. I should greatly like to know how the local planning authority—that is to say, the Park Planning Board—can at present be compelled to consult a district council which is in the position of owning a lake or part of a lake within its area before the planning authority makes the by-laws.
  BARONESS SEROTA:My Lords, on this question of how a local authority (such as the Windermere Urban District Council) who own a lake or part of a lake, can control the use of that lake, as I think I indicated when I spoke a little earlier, it is through their ownership of the lake. I do not know whether that point was clear to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, but in this particular case, the Windermere case, which I believe Lord Wakefield of Kendal had in mind, it is a question of control through ownership. I also indicated that where the authority do not themselves own the lake but wish to have a say in the content of the by-laws (which seems to be Lord Brooke's question on this particular clause), and to share in their enforcement, these points are already provided for through the normal machinery of consultation at the stage when the local planning authority submit by-laws to the Home Secretary for confirmation. This machinery generally works smoothly and easily, and the Government see no need to insert a further provision in the Bill to this effect.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is there no chance of a conflict? Apparently there are two authorities who are each to have power to make by-laws in this particular situation. Who wins if they do not agree?
  BARONESS SEROTA: Whereas there is always danger of conflict between different local authorities, I think the noble Lord must have misread the clause.
  534
  There is no question of conflict in the case of this particular clause. The urban district councils do not have the power.
  LORD HAWKE: But I understood the noble Baroness to say that they exercised power through their ownership of the bottom of the lake. The planning authority, apparently, are to have the general powers in Clause 13, yet I understood the noble Baroness to say that there was this other power. I am asking who prevails if the planning authority and the local authority differ as to the type of by-laws which should be made.
  BARONESS SEROTA: The owners of the lake are not able to make bylaws. Under the Bill as drafted at present, the power to make by-laws resides only in the hands of the local planning authority. The owners of the lake control the user of the lake only through their influence on the individuals who are using its facilities.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I am sorry, my Lords, but it seems to me that the noble Baroness has contradicted herself. She told us—and I think my noble friend Lord Brooke picked up the point—that by virtue of their ownership of the bed of the lake the Windermere Urban District Council already have all the powers that this Amendment would give them.
  BARONESS SEROTA: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord: they have the powers which are derived from their ownership, but they do not have powers under this clause of the Bill to make by-laws controlling the user of the lake.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness feel that they could exercise power by denying the access of a boat? They could say, "We do not like these by-laws that the planning authority have imposed upon us. We shall ban the use of the lake completely." That is the power in fact.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am not sure whether I can answer the noble Lord's specific question "of the cuff". I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but the position is that the main authority makes the by-laws and the other has the right to object and, indeed, may do so. It will be for the

  535
  Home Secretary, when by-laws are submitted to him, to make a decision in the light of the submissions that he has received. He can, of course, then hold an inquiry if he deems it necessary.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may I take it that the Home Secretary holds the ring between the Windermere Urban District Council and the planning authority?
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we hope that it will never reach that stage.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, we hope that it will never reach that stage.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that further explanation. In view of what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, this Amendment has already been referred to and I do not think that we need spend much time on it. All that it does is to put into the Statute what the noble Baroness told us is going to happen anyway. In the circumstances, I think it would be a good thing to put it into the Bill. She has said that the local planning authority is going to be instructed always to consult with the local authority who are likely to be affected. That being the case, it seems to me that there can be no objection to putting this into the Statute so that everybody will know where they are and the thing will be in the open. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 14, at end insert ("and any local authority likely to be affected thereby"). —(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the substance of this Amendment was discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill. Those noble Lords who were present will remember that my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking at the Committee stage that his Department would ensure that in the Ministerial circular to be issued following the passage of this Bill, the Minister will make it clear that he hopes that consultation will take place between the local planning authorities and the local authorities at the earliest possible stage. I would stress the point made a moment ago, that in addition to the arrangements
  536
  that the Minister will make clear in his administrative circular, he hopes that this consultation will take place at an early stage. The Home Secretary will be available to receive representations before by-laws are confirmed.
  The Government feel that this is the proper way to deal with this matter. It is always hoped that in matters of this kind the local authorities will proceed by consultation and agreement. Those of us with experience in local government have always found it better to work in this way. My noble friend Lord Kennet has already accepted the principle behind this Amendment by making it clear that this will be part of the Minister's circular. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that this will be done and that he will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having said that the Government wish things to happen as they will be required to happen if the Amendment were written into the Bill. This is a small point. I should not be inclined to advise my noble friends to press this Amendment if we receive an assurance from the Government that the Home Secretary would refuse to confirm by-laws submitted to him by a local planning authority under this clause if it emerged that the local planning authority had failed to consult the district councils or other authorities that were likely to be affected by the by-laws. It seems to me that then the local authority would have the safeguard which my noble friend wishes to give to it.
  But it will be an awkward way of doing things, and I should have thought that if there were a case where a local planning authority had failed, by inadvertence or otherwise, to consult a district council and if everything goes on right up to the point where the Home Secretary has to take note, then time will be wasted. It will be an untidy way to proceed. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary would be reluctant to confirm any by-law if it emerged that the district council had not been consulted. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain in more detail what is wrong with accepting this Amendment. I do not want to clutter up the Bill with Amendments,

  537
  but this seems to be the sensible way and should save the trouble of having to give advice in a Ministerial circular and the possibility of delay ensuing in a final Home Office stage.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support what has just been said. Clearly, there are two bodies which must be consulted: the Commission, on the one hand, and the interested local authority, on the other. You could either have it in the Bill that both are to be consulted, or you could have it by Ministerial circular that both are to be consulted. I cannot see any sense in having to say, in the Bill, that the Corn-mission should be consulted but, in a Ministerial circular, that the local authority should be consulted. This seems to me to be thoroughly untidy. It would be tidier if this Amendment were accepted and if it were stated in the Bill that both bodies should be consulted.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am beginning to wonder whether we are not forgetting that by-laws do not affect local authorities; they affect the individuals who are sailing on the lakes. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, answered his own question in relation to the Home Secretary—namely, that it is unlikely that any Home Secretary, in considering whether or not to confirm a by-law, would fail to take note that the recommendation in the Ministerial circular following the passing of the Bill had not been complied with by any of the authorities concerned.
  There is perhaps a difference of opinion between us here. There are those who would prefer to see concurrent powers laid down in legislation, and there are those who still feel, in spite of this discussion, that it is right and proper for the power to remain with the local planning authorities knowing there will be a Ministerial circular encouraging them to consult with the local authority in the area before submitting by-laws to the Home Secretary who then will adjudicate on the various representations.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it did not appear to me that this Amendment raised any question of concurrent powers. I thought that this Amendment was concerned solely with the duty laid upon local planning authorities (who
  538
  alone would have the power to make the by-laws) to consult with the subordinate local authorities.
  BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am mistaken and apologise for misleading the House by referring to concurrent powers at this point. I hope the noble Lord will accept the apology in the spirit in which it is offered. I was saying that there is a difference of opinion here and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I have already given the assurance that the Minister will be issuing a circular and that we hope that the authorities concerned will consult together, following the issue of that circular, at the earliest possible occasion remembering always that this Bill is concerned with amenities for the people of this country to enjoy. We hope that the local authorities involved will work together in this spirit and towards that particular end.
  LORD CHORLEY: May I say a word about this Amendment? This is another example of the difficulties which arise through the late tabling of Amendments. I did not see this Amendment until I arrived this afternoon. I must say that in the time which I have been able to give to it I put the same interpretation on this Amendment as did the noble Baroness; that its effect would be to give concurrent powers. It seemed to me that on that basis it is an Amendment which ought to be rejected. It is not sensible I think, to give concurrent powers in a case of this kind. This is an isolated case.
  Another thing that has happened is that the loudspeaker in the Library is not working, and so I came into the Chamber to see what was the position. I am interested in this Amendment as it refers to the bed of Lake Windermere, which is the only Lake which Gould possibly come within the scope of this Amendment. As I am labouring under the disadvantage of not having seen the Amendment until this afternoon, and under a further disadvantage because the loudspeaker in the Library is not working, I find myself in some difficulty. But it seems to me that on the face of it this is an Amendment which would effectively provide two concurrent powers—
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say

  539
  that the previous Amendment did give concurrent Powers? If the noble Lord will read the Amendment he will see that there is no question of concurrent powers here; it is merely making it mandatory for the planning authority to consult—that is all.
  LORD CHORLEY: If that is clear, I will accept it. I should like to say that, in so far as this particular district council is concerned, its relations with the local planning body are of the very best. Since the late Alderman Lee Groves presented the bed of the lake to the Windermere District Council some years ago (incidentally, he died only last week, after very fine service to his county), the joint planning board for the Lake District National Park and the Windermere District Council have worked in the very closest co-operation, so I do not think there is any real difficulty here. No doubt consultations will take place whether there is a directive from the Minister or not.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  7.4 p.m.
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
  Conversion of moor and heath in National Parks to agricultural land.
  ".—(1) The Minister may, if satisfied that it is expedient, by order apply this section to any land in a National Park appearing to him to be predominantly moor or heath.
  (2) The occupier of any land to which this section for the time being applies, and which is moor or heath which has not been agricultural land at any time within the preceding twenty years, shall not, by ploughing or otherwise, convert any of the land into agricultural land unless he has given six months written notice of his intention to the local planning authority.
  (3) If, without the consent in writing of the local planning authority, any person fails to comply with subsection (2) above, whether by failing to give a notice, or by taking some action within the six months, he shall be guilty of an offence.
  (4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £200, or

  (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine,

  (5) An order made under subsection (1) above—

  (a) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made,

  (b) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  (6) In this section "agricultural land" does not include land which affords rough grazing for livestock but is not otherwise used as agricultural land.
  (7) In considering for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether land has been agricultural land within the preceding twenty years, no account shall be taken of any conversion of the land into agricultural land which was unlawful under the provisions of this section."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Government Amendment about ploughing up, access, the six months and all that which we discussed fully a few moments ago. I think that at this stage all I need to do is to commend it to your Lordships and once again to apologise for the short notice at which I have been able to put it down. I hope that its merits in this complicated situation (I think it does secure a good measure of support from both sides of the Committee) will atone for the shortness of the notice. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.
  After Clause 13 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after subsection (3) to insert the following subsection:
  "(3A) (a) If, within two months of receiving notice as respects any land under subsection (2) above, the local planning authority make a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land the occupier of the land shall not by ploughing or otherwise convert the land into agricultural land unless the Minister refuses to confirm the compulsory purchase order;
  (b) Any person contravening the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence."
  The noble Lord said: I tabled two Amendments of which I understand that a copy has been circulated, but in case your Lordships have not seen it may I read the two Amendments, reading the second one first, because that is the substance of it? It proposes, after subsection (7) to insert:
  "(8) Where it appears to a local planning authority as respects any land to which this section applies that it is desirable that the land should not be converted into agricultural land and that in the circumstances such conversion should be prevented by the acquisition of the land by the local planning authority the authority may acquire the land compulsorily."
  That subsection clearly states what it does. It gives the local authority, once it has been notified of the intention to plough, the opportunity, if it wishes to do so, to acquire the land compulsorily in order to prevent its character from being

  541
  altered. The first Amendment is purely consequential.
  Earlier, on my previous Amendment, there was a great deal of discussion whether, among other things, it was possible, if amenity land was threatened by ploughing, for a local authority to acquire the land compulsorily. These Amendments of mine woud, I suggest, simply put that beyond doubt. They correspond very closely to Section 79 of the 1949 Act which is the section enabling the local planning authority to acquire access land where the authority thinks fit in order that it may be kept available for the public. All that is done by these Amendments to the Amendment is to make similar powers available to the local authority for the purposes of protecting amenities. I suggest there is nothing of principle in it, but it will put the sanction beyond any doubt.
  In the ordinary way one would expect the planning authority, before seeking a compulsory purchase order, to negotiate with the owner within the six months' notice period to see whether an access agreement could be made, and these powers would simply be in the background if it was impossible to reach an agreement. I suggest that there is nothing in these Amendments except that they spell into the Bill what already appears in the 1949 Act with regard to access. I beg to move.
  Amendment to the Amendment moved—
  After subsection (4) insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Foot.)
  LORD FOOT: I beg to move Amendment No. 14B.
  Amendment to the Amendment moved—
  After subsection (7) insert:—
  ("(8) Where it appears to a local planning authority as respects any land to which this section applies that it is desirable that the land should not be converted into agricultural land and that in the circumstances such conversion should be prevented by the acquisition of the land by the local planning authority the authority may acquire the land compulsorily.")—(Lord Foot.)
  LORD KENNET: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I are probably carrying out the reverse of one of those Chinese battles which you see on the stage, where the audience knows what
  542
  is happening and the actors pretend to be in the dark, which produces a very comical effect. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I know what is happening but probably most of your Lordships are in the dark about these manuscript Amendments. I only hope that the effect will not be too comical. I assure the Committee that although the Amendments would certainly strengthen the arm of the local planning authority in securing amenity in National Parks by means of compulsorily acquiring land simply to preserve its appearance, they would be very deeply resented by farming interests for two reasons: first, the principle at present accepted by all concerned and which we wish to preserve is that the planning authority shall have power to do this compulsorily in order to secure and maintain public access to land. Often this carries with it the tacit corollary that the appearance is maintained; but to make the conservation of the appearance of a given piece of land the explicit purpose of a compulsory purchase operation would be a big change in principle.
  I would advise the House that this would not be accepted by the other side of the deal, by the landowning and farming interests, without a good deal of bad blood and sourness. For the same reason that I urged the House not to accept the noble Lord's original new clause, I would urge the House not to accept these Amendments because they go too far too fast. It was for the same reason that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, wisely withdrew his new clause. It would not be for me to speak for the Countryside Commission, but I should be interested to hear the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, on this subject, and I think that if the Chairman, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, were here, she- might find these Amendments objectionable for the same reason. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to proceed with all due haste—I think it is remarkable that we are able to go so far forward in this Bill as we are—and not to hurry this too much.
  LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply, because those who promoted the Amendment which I moved earlier felt that if that failed, nevertheless something could perhaps be written into this Amendment which would

  543
  give the Exmoor National Parks Committee power to acquire land in default of agreement so that they would be able to stop the erosion of Exmoor who is now proceeding. I am afraid that I shall be obliged to withdraw the Amendments, but it means that for an indefinite period ahead the destruction of Exmoor National Park is going to proceed.
  Amendments to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, now we have disposed of the manuscript Amendments, may I say a few words? I support the new clause in general, but we have not had much time to look at it. At first sight I am surprised that there is no obligation on the Minister to consult anybody at all before he satisfies himself that it is expedient by order to apply this clause to land in a National Park. Maybe in a Statute we should not require a Minister to consult a local authority, but I should think that it would be desirable that he should consult the local planning committee in a case like this, and essential that he should consult the Commission. I am not pressing for an answer on this matter now, but had I had an opportunity of seeing this new clause earlier I would have put down an Amendment requiring the Minister to consult the Commission before he took action. Perhaps between now and Third Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will consider whether it would not be desirable to include some mention of the Commission, who, after all, are given considerable responsibilities as regards National Parks, before the Minister acts and brings these new powers into operation.
  LORD KENNET: I will consider that.
  LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a Chinese battle in which I have not take a very active part hitherto, but I am worried about this proposed new clause. It applies the criminal law in certain circumstances, and one of the circumstance is that the land must be moor or heath which has not been agricultural land at any time within the preceeding twenty years. I am not sure that that ought to be left as an element in the offence. Obviously this could be dealt with by obliging the Minis-
  544
  ter to satisfy himself before making any order applying the sanction. As it is, supposing land has changed hands a good many times in the past 20 years, as it may well have done, is the man prosecuted to be taken to know what has been happening during the past 20 years? Agricultural land is not quite so definite a thing that if he lives in that part of the world he must know. Altogether it seems to me to be introducing into an offence which is fairly complicated already an element of uncertainty which is unnecessary, and I suggest to my noble friend that it would be better to have the Minister satisfied about this before he makes the order rather than leave an element in the offence which would be decided by the court.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will look into that point, too. I would only say at this stage that although there are uncertainties in agriculture, agricultural memories are pretty long. If a farmer himself does not know what has happened during the last 20 years, some of his neighbours will.
  LORD MITCHISON: Sometimes farmers die.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in regard to the penalty of a £200 fine, very often to slip in quick and plough 30 or 40 acres would be worth a great deal more than £200. Is there provision for a penalty making that unprofitable?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, there is an unlimited fine on indictment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for No. 17, which I described to the House and which we discussed briefly in the course of the debate on the whole of this ploughing and access matter. I hope that we do not need to go into it again. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Kennet.)
  Loan HAWKE: My Lords, is it the position that in order to preserve this land the Minister will first of all impose an access order and at the same time provide that the land must be kept in its existing condition?
  LORD KENNET: No, my Lords. That was on the Amendment that we discussed earlier. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that it will be easier to look at Hansard to-morrow to see what was said, and if at any point it does not satisfy him we could return to it later. That matter does not arise on the Amendment before the House, which is simply about access agreements between local authorities and farmers.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 16 insert the following new clause:
  Access agreements: undertakings by landowners and others not to convert land into excepted land.
  ". For the purpose of preventing or restricting the conversion of land which is open country into excepted land within the meaning of section 60(5) of the Act of 1949, an access agreement under section 64 of the Act of 1949 may impose such restrictions on the exercise of rights over the land by the persons who can be bound by the agreement as appear to the local planning authority and the other parties to the agreement to be expedient."—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Amendments of Act of 1949]:
  7.21 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
  "() In section 51(1) of the Act of 1949 (general provisions as to long distance routes) after the word 'horseback' there shall be inserted the words 'or on a bicycle not being a motor vehicle'."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, to explain this Amendment I think I must refer to Section 51 of the 1949 Act. That is the section which deals with long-distance routes. It says:
  "Where it appears to the Commission … that the public should be enabled to make extensive journeys on foot or on horseback along a particular route, being a route for which the whole or the greater part of its length does not pass along roads mainly used by vehicles, the Commission may"
  take certain action designed to eventuate in the establishment of a long-distance route. I would invite the attention of your Lordships to the words, "on foot
  546
  or on horseback." I am suggesting that we should add the words,
  "or on a bicycle not being a motor vehicle".
  I think I should explain to your Lordships that this is a change in the Bill which would be greatly welcomed by the Youth Hostels Association. That body, and the thousands of young people who make use of youth hostels up and down the country should I think command the sympathy of your Lordships. I do not know, because I was not a Member of either House of Parliament at the time, why Section 51 of the 1949 Act made no mention of cyclists. Clearly, one does not want to secure the provision of routes for motor cycles all over the Pennines or other countryside, but it seems to me that in this year, 1968, we should try in a case like this to secure as satisfactory facilities for cyclists who follow long-distance routes across the country as for people who go on foot or on horseback. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. I cannot sea any reason against it; indeed, I can only think that it is nineteen years overdue. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, without assenting to every word of the noble Lord's speech, I would advise the House to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Recreational facilities at water undertakers' reservoirs and other waters]:
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is simply a tidying-up Amendment. Statutory water undertakers who own or manage reservoirs have certain powers. This Amendment would enable those powers, in certain circumstances with which I do not think I need bother the House, to be divided up and used jointly by two or more of the statutory undertakers having an interest in the same reservoir. I believe that the Amendment is uncontentious. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 23, at end insert—
  "() Where, by provision contained in, or having effect under, any enactment concerning a reservoir or other waterway owned or

  547
  managed by statutory water undertakers, some other statutory water undertakers are liable to contribute to the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the reservoir or other waterway, the undertakers may make arrangements for sharing any expenditure incurred in, and any receipts arising from, the exercise of the powers conferred by this section."—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Provision of facilities by Forestry Commissioners]:
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2)(d), to leave out "viewpoint stances" and insert "places for enjoying views". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel sure that even at first glance your Lordships will recognise that this is an Amendment of substance. My only fear is that I am preempting the right of my noble friend Lord Conesford in moving this Amendment. Unfortunately, my noble friend has not been able to attend your Lordships' House to-day. But, in any case, I got the Amendment down first, and I am proud to have the chance of moving it and supporting the campaign which my noble friend persistently and nobly wages against strange phrases in legislation or in debate.
  Clause 21 of the Bill empowers the Forestry Commissioners to provide, among other things:
  "places for meals and refreshments, picnic places, viewpoint stances"
  and so on. I do not know whether any of your Lordships will have seen a "viewpoint stance". I do not know whether, when you have friends, you suggest that you should take them for a walk because you know a number of "viewpoint stances" in the locality. I do not know whether, if somebody comes to stay, you assure them that their bedroom window is an excellent "viewpoint stance". My personal view is that we ought to delete this sort of rubbish from the Statute Book. I am not in a position to say whether "viewpoint stances" are already statutory animals through being incorporated in other Bills. I gather from the nod given by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that they are, and I can only think that my noble friend Lord Conesford must have been nodding if he allowed it to get into previous legislation.
  I suggest, seriously, that we should eliminate this objectionable phrase from the Bill, and my suggestion as an alternative is "places for enjoying views". I am not at all sure what a "viewpoint stance" means, because I cannot understand that language. But it seems to me that it makes sense if we translate it into, "places for enjoying views". That is why I suggest that we should empower the Forestry Commission to provide
  "places for meals and refreshments, picnic places, places for enjoying views, parking places",
  and so on. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 38, leave out ("viewpoint stances") and insert ("places for enjoying views").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I support this Amendment, and I warn the Minister that if he takes a stance against it I shall take a very dim viewpoint.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot conceal from the House that we may be storing up trouble for ourselves later on, when it comes to consolidation, if we adopt the noble Lord's Amendment and leave the Scots with their "viewpoint stances". It may be that in future generations we shall want a single Countryside Act to cover all three countries, and the Parliamentary draftsmen will find things horribly complicated if the two phrases are different. I imagine that a "viewpoint stance" comes from the German aussichtspunkt, though how on earth it got to Scotland rather than from some translation from the French, I cannot imagine. However, let us leave it at that. Of course I would advise the House to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his helpfulness and friendliness over this Amendment. It will not be the first time that the Scots have spoken a different language from the English, and I am greatly complimented by his regarding my paraphrase as satisfactory.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  Signposting of footpaths and bridleways
  25.—
  (3) A highway authority need not erect a signpost in accordance with subsection (2)

  549
  above at a particular site if the highway authority, after consulting the council of the parish in which the site is situated, or as the case may be the chairman of the parish meeting, not having a parish council, in which the site is situated, are satisfied that it is not necessary, and if the parish council, or as the case may be the parish meeting, agree.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a):
  ", if it is a footpath available to be used also by cyclists, indicating that fact, and".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come on to Clause 25, the signposting of footpaths and bridleways. Again I am trying to help the cyclists. Subsection (2) requires the highway authority to,
  "erect and maintain a signpost—
  (a) indicating that the footpath or bridleway is a public footpath or bridleway…."
  I suggest that we should add to those words,
  "if it is a footpath available to be used also by cyclists, indicating that fact, and".
  I am in a slight difficulty, because we have not yet reached the new Clause 31 which the Government have down, and that deals with providing for pedal bicycles on bridleways, whereas the Government's new clause which was moved on Committee and then withdrawn and is now to be replaced by this one, extended the rights of cyclists to footpaths as well as bridleways. But I should like to speak to this Amendment, ignoring for the moment that new clause. it appears to me that, whether that new clause is passed or not, it is desirable that it should be made clear whether cyclists can use footpaths or bridleways—footpaths in particular, because if the new clause is passed they will automatically get a right to use bridleways. What I am suggesting is that it would be very helpful to cyclists if the local authority, when putting up a signpost saying, "Public footpath to so-and-so", should, if in fact cyclists have a right of way there, indicate that fact also.
  I am quite sure that we are all at one in this. We want people to enjoy cycling. We also want them to enjoy possibilities of cycling away from busy traffic roads, because there is a limitation to the enjoyment of a cyclist on a busy road, and there certainly may be danger both to him and to other vehicles. It is purely to help the cyclists that I am suggesting it would be a good thing to
  550
  make this Amendment, and I hope the Government will favourably consider it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 11, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the trouble here arises from the layout of the Bill. This comes before we should logically consider it. If the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment, could we not go on now and see what we settle about cyclists and footpaths, and then perhaps consider at Third Reading what should be done about notices telling them whether or not they are allowed on footpaths? We have just carried an Amendment about cyclists on long-distance routes. If the noble Lord would allow me to consider this matter between now and Third Reading, and see what the House decides about cyclists, I think it would be the most sensible plan.
  LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will consider it between now and Third Reading, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.34 p.m.
  LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved, in subsection (3) to leave out all words after "necessary,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for moving this Amendment in manuscript form. It is a very simple Amendment, but it deals with a matter of some principle. As I say, I apologise for putting it in manuscript form, but the County Councils Association drew my attention to this only over the weekend and I had no other time in which to bring it forward. On the other hand, of course, I appreciate that my noble friend has not had very much time to consider the point which is raised here.
  As the clause stands, what it does is this. A highway authority need not erect a signpost in accordance with subsection (2), which requires them to erect signposts, if the highway authority—and highway authorities of course will be mainly county councils—
  "after consulting the council of the parish in which the site is situated, or as the case nay he the chairman of the parish meeting, not having a parish council, in which the site is situated, are satisfied that it is not necessary,

  551
  and if the parish council, or as the case may be the parish meeting, agree".
  What the highway authorities feel is that they accept entirely the desirability of consultation, but they feel that it is very much a case of the tail wagging the dog if a highway authority, having given careful consideration to the matter, having consulted either the parish council or the chairman of the parish meeting, could not take action, or such action as is provided here, unless the parish council or parish meeting agree.
  There is one other point I should like to refer to in this connection. The provision says that they shall consult the chairman of the parish meeting. But when it goes on to deal with what he can do, we find that apparently he cannot do anything because it is the parish meeting which has to agree. So why there is a reference to the chairman of the parish meeting, and then later on it says that only the parish meeting may agree, I do not know. I do not know what the object is of putting in the reference to the chairman of the parish meeting, but perhaps the Minister could explain that. It tends to make the position even more difficult because, on the face of it, it looks as though if the chairman of the parish meeting were to agree that it was not necessary to put the sign up, he would have no power to say so unless the parish meeting also agreed. In those circumstances, I can hardly see the use of one phrase or the other. I am not sure which ought to come out, but in any case I am asking the House to agree to neither.
  After all, the highway authority are the authority which have to spend the money, and if it seems to them that it is not necessary at any particular point to put up a sign, after consultation with the parish council or the chairman of the parish meeting, at least the highway authority's views ought to be final in this matter, and certainly not those of a parish council or chairman of a parish meeting or even of a parish meeting itself. I would hope, therefore, that it would be possible for the House to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 21, leave out from ("necessary") to end of line 22.—(Lord Pargiter.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the purpose of having these words in, in the first place, was really to keep down the number of signposts in the countryside. It is as easy as that. The Government conceive that parish councils would be good watchdogs to preserve the nice look of their own parishes, and that they would be as well placed as, or better placed than, someone in the highway authority, which might be a long way away, to know which particular paths were the ones most used and the ones most in need of being signposted for the general good of everybody.
  The parish councils do not have much to do under this Bill. Some of your Lordships probably feel that they do not have enough to do, and the Government would be sorry if this small role for the parish councils were to be struck out. For those two reasons—for the purpose of keeping down the number of signposts in general, and because of the special local knowledge and skill of parish councils about these little powers—I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press his manuscript Amendment.
  LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I think my noble friend has rather missed the point. It is the highway authority that does not want to put the sign up but before it may decide it must consult the parish council or alternatively the chairman of the parish meeting; but if they are recalcitrant and determined to have a sign there, then it looks to me as if the highway authority cannot do anything else than put it there. I should not imagine that it would happen in many cases, but it seems to me as a matter of principle that the last word should rest with the highway authority and I would still ask my noble friend to look at it from that point of view.
  We are at one on this. The highway authorities will not want to erect more signs than are necessary. They would be obliged to consult the parish council, or chairman of the parish meeting, if they decided not to erect them; but if after they have consulted them someone still wants signs erected all over the place the highway authority should be able to say, "After all, we are the authority, and we do not propose to erect a sign". Obviously the highway authority will want to erect signs where they are necessary. It seems to me that in those circumstances,

  553
  in order to do what my noble friend wants, it is much more reasonable to leave the last word with the highway authority.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment, because I think this is a very fair and proper duty for a parish council to have. As the Minister said, parish councils have not been given many duties which will take a great deal of their time or which will involve their spending very much of the ratepayers' money. I think one should not prejudge what the parish council will do. Sometimes they may want to have a signpost erected to keep people from going where there is not a properly defined path, and sometimes they may feel there is no necessity for a signpost, which would be unsightly, because everybody knows where the path is. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it may be that the local village knows best, and not necessarily the great highway authority some thirty miles away.
  LORD PARGITER: My Lords, if I may speak again for the purposes of clarity, I should like to ask my noble friend to deal with the point about the chairman of the parish meeting being consulted but apparently not being able to do anything about it because the parish meeting has to decide. I have no objection to the chairman's having the power, if the powers are to be given; but to say that he must be consulted but he has no power anyway seems to be unnecessary.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is possible that there is a printing error in the part of the clause with which the noble Lord is concerned. If there is, it will be put right before the next stage, of course; but on the general question I must apologise to the House because I got it upside down last time. We are dealing with the proposal of the highway authority not to erect a signpost, and my noble friend's Amendment seeks to take away the right of the parish council to insist that the highway authority shall erect a signpost. As a matter of fact, whichever way round it is, I hope my noble friend will not insist, for the reasons which have already been given by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, namely, that the parish councils have not much to do and this is only a small thing.
  LORD PARGITER: My Lords, in the circumstances I do not propose to press this Amendment. It is not of great importance, although the highway authorities feel rather strongly that they should have the last word. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 [Duty to maintain stiles, etc., on footpaths and bridleways]:
  7.42 p.m.
  LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, to leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new clause:
  Duty to maintain stiles, etc., on foorpaths and bridleways
  ".—(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 (hereinafter called 'the structure') in a safe condition, and to the standard of repair required to prevent unreasonable interference with the rights of the persons using the footpath or bridleway.
  (2) If it appears to the highway authority responsible for the footpath or bridleway that the structure is in need of repair it shall carry out any works necessary to satisfy the duty imposed by subsection (1) of this section or shall make arrangements for the owner or occupier of the land to take all reasonable steps to repair and make good the structure.
  (3) This section shall be construed as one with the Highways Act 1959."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I say at once to your Lordships and to my noble friend that I shall not press this Amendment, because I am not sure, even now, that it is exactly the right answer. All I am asking my noble friend to do is to accept the principle behind it. The Amendment arises out of what I said in Committee and I shall not go over all the arguments again, but my noble friend agreed that the clause as it stands does something new in putting the duty on the landowner to keep up the stile or gate, and he said this was bemuse the owner wanted that stile or gate to keep cattle or sheep from going from one side of the fence to the other.
  The postulation is that a stile or a gate is an obstruction across the footpath, put there in the interests of the farmer. I say, with great respect to my noble friend, that that postulation is a specious one, as I shall try to show. First, I want to point out an anomaly in the present clause. Why is it that in

  555
  every other matter to do with footpaths it is the occupier who is legally obliged not to obstruct the path in any way? Also, it is said in defence of this clause that a hedge is an obstruction to the footpath caused by a farming operation, yet in this clause it is the owner—someone who may have little or nothing to do with farming operations—who will have the statutory duty and legal liability placed upon him.
  I do not know what advice the Government took in drawing up this clause, but in paragraph 44 of the Gosling Report it is recommended that owners and occupiers should be responsible for the task of maintenance because, the Committee say, they will certainly be able to discharge this responsibility more promptly and economically than contractors or workmen employed by a local authority. How will an owner who is not an occupier, and may not even live in the same county, be able to discharge that liability more promptly and economically than the local authority? I think the answer is that in practice he would not be able to. He would have to employ someone, as the local council would have to do, and with just as great expense. So I think that argument fails.
  I see many practical and possibly legal difficulties arising out of the clause as it stands. Whereas the Gosling Report says that owners and occupiers should do the maintenance because it would be less costly, the Government have said, both here and in another place, that they should do it because a stile or gate is an obstruction across the footpath, put there in the interests of farming. That is a most extraordinarily ingenious argument. Not only does it not explain why an owner should maintain a stile in a fence which is maintained by an occupier for his own benefit, but it does not explain why the very ramblers who allege that a hedge is an obstruction to a footpath should be among the first to complain when farmers bulldoze hedges away. When we bulldoze hedges we are accused of spoiling the countryside, but what do people come to the countryside to see? What is our countryside, I ask, but really one big farming operation? That is how the land has been fashioned. If it were not for farming the whole
  556
  country, where it was not marsh, or perhaps beech wood, would be a jumble of impenetrable thicket of elder, birch, thorn and gorse.
  I would remind your Lordships that Offa's Dyke, which was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Maelor, was dug from Chepstowe to Chester in, I think, the 9th century, and it was discontinued in the lowlands because it was thought that the forest was too thick for anybody to walk through. That is not very good rambling country. Nearly all the upland (so we are told) was covered with trees, and if it were not for farming and the action of sheep we should not have the lovely open expanse of Exmoor which was so extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, just now. I think we must therefore first appreciate how farming has shaped the countryside and then we must acknowledge, with far more than just a passing nod to the Gosling Report, how those living and working in the countryside shape the footpaths which we are now encouraging the general public to use.
  This Bill is more or less a formal recognition by the Legislature of the pressure being put on the countryside by those wishing to take their leisure there and enjoy themselves—and indeed why should they not? But while recognising the pressure, what I am urging the Government to do is to see that the general public, in claiming the right to cross the land for their enjoyment and to cross those features such as walls and fences and hedges which form part of the landscape, should acknowledge full public responsibility for the means which they use to cross it. Not the least of the unfairnesses contained in this clause is that in practice it will put the burden of repair and liability on those who are often least able to afford it, namely, the poorer hill farmers, whose land is perhaps the most popular to ramble on.
  It is easier and cheaper to enjoy oneself at other people's expense. That is what is going to happen if the present clause goes through, and that is how it will be seen, especially by hill farmers. The use of these public footpaths is a highly emotive and contentious matter, and I do not think for the better operation of other provisions in this Bill that it is a good thing, even if it were fair, that the general public should enjoy

  557
  themselves at the expense of those whose co-operation is needed to help make this Bill work well but who will see in the working of this clause a highly inequitable piece of legislation. I know that the Minister will not at all like the idea of changing the proposed law now, but I think that it is so anomalous and so contentious that they will see that it will not work at all well. We very much want something that will work well, and therefore I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 26 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Raglan.)
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. This is really a rearguard action. Most of these arguments we have put before. The one clause that possibly might have helped us, as a sort of compromise between this and what is in the Bill, is the one which would have provided that 50 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., should be the local authority grant to owners and occupiers towards upkeep of stiles. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, though it stood in his name last week, I think felt that he could not move it because it is among the matters that I presume infringe the privileges of another place. Nevertheless, I think one ought not to forget that in making this legislation the Government are in fact doing something at somebody else's expense. The rights of the public are being enlarged and we want them to be enlarged; we think that is right. I made this point at Committee stage and indeed at Second Reading, but as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has raised it again, I feel it ought to he said again: the rights we all agree should be enlarged are being enlarged at somebody else's expense. The stiles are going to be very expensive to maintain, and it is not only a matter of maintenance but of questions like insurance. If somebody falls down and breaks his leg or whatever it may be, the owner or occupier of the land is liable. You can insure against this—and no doubt all landowners should, and many do; nevertheless it is an expense that has to be met and it is an expense which, as it were, the Government are putting upon one section of the community in order to benefit another. With regard to the absentee owner, the owner who may live elsewhere and whose land is let to a tenant, I imagine there is no problem,
  558
  because, as in the case of all fences, the owner who lets the land normally makes over the obligation to maintain fences and that sort of thing to his tenant who is the occupier. Presumably the same thing will happen here.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I think the owner cannot make over the liability. This is one of the points I was getting at.
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I should need advice on that. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can tell us whether in fact in making over the obligation to maintain stiles, and so on, the owner can pass on this liability as well. It is something one can insure against and it now becomes more necessary to do it than before. I do not imagine the noble Lord will press this Amendment; in fact he said he would not. Nor would he be likely to get very far with it, because, as I have said, it is a rearguard action; but I hope the Government will recognise what they are doing and at least acknowledge it.
  7.55 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, made such an interesting and engaging case when he fought his vanguard action at Committee stage that I greatly regret I have to resist the Amendment on this occasion. Although his argument seemed so reasonable, I hope he will accept that it would be unreasonable to place the entire responsibility for maintenance upon the highway authority. We cannot accept the absolute liability of the highway authority to maintain these structures; neither did the Gosling Committee accept it. The noble Lord said something about a "passing nod" from the Gosling Committee, but in paragraph 44 they were quite definite on this point.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the passing nod was to the historical aspect of the creation of the paths. That is what I was referring to.
  LORD BESWICK: Yes. But on this particular point as to upon whom liability for maintenance should rest the Gosling Committee were quite definite. Although I have said that it would be wrong to place the entire responsibility for maintenance upon the authorities, we now have a situation under which agreements

  559
  have been made between owners and authorities for repairs to be carried out, and sometimes parish councils have agreed to maintain stiles and gates although they have no obligation to do it and could not be so compelled.
  I was asked about the question of the liability in the event of injury. It is so complicated that really I would rather not go into it. In the last resort, anyhow, the courts must decide. All I say to the noble Lord is that it is not absolutely certain where the liability would rest, and if it would interest him I should be quite happy to discuss it with him and let him see the detailed case as given to me. As he knows, there is now the Amendment to subsection (3) of the clause, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in Committee on May 13, which was accepted and empowers the highway authority
  "to make contributions of such amount in each case as they shall, having regard to all the circumstances, consider reasonable",
  and in their consideration of what is reasonable I hope they will have regard to what is in paragraph 45 of the Gosling Report, where it is said:
  "But at the present time when positive efforts are being made for public enjoyment of the country 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."
  The noble Lord has made his case. In some respects it is a very fair case. I think it would be quite unreasonable to expect the highway authority to accept all liability. We now have a situation tin which, thanks to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, a contribution can be made, and I hope it will be reasonable. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could the noble Lord arrange that the Minister in charge of Third Reading will give some explanation regarding the question of liability?
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope that that suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Barnby will be acted upon, because it is a complicated matter. I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan was right to raise this question
  560
  again, even at this late stage, although, as Lord Henley said, it was a rearguard action. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was quite correct in saying that I had refrained from moving an Amendment on Committee to raise the minimum contribution from the highway authority from 25 to 50 per cent. because I saw no possibility of its being accepted by another place, and it appeared to me that if we were to send such an Amendment down it would be a clear breach of Commons privilege, bearing in mind that it was a matter discussed at very great length in another place. Yet I must say that the Government's proposals would have been much more acceptable, and would have generated much less ill-will, if they had fixed the minimum at 50 and not 25 per cent. With reluctance, I feel that I must accept the Gosling Committee's recommendation on this matter. But I would do so only if I felt quite sure that the highway authorities would interpret generously those words which, in Committee, I succeeded in getting the Government to accept; namely, that the contribution towards the expenses incurred shall be such as, having regard to all the circumstances, they consider reasonable.
  In the present circumstances, at this late stage of the Bill in the Second House, I do not really believe that we can carry the matter further. I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, agrees. But it is certainly true that an additional burden is being put on landowners here by legislation, and as this is the will of the Government, and all the persuasion that has been exercised from both sides of the House has, up till now, had but little effect, all that is left to us is to see how we get on. It will be extremely interesting to see how this works. If local authorities do not exercise their powers to make reasonable contribution, but stick rigidly to the minimum of 25 per cent., I have little doubt that before long a future Government will amend the law so as to ensure that the recommendations of the Gosling Committee are generously carried out by highway authorities.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and as the noble Lord has reinforced the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that what can be

  561
  said about liability should be said, may I say this, for the Record? All one can say, without anticipating the decisions of the courts, is that the breach of a duty created by a Statute if it results in damage to an individual is prima facie a matter for which an action for damages will lie at the suit of the individual injured, and to that extent it must be conceded that the liability contemplated by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may arise.
  However, it is relevant to the instance given by the noble Lord that a person who misuses a stile may be found to have debarred himself by virtue of his own negligence from recovering damages. In the example given, it might be held that the sturdy man should have removed his heavy pack and dropped it over the stile before subjecting the stile to his weight, and that in consequence he was negligent and could not recover damages. I do not think that adds a great deal to the point; but, for what it is worth, there it is.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, how in practice will it be possible to get the evidence? The illustration of the noble Lord is a quite proper one, but the gentleman who removed his pack might well not be safeguarding himself in his passage over the stile.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Beswick for that explanation in regard to the liability of the man with a pack getting over the stile. But it seems to me curious that, having appointed the Gosling Committee and gone through all this business in order to try to clarify the law, we now have a situation, in this clause and in the next one, where we are so vague as to what will actually happen that we shall have to wait and see. But I said that I would not press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 27 [Ploughing of footpath or bridleway]:
  8.4 p.m.
  LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "below" and insert "of this section". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and
  562
  the next one, and Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 are all on the same point, a drafting point. Clause 27 begins
  "Subject to subsection (2) below".
  Then, if you read on, the first subsection that you come upon is a reference to subsection (2) of a section of another Act of Parliament. This is not the subsection (2) which has been referred to. What has been referred to is subsection (2) of this clause. There, of course, is a possible source of confusion. There is an accepted way of referring from one part of a Bill to another, and it is used in this particular clause, in subsection (8). That subsection refers back to subsection (1). It does not call it "Subsection (1) above"; it calls it "Subsection (1) of this section…". That is a form of words which cannot cause confusion. Let us be consistent throughout this clause and use the accepted expression which cannot cause confusion. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 29, leave out ("below") and insert ("of this section").—(Lord Airedale.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am advised that the clause is all right as it stands, and that it would be all right with the noble Lord's Amendment. I would only ask him to consider that the expressions "above" and "below" in that sense occur in many other clauses of the Bill which have not incurred the noble Lord's displeasure. He may have reasons for wishing to amend them in this clause alone, of all the clauses in the Bill, without seeking to do so in all the other clauses where they appear, but he has not told the House what these reasons are. He might think fit to withdraw his Amendment on the simple ground of uniformity of drafting throughout the Bill. But if he does not, we concede his point with a sigh, in the belief that in the last resort it does not make much difference.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. I would say to him that 15 blacks do not make a white. I thought I had explained that I have taken this point up here because, it possibly creates a source of confusion, by making it difficult to apprehend at first glance what subsection (2) of what Act of Parliament is being referred to. If the

  563
  Minister does not mind, I am grateful to him, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 41, leave out ("above") and insert ("of this section").—(Lord Airedale.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "three" and insert "five". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who is unavoidably absent. This Amendment deals simply with what is a matter of common sense. In Clause 27 we have admitted permission to plough up bridle-paths and footpaths, and to restore them within six weeks. It is recognised that in pursuance of good agricultural policy this is not always possible. Subsection (2) specially allows this period to be extended by permission of the highway authority, who may
  "(a) order the temporary diversion of the path or way until such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not more than three months after the time when the occupier began to plough the footpath or bridleway.…"
  The purpose of this Amendment is to increase that period of three months to five months.
  As all farmers will know, especially those in the Northern districts, where the weather is not so clement as in the Southern districts, it is impracticable, if ploughing has to take place in the autumn months, in October or November, to expect farmers to be able to make good the surface within three months. If this period of three months is retained it will force many farmers, willy-nilly, to commit offences. It is obviously quite practical politics to do this, but I am sure that the Government have no wish to make farmers try to avoid the consequences of ploughing a footpath which admittedly in this case they have a right to do, without there being a right way to go about it. It seems clear that it is in the farmer's interests not to try to spoil his footpaths more than he has to.
  The whole of this subsection dealing with the ploughing of footpaths is based on recognition of the fact that farming methods to-day occasionally require footpaths to be ploughed up. Modern machinery is such that it makes long furrows and deeper furrows, and we are talking only about a matter of time. Even if the farmer ploughs in the spring there is still an argument that three months might be too short a period. I do not want to speak at length on this matter, because to my mind it is so simple and so obvious. The Amendment seems to make good common sense, especially where there is autumn ploughing. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
  THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like briefly to support this Amendment. It is clear that if a farmer ploughs any land he is doing so for the purposes of cultivating and growing a crop. Unless he is going directly to reseed this land there is no possible chance of the land being ploughed and the crop sown and harvested in three months. If it was possible to grow crops in three months many of us would be able to have more than one harvest a year. That would be very nice, but it is not normally possible.
  If a farmer is going to plough up a footpath, as he is entitled to do in certain circumstances, it would be more realistic to allow a period of five months rather than three months. I have come across many examples of trouble over footpaths which have been ploughed up, and there would be the minimum amount of bad feeling if the law were realistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, mentioned. Of course, there is not much difference between a period of three months and a period of five months, but it means that the farmer is able to harvest the crop for which he has ploughed the field. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some hope on this matter even if he is not able to accept the Amendment at this stage.
  THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and to ask Lord Kennet, when he replies, whether the period of three months was

  565
  made in consultation with the National Farmers' Union and, of course, the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I think this is very relevant, and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I hope my noble friend can accept it because it seems to me to be a very reasonable period.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the point of Scotland, of course, the Bill does not apply there. These things are regulated in Scotland under the Scottish Countryside Act. The discussion seems to have been based on the assumption that after the three months, or five months if the Amendment is carried, the farmer simply has to reinstate the footpath, and that is that. But this, of course, is not so. We are talking here about a temporary expedient, the temporary diversion of a footpath. If, after the period, whether three months, five months or five years, whatever it might be, the farmer wishes to continue with the diversion, then his proper course is to apply to the highway authority under Section 111 of the Highways Act 1959 for a permanent diversion order.
  The difference between these two things is quite important. As I said, the temporary diversion we are talking about on this clause is a temporary expedient, and for that reason it is not subject to all the normal provisions of advertisement, appeal hearing, plea, counter plea, decision, and all the rest of it. That panoply of procedure is reserved for the permanent diversion order. It seems to the Government that if you go beyond three months you are coming to half a year; you are coming to such a long period that there ought to be provision for advertisement, appeal, counter objections, and so on. This can be obtained, as I said, under the Highways Act 1959 for a permanent order, so what we are talking about is how long is "temporary", and after how long should a thing be treated as if it were permanent? The opinion of the Government remains as it was before, that three months is as long as one can justifiably go on a temporary expedient like this without any provision for anybody to appeal against it or to make a fuss about it, or to present their interests,
  566
  and that if we prolong it to five months this is really a sort of whittling away of the right of the farmer to divert or even abolish obscurer footpaths temporarily, and that this is rather the thin end of the wedge. I notice that no noble Lord has put the point of the amenity interest or the footpath societies. Their claim would be that after three months it is time to consider the matter seriously with all the full drill. I must say that the Government at this time thinks the right is on that side, and that this temporary expedient should only run for three months. With these points in mind, I hope that the noble Lord who is speaking for Lord Ferrers will not think it necessary to persevere with this Amendment.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for replying at such length to this Amendment, but I must say that I am extremely disappointed at his decision that the difference between three and five months is something which is almost a permanency. A matter of eight weeks in the life of a footpath, of a nation, of a county, or an urban rural district council, is very little, but in the life of a farmer who is having to cultivate the land it is a long time.
  Let me again draw your Lordships' attention to this subsection. Clause 27 compels the farmer to make good the surface of the footpath or bridleway. If one takes autumn ploughing 2s an example—I am leaving out the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about Scotland—in the northern half of England and Wales and sometimes, when the weather is inclement, which it quite often is, even in southern England, if you plough in October or November it is within the bounds of possibility that within three months it is impracticable for the farmer to make good the surface of a footpath or bridleway which has been ploughed, and he will have committed an offence if he has not restored it within that time. To tell the House that the authorities should be consulted on a permanent basis seems a little beyond the bounds of common sense. We are only asking for a further two months. We all know that after winter comes spring, and with the spring, normally, we hope, comes the sun which dries up the ground.

  567
  The noble Lord said that the authorities interested in walking have not been consulted, but there is not much walking in winter. Walking does not normally start until after the spring, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that people rambling and walking in winter are accustomed to walking with heavy boots. If this was the case, and they had the right line between point A and point B where the footpath lay, they would be helping the farmer to trample that land in. It is disappointing that the Minister has made such heavy weather of a mere extension of eight weeks, talking about permanency instead of realising that for the agricultural person in the country, a farmer, this period of eight weeks is of importance. I should like the noble Lord to go back to the Minister to see whether there is any possibility of a further extension.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, speak again? The noble Lord has said that there is not much walking in the winter. I do not think that this is true. Many people are delighted to walk in the winter. I should like to remind the House that we are dealing here with a public right of way. A footpath is not an unimportant thing: many of our footpaths have been there for 4,000 years. If the farmer does not want to have to put it back within three months, it is always open to him not to plough it at all. I do not imagine that it is an insufferable burden to a farmer to omit to plough a strip of three, four or five feet wide at the edge of a field. If he omits to do so, he will not have to seek any sort of order. I maintain the point which I made earlier: that a temporary expedient without right of appeal is something which should not be extended beyond three months. If the farmer has reason to think that he really must go beyond three months, then let him face the appeal and objection procedure and apply for a permanent order.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may, by leave, reply to the noble Lord, is there not a simple point which the Minister is forgetting? Many public footpaths do not go round the edge of a field. Many of them go slap across the middle. Many of them were down the edge of a field at one
  568
  time, but now, in many cases, when hedgerows are removed one has a footpath down the middle. In modern cultivation it is simpler to do that, and on many occasions the farmer gets permission to plough up for this particular purpose. It is only a matter of a very short period of time. I take the noble Lord's point that a lot of rambling is done in the winter, but it is mainly by the countrymen concerned. Alternative routes are always provided. It is unreasonable to proclaim that this is always impracticable. Eight weeks more for the farmer, provided that it does not create a great disservice to the community, will not hurt the community at large.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord look at this matter again? The original law on this point put the words "as soon as may be" into the provision about restoring the footpath. The worry is that the farmer, having ploughed the footpath, may, because of the weather, be unable to get on to the land to restore it. Is there not some danger in setting in law a time limit which, in certain circumstances, physically just cannot be kept?
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would come back to the point that physically if the farmer cannot do this—and I recognise that there are occasions when, for climatic reasons, and so on, he may not be able to do so—there are two courses open to him. One is not to plough the footpath; and even if the path were in the middle of the field he could so rearrange the field so that the footpath would not be in the middle of the field but on the edge. The other course is to apply for a permanent order.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I will not say that I am unduly grateful to the Minister. I am grateful to him for all his explanations; but, in view of his resistance to this Amendment, I will report back to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 5, leave out ("above") and insert ("of this section").—(Lord Airedale.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 11, leave out ("above") and insert ("of this section").—(Lord Airedale.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 13, leave out ("above") and insert ("of this section").—(Lord Airedale.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  8.25 p.m.
  THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
  "() The council of any county district or parish within which the land is situated may take proceedngs in respect of an offence under the said section 119(2)."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is an unashamed repeat of an Amendment made during Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will remember that on that occasion it was withdrawn on the undertaking that the Government would look at the matter again.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to allow parish councils, along with highway authorities, to prosecute under Section 119(2) of the Highways Act 1959 where a farmer gives no notification of ploughing up footpaths. This is a power which the highway authority already has. As the noble Lord reminded us, footpaths are an important matter, and have been with us for over 4,000 years. The farmer's position under present legislation is that he must given seven days' notice before he ploughs up a footpath, then he must return his footpath to a proper condition "as soon as may be". Under this Bill, the notification period is the same, seven days, and the return of the footpath to its original and proper condition must be done within six weeks, or, if necessary in the interests of good farming, a period of three months.
  The arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Leatherland during Committee stage against this Amendment were threefold. First, we were
  570
  told that it would interfere with agricultural efficiency. Secondly, we were told that by asking farmers to complete yet another form to notify the parish council the likelihood would be that no form would be submitted at all, even to the highway authority. Thirdly, we were told that the parish council do riot have sufficient resources to prosecute. I do not feel that any of these arguments carries much weight.
  In the first case, farmers already have a duty under the Highways Act 1959 to notify highway authorities. No question of efficiency of farming comes into the matter since notification is a duty which is already laid upon them. Secondly, it is a rather hollow argument to suggest that to submit a second form to the parish council would place an undue burden on farmers. The farmer still has to make the first form, and it would take him but a few seconds to make the second form. The purpose of this Amendment is to encourage notification to the parish council. I think that there is undisputed evidence that at present very few notification forms are ever sent to highway authorities
  In regard to the third point, that parish councils do not have the resources to prosecute, one has only to look at Section 193(3) of the Local Government Act 1933 to find that parish councils may levy up to an 8d. rate, and even higher with the Minister's approval. They may also work with the clerk of the county council. The real purpose of this Amendment is to make certain that farmers take the duty of notification more seriously—a duty which has been imposed on them since 1959. This Amendment would not encourage masses of prosecutions, but seeks only to ensure more notifications. This small Amendment could do nothing but good, and I therefore commend it to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the real purpose of his Amendment is to make farmers take the duty of notification more seriously. But the Amendment does not say anything about notification, and that is really the difficulty about it. The farmers are bound to notify the highway authority;

  571
  they are not bound to notify the parish council. The highway authority have power to prosecute them; the parish council have not. The Amendment would give the parish council concurrent power to prosecute them, but it would not bind the farmer to notify the parish council as well as the highway authority. So I do not see how it would induce farmers to take the duty of notification more seriously.
  But that is only, as it were, a procedural point. The Government's real objection to this Amendment is that it is likely to gum up the proceedings and make everything more complicated, more rigid and more bureaucratic without noticeably improving the situation, because the parish council do not know whether or not a notification has been sent. That is the situation. Of course they know whether or not a footpath has been ploughed up; they can see. Nothing is easier than for them to go to the highway authority and say, "Look, was that in order? Has he given notification? Has he gone through all the procedures? Is it all right?" Then, it the highway authority say, "Yes", the parish council, if they have these powers, will be able to do nothing that they cannot do now. If the highway authority say, "No, as a matter of fact he is in default under this. He did not go right through the procedure", then the parish council can urge the highway authority to prosecute, and they will no doubt do SO.
  So what we are facing is only a very small class of events where the highway authority say to the parish council, "Yes, he was in default under the law but we do not propose to prosecute him." Then the parish council answer the highway authority, "We think you should", to which the highway authority reply, "We note your representations but we are still proposing not to prosecute." That seems to be a circumstance which is likely to arise in so few cases, given the fact that highway authorities can take into account parish interests and given the fact that highway authorities have the staff and money to prosecute without too much difficulty and parish councils have not, that it would not be worth a candle in terms of increased administrative rigidity if we were to carry the noble Earl's
  572
  Amendment into the Bill. I hope that on consideration the noble Earl may agree with me that although his Amendment would be a net increase in the absolute balanced logic of political structure, yet in practice common-sense collaboration between highway authorities and parish councils should do the job.
  THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am naturally very disappointed at the noble Lord's reply and I am sure he would not expect me to be otherwise, because he has really given no further arguments in support of his case than at the Committee stage. I find it a little difficult to understand why this Amendment would "gum up" the proceedings. On the one hand, the Government are always very keen to extend their powers of legislation on planning, and so on, and never talk about gumming up the proceedings; yet here we are told that it will "gum up" the proceedings if the powers of parish councils are extended. I do not feel that I can accept that. Secondly, I find it a little odd that under this clause the Government take rightful powers to safeguard the public interest in the countryside; yet the people on the parish councils who are the closest to the ground are not given those powers.
  I think it is a fact that in the past parish councils have notified county councils or highway authorities and few further proceedings have been taken. One can support that fact from the number of notifications made by farmers when ploughing up public footpaths over the past few years; but the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not reply to that point. I think that in 1965 only 100 notifications were made by farmers to the highway authorities. I suggest that that is evidence that the duty of the farmer is not being properly exercised, and this small power for parish councils would rectify that. I am not prepared to press this Amendment as there is such a small House. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out Clause 27. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gave my noble friend notice earlier that I would not move this Amendment, and if I spoke to the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill—which is what this

  573
  Amendment is really concerned with—I think I should put him in some confusion. But this is just another clause dealing with footpaths and we shall have to wait and see what are its effects. So I beg your Lordships' leave not to move my Amendment.
  8.36 p.m.
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new Clause:
  Riding of pedal bicycles on bridleways
  ".—(1) Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, not being a motor vehicle, on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.
  (2) Subsection (1) above has effect subject to any orders made by a local authority, and to any byelaws.
  (3) 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 bridleway, and this section shall not create any obligation to do anything to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists.
  (4) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any definition of "bridleway" in this or any other Act.
  (5) In this section "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960.
  (6) It is hereby declared that sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the said Act of 1960 (offences connected with riding of bicycles) apply to bridleways as being highways which are "roads" within the meaning of that Act.
  (7) Section 12(1) of the said Act (prohibition of cycle racing on highways) shall have effect as if the expression "public highway" included a bridleway, but without the exception for a race or trial authorised by regulations under that section."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to the subject of bicycles on footpaths and bridleways. I very much hope that the Amendment which I am now moving will finally find favour with this House. It has been extremely difficult to get it right. The Government have kept on trying and I think this is our third shot at it. Let me explain the effect of the provision which I now seek to carry into the Bill. It gives partial effect to a recommendation of the Gosling Committee that
  "pedal cyclists should be allowed to use footpaths and bridleways but by the very definition of these two public rights of way the priority on them must be given to walkers and horse riders respectively."
  That is the Gosling Committee's recommendation with which we started. The
  574
  present new clause gives the public a right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway and protects the prior rights of walkers and horse riders by requiring the cyclists to
  "give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback".
  It also excludes motor bicycles.
  It is in this respect the same as the new clause which I moved on Committee which did not find favour with the Committee, except that it applies only to bridleways and not to both bridleways and footpaths as did the last one. Since then the House has accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which would allow cyclists on these terms to go on long-distance routes, many and lengthy stretches of which are footpaths. So what I am now recommending to the House is: cyclists on bridleways; no cyclists on footpaths unless those footpaths form part of a long-distance route. The House will probably not want me to say more at this stage. That is the essence of the compromise on a compromise which I now commend to your Lordships, and I hope that we can pass it into law and that it will work well. I beg to move
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that this matter has a chequered history. During the Report stage in another place the Government produced a new clause which was friendless, and they withdrew it. In Committee in your Lordships' House the Government produced a revised and improved version of that clause, and I said that I was prepared to try to make something of it but expressed a number of criticisms However, the clause came under heavy fire from various quarters and the noble Lord finally withdrew it. He has now produced this new clause which is in line with a compromise solution made by my noble friend Lord Molson in the debate on the clause in Committee.
  For my part, I think we are now on the right lines. I think that most of the arguments which were canvassed and expressed in Committee against the clause arose from the difficulties which noble Lords foresaw would occur when

  575
  cyclists were riding on footpaths. For example, I mentioned the case of a cyclist who, exercising the right of way that would be given him by that new clause on a footpath through a cornfield, met a pedestrian, and it would be difficult for them to get past without one or other of them walking into the corn. Moreover, there was the question of what would happen about stiles; and I think my noble friend Lord Waldegrave suggested that very likely cyclists would push through hedges and make gaps thereby.
  Now we must all recognise that this new clause does not give to cyclists what they would like; it gives them only a part of that. But the fact is that both Houses of Parliament have tried pretty hard to find a solution which would implement the Gosling recommendations and would work. The Gosling recommendations were made in general terms; and although I feel nothing but gratitude towards the members of that Committee, I must frankly say that they did not in those paragraphs explain how certain fairly obvious difficulties were to be overcome. I think it is right at this stage, therefore, to confine the rights of way for pedal bicycles, as the law calls them, to bridleways.
  However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to clarify one thing he said. I understood him to say that the law would now be that cyclists and people on horseback, and of course pedestrians also, could use bridleways; that pedestrians alone could use footpaths; but that long-distance routes, like bridleways, could be used by all three. Is it the case that no footpaths would be open to cyclists? Are there not footpaths on which cyclists have had an accepted right of way for years? And, if so, is it really the case that this legislation would take that right away from them? Perhaps the noble Lord would clear that point up, because I do not know what my noble friends think but my feeling would be that if for years cyclists had been using what was in fact a footpath without objection from anybody, either the general public or the landowners or farmers, it would be a pity if we found that, by a side wind, we had caused them to commit an offence if they continued to use that path. In
  576
  other respects I believe that this clause is on the right lines, and I hope that at any rate for this Bill we shall embody it as the best solution.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's point. He is quite right: I was speaking carelessly and loosely. Before the appearance of this Bill cyclists had certain rights on bridleways and footpaths. The situation varied according to the individual path, to custom, usage by law, and so on. The last clause I introduced here would have given the public an undoubted right to ride a bicycle on footpaths and bridle-ways unless stopped by a by-law. The present clause gives the public an undoubted right to ride bicycles on a bridle-way unless stopped by a by-law, but it does not change the existing, long-established right of the public to ride bicycles on certain footpaths. It does not establish a new general right.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I hope that the House will welcome this clause and pass it into the Bill. We should be grateful to the Government for having given this matter a great deal of thought and for having brought in a new clause at this late stage; and to my noble friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has compromised a great deal of his passion for cyclists. I think we are now on the right path, very broadly, as the Minister who introduced this clause said. We have got the bridleway, which can take in all cases, I think, the bicycle and the horse; and we have got the footpath, other than a long-distance footpath, which will normally take a foot passenger. This is really a very sensible conclusion at which the Mother of Parliaments has taken many weeks and hours to arrive.
  We perhaps ought to think about the pedal cycle as really the modern horse. In the old days one walked or went on a horse, but now one walks or one goes on a horse or a bike. If one keeps that in mind one will not go far wrong in mapping out which routes are followed by which people. I am grateful to the Government for bringing in this clause, and I hope we shall now let it go into the Bill without more ado.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am in sympathy with the principle of this Amendment. It is obviously timely that

  577
  consideration be given to cyclists, so that they may have more area of circulation; but I have tried to look at it in a practical way, and I am somewhat at a loss to understand how exactly cyclists are going to be able to get along on bridle-paths when the horse traffic on them may be quite considerable. In those circumstances, it is probably quite impracticable to ride a bicycle. On the other hand, there may be a footpath nearby, and were I anxious to proceed on a cycle I should think it quite unreasonable that one should not be allowed to go on that footpath. That is the practical side of it.
  My noble friend Lord Brooke referred in the course of his remarks to footpaths as permitting only pedestrians. I made a note of it at the time he said that. That seems to make a clear distinction between what may be done with a footpath and what may be done with a bridlepath. Remembering that at the earlier stages the Minister emphasised that there was difficulty in these matters and said we would discuss it later in the Bill, it seems to me at this stage that the distinction between what may be done on a bridle-path as against a footpath, or vice versa, breaches the principle of access by the public for air and exercise which is contained in the Bill of 1925, although that does not indicate the means of access. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the principle of the public being allowed to circulate as they like on any part of a common is breached by defining that a cycle can be ridden on a bridlepath but not—I repeat not—on a footpath. It seems to me clearly to breach the principle of access, which means that a member of the public may proceed according to his own intentions by whatever form of motion he may wish, either on foot or on horse.
  LORD KENNET: The noble Lord appreciates, I hope, that we are not talking about commons in this clause.
  LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY Are commons specifically excluded from this clause? Is the noble Lord able to say that cyclists are barred from riding on commons?
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET My Lords, the present clause deals with the rights of cyclists on footpaths and bridleways in all parts of the country.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, surely "all parts of the country" must include commons. I was addressing myself to commons, because therein the problem lies.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I would venture to put in this word in favour of bicyclists. They do not make nearly as much litter as pedestrians. Very few bicyclists chew chocolate and throw away their paper on the right of way all the time, but the pedestrians all the time throw away paper of a very indestructible sort. Therefore I am in favour of cyclists only, as against pedestrians.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords—
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, it is a Rule of the House that on Report stage one speaks once and not again afterwards.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Traffic regulation orders for special areas in the countryside]:
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after subsection (8), to insert:
  "() The appropriate Minister may, after consulting the appropriate Crown authority give directions to the local authority concerned with any Crown road requiring the authority to remove, or cause to be removed, any traffic sign, within the meaning of the said Act of 1967, or any other object or device (whether fixed or portable,) for the guidance or direction of persons using roads, on or in the vicinity of the road, and section 63 of the said Act of 1967 (power to enter on land) shall apply as if this subsection formed part of section 61 of that Act."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have all been guilty of breaking the Rules of the House—and none is more guilty than I. I propose to the small band of your Lordships who are left that in future we should make an attempt to keep a little closer to the Rules, and I shall do my best to lead in this. After all, this is the Report stage, where noble Lords should speak once only, and not the Committee stage, when noble Lords are free to jump up and down as often as they like. The Amendment which I now lay before you is simply an Amendment in the interests of uniformity. It gives the relevant Minister the same power to direct the local authorities about the kind of signs they can put

  579
  up on Crown roads which come under the Countryside Bill as he has in respect of other roads. I hope that no further explanation or justification will be called for. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After subsection (8) insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Power to make byelaws and related provisions about wardens]:
  8.53 p.m.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert:
  "() any land across which a footpath or bridleway runs, as respect which land the owner of it has consented to the application of the powers contained in this section to the land;"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now leap forward to Clause 38. My Amendment is in identical terms with an Amendment that I moved in Committee. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that if I withdrew the Amendment he would be glad to talk with me about it. I withdrew it on that understanding, and I should like to pay tribute to his courtesy in discussing this with me during the short interval since then. I hope that I have been able to persuade him that this would be a useful addition to the Bill.
  If I may remind your Lordships, Clause 38 provides that a local authority may make by-laws for the preservation of order and the prevention of damage, and so on, in three types of places: a country park, under Clause 7 of the Bill; common land, under Clause 9; and a picnic site under Clause 10. I am suggesting that a fourth category of place should be added; that is to say, private land which is crossed by a footpath or a bridleway, if both the owner and the local authority agree that it is desirable to have by-law control there.
  When we discussed the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that this might prove to be very expensive because by-law control makes possible the employment of wardens, and where a warden was employed in one of these by-law areas that would attract 75 per cent. Exchequer grant. The last
  580
  thing in my mind, when I brought forward this Amendment originally, was to add materially to the cost of administering the Bill. I realise that there are limited funds available for that purpose. It was for that reason that I went out of my way to stress that my Amendment would make no difference to the cost, or to anything else, unless the local authority were in agreement that by-laws should be made for that land.
  Knowing the local authorities as I do, I believe that very few of them would come forward eagerly to pay even 25 per cent. of the cost of a warden unless the authority were completely convinced that this was necessary in the interests of public order and the avoidance of damage. I still believe that to be the case, but at the same time I should be willing to see this power safeguarded in any other way that the Government thought fit—perhaps by the Government taking specific power of approval or something of that kind in order to ensure that the local authority did not waste money on extending these by-laws and wardens too far.
  The type of situation I have in mind is this. There is a footpath over farmland somewhere in the near vicinity of a big city. The city has been growing outwards, and that which was originally just a footpath for a few villagers may now be used by hundreds or thousands. Perhaps one can illustrate it more vividly by asking your Lordships to consider a New Town. A New Town is developed in what was countryside. The rights of way remain, and what was a tiny footpath over the fields may become a very important path for the people of the New Town just beyond the New Town boundaries. I think that we all accept that where very large numbers of people use footpaths there is the danger of damage; there is the danger, certainly in the close vicinity of big towns, of vandalism; and there may be a need for some means of control by by-laws, and possibly by wardens. I can see no convincing reason why the power to make by-law control should not be extended to that sort of case.
  As I say, I am willing to accept any sort of limitation which the Government may think should be imposed in order to dissuade local authorities from

  581
  squandering both their own and the Government's money by appointing wardens where they are unnecessary. My own belief—and I have grounds for saying this—is that in some places it is necessary. I think that those of your Lordships who are familiar with footpaths that have become far more heavily used because the population has moved closer to them will confirm that it is desirable that some new power should exist for the preservation of order, for the prevention of damage and for the discouragement of vandalism. It is in that spirit that I move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
  9.0 p.m.
  LORD KENNET: I must set my face against this Amendment simply on financial grounds. If we were able to turn this country into a sort of Sweden, where everything was subjected to by-laws and everybody obeyed them, and there were always clean, polished, democratic, wardens to enforce everything, I think that this kind of provision would be a very good one; and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has made a case for it. But we have not yet reached that state. We are already expanding Government expenditure on countryside matters to an enormous extent with this Bill, and the kind of wardens which would be empowered to be appointed by this provision would attract a 75 per cent. grant.
  It is true that the local authorities would still have to pay 25 per cent., and it is true that they would not do it unless they thought there was cause for it. But I think that the noble Lord, who is a former Minister of Housing and Local Government, would probably agree that, according to the percentage of Exchequer grant for a given activity, one may be inclined to set a wider liberty of application, or a narrower, to local authorities. For something which carries 100 per cent. Exchequer grant there would be no liberty of application whatever. For something which was horn entirely on the rates there would be very wide freedom of application for the local authorities, and 75 per cent. is a great deal nearer 100 per cent. than to zero. It seems to me incumbent on any Government, especially in a time of economic stress like the
  582
  present, to watch very carefully for extensions of powers to spend at the 75 per cent. Exchequer grant rate. This seems to be an extension which I would advise the Committee is something of a frill, something of an ideal, a refinement, on the powers and procedures which we have already in the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, suggested that this extension could be made subject to limitations, presumably in the form of "not unless the Minister agrees." But that would give rise to a call for more civil servants at the centre to deal with it. There are so many footpaths, and the circumstances in each case would be so complicated and difficult that it would be a considerable extension of the duty of the central Government to investigate the rights and wrongs of each application. This, in itself would make an inroad into finances which I do not think we ought to accept at this stage. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to confine the operation of these by-laws, and the consequent wardens, to the kinds of footpaths already covered by the Bill as it is drafted which, after all, are pretty numerous.
  LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knew as much about local authorities as I believe that I do, I do not think he would imagine that local authorities would rush to spend their own money on wardens unless they felt the need for it was really pressing. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that a high percentage rate of grant encourages local authorities to spend, provided that they are going to have something really attractive to show for that expenditure. That was why, when I was Minister, I was against percentage grants in gereral. I was well aware that the old percentage grant system encouraged a local authority to go ahead with the construction of some building to which it could point with pride, the members of the local authority saying quietly to themselves, "How lucky we are! The rest of the country has had to pay half the cost"—or three-quarters of the cost, or whatever it might be. But does the noble Lord really imagine that a local authority will point with pride to a uniformed warden and say, "How splendid we are; how proud we can be to have that

  583
  warden on duty—and the rest of the country is paying three-quarters of his salary"? That really is not the way that local government thinking works.
  If the noble Lord believes that this Amendment is idealistic, I can only say that he knows less than I do about the amount of vandalism that occurs on footpaths across land in the neighbourhood of heavily populated centres. This is a growing and a serious trouble. It seems to me disappointing that in a Bill dealing with the countryside, the Government have no suggestion to offer about how this vandalism should be lessened. I believe in trusting local authorities. I do not think that any by-laws of this kind would be made, or wardens employed, unless not only the owner of the land but also the local authority were completely convinced that it was a necessity locally. I realise that I cannot take this matter any further—it involves spending money—but I have little doubt that not only a good many local authorities but also the Government themselves will come to regret that they were not willing to see this Amendment incorporated in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 46 [Interpretation]:
  LORD KENNET: At an earlier stage I told the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood,
  584
  that the definition of craft on lakes for the purposes of the by-laws would cover hovercraft. That is true. But elsewhere in the Bill the expression "boat" appears, and in order to put it beyond doubt that this expression also covers hovercraft, I beg leave to move the Amendment which says so.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 44, line 11, at end insert—
  ("'boat' includes any hover vehicle or craft being a vehicle or craft designed to be supported on a cushion of air and which is used on or over water;").—(Lord Kennet.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENNET: My Lords, we have travelled a long way to-night and it may be for the convenience of the House if the remainder of the proceedings on Report is adjourned until to-morrow.

  ADOPTION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.