HL Deb 10 November 1949 vol 165 cc477-630

2.37 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 12:

Provision of accommodation, meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places

12.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area (whether by the authority or by other persons)

  1. (a) of accommodation, meals and refreshments (including intoxicating liquor);
  2. (b) of camping sites; and
  3. (c) of parking places and means of access thereto and egress therefrom,
and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (1): provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than a power of erecting buildings or carrying out work), to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner in which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory, the facility or service for the provision of which the power is exercisable.

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Rutland, who I regret to say is unable to come to-day owing to indisposition, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a happy Amendment with which to start the day's proceedings, and it seeks merely to restore into the Bill a provision which the Minister himself originally said should be in it. Therefore I do not think there is a great deal for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.

This provision was originally Clause 14 when the Bill was introduced in another place. Further discussion of it was promised there, but it was dropped out, and on the Report stage there was no discussion. Its purpose is quite simple: it is designed to secure that when the local planning authorities embark, or consider the question of embarking, on the provision of catering and other facilities in these areas they shall first have to assure themselves that there are not already adequate facilities there. That is not asking a great deal. As your Lordships know, these areas that are likely to be designated are, naturally, holiday areas, where the hotel and catering business already operates to a considerable extent. Nor is it merely a matter of the hotel and catering industry: small farmhouses and cottages are all providing their quota of service. Surely we want to do everything possible in this Bill to encourage those who are already operating services in these districts. How can we expect these interests to make any of the progress that we should like made in improving their facilities if they have hanging over them a Sword of Damocles, in the form of the local authority being able to come in and provide facilities in competition with them? I think the case is so simple and so clear that I ask the noble Lord straightaway to accept this Amendment, thereby restoring the position that the Minister established in his own Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD REA

I wish to support this Amendment. It seems to me to be an Amendment which the noble Lord can hardly resist, because it is so modest. As the noble Earl pointed out, the local authority must satisfy themselves that there are not already adequate facilities provided by what one might call private enterprise before they themselves proceed. It seems to me that the phrase in the Amendment: provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection…to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory,… is so generous that I am surprised that the hotel people, who have a great interest in this matter, have not pressed some of your Lordships to insert something stronger. I suggest that this is a modest and fair Amendment, which I hope the Government will find it possible to accept.

LORD ROCHESTER

I too desire to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, and I can confirm all that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just said. It is indeed surprising that the catering interests themselves have not moved. I would remind your Lordships that only the day before yesterday, when we were discussing an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on model bylaws for these public parks, I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to the experiences of the City of London Corporation who, for over seventy years, have been managing Epping Forest and have provided model bylaws which have been their guide in all the open spaces they have since come to control. I would remind your Lordships that no difficulty should arise if the Amendment is accepted. The provision was in the original Bill as introduced in another place and, in the experience of the City of London Corporation, it is clearly unnecessary that this provision should be resisted by the Government. In the case of Epping Forest there are already at least three licensed properties: the Robin Hood, in the Forest; the Kings Oak, at High Beech; and the Royal Forest Hotel, at Chingford. These hotels are not on Epping Forest land; they do not belong to the Epping Forest Committee, as the conservators, who have no licences of their own. I suggest to the Government that it is quite unnecessary that they should take this power. I hope they will not resist this Amendment.

LORD WINSTER

I should like to say a few words on this Amendment as it affects the Lake District. Hotel accommodation there happens to be very good, and in many parts it is adequate, but the more important point is that the tourist traffic is of great importance to the farmers in that district. There was general agreement the other night that the farmers in the Lake District have a pretty hard struggle to make both ends meet. Undoubtedly, an important factor in their budget is the providing of accommodation and refreshment for visitors. We should be very careful before we give encouragement to local authorities to set up their own accommodation for visitors, thereby competing with the farmers and possibly depriving them of an important part of their income.

LORD CHORLEY

I should have been glad to start to-day, if possible, by accepting the Amendment of the noble Earl, but I am afraid I cannot do so. Before I deal with the arguments which he put forward, I should like to make two points. In the first place, I think he did not—no doubt quite unintentionally—give the words of the Amendment their proper meaning. They do not deal with existing facilities, but consider the position where it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide…facility or service. That is concerned not only with places where there are existing inns or farmhouses, but also with places where there are no facilities at all but where it is argued that somebody might be prepared to come in—which is, with respect, rather a different kettle of fish.

The noble Earl also rather suggested—again, no doubt, without intending to cast any reflection upon the Minister—that no opportunity was given in another place for discussion of this problem. I understand, however, that what happened there was that when the Question was put, whoever had undertaken to speak about it was not ready or did not hear, with the result that on technical grounds the discussion did not take place. It was not a question of the Minister not being prepared to have a discussion. Then Lord Rochester told us, from his own experience, about arrangements which had proved quite satisfactory in the metropolitan area, and more particularly in Epping Forest. I suggest, however, that what might be quite satisfactory in Epping Forest has little relationship to the situation in Snowdonia, in the Lake District, at the Roman Wall or in some other wild and rather inaccessible place where you may have to travel for many miles before you find an inn or even farmhouse accommodation where refreshment is available. It is quite true that as the Bill was first introduced it contained a provision of this kind; but it went much further than my right honourable friend had intended.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Who drafted the Bill? Did he not draft it?

LORD CHORLEY

It sometimes happens that the words chosen go rather further than is intended.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord will forgive me, but the Minister's name must have been on the back of the Bill.

LORD CHORLEY

The Minister's name was, of course, on the back of the Bill. What the Minister is particularly anxious to secure is that the local planning authority shall be able in a good case to assist voluntary organisations which over the past years have been doing particularly good work in the way of providing accommodation in many of these rather out of the way parts of England, where undoubtedly there has been great difficulty in obtaining accommodation. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the work which has been done by such organisations as the Youth Hostels Association. Under this clause it will be possible to make a capital Brant to an organisation of that kind in order to assist it to provide accommodation. But, if this Amendment were accepted, that might very well be ruled out. My right honourable friend is most anxious that the existing accommodation shall be fully used. I suggest that there is not the remotest chance that the local authority will wish to add redundant accommodation in parts of the country in which there is already satisfactory provision. But in cases where the local facilities are not satisfactory, it is most important that the local planning authority should be in a position to provide the necessary facilities, either directly or by assistance granted to one of the voluntary organisations to which I have already referred.

A little further down on the Marshalled List the Committee will see another Amendment in the names of the same noble Lords who arc proposing this Amendment, and under which it would not he possible for the local planning authority to provide accommodation in cases where they would be likely to make a loss. If both these Amendments were accepted, the result would be that it would be impossible for the local planning authority to provide accommodation of this kind unless they could be sure that they would break even, a conclusion it would he impossible to arrive at by way of forecast. It is essential that the local planning authority should have these powers. In my submission it is most unlikely, except in a most unusual case, that they would provide accommodation which would not pay for itself. The result of these Amendments would be to drive them out of the market altogether. My right honourable friend takes the view that in a proper case there is no reason why there should not be fair competition. Where there are already sufficient existing facilities it seems most unlikely, indeed, quite unbelievable, that the local authority, which, after all, represents the interests of the local people, should wish to provide accommodation. In these circumstances, I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Until we come to it on a later Amendment, I need not deal with the curious but no doubt sincere admission made by the Minister that it would be unreasonable, if not impossible, to expect State trading establishments in the catering business to carry on otherwise than at a loss. But we note that important admission for further consideration when it becomes more appropriate to the debate. I must say that if the speech to which we have just listened was the best defence that could be put up against this clause, which was in the original Bill, the Minister in another place was singularly fortunate in not having to rise to his feet to defend its omission. I have never heard a more arid, jejune defence put up to any proposal. Why should State trading be brought by a side wind into this Bill, which is commended to us as a Bill which we ought to support in order to make these national parks a success, and which, as we have been told by the Minister over and over again, depend for their success upon the good will of everybody in the district?

LORD CHORLEY

With respect to the noble Viscount, there is no question of State trading being provided for by the clause.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Then what is a local authority?

LORD CHORLEY

It is not a State trading concern; it is a municipal authority.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We are to draw this distinction! Let me tell the noble Lord frankly that I take equal exception to this kind of subsidised, unnecessary, uneconomic competition, and particularly in what is supposed to be a non-controversial Bill. I take exception to it whether it is carried on by Mr. Silkin's Department or whether it is carried on by some subsidiary local authority, no doubt prodded on and stimulated, if not directed, by the Minister, to engage in these activities. I should not be at all surprised if somewhere in the ninety-six clauses of this Bill we find power given to the Minister to give directions. I know the form so well—directions either of a general or a specific character. But why should this power be given here if the hotels are available? Hotels are having a very difficult time, particularly in country districts. I am not going to criticise the Catering Order now, but everybody knows how difficult it has made things; and everybody knows that these hotels depend entirely on seasonal traffic in order to carry on.

Then the noble Lord said that if the hotel accommodation as it exists at present is adequate, the State or the municipal authority would not come in with its subsidised competition. The Committee will observe that no encouragement is given to the hotels to develop accommodation to meet the needs and the requirements of tourists who are coming to these national parks. Oh, no! I suppose that is because it is private enterprise and we must shut down upon any such development. How very consistent that is with the appeal to us to produce a little more and to give a little better service! Here the hotels are to be penalised if they try and meet the requirements that develop with the situation.

The Committee will observe that the criticism of this matter is not confined to one side of the House; all three Parties are joining against it. I quite agree with Lord Winster in his observations about farmhouses and the little cottages—often a cottage kept by a widow woman. In the days before Mr. Strachey imposed his austerity upon us, the best meal one could get was the good meat tea. We used to get ham and eggs. We did not only "bury them with ham" in Yorkshire. On all our walks we could always be perfectly certain of going into any local pub and getting a first-class tea of ham and eggs, and if there was not a pub there it was ten to one that at any house one stopped in the dales or the fells, so long as people were allowed to keep a few chickens—and they cannot do that now—we could get a good meal. We would knock on the door and say: "Mistress, can you give me a dish of tea?", and she would do so. That was how things went on. It provided a social service and an agreeable intercourse: I should have thought that was exactly the kind of thing one would wish to encourage when bringing the townsman into the country—to get the townsman and the countryman to mix on these agreeable terms.

Then the noble Lord says, "But if I accept your Amendment, then the out-of-the-way places where the weary traveller cannot get anything to eat and drink will not be catered for." That is not so at all. Perhaps he will take the trouble to read the Amendment—I call it "the Amendment" because it appears on the Marshalled List as such, but the words are identical with the words that the Minister put into the Bill. We are told that the Minister, who presumably takes some trouble in presenting Bills to the House, let this come into an early clause. It is Clause 12 (it was Clause 14), and he had not to read very far to come upon this passage. It was not an unimportant passage, but we are told that it slipped the Minister's notice. Really, that is the first time I have ever heard an excuse like that advanced! in any Government in which I have served, if I had put up the excuse to my Prime Minister that a clause of fundamental importance had slipped my notice, I am sure he would have said, "Your misbehaviour has not slipped mine," and I do not think I should have continued very long in office.

The provision which we are now seeking to put back does not preclude the local authority from acting in cases where there is no accommodation, or where no accommodation can be provided. Just look at the words. I agree with my noble friend on the Liberal Beaches. I must say that I think this is an extremely generous Amendment, because the local authority are left with the last word. The Amendment says: …unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide… If the local authority on the Roman Wall, where there is no house at which refreshment can be provided be satisfied that no one is going to provide refreshments then under this clause the local planning authority will be able to step in and do so. Therefore, the case of these out-of-the-way places is properly met. Noble Lords in all quarters wish to give the Bill their support, but if we are to have thrust upon us a provision such as that in Clause 12 (1), which means that the Bill is radically different even from what it was when it was first presented to the House of Commons, and if the alteration is grossly unfair to hotel proprietors and other people in these country areas, then I say that that is not the way to get the Bill passed. It is certainly not the way to commend this plan to the Committee. If that is to be the last word from the Government—and no doubt the Minister is acting on instructions—I sincerely hope that my noble friend will divide the Committee upon this Amendment.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

I hesitate to intervene in this charming discussion during which we have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, deliver one of those thoroughly delightful speeches which we are accustomed to hear from him and which we enjoy so much. Much of it, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, but that is a detail. There were a few political embroideries; but those we accept in good part. Quite frankly, I do not know what was in the Minister's mind at the time when this provision, or something like it, was inserted in the original Bill. I will accept the principle laid down by the noble Viscount that the Minister is responsible for his Bill. Of course he is; we all know that. No one wishes to pretend for a moment that that is not so. But I think it has not been fairly represented how this matter began. The noble Viscount has overlooked—whether by accident or otherwise I do not know—what is provided at the beginning of Clause 12. The first subsection commences: A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the prow slim in their area (whether by the authority or by other persons)"— and ends by saying: and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient. That is to say, if the accommodation is there already, whether it is provided by a cottager or a local inn or whatever it may he, no case arises for the local planning authority to make any provision.

I may say that I myself have enjoyed the charming hospitality of farmhouses and cottages, just as the noble Viscount has clone, many and many a time in my early life. I, too, have called at local inns and had ham and eggs. I repeat that if these facilities already exist there is no cause for the authority to do anything, because the provision that is wanted is already secured. The Bill states only that they may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area. That means they have to make arrangements for securing it if it is not there already. There is nothing affecting places in Epping Forest where there is an hotel. I am sure that if there were an hotel there, it would never enter the minds of the authority to take any steps to provide something additional; what is needed will already be there. And I may say that I hope these hotels and inns will do a thriving business. I hope that a great deal more business will be brought to these areas, and I trust that those who cater for visitors will extend their provision for meeting their requirements. What the Bill does provide—and for my part I think it is a very sensible provision —is that where these facilities are not available for walkers and others in remote areas, it shall be open to the local planning authority to make this kind of provision. That seems to me to be a thoroughly sensible thing to do.

It is really riding the horse of private enterprise to death to object to a thing like this. Why in the world should not the local planning authorities be able to do this? They are responsible for looking after these remote areas, getting people to visit them, and making the areas accessible and attractive. If there is not a place where a man can get a sandwich and a glass of beer—I know that a noble Lord has an Amendment with regard to that matter which will come before us later on—why should they not be able to establish one? It is our anxiety to be as accommodating as is possible on behalf of the Government over this Bill. We are most anxious to meet the temper of the Committee, and so I would ask noble Lords opposite not to press this in the way that they are now doing. The people who are responsible for these national parks must be able to provide this kind of service if it does not already exist. It seems to me that it would be completely unreasonable to prevent them from doing so. Notwithstanding the moving speech of the noble Viscount, I would appeal to noble Lords not to press this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

If I may say so with respect I have heard nothing more reasonable in this connection than the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of th House, bcause he was describing exactly what our Amendment would do. He asked: Why should not the local planning authority provide this accommodation where it is not already available. If he would look at the Amendment he would see that that is just what we say.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The Amendment goes much further than that. It imposes on the local planning authority the duty of finding out whether no other person is able or willing to provide what is required. I do not know whether they would be supposed to advertise in The Times or how they could be expected to find that out.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Sometimes one of the best ways of looking at an Amendment is to read it in reverse. If your Lordships will apply that test to this Amendment and ask yourselves what will happen if this Amendment is not added to the Bill, I think you will see what I mean. If this Amendment is not inserted we shall be giving authority to these local planning authorities to provide these facilities even though other persons are able and willing to provide them, and to provide them in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory. If we do not have this Amendment in we shall be instructing the local planning authorities, in effect, that what Parliament intends is that, although this accommodation may be available, although there may be people well-known in the neighbourhood able and willing to provide it, nevertheless it is the wish of Parliament that the local planning authority should step in and do so. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House and I are at one in saying that where there is nothing at all, and no one willing to provide what is called for, we will leave it to the local planning authority to do it. That is what they could do if this Amendment were added to this Bill. After his speech the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should certainly go with us into the Lobby if we divide on this Motion because that is exactly what we are proposing to the Committee.

I believe that we should be well advised to adopt this Amendment. Do not let us put all the blame on the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The Lord President of the Council, Mr. Dalton, Secretary Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Tom Williams, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. King were among those who approved the words in the original Bill before the Government altered it. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has frankly realised that he cannot quite get away with saying that the original words went a bit further than was intended. A man does not get away with that if he signs a cheque for £1,000 and has only £200 in the bank. It is no good his saying: "My cheque went a little bit further than I intended." That sort of thing does not go down. What happened to make all these gentlemen think better of it, in the interval I do not know. Second thoughts, it is said, are best; and sometimes, I think, second thoughts on second thoughts are best of all. It may well be advisable that we should say that we in this Committee adopt the kind of line with regard to the provision of this accommodation by local planning authorities which has been so well stated to us by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

LORD CHORLEY

May I intervene again, since noble Lords opposite have made a great point about existing accommodation, to suggest that we should consider some form of words which would provide that if existing accommodation was not sufficient, alternative arrangements could be made? I do not, of course, promise, that we could insert such a provision. As I said before, though the point was not taken up by the noble Lord, my right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning is anxious to assist voluntary organisations, especially those which provide for young people. If noble Lords felt that consultations on these lines would be useful, it might be possible to do something.

EARL. DE LA WARR

I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has just said. Obviously he is trying to meet us, but his suggestion does not really meet the point. At the present time we are exhorting every trade and industry in the country to produce more; and not least, we are exhorting the hotel and catering industry to improve their facilities. The noble Lord's suggestion goes completely

counter to that. It is not merely a matter of existing accommodation. We want to see the small hotels and catering establishments, some of them farmhouses and even cottages, improve the facilities which they offer. I am not going to repeat the arguments, because we have gone into this matter very thoroughly. If the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will allow me to say so, he is very busy with other matters, and I do not think he quite appreciates the feeling in the House on this matter. We are discussing a question which deeply affects men, often with very little capital, who have their all invested in a small hotel or boarding establishment; they are not great capitalist concerns. We do not want to have Divisions on this Bill. We feel it is fundamentally a good Bill and we want to support it. I would appeal to the noble Viscount to save us from dividing by intervening, as he so often does helpfully, to give us an assurance that he will take up this matter with the Minister between now and Report stage in an endeavour to get him to meet us. Unless we have an assurance, and I may say a very strong assurance, it is much better that the House should be allowed to give their verdict.

EARL HOWE

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, argued against this Amendment that if accommodation already existed there the local authority would never dream of providing it. But the local authorities take their pattern from the Government, and did the Government use that argument when they set up the hotel in Park Street? Surely we might have a better argument than that—if there is one. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the assurance for which he asks. It will save us a Division.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I wish I could give that assurance, but I cannot at this stage, I am afraid.

On Question, Whether the proposed proviso shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS
Cholmondeley, M. De La Warr, E. Onslow, E.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Radnor. E.
Beauchamp. E. Halifax, E. Scarbrough, E.
Bessborouch, E. Howe, E.
Craven, E. Lindsay, E. Allenby, V.
Hailsham, V. Cranworth, L. Mancroft, L.
Samuel, V. Deramore, L. Milverton, L.
Simon, V. Derwent, L. Monkswell, L.
Swinton, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Rea, L.
Leicester, L. Bp. Gifford, L. Rochdale, L.
Hankey, L. Rochester, L.
Aberdare, L. Hawke, L. Saltoun, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Hutchison of Montrose, L. Schuster, L.
Braye, L. Hylton, L. Teynham, L.
Carrington, L. [Teller.] Llewellin, L. Wolverton, L.
Clydesmuir, L. Luke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.) St. Davids, V. Holden, L.
Kershaw, L. [Teller.]
Huntingdon, E. Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Chorley, L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.
Esher, V. Darwen, L. [Teller.] Marley, L.
Shepherd, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.20 p.m.

LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the clause: () A Justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1949, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with the provisions of accommodation, meals and refreshment under this section shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption with a meal and a local planning authority shall in carrying on any activities under this section be subject to all enactments and rules of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in like manner as other persons carrying on the like activities.

The noble Lord said: St. Paul admonished the Corinthians to utter by the tongue words easy to be understood. I purpose following that advice in addressing your Lordships this afternoon, for the Amendment I am about to move is of real substance and one which has, I have every reason to believe by the communications which have reached me since the Second Reading of the Bill, a large body of public opinion behind it. By a happy coincidence, the leading article in to-day's issue of the Methodist Recorder calls attention to the waste of resources and of human life that has reached appalling proportions through intoxicating liquor. Let me read one sentence of that article to your Lordships concerning the seriousness of the situation. It says: Responsible medical opinion confirms it; the possibility of the dangerous growth of indulgence is not negligible, for he that thinks he stands should take heed lest he fall; and if the Christian doctrine that we are members one of another is valid it should abate cheap sneers against setting a good example, for that is a plain part of a Christian's duty. In last week's issue of another Methodist weekly, Joyful News, strong protest is made against the action of the Government in inserting in its Bill provision for intoxicating liquor in the national parks.

Although I am not a member of the Labour Party, my inclination is more and more to the Left and, speaking generally, I am by and large a supporter of the present Government. I am the more sorry, therefore, to join issue with them on one aspect of this Bill, especially as I am in full agreement with its general objectives. While I am anxious to avoid tautology I must remind your Lordships of the genesis of this matter. On the Civic Restaurants Act of two years ago and again on the Housing Act as recently as July of this year, I moved Amendments in your Lordships' House to eliminate altogether the provisions therein for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquors. I need not recapitulate all that transpired on those two occasions: suffice it to say that, as that was too much for your Lordships to concede, I was eventually a party to a compromise and withdrew those Amendments on the undertaking of the noble Lord in charge of the respective Bills that, if I did so, the Government would meet the position by accepting a later Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Llewellin providing for licences to be restricted in just such a way as the Amendment I am now moving would restrict them—namely, to the supply of liquor with meals only.

I want to be consistent. Having failed on both the previous occasions to get all I wanted (I was, as I have said, party to that compromise), I am now asking the Government to be equally consistent. In other words, I am seeking to save them from themselves. This is the more necessary because of their fall from grace in breaking the pledge which they gave at the General Election that liquor should not be sold in civic restaurants. I take it that the Government do not contest the fact that they have broken that pledge. As I pointed out on the Second Reading, this Bill as at present drawn leaves the door wide open, not only to restricted licences for liquor consumption with meals, but for full justices' licences with cocktail bars and all the rest. In other words, for drink and still more drink.

We have fought this matter out in your Lordships' House twice already when, thanks to the intervention of my noble friend the Leader of the House and the patience of the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, aided by the cogency of the arguments employed by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, the Government gave way. Is it really unreasonable to ask that they should at least be consistent to the extent of not making, in the same Parliament, two different provisions to meet the same point? It is almost forty-four years since I first entered Parliament, and in all that time I cannot recall such palpable inconsistency being persisted in by any Government after the facts had been laid bare.

This is such an unanswerable case that I refuse to believe that the Government will not yield. Unless they do, it seems to me it will be tantamount to throwing over the reiterated counsel and advice of the noble Viscount, beloved of us all, the Leader of your Lordships' House. And I for one, should deeply regret it if, in the event, the Minister of Town and Country Planning should treat the Leader of your Lordships' House and such a venerated member of the Government in such a cavalier manner. The Minister of Food in the Civic Restaurants Act, and the Minister of Health in the recent Housing Act, deferred to the urgent representations of the Leader of your Lordships' House and conceded the point. They why should not the Minister of Town and Country Planning meet us in the same way and thus support his own colleagues? If such a restriction was wise in the case of civic restaurants and municipal housing schemes, there is an even stronger case for its application in national parks where young people especially will congregate.

Only last week your Lordships had a two-days' debate on the economic situation and the dire need for economy. I was unfortunately absent on that occasion owing to two long-standing engagements in the provinces. What is the good of going on talking about economy if, at the same time, you go on increasing the incentives to needless expenditure? In the economic debate in the other House the week before last, according to the House of Commons Hansard of October 26, Column 1368, Mr. Eden said that: the average individual weekly expenditure on alcohol and tobacco is eleven shillings and sixpence a week. These figures ought to make all of us think, in whatever part of the House we happen to sit…it is clear that some of the money that is being dispensed in food subsidies is not in fact carrying out its real purpose but is subsidising the purchase of tobacco and alcohol. And I would add that every year we are wasting from our food resources over 900,000 tons of cereals purchased with dollars; these cereals are used to produce intoxicants.

What is the good of talking about economy when that sort of thing not only continues but power is taken in such a Bill as this, not to limit the evil but positively to encourage the baneful habit of promiscuous drinking? Economy indeed! Why, it reminds me of the man who was addicted to drink and whose friends persuaded him to see a specialist, but they advised the specialist beforehand that it was no use telling him to give up drink. The specialist examined him and told him he could go on drinking as much as ever he could carry if he would then call for a dose of sarsaparilla; and then come back to see him in a fortnight's time. The poor man went back in a fortnight's time and the specialist asked him whether his prescription had been effective. "Well, no," replied the man, "not exactly, because the fact is that when I have drunk as much as I can carry, I can't even say sarsaparilla'."

Even if the Government preach economy, by this Bill they certainly are not encouraging others to practise it. Our bill is about £14 per head per year for every man, woman and child in our land, for this quite unnecessary and harmful luxury. If this waste were stopped the "gap" would soon be closed. But instead of seeking to slop it, the Government come forward with this Bill for the provision of national parks, and couple with it more and more incentives to drink. Only last week, in reply to a question by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, the Lord Chancellor told us that the fines for road offences during the past three years totalled very nearly £1,000,000. How many of those offences were caused by over indulgence in drink? Why should the Government go out of their way to increase the facilities for drinking, as envisaged in this Bill?

This issue must be faced, and I invite your Lordships to show the Government, in the Division Lobby if necessary, how concerned we are on this most vital matter. However men may differ in the methods proposed for dealing with the evil of intemperance, none will dispute the havoc it works in our midst. Those who have fallen by the way—and we have all known them—were all moderate drinkers at the start. Why should the Government go out of their way to provide these additional facilities, without so much as restricting them to drinking with meals? The very nature of the countryside where these national parks will be situated means that the roads therein are likely to be narrow, winding and with occasional steep gradients. We are constantly being reminded of the extreme gravity of our road casualties; and the Highway Code lays extra emphasis upon the danger of even small quantities of alcohol to those in charge of motor vehicles. So strong, in fact, is the scientific and medical case against the drinking of intoxicants by motorists that nearly all public transport undertakings of the country insist that their drivers shall refrain from the use of intoxicants before going on duty and while on duty. Personally, I am convinced that the roads of our land would be much safer if motorists, motor cyclists and even pedestrians abstained altogether from the use of intoxicants. Even those of your Lordships who do not share my opinion on this point will doubtless concede that any use of intoxicants is less harmful when accompanied by a meal. That being so, I crave your support for this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord should be grateful to the Government for having provided him, at any rate, with an opportunity for delivering a very eloquent speech in support of his pet hobby; and no doubt the newspaper to which he referred will have about two columns of matter for its next edition. I wish I could tell the noble Lord, of whom I am very fond, that I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment. I cannot even tell him that, because this is really a different case from those to which he referred. There is no sort of similarity between a place of refreshment on a long walk on the top of the Pennines and a civic restaurant on a new housing estate or in a new town, which is primarily set up for the purpose of providing meals. In the first case a glass of beer is an incidental to the rambler who has been walking under a hot July sun for many hours and who carries his food with him in his rucksack. It means a great deal to him to come to a wayside inn where he can enjoy a glass of beer. A glass of beer is much more enjoyable under those conditions than under any others, so far as my personal knowledge of the matter goes. I feel rather aggrieved that the noble Lord should wish to deprive me of the opportunity of getting a glass of beer in those circumstances without having to put my hand in my pocket and perhaps provide five shillings for a meal at the same time. What he is saying in effect is that the rambler shall not have his glass of beer unless he carries it with him—and it will be a very heavy addition to his equipment—or that, even if he brings his own sandwiches, he must buy a meal as well.

I suggest to your Lordships that there is no sort of resemblance between the earlier cases to which the noble Lord referred. Also this facility is not intended for the motorists—the motorists can always get to a public-house where at the proper time the refreshment is available; it is intended for the ramblers in out of the way places where facilities are not already in existence. I appreciate the noble Lord's position. It is a matter of principle with him that nobody should be allowed to have alcohol if it can possibly be prevented. He is a temperance fiend, if so charming a member of your Lordships' House will allow me to use that expression about him. To other noble Lords who do not share this, shall I say, obsession which the noble Lord has, surely there is little to be said in favour of this Amendment. From the point of view of the purveyors of beer and alcoholic beverages generally, surely to prevent the supply of beer to ramblers in these places and under these conditions, is just cutting off their noses to spite their faces. If the noble Lord does press his Amendment to a Division, I hope your Lordships will reject it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

At first blush it seemed as though three successive Ministers were each trying to do the same thing in a different Bill. First of all, as your Lordships will remember, we had this point in the Civic Restaurants Bill, in regard to places that were built so that a man could take his wife and family for a meal. There was no thought in the minds of those who started civic restaurants (of which I was one) that they should be turned into drinking places. When the Bill to make the British restaurants permanent under the title of civic restaurants was brought in this provision was introduced by the Minister of Food. Your Lordships will remember that we had discussions about it in this House, and eventually we came to the compromise decision that drink should be served only with meals. Then, last summer, we had the Housing Bill (now the Housing Act) and there again it was contemplated setting up canteens in some of these large blocks of flats for the benefit of the people who lived in them. Once again it was suggested from this side of the House that if a justices' licence were granted, it should be granted only for drinks to be supplied with meals. Now we have a different Minister (in fact, as I have already indicated to your Lordships, there are eight of them concerned) who seeks to start these restaurants and asks that the local authorities shall have power to serve drinks, whether or not with meals, provided, of course, they get a justices' licence.

There is a distinction, as the noble Lord has said—although in most of these country districts I think it will be found that there is a public-house where a glass of beer can be obtained. Perhaps the best course would be for us to wait and see what happens eventually on the Amendment which your Lordships lave just passed. If that Amendment remained in the Bill it would ensure that these local planning authorities would not attempt to set up these public-houses—for that is what they would be—if the accommodation were already there or if there were somebody able and willing to provide it. I should have thought that in this case we should adopt the words of Mr. Asquith, "Wait and see," until the next stage of the Bill, whether the Government will accept as a permanent Amendment to the Bill the previous Amendment carried by the Committee to-day. If that were done, there would be less need for the Amendment upon which I am speaking at the present moment. If that were not the course adopted by the Government, it might well be that we should insist here—as we did on the Civic Restaurants Act and the Housing Act—that some Amendment: of this sort should be put in. I think we might look at it from that point of view, because if we can we all want this Bill to go through with as few disagreements between the two Houses as possible, and on this one might well come to some kind of compromise. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, myself, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, could consider this point further between now and the Report stage of the Bill. If that is agreeable to the noble Viscount, I suggest that it might avoid a Division on this Amendment now.

LORD ROCHESTER

I frankly admit that I am not prepared to rest upon a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise at a further stage of this Bill. I feel that this is a matter of principle. It has been before your Lordships twice before, and I cannot see the finesse and distinction to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred. I feel very strongly that we ought to emphasise our intention that these licences should be restricted. After all is said and done, this House is an integral part of this Parliament. I would remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord De La Warr said only the day before yesterday: We are still living, more or less, under a Parliamentary system We ought to decide this issue now, and not rely upon a possibility that hereafter some concession may or may not be made.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I was suggesting that at some stage we should decide it, but that we might possibly have talks together between now and the next stage before taking a final decision.

LORD ROCHESTER

On that I can only make an appeal to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and ask whether he is prepared to help us on this point as he has done on two previous occasions. I should be willing to enter into such a conference, but I do not want to withdraw this Amendment. The noble Viscount brought his influence to bear upon the Minister before, and I cannot help believing that if he did the same now we should secure some concession. Unless the noble Viscount can see his way to give us an undertaking in that spirit, I shall ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I think it is accepted that, apart from the principles to which the noble Lord adheres—which with all respect—there is a difference between this case and the Civic Restaurant and Housing Acts, because they were concerned with centres of population. This Bill is concerned with remote places. The House has already inserted one Amendment in the Bill, which of course will have to be considered. If the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his Amendment for the time being —without prejudice, of course, to freedom of action at a later stage—I will go into conference with him and the Minister to see whether we can arrange any accommodation between now and the Report stage. If he will leave it at that, I will do the best I can.

LORD ROCHESTER

I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. May I ask one question? Does that also cover my Amendment in identical words to Clause 54, where it is even more important because that deals with long distances?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The same principle covers both Amendments.

LORD ROCHESTER

Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation (5) Before exercising any power conferred by or under this section an authority shall consult with such other authorities, being authorities which under any enactment have functions relating to the waterway in question, as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct.

LORD CARRINGTON

On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. The point is almost exactly the same as in the first Amendment to Clause 12, upon which your Lordships have just divided. I hope the noble Lord will therefore treat it as consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 21, at end insert: Provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than the power of carrying out work) unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory facilities to the public for sailing, boating, bathing or fishing."—(Lord Carrington.)

VISCOUNT ESHER

Could I ask the Government why the excellent words in Clause 12: whether by the authority or by other persons have been left out of this clause? Apparently other persons are allowed to deal with meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places, but not with open-air recreation. What is the distinction?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

May I say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I think he is quite right? Although we cannot accept this Amendment, we can hardly resist it. As regards the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, at the moment I am unable to give him a specific reply, but I am having inquiries made.

3.48 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (5):

  1. "(a) any river board or drainage authority by which any functions are exercisable in relation to the water-way in question or whose drainage works are affected, or likely to be affected, by the proposals of the authority; and
  2. (b)"

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend, I have been asked to move his Amendments. If it is convenient, I would like to discuss this and the next Amendment together, because although the points are slightly different the main argument is the same. As your Lordships know, this clause gives to the local planning authority wide powers for carrying out works to waterways, to improve the facilities for sailing, boating, bathing and fishing. I do not think anyone would try to minimise the importance of those recreational facilities, and we would all wish to encourage them in every way. But possibly the most important task of a river is to drain water from the land and to convey it as rapidly as possible to the sea. Under the River Boards Act, 1948, river boards were given a number of powers and responsibilities over rivers in their area, and most of the functions of local authorities as regards drainage were transferred to them.

If we examine Clause 13 of this Bill, we find that certain provisions are made for consultation between the various authorities concerned, but I think your Lordships will agree that the whole emphasis is on the power of the local planning authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly said when refusing an Amendment of mine to Clause 7, the area where river boards will be most affected will be the Norfolk Broads. That is a large and very important area. The Catchment Board Association are worried that the powers given under the 1948 Act may be lessened by the provisions of this clause, which might make it more difficult for them to carry out their heavy and important responsibilities; and this, apart from anything else, might prejudice the agriculture in the area. As your Lordships know, drainage is one of the essentials for efficient agriculture. They feel that if this Amendment could be accepted, it would in the first place, by specifying them by name as bodies to be consulted, emphasise the importance of that task; and secondly, by giving them the right to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture it would ensure that efficient drainage of the area could not be unduly prejudiced by amenity interests. Under this Bill as it stands, they would have to be consulted but, so far as I understand, they would have no definite grounds of objection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 2, after ("with") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I quite agree that it is convenient to deal with both these Amendments together. I think it is very undesirable to single out by naming them in the Bill any specific authorities to be consulted. I cannot accept this Amendment in its present form. With regard to the Amendment which follows, I should be prepared to accept it in principle if the wording could he looked at later.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I agree that it is very difficult to specify the particular authorities, but in this clause we are dealing entirely with rivers, and I should have thought that in that case the most important authority would be the river board.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

No one doubts the importance of the authority. It is a question of the advisability of specifying authorities in the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps we could see the Amendment when we come to the Report stage, or before.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Agreements with Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves

16.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land as to which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest that it should he managed as a nature reserve, for securing that it shall be so managed.

LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner of the land is a consenting party thereto. The noble Lord said: We now come to a part of the Bill which deals with nature reserves. This Amendment is a small one designed to clear up a certain confusion. It would appear that Clause 16 provides that an agreement to form a nature reserve may be entered into between the owner and the lessee or occupier of land, so that it may be managed as a nature reserve. It seems to me that it requires an Amendment to provide that such an agreement should be entered into only with the consent of the owner, for as the clause is drafted it looks as if the occupier or lessee could enter into such an agreement without the owner's consent. The Amendment seeks to safeguard this position. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clydestnuir.)

LORD CHORLEY

We do not think there is any need for this Amendment. If the Amendment were passed it would derogate from the right which the lessee has under the terms of his lease. Under the terms of the lease, provided he is not breaking any covenant in the lease he can use the land in such a way as he thinks fit—provided of course, that he does not damage the land in such a way as to constitute what, in law, is called "waste." Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted it would in fact cut down the rights of the lessee. If it is desired that there should be an agreement with the lessee and the landlord, there is no reason why an agreement of that kind should not be entered into. I think the noble Lord will agree that this Amendment is really unnecessary.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

It seems to me that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is right. What the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, says is no doubt true so far as it goes, but we are now dealing with the fauna and flora of Great Britain, and with the physical conditions under which they live. The tenant may be quite willing to have rare birds, fauna or beasts destroyed in the course of the lease; but when he resumes occupation, either because the tenant will not pay his rent or because the lease has expired, the landlord may find that some of the interest in the land has totally disappeared.

LORD CHORLEY

The whole object of nature conservation is to maintain and protect these rare birds and not to destroy them.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am afraid that I cannot accept that as being a very conclusive answer. Take the case of foxes. Foxes may destroy a great deal of the fauna. There are places where a landlord may prefer to have certain beasts preserved there, although the lessee or occupier may take a very different view. I think the landlord's interest should be considered.

LORD SALTOUN

I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will agree that the man who lets land has a right to receive it back in at least as good a condition as he let it. It is possible that he may get the land back overrun with vermin, which may mean an enormous expense —the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will know that what I am saying is true. The owner may be put to enormous expense and yet not be able to exterminate the vermin.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Supposing that a particular nature conservancy authority thought that little owls were good things to have. That is not very far-fetched, because a very famous ornithologist, a member of your Lordships' House, introduced the horrible creatures into this country. Supposing that some nature authority with the same idea as the late Lord Lilford, who was a tremendously keen ornithologist, thought it a good thing to have a great number of little owls and the tenant did not mind whether there were little owls or not, would it or would not it be legitimate, under this clause as drawn, for the nature conservation authority and the tenant to agree to the protection of the little owls, however much and however rightly the landlord might object?

LORD CHORLEY

This is a point which has not been properly looked into. I am much obliged to the noble Lords for their observations. If the noble Lord opposite would agree to withdraw his Amendment, we may perhaps have consultations about it. It obviously raises difficult problems as between tenant and landlord which I had not quite appreciated.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

On that understanding, I will willingly withdraw my Amendment. My only desire is to make this part of the Bill more workable, because we all want to see nature reserves established, if they can be, without damage to the interests round about. I feel that this point requires further examination. If the noble Lord will look into it, I will withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Byelaws for protection of nature reserves

20.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may, as respects land which is being managed as a nature reserve under an agreement entered into with them or land held by them which is being managed as a nature reserve, make byelaws for the protection of the reserve: Provided that byelaws under this section shall not have effect as respects any land in a reserve unless a declaration under the last foregoing section is in force declaring that the land is being managed as a nature reserve and notice of the declaration has been published in pursuance of that section.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, byelaws under this section— (b) may prohibit or restrict the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures of any description in a nature reserve, the taking of, or interference with, vegetation of any description in a nature reserve, or the doing of anything therein which will interfere with the soil or damage Any object in the reserve; (c) may prohibit or restrict the shooting of birds or of birds of any description within such area surrounding or adjoining a nature reserve (whether the area be of land or of sea) as appears to the Nature Conservancy requisite for the protection of the reserve;

4.2 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1) to add to the proviso: (ii) that bylaws under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect unless and until there has been consultation between the Nature Conservancy and the county agricultural committee or committees in whose area the nature reserve is situated.

The noble Lord said: I am very worried about much the same matter as my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir. Under Clause 20, subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (b), the Nature Conservancy may make bylaws affecting bird and animal life in the area. My Amendment seeks to ensure that agricultural interests shall be consulted before such bylaws are made and that the whole of the surrounding district shall be taken into account as well as the conservancy area itself. Surely we do not want to have a nature conservancy area which is merely a vermin area. In another place an Amendment was moved to the effect that agricultural interests should be taken into account. The term "agricultural interests" was referred to by the Minister as being too indefinite a term. I am suggesting inserting "county agricultural committee," which is not at all vague; it is specific. The county agricultural committees, after all, do represent the agricultural community. I sometimes think that the Government in the last four years have set up so many committees, commissions, boards and authorities that they forget what they are all for, and there is no co-ordination between them. This seems to be a good way of achieving co-ordination, and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 47, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Carrington.)

LORD HARLECH

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that it appears to me on reading this clause as a whole and these words in connection with it that the whole point of the clause it to prohibit and restrict? If we have a nature reserve, particularly a nature reserve where there is a rare species, it will not do merely to prohibit; there will have to be power in the Conservancy to destroy—that is to say, to destroy the noxious species which will exterminate what you wish to preserve. There is too much negative in this clause as it stands, and not enough positive power to preserve that which you wish to preserve. At some earlier stage of this Bill I gave an example of North Wales, where for a short time in the year, only in the spring, the ruddy sheldrake, the largest British duck, comes annually for its nesting. We do not find it anywhere else. If we do not take good care when it is nesting to preserve it from molestation, either by foxes or by other things, we shall not preserve the breeding ground of a species that is becoming increasingly rare and which ought to be preserved.

LORD CHORLEY

The whole object of the Nature Conservancy, in fact, is to carry out the exact project which the noble Lord has just mentioned. The power to make bylaws to which he has referred, which is conferred in Clause 20, is quite general in character, and the negative ones which he has mentioned are by no means the only ones which the Nature Conservancy can frame. There is no difference between us in respect of the objective that we have in view, but I feel that there is no need to have this provision as part of the Bill. The noble Lord can be assured that the Nature Conservancy have every intention of keeping down pests and vermin of all kinds. In fact, the whole object of their having these reserves is to do that and to maintain the rarer creatures which are there. Moreover, as all these bylaws have to be confirmed by the Home Secretary, they have under the procedure in the Local Government Act, 1933, to be advertised in the ordinary way, so that everybody may know what is going to happen. The Nature Conservancy will take the greatest care to maintain the closest association with the agricultural interests in the particular counties where the reserves are located. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no actual difficulty in securing by administrative means the object which he has in view.

EARL DE LA WARR

Who appoints the Nature Conservancy?

LORD CHORLEY

It is appointed by the Lord President.

LORD CRANWORTH

In spite of the answer given by the noble Lord, and in spite of the close proximity of my noble friend, Lord Radnor—because I am one of those who live close to one of the forests that he has produced and I am suffering severely from that proximity—I should like to support this Amendment. I am getting used to the depredations of pigeons, jays and magpies in their dozens, but it does not stop at that. A year or two ago I took part in a shoot in which a portion of the forest was driven out and, after the usual small vermin, there came out of it six foxes, three varieties of deer—roe deer, Japanese deer and fallow deer—and, believe it or not, a sounder of wild boar. Your Lordships may laugh, but you would laugh the other way if a sounder of wild boar came into your garden!

EARL DE LA WARR

Surely we can persuade the noble Lord to look again at this Amendment. After all, these gentlemen of the Nature Conservancy are appointed by the Lord President. I have no doubt they are excellent people, but they are appointed by reason of their interest in the preservation of certain animals which may be of tremendous interest ornithologically, and so forth, but may not necessarily be anything but harmful to the interests of agriculture. Surely it is reasonable, when there is this power to make certain bylaws, that those bylaws should be discussed with the agricultural executive committee. It is really asking very little. The noble Lord opposite always expects us to be satisfied with assurances that he is certain that the body which is being set up will always do the reasonable thing, and so on. Why not put it into the Bill? People are genuinely and rightly disturbed on this matter. From his own point of view, having regard to the reception given to this proposal by the general public and the farming community, it would be wise to give the matter further consideration.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am all in favour of a nature conservancy, but there is great force in the Amendment. I will add another illustration to those which have already been given—I refer to something that has occurred in Australia and which was described in a paragraph that some of your Lordships may have seen in The Times of two or three days ago. It appears that in the interests of nature preservation shooting of the emu is forbidden, and when in a certain district of Australia a considerable number of emus, having escaped from their natural habitat —the crossword puzzle—trampled down considerable areas of wheat, the farmers found themselves prevented by law from taking any measures for their own protection.

LORD CHORLEY

Heaven forbid that I should do anything to prevent the emu being put back into its proper habitat! My impression is that the Minister of Agriculture has been consulted about this matter, though I am not absolutely clear about it—

EARL DE LA WARR

Surely thenoble Lord knows what consultation he has had with other Departments.

LORD CHORLEY

What I should like to do, if the noble Earl would allow me, is to take this clause back and to have further discussions about it. I am anxious to help the noble Earl. I wish he would not try and jump on me in this way; I am doing my best to assist him. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment on the basis that we will look at it, without, of course, giving him any undertaking.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Would the noble Lord add this? He said about an earlier Amendment that there should be consultation; and he said quite frankly that not only was he getting out of his depth but that he did not think even the posse of the Ministers whose names appear on the back of the Bill had fully considered it. I suggest that when they have the chance of considering it, all these clauses (Clauses 13 to 20), which include and affect agricultural committees and the curious nature body about which I have not heard before, should form the subject of a round-table conference representing both sides of the House and also people who know something about these things. We all want to preserve the right kind of birds and we all want to destroy vermin, but it is important to insert the right clauses into this measure. I am certain that practical people sitting round the table with my noble friend, Lord Macdonald, would soon draw up a sensible set of clauses to take the place of those now in the Bill, which it is admitted have a good intention but have not been fully considered.

LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR

I accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount, but I think it should he limited to those interested in this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I agree.

LORD HAWKE

Does that include the nature conservancy, who might be asked what sounders of wild boar might be?

LORD CARRINGTON

I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite. For the second time in three days I think the second speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has been better than his first.