My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's ships are on patrol in the Mozambique Channel in pursuance of the United Nations Security Council resolution of April 9, 1966, which called upon Her Majesty's Government to prevent the arrival at Beira of vessels reasonably believed to be carrying oil destined for Rhodesia. The success of the patrol may be gauged from the fact that since the United Nations resolution was passed no vessels have succeeded in delivering such oil to Beira.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but does he not agree that, as Rhodesia appears to be receiving sufficient oil for her needs by other routes, this naval patrol could be more usefully employed in areas of the world where British interests are threatened?

I am afraid that the answer is, No, my Lords.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the air patrol of the Mozambique Straits is to be increased and whether the R.A.F. detachment in Swaziland is to be used for this purpose, or what other function it is intended to perform?

My Lords, the air patrol is continuing, but not, to the best of my knowledge, from Swaziland.

My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the leading article in to-day's Guardian which, referring to the policy of sanctions in Rhodesia, says:

"To go on affecting to believe that victory must eventually come puts Britain in the same sad psychological state as those Arab leaders who still affirm that Israel will be swept into the sea."

Is not this rather pathetic blockade of Beira part of that psychological attitude?

My Lords, I do not propose to discuss the whole question of sanctions. I will just say that there is a difference of opinion on this matter.

My Lords, may I ask whether any oil tankers have tried to get into Beira in recent months?

To my knowledge, My Lords, certainly none has.

My Lords, would the noble Lord give an indication of the cost of maintaining the patrol?

The cost of the combined patrol, including the air side, is about £100,000 a year.

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us, with regard to this matter, quite apart from the Rhodesian angle (I say this as I happened to have been in the Port of Beira shortly after this patrol was instituted) whether this patrol, in its relationship to the sovereignty of Portugal, has any other recent precedent of action by Her Majesty's Government, since it is understood in Portugal that this not only was an unfriendly action, but came very near to impinging upon the sovereignty of Portugal?

My Lords, I do not agree that it does impinge on the sovereignty of Portugal. I am aware that there are strong feelings in Portugal, and it would be a mistake to deny this. I am not aware of any similar incident in the past. I should not like to say positively that there has not been one, but I do not think there has been an occasion where a resolution of this kind has ever been passed by the United Nations.

My Lords, in view of the importance of maintaining friendly relations with Portugal, would the noble Lord look the matter up and make some reply on this matter, if this action really is an infringement of the sovereignty of Portugal in that area?

My Lords, I do not accept that it is an infringement of the sovereignty of Portugal. This patrol takes place in international waters under a United Nations' resolution. The noble Lord raised the question of how much damage was being done. There is a great deal at stake, including not only our relations with African States but also the future of African/white relations. I do not think one can look at it purely in the context of Anglo-Portuguese relations, much as I and Her Majesty's Government would regret any damage done to those relations.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, none of the plaintiffs Goody, Hussey, Welch or Wisbey was granted legal aid in order to bring libel actions against the News of the World and the People or anyone. There is in fact a case for contending that legal aid ought to be available in some defamation actions. Under the Act and Schedule as they now are, legal aid has never been available for any form of defamation proceedings.

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a supplementary question? Do the Government agree that the rule in Hinds v. Sparks, under which conviction in a criminal court is not only not conclusive, but it is not even admissible evidence in a civil action for defamation, is really a most unsatisfactory state of affairs—indeed, that it is little less than a scandal that convicted persons should be able to sue when it is not questioned that the criminal trial has been perfectly properly conducted and has resulted in an entirely proper conviction? Will the Government consider altering the law upon this subject?

Yes, my Lords. The Government do so agree. I think the noble Lord was not here a week or so ago on the Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, moved an Amendment on this point. I said that I was unable to accept it, first, because this is part of our civil law and it would not be appropriate in a Criminal Justice Bill; secondly, because while we agreed the law ought to be altered, everyone was not agreed on what the alteration ought to be—whether it should be not only admissible but conclusive evidence—and, thirdly, because I had myself some time ago referred this question to the Law Reform Committee and I thought we should await their Report. Today I can add that the day before yesterday I received the Report of the Committee. I at once sent it to be printed and published, and I hope that before we reassemble the Government will have decided whether or not to accept the recommendations of the Committee and, if so, when the necessary legislation can be introduced.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords for those appeals from quarter sessions which were in the list last week for hearing by the Court of Appeal, the average interval between conviction and hearing was 21 weeks.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say, in that case, how it came about that when the "Rolling Stones" were convicted on June 29 it was arranged that their appeal should be taken before the end of July?

My Lords, there are several things which have to be taken into account. The noble Lord has referred only to appeals. Most of the work of the Court consists of hearing applications for leave to appeal. Moreover, the noble Lord has not distinguished between appeals against conviction and appeals against sentence. In the case of an appeal against a long sentence, there is obviously no particular reason for expedition. In the case of an appeal against conviction where there is a short sentence, there is obviously good reason for expedition. These factors are taken into account by the Court. Moreover, in the "Rolling Stones" case the court of trial had itself granted a certificate that there was a point of law involved. This made it unnecessary, of course, to obtain leave for appeal. Those cases are naturally taken sooner.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, grants for such purposes as English language teaching are available under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to those local authorities which have substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants whose language or customs differ from those of the indigenous community.

My Lords, I do not understand that Answer. Perhaps I have not formulated my Question in a way which discloses what information I want to get. This question of integration, about which I am sure the Government are sincere, cannot be carried out unless steps are taken, and if ratepayers and the local education authorities cannot afford to take those steps the Government must help, because it is their policy. We have too many schools in which the proportion of over-sea children is beyond the one-third which was agreed with the teachers. Is the noble Lord aware that unless the Government help these authorities they will not be able to carry out their wish of integration? The teachers of both unions have said that the present position is fair neither to themselves nor to the children, but the Government merely make an answer such as I have just received, which does not fill the bill at all. I wish I could get more information from the noble Lord.

My Lords, I thought the noble Earl's Question was perfectly clear, and I had hoped that my Answer was equally clear. May I try again? Since April 1 of this year, under the 1966 Act, local authorities have been able to get a grant of 50 per cent. of approved expenditure to cover staff specially employed in connection with any functions of local authorities, including education, child care and health. Some authorities have already submitted returns, and the first payments will shortly he made. This is precisely what the noble Earl has asked for. This is precisely what we are doing, and I hope that he will now be satisfied.

My Lords, I regret I am not satisfied. Is the noble Lord not aware that he is talking only about financial help in regard to teaching? Is he aware that you cannot teach children who do not know English in the same building as those who do know English and wish to get on? Therefore, is not help required for buildings?

My Lords, I hoped I had made it clear that any approved expenditure for this purpose, where a local authority has a special problem of the kind about which the noble Earl is concerned, will qualify for 50 per cent. grant. I am perfectly aware, as are the local education authorities, of the difficulty he has mentioned of teaching immigrant and indigenous children in the same class, or perhaps in the same building. But the grant goes, not merely towards the cost of staff, but also towards training teachers and for special purposes of that kind. The grant is not only for children. There are classes, which also qualify for grant, for any adults who are willing to accept instruction in our language. I assure the noble Earl that this covers the whole field about which he has asked.

I thank the noble Lord.

My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short business statement. After this statement on business, and before the two Motions in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House, there will be two Statements, the first on Air Transport Policy, by my noble friend Lord Walston, and the second on the Culham Atomic Energy Authority Establishment, by myself.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I informed your Lordships of the arrangements made for today and tomorrow. It is intended to sit until shortly after 1 p.m. to-day for further consideration of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. If, as we anticipate, it is not possible to finish this morning, it is intended to complete the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow evening. The House will sit again at 2 p.m. this afternoon for the Committee of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. It is intended to sit until a late hour and to adjourn for dinner at a convenient moment after 7 p.m.

To-morrow, Thursday, the House will meet at 11.15 a.m. After Questions, we will consider the Commons Messages on the Criminal Justice Bill, the Matrimonial Homes Bill and the Road Traffic Regulations Bill in the morning. After a lunchtime adjournment, the House will meet again at 2 p.m. to consider the Commons Amendments to the Companies Bill. Thereafter, the Commons Message on the Water (Scotland) Bill will be considered and, as I have already said, the Committee stage of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill will be completed if it does not prove possible to complete it this morning.

My Lords, may I take this opportunity, in an irregular but I think satisfactory way, to wish my noble friend Lord Beswick, the new Government Chief Whip, the success I know he will achieve. He has come into his new office at a rather difficult time from a business point of view, but, none the less, I am sure that, with the usual way we manage things and his ability and skill, we shall contrive to get through our business.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said yesterday, we on these Benches welcome the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much. We will naturally give him all the assistance that we possibly can.

On the business statement, we feel that the question of the Countryside (Scotland) Bill is slightly difficult. Owing to the fact that there are two Statements this morning, we shall not have much time, and I was wondering whether, if it looks a little later on that there might be a chance to finish it this morning, it would be possible to continue this morning's sitting until, say, a quarter past one or twenty past one, and then have the lunch adjournment slightly later. If we could finish it this morning, it would be of great assistance to some noble Lords who deal with the Scottish business.

My Lords, the Government wish to be as accommodating as possible. I think the answer is to see how we get on. If we can possibly help it, I do not think we want to cut into the time of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. But I think the usual channels can watch progress, and we will continue to keep the House informed as to what adaptations, if any, are necessary. I am inclined to think that we might run a few minutes after one o'clock if it serves any purpose; but let us see how we go.

My Lords, may I ask why the arrangement made last Thursday has been altered, whereby we were going to go on through lunch—particularly as we had the Brighton Marina Bill pushed on us last Thursday, when we had originally understood that we were going to have the whole of Thursday for the Countryside (Scotland) Bill? Does the noble Lord not agree that, as some noble Lords have had to come down from Scotland, we might have been told in advance of these arrangements?

My Lords, I obviously sympathise with any Scottish Peer in these circumstances, but we do the best we can, and we have an extremely hard-working lot of Official Reporters who must have a few moments for sustenance. These matters have been very carefully considered. I am sorry the noble Duke was not aware of this, but I hope it will come out all right.

My Lords, on the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill we sat far into the night, and we are quite prepared to do this again. I am very upset about this. I have come down all the way from Inverness for this Bill, and it is extremely inconvenient. We were allowed only 2½ hours last Thursday and were then put off for the Brighton Marina Bill. Now we are to be put off again, and it makes matters extremely difficult for us. It is a bit unfair that Scottish measures should be pushed into the background.

My Lords, I should never dream of pushing a Scottish measure into the background. We just do our best to satisfy everyone; and the two sides of the House have been in constant touch. I realise that this is not a matter in which we shall always necessarily be able to satisfy Back-Benchers, with their particular problems. I am not unhopeful that we shall in fact be able to satisfy noble Lords from Scotland, and I can only say that we really are trying to do our best. I appreciate the noble Lord's feelings, and, if necessary, we can have some further discussion on it.

My Lords, has the noble Lord any idea what time on Thursday evening the Countryside (Scotland) Bill will come on?

I am afraid I cannot give a definite undertaking on that. I am sorry, but I think we shall just have to see what progress we can make. I hope your Lordships, who have been extremely co-operative in the difficult situation that confronts us, will appreciate that we have our troubles, too, and that we just do the best we can.

My Lords, may I just say how much I appreciate the good will which has been extended to me on my appointment, and add that I shall do my utmost to deserve it.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade made earlier to-day in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"The Government have decided to institute a broadly based inquiry into the civil air transport industry.

"Since the Board of Trade assumed responsibility for the industry a year ago, I have been impressed both by the achievements of the industry and by the problems it faces. There is undoubtedly a feeling of uncertainty about the future of British civil aviation. This has found particular expression in criticism of the present licensing system, with its influence on the structure of the industry. Honourable Members on both sides of the House have shown concern and sought reform.

"Because our civil aviation industry is of great importance, both as an integral part of our system of transport and as an earner of foreign exchange, the Government are anxious that it should be as strong and competitive as possible. Before considering changes affecting the industry, the Government have decided to obtain independent advice. There has been no independent inquiry since the war, and the time has come to take stock. I am, therefore, setting up a Committee with the following terms of reference:

'To inquire into the economic and financial situation and prospects of the British civil air transport industry, and into the methods of regulating competition and of licensing currently employed; and to propose with due attention to other forms of transport in this country what changes may be desirable to enable the industry to make its full contribution to the development of the economy and to the service and safety of the travelling public.'

"While the inquiry must be thorough, it is also important that it should be completed quickly. I hope it will be able to make at any rate a first report with recommendations in spring, 1968. I trust that the industry itself will respond to this opportunity by giving the Committee its full support and co-operation."

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement and then to say how much we welcome it. I hope that this is an earnest of the effects of the "new broom" in the transfer of functions to the Board of Trade. May I ask about the scope of the Inquiry? Am I right in thinking that it will cover all forms of air transport, nationalised industries and the others? Secondly, will it cover freight as well as passenger transport? May I also ask about the composition of the body that is to conduct the Inquiry? Have any decisions been made about this? As the time is short, obviously this matter has to be tackled quickly.

May I also ask about the evidence the Committee will take? In view of the nature of the industry, will they be enabled to take evidence not only here but abroad? So far as the development of air freight traffic is concerned—which I hope is included—will the Inquiry go into matters of facilities such as customs and others? There is one very important aspect that has to be looked at, the question of investment grants for aircraft. This is an urgent matter. Will it be possible, if necessary, to legislate before the Inquiry has concluded? Then, on the Air Transport Licensing Board, could the noble Lord say whether the whole scope of air transport licensing will be fully covered by the Inquiry?

May I conclude by saying this? We have certainly as good an air transport industry in this country as any other in the world; but this is largely due to the quality of its personnel. May I express the hope that, whatever else happens, all the skill at present available will be maintained, and that nothing will result from the Inquiry which will interfere with that? We agree with the noble Lord that the object must be to ensure that the industry is a strong and expanding one.

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a great many questions, all of them very pertinent. I will try to answer all of them. The noble Lord's first question was whether this Inquiry would cover all forms of air transport, both nationalised and others; the answer is, Yes. Second, whether it would cover freight; and again the answer is, Yes. The noble Lord asked about the composition of this Inquiry. That has not yet been decided; but I hope that an announcement will be made in the near future. Then he asked whether the Inquiry will take evidence overseas, as well as at home. It will be for the Chairman to decide where he wishes to take his evidence. Certainly there will be nothing in his terms of reference which will preclude him from taking evidence overseas. Will the Inquiry cover Customs facilities and matters of that sort? Again that is for the Chairman to decide; but as the scope of the Inquiry is wide, and covers freight in all its aspects, I imagine—although I cannot commit the Chairman or the Inquiry itself—that, naturally, they would wish to take into account these matters and also such matters as integration with other forms of transport, regional development and so on.

My Lords, I think the question of investment grants for aircraft may be outside the scope of the Inquiry because it falls more within the field of aircraft construction. This is an Inquiry into air transport industry. While not committing the Chairman by saying that he would not decide to inquire into this subject, I should expect that it would not be something to which he would devote too much time. That being so, there would be no reason why any legislation which might be contemplated would have to be held up for the result of the Inquiry. The Air Transport Licensing Board and its activities will, of course, be covered in the Inquiry. I agree with what the noble Lord had to say about the quality of the personnel, and I am sure that the Inquiry itself will do a great deal to stimulate and encourage the people engaged in the whole of the air transport industry. I am certain that at the end of the Inquiry there will be no question of lack of confidence. I think it will be just the reverse and that there will be still more encouragement to people to give their services.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this fast-moving and fast-developing industry, the private enterprise section has a particularly valuable role to play—in its ability to move more rapidly than the nationalised corporations and often develop in a more flexible way and thereby to take advantage of opportunities which the national corporations could not? Can the noble Lord assure us that in this Inquiry the possibility of the continuing and more rapid development of the private enterprise section will be given full scope?

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the role of private enterprise in civil aviation will be fully investigated and taken into account.

My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology in another place.

The Statement is as follows:

"Last year the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority appointed a Working Party to review their present effort on plasma physics and fusion research. After considering the views of the Working Party, the Authority have advised me that this effort should be reduced over the next five years by about 10 per cent. a year. I have now endorsed their conclusion. Since the decision to start fission reseach, rapid progress has been made towards economic nuclear fission power. In particular, the fast breeder reactor programme shows real promise. Consideration of this progress in relation to the earliest period when fusion could conceivably contribute to the power programme, leads inevitably to the conclusion that plasma physics and fusion research should be substantially reduced. The present annual expenditure of £4 million on this work will be cut by nearly half.

"In so advanced a technology as this, circumstances can change rapidly. I have therefore agreed that the Atomic Energy Authority shall keep the situation under review and that in any event there should be a re-examination in five years' time.

"Fewer professional staff will be needed on this work. The Authority have told me that they will keep in close consultation with their staff and trade union sides in dealing with this. While I do not intend to authorise non-nuclear work for the Atomic Energy Authority solely in order to absorb surplus staff, whether at Culham or elsewhere, I shall continue to authorise such work where this is appropriate.

"In reaching the decision full account has been taken of the outstanding quality of the work being done, of the high international standing and the considerable scientific achievements of the Laboratory. The Atomic Energy Authority assure me that Britain will still maintain a leading position in this field of research. The work done at Culham has attracted international interest and respect. I am confident that it will continue to do so."

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which on the whole we must accept although the cut—virtually 50 per cent, over five years—is pretty drastic. And this at a time when France, for example, is increasing its allocation for fusion research and is setting up a new laboratory at Grenoble, while the U.S.S.R. is doing the same at Novosibirsk. However, I welcome the point made in the Statement that the fast breeder reactor programme shows real promise. I was glad to hear that the Government do not intend to authorise non-nuclear work for the A.E.A. solely in order to absorb the surplus staff. I should like to endorse the outstanding quality of the work being done.

I have only three questions. First, how many projects at Culham will have to be abandoned? Secondly, was this reduction referred to the Zuckerman Central Committee? I feel that this action should not be taken in isolation but should be considered as part of the total survey of scientific and technological resources which Sir Solly has been undertaking. Thirdly, I wonder whether in the long term the noble Lord would not agree that this work would not be better placed under the Science Research Council. I think that this view was supported in our debate on these matters.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. It was a difficult matter, as I know he will admit. There were indeed arguments that since there was no immediate prospect of getting a fusion reactor, the work should cease altogether. I think that what has been decided is a satisfactory compromise, bearing in mind (and this I think weighs with the noble Earl as with me) the great excellence of Culham. It will continue to play a leading part, and it is very much a question of the amount of effort one thinks right to allot to it. It could be argued, in view of the decline, the fact that earlier hopes were not entirely realised, that it was set up on too big a scale. I am quite confident that we shall not in any way lose the position that we have internationally, and this will preserve it.

The noble Earl asked three questions. First, how many projects? I cannot say; indeed, I am not sure whether they are establishable as separate projects. There are many parallel researches going on and some that might be called by-products, researches in super-conductivity and other matters which are related and have arisen out of this.

My Lords, I wondered which of them was going to suffer the most.

My Lords, I cannot really answer that question. This is a "broad brush" decision and it will be a steady rundown. These decisions will have to be made.

Regarding the suggestions that the matter should have gone to Sir Solly Zuckerman's Committee, it so happened that there was a separate report. The Ministry of Technology have been looking at this for a long while. I think it is arguable that if that had not been under way, this is a matter which would have gone to the Central Committee. I do not dissent from the general principle, but I think that the Minister of Technology felt that he was in a position to make this decision. Again, regarding the argument about the Science Research Council, it is one of the factors that was weighed. I think there were quite powerful arguments for leaving it with the Atomic Energy Authority. These are matters of fine judgment, and my right honourable friend concluded that this was right. Nevertheless, I think that all the questions asked by the noble Earl were relevant.

My Lords, is the noble Lord able to estimate the amount of expenditure which will have to be written off as a result of projects being abandoned?

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's question, though well meant, is quite relevant to science research. This is research which increasingly has been seen to be pure research, and I do not think that one can ever talk about "writing off" pure research. Sometimes it comes to an end, for one reason or another. There will be a declining effort, obviously, in the field of plasma physics and fusion research, particularly. Certain of the work may have led by itself to no specific result, but that is part of the general scientific process.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, in moving the Amendments to the Public Bill Standing Orders which are in my name on the Order Paper I am asking the House to give effect to recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in its Fifth Report and approved by the House on June 19. These suggested Amendments all arise from the agreement of the House to that Report. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert:

"(b) that it is impracticable to obtain such access by means of an access agreement or access order; and"

May I reply to the noble Earl? Certainly we will consider anything. I can only repeat my sympathy. If there is a way round these difficulties, I will go into action with my noble friend the Chief Whip to see whether we can do something.

I thank the noble Lord very much. I hope that at least we may not be interrupted any more in the meantime by Government Statements.

The Amendment which I beg to move is to insert a new paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Clause 24. It is similar to the Amendment accepted in another place in regard to Clause 21, which deals with paths. In the terms of that Amendment, which the other place accepted, compulsory powers can be put into operation only if it appears to the local planning authority impracticable to create a path by means of a public path creation agreement. It seems to us that similarly we should have this provision in Clause 24, that compulsory powers may be put into operation only if it appears impracticable to obtain access by means of an access agreement. I think that this Amendment would be consistent with the next Amendment, No. 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and if both these Amendments were agred to, it would follow that subsection (2), which it is the purpose of Amendment No. 29 to leave out, would be unnecessary. I beg to move.

My Lords, The noble Earl said that this Amendment runs with the one which I shall be moving next. The Government are prepared to accept the Amendment in principle. However, its drafting does not quite fit in, and if the noble Earl will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to put down an Amendment at the next stage along these lines, in words which fit otherwise with the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

In moving this Amendment, I would point out that with the Bill as drafted there is some doubt whether the local planning authority would have power to acquire land for access by agreement. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove that doubt, and I hope that the Committee will agree to accept it. I beg to move.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9.

I accept this Amendment.

had given notice to move to leave out Clause 25. The noble Duke said: With a view to the time factor, I will discuss this clause on Report stage.

moved, in subsection (2) after "map" where that word occurs a second time, to insert

"and lists specifying any restrictions applying to the land or any part thereof".

I think this Amendment stands with Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33. I am prepared to accept the principle of these Amendments. I do not think there is any doubt that the subsection can and ought to be improved, but I should need a little more time to consider how best this could be done. If the noble Duke will accept my assurance that we accept the principle of the Amendment, I would ask him not to press this or the three succeeding Amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has referred to Amendments No. 32 and 33, as well. May I ask him whether he will say what his attitude is on those Amendments? The reason why I put those Amendments down was because it seemed to me that such maps will certainly be of great use. They are available now, in certain circumstances, and where they are available they are greatly used. They have an additional advantage in that they tend to canalise people into coming in by the proper means of access. If you put a map there, people use the proper means of access and do not approach by other means. There are great advantages in this. I know of no case where it would be impossible to provide a map of the appropriate means of access, and it seems to me to be not unreasonable to suggest that this should be mandatory, and also to give the local planning authority the opportunity to place maps in other places—that is to say, to arrange for them to be put up in hotels and other places where people would use them.

With a view to facilitating progress, I was speaking to the noble Duke earlier, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, did not have the benefit of that discussion. I should like to say briefly, in answer to his question, that we accept that maps and restrictions ought, if it is possible so to provide without making too onerous a requirement on local planning authorities, both to be available for public inspection and to be displayed at the main access points to access land. The difficulty is that in so many cases the access to the kind of land about which we are talking can, with little effort and no harm to anyone, be made from anywhere on those boundaries. I will, however, see what can be done about providing a suitable form of words on the Report stage, and it is on this understanding that I invite both noble Lords not to press these Amendments at this stage.

I thank the noble Lord for accepting these Amendments in principle, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.

I should like to ask a question on this clause. This is an important clause, and it is a little difficult to see for what purposes it is going to be used. We have already dealt with the clause dealing with fire risk. It is not quite clear what dangers the Government have in mind here. Are they, for example, to do with military training areas, practice firing areas, and so on? Are they to do with stalking risks? This seems to be a wide clause, and as this is a Committee stage, I think a little explanation on it would be helpful.

I am afraid that in attempting to make as much speed as possible on the Amendments I have come across without my notes on the clauses, and without them I could not talk very intelligently on Clause 27. As the noble Lord is aware, I shall be making a statement on the Schedule in relation to the general position of access, and if it suits his convenience, I will have tacked on to that a statement about the effect of this clause. It will give me an opportunity, perhaps at some time in the early afternoon, of having a look at it.

Despite the fact that the missing documents now appear to have arrived. I am willing to accept the noble Lord's offer.

moved to leave out "have power to". The noble Duke said: This clause gives the local planning authorities power to erect boundary notices at the edge of land comprised in access agreements or access orders, and also boundary notices to show where the excepted land starts. As one of the main difficulties that I visualise under the Bill is communication between the local planning authority and the public about what parts of the country are subject to access agreements, and exactly what limitations they have on them, this clause and the second part of Clause 26 have quite a lot in common.

This Amendment was looked at in another place. In fact, I think that a quite disproportionate amount of time was spent in looking at it in another place, and I do not wish to say much about it here, because we do not have time to repeat what they said elsewhere. The main difference between us seems to be in the way of going about achieving the same end; namely, the erection of sufficient notices at suitable places. The circumstances of each case will determine how many notices will be required and where they will best be situated. We cannot legislate for this—the clause as it stands does not pretend to do this—and the letter of the proposed Amendment could be met, for instance, by the erection of two notices anywhere.

The only reasonable way to go about this in practice is to look at each individual case. In an agreement an owner or occupier can arrange for suitable numbers and placings of notices. In the case of an order, the local planning authority will set out their proposals and the Secretary of State can vary the order or impose conditions in it, if he thinks these proposals are inadequate. The clause gives them the power, and the Government think that any authority prepared to go to the trouble and expense of making an agreement or an order will surely be willing to mark its boundaries at appropriate places. In practice, therefore, the Amendment is unlikely to achieve anything more than the clause as drafted, and I would ask the noble Duke not to press it. In these matters we are seeking to work on the basis that local authorities are responsible bodies and in the majority of cases can be trusted to exercise their powers as well as fulfil their duties in a reasonable way, and I see no reason to believe that this case would be an exception.

I have listened to the noble Lord with great interest, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Clause 29 gives local planning authorities power to contribute to the erection of notices about danger areas under Clause 27(4). I am suggesting that they should also have power to contribute to notices erected under Clause 26(2), showing where the public may enter land to which access agreements or orders apply. I beg to move.

I accept the noble Duke's Amendment.

Clause 30 deals with the creation of public paths by agreement, and I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Bill in its present form provides that rights way established in Common Law will be covered by Part III of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that existing rights of way at the date of the commencement of the Bill are also covered by these provisions. This is a matter which has been discussed in another place, but it is not clear whether Clauses 34 to 36 will apply to public rights of way, whether created before or after the commencement of the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, may I refer the noble Baroness to Section 38(1) of the Bill which reads:

"Sections 34 to 36 above shall apply in relation to all public rights of way, whether created before or after the commencement of this Act."

This completely meets the point of the noble Baroness's Amendment.

I am delighted to hear that and have great pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.

This is an Amendment on rather the same lines as the last Amendment, but with a slightly different objective. It is to clarify the point whether or not Clauses 54, 55 and 64, dealing with bylaws and wardens, apply to rights of way already existing. I think that it is essential that they should, because presumably existing rights of way will go through land which will be subject to access agreements, and it would seem strange if wardens did not have power on these rights of way. I feel that as a result of this Bill existing rights of way will get greater use, that the litter problem will become greater, and that it might be awkward if by-laws cannot be applied to them. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that existing rights of way are subject to the clauses on by-laws and wardens. I beg to move.

Throughout the preparation of this legislation the Government have been anxious not to weaken or in any way prejudice the current provisions governing rights of way and the manner in which the public have traditionally been able to enjoy them. I therefore feel very reluctant to accept the effect of this Amendment, which would enable by-laws to be made and wardens to be appointed in relation to existing rights of way when these have functioned for many years without such provisions, and especially when we do not in any case envisage such controls being widely needed on public paths as distinct from areas of access land. If circumstances should arise where it is felt that some form of by-law or warden control is desirable over an existing right of way—and this would probably in any case be where the way leads to an area of access land—then it would seem appropriate that the local planning authority concerned should transform the right of way into a public path, by agreement, I would hope, and they would then be in a position to promote the by-laws required. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that the noble Duke will not seek to press his Amendment, which would confer a wide power over existing rights of way to deal with what, so far as I am aware, is probably only a very restricted problem.

I thank the noble Duke for his reply. If we were to make an existing right of way into a public path, with whom would we get agreement? Probably we would get agreement with the owner and occupier concerned, but I should have thought that the Rights of Way Society and suchlike organisations may feel that they have a part to play in this before existing rights of way were converted into public paths, with all that goes with that conversion. I should have thought that it would have been much easier to make it possible for these clauses of the Bill to be applied to existing rights of way. I fully realise that at the moment the noble Lord cannot go any further, but perhaps he might consider this point before Report stage. If not, I feel that I would have to raise the matter again. If the noble Lord has nothing further to say, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, but warning him that I shall come back to it at the next stage.

May I ask two questions on this clause? There is no Amendment down, similar to Amendment No. 44, but should I be right in assuming that it is the intention, at any rate, of the Government that local planning authorities should not make orders unless they had attempted and failed to make access agreements? Secondly—and this is largely on the same point—should I be right in assuming that in practice they would invariably consult the owners and occupiers of the land before making an order of this kind? I think that this matter is covered by Schedule 3.

The answer to both the queries put by the noble Lord is, Yes. I would direct his attention to lines 28 and 29.

This Amendment is a purely probing Amendment. I should like to know whether people who are caused disturbance as a result of a public path creation order, or public path diversion order, but who are not actually physically affected by it, have a claim for compensation. If a footpath were diverted, and instead of going behind a hill, from which it could not be seen from a house, went in front of the house, and people threw bottles and litter into the garden, would the occupiers of the house who were thereby caused annoyance have any claim for compensation? I beg to move.

In this clause, dealing with compensation, we must limit the right to compensation to those directly affected by the creation, diversion or closure of public paths. It is entirely in accordance with established principles to limit compensation to persons with an interest in the land over which the path runs or in land in the same ownership. At the same time, we wish to preserve existing rights of owners of adjoining land in those cases where they have a legal interest in the land over which the path runs. If, for example, an owner enjoyed the benefit of a real burden or other restriction against the creation of such a path by voluntary agreement, and would have been able to take legal action to prevent such an agreement, subsection (4) would preserve his position and entitle him to consideration for compensation. This, I think, is quite fair.

I do not think the noble Lord has quite answered the point. If a footpath is diverted, and the path is much nearer to someone's garden, and he has bottles and litter thrown into his garden—and the fire damage, too, is obviously increased—will he be able to get any compensation in such a case? I think it is a point of some importance.

I think that if the land on which the diverted path exists is in the same ownership as the garden is, then the point will be covered; but if it is not in the same ownership, then of course it will not be covered.

Would the noble Lord consider covering it? I fully realise that it will not apply in a very large number of cases. But it seems very unfair that if you have a garden which has not had a path near it for many years, if someone suddenly decides to divert an existing right of way, under this Bill, so that a path goes past your garden, with the result that you suffer this extra disturbance, there is no way of getting any compensation for it.

If the likelihood of such a nuisance were obvious, I should think that this would probably be a very sound reason for not having the diversion. It certainly would not take place by agreement unless the adjoining owners were on tolerably friendly terms with each other; it would not take place if an owner felt that bottles were likely to be pitched into his garden by the owner of adjoining land. We do not think that that is the usual situation that exists between neighbours, particularly in this sort of area. But I will look at the matter, although I must point out to the noble Duke that it is very difficult to breach a principle so that compensation may become payable to somebody who does not have a direct interest in the land which is affected.

May I point out that when you have main roads going through your land, as I have, you frequently get a lot of bottles and other litter on land. But, so far as I know, it is never possible to get compensation. I should certainly like to back up my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. I think it would be an excellent idea if one could get compensation; but how one could get it, I do not know.

The noble Viscount speaks of a road going right through his land. The answer which I have given makes it perfectly clear that in that particular case compensation would be available against likely loss. But the point the noble Duke is raising is where a path is diverted, not on to someone's land, but on to land adjoining it, in such a way as to interfere with his proper enjoyment of the use of his own land.

May I press the noble Lord to examine this matter with great care? I have very long experience of life in the country (if I take into consideration my father and his friends, as well as my own life, it comes to nearly a century of it), and I know of a good many cases where adjoining owners are not on the best possible terms. It is bad legislation to have a law so that one man, by taking advantage of the law and his position, can inflict an injury on another. I say that to answer what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said: that most adjoining owners are on the best possible terms. I do not think that is necessarily the case, and I submit that legislation which assumes it is must be bad legislation. One ought to take all sorts of factors into consideration.

I think the noble Lord is overlooking the fact, which I pointed out, that this diversion would be the subject of either an agreement or an order. And surely one would expect that the owner of a garden who thought he was going to be adversely affected, because of the fact he was on bad terms with the man who might be making the agreement, or accepting the order, would, in these circumstances, make his point of view well known. I did not say that everybody in Scotland was on good terms with his neighbour. What I said was that the majority of them were.

On the assurance that the noble Lord will look at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

If I might speak to Amendments 39 and 40, I would say that these are linked drafting Amendments. The three extra prepositions are needed to make the wording sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the possibilities. May I take this opportunity of informing the Committee that my noble friend Lord Shackleton has just told me that it will be possible to sit until a quarter to two, if we can make a special effort to get through the whole of our proceedings on this Bill by that time. I beg to move.

I beg to move Amendment No. 40.

This is the clause which sets up the long-distance routes, and it is anticipated that these routes will be used not only by people on foot but also by people on horseback and on bicycles. Therefore the only practical means of access and egress from one enclosure to another will be gates, and I want to put in an Amendment that these gates should be self-shutting gates. It is obvious why it would be better if they were self-shutting gates: people would then not be able to leave them open, which in that part of the country would cause a lot of difficulty and trouble. I beg to move.

These three Amendments, Numbered 41, 42 and 43, in the name of the noble Duke, have drawn my attention to the possibly too restricted range of matters on which the Commission may report on long-distance routes. However, I should like to be sure that we should not fall into the danger of appearing to make the list exhaustive—and therefore inevitably restrictive, if by mischance we left something out—by adding these further items. For that reason I should prefer not to commit myself today, but to undertake to look further at this clause, with a view to amending it at Report stage and perhaps to add a generalisation like that in the opening words of Clause 54(2). If we did that in might in fact avoid some consequential Amendments in Clause 34(5).

However, I must say that I am not attracted by the proposal in regard to self-shutting gates. This is really a matter of detail for a particular case, and the Commission's Report should cover the proposals in broader principle. I have no real objection to adding a reference to picnic places, although I wonder whether they are really appropriae to long-distance routes. After all, the Scottish hills are full of natural picnic places, and one of the joys of the long-distance route is the chance it gives to get away from over-organised welfare provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, had a wise word of warning about too much paternalism in his Second Reading speech.

The third Amendment is not really needed because, strangely enough, the Scots Parliament of 1424 has already attended to this point, and it might be of interest if I read it. It reads as follows:

I thank the noble Lord for saying that he will consider this point. All I wanted to do was to draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of having self-shutting gates. Possibly it would be inappropriate to write it in here, but perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared at the next stage to give an assurance that in nearly all cases self-shutting gates will be used on these long-distance routes, because I think it is a point of some importance.

I fully realise that a hundred years ago, when providing refreshments one provided them for horses as well as for humans, but I think this practice has rather dropped out in modern times. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it will be necessary to have refreshment for the horses as well as for the humans, in addition to accommodation for the horses. One of the difficulties of pony trekking at the moment is that unless you trek from one centre and go out in a different direction each day you can never find places to stable your ponies overnight. When these long-distance routes were set up I was hopeful that this difficulty would be overcome and that people would be able to go for genuine pony treks over, perhaps, 50 or 100 miles without staying two nights at the same place. However, with the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

A discussion took place in another place on this Amendment, and I believe the Minister undertook to look further into the question of prior consultation with owners and occupiers. This Amendment is the same as that moved in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. It would seem desirable in the exercise of their general functions under this part of the Bill that there should be express provision for consultation between the Commission and the owners and occupiers of the land through which the routes are passing, particularly as, if the various types of accommodation for the benefit of long-distance travellers were to come into effect, it would be necessary to have the permission of the owners and occupiers for any additional stabling that might be needed on the route. I beg to move.

I should like to support my noble friend, and simply observe that I think her Amendment would require a consequential Amendment in line 22, so that representations would also be capable of being made by the owners and occupiers, and included in the report. I am sure this would be a wise thing to do. What I understand my noble friend is asking for is consultation before the order is made. Under the Schedule it would be possible after the order is made, but consultations beforehand might be a good deal better.

As the noble Baroness has stated, this Amendment was considered in another place, and I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to what my honourable friend the Minister of State said in the Scottish Standing Committee:

"I accept that consultation with landowners at this stage should take place if particular difficulties appear to exist. Under Clauses 30 and 31, when the time comes to put the pro- posals into practice, the owners and occupiers will be consulted. That is right and proper. All that we are arguing about now is a functional power and whether in all the circumstances, even though there are no difficulties or there appear to be no difficulties, we should have to do this. It is simply on the ground of doing unnecessary work and having to carry out unnecessary consultations that we object to these two Amendments."

That was what was then said: that we must hold the balance between getting on with the job and consulting many people who might in the event not be concerned.

We consider that the right stage for consultation with individual owners and occupiers is at the implementation stage. Consultation is implicit in the making of a public path agreement, and the Secretary of State would want to be satisfied that a serious attempt had been made to make an agreement before he would approve an order. Therefore I regret that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment. But I repeat the Government's hope that there will be the fullest practicable consultation with owners and occupiers at every stage where this would be helpful, and the confidence of the Government that the Commission and local planning authorities will be fully alive to the sensibility of proceeding in this way without the necessity for too onerous statutory obligations.

I was interested in what the noble Lord said and I will not press the Amendment. But we are in danger of shutting the stable door after the horse has escaped. The point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, and which I want to stress, is that it is before these things are actually coming into effect that we want to get people's good will. If you do not have their good will and you start off by putting the scheme almost into effect, then you get the difficulties that arise because people are angry as they have not had an opportunity to go along with the plan. If the noble Lord feels that this point is already covered, I am quite happy. But I am anxious for the Bill to be a success and keen about its provisions with regard to long distance trekking and so on, and it will be a great pity if it does not succeed simply because the consultations come after, rather than before the order.

I do not think there is any likelihood of our locking the stable door only after the horse has escaped. I think we have doors which can be kept reasonably shut and which the horse will not be able to open of its own accord.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (2), after "authority", to insert "owner and occupier". The noble Duke said: The point of this Amendment is so closely connected with the point discussed under the last Amendment that it is hardly worth moving at the moment.

This Amendment is designed to save a person who ploughs up a public right of way which is in the middle of his field from having to notify the fact to the authority responsible if the right of way is not used frequently. For this purpose, I have said that if the right of way has not been used during the course of the previous year the occupier need not notify the fact that he has ploughed it up. I think this is a reasonable proposition. It seems to me that it would just create a lot of unnecessary paper work and annoyance for both the occupier and the local planning authority if the occupier had to notify the local planning authority in those cases where the right of way is hardly ever used. I beg to move.

The effect of the Amendment which the noble Duke has proposed is that if a right of way has not been used in the previous year it shall in fact be treated as if it were not a right of way. The current period over which a right of way must be disused before it ceases to be a right of way is 40 years. It is an exceedingly radical Amendment to reduce 40 years to one year, and I am quite certain that many people much less reasonable than the noble Duke could not expect me to accept an Amendment of this kind. I am quite certain he will not press it.

If it is not acceptable—and I agree that one year is a very short time—is there any point at which somebody who wishes to cultivate land on a rotational basis will ever be able to do so if a right of way passes through the field or in some way over his land? Is this land going to be sterilised for ever and never cultivated for 40 years?

The Bill as it stands does nothing to alter the existing law in relation to rights of way, and something with which people have had to live over all this time will continue to be in that fashion. I mentioned when we were talking about rights of way previously that it is perhaps possible, with this new procedure of having access agreements, that a right of way, on consultation with those concerned, may be changed through an access agreement, which would in fact serve the same purpose. As the noble Duke indicated, this would probably require consultation with, among others, the Rights of Way Society. I am quite certain that it would be improper to attempt anything of this kind without consulting them. I have no doubt that if they could be satisfied that through an access agreement they could achieve exactly the same purpose as they previously had with the right of way, agreement might be possible. If they could not be satisfied, then I should think it would be impossible to move on this matter unless Parliament deliberately decided to alter the law in relation to rights of way, and we could not do this as a side issue in a Bill of this kind.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "as soon as may be after the ploughing is completed" and insert "after final cropping". The noble Earl said: I raised this matter at some length on Second Reading. What do the words "as soon as may be" mean? The Minister in his reply was good enough to agree that they mean very little. Perhaps I may read what he said, referring to my remarks:

"I cannot disagree with him when he implies that this phrase has no precise legal meaning in terms of time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1202, 12/7/67.]

I should like to support my noble friend. Personally I should prefer, instead of the words, "after final cropping", to see the words, "when the land returns to permanent grass". I was wondering whether, to get over this difficulty while the land is under crop, the right of way could perhaps go round the headlands of the field. That seems quite feasible. I hope that the Minister can give some satisfaction on this point, because obviously it is quite impracticable, when you plough a field and sow a crop, to have people walking across it.

I have no desire to get away from what I said on Second Reading, because it is clear that we cannot attach a precise legal meaning to the words "as soon as may be". I certainly did not wish to create the impression that we expected that there would be a multiplicity of court actions over this sort of thing. We believe that court action would be an exceedingly rare proceeding, as it has been on this side of the Border. I gave an example of how wide an interpretation the court placed on a similarly vague phrase in other legislation.

One of the purposes of the clause as drafted is to save the farmer what might, in certain circumstances, be a considerable amount of inconvenience. I think that to use wording which has been chosen after a great deal of thought is as far as we can go, and the Amendment which the noble Earl has proposed, although at first glance it appears to be more precise in terms of time, would mean that in certain circumstances the path could not be available for a very considerable time.

The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, pointed out one possibility in that connection. I do not know in how many ways this could be extended. For instance, it is not inconceivable that a man might say, "My plans for cropping extend over the next ten years and my final cropping is not until the tenth year. I am going to keep the land closed, and I shall have the right, because of this, to keep it closed all that time." Obviously, this would defeat the whole purpose of the clause, which is to permit the land to be ploughed up for the shortest reasonable possible time. There have been many close consultations with both the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and I can say that there has not at any time been any suggestion by either of these organisations that the wording as drafted would impose an undue burden on anybody. In fact, we think that the loose nature of the wording is much more likely to apply in favour of the farmer or landowner rather than against him. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel it possible to withdraw his Amendment.

I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply, and in the light of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

May I ask the noble Lord one question on Clause 43? There seems to be no provision made for an alternative path while the footpath is ploughed up. I feel that it ought to be written into the Bill somewhere that when a footpath is ploughed up the farmer must leave a headland round that particular field in such a way that members of the public who wish to use the path will be able to get round the field without either going across the ploughing or having to go along what might well be a barbed wire fence or thorny hedge. I think it should be written into this clause that where a farmer takes advantage of the clause, and in the interests of good husbandry ploughs up a footpath going across the field, he should leave a sufficient headland on one side or the other to enable people to get round to the point where the particular path normally begins and ends.

To help the Minister may I say that I have done this in England in consultation with the local authority? Where the public right of way has been ploughed up, I have left a path round the headland.

I am not certain whether there are difficulties in the way of doing this. I should certainly like to see something of this kind in the Bill, and I will undertake to look at this point before the next stage.

moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "cows or heifers "and insert" other cattle". The noble Duke said: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the revised version of Clause 44. It is a big improvement on the original version. But it seems to me that there is one small snag with subsection (1)(b), in that sometimes, because a farmer does not want his cows to calve too late in the following year, he does not wish to run the bull with the cows and heifers after, say, April or May of a particular year, and it may be more convenient to him to run his bull with the bullocks. I should have thought, therefore, that we might use the words "other cattle" rather than "cows or heifers" in Clause 44. I think I can assure the noble Lord that normally beef bulls are extremely docile—much more docile than the cows concerned. So long as they have some sort of company, I think they will be perfectly happy. I beg to move.

As the noble Duke is well aware, the clause is in this form after considerable discussion with all the interests concerned, and I am informed that there is no strong agricultural interest that requires an Amendment along the lines which he suggests. I do not pretend that the clause has in it everything which the Scottish N.F.U. would like; in fact, they might have been happier without any clause at all. But they are reasonably content, having regard to the purpose of the clause—which is to protect the public without imposing undue burdens upon the farmer—that this is as far as they can reasonably expect the clause to go. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Duke will accept that it would be unreasonable for us to go beyond the terms of this clause. I would remind him also, since it may not have been in his mind, that the Sexual Offences Bill was passed last week, but I do not see that we should extend this sort of activity, under the Countryside Bill, to bulls.

Having heard what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

moved, in subsection (2), after "who" to insert "deliberately". The noble Duke said: This is a probing Amendment to find out exactly where the line will be drawn, in regard to negligence, between people who are simply negligent and the bull gets into a field through which a public right of way passes, and people who are sufficiently unlucky that, through no fault of their own, a bull gets into such a field. I can visualise a case where someone leaves open a gate, or possibly where a tree blows down and falls over a fence, thereby enabling the bull to walk through into the next field. I should be happier if the word "deliberately" were inserted in subsection (2) of this clause, but I suspect that in legal terms it may be automatically accepted and that the noble Lord may tell me that it is unnecessary. I beg to move.

May I say a word in support of this Amendment? One often finds that one's neighbour's bull gets through on to one's land, which one does not want in the least, because of all the nuisance of getting it out again. It is possible that a fence is not quite strong enough, or that some condition prevails of which one is not aware; and it is most inconvenient and it would be unfortunate if one were suddenly fined £50, not because one had been negligent but because of a series of accidents or because of the negligence of one's neighbour.

I think I can satisfy both the noble Duke and the noble Baroness that what they are worried about is adequately covered by the Bill as it stands. The fact is that there are two aspects of a penal offence. First, it is necessary to catch the person who deliberately sets out to ignore the statutory requirement. Secondly, the question arises whether the person who has offended, not by intent but by gross negligence, should also be liable. In some cases it is true that he should not, and the usual formula is that a person is liable if he has for example, knowingly misrepresented certain facts. Here, however, I am sure that the public interest requires that little extra care to ensure that the bull is not negligently left in a field through which mother and children may have to walk in order to follow the right of way. If, however, the farmer has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the bull from entering on the right of way, I think there is no doubt that he would not be held to be liable if, by mischance, it broke loose.

The Scottish N.F.U. are, I understand, satisfied on this point, and accordingly it would be wrong, I think, to accede to this Amendment, which would let out not the person to whom the noble Duke and the noble Baroness have referred, but the person who had no interest in seeing that the clause was implemented in order to protect the public.

Could not this Amendment be made completely in keeping with what, I think, are the wishes of the Committee, if the words "deliberately or negligently" were inserted?

As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is aware, in drafting terms sometimes words which have one meaning to the layman have another meaning altogether to the lawyer simply by reason of the usage which the courts have applied. While I must admit that the addition of these words seems, at first glance, to be quite reasonable, the noble Lord will appreciate that I must consider their legal meaning. But I will certainly undertake to look at this for the next stage, and in the interval to write both to the noble Duke and to the noble Lord to let them know whether or not this can be accepted, and if it cannot be accepted to explain the professionals' reasons for not wishing to accept it.

Would the noble Lord also consider the point that where a tree falls across a fence the owner of the tree and of the fence could have been negligent in that he did not know that the tree had disease or something of the kind? It is not practicable to look at all the trees which are near fences to see whether they are liable to fall down. One knows that elms are always a great risk since they seem to shed limbs in no uncertain way. I should have thought that if such a thing did happen, if a bull got out of one field into another through which a path passed, the owner or occupier ought not to be liable for all this. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at the point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

This Amendment, No. 50, is on much the same lines as a previous Amendment which I moved a little earlier. It seemed to me to be unnecessary for a local planning authority to protect and keep open and free from obstruction a right of way if the right of way was not normally used. Local planning authorities should have much better things to do with their time and money, and if we can find some method which is agreeable to all concerned, including the Rights of Way Society, the owners and the local planning authorities, for doing away with such rights of way, it would be a good thing, and the money thus saved could be spent far more profitably on improving rights of way which are used. I beg to move.

In view of what I have said earlier about the right of way existing for 40 years, the noble Duke will not be very hopeful of my accepting this Amendment; and, if I am right in reading his thoughts, he will not be surprised at what I am now going to say. I should like to say, however, that we shall be watching to see how the new provisions of the Bill work, and so will the Countryside Commission. In the light of the experience we gain and the advice we receive from the Commission and other bodies, including bodies representing owners and occupiers of land, bodies representing users of rights of way and, not least, the local authorities who have the duty of maintaining them, we shall naturally keep the matter under review. But that is as far as I can possibly go. We are creating an entirely new concept, and it may be that in the light of experience the users of land will accept that the right of way, which was the only thing which they had in the past, does not now have the complete importance that it formerly had. As it would be wrong for me to accept at this stage any alteration of existing rights of way, it would be equally wrong to argue that we should ignore the experience which we are going to gain over the next few years in considering future policy in relation to them. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Duke will withdraw the Amendment, and perhaps come back to this matter in a debate in two or three years' time.

The difficulty is that at the moment it is almost impossible ever to close a right of way, because to prove that it has not been used for 40 years is something that few people would be prepared to undertake. I fully understand why the noble Lord cannot accept my Amendment; I must admit that I never thought he would be able to. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, hoping that some form of legislation will be brought in in the future whereby rights of way which patently have little or no use can be closed.

When subsection (2) of this clause was added to the Bill in another place my honourable friend the Minister of State undertook that the Government would look into the effect of its last four lines. The result of our consideration is the present Amendment. The words which we now propose to delete were taken from the similar provision relating to district councils in Section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894. We are inclined to agree that the clause as it stands goes too far in relieving the local authority of responsibility for the consequence of its acts—even if these are done in the exercise of a permissive power and not of a duty. They may have been all right in 1894, but if, in 1967, a local authority exercises the permissive power which the clause gives to maintain a public right of way, it is only fair that it should be possible for it to be held responsible for damages arising from the way in which it has done the maintenance. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "position in relation" and insert "proximity". The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment which I very much hope the noble Lord will be able to accept. Not only does it replace three words with one word, which is always a good thing, but it also makes it much clearer that local authorities will not be able to set up countryside parks miles away from their own particular town. It is an advantage to make this clear. From all that has been said in another place and on the Second Reading in this House, I am sure the intention is that local authorities should set up these parks in places where people in the area will be able to go in a reasonably short space of time; therefore, they will have to be fairly close to the town or city concerned. It would be better to include the word "proximity" rather than "position in relation", as it seems to me to be more precise and is certainly shorter. I beg to move.

I should like to support my noble friend on this matter. This is a point which has considerably worried the Inverness County Council, and I think this Amendment would solve their worries.

I am interested that the noble Duke should have brought forward his Amendment involving the use of this word, for when the Bill was being drafted this was a possibility which was considered. It was in fact discarded, and it was because I knew it was discarded that I became wary of accepting the wording which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, accepted previously. The word "proximity" has been legally interpreted to mean very near—indeed it is hardly wider than "contiguous or adjacent to". It is because of the very restrictive legal effect of the use of the word "proximity" that we abandoned it and sought instead the words "position in relation". We use this word in Clause 59 because there we were looking for a relatively restrictive word.

The noble Duke said—and it shows the difficulty of explaining what is meant—that a local authority should not be able to have a country park miles away from its own city or town. Of course, it depends what he means by "miles away". If he is thinking in terms of hundreds of miles, I agree with him. If, on the other hand, he is thinking of "miles away" meaning twenty or thirty miles I must disagree with him, because that possibility is contemplated. What we have in mind is that country parks should be convenient for the town dwellers, and within easy reach for the average family motorist to visit in an afternoon. These parks could not possibly be included if we used the word "proximity", but it would certainly rule out the possibility of country parks being so remote from the town that you had to spend a day getting there and another day getting home. The words in the Bill are therefore reasonably restrictive, but not so restrictive as "proximity" would impose upon us.

I know that the noble Lord and I are trying to achieve exactly the same object. If he does not like the word "proximity"—I did not know that it had this very narrow legal meaning—I should like to suggest the word "propinquity", which was my first choice, but I was told that "proximity" was a more legal term. I feel that "position in relation" is very imprecise, and it depends on your form of travel. If you had an aeroplane you could easily reach a country park somewhere near Nairn, which could be provided by Glasgow. You could travel in half-an-hour in your aeroplane from Abbotsinch to Dalcross, and there you would be. I suppose you could say that it was a "position in relation to", due to the fact that a country park near Nairn was very near Dalcross, and therefore people could get there very quickly. But it seems to me that this argument is entirely fallacious, and I should have thought that some word such as "propinquity" would be infinitely better than this vague phrase of "position in relation". Do I gather that the noble Lord wishes to say something more before I withdraw the Amendment?

Yes. I just wanted to make it quite clear that we had not visualised the possibility that local authorities would be providing many country parks for the particular convenience of those who could afford to buy an aeroplane.

Yes, but I am not sure that the phrase "position in relation" excludes this. This is what worries me. I did not visualise that the Government intended this. I should like the noble Lord to look at this point again, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

This is a purely drafting Amendment dealing with the joint advisory committees, and the question is whether, as the words stand, they will have to consult with some local planning authorities. If the noble Lord will simply say that these two words are not necessary, then I shall not press the Amendment. I beg to move.

The advice I am given is that they are quite unnecessary.

In that case, I should like to withdraw the Amendment.

Again, I am not certain whether these words are necessary. The point is simply that in this case a sort of marriage, possibly a plural one, is being contemplated between various local authorities for the purpose of providing country parks. As the words stand, they seem to mean that you reach an agreement, with a kind of marriage contract at the start, which cannot subsequently be altered. This seems to be wrong in terms of the words that are used, "having regard to the prospective use". That prospective use must change from time to time, and I should have thought that "from time to time" were the appropriate words to put in. I beg to move.

The noble Lord is quite correct in stating that there obviously must be a need for reviewing this from time to time, because of a possible change of circumstances. The advice which I am given, however, is that this was very much in the mind of the draftsman when the clause was drawn, and that there is no doubt at all that the clause as drafted permits such a review to take place from time to time. I hope that, with this very firm assurance, the noble Lord will not require me to insert words which the draftsman assures me would be redundant.

The noble Lord has said that there is no legal doubt at all, but I felt some doubt about this myself. But in view of the very firm assurance which he has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, in subsection (1), after "power" to insert "within their area". The noble Lord said: As on the Second Reading, I must declare an interest, being the owner of two caravan sites. One of these sites was started because on one night there were no less than five different parties camping on the verges of my private drive, and I felt it necessary to have somewhere to offer such people as an alternative camping site. At the same time, a site was set up by Inverness Burgh about five miles away. With the competition from a municipal site, my site ran at a loss for the first three years. However, as a number of our visitors have continued to return, and have also recommended our site to their friends, we have now established a large concern.

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said in regard to this Amendment.

I, too, should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said, particularly his remarks in relation to indiscriminate camping. As I understand the position at the moment, caravanning is completely under control. Caravans are in caravan camps, and if crofts are allowed to have two caravans they are under proper control, particularly in regard to sanitary conditions. In Argyll we have a great deal of experience of organised caravan camps, but there is nothing to prevent a whole lot of indiscriminate camping going on next door, without any sanitary facilities at all. I should very much like to support what the noble Lord said in that connection.

I should also like to support my noble friends in this matter. This is becoming a very serious problem.

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for the very fair way in which he spoke to this Amendment, and for the way in which he drew attention to the interests of the District Councils' Association. All noble Lords may not be aware that the Bill as originally presented had these words in it, and that it was because of the representations of the District Councils' Association that they were deleted. The district councils argued that the words were unduly restrictive and that they were by a deliberate decision left out of the corresponding clause in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 in so far as it applied to Scotland. There are Scottish local authorities which do operate caravan sites outside their areas; some indeed did so before the 1960 Act. Some of them may well want to operate camping sites, possibly in association with their caravan sites, and we do not see why they should not be allowed to do so. If a local authority decides to exercise these powers outside its area, it will of course have to get planning permission in the same way as any ordinary person would. So there is no question of a local authority having another authority opening a camping site inside its area without its concurrence.

I think I might go on to say something about the camping position. I think it would be improper for me to suggest that the Government should invite the police to enforce the law. We work on the basis that the police in fact enforce the law, and I have had definite evidence of the fact that they do. I may get myself into trouble by revealing this, but one of the reasons why my advisers are so confident that the present law is enforced is because one of them, when a very much younger man than he is now, was in fact fined for infringing the 1865 Act. However, I should like to say that we have discussed the system of licensing of camping sites with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who have had preliminary discussions with their local authority associations about it, and we in the Scottish Office are agreed with them that this is a problem which should be tackled in due course by legislation for Great Britain as a whole. The Caravan Act licensing system itself is in fact just emerging from its initial settling down period, and there has been no demand—no strong demand, at any rate—from Scottish local authorities for camping site licensing powers. The evidence we have suggests that they are able to keep sites under reasonable control by using their Public Health Act powers.

However, as I have said, the matter is under consideration, and if it should be felt that it is desirable to extend to camping sites the sort of licensing system as exists for caravan sites, then in due course this will come forward as legislation which will apply in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will find some way in which, at some meeting of the Inverness County Council, he can give publicity to the way in which the Trespass Act should be enforced; and publicity up there, where it is a matter of strong local interest, may be very much more useful publicity than anything we say in this Committee. Here, perhaps large sections of the Press do not consider that it is worthy of the headlines, whereas up there it might get a headline in a local newspaper.

Perhaps this is not within the Bill, but I am afraid that the police are not enforcing the law. Only last night I went to a tent and asked the people to move, and I was told that the police had already been there in regard to a road traffic accident and had told them that it was perfectly all right for them to stay there. It was in one of my woods near a road, and I strongly objected to this. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the Commission will be able to help in the establishment of caravan parks? Because the necessary capital required to start a caravan site is too much for a good many small people, particularly now, if there is a risk of their being taken over by the local authority. I am quite sure that many people will not like risking their money.

The noble Lord will remember that there is provision for the Commission to help private individuals to do certain things, but under fairly tight control.

I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words from "area" to the end of the subsection. The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment to delete the provision whereby local authorities are able to take over land which is already in use as a camping site if they consider it "in the interests of the general public" to do so. I think this is an outrageous provision: that, after people have spent money and provided facilities in establishing a camping site, the local authority should then be able to come along and say, "We think it will be in the interests of the general public that we should take over your site because we charge them 6d. less a night", or something like that. I do not think a local authority should have this power.

I should like to assure the noble Duke that this is not a case of "backdoor" land nationalisation. It is, in fact, precedented in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960—and, so far as I know, that was not introduced by a Socialist Government. These words are there for the protection of the public. I am glad to say that the equivalent powers in the Caravan Sites Act have been used only once in Scotland. This will not be a surprise to the noble Duke's neighbour, because they were used by the Inverness County Council in respect of a site at Fort William. The Secretary of State would consent to their use only if other ways of bringing the site up to an acceptable standard had been tried and failed.

I can assure the noble Duke that every possible means would be used to protect the interests of the public while retaining the camp in its existing ownership; and I am quite certain that the Inverness County Council (which, so far as I know, is no more Socialist than the Government in 1960) felt that it had to operate its powers only because every other possible means of safeguarding the public had failed. That is the intention in repeating the clause in this Bill, and the Secretary of State, before he would consent to such a takeover, would require the most firm assurances from the local authority concerned that it had taken every possible step to achieve its object without acquiring ownership.

I think the reason why the Inverness Council acquired the site was because it could not find anyone prepared to risk the capital. It may be that this will be put right by the Countryside Commission.

I should also like to point out that camping sites are not quite on a par with caravan sites, and that, on the whole, camping sites are considerably cheaper to set up. Therefore, there is probably less reason, when they need expansion, for the local authority having this power, which is what I gather happened in the Inverness case. I would also try to cast the noble Lord's mind back to the Caravan Sites Act. On that occasion, so far as I can remember, many noble Lords on this side of the House objected to the provision in that Bill, but owing to the fact that on that particular day the Whips were on we failed to carry it. I think it was my noble friend Lord Haddington who moved the Amendment to delete this particular provision in what is now the Caravan Sites Act. Unfortunately, the English noble Lords who sit on this side of the House were not so worried about "backdoor" nationalisation, and they all voted with the then Government—plus, of course, the noble Lord's supporters opposite. I think it an outrageous piece of legislation that these words should be in the clause. I realise that now is probably not the best moment to divide the Committee, particularly as it may interfere with everyone's lunch. So I beg leave—

I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me. He seemed to imply that the Secretary of State would have to give permission before such sites could be taken over by a local authority. Is that so or not? I cannot find any reference to it in this part of the Bill.

I can assure the noble Lord that the consent of the Secretary of State is necessary before this can be done.

I hope that the noble Lord will look at this again, if only to write in some provision that it can be done only when the camping site is a health hazard or something of that sort. With those words, and with the warning that I shall return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

When I first saw this clause I was hopeful that it would at least allow a breath of competition into the State management areas so far as the sale of alcoholic liquor was concerned. I do not think I need go into the iniquities of the State management area at the moment, because those who were here when my noble friend, Lord Cromartie, introduced his Bill about eighteen months ago will remember the feeling there was that the State management areas should be done away with, at any rate so far as off-licences were concerned, and that some competition should be allowed in such places. I have put down this Amendment to make it quite clear that the Secretary of State shall not be able to stop a local authority from putting refreshment houses in these areas if they consider there is a need for them. I can assure the noble Lord that, particularly in the Annan area, there is a great need for many more such places. I beg to move.

I want to draw attention to the fact that this clause infringes the principle laid down by the Guest Committee, that giving the local authorities permission to apply for a licence for the sale of liquor is putting the local authority virtually in a position of judge of its own cause. That was something the Committee thought most unlikely ever to happen in Scotland. However, it is such a small infringement that I would not for a moment press it, because I think this exception might well be allowed. I support the noble Duke's Amendment that the areas which were excluded from liberty under the Defence of the Realm Act 1915 should be treated in the same way. It is another slight infringement that would make for greater liberty of the subject.

The Amendment proposed by the noble Duke is technically unsound. The Defence of the Realm Act 1915 was repealed by the Licensing Act 1921, which was, in turn, repealed by the Licensing Act 1949. But what all these Acts had in common was that they continued these special districts. So even if I wanted to accept the Amendment I could not do so, because the Amendment, as it stands, because of these repeals, has no meaning. However, the noble Duke knows that I do not share his views in relation to State management districts. If there is to be an alteration in the law in relation to State management districts it must be because Parliament has discussed the matter and has decided that there is a need for a change, and not just as a result of a by-blow in the middle of lunch-time in your Lordships' House.

As the Amendment is defective—and I was afraid that it might be—and for that reason only, I beg leave to withdraw it.

As time goes by more and more noise is inflicted upon us. If we are going to list some of the things which are to be put into by-laws for access orders, I should have thought we might also list the making of unnecessary noise which I feel to be on a par with the depositing of rubbish and the leaving of litter. I also think that the making of unnecessary poise disturbs not only other people who wish to take advantage of the land to which these orders apply but also the bird and animal life already on the land. I should have thought that if we are to make such a list then the making of unnecessary noise should be high on it. I beg to move.

I should like to support this Amendment, particularly with reference to motorcycles and also to speedboats of which, presumably, we shall have a great number in Scotland as a result of this Bill.

My only reason for opposing the noble Duke's Amendment is that the by-laws that would be made could cover the question without the Amendment. I am sure that if the noble Duke looks at subsection (1) he will agree that it is drawn widely enough to cover the point. The wording allows a local planning authority to make by-laws

"… for securing that persons resorting thereto will so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the land, park or waterway by other persons".

This surely covers the making of unreasonable or unnecessary noise and puts it in context; because it is only when noise becomes offensive to other people that it constitutes a nuisance. The lone tenor on the hilltop (just as the same tenor in the bath in the house on his own) is a nuisance only to himself. I think we have made adequate provision for by-laws covering this point.

Before the noble Lord speaks further to his Amendment I should like to ask my noble friend why, if this matter is covered by subsection (1), it is necessary to list also the other matters such as depositing rubbish, leaving litter and the lighting of fires. All of them, it seems to me would constitute an "undue interference with the enjoyment of the land", and so on. I cannot see why the Government are averse to adding the words proposed by the noble Duke. It is not just a case of the lone tenor on the hilltop, romantic picture though that may be: it is a question of transistor sets, the numbers of which are increasing yearly. Transistor sets have been banned in most of the Royal Parks in the London area—and very rightly so. This is the kind of thing about which I think it necessary for us to legislate. That is why I consider that the noble Duke's Amendment has much to commend it.

I fully realise that the making of unnecessary noise is covered by subsection (1) but, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, so are all the other things listed in subsection (2). I feel that to legislate against the making of unnecessary noise is extremely important. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that although the lone tenor on the mountain top may worry no other human being, there is no reason to suppose that the golden plovers should like the noise he is making. It may easily disturb their well-earned rest on the top of the mountain—or that of the snow buntings. I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, objects to putting in this sentence, as we have all the other things in anyway, and the subsection starts with the words:

"Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection …"

I feel it is important that the making of necessary noise ought to be mentioned if we are to mention any of these things at all.

I am all in favour of including the making of unnecessary noise, either in the Highlands or here; but the advice which I have been given is that we ought not to accept this Amendment. I am, however, far from persuaded that the advice which I have been given is necessarily the last word. But in order that I do not make unnecessary difficulties for myself I will ask the noble Duke to withdraw his Amendment now, on the understanding that if between now and the next stage I do not provide him with a more satisfactory reason for not pursuing the matter, he will come back with it. I think that we shall also have to arrange to have a little more time on the next occasion to ensure that all the things which the noble Duke is threatening to bring back, and which I may be encouraging him to bring back, may be adequately discussed.

After those kind words, of course I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on this occasion.

moved, in subsection (1), after "authority" where that word occurs a first time, to insert "or an Electricity Board". The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I wish to associate Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63, 70 and 74. They are all related to the same subject, which is concerned with the provision of recreational facilities by our two Electricity Boards. The Boards own large tracts of land and water. Both they and the Government feel that it is right that they should have clear powers to make the most of the recreational potential of their property. As those of your Lordships who have followed the proceedings of the Countryside in 1970 will know, it is fully in accord with the recommendation of the 1965 Conference that statutory authorities should identify recreational opportunities arising from their operations and be enabled to provide facilities for the enjoyment of such opportunities.

I understand that Amendments 60 to 63 are consequential Amendments. Does the noble Lord wish to move them en bloc?

With the permission of the Committee, I should like to do so.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which he has given them Private Notice; namely, whether they will make a Statement regarding the outcome of the meeting of the Minister of Technology yesterday with the French and German Ministers on the subject of the European airbus project.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beswick will be answering this question by a Statement at about 3.30 p.m. Perhaps I may also inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on race relations, and my noble Leader Lord Longford will also be making a Statement on university accountability.

I should explain that for the convenience of the Committee it has been agreed between both sides that those Amendments which can be accepted will be formally moved. Those Amendments which cannot be agreed will not be moved and will be re-submitted at the next stage. I beg to move this Amendment.

I beg to move.

I beg to move.

I beg to move the next three Amendments.

I beg to move.

I beg to move Amendment No. 72, to leave out the proviso.

I beg to move Amendment No. 74.

I beg to move Amendment No. 75.

moved, in subsection (1), after the first "practitioner", to insert:

"whose name is included in a list which shall be drawn up for the purpose of this Act by the Minister of Health".

I should like to make a suggestion to the noble Lord in the Chair. As the noble Lady has said, there are a number of Amendments, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and perhaps 13 and 14, which raise very much the same matters of principle, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if a general debate took place upon all those Amendments at the same time. This would not prevent the sponsor of each Amendment from having it put to the Committee.

I hope that this course will not be taken on some of the Amendments, because some of them seem to me to cover a different field from that of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I am quite prepared to discuss the Amendment down in my name at this stage, but I think there is one down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, which raises quite distinct and wider issues. I would therefore suggest that we try to keep our debates separate. As I say, I am perfectly content to discuss my Amendment, No. 2, at the same time as this one, if it is for the convenience of the Committee.

I should be content to discuss my Amendment, No. 3, also.

This is a matter for your Lordships. I would suggest that we adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. That would not prevent the noble Baroness from discussing her Amendment as well, if that is agreeable to her and the Committee.

That is Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No. 3, I am afraid, I saw only a few minutes ago. I should have added No. 3 to my list, because that obviously covers the same issue. I think that the object of these three Amendments is the same; that is, to see that there is the right medical advice and the opinions of the right medical people before this operation is performed, and so to ensure that it is performed by a person well-qualified to perform it, and, not least, to prevent the abuse which, as the noble Baroness has indicated, could easily take place under the Bill as it now stands. I do not want to expand upon that. We had references in the Second Reading debate to Harley Street practices, but I am sure that if the Bill remains in its present form, if those practices exist they will certainly become more widespread, because under the Bill it only requires two doctors in partnership to express the same opinion for the operation to become legal.

One thing one must realise. If this Bill is ever enacted, one is putting a tremendous trust on the medical profession. Although you may be able to establish that certain doctors have conducted a large number of operations and that certain doctors (oddly enough, the same two doctors) are always expressing the same opinion, that the operation should be performed, it will seldom, if ever, be possible to establish that the opinions formed in one case are not bona fide, because proof of a real mass of illegal operations will not be any evidence that the opinion formed in relation to one woman is not bona fide. Therefore one is putting a great deal of trust in the medical profession. When one finds members of the medical profession arguing before your Lordships that these provisions should be narrowed and restricted, then surely the case for the Amendment is overwhelming.

I listened to the noble Baroness with the greatest interest. I gather that she has been advised that her particular formula is the most appropriate. That may well be so. However, I was very disappointed by her conclusion—that she would not press her Amendment—and I will indicate why. I have drafted an Amendment in slightly different terms and covering, I hope, much the same ground. But there was an Amendment tabled in the Committee stage in the Commons, at, I gather, the instance of the Ministry of Health, which required the person to be one

"who is or has been a consultant holding an appointment under a Hospital Board involving the practice of gynaecology, or by a registered medical practitioner presently holding such an appointment."

That Amendment having been tabled, I gather that the Government then ran away from it, and that in another place they indicated the strongest possible objections to any lists being approved by the Minister of Health. If that is so, there will not be much chance of the noble Baroness's Amendment being accepted by the Government. If it is the best Amendment, as it may well be, I should be very sorry that that should be the consequence. I would hope that she would think again and press her Amendment, because if she is advised it is the best, then, although the Minister of Health may be very reluctant to accept the obligation, it is a gift which I think we should place on his table, whether he wants it or not—I repeat, if that is the best solution.

I should like, further, to say this. We have had long discussions on earlier Bills about this matter in this House, and I think we then agreed on a form of words which met the wishes of the House about this. That has all been discussed in the Commons, and the Bill has come back to us in its present unsatisfactory form on this aspect. I should like to suggest to the noble Baroness that she should think again and say, "I will press my Amendment to a Division; I will seek to put this into the Bill; and then the onus will be on the promoters of the Bill, and the Government, if they do not like this formula, to come along with a better one". If the noble Baroness is not prepared to press her Amendment to a Division on those grounds, I shall propose to press mine, because I think we shall be wasting our time in Committee to-day unless we make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that we want a restriction in some form on the present scope of these words.

I say straight away that I am not wedded to the words I have tabled. It may be that the answer of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is the better one. But what I ask the Committee to do is to put something in the Bill which will impose the obligation on the Government and the promoters to find a better formula, if they can, before we get to the later stages of the Bill.

I have very great sympathy with the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I see that there may be administrative difficulties, and there may well be delays if the right to give this advice is confined to a list approved for the time being. We all know the difficulties involved in keeping lists up to date, and being sure that the people on them are available. But I am quite sure that it is wrong—I agree with the noble Baroness entirely here—that two medical practitioners, without any restriction of any other sort, should have the right to give this advice; indeed, to make this decision. As the noble and learned Viscount has just said, they may well be two medical practitioners in partnership together; and, really, life being what it is, and doctors being very busy, the second opinion might be no more than one saying to the other at dinner, "As a matter of fact, I am going to recommend an abortion in this case. I expect that is all right by you"; and no further consideration may be given to the matter.

The Amendment which stands in my name has a rather more specific reference, in that I am asking that a psychiatrist—that is to say, a doctor specially qualified in psychological medicine—should give the second opinion, except in the emergency case, which we come to. I think, at a later stage of the Bill. The reason why I ask that is that one of the grounds on which a termination of pregnancy may be recommended is the probable injury to the mental health of the woman; and I should think it was extremely important that in that case a doctor who is specially qualified in assessing the effects of this operation, or of a continuation of pregnancy, upon the mental health of a woman ought to be a party to the decision; and it is for that reason I have tried to bring this particular qualification into the picture.

I agree very much with the noble and learned Viscount that it is desirable that we should make it perfectly plain one way or the other—and I do not much mind at this stage which way—that we are not satisfied about the two medical practitioners, who might, as I say, well be in partnership with one another.

I stake very much in favour of what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said with regard to this question. But it would, of course, be very restrictive. I am a little worried about one aspect: the possibility that there might be a relatively small hospital area, with one consultant available who might be a conscientious objector to administering this Bill at all. A situation like that might create some difficulties. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has in mind how we could overcome that. If he has, I am happy with the Amendment as it is.

I would not suggest that I have drafted the perfect Amendment for this purpose. I am sure there are many points that could be raised. But what I want to do is to get in the Bill something which will force the Government and the sponsors to make it perfect, and overcome the kind of point to which the noble Lord referred.