Schedule 2. — (General Restrictions to Be Observed by Persons Having Access by Virtue of Part Ii of This Act to Land Which is or Which Gives or Forms Part of Access to Open Country.)

Orders of the Day — Countryside (Scotland) Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 4 July 1967.

Alert me about debates like this

7.45 p.m.

Photo of Dr Dickson Mabon Dr Dickson Mabon , Greenock

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 63, line 20, to leave out', molests or disturbs' and to insert or molests'.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that with this Amendment we take No. 36, in page 63, line 32, to leave out paragraph (h), and Amendment No. 37, in line 42, to leave out paragraph (m)?

Photo of Dr Horace King Dr Horace King , Southampton, Itchen

If the House has no objection, so be it.

Photo of Dr Dickson Mabon Dr Dickson Mabon , Greenock

Several times during the proceedings in Committee the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) expressed concern at the possibility that a person, being otherwise lawfully on access land, might become a trespasser—and be treated as such for the purposes of occupier's liability in the event of a subsequent accident to him—merely because, as the hon. Gentleman said, he had picked a rhododendron flower. He might equally have used putting up a pheasant or a grouse as his example or declaiming to the sea, like our latter-day Demosthenes, which was the example given in Committee. I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments, and I thought that we ought to go most carefully into the whole Schedule to see whether we could get this balance right.

I must emphasise from the outset, however, that the basic proposition of Clause 11(1) is satisfactory in the Government's view. Difficulties of the kind to which I have just referred arise only when the provisions of the Schedule are brought into operation by someone contravening one of the restrictions contained therein. As soon as this happens, the effect of the Schedule is that the person who has failed to comply with the restriction loses the protection given to him by Clause 11(1) and becomes a trespasser.

Since the passing of the Occupier's Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960, the legal position is that the court is bound to take into account all the considerations of a particular case. These will include the fact that the person concerned was on the land in question under an access agreement or order; that people in general were enabled by agreement or order to come on to the land; that it would be in the occupier's contemplation that some of these people will be likely to infringe the restrictions set forth in the Schedule; and, also, that some precautions were necessary for the protection of such persons, even though the occupier would be entitled to treat them as trespassers.

So far as the provisions of the Schedule are concerned, the Amendment and the subsequent ones to delete paragraphs (h) and (m) go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's point. I am advised that the important aspects of paragraph (h) are sufficiently covered by other provisions of the Schedule, for example, if a person commits a crime he loses the protection of Clause 11(1). This will apply, for instance, to the person who digs up and removes a tree or a rhododendron bush, but will not catch the person who picks a flower, or primroses, or brambles. De minimis non curat lex. But paragraph (g) of the Schedule is sufficiently widely drafted to cover any significant damage.

With regard to paragraph (m)—we had a debate on this and I think that I told the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), that I did not like this paragraph—it has seemed to us, on reflection, that paragraph (1) is adequate to cover any misbehaviour or unruliness which might arise. Since we think that paragraph (m) sits oddly with the countryside code, we had better delete it. If any further protection is thought desirable, it will be open to the local authority concerned to provide this in byelaws made under Clause 54.

With that general explanation, I hope that the House will agree that we have tried hard to get the Schedule right. I am not saying that this is the last word. If there are further suggestions, we have another opportunity elsewhere of amending the Schedule, but I think that these are three useful Amendments which ought to be made.

Photo of Mr James Davidson Mr James Davidson , Aberdeenshire West

I am glad that the Minister has tabled these Amendments. I agree with them, but I am still a little unhappy about this question of the trespasser. The whole meaning of Clause 11(1) constantly impinges on the law of trespass as it exists in Scotland. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the law will in no way be altered by the terms of the Schedule, that there will still be no legal difference between the man who is a trespasser and the man who is not, except that one is there with permission, and one is there without, and that there will be no legal difference in the treatment of these persons as trespassers, or not as trespassers, unless they have done damage or infringed some other law?

8.0 p.m.

Photo of Mr Henry Brewis Mr Henry Brewis , Galloway

As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that I had raised some of the points, I rise merely to say that I am grateful to him for putting forward these Amendments. They certainly will help, I give him that. But I am still not entirely happy about the person who enters on to the land and commits some trivial breach of the provisions as a result of which he may be treated as a trespasser—especially where there is a question of a public liability insurance policy involved.

The Minister asked for suggestions. In connection with Wigtown County Council I had never appreciated that the Clause also applied to the sea—about 1,000 yards off-shore. Should not this aspect of the question be considered in another place, in view of the fact that bad things can be done at sea. For example, holidaymakers can disturb fishermen's salmon nets and set lobster creels in the wrong places.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 36, in page 63, line 32, leave out paragraph (h).

No. 37, in line 42, leave out paragraph (m).—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

7.51 p.m.

Photo of Dr Dickson Mabon Dr Dickson Mabon , Greenock

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and right hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite—of both colours—for the constructive way in which they have dealt with this Bill—a Bill which touches on the rights and interests of owners and occupiers of land at many points. It is a clear sign that in making better access to the countryside possible for the ever-increasing numbers of our young people who are seeking to enjoy themselves there, we have not neglected to keep in mind the legitimate interests of those who live there all the year round and earn their living in the countryside.

We had the great advantage of having before us the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, and the Report of Study Group 9 of the Countryside in 1970 Conference. These have been useful guidelines for our discussions, and we have done very well in getting this far with the Bill. The result is that we are a long step ahead of England in this matter, and I know that one or two hon. Members from South of the Border have been taking a keen interest in our proceedings in the hope that they could usefully be applied to their own discussions some time later in this Parliament.

I want to pay tribute to the degree of co-operation that the Government have received from outside bodies during the passage of the Bill. It has been exceptional. Sometimes it is considered a little invidious to mention names, but I feel that I ought to make specific reference in this matter to the County Councils' Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the Crofters' Commission and the National Trust.

As always, the pace of legislative progress makes it difficult to have all the legislative consultation that one would wish to have if time permitted. My officials and I have tried to see as many bodies as possible and if any of them thinks that it has not been consulted as fully as it would have wished I can only regret that the burden of my present duties is heavy and time has been short.

There has been an almost unanimous acceptance of the general principles of the Bill. I am naturally disappointed that the Scottish Rights of Way Society still feels that the Bill's provisions dealing with rights of way do not go as far as it would wish. However, we have dealt with this and I think that we are right in the positive approach that we are taking. I am sure that some of that Association's fears are not as broadly based as it thinks. We do not want it to be abolished, as it requested some time ago, and its work taken over by statutory authorities; we want it to continue as vigorously as ever and to work in close consultation with the Countryside Commission as one of its most faithful and loyal allies.

The Bill seeks to get things done. It is a constructive Bill. It is almost without precedent for a Bill of this impotance to go though the House as easily as it has. I want to pay tribute to the leading Members of the Opposition for the way in which they have helped the Government to get the Bill through. We are now handing it over to the Commission, if the other place agrees, and to the local planning authorities. With the financial help we are willing to provide they can translate our aspirations into facilities for our own people and for our visitors to enjoy the unrivalled charms of our Scottish countryside.

7.55 p.m.

Photo of Mr James Stodart Mr James Stodart , Edinburgh West

First of all, I thank the Minister for the kind things that he has said about my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and myself. My hon. Friend and I welcomed the Bill in the Second Reading debate and I enjoyed the Committee stage, if only because I was allowed, one morning, to recapture memories of certain primrose paths—if not necessarily the wild oats that I sowed elsewhere. I still think that it was a fair risk starting a 70-Clause Bill in the last half of April, but it shows what can be done in Committee when both sides are determined to improve a Bill.

I had to be away from the Committee during the final two sittings, but so attached had I become to the Bill that I can assure the Minister that I found myself with distinctly nostalgic thoughts on the Tuesday and Thursday when he was busy in the final stages.

The Bill is very much improved. It is still not quite perfect. The Secretary of State has moved a little in our direction by making certain changes in Schedule 1. Members of the Commission may now be paid as well as the chairman, which means that the door is no longer shut against having two or three full-time members. The door is not fast shut, but the Minister of State made it quite clear that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is dead set against paid members. Those were the words he used. The chairman is expected to devote more time to his duties than others members and this, when considered in conjunction with the idea that has been expounded, of a top-notch executive staff, raises fears among us that the Commission will find it difficult to get the right chairman for the great task that he will have to undertake, which demands some long-term thinking.

To do part-time work, people will tend to come off those lists which all those who have held office are well aware of, and which are looked at in connection with hospital boards, committees of management of agricultural colleges, and hosts of other occupations.

The door has been opened to possible changes in future. Even though the maximum of 14 has been retained the number required for a quorum has been reduced and I am optimistic enough to think that that is a straw in the wind. We welcome these changes. I express the sincere hope that the Commission will not be composed of people representing special interests. If that were to be the case any worthwhile conclusions and firm and resolute decisions would be very difficult to arrive at.

It is inevitable that there will be teething troubles before the Commission gets into full swing. For example, we have discussed in Committee how restrictions could be imposed on access if the risk of fire was severe. One can so easily imagine the disappointment of people who, perhaps weeks ahead, have set aside a weekend, to walk over a long-distance route, and then, having wonderful weather, are faced with part of the route closed because of an application in respect of fire risks. All of this is part of that conflict of interests which I have emphasised we must face. It is a conflict not necessarily between selfish people—although there are some—and a lot of extremely reasonable folk. It is one between people who are extremely reasonable, but who have merely different priorities when they think about the countryside.

I think that every acre of what is described as open country in the Bill will one day have to be used for growing either food or timber, such will be the pressure of the population explosion upon us and the rest of the world. If I am right, and I may be wrong, then recreation cannot have all things its own way. That is the point that I have attempted to make, both on Second Reading, in Committee and today.

I am a countryman, and there are many things for which I am profoundly grateful in my life so far—good health is perhaps the most important of them. Very high on the list is the fact that I was given the chance, not only of living but doing something worthwhile in what is, in my view, quite the loveliest country in the world. It is because I want as many people as possible to see more, to learn more and to enjoy more of our countryside that I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.4 p.m.

Photo of Mr James Davidson Mr James Davidson , Aberdeenshire West

The Scottish Liberal Party welcomes the Bill. We think that it has an admirable object, but has some flaws. I have taken a great interest in the passage of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister of State will not mind if I repeat certain points which have arisen during its various stages. I question whether there is any real need for a Countryside Commission. The powers already granted under the Agriculture Act to set up rural development boards could have been extended to include the powers given in Clause I of this Bill, enabling the rural development boards to carry out these functions.

It seems a case, possibly of creating one more commission, one more board, and one more committee, which seems to be the trend these days. I would have liked to have seen a little more direct responsibility to the electorate of the Countryside Commission, but I am certain that its components will be such that it will do its job properly. I would like to see less of the piecemeal approach to the whole business of land use. This might have been achieved if the powers given in the Countryside Commission had instead been given to rural development boards. In the case of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I agree with the point made earlier that the functions of the Countryside Commission could well have been given to this board.

I am a little worried about the definition, in Clause 11, of excepted land. This is an unsatisfactory definition, particularly to the agricultural community. It is still unsatisfactory, although I know that a great deal of thought has been given to this point. Livestock rearing land is land which can be used for crop growing, and technically speaking, under the Bill, even as amended, it would be possible to give an access order in respect of land growing crops. I realise that this probably will not happen in practice, but it could. Suppose that there is an area with a beach, to which the public would like access, and suppose that access is prevented by the owners of land between the beach and the road.

How is it envisaged the ordinary citizen will go about drawing to the attention of the Countryside Commission the need for the public to have access to this beach? Will he do it through his local councillor, for him to raise with the local planning authority, and then have it raised with the Countryside Commission, or is it envisaged that members of the public will be able to make direct contact with the Countryside Commission, to bring to its notice areas which they feel should be accessible?

Photo of Mr Bill Baker Mr Bill Baker , Banffshire

I, too, welcome and approve of the Bill, and the general principle. We are all agreed that it will make an enormous difference to the control of the Scottish countryside, for all people in Scotland and for people further afield, particularly tourists. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to the size and make-up of the Commission. I endorse his view, that the membership of the Commission should be made up of people who are non-specialists, in the sense that they are not representing a certain body. That could cause an awful lot of trouble and I sincerely hope that it will not be the case.

I hope that when the Commission is set up its offices and headquarters will not necessarily be in Edinburgh. We are becoming somewhat hidebound by the magnetic effect of Edinburgh and Glasgow. I would even offer facilities in my own constituency for the housing of the Countryside Commission. In all sincerity I ask that the siting of the Commission should not be in Edinburgh or Glasgow.

One of the major tasks of the Commission, particularly in its early days, and the Minister of State acknowledged this, will be the education of the public. The last thing that we want is damage and desecration, albeit unwittingly, by those who are not, if I may use the term, educated in the enjoyment of the countryside.

During Committee the Minister of State said that he thought, without a doubt, that there would be an educational officer appointed by the Commission. I hope that this will be so, and that the various means and methods of communication will be used to educate those who are to enjoy the countryside. As has been said, most of the damage caused in the countryside is not due to vandalism, but to sheer ignorance. One thing that the Minister of State learned during the Committee and on Report, was that the female is more deadly than the male.

I speak in respect of cattle. There is one major defect in the Bill, in that bulls have been emphasised time and again, when we have not had enough emphasis put within the Bill on the danger to the public of the female of the species—namely, cows. I hope that we can get over it.

If there is anything which would cause difficulty in obtaining access orders, in my humble opinion it will be Clause 44, and I hope that when the Bill gets to another place some other way can be found round this difficulty. If difficulties are put in the way then access agreements will be difficult to reach. We do not want access orders, it will be far better to get agreements. I hope that the Bill achieves its objective when it becomes an Act, as I am sure it will, and that it will make more of Scotland for tourists and the people of Scotland.

8.10 p.m.

Photo of Mr Henry Brewis Mr Henry Brewis , Galloway

May I say a few words in farewell to the Bill, which occupied about 10 sittings in Standing Committee. It will encourage many people to go out of the urban areas to visit the coasts, hills, moors and mountains of Scotland and therefore it is very much to be welcomed.

At the same time, it is important that the rights of people who live in remote areas should be taken into consideration. To a certain extent they will benefit from increased tourism, which is important for rural areas, but, unfortunately, the people who will benefit are not always those whose land is likely to be crossed by those coming out from the towns.

There is anxiety particularly among hill farmers and foresters about the Bill. They are naturally anxious, for example, about the live match which is dropped and which starts a forest fire or the dog which is allowed to go marauding over the hills. I am glad to see the countryside code which has been incorporated in Schedule 2. This will do much to allay that anxiety. The Minister of State's idea about a public liability policy with the premium to a certain extent being defrayed by the Commission is very good.

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) that information about what he can do and should not do, and what he can do at certain times of the year, is very important for the person who goes walking on the hills. That has an important educational effect. I am afraid that I am still somewhat worried about his position if he is damaged physically by the carelessness or even the selfishness of people who own or occupy land. I am still not entirely happy that a comparatively innocent walker may receive no compensation for some physical damage which he suffers.

I am delighted by Clause 58, which gives the Forestry Commision power to help to create amenities in its forests. People do not fully realise what a wonderful picture the forests will be in Scotland over the next few years. In the past, the Forestry Commision has lacked that power. It will be a useful power, and I hope that the Commision gets plenty of money for this sort of job. I welcome the Bill. It was a Measure which we intended to introduce had we won the last election, and the Minister of State is very lucky to have been able to introduce it.

8.12 p.m.

Photo of Mr Eustace Willis Mr Eustace Willis , Edinburgh East

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) say that this is a Bill which the Conservative Party would have intro- duced if it had won the last General Election. They did not put it in their election address until the last election, by which time it had become part of Labour Party policy because we had already announced it.

Photo of Mr Henry Brewis Mr Henry Brewis , Galloway

I am glad that at last one of the Labour Party's promises has been fulfilled.

Photo of Mr Eustace Willis Mr Eustace Willis , Edinburgh East

Not the only one. I should be out of order if I gave a list of promises which the Government has fulfilled. The Conservative Party took this idea from the Labour Party and put it into that glorious hotchpotch which it produced at the last election of things which they would do. Very generously, we do not mind that. We accept it as a pat on the back for us that they should seek their ideas from us.

I felt it right that an hon. Member on this side of the House should express appreciation of the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. Undoubtedly, we have a heritage in Scotland which is unique and worth preserving. But time is short. People living in the towns go out into these rural areas every weekend—such areas as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) along the Lothians and the Berwickshire coast, or areas along the Ayrshire coast or on Loch Lomondside or Lochearnhead. They go to these areas in ever-increasing numbers.

I make the point not only to demonstrate the urgency of the Measure, but also to point out to those who, on behalf of landowners, farmers and others, have expressed fears about the Bill that they ought to welcome the Bill, because many of the things which they fear would happen in any case without it. They would happen because of the large number of people now seeking the countryside throughout the summer from Easter to October. When large numbers of people are seeking the countryside and there are no regulations and no places to picnic or to park, and no recognised footpaths, they do far more damage than when these provisions have been made for them. The Bill ought, therefore, to lessen rather than to increase those fears. I look upon the Bill as a safeguard.

I support the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) in his suggestion that this body should be sited outside Edinburgh. When we set up a new body we ought to consider taking it away from Edinburgh. When we are setting up a new organisation for the United Kingdom we ought not to set it up in London. Once a body has been established, the number of arguments which are heard for not moving it away are staggering. It is much more difficult to shift it once it has been established than to site it elsewhere before it is set up.

Much of the office employment in Edinburgh must be cleared out of Edinburgh. I say this for many reasons, but particularly because we have sufficient in Edinburgh and we want employment in other parts of Scotland. Let us get rid of some of the office employment from Edinburgh and move people who work in the professions into an area around the central Highlands, for example Perthshire.

Photo of Mr Eustace Willis Mr Eustace Willis , Edinburgh East

I think that Banff is too far North.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he has conducted the Bill through the House. I was rather harsh to him earlier today, but he knows that I congratulate him on getting the Bill through so quickly and in such a harmonious manner, and with the general support and agreement of hon. Members opposite. I wish the Bill every success.

8.18 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith:

I rise refreshed by the somewhat conservative attitude of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his advocacy of preserving our heritage.

Photo of Mr Eustace Willis Mr Eustace Willis , Edinburgh East

My view is that we should preserve it in public and not in private hands.

Earl of Dalkeith:

I welcome the Bill because it manages to achieve simultaneously two things which many people 50 years ago would have said could not be achieved together. It will satisfy the demands of a mainly urban population to enjoy the countryside, at the same time recognising that the land is an active business and industry which must not be frustrated in the execution of its business. If, through sensible administration, the Measure succeeds in achieving those two objectives it will be valuable.

One thing that emerged very clearly from our Committee discussions was the very co-operative attitude of all those concerned with the land, whether tenants, owner-occupiers or landowners. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the landowners' fears, but I have not met any landowners who have had any such fears. Those owning land want the Bill, because it is quite clear that with the population expanding by another 20 million during the next 30 years, with more leisure time, and more congested roads to the sea, the demand to get into the countryside will increase year by year.

If provision is made for those people to go to places where they can enjoy themselves, with car parks and such necessary facilities as wash places, they will be able to enjoy the countryside without frustrating the business of the land. If the Bill facilitates that state of things it will perform a very valuable purpose.

A point about the welcoming reaction of landowners and others was the suspicion that it seemed to create in the minds of some hon. Members opposite, who immediately assumed that a trick must be involved. I hope that those Ministers who had discussions with the landowners will be able to dispel all the old fears of landowners as bogy men, black-hearted villains and the like, and that it is clear to them now that the landowners are perfectly decent people who are running a business.

Because their business concerns the land, they are not, for that reason, any worse than the man running, say, a bookshop, in Edinburgh, or any other type of business. The land is a perfectly legitimate business. I hope that we may see a red-letter day for this Measure in the form of the burying of the favourite Aunt Sally of the Labour Party—the landowner. I hope, too, that landowners will not only back the Bill with words, but will later help the Government in its implementation.

8.22 p.m.

Photo of Mr William Ross Mr William Ross , Kilmarnock

I should almost apologise for coming in at this late stage of the Bill, but I could not hold myself back having heard the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). Speaking as the biggest landowner in Scotland—and, as Secretary of State, I am the biggest landowner in Scotland—I can assure him that the Secretary of State has never been a black-hearted villain. However, even in the best of flocks there are occasional black sheep, and that is true of Scotland, as elsewhere. We noted the hon. Member's defence of the interests of the landlords, but there is no doubt that the Bill provides them with protection which they are very glad to see.

On the whole, everyone has dealt with the Bill in relation to the importance it merits as having a comprehensive remit for what Scotland really is—the land of Scotland. We must face the fact that over the centuries fewer and fewer people in Scotland have had direct contact with the land. This movement is still going on, yet there is still the desire, the need, for people to get into the countryside and to enjoy the countryside. We must channel this desire properly by way of access agreements and, where necessary, access orders for the people's benefit, and also to ensure the preservation of the Scottish countryside and landscape.

When the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) spoke of access to the beach, I thought for a moment that he would cite an instance of this very problem that I came across in my travels last year in the inner Hebrides. This is a problem. What are people to do? They will probably contact their local district councillors or, in scattered areas, their local county councillors or even their town councillors, but I do not doubt that, either directly or through their Member of Parliament, they will write to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who solves all their problems, be they connected with beaches or with education, as we had this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee or anything else.

The point is that we now have this Commission to take up these matters. That is the important thing. I did not like the reference just now to "just another committee". It is not just a committee. It is a Commission that has been given certain functions, duties and powers.

Who will be on the Commission? As hon. Members know, the Bill provides for this, and in the consultations I will have I should be able to find out just exactly who are the right people for membership. I, too, have experience of the same names coming up for every job—the "stage army" I call them. We will try to look beyond them to those who have a feeling for the countryside and appreciate the importance of the work involved.

Where will the Commission's headquarters be? I want to deny a rumour that is going about that it will either be in Greenock or Kilmarnock. We have had a suggestion that the headquarters should be sited in Banff—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has made up his mind whether it should be in Banff or Macduff, but he had better sort it out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) got as far north as Perth. The location is at present being studied in advance of the Commission's establishment, and the eventual decision will be taken bearing in mind regional development and the Commission's function. However, I have noted the feelings expressed on this aspect.

It has been suggested that I should look again at Clause 44 but, as hon. Members know, Clause 44 is already a compromise and we want to be very careful about any changes that might be made there. The point was well taken. The hon. Member for Banff spoke about there being ignorance rather than deliberate vandalism. This is true, but if we provide the facilities and are able to ensure that publicity is given to those facilities there will be less ignorance and less vandalism.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East played his part in the early stages of this Bill. I know how much work he did on it and how close it was to his wishes. In Scotland we have a very proud heritage of countryside which is unrivalled in the world. It many cases it is close to our biggest cities. Within half an hour of Glasgow one is on Loch Lomondside, and in the Highlands of Scotland. This is worth preserving and it is worth ensuring that the fullest use is made of it. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is timely and we have a proper balance of interests.

I express my personal thanks to the Minister of State for the way in which he has handled the Bill and also for the co-operation we have received not only from hon. Members on both sides of the House but from interests outside the House. I include the National Trust and the Landowners' Federation whose interest is sincere. I hope that this Bill will get proper treatment when it goes to another place, and I thank the House for the way in which it has been received here.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.