Lords Sitting of 19 May 1999

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the Business begins I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Rome where I will have meetings with members of the Italian Government and judiciary and will deliver a lecture at the Academia de Lyncei on Monday, 24th May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Iraq: UN Reports on Disarmament Obligations
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet received the report of the panel set up by the United Nations to consider Iraq's programme for developing weapons of mass destruction; and, if so, what are the report's conclusions; and what is their response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I have arranged for copies of the reports by the three UN panels set up in January this year to be placed in the Library of the House. The disarmament report explicitly recognises that Iraq has not met its disarmament obligations and that important questions remain to be answered. This is a vindication of UNSCOM's position and of our own.
We believe that the Security Council should now move quickly to translate into action the work of all three UN panels. We and the Netherlands have circulated a draft resolution on which negotiations continue.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that in the absence of any inspection on the ground for a good many months now it is quite possible that President Saddam Hussein is turning his attention to rebuilding his stocks of weapons of mass destruction? If that happened, that would be a serious matter. Is the noble Baroness aware that I believe she will have the support of Parliament for every effort that the Government make to ensure that this important situation is not overlooked and to ensure that the Security Council proceeds as fast as possible to a satisfactory decision?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course it is important that there is monitoring on the
292
ground, but that is not to say that alternative means of monitoring do not exist. I am sure that the House would not expect me to go into detail on those points but I assure the noble Lord that we are keeping an eye on what is happening. He is quite right that Iraq could regenerate chemical weapons within months and biological weapons within weeks. It could build more Scud missiles from scratch within a year and could begin to develop nuclear missiles. It is for that reason that the UN panel has stressed the importance of ensuring that there is a body that has the rights to monitor on the ground, a body which would have all UNSCOM's powers, its rights and responsibilities, but would also offer a fresh start and an opportunity for the remaining disarmament questions to be cleared up quickly.
I thank the noble Lord for his assurance that the Government will have the support of the House in pursuing this objective and we hope very much to gain maximum support from our colleagues in the United Nations in endeavouring to get agreement on the draft resolution that we and the Netherlands have put forward.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, since hostile military intrusion into the airspace of any country is not likely to make it more amenable to international inspection of its military programmes, can the noble Baroness remind the House—because all this has dropped out of sight in the press—how frequent have been the Anglo-American air patrols over northern and southern Iraq and how frequently they have bombed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the no-fly zones were established in April 1991 in the north of Iraq and in August 1992 in the south of Iraq. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the coalition initiative was in support of the UNSCR 688 to end the brutal Iraqi repression of the Kurds and the Shias. They are justified under international law in response to a situation of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. UK and US aircraft have continued to enforce the no-fly zones as usual. When specifically threatened allied aircraft have responded as in the past in self-defence in a proportionate manner. If it were not for the threats to our aircraft, they would not have to retaliate in that way. We are, of course, concerned about any casualties that may result therefrom, but I stress to the noble Lord that our primary concern must be the safety of our air crews in carrying out their essential task which was sanctioned under international law.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, have the Government a settled view of the report of the humanitarian panel which suggested that sanctions might be eased and private investment allowed in Baghdad for oil exports?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the humanitarian panel notes that around 275 million dollars worth of medicines and medical supplies are still languishing in warehouses and awaiting distribution by the Iraqi Government. It recommends that the Government of Iraq do their utmost to ensure the timely

293
distribution of humanitarian goods, in particular medical supplies, and clear the existing unjustifiable bottlenecks in warehouses at the moment.
Our resolution reflects our commitment to help the Iraqi people as much as possible and picks up most of the recommendations from the humanitarian panel. If implemented, it will bring an additional 470 million dollars into the oil for food programmes over a six-month period. I hope that that information gives the noble Lord not only an assurance about what the panel said but about the Government's reaction in our draft UNSCR.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what progress has been made in setting up the new UN Commission on Investigation, Inspection and Monitoring, as recommended by the report of the UN panel, in order to continue UNSCOM's efforts to answer outstanding disarmament questions through a reinforced monitoring and verification system?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the report specifically endorses the intrusive inspection regimes provided for in earlier resolutions; it advocates a reinforced monitoring regime integrating the disarmament and monitoring functions; and it recognises that this will in some ways be more not less intrusive than the previous regime. It also provides a larger and better resourced organisation, reflecting the fact that Iraqi intransigence has made it necessary to introduce a more intrusive regime. The reports are under discussion at the moment. Not only have the United Kingdom and the Netherlands put forward a draft UNSCR but at least one other draft is being discussed at the moment. We very much hope that, through the discussions I have outlined to your Lordships, agreement can be reached on the setting up of the new body and the way in which it will operate.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, as the only way the regime can be brought down is from within, how much information is being beamed down so that the inhabitants of Iraq know what is going on and know, for example, about the medical supplies in the warehouses?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly implies, getting information into Iraq is not an easy matter; it is an extremely repressive regime. We do all that we can to ensure that straight news reporting gets into Iraq as part of our efforts to ensure that there is a voice of opposition there. We have regular meetings at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with representatives of the Iraqi opposition. The most recent meeting was on 2nd February with my late right honourable friend Mr. Derek Fatchett. The meetings have focused on key areas where we are looking to work with the opposition, including ways of articulating to the Iraqi people that there is an alternative if they choose one.

Scientific Advisory Committees: Membership
2.44 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the background of members appointed to expert scientific advisory committees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, all appointments made by Ministers are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. More specifically, the Chief Scientific Adviser's Guidelines on the Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making require scientific advisory committees to include a wide range of scientific opinion of the highest calibre; the Nolan guidance makes clear the conduct of integrity and openness expected of committee members; and where scientific advisory committees are defined as advisory non-departmental public bodies, the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance applies.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that from previous questions I have established that there is a preponderance of links with industry among these key committees, in some cases amounting to more than 80 per cent of their membership? Will he ensure that his ministerial colleagues—notably in MAFF, health and the environment—are alive to the need to recruit from a wider culture of scientists and lay people?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I have made clear that the main consideration is to select people solely on the basis of merit and to include on these committees all the scientific disciplines needed to take decisions. We certainly try to achieve a balance of both people with commercial interests and those who have no interests to declare. The main principle is selection on merit. I was glad to see that the recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the scientific advisory system took the view that the integrity of scientists is not automatically compromised by an association with industry and that the barring of such scientists would deprive the Government of some of the best scientific advice available.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the House of Commons Select Committee report. Does he agree with another of its conclusions, namely, that serious thought needs to be given by the Government to establishing clear guidelines on disclosure of interests for members of advisory committees, backed by active policies of annual disclosure, clear and transparent policies for review of disclosures and clear criteria for decisions on whether interests are material? Will the Minister commit to that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, yes, all of those points are considered. If there are details which need to be clarified, then we should clarify them. Most

295
of the bodies have very clear registers of interests which cover most of the points. To the extent that they do not, I shall look into the matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble aware that the veterinary products committee recently set up a working party to look into recombinant bovine somatotrophin? Two members of the committee have interests in Monsanto which manufactures that product. Bearing in mind the recent fiasco with the first Pinochet judgment in your Lordships' House, does the Minister regard those two particular members of the panel as independent?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the general principles are very clear. In circumstances where a matter is being considered which has a direct financial implication for a company, then, in accordance with the Nolan principles, such persons are required to stand aside on that particular issue. I am sure that that will happen in this case.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that some of the best scientific brains are employed by industry and that enormous investment is made by industry in scientific research? Does he therefore agree that the fact that people are involved with industry should not automatically debar them? I have first-hand experience of taking market research right through what are termed near markets and applied research. That can only be of benefit as regards membership of these panels.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I reiterate the point that the main consideration is to select people for these committees on the basis that they have the best scientific expertise to consider the questions that arise. We certainly do not exclude people on the basis that they have contacts in industry. The noble Baroness is right to point out that some of the best brains in these areas inevitably have contact with industry, whether through consulting, making speeches or other concerns. In the extremely wise words of my noble friend Lord Peston in a previous debate, if every time any leading scientist or engineer is appointed to an advisory committee scurrilous remarks about his or her integrity are made, in the end only second-rate people will be willing to work, and that would not serve this country well.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the difficulty of getting research done, particularly in alternative health fields, has an effect on the standing of the people who might subsequently be appropriate for appointment to such panels? There is, as it were, a bottleneck. Does the Minister further agree that, as soon as research is done into some of the alternative health issues, people who have the necessary status will emerge?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is always a difficulty with areas that are not considered to fall within the basis of current scientific criteria. In those
296
circumstances difficulties arise. The most important consideration is simply that there is transparency, and that scientific advice of this nature is brought into the public arena so that there is effectively peer review and people can say whether or not proper scientific criteria have been applied.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the Government's adherence to the age-old democratic parliamentary position that experts should be on tap, never on top?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are advisory committees; they are asked to advise on specific technical questions. In many cases, Ministers will accept the findings because they relate to a technical question. However, the ultimate decision is always the ministerial one.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister accept the need for wide public support and understanding of the work of these committees? With that in mind, are scientists with impeccable credentials who are trustees and advisers to charities considered for appointment to them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I repeat that appointment is on the basis of merit. Some of our most distinguished scientists work for charitable organisations and would be considered alongside other people.

Russian Federation: EU Food Aid
2.53 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for the distribution of food aid by the European Union to the Russian Federation and that the aid is reaching those for whom it is intended.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the European Commission has set up workable arrangements to ensure that EU food aid is implemented effectively and reaches those for whom it is intended.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does he recognise the widespread fear that much of the food aid that goes to Russia can be found on the way to the black market, in the hands of the Mafia, who then invest the money in western countries, and in some cases the EU itself? Will my noble friend outline the systems that are in operation to ensure that that does not happen? Is food aid really the best way to bring Russian agriculture into a recovery phase, or does it help to undermine the efforts of farmers in Russia, particularly small peasant farmers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the issue of fraud was discussed by the Agriculture Council as recently as

297
Monday. The Commission is not aware of any diversion of food or of other fraud, but will investigate substantiated reports.
On the question of oversight, the Commission has appointed an agency comprising two commercial companies to control the movement of goods from the European Union to the Russian border. The agency will work with the member states' intervention agencies. The Russian authorities will take charge of the goods once they reach the Russian border. In addition, the EU has appointed an independent monitor, comprising three companies, to report on distribution.
Regarding food production, UK development assistance to Russia is operated through the Know-how Fund. That tackles the constraints on food production rather than the production itself. Areas where the UK provides assistance include: land ownership; development of marketing strategies; third party arbitration mechanisms to resolve disputes relating to land ownership; and technical advice on processing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that there is a proper transport system for distributing the food aid, bearing in mind that many of Russia's problems are caused by its lack of a proper transport system?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I repeat that the European Commission has set up an independent monitor. About 50 per cent of the food aid has started to flow; the rest should be delivered by September. It is up to the independent agency to report to the Commission if there are problems.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, has the EU been in touch with the prison service in Russia over the question of food for prisoners, since poor quality prison diets have in recent years been a significant contributory cause of tuberculosis?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving advance notice of this important question. The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and the Russian Government specifies that in exceptional cases, by decision of the Russian Government, the products may be distributed free of charge to the most vulnerable sectors of the population. It is not absolutely clear whether that extends to prisons. As a result of the noble Lord's question, urgent inquiries are being made by officials. I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, how much bilateral aid is Britain sending to Russia this year? Secondly, what proportion of European aid is supplied by Britain?
Lord Carter: My Lords, at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in December, the council unanimously agreed a food aid programme for the Russian Federation. Supplies consist of: 1 million tonnes of wheat; half a million tonnes of rye; 50,000 tonnes of
298
rice; 150,000 tonnes of beef; 100,000 tonnes of pork; and 50,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder. Supplies are being drawn from intervention stocks, except for the pigmeat, which is being sourced on the open market—without any obvious effect on the UK pig price at present. The food is being supplied in five tranches. Half has been mobilised and is on its way; the intention is that the rest will be delivered by September. As to the UK proportion, we have offered 30,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder; so far, 6,000 tonnes have been supplied.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, when will the independent unit to which the noble Lord referred begin its work? What is its brief in regard to monitoring the food getting through to people in that country? Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm my understanding that the delay is not at the EU end but at the Russian end, and that therefore the new independent unit is of vital importance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on the question of delay, the food programme was suspended on 4th February this year because of questions raised by both Russia and the EU about quality, health, transport and origin. There were also technical difficulties within the EU in relation to receipt of the initial tender bids for delivery of the food aid to Russian ports. We have learnt a great deal following the problems in 1991 and 1992. It is significant that there is now an independent agency comprising two companies reporting on the movement of goods from the European Union to the Russian border, and an independent monitor comprising three companies—one British, one Dutch and one Danish—all of whom have the job of reporting to the Commission. On the question of the date, I do not know. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Americans have over 300 officials on the ground in Russia to make sure that their aid gets through to the people for whom it is intended, whereas the European Union appears to have only a handful? In view of the huge tonnages and figures that the noble Lord has given for this aid, how can he convince the House that it would not be better to send all our aid on a bilateral basis rather than most of it through the well known incompetence and fraud of the European Commission?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's interest. I think that he has delivered himself into my hands. The US is providing 3 million tonnes of food compared with the figures that I have given. The US has 300 people there and 300 people are involved in the programme on the EU side, including Commission staff but mainly the commercial agencies appointed to control the flow of food from the EU to the Russian border and the independent monitor appointed to report on distribution in Russia. We are providing the same number of staff for the aid that I described as the Americans.

The West Lothian Question
3 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
How, following the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, they plan to answer the West Lothian question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the Government's position on the so-called West Lothian question was clearly stated during debates on the Scotland Act and has not been changed by the elections which took place on 6th May. We believe that the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it, an adjustment to the number of Members representing Scottish seats in another place and the development of Westminster procedures, as is presently being considered by the Procedure Committee in another place, provide between them as much of an Answer as the Question requires.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that ingenious reply. Does he agree that although the English appear to be acquiescent right now, once they start to realise how disadvantaged they will be under the new dispensation compared with the Scots they will rapidly, and justifiably, begin to become extremely resentful? Would not the simplest solution be to establish a convention whereby Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament automatically abstain from voting on purely English domestic matters, as was proposed, most recently, by Sir Teddy Taylor in the other place eight days ago?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the point which was made during one of the debates on the Scotland Act was that during the period of the Stormont government this Parliament did not seem to be too concerned about the East. Antrim question. Therefore, the idea that a new constitutional anomaly is being introduced is totally without foundation. This Parliament has proved that it can handle constitutional innovation in a way that protects its integrity.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, how can the noble Lord possibly justify a situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have an absolute say over the local government settlement in England but none whatever over his own constituents in Dunfermline? How can he also justify that the newly-appointed Minister of Transport will dictate, policy on the development of roads in England but will have no say whatever over her own constituents in Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, very easily. With reference to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mrs Helen Liddell, the noble Lord
300
must recognise that we are the Government of the United Kingdom and will use the talents of the UK to best effect to ensure that the best people are doing the right jobs.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not a reflection of the native abilities of the Scots that they now have six seats in the Cabinet in addition to running their own affairs in Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that may well be the case, but what happens to Scottish Office Ministers is a matter of some concern.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government considered what appears to be the least unsatisfactory solution, which is a combination of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Scottish Members not voting on matters that do not apply to Scotland and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster? Are the Government relieved that proposals for an English parliament are unlikely to find favour as the muddles and squabbles in the present devolved Parliament in Edinburgh are observed over the coming years?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord has an ability to foresee the future that I do not pretend to have. We made clear at the time of the debates on the Scotland Bill that an inevitable consequence of devolution in Scotland would be a proper adjustment to Scottish representation in the other place. That seems to me to be a fair and reasonable way forward. There are other considerations at work: the deliberations of the Procedure Committee of another place and how best our Parliament can adjust to the reality of devolution. What I hope to see in Scotland is a way forward that is based on recognising the diversity of the United Kingdom and getting parties to work together in the common interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that the West Lothian question does not apply to Wales?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, on the basis of geography at the very least, yes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the best answer to the West Lothian question is devolution within England so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not decide every detail of local authority expenditure? Can we look forward to home rule for Yorkshire in the Government's future legislative programme?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to my original Answer, in which I drew attention to the Government's commitment to the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it. I believe that that is one of the ways

301
in which we can achieve a more symmetrical form of devolution within the United Kingdom, and it is to be welcomed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is it not a fact that some Members of your Lordships' House have stood for and been elected to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, they will be able to consider matters relating to Scotland? Is it not also a fact that those Members, including the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament, can come to England, enter your Lordships' House, join in all the hurdy-gurdy of party politics and take part in English matters? The Minister seems to find all these matters peculiarly easy. That is a simplicity which some of us do not quite follow. Will he admit that, at least in schoolboy language, it is unfair?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, not at all. It is true that this House provided the presiding officers for the three territorial assemblies and parliaments, and I rejoice in that. I believe that if Members of this House who are also members of these territorial parliaments decide to make a contribution to the deliberations of this House we should listen very carefully to what they say.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before we—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Government's proposals to restrict trials by jury.

Business of the House: Procedure
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I apologise for jumping the gun. I was not quite sure how I should raise this matter with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. Yesterday afternoon, after Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, put a question about the Government's policy with regard to the Weatherill amendment which brought forth a somewhat choleric response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should very much like guidance from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. What happened seemed to me to be straining the few rules of order we have. I am wondering whether it would be at all desirable if the practice were to develop of individual noble Lords getting up after Question Time and raising matters of their choosing.
I may have a suspicious mind, but what makes the matter particularly extraordinary is that it seemed contrived. The noble Lord raised the question and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave his
302
rather intemperate reply. But although it was intemperate, he read very carefully from a script which he had in front of him.
It was a most extraordinary event, not least because the House of Lords Bill was on the Order Paper, and if any question was to be raised as to the Government's attitude towards the Weatherill amendment, the obvious time to raise it was when the business on the House of Lords Bill commenced.
I respectfully submit that it would be undesirable if this practice were to develop. It would be a good thing to stop it now, if only to save the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from himself.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, after a direct charge and that vicious attack, from which I am still recovering, I should like to say that the sequence of events was very simple. Yesterday morning I discussed with my two fellow signatories to the Weatherill amendment my concern at the way in which the business was being conducted in this place and how it was developing into an endlessly repetitive conversation to which there was no foreseeable end. They tended to share that view.
I made no contact whatever with anyone else until about half-past one or a quarter to two when it struck me that out of courtesy I should inform the Government Chief Whip. He was at lunch, as Chief Whips usually are between 12 and three o'clock, and I then spoke to his private secretary. I said that I intended to stand up after Questions and ask a member of the Government to comment on the progress of Monday's business. He said that he would convey the message. I heard nothing more until he approached me at about twenty past two to tell me that the Lord Chancellor would be responding. I asked what the Lord Chancellor was going to say, and he said, "That is not for me to discuss with you".
When the exchange took place, I did not know what the Lord Chancellor was going to say and he most certainly did not know what I was going to say.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is this not a pathetic situation which should never be allowed to arise again?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I have no wish for this situation to arise again. There were circumstances on Monday night that noble Lords on all sides were concerned about. This led to a rising of the temperature which the Government had no wish to contribute to. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition laughs, but that led to the circumstances of yesterday afternoon when other people not involved in the usual channels felt justifiably concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has expressed, about the progress of business. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked a question which, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, points out, was within our extremely relaxed rules. I am among those noble Lords who feel that those rules should he considerably tightened, and that is something that perhaps we shall move towards in a reformed House.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Gladwyn set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Earl of Iveagh to one-and-a-half hours. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to the Countryside
3.16 p.m.
Lord Gladwynrose to call attention to the issues raised by public demand for access to the countryside, in the light of the Government's Statement of 8th March (HL Deb, cols. 40–42); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a new chapter in the long history of public demand for access to the countryside was opened with the Government Statement of 8th March. This statement was triggered by Gordon Prentice's Private Member's Bill on the Right to Roam, which was debated at Second Reading in another place on 26th March. It is therefore appropriate that your Lordships' House should have this opportunity to debate the subject. In raising it I have no interest to declare. I am not a landowner, nor have I held a position of authority in any of the interested organisations; but I am the author of several books about counties in southern England, of which three are guides to long-distance walking trails, and I therefore consider myself to be an informed observer. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
The Government intend to introduce primary legislation to permit access on foot to all open countryside in England and Wales that is defined as mountain, moor, heath, downland and common land, which represents about 10 per cent of the land mass. It is to be regretted that the aim of providing greater freedom for people to explore the open countryside, which was stated in the Labour Party manifesto, could not have been achieved by means of voluntary agreements. But it is also perfectly understandable that the Government should have decided to establish, in clarity and in permanence, the right to roam that had been the intention of the 1949 Act.
On the basis of the figures in the Government's own appraisal document, it seems that although most of our open countryside is currently available for access by one means or another, about a third is not, amounting to some half a million hectares. In the highly sensitive Peak District National Park over half the open land remains closed, if that is not a contradiction in terms.
Understandably, many landowners feel deeply aggrieved about the element of compulsion. Had the present voluntary arrangements continued, they could have stood to benefit from incentive payments for loss of amenity, even if access enforcement orders had been served on them. Now they will get nothing, and will
304
incur additional costs. The government's appraisal is that such costs will be only slight on the greater part of land that is defined as being of low visitor pressure.
Where there is high visitor pressure, however, this loss of amenity becomes more significant. The figures may be disputed, and the one group which will certainly have a field day is the lawyers. The central issue of the law relating to property may go all the way up to the Court of Human Rights.
The "right to roam" is an emotive phrase, implying an indiscriminate intrusion. But the Government, as explained in its Framework for Action, intends to mitigate it with important restrictions and an emphasis on responsibilities as well as rights, with codes of practice. To lay the groundwork for the proposed legislation, the new Countryside Agency is charged with the supervision of accurate mapping and with the establishment of access forums of the type already set up in Wales and Scotland. Much will depend on the composition of these local forums, whose remit will cover the entire countryside in their area. The Countryside Agency, which is already engaged in setting up the English National Forum, is determined that its membership should be quite small and well balanced between conflicting interests.
The broad intent of the government Statement raises a host of unresolved questions, and the Country Landowners' Association has already compiled a list of 150. There are questions of definition, for example: what will be the minimum area qualifying as "open land"? How will open land be recognised by those without maps? What about the adjacent enclosed land through which many walkers will seek to pass? What is meant by "extensive grazing"? Access is to be confined to walkers seeking open-air recreation; but what kinds of sport or recreation might that include? Will occupiers' liability insurances incur higher premiums?
There are questions about the effect on wildlife and vegetation. What limitations will be imposed on numbers, on special events and on noise in order to preserve the wildness and tranquillity that are prescribed in the 1995 Act? How much will the public stick to paths or wander across the rough ground? The right of access will not just be roaming in the gloaming; it will be all through the night. So what about camping and rough living? Dogs are to be kept on leads, but how long is an extension lead? How closely will access be monitored?
Then there is the question of closures. Apart from the statutory 28 days, further closures may be imposed for conservation, health or safety or else conceded by the access forums for reasons of land management. Will that standard 28 days be equally sufficient in very varied circumstances? How long will it take to arrange a special closure? How costly will it be for the landowner to implement the closure? How will the closure be recognised by the public?
The Government's Statement also envisages extending the right to roam over other areas of countryside. As well as woodlands and coastal areas, those might include inland water and waterbanks. Rights of access may extend to other users beyond the mere

305
pedestrian. That introduces an element of uncertainty altogether greater than the provisions for the open countryside, which have at least been outlined.
Uncertainties such as these persist also in Scotland where the new Parliament is expected to bring in its own Bill in the near future, foreshadowed by the ministerial statement of February. Here the access policy is likely to be even more liberal than in England, with a general presumption of access to land and water everywhere, subject to safeguards and restraints.
With access established as of right, the need to manage and control it will be all the greater. In addition to decisions made by the local forums about what happens on the ground, much can be done by limiting the number of users by means of traffic management, especially at the honeypots of the national parks and the National Trust. Speed limits, calming methods, road hierarchies, cycle lanes and restrictions on car parks will all help. But what will be of far greater effect—and I should like to see far more—would be the closure of sections of road to visiting private motor vehicles, as has been done already in two valleys of the Peak District. Above all, remote areas should be kept remote.
I turn now to the remainder of our countryside, the great majority of it, all enclosed in one way or another, mostly very beautiful although downright unsightly in parts. Here the issues about access relate to our unparalleled network of rights of way, those gossamer webs which were once vital arteries, in the days when the now empty countryside was full of working people. The Countryside Commission, as it still was, early this year issued its report entitled Rights of Way in the 21st Century and now the Government, in conformity with their 8th March Statement, are to produce a consultation paper.
What does the commission's report say? It criticises local authorities for not doing enough to secure their networks; and it recommends changes to the law so as to make it easier for landowners to obtain reasonable diversions, as well as for the authorities to remove obstructions. It also wants to call a halt to the interminable challenging of the legal status of rights of way by means of a ten-year time limit. I find all those recommendations entirely desirable. The costs of even the most trivial adjustments to the network are ridiculously high. Those recommendations of the Countryside Commission will require substantial additional funding—£150 million has been suggested. That is in addition to the extra funding needed for monitoring and "wardening" the new right to roam on open country.
The great majority of rights of way are footpaths, for walkers only. Naturally, those near or within conurbations are used more than those in remote parishes. Most people take a walk just to keep fit or walk the dog, rather than to explore the countryside, and they want to do so without getting into a car. That simple therapeutic action is now actively encouraged by the medical profession, thus affirming Sir George Trevelyan's brief but splendid sentence in his Essay on Walking:
306
"I have two doctors, my left leg and my right".
But there, on the fringes of towns, is where the tension is greatest, where many footpaths have been eliminated by urban spread and where landowners suffer most from inconsiderate behaviour. Those patches of undeveloped rough ground, on which teenagers used to let off steam, have mostly gone. Perhaps replacements should be acquired.
On bridleways, walkers are joined by horse riders and cyclists. Horse riders understandably feel they have a raw deal. Country lanes in south-east England are hazardous enough for walkers who can sometimes feel as though they have strayed on to the Cresta Run. But for riders, they are positively lethal, as accident statistics show all too well. So horse riders are doing all they can to establish bridleway status wherever possible, especially so as to join up fragmented routes and to secure permissive trails with landowners, even if that involves payment.
Cyclists are the newcomers to the scene, thanks to the development of the mountain bike. In fact, they represent the strongest surge in demand for access to the countryside. The South Downs Way now seems to be dominated by them. Inconsiderate cyclists can be very alarming to walkers and horse riders, but all three should learn to respect each other for their physical energy. It is good that Sustrans is making use of new countryside trails, such as disused railway lines and canal towpaths, as part of its system. However—and I say this not just because I am a walker—the Government are surely correct in prohibiting both cyclists and horse riders from the open countryside, because of the damage they inevitable cause to the fragile habitat.
On byways open to all traffic, the muscular users are joined by the mechanical ones. The pressure from drivers of four-wheel drive vehicles to get onto those green lanes is intense. The issue has come to a head in respect of as yet unclassified rights of way—known as RUPPs—and the commission proposes to grasp the nettle and force their redesignation, to the dismay of the defenders of quiet enjoyment.
Access to the lowland countryside is not confined to rights to way, of course. It exists among many voluntary agreements and schemes in agricultural land and woodland, notably in Forestry Commission properties. It exists in local authority country parks and village greens. Then there are the countryside properties of the National Trust and English Nature. There are the parklands of great houses. I suppose one might almost say that it exists in the tens of thousands of golf courses, even if only to a manicured countryside.
Altogether, the British countryside is there to be explored in all its wonderful variety. In that regard, I award the palm to the present American ambassador, Philip Lader, who, since his appointment, has walked every yard of a rough route of 1,000 miles from Land's End to John O'Groats, putting up at bed and breakfasts.
The great question now is: when will the Government introduce their Bill? The danger of postponement is that uncertainty will increase aggravation. Users will assume that they can wander indiscriminately, and some

307
landowners may renounce existing agreements. Restraint and understanding are required on both sides. I believe that will prevail.
Despite much-publicised spats and confrontations, there is a remarkable lack of conflict in the 3 billion day visits made annually to the countryside. The Ramblers' Association and the National Farmers Union are in sensible dialogue. The differences between urban and non-urban living are diminishing all the time. I do not believe in the simplistic town versus country social divide. Thanks to TV and educative programmes, the message of the countryside that it is not a theme park but a working environment, is increasingly understood. People appreciate that it depends on profitable agriculture if it is not to deteriorate into a monotonous wilderness, and that private shooting rights have helped to preserve our precious habitat and wildlife. But, in return for subsidies, they demand access.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as the president of the Cresta Run, perhaps I may assure him that it is virtually impossible for a pedestrian to stray on to it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate on access. It is clearly time to consider the practical implications of the access Statement last March. I declare an interest. I am a land-owning dairy farmer in Cheshire.
Everyone is agreed on the need for more access in general. Opinions vary on how we are to achieve it. I support the thrust of the proposal for a statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath and down. That will provide a stepped change in the amount of countryside permanently available for people to explore and will create the opportunity to increase the quality and diversity of areas where walkers can enjoy the countryside. It will not be dependent on voluntary agreements comprising a diversity of access arrangements often combined with poor publicity which only cause confusion to the walker at best or the likelihood of increasing resentment.
Voluntary access arrangements can extend the areas made available through statutory right to include lowland areas and forests and even some agricultural land around towns. But they cannot be relied upon to provide a consistent framework. Indeed, the amount of areas could decrease rather than increase should some unfortunate access experience, a change of landowner or simply a timed end of agreement lead to a withdrawal of access. I urge the Country Landowners' Association arid other interested bodies to continue their dialogue arid to work with the Countryside Agency to provide voluntary access to further areas in addition to the statutory areas. The management of access is vital, and the input of landowners and local communities will be invaluable. Proper account of the sensitivity of the environment to withstand the pressures of the volume of
308
walkers, of the needs of land management to maintain quality, and of the conflicting demands of users of the countryside can only be undertaken at local level.
Public demand needs to be better assessed and made more aware of existing provision. For example, in the Countryside Commission's national survey in 1994, only 42 per cent of rights of way were signposted. Local post offices and notice boards could easily display footpaths and access areas. The quality of access can initially be easily improved where rights of way are not clearly defined, publicised or maintained. This will highlight the need to structure the network better and to modernise the legislation to allow flexibility through alterations and modifications to the rigidity of the footpath legislation. In the Minister's Statement of 8th March, the undertaking was given,
"to strengthen and develop the rights of way network". —[Official Report, 8/3/99; col. 41.]
Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House today that provision will be included to more easily re-route, delete, create and link up existing rights of way? Under whose responsibility will this be undertaken? What will be the criteria against which alterations will be judged? Where there is a dispute. how will it be decided? Can the Minister confirm that there is a role here for the proposed local access forums to advise on the rights of way network?
The practicalities of the statutory access provision will ensure that the forums will be crucial throughout the countryside. The need for consistency within the national framework will necessitate policy guidance against which provision can be assessed as well as a code of practice for landowners and the walking public to follow. How will local bodies be able to qualify a statutory right, as management of access and land clearly entails a qualification?
The key to the success of this measure is land management, and although access does not include access to agricultural land in its strict sense it will clearly impact on the livestock sector, mostly the sheep farmer and to a lesser extent beef farmers in the uplands. Agriculture is in a state of crisis at the moment, suffering falls in income throughout all sections of the industry of the order of 25 to 30 per cent. Will my noble friend the Minister recognise today that management of access will have costs? Will he undertake an assessment of the impact on the upland livestock farmer who will have no means of meeting these costs?
There must also be recognition that here is an opportunity for rural areas to develop services. The Minister's Statement made clear that provision of access will be free to the user. Nevertheless, a key ingredient will be how to deliver value. I am reminded that if something is free, it is of no value. I should like to think that as policy develops on the practicalities of access arrangements, it must be borne in mind that access provision has to be of value not only to the walkers, but also to the provider, or nothing much will be improved. As it is to be free to the walker, the management costs can be recognised in various ways. First, there are already pilot schemes on countryside stewardship.

309
Within this and the agri-environment measures in general, there must be included an access provision with grants.
I understand that this is already the case in Wales under the Tir Gofal scheme. The targeting of access elements of agri-environment schemes can contribute to the gradual development of rural areas away from production support of the common agricultural policy. Secondly, there is the opportunity of the New Opportunities Fund of the National Lottery perhaps to defray much of the costs of provision of information or even the provision of additional routes.
Furthermore, access provision must become integrated with local strategy plans on tourism. Although not producing income to the access provider in itself, the quality provision of leisure walks will help economic activities in predominately agricultural areas under severe economic hardship at the moment.
Access is not a threat to rural areas. It provides an opportunity to integrate leisure pursuits within a working countryside where costs must be recognised. I trust access measures will receive the full encouragement of this House.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing this debate and for providing me with the opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time.
Much of my walking experience has been in North Yorkshire, although I do stray into Durham from time to time. Home is in Moulton, a village which lies between the Dales and the North York Moors. Both have national parks and there is much other attractive walking country all around. Access is a subject of great interest to anyone who regularly walks.
The Government's Framework for Action, published in March, outlines an approach to access using the definitions "developed land" and "agricultural land" in contrast to "land extensively grazed" and "open countryside". One issue which arises may be illustrated by a walk in Swaledale, which is to be found on the Yorkshire Dales North map. Here I acknowledge with thanks the excellence of the Ordnance Survey mapping. Its maps are of vital assistance to walkers.
The walk begins in the centre of Reeth, where the parking of cars is well organised. After a spell in the village, the route takes you more than half a mile through 14 allotments with dry stone walls, which are easily damaged. There are angled slits in the walls which allow human legs to pass but not a sheep's shoulders. Thereafter, you reach the steeper open slopes of Calver Hill and, beyond, High Reeth Moor. It seems logical that the Countryside Agency and the national park would decide that Reeth was developed and the allotments, agricultural. Here, as now, we would continue to keep to the footpath.
Marking the point at which walkers reached open countryside would not be too difficult on the four footpaths out of Reeth to the west towards Calver Hill. But on the way back, bowling down the hill, avoiding
310
the disused tips and pits, the shafts and the quarry, not to mention the shaking holes, walkers could reach the agricultural land boundary at any point on a three-mile perimeter, with bonus points to those who had a map. Presumably there would be frequent signs with perhaps "Please rejoin the rights of way system", although a somewhat more controlling message might be expected.
In Swaledale there are some 15 villages of substance and many other scattered pockets of agricultural land close to dwellings. The surroundings of each would need to be studied and the map would need to be modified. The mapping, the deliberations of the relevant authorities and the local forums, and the appeals procedures seem likely to be very time-consuming.
To illustrate the issue further, I would tell your Lordships that we also walk near Marske-in-Swaledale and here sometimes meet a Dales farmer's wife who makes it plain that walkers are not her favourite people and that she dislikes their cars even more. She also forcibly points out that the farming life in her dale is difficult. Many would agree.
I move on to a quick plea for dogs. Framework for Action says that legislation will specify that dogs should be on leads. If enacted, that would frustrate both dogs and owners. Many dogs, with their inbuilt equivalent of four-wheel drive, go several times as far as their owners, and the owners take their dogs to get them well exercised and satisfactorily tired. It is certain that the great majority of Yorkshire dog owners respect both nesting birds and lambing sheep. Their dogs are well trained; if not, they are left at home.
Upland walkers in Yorkshire already have a fine range of country to choose from. One set of the many guide books describes 90 Dales walks. They include the coast-to-coast route, the Pennine Way and the Cleveland Way. However, walkers in the agricultural lowlands would certainly be helped by a strengthening of the rights-of-way system, as foreshadowed in the framework. Many footpaths were naturally established to take walkers straight from A to B and not necessarily to provide a satisfying round trip. Maintenance and strengthening of the system are already a responsibility of local authorities. They have a difficult task.
I know of one set of exchanges concerning the correct alignment of 200 yards of a path which 50 years ago was in the middle of a drovers' road, now abandoned. The matter is unresolved after three years of discussion and correspondence involving more than 10 parties. It is no isolated example.
No doubt in the search to improve access the manner in which existing legislation works will be carefully taken into account. After all, rights of way, with their long and detailed history, give rise to strongly held and conflicting opinions, and a satisfactory balance is difficult to find. Therefore, the eventual proposals to legislate for greater access will generate much interest and discussion. But I suppose there may be some doubt as to whether I will here to comment upon them.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate on behalf of all your Lordships the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. I was a great admirer of his father, his predecessor, who wrote an extremely good book called Half-Way to Faith which I have on my bookshelves and react from time to time. In my view, he was a very great man, and I am delighted to welcome his son to his place in this House. Indeed, the quality of the speech we have heard, which contributed greatly to your Lordships' debate this afternoon, particularly through its detailed knowledge of the situation and of the subject we are talking about, almost persuades me that there is a virtue in hereditary peerages—almost.
The noble Viscount's experience as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, is something that he will be able to bring to bear in your Lordships' House in dealing with the kind of subject that we have before us today. I hope we shall have the chance to listen to him many times more before he leaves the House in one way or another.
I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for having initiated this debate. He gave us a wide-ranging summary of the various situations and provided a great deal of thought and material for the rest of the debate. My only complaint is that, unlike the noble Viscount, he was to a certain extent taken away from what he might have told us from his personal experience. Your Lordships will know that the noble Lord is a noted walker himself, a noted leader of walks throughout the countryside and a noted writer about walks and walking. It was from that background that he was able to introduce the debate.
There is a general principle that almost everyone accepts, although landowners from time to time tend slightly to forget it, that individuals are not the owners of land. They hold it as stewards under the Queen, who holds it as steward under God. The rights of individual landowners are severely limited by the rights that those superior landlords hold on behalf of the community. In a way, the land of this country belongs to the people of this country. The Government are to be congratulated on their attempt to put some of that principle into practice.
The right to roam is a principle, and a very good principle. But, like all principles, it needs some limitation. It is subject to the need to protect the legitimate interests of the land's occupants, among whom I include not only the stewards who hold it as landlords and the farmers who farm it, but also the wildlife that actually occupies it.
It would probably be a very good idea if whatever legislation is finally introduced has a timescale that takes into consideration the nesting and breeding seasons of the wildlife and the life of the farmed animals in the areas dealt with, because much of what we are talking about is land where sheep graze, and where we must hope sheep may continue safely to graze.
One point which has not been seriously raised has been brought to my attention by the Small Farms' Association: the need for dogs not just to be kept on leads but to be healthy when they are taken into the
312
countryside. If dogs are not correctly wormed on a regular basis, and if tapeworms are picked up by a sheep, they can cause cysts within its body, and the sheep can die. If tapeworms are found within the carcass of the animal once slaughtered, the carcass is condemned. In either case the farmers are the losers, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, the farmers at the present time can in no way afford to be losers.
The Government have taken on a very complicated and difficult issue. We must ask them today about their timetable. Adam Nicolson commented in the Sunday Telegraph, not for the first time, on the right to roam proposals and on the absence of any timetable. He said:
"When is any of this going to become law? Nobody knows. There will now be a long and incredibly elaborate exercise in mapping the boundaries of the new open ground. No one knows how long that will take, or even how it is going to be done. Once—if—they have managed to identify what is open access country and what isn't, there is a nearly insuperable communication problem. National Dark authorities, which are going to carry much of the brunt of this, are already viewing the prospect with despair".
As one of the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks, I hope that real support will be given to the national parks authorities in their important work.
It is impossible to come up with easy solutions to these problems. Indeed, that is really the point of this debate, which is important as it tries to expose at least some of the questions that need to be asked. I hope that we shall have some interim answers from the Government.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I am happy to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech, and again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his magisterial survey of the issues confronting the House and the Government in preparing such legislation.
I should like to put in a word on behalf of the working tenant farmer, but to do so against the background of that Statement of vision of 8th March, which stated that there are glorious parts of our heritage which should be the delight of the many rather than the preserve of the few. It is towards the fulfilment of that vision that I hope that the Government will continue to work.
I do not have a personal interest to declare in the sense that I am not a tenant farmer, but I live in the historic house of the Bishops of Carlisle which is set in the middle of an estate of 25 tenanted farms, so I am regularly in touch with the tenant farming fraternity and have considerable contacts with those on the hills and fells of the Lake District.
Tenant farmers working on the high ground have a living to earn. They are among the hardest working, but the least well financially recompensed of that very hard-pressed sector of society. They are already the often unacknowledged, unpaid wardens of some of our areas of outstanding natural beauty. We owe it to them to take their concerns seriously. I am grateful to Mr. Peter Allen, the chairman of the Less Favoured Areas Committee of the National Farmers Union, for

313
some information on the subject, although I hasten to add that I approached him and that he did not in any sense lobby me.
Perhaps I may cite the example of a tenant farm on the fells above Ullswater where there happens to be a camping site. The area will therefore receive between 150,000 and 200,000 visitors each year. If only 1 per cent of that number causes any kind of problem or damage, that will present considerable difficulties for the tenant farmer and be at his personal cost. It is the tenant farmer who repairs the walls while on the fells shepherding. The damage is usually incidental and is not necessarily deliberate. People tend to go the shortest route from A to B, and if that goes over a wall which is already beginning to crumble, gradually the wall will come down. The tenant farmer frequently encounters the taking off of gates, usually for fun and just occasionally for firewood when the barbecue season is upon the camping fraternity.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for people who think that they are walking through open country and long grass to realise that they are helping to destroy the fell farmer's winter hay. Such points need to be borne carefully in mind. Uninstructed and unwary walkers can also easily subject themselves to danger. They may see an apparently contented herd of cows grazing on the high fell, but if they do not know that the herd is newly calved, with the calves at foot, perhaps hidden by the long grass, the walkers may be in serious danger of physical damage. It is the farmer who has to solve all such problems—and at his own personal cost.
Should access, therefore, be statutory or voluntary? I do not want to disturb the distant memories of those of your Lordships who struggled with Latin at school. Nevertheless, noble Lords may remember that there are three ways in Latin of asking a question, two of which concern us now. One way is to use the word that anticipates the answer "yes" and the other is to use the word that anticipates the answer "no". So, should access be statutory or voluntary? I have no doubt that the Ramblers' Association would use the word anticipating the answer "yes" and I would be very surprised if the Country Landowners' Association did not at least start to phrase the question with the word anticipating the answer "no". In the current climate of openness and personal liberty, I am inclined to think that the answer should be "yes". I hope that the Government will press ahead, but there need to be important provisions and safeguards.
I have already referred to some of the experiences that may await the unwary walker. There needs to be a serious programme to make readily available detailed information, not to say education, about those aspects of life in the countryside which town-dwellers cannot be assumed to know. Without such a programme, there are problems and dangers.
I wonder whether we should abandon the phrase "the right to roam". It has a wonderful feeling of liberty about it, but sadly it is the sort of liberty that leads to irresponsibility. Perhaps we could use a term such as
314
"agreed access" because that would at least signal partnership between landowners, farmers and those who wish to experience the freedom of the hills.
Various references have been made to the cost of all this, but we must also provide a time-scale for monitoring the effectiveness of whatever legislation is put in place. Without that, we shall continue not to know its effect or effectiveness. Getting this right will take much persistent hard work. We may need to provide for deliverable sanctions so that the unwilling can be assisted on their passage towards willingness.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that a serious attempt will be made to take account of the proper interests of those who are tenant farmers on the hills and who work so hard in ways which we so readily fail to appreciate.
3.57 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Eccles on his excellent maiden speech. I found it quite moving to hear him describe hills of Swaledale, which are very close to the area from which I travelled down here this morning. Indeed, his description made me wonder why I bothered! I did so for a very good reason: this is an extremely important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating it. I must apologise most profusely to the House. I shall have to leave before the winding-up speeches because I have a long-standing engagement in Newcastle which I sincerely hope that I can make. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has to say.
As a member of the Country Landowners' Association and an estate owner in Swaledale, I declare an interest. I am also a member of the Moorland Association and, as such, I have been involved in the access argument for something like 20 years now.
Therefore, perhaps it is not altogether surprising that I am very concerned about the Government's proposals. I say that for three basic reasons. First, in ideological terms, I regard the proposals as one of the most savage attacks on basic property rights that has ever been seen in this country. Secondly, despite wide consultation, the Government appear to have ignored virtually all the evidence received from the vast majority of organisations which were consulted. Thirdly—in some ways this is perhaps the most important reason—what is on the table at the moment is a recipe for confusion, conflict—we do not want that under any circumstances—and a lawyer's paradise. In other words, those are the very best ingredients for the very worst legislation.
I have no doubt from my own experience that the majority of walkers respect the countryside and its traditional management and do not want to compromise its well-being. Furthermore, I do not believe that the majority of walkers actually want open access and the right to roam. The CLA evidence certainly substantiates that view. However, there are always exceptions. Unfortunately, I had an encounter last weekend with a lady who had a pair of Dobermann pinschers rampaging around the moor at perhaps the most vulnerable time of

315
the year. When I asked her what she was doing, she said, "I have the right to roam. I have the right to go where I want". I said, "You have not as yet". Is that an indication of the taste of things to come?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government's response will be that there will be a duty of care incumbent on walkers which will form part of the legislation. Everyone knows that realistically the message will get through only to those who want to hear the message. At the moment, English Nature and national parks authorities' signs, asking people to keep to paths and to keep their dogs on leads, are very often torn up and discarded.
I am not against access—far from it. I have long argued that there are considerable opportunities to expand people's enjoyment of the countryside through extending the footpath system. That is why we were so disappointed, like so many others, in particular the CLA and the Moorland Association, when the Government abandoned the voluntary approach which was leading to some worthwhile progress. I believe that so much goodwill has been lost.
Most of the uplands of England and Wales will be covered by the Government's legislation. Where I live, the red grouse has long been a symbol of good habitat management and local employment. So many areas managed for that game bird have been designated as SSSIs and SPAs, which I believe is a testament to the management system. In my view, it is imperative that access must not allow the economic dynamo that has driven the conservation and wellbeing of the heather moorland for so long to be compromised.
That vulnerable and internationally important habitat relies on the shooting interest and still supports considerable numbers of other ground-nesting birds which are in major decline in other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, I refer to birds like the golden plover, the green plover, the curlew and the snipe. I believe that to allow such species to come under any further threats would be nothing short of environmental vandalism.
With speculation about the possible closure orders at certain times of the year, I urge the Government to make a full commitment, as soon as possible, that there will be no access other than on footpaths, at least during the nesting, fledging and mating season, if, for no other reason, than to comply with their international obligations. Furthermore, I support, without any question, the fact that dogs must be kept on leads at all times, not just from a wildlife point of view, but also from a sheep point of view.
I agree with the words spoken by the right reverend Prelate about hill farmers. At the moment their position is perilous. The seven tenant farmers on my estate feel as strongly as I do about the proposals that the Government have put forward on the right to roam.
We all have a stake in the countryside, but that cannot give everyone on this small island of ours the right to decide what to do there and when. Management
316
decisions based on experience and local knowledge must be allowed to prevail. That means managing people along with the land itself. It is no good the Government bringing in new rules to give so-called benefits to the public only to leave those on the ground with the task of picking up the costs and the responsibilities of making the system work. The occupiers' liability has not, as yet, been addressed, but that is also of enormous importance.
I am particularly concerned that once on the statute book there will be no compromise in future. What happens when access becomes an intolerable burden on landscapes, as indeed is happening in certain areas already, when restrictions will undoubtedly be necessary? I suspect that there will be a fudge. For that reason I have always supported the voluntary approach, with its built-in flexibility, relying as we have done for so long on the precautionary principle.
Noble Lords spoke in your Lordships' House as long ago as 1981, when I made my maiden speech, on this subject. How can I forget the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The Sandford principles became an integral part of the way in which we considered that land should be managed in this country. It is a tragedy that this legislation appears to propose abandoning that principle.
I ask the Government to consider carefully the consequences of their actions. I say that purely as someone who has a great love of the countryside. I want people to enjoy the countryside, but I want them to do that in a way that does not compromise the countryside and does not lead to conflict between town and country, something that we should avoid at all costs.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for initiating this debate. It is an important topic. He speaks with a background of considerable practical knowledge and experience.
I believe that this is the first occasion on which we have discussed the subject since the Government's White Paper, Framework for Action, published on 8th March, nearly two months ago. In my view, the announcement gave rise to a huge amount of hype and uninformed comment. I believe that the CLA overreacted in one direction and the Ramblers' Association in the other. It is not surprising, therefore, that there was considerable public misunderstanding of what was being proposed. The White Paper referred only to so-called open countryside, which I believe is an Ordnance Survey definition, a cartographic classification, defined loosely as mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, and it did riot apply to ordinary farmland. It applied only to access on foot, and for much of that land there was already, particularly in the national parks, pretty good access. So it is not surprising that the public and, to some extent, farmers and landowners have overreacted.
Moreover, some recreational organisations. such as the British Mountaineering Council, make a point of maintaining good relationships with landowners. They

317
regret slogans such as "right to roam", which says nothing about duties and responsibilities. It is a nice slogan but we should have checks and balances.
I propose to speak mainly about the management of access, about the problems and issues of open space recreation. Currently, I am a patron of the British Mountaineering Council, and like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. From 1991 to 1996 I was chairman of the National Trust, which I suppose is the biggest "supplier"—if that is the correct word—of access in England and Wales. It has 600,000 acres, not all of which is open space land and about 600 miles of coastline.
In effect, acquiring open space landscape and making it available for the benefit of the nation is a statutory purpose of the trust, so we take access management very seriously. A few years ago we set up a working party to review our access policies and arrangements. The report of that working party is really a handbook on access management, written by people who know what they are talking about. Incidentally, the new chairman of the Countryside Agency, Ewen Cameron, was a member of that working party, as was the chairman of the Open Spaces Society.
The report enunciated two principles: first, if serious conflict arises between access and conservation, conservation needs should prevail. Secondly, the trust will ensure that our countryside will retain those characteristics which ensure the widest range of experience and will enable people to enjoy access to its properties. I want to suggest to the Minister that those principles, or something along those lines, should be enshrined as the main purpose of the proposed legislation.
Conflict between recreational access and conservation is only one form of conflict. Conflicts also arise between different kinds of recreation. The trust has listed over 40 different sorts of open space use. The Government do not have the same problem, as they are limiting the proposals to access on foot. That limitation in itself raises issues, although I am inclined to think that the Government are right. Equally, one can think of a list of foot-based activities—my noble friend Lord Gladwyn hinted at some of these—for example, angling, orienteering, fell-running, parapenting and, pre-eminently, climbing.
I can see a considerable danger of the legislation tying itself in knots and getting into a muddle in trying to define what we mean by "access on foot". I wonder how the Government will tackle this issue. After all, one activity in one place, or at one time of the year, may be acceptable but not so at another place or another time of year; for example, when does walking become scrambling and scrambling become mountaineering? Those activities form part of a continuum whose character changes with place, season and person. I could expand on that at some length.
I should like to touch briefly on three other issues in my remaining couple of minutes. The first is the need to protect from over-use areas that are valued for their
318
remoteness and wildness. That is particularly important to mountaineers. Secondly, and related to the first, is the problem of serious physical damage being caused in popular areas by foot erosion. Footpaths need to be repaired and new paths created. But who pays for that? The National Trust now spends around £750,000 a year on such matters from its budget. But what will the landowner do?
The third point relates to the important issue of occupier's liability, which has already been touched on. The White Paper refers to ministerial discussions on whether liability should be reduced more generally for recreational users. Can the Minister tell us where those discussions have reached?
The Government have decided to legislate. We must make it work, and there is a huge amount of work to be done in preparation, not least all the mapping and the detailed administrative arrangements. Then there is the ongoing work. All my experience tells me that local access forums will be the key—that is the experience of both the trust and the BMC. They will have a difficult and complicated job to do.
I conclude by saying that I do not believe that the countryside will be overrun by the anorak brigade any more than it is already. In the event, ramblers and landowners will behave like grown-ups and we will all enjoy our countryside.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join in the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He provides the House with a useful opportunity for debate. It is also an opportunity for a third Yorkshire Peer to take part, not counting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle who is extremely familiar with my area from the days when he was very much our leading Anglican.
I see the Government's approach as one with a good pedigree. It is a manifestation of the commitment to the environment and the countryside demonstrated by the government of 1945—a government who also did a great deal for the farmers. From that time we have seen an enormous increase of interest in conservation with a proliferation of bodies and organisations committed to our natural heritage and conservation to the point that membership of all those organisations must dwarf that of the political parties. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds may actually have more members than all the political parties in Britain put together.
Interest in these matters is enormous. But the Government may already have helped the voluntary movement to which reference has already been made. While many farmers in my area are friends of mine, there are a few who were not very good at being helpful to the voluntary movement. I used to go round with my deer-hound and wolfhound to open blocked footpaths. The deer-hound would jump over, but the wolfhound would not jump and went straight through. We frequently cleared footpaths by that approach.
That does not mean that I am not appreciative of the work of a number of farmers and landowners in serving the cause of conservation. I understand what has

319
happened since 1945 when there were few cars. There is a great deal more mobility, nuisance, injury and damage today; and there is a great deal of anxiety. Like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am involved with the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. I have been a member for 40 years and a patron for a long time. I hope that the Government will pay clear attention to the trust's submission, which I am sure will be echoed by many other conservation bodies in Britain.
The trust has 78 nature reserves. Inherently a nature reserve cannot be open to unfettered public access. A number of noble Lords, on our all-party visit to Kew last week, will have heard the director speak about the lady's slipper orchid. The lady's slipper orchid featured in the Bill I took through Parliament in 1975 when there was one single surviving plant. It had to be treated with absolute security. If we have complete, unfettered licence to roam, someone could put a hobnail boot on it. It is in a better state now but it is not yet so secure that the veil of confidentiality can be relieved. I made it quite clear at that time that I did not wish to know where it was. I still do not know where it is and I do not want anyone else to know until there is a proliferation of the plant.
In my area I estimate that the skylark population has dropped by around 90 per cent. I can see three pairs from my study window. I believe they are breeding. I was therefore less than pleased last weekend when off-the-road motorcyclists were cavorting up and down the area where one of the pairs have their nest. I would rather see skylarks than off-the-road motorcycles.
The litter problem is growing enormously in country as well as in town. Only last week I took a number of photographs of litter within 1.5 miles of my home and within one mile of a very good dumping site. I sent them to the local media, the chief constable and the chief executive of my local authority as an illustration of the scale of the problem.
There is also the problem of people who believe that access to the countryside does not include any commitment to responsibility or common sense. A man was about to shoot birds on a lake for which I have some care at the side of my home. He seemed to believe that the Government's White Paper will allow him to do just what he likes; that is, to shoot what he likes, when he likes. He went away somewhat puzzled. The Government will have to make clear that access is for walkers, not shooters, coursers, motorcycles or off-the-road motor vehicles.
There is responsibility and ignorance, but there is also danger. I put a great deal of effort into promoting the economic and environmental recovery of my area. We received substantial sums of money and the local authority dedicated great energy to transforming our environment. We have a big lake where there was once a colliery. People decided to take motor boats to the lake across an area of newly planted shrubs and trees causing thousands of pounds in damage. Children are attracted to the lake. I took the number of one of the vehicles concerned and offered to be a witness in court. I warned that there was a great deal of danger. A boy drowned the following week. There are risks in access where there is no common sense.
320
I want to see people enjoy our countryside; it is a great source of inspiration in English literature, poetry, music and art. We have seen too much of it destroyed in recent years, often in an eagerness to produce food at all costs. Thousands of miles of hedgerow were taken up for that reason. In recent years it has become set-aside. We must ensure that our countryside remains worth seeing. We must ensure that it is also enjoyed, but enjoyed with an attitude of common sense and wisdom.
4.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for introducing this debate and for his excellent speech, in which he asked a number of pertinent questions. I differed from him only when he said he thought the conflict between the urban and non-urban populations was less than it was before. I remember when I read agriculture at university many years ago being told that one of the difficulties was the conflict between the urban and rural dwellers. It was said that that must be lessened. But I feel that that gulf has widened, which is a great pity.
I should declare an interest in so far as I am involved with agriculture and have been involved with land and land management in various ways during a large part of my life.
I hope that this will not be regarded as provocative, but it is quite nice to have a break from the House of Lords Bill and all the issues that we have been discussing over the past few days. Indeed, if we were to remove those who are speaking from the Front Benches, it is interesting to note that of the 23 speakers who are taking part in today's debate 17 are hereditary Peers. I just mention that as an interesting statistic and noble Lords can make of it what they wish.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that the "right to roam" is a controversial expression. We ought to find something else which is less controversial. It is controversial because it is a right. Once you give people rights, you impose obligations upon others. That is a matter which has not been considered nearly enough. Any one who holds any part of the countryside in this country has a great privilege. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that the countryside belongs to the people. With the greatest respect to him, I think that that is a whole lot of old rubbish; indeed, it belongs to the individual owners. That does not mean to say that others should not have the advantage of it and indeed access to it. But to say that it belongs to the people is simply not true. Sometimes it belongs to a smallholder, sometimes to a landowner, sometimes to a person who just has a house in a garden, sometimes to a company and sometimes a trust. So all those different owners enjoy a certain privilege. However, they also enjoy a great responsibility. I agree that people ought to be encouraged to use and enjoy the countryside for all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, gave so eloquently.
We all take pride in the countryside. It is a cause of pride because it has been managed. However, as the right reverend Prelate has reminded us, it is also

321
people's workplace. I was impressed by what he said about the problems of fell farmers—for example, when people find a broken wall, they crawl over it and it has to be replaced. If they find a broken gate, it, too, has to be replaced. All those costs have to fall upon someone and I just do not think that the Government have thought enough about it.
It has been said that 80 per cent of the people who answered the consultation document were in favour of the right to roam. But if you sent out a consultation document which asked, "Would you like a free bottle of champagne?", I should think you would get quite a substantial answer in one way. The fact is that if that document had asked, "Are you in favour of people trampling over nesting birds?", a different response might have been received.
The access to the countryside has to be managed. People do not walk in a straight line. Dogs will be let off the lead and they will sniff out birds and worry sheep. Moreover, people will want to brew up a cup of tea and, inadvertently, set fire to a place. Indeed, what happens when people camp at night? Who will see them off? What right has that person to do so? These people may well say, "We have now been given a right", and the response could be, "Yes, you have a right to roam but you must not go over that particular area because it is a site of special scientific interest". Those people may reply that they did not know that, so who will explain it to them?
Whose responsibility is it to look after such places? Is it to be the responsibility of the landlord? Further, what happens if he has to take out greater liability insurance? What happens if someone falls down a hole on someone else's land? Who will pay for that? These are matters of great concern. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that it would have been far better had this been done on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis.
There are many interests involved in the countryside, especially in the uplands, and so on. There is agriculture, tending the countryside and the protection of birds, nesting birds and wildlife, together with the lambing of sheep as well as the shooters, the horse riders, the walkers and everyone else. If all this is to be opened up, it must be controlled. If you are going to control it, you must consider how you will do so. Indeed, rules, laws and regulations will have to be made and there will also have to be administration. It may perhaps be necessary to have wardens and car parks—heaven knows! The fact is that this does invite another huge array of bureaucracy. That is what worries me.
I have just suffered a momentary lapse of memory, as happens frequently to some people, but I now recall that it is the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is to respond to the debate. He will be replying for the department in which I once had the responsibility of being an ornament. There is one great thing about that department: it has an in-built dynamo to interfere. As I believe I said only the other day, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on hedgerows, that is not a reflection on the civil servants. However, when Ministers say, "Let's have a right to roam", it must
322
be controlled. But how will you control it? The answer is that there will be endless laws and regulations—indeed, 15 pages of regulations were introduced covering hedgerows—so heaven knows how many regulations will come out on the right to roam. What will it cost, and who will pay for it? Is it really right when all this should be done in a voluntary way? There are an enormous number of unanswered questions here, many of which go far deeper than giving people what seems to be a very nice right to roam.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend, and neighbour, Lord Gladwyn, for his excellent choice of a subject for one of our Wednesday debates. He introduced the topic in his usual clear and level-headed way. This is extremely timely: we have today an opportunity to give some considered reactions to the important government Statement of 8th March, and to seek answers to some particular matters arising from it. Indeed, I suspect that our proceedings this afternoon resemble a sort of Second Reading debate without the text of the Bill—or is it to be Bills, in the plural?—which the Government have promised. I trust that some of the points raised may be useful to the Government in preparing the text of the legislation.
I join other speakers in asking whether the Minister can tell us more about the timing of this legislation. Noble Lords may recall that the Statement said that legislation will be introduced, "as parliamentary time allows", an expression which sometimes turns out to mean the Greek Kalends. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but any decoding of the expression which the Minister can give us would be very welcome.
I should explain briefly my personal position. I do not own land but am an enthusiastic walker over hill and dale, which I have practised from childhood and still continue with some zest. I have walked extensively in this country, and in the other nations where I have lived. It is clear to me from this experience that the access which we already enjoy in this country to "open countryside" compares very favourably with that available in foreign countries, few of which have a system of rights of way, or common land, as we know and enjoy them here.
France does have an ambitious and extensive network of long distance footpaths, called, I think, Les Grandes Routes, which I have walked on in Provence and recently seen in Corsica. I have also walked on the Appalachian trail and in the Rockies in the United States and elsewhere. The conclusion I draw is that no one abroad has anything comparable with our rights of way which are a national treasure, to be maintained and nourished for use by everyone.
It is not clear to me from careful study of the Statement just what it is that the Government propose to do with our rights of way. Perhaps they do not yet know themselves. As I see it, the need here is for an increase in resources rather than any fundamental change. The biggest threat to our footpaths just now is the explosion in the number of mountain bikes and

323
four-wheel drive recreational vehicles. It would surely be a mistake to change the law so as to permit the more extensive use of green lanes by these powerful, noisy and destructive monsters. It is absurd to create a general right to open a lane to motor traffic, because it might once have been used by a pony trap or horse and cart earlier on this century. That is the kind of decision which is actually being taken at present. Per contra: there is a case for reclassifying the RUPPs as bridleways by statute, to afford them greater protection. In general, reclassification should be for the benefit of the non-motorised user, a point upon which I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath.
I also greatly welcome the recognition that access to the open countryside should be for quiet enjoyment. That is a matter which we have debated in recent years and constitutes a welcome change of heart by the Government. I see from the Statement that there is a commitment to make some improvement to the rights of way system. I am sure that its prime need is to have more resources than have lately been available. It is, I think, generally understood that for this purpose local authorities have tiny budgets which are manifestly inadequate. Increasing these resources should be the first priority in this whole subject as it would enable the system to operate more effectively. There is little or no cash to hand at present to mend stiles or to spend modestly on signage. Let it be modest, please: our village has lately sprouted a forest of smart metal signs with arrows decorously picked out in white paint to indicate the direction to be taken. That is quite unnecessary for anyone with a map, particularly as these lanes do not go anywhere in particular. Yet there is little or no officer time available to arrange visits to those who may be privily obstructing a registered right of way.
I also suggest to the Minister that this question of rights of way is cardinal to the whole question of access to the open countryside because many of these areas will not necessarily have road access or other means of access. Therefore it may be necessary to identify particular rights of way to enable the walker to reach these places. I am particularly intrigued to learn of the proposed local access forums which will have an advisory role in assessing these matters. Can the Minister explain how these appointments are to be made and who will choose the members? Will the selection be in the hands of the elected authority and not, I trust, in the gift of the regional development agency?
I conclude with this simple observation. The Government are now committed to introducing a Bill which will fundamentally alter the concept of land ownership. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made a number of valid points in that connection. I greatly hope that the change can be undertaken without reducing the sense of responsibility which most owners of land in this country have felt about their property. The best of these people have indeed acted as stewards for life, and it is important to maintain, and not to diminish, that sense of responsibility as these measures are devised and take effect.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too declare an interest as the owner of land in Suffolk. I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, as regards the privilege of owning land. I was interested to note the slight distinction that I felt was made between my noble friend Lord Ferrer; and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on that point. I regard the privilege as equalled only by the obligation one has. In my case there are not many things I want to achieve in this world more than to leave my own little cabbage patch more attractive than I found it. I believe passionately in that because I believe passionately in the protection of rural England. It is because I !relieve: in that protection that I believe the more people from urban areas visit the countryside, the more powerful will be the lobby to protect the countryside from undue or insensitive development.
I do not totally agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the division between town and country is getting greater, because all the figures show that more and more people visit the countryside. I shall return to that point in a moment. The most beautiful areas should be open to public access. Much was achieved after the war with the Acts that designated national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coasts and so on. In my view, that was one of the two great achievements of the Attlee government, the other being the establishment of the National Health Service.
In more recent years we owe a particular debt to the National Trust, especially for its Enterprise Neptune scheme. The National Trust now owns about 600 miles of the 900 miles of coastline that it originally targeted to achieve conservation and access. Without that we might well have the kind of denial of access that is. for example, to be seen on some parts of the coast of the south of France. We are particularly fortunate in access to our coast.
The biggest problem is to get people to visit many of these areas. I believe that the access that is already available is arguably one of the great under-used assets of this country. I refer to five areas that I know well. I have been lucky enough to walk in certain parts of the Suffolk AONB with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to whom we owe a debt for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters in this debate. The Lake District National Park is the most heavily used national park, but if one ventures away from the roads one can at almost any time of year soon enjoy deep solitude. On a number of occasions I have been fortunate enough to walk in Yorkshire with my noble friend Lord Eccles, who spoke with the authority of someone who uses the countryside in that part of the world. One can walk in that area in the height of summer and see practically no one. That is remarkable. I refer to one of the most obviously visited counties; Hampshire. I have walked with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in various parts of Hampshire, including the New Forest and the Isle of Wight. Again, even in the height of summer it is possible to enjoy solitude and the beauty of the countryside.

325
I refer finally to Cornwall, which has arguably the most beautiful heritage coast in our land, both on the north and south coasts. For 10 years now I have visited Cornwall every other year and I have walked there fairly strenuously for about five hours a day. Only three weeks ago on a bright Saturday sandwiched between a wet Friday and a wet Sunday my wife and I walked with friends in Cornwall for some six hours on part of the south coast of Cornwall near Fowey. During the whole of that walk I believe we passed about 35 people. We walked on the National Trust coastal path. Therefore I believe that at present there is a great deal of public access to land which is not fully used.
There have been conflicts with regard to access. It has become a difficult issue which is deeply rooted in history. The current conflicts are caused sometimes by the arrogance of a few landowners. Sometimes that arrogance is deliberate but sometimes they are just thoughtless. The closure of a footpath can be an act of thoughtlessness or of arrogance. I would like to see bodies such as the CLA and the NFU take tough action against their members who behave in that way because they bring great disrepute to the landowning fraternity.
One can also encounter aggression among ramblers. I think that things have moved on, but I remember that some years ago Mr. Alan Mattingley, who was then the chief officer of the Ramblers' Association, wrote an article in the Tribune or the New Statesman on the foundation of a body called the Socialist Countryside Group, of which he was a founder member. Incidentally I do not think it is appropriate for a national officer of a voluntary organisation to become involved in an overtly political organisation. He said that the Labour Party had a simple policy as regards access; namely, land nationalisation. Noble Lords will realise that this incident took place a long while ago and that view is as far out of the frame as it is possible to be. However, I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Peel that special protection is needed for those who obtain their living from sporting activities in the countryside. Special protection is also needed in conservation areas.
I wish to make two specific points. First, I believe that there is great virtue in the new gates that many local authorities provide which open and shut automatically. They are sometimes called Yorkshire gates. It is difficult for bicyclists to get over them. In that respect they are just as difficult as stiles. However, they are easier for disabled people to negotiate than stiles. That is important.
Secondly, I would like to see parish councils, which I regard as the real grassroots of government, have the power to issue orders that footpaths should be opened where there have been obstructions rather than having to go through the whole bureaucracy of county councils.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on their subtle approach to the matter. They cleverly leaked the idea that the matter would be dealt with by voluntary methods and then produced the promise of legislation. It will take a long time for the legislation to mature because there must be full consultation. It is slightly similar to the hedgerow legislation which took the
326
previous government some 10 years between pledge and implementation—and then it was not perfect, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers will know. As one who is perhaps to remain here for a while, I hope to do what I can to improve the eventual legislation.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am sure it is a coincidence that I am the fourth successive speaker from East Anglia to join the ranks of those who wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gladwyn on introducing the debate. I do so from a background of some forensic experience of rights of way. I am glad that in his comprehensive and admirable speech my noble friend touched upon that matter. I hope that the noble, Lord Whitty, will take the opportunity of building a little on what he said in his Statement of 8th March about the flexibility that the Government wish to build into the new approach to the network of public rights of way. I hope he will comment also on the documents that have now appeared from the Countryside Agency, referred to by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn.
The present legislation is immensely complex. Starting in 1949, it was amended by the Countryside Act 1968; then by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and then again in 1985. It runs to a large amount of print. It is supplemented by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will no doubt welcome as a typical Department of the Environment circular running to 28 pages, circular 2/93, on how local authorities are to implement the legislation.
There is now an opportunity to cut down on some of the complexity. Circular 2/93 informs local councils of two matters: first, that there is to be no increase of expenditure or manpower. Councils are to ensure that sufficient resources are available from existing budgets to carry out their statutory duties. They are nevertheless to keep their maps up to date and ensure that the rights of way network is kept fit for use and clear of obstructions. Secondly, they are informed that the target date is the year 2000. Perhaps the Minister can say whether local authorities will achieve that target. Everyone will rejoice if they do.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the cost of the legislation, not least to local authorities. Of course they are promised that they can recoup some of the costs of diversions or the stopping-up of rights of way from those who benefit. That was brought into effect by statutory instruments in 1993 and 1996—but it is still discretionary. My local authority footpath officer tells me that the average cost of a very simple, unopposed diversion order for a footpath is between £700 and £800; £400 for the advertisements and about £300 to £400 for officers' time. Some of that money may be recouped but, of course, as it is discretionary, it may not.
The legislation is too complicated and too expensive. We are now 50 years on from the 1949 legislation and we are merely recording existing rights of way and their status—nothing more constructive than that. The legislation is so complicated that it took the Court of Appeal to decide in a certain case in 1990 the point of all the legislation. It is now clear that it is to record

327
what is available for public use; it is then for the local authorities to ensure that it is fit and available for such use.
There are problems with maps. A definitive map is created under the legislation and now, very sensibly, it is brought up to date from time to time as part of a continuous process. But the availability of the definitive map is a major problem. The Ordnance Survey has to be given notice of any changes; it then has to incorporate those changes into its maps. Copyright prevents any distribution of the definitive map to anyone who wishes to walk along a footpath Local authorities are not allowed to give the map to anyone. If they do, it is a breach of copyright and severe financial penalties ensue. That approach stands in great contrast to the approach of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, which publishes maps under various conservation schemes—countryside stewardships, countryside access, environmentally sensitive areas and so on. The ministry will say to a local authority, "Here is a map. We are keen to promote the use of these access sites, so please feel free to make as many copies of the enclosed plan as you require." That is a very different approach from the one associated with the definitive map. I took advantage of the service on the way home. I went to one of the access sites, a heathland regeneration area, which was full of sheep and heavily fenced. I do not know what to make of that.
Now that the network is there and, broadly speaking, we all know who is allowed to do what, perhaps I may ask. the Minister what the Government propose to do to bring about a balance. Will local access forums be set up to conciliate between the very sincerely held views of landowners, ramblers and others who wish to use the countryside and to cut down the costs of disputes? Will a conciliation process be built into the legislation?
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He made it plain that we must bring forward the process for the wider purposes that the Government have brought into the debate about access to open countryside. He described why one needs to have maps. Will the Minister say something about mapping and copyright within the wider process? I am sure that the Countryside Agency will help. I urge the Government to consider positively the needs of users of both the existing rights of way and the proposed wider areas defined in the legislation in order that everyone will know where they can go and where they cannot go. The Government can make a valuable—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am well aware that I have overrun my time. If the noble Baroness had not interrupted me I would have sat down 30 seconds earlier. I do so now. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the Government are going on these matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that when the clock
328
indicates seven their time is over. If everyone speaks for two minutes too long, the Minister will be unable to answer any of the questions.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, following that instruction, I am almost tempted not to speak at all.
I shall not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, down the footpaths and bridleways that he has opened up, except to say that on that subject I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the assumption that every track to which there has ever been vehicular access should now be open to motorised vehicles is idiotic and should be reversed.
Turning to the subject of the debate, so excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, following the Statement made on 8th March by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I expressed concerns, particularly in regard to the damage that could be done to fragile ecologies. I chose as my example lowland heathland. I have had a number of conversations on this matter and have taken care to reread the Statement and attempt to understand what it is all about.
I am to some extent reassured by the fact that much heathland is already open to general roaming and no harm is apparently suffered by the wildlife there. Also, there will be a continuing ability for the owners and managers of such land, and all other land covered by this approach in legislation, to close the land. or parts of it, at certain times of year and for certain lengths of time. Nevertheless, I still have some reservations about this approach to access to the countryside. Some of the attitudes that I wish to express were expressed much more ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in an excellent and most interesting contribution which will certainly bear rereading.
My first specific question is: what will happen to open land owned by the Ministry of Defence? It is an important element in open, uncultivated countryside in Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire, and no doubt in other parts of the country such as Yorkshire, where traditionally there have existed large military encampments of a permanent nature. It is an important matter that the Government are the owner, pro tem, of the land and they may wish to set a good example to others.
Secondly, there is the question of extending the right to roam to woodland. I come from Surrey, which is the most heavily wooded county in England. Much of that woodland is extremely remote. I assure noble Lords who may think that it is impossible to be remote in Surrey that that is not the case. The woodland is remote from any highway. The question would arise as to how anyone could reach it, supposing that any right were established for people to roam in it. The only way that it could be done would be by establishing rights of way through cultivated land. I wonder whether the Government have given any consideration to that problem, which no doubt arises in respect of other parcels of land, not merely woodland.

329
The question of cost has been referred to by several speakers. I have attempted to understand the Entec report commissioned by the DETR, which deals precisely with the cost-benefit analysis of various methods of achieving the Government's ambitions to grant a right to roam. In every case there are quite heavy costs which will be borne on an on-going basis by the owners of land. As the right reverend Prelate, among other speakers, reminded us, in some cases the people who are responsible for such uncultivated or open land are by no means among the richest of landowners or land managers. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the Government are not speaking in the same breath about compensation; they are simply talking about costs.
More generally, my doubts about this approach to increased access to the countryside can be summed up in the idea of creating an absolute right to roam. Every year, at Liberal and Liberal Democrat conferences and assemblies we have sung enthusiastically, "God gave the land to the people". Maybe He did, but most gifts require responsibility in their use. I do not share the optimism of some noble Lords that everyone knows how to use those gifts wisely.
The other day, on Leith Hill, we found a grass snake or slow-worm; to be honest, I cannot say which it was. The first group of people who found it, left it. However, we later came across a couple of young men carrying the said snake over a stick. When my daughter remonstrated with them she was subjected to abuse. In those circumstances everyone who has expressed doubts as to the balance of rights and responsibilities which the Government intend to build into forthcoming legislation is justified.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was not sure whether I should take part in this debate. However, I was considerably encouraged, indeed cheered up, by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Earl pointed out that I have the rare distinction of being a life Peer rather than a common or garden hereditary.
The debate focuses on the Government's Statement on access to the open countryside. I believe that the policy outlined achieves a reasonable balance between the needs of all the interested parties and is worthy of support. We look forward to the proposed Bill, which we shall be able to scrutinise in detail. I know that we cannot anticipate the gracious Speech, but it would be less than satisfactory if the story in Monday's Guardian were true and there is to be no legislation in the coming year.
I wish immediately to raise a point concerning existing rights of way. There appears to be persistent flouting of the law on the part of some, albeit a minority, of farmers and landowners. They rely on public ignorance and complacency on the one hand and a shortage of local authority resources on the other to deny people access to paths which they are legally entitled to use. In my judgment local authorities ought to act more vigorously than they currently do and bring the law into play sooner for persistent offenders.
330
In that connection, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what is the maximum penalty that can be imposed in such cases? Will he also tell us, in connection with one or two of the most appalling cases, whether, when the offender is a foreign national, there are legal powers which can lead to the person concerned being denied the right of residence in this country?
On a more pleasant theme, access to the countryside is part of our national tradition. I speak as someone who has always enjoyed the right to roam in the big city. But that is complementary to walks in the countryside rather than a substitute. The city environment has certainly deteriorated, especially in London, not least because it is now so much more crowded and congested. But my subjective impression is that there has been a different kind of deterioration in the countryside. That is not so much to do with crowds, although I understand that there are places in which there are so many ramblers that a solitary and quiet walk becomes impossible; it is much more that farming and other developments involving wire, impenetrable fences and locked gates make it almost impossible to walk across open countryside. I do not believe it is only in my imagination that my sisters and I when young ran across fields and gathered bluebells in the local woods. I appreciate that the world moves on, but it would be a great pity if young people in the future were denied the freedom that we used to have and experienced the natural world only in a structured and controlled way.
This takes me to another favourite theme. If one lives in the country one must get to the paths along which one wishes to walk. That means going down country lanes which themselves used to be suitable places for rambling. Without pavements, and with motor transport now out of control, they are no longer as safe as they used to be, especially if young children are involved. Speed limits are not low enough and are ignored by country folk who engage in so-called "rat runs" to save a minute or two rather than use main roads. These are the same people who are loudest in their protestations of the need to preserve the rural environment.
In the past, joining with other inhabitants of East Anglia, I have remarked that this is a problem in Suffolk where I live. The local authorities, the county council, the police and so on are always sympathetic but carry on blithely doing nothing. I am told that the problem is as great in other counties. I would prefer that local authorities acted on their own behalf than called for central government intervention, but we shall see whether that becomes necessary in due course if matters deteriorate further.
I revert to another of my favourite themes: the excellence of local newspapers. In this case I refer specifically to the East Anglian Daily Times which every week outlines a suggested local walk. That is most helpful to amateur ramblers like myself—perhaps I should now refer to myself as an amateur limper—both in terms of sticking to rights of way and stimulating interest. I know that other local newspapers perform an excellent service in guiding people towards such excellent walks.

331
To conclude, I join with others in saying how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing the debate in such a well-informed and sensible manner and for reminding us of the value of the countryside to our national heritage. As other noble Lords are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is the author of an excellent book on Suffolk, which I read with great pleasure. So much of our history is set in rural areas and so much of our great literature is remarkable for its countryside scenes. It would be dreadful if young people viewed the countryside much as they view Mars—as a strange and distant place which they can read about but cannot visit or, when they do visit, are not welcome. Equally, it would be dreadful if no parts of our countryside retained an air of tranquillity. I hope that the debate will help to limit the damage that has occurred in some places and lead to policies that in due course will reverse it.
5.2 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I rise to seek the views of the Government on two specific cost issues which will arise if—I suppose that I should say "when"—they require the occupiers of land to allow people onto that land with no discretion as to their suitability or likely behaviour and no power to require from them terms and conditions. I join with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle in stressing that the occupiers in question are not just owners of large estates, who are often wrongly deemed to be rich, but include tenants, particularly upland tenants, who seek to earn a living from unpromising and unfruitful land.
The first issue I raise is the cost arising from the need to insure against occupier's liability. This point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. As a lawyer I recognise that the Government propose to impose on occupiers only the same level of duty as they owe to trespassers. Accordingly, the Government have said that they do not expect the cost of insurance to be much greater than it is at present. But let us take the case of open land quite near a population centre, and therefore likely to be visited, which has features such as rocks, caves or the mineshaft to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred, that may attract people who want to climb, go down potholes and so on.
In those circumstances I suggest it is quite possible that with this potentially large influx of people who are exercising a right, and therefore are more likely to bring claims, insurers will either insist on a higher premium or require works to be done, notices to be put up, safety precautions to be taken and so on. Surely, that cost, if it arises, must fall on the Government who have sent these people onto the land rather than on the reluctant occupier who is being ordered to receive them.
My second issue raises perhaps a greater problem and concerns damage done by these new compulsory visitors. I wholly agree with those who have said that however much rules are made, bureaucracy imposed, monitors created and so on damage will occur. I take two examples: first, dogs that are let off leads—however much the rules say that they must be kept on leads—and then chase sheep, killing lambs or causing ewes to abort. Secondly, what about picnickers who light a fire
332
which then spreads to a neighbouring plantation or building? It is likely that those who are exercising this government-given right will be less aware of and considerate to the risks and problems that their behaviour is likely to create. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood
In those circumstances, if such damage occurs it is highly unlikely that the occupier will have the name and address of the culprit. Even if he does, that culprit may well not have the assets to pay the damages. Surely, in those circumstances the Government, somewhat like the Motor Insurers Bureau, must accept ultimate liability for damage caused by those they have sent onto the land when no other source of compensation is available to the occupier.
Unless issues such as these are addressed and solved the Government's policy will cause great unfairness and resentment. I hope that in the light of my extreme compliance with the Government Whip's observations I shall receive very favourable answers to these problems.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I have an interest in what we are debating as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Currently, that is the only conservation board in the country set up by joint agreement between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. hope that that will be remedied shortly and that there will be other conservation boards as a result of a Bill which may receive its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on Friday. That is a bit of advanced selling of my legislation.
I am delighted to take part in this debate initiated by my noble friend—also one of my oldest friends—Lord Gladwyn and to have the chance to listen to the maiden speech of another old friend, my noble friend Lord Eccles. Listening to them both I felt that in a sense I had other interests to declare. I have walked with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. My only criticism of his walks is that he tends to go a bit fast; he likes to get places and not have too many people talking en route. My wife and he have ridden the South Downs Way from the Hampshire border to Eastbourne. That is the longest bridlepath in the country and one that now falls under the bailiwick of my conservation board.
Listening to my noble friend Lord Eccles I was reminded of Bill Bryson's notes of walks around England in his enchanting book written before he returned to the States. I remember walking with my noble friend Lord Eccles and Viscountess Eccles through part of Swaledale not many months ago. The only omission from my noble friend's speech was the name of the extremely good pub at which we ended our morning's walk. I am sure that that is not because he has forgotten it.
I am anxious to agree with the comment of both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that the terminology "agreed access" is very much happier than "right to

333
roam" because it emphasises the spirit of compromise in approaching the very tricky issue of greater access to the countryside. It would be a better title.
The conservation board, which I have the honour of chairing, has done a lot of work on public access to the South Downs and long before the Government announced their intention to legislate on 8th March. That is only right because we are responsible for 2,200 kilometres of rights of way on the Sussex Downs. We put out a number of leaflets headed, "Take Your Bus for a Walk." The aim is to encourage people, for example in Brighton, to take their local bus on a normal bus route into some part of the Downs where they can get off, go on a circular walk and return to the bus an hour or two—or three—later.
We are developing a database, with the help of the East Hampshire authority and with some European Union money to map all the current areas of access to the South Downs.
The majority of those on the board favour a voluntary route to increased agreed access. We have had a great deal of discussion on the matter. We have always made it a principle to work with farmers, landowners and the local authority to arrive at land management agreements, which often include increased access, perhaps opening up a linear path between two open areas of access which are currently not joined together.
Shortly after I became chairman of the board we set ourselves a target of an annual 5 per cent increase in the amount of open access on the Downs. Although we made some progress, we have not yet reached the target and further progress has now stopped as a result of the Government's announcement. I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully to what I say. It has been stopped not least because the farmers and landowners with whom we were talking now say, in the nicest possible way, "We want to see the shape of the legislation before we go any further." That is a perfectly natural reaction.
The second reason for progress stopping is the Government's decision to freeze access payments under agri-environment schemes, for example, the environmentally sensitive area schemes and the country stewardship scheme. That was a mistaken decision because whatever the final shape of the legislation it has meant that the stewardship schemes, which were designed to open up access, have come to a grinding halt. I hope very much that the Minister will ask his colleagues to reconsider that decision. It was a useful bargaining tool.
I wrote to the Minister for the Environment about some of these issues on 19th March. I pointed out that the particular problem for us in the downlands was going to be the agreed definition of "down". A careful definition is critical to the success of any open access scheme. If it is confined only to chalk grassland it will mean very little indeed; if it is permanent grassland, the maximum definition, then that is likely to upset many farmers and landowners. We have to be wise and clever in making definitions; otherwise the Bill will start off by causing a great deal of confusion and distress.
334
Are rights of way improvements to be included in the legislation? How will the Government act to stop land being ploughed up before the right to roam legislation comes into force? The Government must take these points very seriously. I hope that in so doing they will consult very widely with a conservation board such as ours. We are there to help, whatever our views about the legislation.
The issue of the public liability of those who are required to open up their land under right to roam legislation and improved access legislation needs to be cleared up. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was very dismissive of this point when he answered questions in your Lordships' House on 30th March. I hope that he has had time to reflect further because it is an imponderable of great additional possible cost, a Sword of Damocles that cannot be left hanging over the necks of farmers and landowners.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give some indication today of when we can expect legislation on these matters. We have been waiting for many months, and the situation of suspense at the moment is intolerable.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I must remind noble Lords that when the minute seven is shown on the Clock, their time is up. The Minister is now losing time for responding to questions.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in this crowded island it is evident that access to our beautiful countryside for any member of the population who wants to enjoy it ought to be possible in some sensible way.
Unfortunately, noble Lords who have spoken so far have underestimated the sense of frustration on both sides, the sense of bitterness and confrontation which exists between some parts of the farming industry and the rambling fraternity. I do not think that bitterness and confrontation help anybody. There are landowners and farmers who do obstruct rights of way: there are also ramblers who are exceedingly unhelpful when it comes to the question of reasonably argued diversions that would be to the benefit of both the landowner and the public. I will return to that issue in a moment.
The Government have a duty to achieve a consensus at the centre and to isolate the extreme fanatics on either fringe. In this context I should like to make two suggestions. The first relates to the right to roam in the open countryside. The problem with all the proposals that have been tabled so far, including the Bill in another place, is that they will be impossible to manage.
Reference was made to the duty of care, but that duty of care has to be managed. It includes problems of litter, fires, camping, abuse of animal rights, danger to wildlife and wilful damage.
For 45 years I have been involved in land management in various parts of the world. I am a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I do not own any open countryside, but I know that the current proposals are unmanageable. It would be easier to

335
manage those proposals if the right to roam were subject to a licence to roam. There is nothing difficult in that. It would be a licence similar to a dog licence or a licence to kill game, both of which can be obtained from the Post Office. It should be a licence with a photograph on it. It would have a number of distinct advantages. Somebody applying for a licence could then be targeted with necessary information about the country code and also about personal safety, which will be very important in relation to some of the more rugged hill areas. The licence would be available to anyone, subject to good behaviour: in other words, provided they did not have a record of convictions for doing damage or doing anything illegal under the country code or the Act when it is passed. With the licence, it would be easy to identify the transgressor. At present, if you walk to the top of a hill and find someone destroying something, you ask him his name and he calls himself Mr. Smith from Laburnum Grove, there is nothing to be done. At least, with a licence, it would be possible to identify the person.
Finally, if there were a modest licence fee, that could be used to help to supplement the increased cost of emergency services. Real dangers are involved in wandering in the countryside. The fee could also contribute to the cost of management.
The second point I wish to make relates to the rights of way network. As several noble Lords have said, that is a priceless asset in this country. I, too, am a slightly reluctant walker. My wife is very keen. I tend to volunteer to take the car and pick her up at the other end when there is an opportunity to do so. But I have walked extensively with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The problem is that the rights of way network is set in aspic. The needs of today's walkers are totally different from the needs of walkers of 150 years ago when the network formed itself.
Many noble Lords who walk will agree that today the public want circular walks, both long and short, preferably ending somewhere where you can park the car and if there is a pub not too far away, that is better still. That is what the public want.
I shall not go into detail, but I give the House an example of the problem of securing circular walks. Fifteen years ago, I was approached by my local council which asked me to agree to certain changes to rights of way in the parish on the land that I owned in order to achieve short and long circular walks, both of them ending at the newly constructed village hall. It is not newly constructed now; it is 15 years old. We still have not got there, after 15 years of negotiation because the legal position is so exceedingly difficult. If you want a comprehensive scheme, there is no way in which that scheme can be approved as a whole. Each variation, closure and dedication must be agreed separately, so that the inspector can cherry-pick. We believe that he will cherry-pick to our disadvantage, and I speak as a landowner in this case. The ramblers believe that he will cherry-pick to their disadvantage. So neither group wants to risk putting the application to the test. It is absolutely daft. It would be extremely easy to change the legislation to make sensible change easier when everybody wants it.
336
I hope that the Government will make a point of ensuring that when they introduce legislation, it is friendly to the development of new circular walks.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, this debate has covered many interesting points. I must start by declaring an interest as an owner of land. I was very sorry that the choice was made to have confrontation through legislation rather than having a voluntary agreement. That was an opportunity to achieve good will turned away. Nevertheless, we must get on with it as it is.
I speak for many when I say that we are not against properly controlled and better access to the countryside. First, we must remember that we have a fast-growing urban population, an increasing ignorance of the countryside, a diminishing land resource arid with it, its wildlife.
For over 100 years, my family has voluntarily permitted footpaths on the estate. In spite of that, recently I have been under pressure to allow greater access. I believe that the majority of ramblers are responsible and sensible people. However, there are leaders among them who display an insatiability for more. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the diversion of footpaths and how there are those who always oppose everything, however sensible it is. So when their demands included entry into a Grade I national nature reserve I am glad that English Nature stood firm. I must declare the fact that part of my estate is in that nature reserve.
However, I wish to speak briefly about the coastal regions and to ask that special thought be given to its protection. Some of our rarest birds nest on our coasts or on the mudflats. They are already under pressure from natural predators: raptors, foxes, rodents and so on. When not harbouring nestlings, many wintering birds use them for migratory purposes. It is also an area very rich in flora.
Thanks to the National Trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us, nearly 600 miles of coastline is now being restored because of Operation Neptune. But there is one great problem; that is, that the immediate hinterland is often uncultivated and could be defined as moorland. Careful thought must be given to ensuring that the lands adjacent to the coast are not damaged by human intrusion. That intrusion is not only by pedestrians. There is also access from the sea; for example, by yachts. We must somehow deter people coming for their picnics with dogs and children.
I have no doubt whatever that English Nature can be relied on to defend the SSSIs it controls. But in the past, many landowners have created their own reserves on their estates and often on uncultivated land. Therefore, I hope to hear that nature reserves, however small, will be protected. Where appropriate, daily permits can be issued to people interested in birds.
Also, consideration must be given to the great parks around our historic buildings owned by the National Trust, English Heritage and privately. Again, they are often uncultivated and therefore fall into that definition.

337
Finally, there is no doubt that education has a vital part to play in teaching people in the towns how to behave in the countryside. If such matters are taught in our primary schools, things will be very much better. How much I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the expression "right to roam" is unfortunate. "Permissive footpaths" is obviously a better way in which to describe those new routes. Perhaps there should be "permissive footpaths" for visiting at the weekends but not a right to roam.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I speak from a Scottish viewpoint and as an active access manager in lowland Scotland. Even this morning, I was harnessed to the strimmer, keeping the footpaths open. It was particularly pleasant in Pondwood, south-east of Alloa, in the early morning light.
This debate is about the proposed changes and improvements to the public's right of access to land in England and Wales. It is certainly true that there will be additional work for land managers if more people are to visit the countryside's footpath networks and the open hills. That must be recognised, as it has been in the Scottish access debate. The proposals drafted by Scottish Natural Heritage seem well balanced. They propose a restatement of the ancient Scots law access provisions in a single Act and identify that land managers must be assisted in their task of coping with problems generated by increased access. They are about the responsible use of access rights. That builds on the ancient right of passage over land.
There is a considerable need for greater access to the Scottish countryside, particularly in the peri-urban setting. Recreational walking gives both health and recreational benefits. The poor health record in lowland Scotland can be attacked by an increase in low-cost recreational outlets, especially those which do not require transport to reach the start or finish.
The existing historic network of footpaths was laid down either for the purpose of getting to work or as estate maintenance infrastructure. The network requires some additional linking paths to make circular walks practical. Having done that in the Marywood between Alloa and Clackmannan, I know that it is not difficult to improve a network. Funds seem to be available for footpath creation but not for footpath maintenance. That needs to be remedied, especially if wheelchair and cycle quality paths are to be provided.
I have made deliberate reference to the peri-urban environment and hence the special needs of those who manage the rural areas on the urban fringe. I believe that the increasing emphasis in planning law and guidelines is towards forcing people to live in established urban settlements. That is creating a nation of townies. Very few young people have a real chance of growing up as countrymen. I accept that having a home in a rural area does not make an instant countryman, as all those urban commuters well demonstrate. A rural job is the most likely route, followed by a rural sport, hobby or interest.
338
Without a firm footing in the countryside the chance of people growing up with a good knowledge of the rural environment and all its systems is reduced, if not made positively unlikely.
In Scotland there is a philosophical shift in the legal situation from access to get to work to access for health, recreation and rural education. All this is highly commendable, provided that access rights are enjoyed in a responsible manner. The watchword has to be "Leave only your footprints", and for canoeists it is even better: "Leave only your footprints on the portage trail". This does not happen on every occasion. The problems include litter and household rubbish, fires, scrap cable burning, fence cutting, damage to bushes and saplings, rods, poles and trees cut down (and not even for firewood), footpaths dug up for worms by fishermen, stiles and gates vandalised, signposts ripped up, livestock released, airguns used in the vicinity of paths. I suspect there are more. I have not even mentioned wildlife disturbance, poaching and motorcycle damage.
The frustration comes from the fact that while 99 people come and go, leaving only their footprints, it only takes one person to spoil it. My own enjoyment of land held by the Mar and Kellie estate is tempered by the risk of having to remonstrate with those others who are doing damage or breaching some aspect of common sense.
The problems of increased access will not go away but they may be reduced. The Government in England must acknowledge that. Sharing the land is very desirable but it has to be on a fair basis.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I declare two interests. First of all, I am a keen walker. I have walked in Yorkshire, Wales, Slovakia, South Africa and various other places. The other interest I must declare is that I am the owner of a heather moor which starts about a mile from a large town and which is crossed by many footpaths. These footpaths are well used and I, as a walker, recognise that they must be kept open. In fact they are kept open, there is no question about it.
I fully support the keeping open of all public footpaths. In Wales I have come across wired up footpaths. That is unacceptable. On moorland the owner is an idiot if he does not make certain that his paths are clearly marked. People try to use paths but if they cannot find them they cannot be blamed for wandering off. I fully support footpaths across moorlands. All the scenery can be seen without going off such footpaths.
However, the proposal for access I look upon as extremely dangerous. I do not accept that walkers are a problem. Eighty four per cent of them walk on the footpaths, and. peculiarly enough, the wildlife do not worry about people on footpaths. I have to go out and cull deer about this time of year. I was going up a well used track, not on the moorland but in woodland. I saw a buck about 40 yards away. I could not get round so I stood up and walked up the road and he paid no attention at all. If I had been seen in the wood he would have gone a mile.

339
The problem with the Bill is that it is not legitimating the walkers. It is legitimating all users. In spite of the country code 55 per cent of people with dogs let them loose. On two occasions I have encountered people walking along and talking while their dogs run totally wild. They resent even being asked to keep the dogs under control. There are people with airguns. Every single way marking sign is used as a target.
Many walls cross moorland. With open access someone will inevitably come to a wall. They have to climb over. Orienteers at the moment must get permission to carry out their activity and therefore put clown a route which is congenial to the country. There will be nothing to stop them planning, perhaps from London, an orienteering scheme which crosses a wall. By the time a hundred people have been over a wall there will be nothing left of it. I lost 35 acres of prime woodland when someone set fire to it. A thousand people had walked through, but it only took one to set fire to it.
There are also the saboteurs who go out quite deliberately to disrupt the shooting. They will have the right to be on the moor where they wish, provided they are not seen and caught doing damage. The idea of educating people out of all this, I am afraid, is sad.
The moors take a great deal of managing which I do not think is realised. In order for the heather to be kept in flowering and good condition, burning of small patches has to take place over a period of eight years. It needs to be done when the weather is right. The operation is time consuming and technically difficult.
Foxes and crows have to be kept down; otherwise they pick out lambs' eyes, and perhaps kill the lambs and all the ground-nesting birds. Bracken spreads naturally and quickly over moorland. Much effort, money and time are spent reducing bracken and preventing it taking over the moorland. The moorland is what people go to see and walk through. They do not want to walk through breast-high bracken.
Who pays for all this? The shooting interests. If the moors deteriorate, not through the walkers but through people of ill intent who also have the right to be there, away will go the shooters once that activity is no longer worthwhile. There will be no management. The heather will deteriorate, and there will be no birds. The walkers will lose their scenery and will have with them only controlled motorcyclists and cycles. At the moment there is some chance of controlling them because of the keepering system.
North Yorkshire says that access will be a hindrance to what they are trying to achieve. Why should one small political organisation have their way over the majority of walkers? Why should those who want to manage the moorland for them pay for it? Even the RSPB are worried about the effect of unrestricted access on ground nesting birds?
There are a great number of questions which I am not going to be able to read out. I hope that when the Government get those questions from the Country Landowners' Association they are prepared to give proper answers. For example, what research did the Government undertake on the nature of public demand
340
before making their announcement? What research are the Government undertaking now? What research did the Government undertake of the costs of management of access for upland livestock farmers, who have no means of meeting the costs as profit margins disappear? What advice did the Government take from English Nature on the environmental impact? The Government are in great danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join this afternoon's debate and thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for initiating it. I declare an interest in that I am a landowner in Scotland, although I look on myself more as a manager and lifetime custodian of a comparatively small part of the countryside, a job description that has been so well interpreted in different ways by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Now that Scotland has its own parliament, your Lordships' House and the other place will no longer be legislating on this subject in Scotland. However, the problems that will arise from this proposed legislation are similar in both countries.
As a landowner, I welcome the public to responsibly enjoy the open countryside, as I am sure do many other landowners. However, it is the definition of "responsible", and the degree of legislation that goes with it, which will make such a difference to the future of the countryside. In the first sentence of the Statement the Government refer yet again to their manifesto in which they promised a commitment to give people greater freedom to explore open countryside. Later in the Statement they claim that only a statutory right will deliver the access that they are seeking. Indeed, all through the Statement the Government give a one-sided preference to people to enjoy the open countryside. This, however, must be balanced by also giving definite legislation to support the people who both live in, and rely on, the rural environment to provide their living. I see it as very dangerous to make parliamentary time available for this law purely on the basis of a pre-election manifesto. The long-term effects and scope of this subject and the potential impact on the rural population are too important to be dealt with purely in that way.
The majority of the population of England is now urban based. Indeed, they are often several generations from a rural connection. Giving an open invitation and encouragement to people who are not familiar with, or even aware of, the basic dangers that can be encountered in the countryside will only increase the chances of injuries and perhaps even fatalities, a point that was aptly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. If this is to be the subject of legislation, then perhaps a programme of education, backed up by an enforceable set of guidelines, should also be introduced.
The current legislation does not cover lowland ground in crop or grassland. However, silage is a crop and it is made from grass. Be it upland or lowland, it is still a crop. Under the current law, what is the difference between an enclosed silage field on low ground and an

341
enclosed field on an upland hill farm? There are often very good reasons why public exclusion from land is enforced and it is not always just so that the few can enjoy what the majority would like to enjoy.
During the debate after the Statement the noble Lord the Minister made it quite clear that liability for all matters arising as a result of this legislation would remain with the landowner. I wish to dwell briefly on the subject of liability for damage. Following the Statement on 8th March (at col. 51 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the example of a discarded burning cigarette. If a member of the public, under this legislation, were to discard a lit cigarette or light a cooking fire in a high risk area, particularly in the late afternoon or early evening, on open ground, moorland or forestry, in the summer, then the results would be catastrophic, not just on the open hill where the fire actually started but possibly also on neighbouring sites of special scientific interest. Why should the landowner have to carry the full responsibility and the inevitable cost of a higher insurance premium when he has no control over who has access to his ground? If this Statement is to form the basis of law, then it must also include some protection for the landowner, who at present can at least help himself by protecting his own interest.
I say again that I agree with the Government that everyone should be able to enjoy open countryside. However, the legislation must be stronger than mere by-laws to help protect the landowner or farmer. The countryside may appear to be a beautiful place in which everyone wishes a stake. However, it should also not be forgotten that people who work the countryside treat it as a business and very often have involved large quantities of their own capital in having that countryside both to run as a business and maintain. While a visitor to open land may see no harm in releasing his dog to enjoy a run, in the same way as it does in a park, and while not actually coming into contact with a farmer's sheep, that dog may still cause irreparable harm to an already frequently erratic animal.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I have to declare an interest. I am the owner of a farm in Northern Ireland which is in a less favoured area. I have some 800 acres of moorland among others—bog and so on. On the other side, for seven years I worked for the Northern Ireland Sports Council as chairman of its countryside and recreation committee. In that role I spent a good deal of time with other people voluntarily negotiating for access; negotiating for slalom routes for canoes, for access to campsites, and negotiating to look after and protect some of the most precious areas of Strangford Lough and yet allow the farmers to have their way, the equestrians to have their way, the walkers to have their way and perhaps even the dogs to have their way. We eventually set up a management committee, which has now been adopted by the Government. So I know a little about Northern Ireland.
342
I have also walked and roamed as a serviceman in nearly all the Ministry of Defence—it used to be the War Department—areas from Northumberland to Land's End, and North Wales, South Wales, and so on. I have a particular interest in access to the countryside. I believe in it. I welcome it. I particularly welcome the Bill. But I hope that the Bill is more than following up a paragraph or two of the Government's election manifesto, which was perhaps motivated in those days by things other than goodwill. Having said that, I hope that the Government will realise the enormous task on which they have embarked and will give it the time, the energy and the money to get it right, or as right as anyone could get it, which is not easy.
I believe that statutory law based in Westminster is not the right place to run the countryside. We may have to have a statute but the management of the countryside and the bringing together of its users is much better done by local authorities and groups nearer the coalface. I am concerned about two or three points; first, the interpretation of what the Government are saying at the moment about the forthcoming Bill and their communications. Dare I hope for correct communication? As the right reverend Prelate said earlier, a statutory right to roam is perhaps not the best slogan for this legislation. It will almost certainly be interpreted by most, and, as we have heard this afternoon, is being interpreted by many, literally as a right to go anywhere on anyone's property. Those who have read the paperwork produced by the Government realise that that is not the intention. I accept and acknowledge that. But what is happening now is that where people were working towards agreement and working in harmony very often across the country, walls and barriers are going up and conflicts are starting to ensue. I ask the Government to get a move on with what they are doing and not delay.
The second side that worries me perhaps even more is the management of the countryside after the Bill has been passed. The Government say in their White Paper that they will do it all at little or no cost to the Government. Yet I believe that every moor and open area that is to become accessible will need its own specific policy, its own code of practice and its own openings and closings. Relationships will have to be built, whether or not a statute is in place, between farmers, owners, users, managers and so on. People will have to be educated to understand and have respect for the fact that the farmer has to earn his livelihood where the urbanite goes to enjoy and pass his leisure time.
We have heard several times today about the considerable worries on public liability. I would put before that, as we have also heard, rescue and health and safety. Having spent a good deal of time taking young people into the mountains, taking them down potholes, taking them on rivers and teaching them to climb rocks and cliffs, I know what the dangers are. I wrote some of the original codes of practice back in the early 1960s. I had telephone conversations with people, saying "Don't let them go there tomorrow". They went there tomorrow and died. If the Government

343
are going to take on responsibility for access to the countryside, they must work out how to manage the risks.
Lastly, there will inevitably be a cost to the farmer. I ask the Government to think again about how reconciliation will work. There will be serious damage. There will be loss of livestock, and walls and fences will be knocked down. I hope that the Government will think right through the huge number of portfolios of detailed problems under the legislation. I admire the Government for taking the role on. We have a wonderful countryside. Properly managed, access should be available for those who wish to make use of it properly.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for introducing the debate. I also wish to declare an interest in that I and other members of my family own an estate in and off the Chilterns.
I am relieved that at least one subject is left to me, the rather emotive one of the 28 days' change of use without planning control in the countryside. This is for other activities that take place on what some people would consider a somewhat doubtful legitimate basis. Those people would include my brother, who suffers from parachutists. Being inconsiderate to him is one thing. What about the animals and the noise around them, as a safety factor? What about the parachutists landing in his fields? It is fine if it is an ordinary grass field; it is not so good if it is a growing crop which has just been sprayed.
To many people, these are legitimate activities that might be allowed to take place in the countryside. For "parachuting" read "other matters", such as scrambling or whatever activities other people want to bring forward, in what I would like to think would be a wide-ranging consultation at some point.
Perhaps the Minister could look at the rather awkward situation in which I certainly feel that a period of 28 days without control is far too much. There are people earning money out of this, but they are not contributing by way of local rates, simply because they are not registered in any way.
That brings me to the horse-riding leisure situation, where planning is somewhat unclear for farmers, as to whether they can, and if so in what circumstances, have something called a livery. All this could be considered and tidied up.
For that and similar reasons, I feel that legislation is probably a good idea. It would raise the question of insurance, and not just for the public liability that we have been talking about. Licensing, if that is the appropriate word, for activities such as parachuting at least would be conditional on production of an insurance certificate.
If the Minister or an inquiry look favourably on horse-riding as an increasing leisure activity in the countryside. it follows that there is a need for off-road places to ride, on the basis that we have already heard, that a horse and a car are an accident waiting to happen. There is no reason why this should not be dealt with by
344
agreement with local landowners upon payment for the resource being used. Would that be a change of use by the landowner? Would it be considered a normal activity in the books, and go forward as income without any problems? What will be the situation? It is well worth getting the matter right for many years to come.
On the subject of footpaths, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Northbourne. At the other end of the scale there will be farmers with footpaths that they would like to have consolidated. Some of the footpaths are out of date and there really is not a need for the numbers. If we are to have rationalisation, it is only fair that the country as a whole is looked at. Thai is another reason for legislation. We look at the alteration of the straight line into the circle. At this point everybody might agree that footpaths came into being for the benefit of the locals, to get from A to B, with the agreement of the landowner, not for use by the general public. There will be occasions when it is appropriate to have an extra footpath, or two or three, and there will be areas in which it is appropriate to consolidate and remove some.
The circular footpaths will almost certainly end in car parks. Is there any good reason why the public should not pay for their car parking in the countryside? I have to pay in town. It is only fair and reasonable. And it is only fair and reasonable that assorted costs should be borne centrally, as other noble Lords have said, and not by local authorities, which, by definition, are rural local authorities. The money side of the matter bears close consideration. A little bit of fair play for the countryside would be welcome.
There is only one other point that I should like to make, in view of the area that has been covered by other noble Lords. It was rather unfortunate to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston, refer to picking bluebells. It is an offence today to pick bluebells, and yesterday it most certainly was vandalism, which is why it is an offence today. We have bluebells, and we protect them by controlling.
On one occasion I left the farm on which I was then living and walked quietly up the road at about 6 o'clock in the evening. In front of me there was a car. Two children were picking bluebells in the wood, and their parents were sitting in the car. I did not alter my gait, but just wandered up. Clearly, the children picked up some vibes. They came out of the wood, left the bluebells and got back into the car. will leave your Lordships to think about what I said to those parents.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Enniskillen: My Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I will not keep your Lordships long. I just felt that coming from Kenya, where I seldom have an opportunity to contribute, I might be able to add something to this debate.
In Kenya I am involved in wetland management. I have recently returned from Costa Rica, where I was given the honour and privilege of addressing the contracting parties to the Ramsar Convention. consisting of governments from all over the world, including the

345
UK Government. The subject was wetland management and people and wetlands. I felt that the sense from that conference might add something to this debate.
No one would question the right of access to water, particularly in a continent such as Africa. But, in spite of that, in my address to the conference I emphasised voluntary actions, sense of ownership, conservation of the resource and equitable distribution of the resource, without giving direct access to everyone. Throughout the week of the conference while I was attending there seemed little or no dissension from those principles; nobody argued for an unlimited right of access to such valuable resources as wetlands and the ecosystems that they support.
I believe that the open countryside in this country consists of equally important ecosystems, which must be sustainably managed and equitably distributed among the people of the country in such a way that direct access to all and sundry is not available. The need for educated and informed access, so that damage is limited, has been emphasised time and again.
I totally agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others, and I am not in conflict, I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I say that access to the countryside must be granted, but the right to roam, implying a sense of free access to all and sundry, is an unfortunate term, which I would urge that we consider changing. It is the wrong concept. Voluntary action at community level to provide access should be the underlying driving force of the legislation. As has been emphasised, we should not have overbearing national legislation which imposes a duty on those at community level who have special needs in special areas.
I support the statement that the privilege of owning land carries with it certain obligations to make it available to others, but that does not mean that there should be open and free access.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's commitment to introduce legislation to give access to the open countryside as a right in perpetuity. We believe that it is a very important step in restoring the connection of people to their countryside. Although I accept that certain people own certain sections of the countryside, I believe that it is important that the countryside is seen as a common heritage. One of the difficulties that has arisen as a result of people being so disconnected from the wild, rural and beautiful areas of our landscape is that the legislation needed to protect those areas has not been brought forward. That is because sufficient pressure has not been brought to bear and that is because people have not had access to the countryside and consequently do not value it. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, put that point extremely well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate. Access given as a right raises extremely important issues, a few of which I should like to address. Several noble Lords have referred to the environmental impact of such access. I believe that legislation on that
346
needs to go hand in hand with legislation to improve protection for wildlife in general and for sites of special scientific interest in particular. If the legislation does not come to pass in the next Session, I hope that the Government will take the time to bring forward a package of legislation which will deliver not only access but also protection for the wildlife which is otherwise liable to be badly affected.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood referred to fragile landscapes. In their welcome consultation paper on sites of special scientific interest, the Government highlighted some of the difficulties, stating:
"Damage within SSSIs by people who do not actually own or manage the land has created problems on some sites. We propose increasing the penalties for deliberate damage and providing legal means to require restoration … We also invite views on the best means of deterring damage, particularly in the wider countryside where the detection of offenders can be more difficult".
Such legislation needs to be introduced in parallel with the proposed legislation on access. A wildlife Bill is essential.
That excellent document also refers to limestone pavements and to the problems of apprehending someone who is removing stones when that person does not see such actions as damaging. It is only when it is pointed out that if thousands of people removed from that limestone pavement the three or four stones which they are intent on using in their rockery such people realise that that pavement will cease to exist if that practice continues. I hope that the Government will consider introducing such legislation as a matter of urgency.
Other noble Lords have asked who will resolve the problems of access and of environmental conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the fact that a working party has done considerable work on that issue. I hope that the Government will draw on its experience. Will English Nature, for example, be asked to draw up a set of criteria that could, and should, apply? Noble Lords have also mentioned the length of time for which land should be closed to the public and for what purposes. I refer, for example, to the nesting of birds and to lambing.
I was very jealous of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who claimed to be able to see skylarks. I am sure that he can. However, hard as I frequently try to see them, I only ever manage to hear them. I must discover what sort of optician the noble Lord consults, given that he can see them so frequently!
I turn now to another issue which I think is of prime importance. I refer to the local access forums. How much of a say will be given to local people, such as land managers, landowners and local authorities? I believe that it is proposed that the forums should be advisory only and that the statutory agencies should have the final say. The success of such legislation will depend on the strength of those local access forums. They are the places where conflicts should be resolved and they need the necessary powers.
I must declare an interest as a local councillor in Somerset. That county has successfully introduced what is known as "P3", which stands for the Parish Paths

347
Partnership. The county council delegated to the district councils the right to decide what will happen with regard to rights of way. The local district council has set up a partnership with any interested parish councils and has said that they should have a major say over what happens. The Countryside Commission promoted the scheme, which has been most successful. Local landowners and people with an interest in walking those routes have taken on the management of them and have started to resolve conflicts and difficulties on a very local basis. They have the time to spend on such issues. That might not be the case with a more centralised scheme.
Another example of a matter which a local access forum might address comes to mind. I refer to the question of when a linear route may be particularly appropriate and when it is appropriate to have stopping-off places. I do not believe that most people want to wander very widely. They want a decent route to follow and, occasionally, they want to be able to wander 50 or 100 metres off that route to a viewpoint at which they can picnic before returning to the marked route. Such issues need exploring. We must consider whether to waymark particular places that are suitable for particular purposes.
As well as the local access forums, the national parks have a great deal of experience of questions of access and how to maximise the benefits for visitors while dealing also with the difficulty of protecting the environment.
I turn now to traffic. Although the Government's statement of 8th March was full and reassuring in some areas, it was a little dismissive of the fear about an increase in the volume of traffic. This is a big issue for local people, which needs to be carefully considered as people drive to, and need to park in, the places where they will walk, especially when access to some of those areas will not previously have been available. Some of the national parks have introduced schemes to deal with that. At points of high pressure, particularly during the summer or, as in my local area, when the snowdrops are out in a particular valley, together with local transport owners the national parks authorities laid on a minibus and then closed the road. One noble Lord referred to road closures in the Peak District. That scheme works extremely well. People pay a small contribution for using the minibus, and that money goes into the local economy. People do not have to worry about parking. They can go off and enjoy their walk. The bus will pick them up at any point on the route when they are tired. That helps one to enjoy the day.
Dogs are an ever-contentious issue in the countryside. As the owner of a very energetic dog, I agree that it is a great temptation to let it off the lead so that it can cover 10 times the distance that one wants to cover. Local access forums are again important here. The neat little pull-up gates which the National Trust introduced provide a statement about welcoming dogs while suggesting that the owner should be responsible for them. Nothing produces a less responsible attitude than very hostile notices saying, "Keep your dog on a lead",
348
which really means, "We don't like dogs". It is far more positive to be able to say, "We have provided this for your dog, now will you be responsible for it?".
A further important question is liability. A Question asked in your Lordships' House recently by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, reflects the concern of many of those who deliver access to the countryside, such as the wildlife trusts, the National Trust and the Forestry Commission. A prime concern is the drift towards liability litigation, which the legal and insurance professions may well have encouraged. Many agencies, the prime purpose of which is wildlife and landscape conservation, are saying that they have been forced to divert increasing resources to expenditure on health and safety matters for visitors.
I believe that a clear statement of principle in primary legislation would enable a definite line to be drawn. That would be helpful to individual visitors, to organisations taking groups to the countryside, land managers and wildlife trusts. I believe that the legislation needs to make it clear to visitors to the countryside that they are deemed to accept primary responsibility for their own health and safety in respect of hazards arising from natural and manmade features that are a natural part of the countryside. I believe that important issue must be addressed as part of any legislation.
Finally, the simplification of the rights of way network is extremely important. I would not like this House to be too condemning of mountain bikers. In another debate we spoke enthusiastically of encouraging more time and resources to be devoted to youth. Boys and young men, in particular, enjoy mountain biking and a way must be found for them to enjoy the open countryside. If we want them to pursue healthy and worthwhile pursuits, but deny them any opportunity to carry out those pursuits, that would be hypocritical of us.
The Government have a big task in addressing all these issues. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, enjoys walking without talking. I walk for that reason also because I spend so much of my time talking and I take a rest by walking.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, today we have given an airing to the many issues raised by public demand for the right to roam. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not manage to mention everyone who has made a contribution to the awareness and implications of such legislation.
The subject may be organised as follows: the public demand, the administrative consequences of that demand, the impact of that demand upon those lands involved, the implication of legislation and the management, after the Bill has been passed, to which other noble Lords have referred, and Indeed the risks thereof.
Journalists, lobbyists, politicians and private individuals have written and spoken much about what people want. A consensus has emerged than: most of them require constant access to land close to home and

349
occasional access to more remote parts of the country which may be hundreds of miles away. A few do not want access so much as the right to roam freely, without let or hindrance, on any type of land in any location.
It would be helpful to look closely at the experience of coastal authorities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Montagu. Beaches and headlands have largely had open access since the 1950s. Many coastal authorities have now outlawed dogs, built charge car parks, stopped all free parking without residents' permits, imposed bans on jet skiing, on water skiing and ghetto blasters and have generally tackled some of the other problems that come with access.
A right to roam in the countryside will require similar controls and administrative backup. First, it will be necessary to decide what land is open to access and then to publish the rules, in the press, in handbooks, on maps and perhaps on the Internet. However, publicity will be sufficient in some cases, but all access land must be clearly signposted. It may be necessary to invent a universal code; for instance, a field that is totally open may have gateposts of pea-green; a field that contains footpaths may have gateposts of Jaffa orange; while an arable field that is totally closed may have gateposts of pillar box red. All fields with orange gateposts would also have finger posts which would sign the route.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the need for walkers to know where they are going, but what of territories with no boundaries? There could be footpath finger posts in orange, open land direction posts in pea-green and closed land surrounded by fence posts in red. What about areas of outstanding natural beauty? Who will pay for publicity? Who will buy and install such signs? Who will maintain them and replace them promptly when they are removed, defaced or destroyed? Indeed, those of us who live in the country already have those problems.
Of course, the roaming public will be covered for free treatment by the NHS, but what about payment for absence from work consequent on an accident? What about compensation, as mentioned by some noble Lords? The Government have indicated that landowners will continue to have public liability. Should the Government also insist that roamers carry insurance of their own, perhaps obtainable through the DSS and post offices?
It seems to me that accidents in open country will rarely be the fault of the landowner. Of course, most roamers will want to stick to established footpaths, as I mentioned earlier. Today I was delighted to see that MAFF have announced that 1,500 new farmland walks have been opened and guides will be forthcoming. That is good news, but who will provide all of those things that I have mentioned? I dare say that most roamers wish to stay on footpaths. They have no desire to disturb wildlife or to struggle with bracken, bramble or briar. However, who will provide the footpaths and maintain them, as mentioned by other noble friends? Who will patrol them to ensure that they are not annexed by bikers, abused by 4-wheel drive enthusiasts or churned up by horse riders?
350
In areas which are remote from town and city there will be a need for car parking facilities, public loos, seats, shelters and perhaps, where suitable, facilities for disabled access. Here too we should do well to learn the lesson from the coastal invasion, particularly from places like Cornwall. Here too we need to decide who will provide, maintain and pay for them?
In this context there is a potential clash between the right to roam legislation and existing laws which protect our areas of outstanding natural beauty. There is a clash between the needs of roamers and those who wish to maintain and protect the landscape. Who will prevail? The Countryside Commission has stated that priority in funding will be given to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Will that supremacy follow through to planning?
The outcome of that debate will impact upon rural dwellers, landowners and anyone who lives or works in an area that is open to the right to roam. The seaside experience would lead one to expect that our beautiful villages may become choked with traffic and littered. Moreover, we shall need to anticipate and legislate for the problems of the right to roam which will impact upon other legitimate countryside activities.
First, wildlife must be allowed to breed, feed and thrive. Secondly, rural production, which for many is their living, must be protected. For those who have had to diversify, as farm incomes have been so dire. into family holiday homes which offer peace and tranquillity. it is important that the countryside should be undisturbed and protected. Farmers' livestock should be secure and not vandalised. That may require limits to be placed on the number of people given access to certain areas. Many noble Lords have spoken of restrictions on dogs and of the importance of keeping them on leads. Last year, £2 million was paid out in insurance claims relating to sheep killed by dogs.
This subject raises many matters. We welcome the new farmland walks. As I said earlier, most people choose to walk near their homes. A recent Countryside Commission paper showed that the average journey of a day visitor to the countryside is 16 miles and that half of them travel for only five miles. On these Benches we would welcome a fair and voluntary approach to greater access for all. However, like many noble Lords who have spoken, we are also realistic.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions. First, what is meant by access? I have read the Statement—I was not fortunate enough to hear it although my noble friend Lord Luke replied to it. One part of the Statement clearly states that the proposals are for walkers and that legislation will include improvements to the rights-of-way system. That will be an important package. It then states that:
"This comprehensive package will provide fresh opportunities for walking and other recreational pursuits".
What are we talking about? Are we talking about walkers or about a Bill that will enhance many different aspects of rural pursuits? At the moment that is not clear.
Secondly, since we had the Statement, a statutory instrument has been passed in this House which referred to national lottery money being made available for open

351
spaces nearer urban areas. That money was for pump-priming; for starting projects, not for long-term maintenance. So what happens in relation to long-term maintenance?
Will the Bill improve the situation for walkers and other recreational pursuits? And what about that most important aspect—compensation and public liability? If the Minister heard that once, he must have heard it 20 times today. There has to be a will of government to accept that it is unreasonable to expect land managers, landowners and tenant farmers to produce money to cover the cost of that liability.
All of us in this House expressed a wish to see access available. From these Benches we would like it to be a voluntary access. There is a tremendous depth of knowledge within this Chamber today and, while I am a mere lifer, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am enormously grateful to all who have spoken, whether they are lifers or those who have lived in the countryside a lot longer than I—hereditary Peers.
6.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing this debate and for the wide-ranging and lucid way in which he revealed his knowledge of this subject, on which he is an expert outside this House, to the benefit of a lot of walkers in many parts of the country. I congratulate also the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. He started by praising the Ordnance Survey and then rendered it redundant, at least in relation to Swaledale, by giving us a clear oral guide.
I was not quite as taken by the debate as was the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to say that it was tending to change my opinion on hereditary Peers. Nevertheless, I was deeply impressed. Indeed, if I had been so tempted, I might have been substantially less tempted as the debate went on. Some of the contributions to this debate were fighting old battles and we really ought to be putting in a constructive light what we need to do to follow through the announcement we made in March.
Emotionally at least, if not in the precise legalistic terms of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The land belongs to the people. However, there are restrictions and responsibilities on people, whether they are owners or ramblers, as to how they use it. Because I believe access is a basic right, I do not warm to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that somehow the ability to make use of that access should be subject to some sort of licensing system.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the right to own a dog is a natural right, but it is still covered by a licence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, various forms of ownership are subject to licensing. Various forms of operation are
352
subject to licensing. Access to the land in this sense, in my view, should not be subject to licensing in the way described.
I should perhaps deal with the central issue. which is, why we are not dealing with this matter on a voluntary basis.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt but was tempted to do so because the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, did. I hope that the noble Lord will correct himself. He said that he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the land is owned by the people. In fact that is not right. I can understand the sentiment behind it; but factually that is not correct.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I did say "emotionally". I said it "belongs" to the people and that does not necessarily imply the legal right on which the noble Earl and many of his noble friends are insisting. But in my view there is fundamentally a right for people to have access to the more beautiful parts of our countryside, and that is what this legislation is about.
We have been asked why we do not proceed on a voluntary basis. We have been trying for 50 years to proceed on a voluntary basis. If we continue to proceed on a voluntary basis in the way that we have, it will take a century or two to achieve the level of access to land that this White Paper provides. It is almost as slow as the reform of your Lordships' House. Those more malevolent than me may say that the parallel is perhaps not entirely coincidental.
We believe that once we have legislated here, the best way forward thereafter is to deal with the issue at local level by involving everybody—landlords, tenants, ramblers, voluntary organisations and the local community. Until we have so legislated, we do not believe that any significant increase in access to the open countryside will be provided.
There has been some over-reaction to this White Paper. I accept that there has been an over-reaction on the part of some of those who advocate access to the land—the ramblers' organisations and others. But there has also been over-reaction on the part of those who own land. We are not in any sense talking about access to the vast majority of enclosed agricultural land; we are not talking about an unfettered right to roam: we are talking about controlled and responsible access to the open countryside. Previous governments have tried to legislate for this; they have tried the voluntary approach. We now need to go further.
There is no doubt about public opinion; 80 per cent of those surveyed, whatever the origin of the survey, are in favour of seeing more of our countryside opened up. Therefore in March we announced the introduction of a new right; that is, the right of access on foot. but only on foot, to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. In total, that is 4 million acres of open countryside. We have now asked the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission to report on access to other types

353
of open country—for example, cliffs, foreshore and woodland—so that we can consider the case for extending access to those areas.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the Minister said that access will be provided to 4 million acres. Is he aware that 1 million acres have been opened up by voluntary agreement since 1991. That is not all that slow, is it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in most cases there are severe limitations on those voluntary agreements. It is not totally open access. Nevertheless, there has been some progress in recent years, partly because people have begun to feel that at some point the Government are going to have to legislate.
In terms of operating this locally, we are looking for a consensual, integrated approach to access. So we will have national and local access forums. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, these will be vital to the implementation of this policy. It is important that local arrangements are publicised, as my noble friend Lord Grantchester said. It is important also that the right of the tenant hill farmers, to which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle referred, are reflected in those forums where appropriate.
Greater access will not, in my view, create the vast range of problems that were referred to in this debate. Indeed, making the countryside more accessible should help foster interest in its well-being and encourage the reporting by all parties of any illegal and inappropriate activities, of which there will no doubt be some. Moreover, it will enable us to modify the right of access where issues of conservation and protection of wildlife arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to wildlife. It is important that we provide additional protection for especially fragile and important habitats. It may be necessary, as we recognised in the Statement, to restrict access either temporarily or indeed permanently, or to linear routes where habitats are endangered. We will be giving the countryside agencies and the national parks authorities powers to close land where it might threaten wildlife.
In addition to those safeguards for wildlife, we intend to give landowners discretion to close access to land temporarily for a number of days each year. The annual limit will be set at 28 days initially, with perhaps 12 of those 28 days available for reasons other than land management. Moreover, in special circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested, where there is a need, landlords will be able to apply for longer closures where the discretionary powers are insufficient.
Questions were raised as to what we mean by access on foot. We mean precisely that. The White Paper does not provide any additional legal access except on foot and any recreation which follows will be for those who are coming to that land on foot.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I have a quick comeback to make on this
354
because the Statement did refer to walkers, but then went on to refer to walkers and other pursuits. Is the noble Lord clarifying that the Bill will deal only with access on foot to the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can confirm that the Bill will deal only with access on foot to the countryside. There will also be recreational activities, like climbing in certain circumstances, which people who have access on foot may then pursue. But that is only access on foot and not by horseback or by mountain bike, although I praise the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for advocating the role of biking to create greater health for some of our population, especially the younger element. However, the latter is not covered in the legal rights which apply here.
We on this side of the House pay tribute to those landowners who have already voluntarily engaged in access. We pay tribute to them for their management of the land, and indeed to organisations such as the National Trust. However, there are still vast areas of land through which there is no adequate access. We believe that legislating for a statutory right, followed through by local voluntary agreements on how to implement it, is now the best way forward.
A number of detailed questions were raised on this access. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how one would get to the land if, in order to get there, you had to go through enclosed agricultural areas—the problem of "inaccessible islands", as I understand it is known in the trade. It will be necessary for local forums and local authorities to negotiate access across those areas. There will be no imposed right of access across such areas. However, we believe that we can deal with that problem in most cases provided that the local forums work. The noble Baroness also asked about MoD land. It is true that the MoD now provides a very substantial amount of public access to its training lands, and much of its estate falls within the definition of "open countryside".
Reference has been made to horses and dogs and to other means of access to the countryside. My noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to the effects of motorised access on existing roads. We recognise that there may be a problem and that we should perhaps have greater powers for local authorities to enable them to close off certain roads where access to areas is in fact destroying the countryside. We are considering giving greater traffic regulation powers to local authorities in that respect and will be issuing a consultation paper shortly.
As far as concerns dogs, I tend, like the noble Baroness, to be more motivated to walk in the countryside if I have a dog rather than a human being accompanying me—and I say that with all due respect to those who walk with me. Nevertheless, the legal rights which apply here will require dogs to be kept on a lead. They will be reinforced clearly by local by-laws, many of which are already in place. Therefore, it is important that there should be no additional problem of

355
the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to, in terms of dogs worrying sheep and other animals as a result of this right.
I turn now to the question of occupiers' liability. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, accused me of being dismissive previously. I hope that I am not being so on this occasion. All the research that we have conducted indicates that the increase in insurance premiums would be very small, the reason being that all parallel circumstances indicate that there is not an enormous amount of additional damage upon which insurers would have to pay out. The example I gave previously in answer to the noble Lord was the National Trust, which has millions of acres of open countryside. Indeed, over a six-year period the trust only had 47 incidents in respect of which there was any question of damage and that resulted in only 15 claims, totalling £60,000, for the whole of that acreage. Such an amount is not an enormous one for the insurers to cover. Only one claim was actually successful.
Therefore, while we are not dismissive of the problem and will take on board any other information, we believe that it is a greatly exaggerated problem—
Lord Chorley: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, my Lords, I cannot take any further questions.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, occupiers' liability is a concern of the National Trust.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I will take the noble Lord's word for that. However, I have outlined the record as I understand it. I believe that that indicates that there should not be enormous pressure on insurance premiums.
I move on now to the rights of way aspect of the White Paper and of the announcement. My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked whether the local access forums would have a role in defining rights of way. The answer is, yes, they would. We expect the forums to discuss all access issues, including a new approach to rights of way. What we are seeking under the rights of way element of this Statement is to ensure a greater degree of flexibility. I am sure that that will be welcomed by both landlords and local authorities and that it will be recognised as necessary by ramblers' associations, and others, which advocate maintaining every right of way, come what may.
We shall shortly be consulting further on the matter and will be issuing proposals. However, it is important that those who feel they are affected by rights of way, whether positively or negatively, should have more flexible means of resolving such issues. Having revealed that he had engaged in criminal activity on other fronts, my noble friend Lord Peston asked what the maximum penalty would be for obstruction of rights of way. As app lies to other highways, the answer to that question is £1,000, although I am not sure what it would be for picking bluebells.
356
We must recognise that there is a background to this issue. For example, in Wales a survey was recently conducted on rights of way which showed that there are serious obstacles to 40 per cent of the rights of ways and that 23 per cent of those rights of way are impassable. It is against that background that we have to consider these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to the South Downs and also advertised his debate on Friday, to which my noble friend Lady Farrington will be replying. It is important for us to recognise the special status of the South Downs arid we are considering a recommendation from the Countryside Commission on that front.
A number of speakers referred to the issues of mapping, both in relation to rights of way and to the mapping of areas of open countryside for the purposes of the proposed legislation. On the rights of way side, I was asked whether local authorities would reach the target set for them of defining all rights of way by the year 2000. I regret to say that I think it is unlikely that all local authorities will do so. However, we are increasing the pressure on them to provide as much information as possible and to complete their surveys as rapidly as possible.
As far as concerns the bigger mapping definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be well aware, some of the problems involved are quite complex. For example, the mapping of downland may present a number of complexities. Nevertheless, we are asking the authorities, and others, to engage in the mapping process as rapidly as possible. The countryside agencies are undertaking their work on the identification and mapping of access land. They will be producing draft maps on which we can then consult affected parties.
For this process to work, mapping is important. Local discussions are vitally important; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, the details of the kind of codes and safeguards that we need are most important. It is possible that details like signing, recognition and advertising of both rights of way and of access to land may also be very important. But the basic right is also important. We announced in March that we intend to proceed down the legislative road. I cannot he tempted into pre-empting the Queen's Speech, hut I can tell noble Lords that we are putting substantial resources into ensuring that we get this right both in the consultative phase and in the legislation itself. We are doubling the number of staff dealing with access issues. We are also allocating to the Countryside Agency an additional £2 million to spend on access and recreation. Indeed, during the very first meeting of the new agency last week the board considered detailed proposals on how the agency might play its part in mapping and in the establishment of access forums. Therefore we are moving forward on all those fronts.
The noble Earl, Lord Stair, said that we should not legislate simply on the basis of a manifesto commitment. However, we on this side of the House believe in implementing our manifesto commitments through legislation. We believe in doing so in a sensible and constructive way with the maximum possible degree

357
of consensus. The Statement takes that commitment further; further consultation will refine it. I assure your Lordships that we intend to legislate and to legislate soon.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not dealt at all with the question of damage caused by unidentified or impecunious walkers. Will he undertake to write to those of us who raised that question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have one minute left in which to speak. Clearly there will be irresponsible walkers, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said. I have also failed to mention Scottish issues. I shall write to the noble Earl on those matters. One out of 100 walkers may cause some damage, either accidentally or with criminal intent. There are laws to cover that situation but the problems of detection in the countryside are difficult, as noble Lords will appreciate. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is sensible to introduce new laws or new compensation in this area. After all, we do not provide such compensation to the owners of other properties when they suffer criminal damage. That damage should be covered by people's usual insurance. In this respect I do not believe that countryside landowners are different from owners of other properties such as factories, offices and buildings throughout the country. The Government do not believe that compensation is an issue in this matter.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply responding to many of the questions that have been raised in this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in it, with their specialised interests covering the whole of England from Carlisle to Kent and further afield. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. The debate has shown how much still needs to be thought out and worked out before legislation is provided. I am glad to hear that the Government have set this in hand and are working away at it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Trials by Jury
6.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg leave to repeat an Answer given by my honourable friend Mr. O'Brien in another place earlier today.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced this morning, in response to a Written Question that appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Government's proposals to change the way in which the mode of trial was determined for those cases that are triable either-way.
358
"The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993, and more recently the Narey Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System in 1997, recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried in the Crown Court in either-way cases where magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear the case.
"We have considered this recommendation along with the responses to the consultation paper my right honourable friend issued on 28th July last year. The answer to the Parliamentary Question today indicated that we will be bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time allows to abolish the ability of defendants to elect for Crown Court trial in either-way cases.
"Some believe that to remove the defendant's veto on the magistrates' decision that they should hear a case would erode fundamental individual liberties established in the Middle Ages, if not by Magna Carta itself. However, while trial by jury is indeed ancient, a defendant's ability to choose to be tried by a jury rather than by the justices was brought in in 1855.
"The Government agree that jury trial is right for certain sorts of case. The question is whether it should be available on demand, or restricted to business which objectively warrants it. In the same way that defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, or which judge and jury hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose where their case is tried. In Scotland there is no ability to elect for trial; indeed the prosecution decides the venue. I know of no other country in which such an ability to elect is allowed.
"The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown Court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost and using police time to little effect. Home Office research indicates that nine out of 10 people who elect to be tried at the Crown Court have previous criminal convictions. It is clear that persistent offenders are abusing the system of election. This Government's proposals will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system by defendants demanding Crown Court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings.
"But there will be safeguards. When determining the mode of trial magistrates will be required to have regard not only to any defence representations but also to such factors as the gravity of the offence, the complexity of the case—as legislation already requires—and the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation. In addition to the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court against conviction, defendants will also be given a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the magistrates' decision on mode of trial".
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be most grateful to the Minister for making

359
this Statement to the House today which the Home Secretary declined to make to another place. Of course I realise that the Home Secretary is today addressing the Police Federation in Belfast. But, after all, he chose the date for this announcement. There is no urgency about it. All it does is to anticipate the Queen's Speech. No doubt the Home Secretary chose to make the announcement today in order to "pad out" his speech to the Police Federation and avoid speaking about police numbers, police resources, the threat to police pensions and those kind of matters.
I agree with one Labour Member of another place who said that it was a disgrace that this announcement should be made first to newspapers and on the radio this morning and then later presented to Parliament as a Written PQ. However, we in this House have been more fortunate in that we have the Minister to explain the matter to us. Will the Minister confirm that this proposal was considered by the previous Home Secretary following the recommendations of the Royal Commission and was shelved by him? Now the Home Office, or more likely the Treasury, has taken it out of its pigeon-hole and the present Home Secretary has accepted it in spite of the opposition of civil rights groups such as Liberty and Justice. It is opposed particularly by those working with the ethnic minorities. It is opposed by the Minister's own professional body, the Bar Council, as well as by the Law Society, many Labour MPs and indeed by my colleagues and I. It was, of course, opposed by the Home Secretary until comparatively recently. He was particularly virulently opposed to it when he was in opposition. The Minister mentioned Scotland. But, of course, in that part of our kingdom legally qualified justices are involved, not lay magistrates.
I have a couple of questions to ask which flow from the reasons given for this proposal. My first question concerns finance. Will the Minister confirm that the expected saving—which is suggested in the newspapers at any rate which seem to be well informed on this matter—is about £70 million? If that is the case, does part of that saving arise presumably from the fact that lay magistrates are cheaper than paid judges for the simple reason that they are lay people? Does any of that saving arise from the shorter sentences which tend to be passed by magistrates than are passed in the Crown Court? Does the calculation take account of the fact that there will now need to be additional hearings? As I understand the position, many cases will now need to be heard first by a bench of magistrates to consider where the case should be tried. When they have made that decision there will sometimes be an appeal on it—as the Minister said—to the Crown Court. There will then have to be a second hearing by a different bench of magistrates—as they will not have heard all the particulars of the defendant and so on that may have emerged in the first hearing—in order to decide the case.
Then of course sometimes there will later be an appeal to the Crown Court against the decision in the case. I realise that so far as concerns the first appeal and the question of where the case should be heard, some lawyers take the view that appellate courts rarely interfere with matters which are within the discretion of
360
the junior court. So an appeal of that kind is likely to prove largely illusory. That of course helps We Home Office's financial arguments and savings but it goes against the fairness arguments advanced by the Minister.
Lastly, may I ask the Minister about the relationship of this proposal to proposals in the European Community. The Minister in another place drew attention to European comparisons. He implied that this was a proposal in the direction of European harmonisation. Can the Minister say whether this is part of the preparations for the so called corpus furls in the European Community?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the announcement made by the Home Secretary this morning about the mode of trial of either-way cases. We are given to understand that the decision was made on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Narey Review of delays in the criminal justice system.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, identified a number of organisations which are absolutely against the idea. Perhaps I may add to the list. As well as the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Black Lawyers Association, Liberty, Justice, the Legal Action Group, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have all expressed concern about the diminishing of rights.
The reality of the Government's proposal is that more than 18,000 defendants per year would lose their right to a jury trial. The Government's decision requires a number of clarifications. I do not object to the fact that the Home Secretary, when he was in Opposition, said that the reform was wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective. I am entitled to ask what factors have determined his change of heart. The bottom line advanced is that the measure could save millions of pounds. Again we are entitled to ask whether it is based simply on financial considerations or were platters of civil liberties and the rights of the individual established since 1855 taken into account.
The argument that no other country has a system similar to that in England and Wales where, in certain cases, defendants can elect to be tried by a jury, does not mean that it is right to remove that particular right. Scotland was cited by the Minister as an example of a country where there is no ability to elect as to trial and where the prosecution decides the venue. In Scotland defendants do not elect; similar cases are heard by a professional judge, in contrast to magistrates' courts in this country.
Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern expressed by representatives of ethnic minority communities? Research evidence indicates that black defendants get a worse chance in magistrates' courts than they do before juries. A higher proportion of black defendants elect for jury trial because they believe that they have a more reasonable chance of being acquitted in the Crown Court.
The argument is advanced that the change is designed to end the abuse of the system, which leads to delay, waste of resources and a prolonged wait for justice. The number of cases where defendants elect to go for jury

361
trial has been falling for the past 10 years. It is not a growing problem. No one would argue that there are cases where the system is abused, but that does not mean that the right should be removed for others.
There are cases which affect the livelihood, respect and dignity of individuals. How would the new appeal system work in cases where the decision of a magistrates' court not to allow a trial by jury is contested? Will legal aid be available for such an appeal? Would not the appeal system simply create a new bureaucratic process which will diminish the aim of simplifying the justice system? What costs will be involved in such an exercise?
I have not been in the House as long as many noble and learned Lords on all sides, but I recollect that since 1974 a number of administrations have tried and dropped the idea because it failed to command support. It will be nice to know whether the Minister has revisited the earlier argument; if so, how has the situation changed?
My final concern has not been explained. It can no longer be guaranteed that a case will be heard by three magistrates sitting in a magistrates court. Many cases these days are heard by a single stipendiary magistrate. In a case heard by a jury there are at least 12 people to balance out any prejudices and reach a decision, which is not the case with one person.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Perhaps I may deal first with the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He pointed out that the question of Scotland was not a perfect analogy because those trying the cases in Scotland are legally qualified. He then rather spoilt the perfect symmetry of his approach by raising a serious question about the independence of the stipendiaries; he said it was not appropriate for people to be tried by a single stipendiary. But all stipendiaries in our jurisdiction are fully legally qualified as a necessary pre-condition of their appointment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, will not mind me teasing him. He began by making one or two of the usual House of Commons points. The Question appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper and the Answer was given. It is an Answer simply of the Government's response to the consultative document. We have not got anywhere near a Bill and it seems to me that answering in such a way was appropriate. Subsequently, the Answer having been put down at 11.30, at 12.30 the Home Secretary was due to address the Police Federation—which is certainly a body with interest and expertise in this field. I see nothing inappropriate in the Home Secretary wishing to inform it of his current thinking. I stress, it is a response to consultation.
The noble Lord asked specific, more detailed questions about figures. The figures are still being worked on. I think that the savings may well be rather greater than he mentioned. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on savings, but they are likely to be significant.
362
I would not wish to overlook the serious problem—I had intended to refer to it but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his invariable courtesy, has given me notice—of whether or not this new scheme of things, if it is approved in another place, would attack the very serious problem of remand prisoners awaiting trial. I visit prisons every week. A constant, recurring theme is how badly we treat remand prisoners; how long a time they wait for trial, normally in the Crown Court; and how their presence in the prison regime distorts the good work of rehabilitation, education and training on which the Prison Service should be focusing. Despite time limits, there are lengthy delays for some people awaiting trial at a Crown Court. If, as the figures demonstrate, a large number of people elect trial in the Crown Court only then to plead guilty, is it not fair to ask with an open mind why they elected trial in the first place? On the basis of evidence and experience, I have no doubt that many people elect trial in the Crown Court to put off the evil day. That is partly because they do not want to come to a finally concluded view on sentence. In many cases, it is an attempt to manipulate the system, hoping that the victims, complainants or witnesses will not bother to turn up or that their memories after so long a period—many months in many cases—will have faded. I have never found a satisfactory explanation for people electing to be tried in the Crown Court and, many months later, having made that expensive election, simply pleading guilty.
I am bound to say that when this proposal was originally floated there was considerable concern about it. I want to reiterate what has been built in by way of safeguards. First, the magistrates come to their conclusion, but they do so bearing mind certain indicative tests that will be provided for them. They have to listen to both sides and the representations made. Thereafter, if the proposal is accepted, there will be a right of appeal to the Crown Court judge who will be able to come to his own conclusion. I am not so dismal about the quality of the Crown Court judiciary as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, appears to be in thinking that they will not approach these matters with a fresh mind.
I am well aware of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which have virtue and value. Certainly, representatives of some ethnic minority groups are deeply concerned. The noble Lord pointed out that representations have been made by the Law Society and, it was said, in an open-minded way, even by those belonging to my former profession. But even when I was chairman of the Bar I never believed that we had a monopoly on all virtue. Occasionally, when the poachers take over a bit of the gamekeeping, they recognise some of the poachers' devices.
It is true that some people opposed change. Many favoured it: the Magistrates' Association; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Justices' Clerks' Society; the Crown Prosecution Service; Sir lain Glidewell, who carried out what most people thought was a masterly review, extremely critical in many ways of the then experience of the Crown Prosecution Service; Customs and Excise; the Royal College of Psychiatrists; and a number of judges. I come not least—I deliberately mention him at the end in order to give him due regard—

363
to the Lord Chief Justice. I do not think it can be seriously suggested in this House that the Lord Chief Justice has not been the most diligent, careful examiner of proposals for reform in the criminal justice system.
We hope that there will be savings, and not simply financial—although they are extremely important, particularly when resources are strained. But one has to bear in mind the effect of delay on witnesses. Delay pollutes the system. It alienates many people from the system. They are so disappointed, fundamentally and deeply hurt, by the delays that the Crown Court system sometimes inflicts upon them.
I repeat that this was a change in the law as recently as 1855. There is nothing fundamental about the alleged right which is claimed. It seems to me that if the magistrates approach their duties in the way that I have indicated, subject to the right of appeal to the Crown Court on venue, subject to the further automatic right which your Lordships know exists for appeal to the Crown Court against conviction and/or sentence, those are reasonable safeguards.
I believe that I have answered the questions put to me. I should repeat, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that this proposal is not based simply on finance. When one addresses pressure in the system and the question of resources and consequences, one should not forget victims, complainants and witnesses. The Crown Court system is significantly more expensive than the magistracy—not simply because members of the magistracy are volunteers and Crown Court judges are paid. Given the expense of running a Crown Court trial with jurors—and alternates in effect, in case of illness on the first day—and the whole panoply of running the system, one is entitled to ask in many cases, particularly when the election is resiled from, whether we have got matters right. I do not believe that we have. In due time, when the Bill comes before the House, I hope that it will be given favourable scrutiny—proper, but open-minded scrutiny.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I assume that primary legislation will be needed to implement these proposals. When will it be introduced?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is absolutely right on his first proposition. I simply say, as I did in reading out Mr. O'Brien's answer: when parliamentary time allows. In a sense I am not in a position to judge that. We have just completed the seventh day in Committee on the House of Lords Bill. This is an important and self-contained reform. Giving a hostage to fortune, it should not take too long in this House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is a very important constitutional matter. Will the appeal be by way of re-hearing, as it was to the old Court of Session, or will it be, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested, a re view of discretion, which will be interfered with only if it is plainly wrong?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two types of appeal to which I have referred. Appeal
364
against conviction is by way of re-hearing. Our minds are working on the precise details of the Bill, which I stress are a long way away. I believe that we need to give very careful attention to the point: is this a review of the merits or simply a review of the exercise of discretion? Whichever it turns out to be, it does not seem to me to be an exercise that need take a qualified judge very long.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who moved an amendment to bring in this change in regard to a rather narrow range of offences—namely, the handling of goods with a value of under £100—almost exactly nine years ago, I cannot object to the proposal as strongly, or indeed at all, as my noble friend has from the Front Bench.
I endorse the Minister's remarks about the effects on the prison system, which is what originally drew my interest. There is a very low acquittal rate among those who elect for jury trial. The waiting time in remand wings is pretty lengthy, and that time counts against the time of the sentence when awarded. Is it not therefore the case that there is a strong motivation to elect for trial by jury because a proportion, perhaps a substantial proportion, of the time served will be served with all the privileges that go with an unconvicted prisoner? Incidentally, there is a very much heavier burden per prisoner on prison officers than there is for sentence prisoners who do not have those privileges. Will not the consequence be a release of Prison Service resources to the proper care of sentence prisoners and the proper rehabilitation, aided by greater time out of cell? I ask all these questions in order to bring to the notice of my noble friend and others who have objected in the past to this proposal that there are considerable benefits to be gained in the operation, as well as the cost, of the Prison Service and in its small, but valuable, attempts to rehabilitate prisoners.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with a significant part of the noble Lord's remarks: namely, that the Prison Service ought fundamentally to be devoted to the tasks that he identified. If the noble Lord had asked me that question 20 years ago, I would have tended to agree that there was the inducement for people to stay on remand because they had a more agreeable life than they would post-conviction. Alas, my experience these days is that for many remand prisoners, not all, life in prison is a good deal less attractive than it is for those who have been convicted, one of the points made by the noble Lord being the time spent out of cell. There is also positive fruitful activity and something by way of rehabilitation. It may well be true that to sit and languish, idle, in the remand system may be attractive to some. If it is, that is a very good reason for not allowing them to languish in the remand system. It is in my opinion, and that of many governors and members of the Prison Officers' Association, a distortion of the regime that we ought to be providing.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for not dealing with the specific point regarding corpus juris. This is not related in any way to the proposals—

365
I underline that word—for corpus juris, which essentially deal with fraud in the context of the European Union.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am in no way briefed by the Lord Chief Justice, but I am bound to say that if I was I would be very irritated at the Government's picking and choosing when to use the Lord Chief Justice. At considerable cost to himself by way of time, the Lord Chief Justice attended this House on two or three occasions recently to deal with the subject of vulnerable witnesses. Having spelt out guidelines in the Court of Appeal to stop any repetition of the abuse of cross-examination of complainants in rape cases, and having supported strongly the proposal to delete from the Bill the embargo placed by the Government on cross-examination, he was ignored. The same applied in the same Bill to questions that could be asked of the complainant. He put forward the view that this was quite wrong; it was an undesirable interference with the discretion of the judge. He was ignored. But now he is produced because he happens to say what the Government wish. That is all I say on that point.
I should like to inquire about the costs which will be saved. If it is entirely a re-hearing as to whether or not the trial should take place before the justices or in the Crown Court, given that it is a re-hearing against any conviction which means a new trial—not the ordinary situation of an appeal—will there be any saving? I do not know what assumption the Government have made about the frequency of appeals against conviction to the Crown Court. I would have thought that, almost inevitably, first offenders, who now normally opt for the Crown Court, would appeal to that court if convicted. I do not know to what extent this has been considered.
As the Minister well knows, about 20 years ago an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the right honourable Lord Justice James considered this very question. In paragraph 61 of its report it said:
"The existing right to elect trial by jury is so long established in our criminal justice system and valued so highly that its total abrogation requires very compelling reasons. We doubt whether such a radical change would be sufficiently acceptable to public and professional opinion to enable it to be implemented. We go further. In our view there is a real danger that the total removal of the present right of election would undermine the trust and support which the criminal justice system at present commands among the general public."
I do not know to what extent consideration has been given to that view or to the point favoured by that committee that consideration should be given to removing cases from the ambit of the Crown Court and reclassifying the less serious offences so that they are not triable both ways. Paragraph 16 of the report of the Royal Commission stated:
"One way of removing cases from the ambit of the Crown Court would be to reclassify the less serious offences as triable summarily only. We have not regarded the task of identifying the offences concerned as falling within our remit".
I suggest that there is a lot of reconsideration by the Government yet to take place, and I invite them to do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am well familiar with the report produced by the committee under
366
the chairmanship of Lord Justice James. I remember the fairly heated discussion at the time about his recommendations. My recollection, which may be wrong, is that in certain cases of theft he wanted the automatic right to jury trial removed altogether. There was a good deal of public disquiet, if I remember rightly. We do not suggest that in cases of theft the right should be taken away altogether but that the magistrates will hear the propositions put by the Crown in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service and representations made by or on behalf of the defendant and come to a conclusion. We then build in the safeguard of a right of appeal to the Crown Court judge on venue. I do not believe that, on whatever basis the right of appeal in the Crown Court is conducted, it needs to be a very long exercise; it is a perfectly straightforward, simple one.
Things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury. I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years running completely bogus defences—I can say this now—about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether it constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone; one must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards.
I do not believe it is fair to say that the Lord Chief Justice has been abused. I went to a good deal of trouble in your Lordships' House to explain why we had not ignored him but had come to a different conclusion. Am I not reasonably entitled by way of help and accurate background to point out to noble Lords who say, perfectly properly, that so and so is against it that there are others who support it, not least the Lord Chief Justice?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that when it came to the appeal on venue, not against conviction and sentence, the Crown Court judge might simply follow the line taken by the magistrates. Is the Minister aware of any statistics available now, or by the time the legislation is introduced, to indicate the results of what I believe to be an analogous situation? Recently, a situation was introduced whereby, against set criteria under the Bail Act, there could be an appeal to the Crown Court against the grant of bail by magistrates. The Crown Court then has to use the set down criteria in order to decide whether or not to uphold the magistrates on the matter. That seems to me an entirely similar exercise. If, by the time we reach legislation, there is any indication about how satisfactory that exercise of appellate jurisdiction has been, it may be helpful to all concerned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, particularly given his vast experience of these matters as a judge. I am well familiar with the Bail (Amendment) Act. It was my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I who were able to persuade the then Home Office Minister, Mr. Maclean, that that right of appeal was required. I have no statistics

367
but I shall search out such as there are. My impression, which I recognise is a fallible one, is that there have been relatively few prosecution appeals against the grant of bail. I shall certainly research the point.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, first, can the noble Lord say whether research shows that for similar offences the county court imposes a different penalty from that imposed by magistrates in the cases which are being discussed? Secondly, I strongly endorse any steps to reduce the length of time prisoners are kept on remand. I have a vivid picture of two young men lying face down on their beds and the governor saying that they were remand prisoners, that they did not have to do anything and they had refused to do anything. It is very important to encourage rehabilitation as soon as possible, and I would therefore favour that situation. Will there be a substantial reduction in remand time and will other moves that are afoot also reduce time spent in remand?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no doubt that there should be a significant reduction in remand time because many serious delays are in Crown Court trials. There are other aspects of this matter, and I am conscious that here I am trespassing into the territory of the Lord Chancellor, but all judges and magistrates have to be absolutely scrupulous when they make bail decisions. For our part, in the Home Office, we have to be certain that bail support schemes are universally available, or on a generally equivalent basis, and that bail hostels are available and that the places in them are properly used.
The general evidence is that Crown Court sentences are heavier than those in the magistrates' courts for generally equivalent offences.

Conductive Education
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh The Earl of Iveagh rose to call attention to special needs education, with particular reference to the promotion of conductive education for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by defining exactly what is meant by special educational needs. To paraphrase the Command Paper Excellence for all children, the law states that a child has special educational needs if he or she has a learning difficulty (that is a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age, or a disability which makes it difficult to use the educational facilities generally provided locally), and if that learning difficulty calls for special educational provision (that is, provision additional to or different from that made available generally for children of the same age in local schools).
Within the broad spectrum of special needs, conductive education is succinctly defined as an education system for children and adults with motor disorders, by which individuals are guided and led towards the skills and motivation they need to overcome
368
the problems of movement they encounter in everyday living. Conductive education can instil greater confidence and motivate children and adults to achieve more, and results in improved communication skills with those around them.
Conductive education organises a developmental curriculum. It aims to teach the basic principles or attributes which can lead children to taking on the national curriculum successfully. Typically, a child's daily routine includes several series of tasks carried out in different positions, for example lying, sitting, standing and walking. Each child within the group receives individual attention at its specific level. Conductors continuously observe the children in order to change goals, as necessary, to assist the child's development. The best results are achieved where parents can continue the programme at home. The discipline that is learned encourages the belief that, with very hard work, dreams can come true.
For full effectiveness, total commitment is needed from parents. After all, most of any child's time is spent at home. It should also be pointed out that an accurate assessment of the child is vital, a point to which I shall return.
Conductive education originates from the work of Andras Peto at the International Institute in Budapest and was developed almost fifty years ago. Since then it has been taken up around the world. Conductive education is a relative newcomer to the UK's health and education scene. A BBC documentary in 1986 entitled "Standing up for Joe" helped increase overall awareness and led to the creation of the National Institute of Conductive Education, which is based in Birmingham.
At present there are over thirty institutions in the UK offering some form of approach to conductive education. Many others are aspiring to follow the principles adopted in that field.
Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, has played a leading role in its development. Scope runs two schools and has set up the Schools for Parents Network, which provides support for families and very young children at forty centres across the nation. The network is intended to introduce the techniques of conductive education.
Development has largely been the result of demand from parents. There is patchy knowledge of its existence, and the provision of service is still scarce. Often, long distances have to be travelled, and the availability of full-time places is chronically short.
The only extensive evaluation in Britain was published in 1993. It questioned the validity of conductive education over and above other practices. However, its findings have subsequently been questioned, notably by the aggressive research intelligence facility, which concludes that the effectiveness of conductive education is unproven. Surely there is a need for the Government to look again into the role of conductive education and its place in Britain.
On the ground there is a serious lack of trained conductors. A survey conducted in 1988 of the majority of institutions employing conductors showed that a very

369
considerable percentage of existing positions were vacant, with no UK-trained conductors available at all. Significantly, there are at least two degree courses which will supply qualified conductors in the future: at Keele University in conjunction with Scope, and Wolverhampton University in conjunction with the National Institute of Conductive Education. A Government commitment to support teacher training of conductors would go a long way to assist the development of the programme. Can the Minister give any assurances on this matter?
I should now like to turn to more general issues concerning special needs. The Government have placed inclusion of SEN children within mainstream schools high on its list of priorities. Inclusion must not mean an unprepared child in a school which is unprepared. Conductive education can help the Government achieve their aim, as it encourages a developmental curriculum that can be used to get individuals to a certain level where they may successfully enter the mainstream.
The Government's aim of inclusion where possible may be adversely affected by the introduction of school league tables. Schools operate in an increasingly competitive environment in which league tables count. SEN children may not perform as academically as others, and subsequently schools' academic performance may be adversely affected. This in turn may lead to mainstream schools being reluctant to admit them. In addition, inclusion is threatened by some parents who consider the presence of SEN children to be detrimental to educational standards. It is particularly important within the mainstream that adequate attention is continually given to special needs to prevent the deterioration of standards for everyone.
The Government therefore urgently need to develop other non-academic measures of achievement for schools which have children with special needs. This is the so-called value-added approach, and steps to develop official criteria by which performance is measured are essential. All children should surely have official recognition of their achievements, and the developmental approach of conductive education can add choice and additional values to the national curriculum.
Another welcome development would be the implementation of mandatory checks for all schools with regard to SEN. This would ensure suitable educational provision.
The Government also need to take into account what the inevitable closure of special schools means to parents whose children find that mainstream schooling is not an option. If we are not careful, those parents will be faced with ever-decreasing choice and ever-increasing distances to travel. The correct assessment of a child's educational needs is vital to ensure the application of a relevant educational programme.
I now wish to turn to some shortcomings of the statementing system. This Government's encouragement of conciliation services is surely a welcome development. Parents should be fully informed and
370
encouraged to take an active role in the statementing process. That initiative may help to avoid increasing the number of tribunals whose costs must have a large impact on local education budgets and give rise to a significant delay in the child's prescribed educational provision.
What undermines conciliation is the perceived lack of independence of assessors. Whenever that is felt, parental suspicions are inevitably aroused that the local authority is acting as judge and jury. There will be an automatic tendency to go to tribunal. Moreover, there is a real shortage of independent assessors and, where they can be found, only some local authorities are willing to pay for their services.
Other concerns relate to the statement itself. This Government should be congratulated on getting rid of the distinction which will mean that it will be mandatory for local authorities to provide all provisions within a statement. Let us take transport as an example. If the onus lies automatically with local education authorities, situations where parents have to pay that cost will always, not just sometimes, be avoided.
Equipment is another area which is often omitted from statements. Can it really be satisfactory that parents and others are raising funds for basic equipment by all manner of means? Surely equipment should be considered a basic need and one which must be included in the statement and its subsequent reviews.
Another important aspect of government policy is the co-ordination of services. As it happens, conductive education is well placed in that regard, being an approach which incorporates mental and physical development. Let us contrast that with the traditional provision of education where separate authorities provide the different strands of support. The traditional model is widely practised, for example, where health authorities make visits to schools run by LEAs. That often results in the health and education programmes being under co-ordinated. I should be grateful if the Government would outline any plans that they have to encourage better co-ordination. I look forward to all your Lordships' comments on this very important subject.
I beg to move for Papers.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for his introduction of the debate. I am someone who deals with special educational needs generally. He has introduced me to a new area in which I have had to undergo a steep learning curve. I hope that he will forgive me if I display ignorance in relation to any of the issues.
Part of the learning curve has been to discover rather more about conductive education. Today, I finally received a definition, given to me by Mr. Andrew Sutton. Basically, it is a three-pronged approach. The first aspect is that the education involves gaining a rapport with someone. As a child, someone who has problems with muscle movement in his neck, head or back, may have real difficulty in looking at another

371
person, let alone speaking. Thus normal communication, even a baby with his mother, may be very difficult. Therefore, the first process is to establish a rapport.
The second aspect is to instil the idea that you can improve your physical wellbeing and movements. It is the inspirational part of the process. That is my interpretation. Thirdly, there is the long, hard slog. That is possibly the least controversial part. It is instilling your body with the ability to create normal movements. It can be anything from controlling bowel movements to being able to walk.
If conductive education can enable someone to acquire those basic socialising skills, then we must welcome it. The size of the welcome will depend on how we see it going forward. Scope, which has a client base of those who use conductive education, welcomes the approach. I suggest that that means that we should look at it extremely favourably. Also, it is recognised by many British higher education institutions. Very respectable universities are awarding degrees in it. I cannot remember which universities, and so I shall name none. But the issue should be taken very seriously.
It is not a universally accepted principle. I received a briefing note from Disability Awareness in Action. It states that one of the principal concerns can be summarised as,
"the damage, both physical and psychological, that can be inflicted on disabled children who are subjected to conductive 'education'".
That organisation is strongly in favour of inclusive education for those with special educational needs.
On more than one occasion, this Chamber has disagreed on the subject. Last time I tried to say this, I was immediately contradicted by a noble Lord who normally sits behind the Minister. I said that most of us have reached the conclusion that where possible integration in the classroom should take place. But that must be tempered by the practicalities. Sometimes someone who is learning by a different learning process cannot be in the same classroom. Sometimes the lessons are totally inappropriate to them. The finer points of English grammar for someone with dyslexia was my first example. The second example I tried to use was cross-country running for somebody in a wheelchair. There is no point in that.
In our current education system, we have the problem that the national curriculum was initially drawn far too tightly. Since then, we have been pulling ourselves back from it. Initially, it was too tight and bureaucratic and everyone moved away from it. That is not merely since the current Government came into power; it happened almost immediately after the passing of the 1988 Act. It was realised that the resources were not available to implement it and that the demands it was imposing were too great.
That takes me to another point referred to throughout the briefing I received. The Special Education Council says that help is needed in training classroom teachers, SENCOs, senior managers in schools, school governors, SEN specialist teachers, learning support assistants and educational psychologists to equip them for their new
372
role. The Scope briefing refers to seven "lacks"—a lack of accessible curriculum activities, physical access to buildings, educational materials, and so on.
If we want to provide a full range of opportunities, particularly with a more integrated system, there are problems in relation to resources. It is an historical problem and no government, certainly not this one, are about to throw sufficient money at the problem to be able to solve it, even within the lifetime of one or two Parliaments. However, that is something we must bear in mind.
I have hardly touched on the subject but II have run out of time. There is an historical problem as regards resources which must be approached on a cross-party basis and, indeed, by society in general.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for raising this very important subject. RADAR, a national organisation run by and working with disabled people, focuses on the social implications of rehabilitation and is not involved in the treatment.
The action programme, launched in November 1998 by the Minister for School Standards, Estelle Morris, is welcomed. It is a positive document which seeks to set out clear priorities and policies for moving forward the ideas set out in the 1997 Green Paper enticed,Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Education Needs.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, mentioned the statements' issue. I reinforce his comments. Many statements do not have clear objectives and goals. They lack clarity over the review process and too many children and parents go to tribunals to have their needs met. Scope, which the noble Lord mentioned, has identified four key areas of concern. First, the statements make a distinction between educational and non-educational provision to meet a child's needs. Depending on which part of the statement outlines the provision, it is either legally binding on the local education authority or not. This is why Scope is reminding the Government that their 1997 Green Paper proposed to do away with the distinction, which will mean that all provisions in the statement will have to be provided.
Secondly, this distinction also related to transport, which is not always available to the schools or the children. Thirdly, children often do not get the educational materials they need. The statement should include clear details of equipment to be supplied. Finally, parent partnership schemes and independent parental supporters must be truly independent and be seen to be independent. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on these concerns.
The new code of practice is welcome. It gives guidance on contents and procedures regarding statements on special education needs and is to apply also to secondary schools.
I should like to recount one example of the problems facing a nine year-old boy in a mainstream school even when he appeared to be receiving proper support. He has spastic diplegia; his legs are more affected than his

373
arms and he has learning difficulties. He attended a special school until he was seven when an assessment concluded that he was excelling his peer group and he made the move to a mainstream primary school. He was awarded a full-time learning support assistant and a regular visit from the health trust physiotherapist. The school adapted a small room and put in ramps and handrails. Parents and school met together to discuss his lack of progress and together they contacted Scope.
The following problems were apparent. Although the boy received regular physiotherapy in the school the staff had not been advised about his need for stable seating. Despite his increasing difficulty using a pencil, his need for information technology had not been assessed. Despite the fact that he was to leave his primary school in less than 18 months, no one had considered whether the local secondary school was accessible. As it happened, it was not. Would the Minister care to comment on this case?
I should now like to mention briefly the special education needs of severely disabled service and ex-service personnel and their dependants. In March 1996 the Royal British Legion's vocational assessment centre at Aylesford in Kent was opened. Its most important activities are three days of detailed psychometric tests and referral to on-site medical and therapeutic intervention. The Legion's centre has taken over a sizeable proportion of statutory welfare services. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness the Minister to take note.
In conclusion, significant developments have occurred over the past decade but there is still a great deal of ignorance and prejudice about what conductive education means. It is a holistic approach and the needs of children are traditionally provided by a range of therapists, some of whom oppose its developments. It must be said, however, that some of the most enthusiastic supporters are found in these professions.
7.44 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, this is a very important subject that my noble friend Lord Iveagh has introduced for debate this evening. There are many charities which help with disabled children and young people. Scope, the charity for people with cerebral palsy and allied disabilities, including those with very serious disabilities such as muscular dystrophy and spina bifida, has been supporting the development of conductive education as one of the options available for meeting the needs of children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities.
Some years ago I was invited to the Hungarian Embassy to see a film on conductive education, filmed in the Peto Institute in Budapest, which was extremely interesting. One could see how the children were developing, but it was also physically very hard and exhausting for them, and not suitable for all. It is an emotive subject which causes a lot of feeling as it is an extremely expensive form of education. I can understand parents pushing to have their children educated by
374
conductive education, but it should be seen against the wider context of 20 per cent. of all children in the United Kingdom having special educational needs. This was defined in the broad sense by the Warnock Committee's report in 1978.
The Government are to be congratulated on launching new policies in the field of special educational needs. They have taken some major new initiatives to promote the education of children with special needs in mainstream schools while at the same time retaining a range of special schools to meet the needs of a small minority of children who cannot manage a mainstream school. There is always the hope that some of these children who need very specialist help will manage as they get older to move to a mainstream school.
It is very important that the education of children with very special needs is not overlooked when it comes to supporting them with the equipment they need. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is concerned that there is a need for large-scale research into the educational progress of deaf children of school age in the United Kingdom. The last large-scale survey of the educational attainments of deaf school-leavers dates from 1979. This is obviously now out of date because of the radical changes to patterns of educational placement and teaching approach used with deaf children over the past 20 years. Does the Minister agree that there is now a need for a new survey of these children's attainments in the light of the changes that have taken place?
Disability organisations welcome the commitment that the Government have made to inclusion, that disabled children should not be forced to fit into a system not designed for their needs, but that schools can be designed to include most children, although some will still need a special school. Access and inclusion for disabled children does not just include ramps. It includes access to educational materials of all kinds.
Technology is helping to overcome many of the difficulties that disabled children have faced in the past. Children should be given support and help in using new technology that is suitable to their needs. The Royal National Institute for the Blind found that many of the people it spoke to expressed concern about the quality of education that young children and young people were receiving rather than the type of school they went to.
Mobility training is an important part of every visually impaired child's educational entitlement. It needs to be taught from a very early age as it is a central part of a child's education and preparation for adult independence. Does the Minister agree that mobility has to be comprehensive, to include cane use, which is very important when it comes to navigating obstructions on pavements, guide dogs, the use of pedestrian crossings and many other requirements? Can the noble Baroness the Minister say whether there are sufficient teachers for this very important subject?
One major issue in providing materials for literacy is in alternative media, such as electronic format, which involves copyright. At the moment publishers do not

375
give permission for materials to be sorted or transmitted by electronic means. This is a great disadvantage to young children and children at school who are visibly impaired and for whom electronic media are the most versatile to meet their needs. Is the Minister aware of this problem with copyright?
I apologise for asking the Minister yet another question. The programme of action is summarising action over the next three years. Can she say what progress has so far been made, as it is welcomed warmly by many charities working in this field?
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this important debate. Some noble Lords may remember that back in 1992 I led a fundraising drive to Budapest to raise money for the Stepping Stones appeal. This was to support the National Institute of Conductive Education in Birmingham to help people disabled by a variety of conditions, mostly Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis in adults, and cerebral palsy in children, although all forms of motor disorders caused by damage to the central nervous system can benefit from the treatment, including those who suffer some of the more serious aftermaths of strokes. Our drive consisted of a convoy of licensed taxis from all over the UK escorted by members of four British police forces in two police vehicles. We drove them to the Peto Institute in Budapest.
The Hungarians have rightly been credited as being the pioneers of this innovative form of treatment. Alone in the world, they did not reject as hopeless children with cerebral palsy. All too often, these children were written off as sad cases, who would never be able to do any thing for themselves or play a useful role in society. It was never thought possible to teach them anything different, so no one tried, except a remarkable man in Budapest.
The institute in Hungary was founded in the 1950s by Dr. Andras Peto. When he first started, he was subjected to ridicule and disbelief by his colleagues in the medical profession, but he persevered. I will not forget watching as a six year-old girl from Braintree took her first staggering steps on her own. Her parents had been told that she would never walk and they would have to do everything for her for the rest of her life. But here she was, walking, and by doing so, defying all professional advice available at that time in the UK. We are not talking about the Dark Ages; we are talking about 1992. The expression on her face 'was memorable; concentration, determination, intense pride and satisfaction at her achievement. She was going to do it, my Lords, and nothing was going to stop her. It didn't, and she did.
The reason for our fundraising efforts was so that that little girl and her parents, and hundreds, and I daresay thousands, like them would not have to travel to Budapest to get treatment. We wanted the same levels of care and attention that were available in Hungary to be available in the UK. Noble Lords may like to be reminded that our efforts raised nearly £35,000.
376
I pestered quite a large number of your Lordships to make a contribution and the response was typically generous.
Conductive education offers no miracle cure, but it does offer genuine hope to thousands of people who would otherwise have none. We ran that convoy to Hungary as a tribute to the Hungarians for what they had pioneered in the face of global scepticism. In doing so, I believe that we, in this House, played a small part in establishing in the United Kingdom this great gift to the world from Hungary.
Since it was first set up in 1987, our own institute of conductive education has gone from strength to strength, and the news continues to spread. There are now no fewer than 30 centres or institutions for conductive education in the UK alone, more than 40 in Germany, more than 50 in the United States, with still more in Israel, Scandinavia, Australasia and elsewhere. In June this year there will be a gathering of some of them in Birmingham.
One of the main tenets of Dr. Peto's beliefs was that his methods could often achieve what everyone else said could never be done; namely, to teach children who suffered from severe motor disorders to attain levels of physical and psychological development which would allow them to benefit from schooling. Therefore it seems that our education system must take into account that its responsibilities towards seriously disabled children do not begin and end with getting them access to the national curriculum, but it must also support a development curriculum which is essential before these kids can benefit from schooling. This is the whole point of conductive education. As far as the Government are concerned, funds should be made available to establishments which teach it from both the Department of Health and the Department for Education, because one depends on the other. If government funds are not made available, then it is my submission that they are failing in their duty to offer free education to each and every child in the UK, including those who suffer serious disabilities.
Conductive education needs all the support it can get. I am sure that the Government are very much aware of the valuable role it plays in our society. I urge the Minister to make every representation possible for government funds to be allocated. If anyone remains doubtful of the astonishing potential ability of this farm of treatment, I recommend that they take themselves to the national institute in Birmingham and have a look for themselves. They will be amply rewarded for their time and trouble. While they are there, they ought to dig deep into their pockets and make a much needed donation to the National Institute of Conductive Education. Another name for it could be the National Institute for Hope. for both the young and the not so young. Parents of children with motor disorders, sufferers from Parkinson's disease, MS and strokes, all have reasons to he for ever grateful to that pioneer and brave man from Budapest, Dr. Andras Peto. One day, who knows, you and I may have cause to be grateful too.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Iveagh for bringing this topic to the notice of your Lordships. That this subject is being discussed today will be of encouragement to parents of severely disabled children who sometimes feel they have insurmountable struggles to overcome.
There are so many aspects of special needs education. As conductive education has been so well covered, I should like to spend my few moments on wider matters, as there are so many different needs which should be addressed. My feeling is that children with special education needs and their parents should have choices. Sometimes these children can thrive and benefit in mainstream schools if they have the necessary support and therapy so that they grow without developing further problems. Other delicate and vulnerable children cannot thrive in a mainstream school and it could put them in a dangerous position.
It is important that children are treated as individuals and that their needs are assessed, not for the convenience of a local education authority but because the full potential development, both physical and educational, of an individual child is paramount.
Some time ago I was invited to give the prizes at a comprehensive school in Watford. There were about nine physically disabled children who had done well academically but I noticed that several of them had serious problems of sclerosis. I asked the headmaster whether they had physiotherapy. He said, "No, there are not enough to make it worthwhile." A growing child who has to sit in a wheelchair will need therapy to keep his or her limbs from becoming contracted and deformed.
On another visit to a special school near Stockton-on-Tees it was observed by a general practitioner who attended that the working school day was rather short. The headmaster said, "So many of the children are brought into school by ambulance personnel who have to dress the children as the parents were still in bed recovering from the night before." The headmaster said that if he did not give the children breakfast they went to sleep by the middle of the morning. Social problems are very real in many families where there is disability.
I recently visited a school for deaf children and was full of admiration for the expertise and dedication of the teachers and the support of parents. I feel that many children with severe disabilities need the peer support, and they learn from each other techniques to overcome their disabilities. Children with disabilities can become isolated if they do not have support when they need it.
I was impressed some time ago when I visited Germany looking at rehabilitation facilities and met the therapists involved. They have a combined three-year qualification for ergotherapeuts. This is a combination of therapist and nursing skills for working with disabled children. One of the problems in the United Kingdom is that different people from different professional groups sometimes give parents conflicting advice. I hope that the holistic speciality will be looked at.
378
Will the Minister get together with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and try to improve the special needs education in secure units and young offender institutions? There is a serious problem of dyslexia, and, because schools have not addressed the problems early enough it is possible that young people without good parent support will turn to crime and unsocial behaviour through total frustration. If a child gets into trouble and has a statement for special needs, will that be adhered to within the penal system or if the child is in local authority secure accommodation?
8 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Iveagh for raising this important matter.
I should like to try to persuade the Minister of the value of training teachers in a diagnostic way. A general practitioner is there to deal with normal ailments and to diagnose specialist problems and send them elsewhere for treatment. Exactly the same is required in teachers; they have to spot a pupil with an abnormality as opposed to one who is not good enough or who is malingering.
My interest in this matter is that I have a daughter of nearly 30, Tanya, who is dyslexic, and that Stephen, who works for me and is the same age, is also dyslexic. Tanya's problem was picked up by her mother when she was aged about six, because her mother was an infant teacher and could not believe that at the end of the school day her daughter would not look her in the face and come home happily. That is the first behavioural problem that one can get, out of frustration. Her work was handed to a schoolfriend's mother, a remedial teacher, who took one look at it and said, cannot diagnose it, but there is a problem here". It was taken for granted that our daughter was trying and was not a malingerer. She went into the diagnostic system and out came dyslexia, at which point I simply told Tanya, "Your brain is connected up differently. You have to be taught differently". Away went all the pressure and any sign of frustration.
Fortunately, Tanya is of a placid temperament, as is Stephen, who got through, without ending up in Borstal, the state system, which totally failed to diagnose anything. It did not see any problem, when to me, as the father of a dyslexic, it was blindingly obvious once I saw his first written efforts. Anybody else would probably have tried to ease him out of the door. I was quite happy talking to somebody of intelligence and I could see what the problem was. Under other circumstances he could easily have found himself on the scrap heap, being treated as stupid, dumb and the rest.
Stephen also came out of the state system with virtually no vocabulary. To start with I had to simplify my conversations with him. Any third person walking in would have wondered what on earth I was doing holding a childish conversation. Everything has come to fruition in that sense, simply because I told him, "You have to see things my way. I can read what you write down, but if you disappear and don't leave me a message, and I am in trouble as a result, I shall get out my sharp knife and proceed in Japanese fashion".

379
Having come to that amicable arrangement, I go home and find odd spellings that I do not even notice now. He has not infused me with his idea of spelling—at least, I do not think so. I have seen the traditional dyslexia symptom of the same word written three times in a paragraph, each time differently. In that case he actually got one right. I laughed when I saw this. He looked up from his work and I said, "You have written the same word three times, each time differently, and you have actually got one right". I did not see any point in saying, "That's the correct one", because I suspected his brain would do anything it chose five minutes later.
When I talk about early diagnosis, I am referring to those who are severely disabled and who in principle can be taught in class, with extra tuition. Two things can be done. The first is to stabilise the child. Secondly, any teacher who is anything approaching a good teacher will be able to show the rest of the class that there is nothing stupid about that particular child; it is simply that the teaching needs to be different, so that if the other children see odd things written down they know it is nothing to laugh about—it is just one of those things.
Children are nasty creatures. If one starts early in class with them and they are given a straight explanation one will get a straight reaction, and they will probably pitch in and help. It is much the same as when a child keeps asking, "Why?" There are occasions when one does not know how to respond, except with a straight answer, which one is fairly sure he or she will not understand. If one produces that straight answer, one stops what is going on. Similarly, if one produces a straight answer in this context one will stop any sign of bullying that might go on, which again would increase frustration and pitch the child concerned into Borstal and the types of problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, described.
I think and hope that I have made a case for the noble Baroness the Minister to go back to the Treasury, which is notoriously mean about everything, and suggest that there could actually be a dividend on the investment here, on the ground that, put very simply, one less officer might be needed in Borstal, because there will not be the same number of offenders there. In addition there will not be a need for the same number of counsellors trying to sort out families, with the mother and father at loggerheads because the child is in the state that has been described. They do not understand, because they have never seen it, and if they have not diagnosed it they will be in the same frustrated position as the child, which is talking and seems perfectly normal, until a pen is put in his or her hand and something goes totally wrong.
I hope that effort will be put in particularly to getting teachers to understand the problems. Then even if there is not the money to put some of this right, at least the teacher will be able to help the child through the formative years.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, I should declare an interest. I am the father of a very severely handicapped child,
380
handicapped mentally and physically, aged 44 and with a mental age of two, who has never been able to be taught anything except to put a spoon into her mouth if it has food in it. She does not know what to do with the spoon when she has done that. My other interest happens to he that, thanks to her, I have been associated with MENCAP for over 30 years, and I have been chairman and president of it.
I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh. Indeed, until some months ago he drew my attention to conductive education I had never heard of it and knew nothing about it. Of course, it covers a wide range of problems with people of all ages, and even people of my advanced age, I am glad to say. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will assure us when she replies that the Government will examine deeply and with open minds the possibilities of conductive education, for it may help to solve a wide range of acute personal problems. I should add that it covers even people who have had strokes or have Parkinson's disease. As has been mentioned, we in the United Kingdom are lagging behind some other countries in pursuing the advantages of conductive education.
In the short time allotted to me in this debate. I should like to consider the extent to which special schools should be used for people with learning disabilities or whether they should enter the ordinary education system. I have noticed and have read with interest what the Government have said on this matter. Perhaps I may refer to page 6 of the Government's summary of the special educational needs system, which states:
"We confirm that specialist provision—including special schools—will continue to play a vital role".
I submit that there are five reasons why people with learning difficulties do better in special schools than in ordinary schools. First, many such people need much more specialist and individual attention than can be given in ordinary schools. Secondly, while they are in special schools, their individual needs can be met by teachers specially trained for the purpose. Thirdly, when mentally handicapped young people attend ordinary schools, it is well known that they develop an inferiority complex. That is hardly surprising when a great mass of ordinary children are tearing around them. Fourthly, there have been some sad cases of bullying of mentally handicapped children attending ordinary schools. 'That, above all, should be avoided. Fifthly and finally, I believe that the presence of children with learning difficulties or mental handicaps in ordinary schools—noble Lords may choose whichever phrase 'they prefer; I think that "mental handicap" is a more accurate term because everyone has a learning difficulty: I cannot play the piano with more than one finger! — places a burden on the teachers and that that may interfere with the education of normal children.
Those are the main matters that I had wanted to raise, but as there is a little more time left to me I wonder whether I dare raise a matter which is not the responsibility of the noble Baroness arid her department, but of the Department of Health, which knows of the views that some of us hold on this matter. It may be relevant to the debate to mention them. I refer to the question of where people with learning difficulties

381
should live, perhaps for the rest of their lives, especially if their parents either are dead or can no longer look after them. My daughter lives in a splendid village community, where she is wonderfully looked after. A wide variety of people with mental handicaps live there. Some of them are well enough to go out to work; others, like my daughter, could not possibly do so, but they are all part of the local community which takes an interest in them. We must keep an open mind on that matter. There is a splendid body in the north of England called RESCARE which advocates the care of such people in village communities. It has pointed out that even a former asylum can be adapted, if it has spacious grounds, to form a splendid village community.
I must now sit down, but before doing so I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, cannot be here tonight because of a sad family reason. His absence is regrettable because he has done wonderful work for MENCAP.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add the thanks of these Benches to those paid to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for initiating this debate. There have been some moving and cogent speeches. My first contact with the Institute for Conductive Education was over 10 years ago when it was seeking sponsorship for sending its first conductors for training at the Peto Institute in Hungary. As we have heard, there are now some 30 centres employing conductors, including centres such as Craighalbert in Scotland and PACES in Sheffield. Noble Lords may have seen in the press that those centres were established as a result of extraordinary individual efforts, including in particular fundraising efforts.
One of the better things done by the previous government was to support the Peto Institute in a major way over a number of years as a result of a visit made to Hungary by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister. As a result of the efforts of the institute, and principally of Scope, conductive education is no longer regarded as an esoteric treatment but as a mainstream treatment. As pointed out by, among others, my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, conductive education provides the essential development work needed to give children the basic skills to access the mainstream school curriculum.
Although believing that ultimately it is desirable for all children with disabilities to take advantage of mainstream education if they can, we on these Benches do not believe that that should be elevated to dogma in the name of "inclusion" as some groups appear to believe. It is not true to say that,
"all forms of provision provided in separate special schools can he provided in mainstream schools"
as the Alliance for Inclusive Education and others appear to think. My noble friend Lord Addington dealt with that point very well. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, provided cogent reasons why children suffering from learning disabilities may in certain circumstances need special education in separate schools.
382
Parents and children should be allowed to form their own judgment and make their own decisions. That is why I welcome the tone of both the Government's Green Paper of October 1997 and the recent action programme, published last year. I welcome also the Government's consultation over the code of practice which was published earlier this year. These moves clearly demonstrate the priority being accorded to special educational needs by the Government. I welcome that tone specifically because Ministers confess that although believing the maximum inclusion to be desirable they want to take a pragmatic approach. They have stated—I am sure that the Minister will restate it tonight—that the needs of the individual child come first. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham. made that point cogently.
We on these Benches welcome the attention that will be paid to the training of special needs assistants through a national framework for training. We also welcome the fact that the Health Bill contains mechanisms to improve the interface between health authorities and education departments, particularly as regards speech and language therapy which seems to fall the wrong side of the educational/non-educational divide. However, major challenges are involved, given the cuts in school nursing provision and the devolution of healthcare policy to primary care groups and trusts.
We on these Benches obviously want to enter a number of caveats. We appreciate the need to minimise the bureaucracy of statementing and the Government's desire to avoid statementing where possible and to make the best use of the time of educational psychologists. However, statementing is an important way for parents to assess legal rights that are otherwise not available. Parents need first to be convinced of the quality of the provision before forgoing their legal rights.
Incidentally, as a lawyer, I find it somewhat odd that in the Pamela Phelps case there is a dispute with an education authority as to whether or not a child is owed a duty of care by the psychologist producing the statement. A statement is a crucial foundation for the future education of a child with learning difficulties. Is it so odd to expect to be able to rely on it legally? Have the Government received advice on the impact of the Human Rights Act on Part IV of the Education Act 1996?
As we move towards more "inclusion" of children with learning difficulties into mainstream education, there must be the resources provided to ensure that they are given the assistance they need and that they are not isolated. Above all, there must be the resources to ensure that all children have full physical access to mainstream schools.
We welcome the increase in money available under the schools access initiative this year and the promise of more to come, but the "Within Reach" survey carried out by Scope and the NUT in 1993 showed that at least another £200 million on top of that is needed to provide adequate physical facilities for those with special needs.
If the alternative to statementing is early intervention, education authorities need to be proactive and to have the resources to identify those with special educational

383
needs. If the intention is that statements are to be substituted by more proactive early intervention, the system should be more efficient than the current one and not simply an excuse to save resources.
In that context, on these Benches we are not encouraged by the replies of the Minister to my questions about identification of certain categories of children with special educational needs, although I thank heir for the courtesy of her most recent reply before today's debate. However, my question concerned why, in England, we shall not follow the Scottish school census, which has some 14 different categories and which would enable us to identify the particular learning difficulties experienced by children. That will enable the Scots to track educational outcomes, which is a matter of major importance when it comes to assessing the performance of schools and teachers and, of course, the children themselves.
The Green Paper, published in 1997, placed heavy emphasis on outcomes. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, cogently described the issue of assessing attainment, as raised by the RNID. Yet the Minister has stoutly resisted any suggestion that in England we have anything to learn from Scotland and declared that the department has no intention of following the Scottish way in the English census. If I had the time, I would expand on that further and its impact in certain areas because it does not allow us to track the incidence of important conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder. However, I a m partly encouraged by the Minister's reply that there will be piloting of the collection of data on what are described, by the department, as low incidence special education needs. No doubt we shall return to the subject.
To return to conductive education, the matter is not without controversy, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. There are those who claim that there is no evidence of its effectiveness. However, I believe that the children demonstrate its effectiveness, both in person and in some of the videos your Lordships may have seen. I welcome the fact that the institute now offers children under three, in their region, free assessment and treatment. I hope that the department will be able to ensure that that is the case in other regions. That is a major achievement and we should be doing everything in our power to assist them, Scope arid other conductive education centres to improve the lives of children in their care.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for initiating this debate and for the excellent way in which he introduced it. As so often is the case, time does not allow noble Lords to do justice to such an important topic, which covers so many dimensions of special educational needs. Therefore, I shall have to confine my contribution in this debate.
Issues about which there is agreement on all Benches include early identification of children who have special educational needs, identifying effective teaching and learning practices and, of course, the importance of funding and the effective application of funds.
384
I have always thought it important in the context of a debate about children with special educational needs to recognise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, as has been mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, which culminated in the Education Act 1981. For the first time, the Warnock Committee identified the percentage of children with special educational needs. The breakdown resulted in approximately 2 per cent with severe educational needs and up to a further 18 per cent in need of some degree of special provision.
Throughout the following two decades work continued on improving training, disseminating best practice, improving identification procedures and the targeting of resources. The Education Act 1993 introduced a more structured five-point approach to early identification, which gave schools, local authorities and the medical professionals specific responsibilities.
Parents were given more choice, the right to more information and a greater role in determining the nature of educational provision through a system of statementing. Parents with serious grievances were also given the right of access to a special needs tribunal, although I note that some of the shortcomings of the system in practice, referred to in the debate, merit review. That was always the intention of the department when the measures had been in place for some years. They have now been in place for five to six years.
The Government, following consultation, have now set in train further developments in the field of special education, which is to be welcomed, although we have yet to see the legislation that may be required for implementation. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what progress is being made in preparing such legislation.
I understand from information provided to the Library by the Government that spending on special educational needs was estimated to be £2.5 billion per year. However, the department also went on to say that children with special needs will benefit from increases announced to cover the period of the comprehensive review, 1999–2000 to 2001–2002. Thus, the Government noted that targeted funding for special educational needs would nearly double to £37 million between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. I find the information a little confusing and, therefore, it would be helpful to know the comparable figure for the estimated annual spend of £2.5 billion for each of the next two years.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, invites us to consider quite specifically the provision of conductive education. I have found what the noble Earl, and other noble Lords, had to say this evening fascinating. I know that this form of education is controversial, especially among professionals. Some of us remember the controversy among professionals about dyslexia. Some dismissed it as a middle-class disease used by parents to cover for the stupidity of their children. I was very moved by the words of the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on that matter. Thank goodness that attitude has changed dramatically over recent years and

385
that children with dyslexia are now taken more seriously, although there is still further to go, as other noble Lords have said.
I am also aware of the research into conductive education commissioned by the previous government and published in 1993. That research found no evidence that children receiving conductive education progressed better than comparable children at maintained special schools.
There appears to be considerable evidence of children achieving great progress from conductive education. Many organisations can produce evidence to that effect. An excellent briefing paper, prepared by Scope for this debate, already referred to, is very supportive of conductive education. That organisation should know.
Therefore, would it not be appropriate, given the passing of six years, to commission further research to address many of the questions which remain, despite the previous report of 1993? Is it no more than a trendy and ineffective form of education? Is the reason that local authorities do not refer cases to the conductive education centres a matter of resources or a matter of genuine professional advice? Is the rather, in my view, too aggressive policy of many professionals to integrate children with special needs into mainstream education the reason for the low number of referrals to centres such as the Coldon Welsh School, the Scottish Centre for Children with Motor Impairments or the High Green School for Conductive Education and many others? Or could it be, as in the case of dyslexia, that professional prejudice just may give way to the view that conductive education is effective and is worthy of greater support.
The one thing that parents dread is that their children will be born with or will acquire a disability which requires special educational provision. However, so much progress in developing effective special education has been made and there is a wealth of good professional practice which can make a significant difference to the quality of life for the individual and to the peace of mind of their families.
Refurbishment work, I know, is taking place at the Peto Institute in Budapest under an inter-governmental agreement made at the tail-end of the last government. However, in the interest of keeping an open mind and of pursuing all avenues to improve services to children with special educational needs, I hope the Minister will both tell the House of any increased support that may be planned for existing conductive education centres and consider seriously the need to update research into conductive education.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, has certainly given us all food for thought, and he is to be warmly congratulated.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, like other speakers, I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, sought to use the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also welcome his commitment, shared with many other Members of this
386
House—the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was mentioned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Rix—who are committed to ensuring that all children with special educational needs have the opportunity to develop their full potential. That is a commitment which I and my ministerial colleagues share. That is why we are reviewing special educational needs policy and did so soon after coming into office, publishing our SEN Green Paper as early as October 1997 and why, in November last year, we published our programme of action for SEN. That sets out our vision for children with special educational needs and the agenda for developments in SEN for at least the next five years.
Tonight I want to touch on the key themes in the action programme and then say something about how developments within the field of conductive education can both contribute to and support our policies on special educational needs. We are investing significant resources to support the SEN action programme. The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, is right to say that there is a payback on investment in this area. This year alone we have provided almost £60 million in targeted funds. But our investment includes virtually doubling the targeted support for SEN under the Standards Fund and increasing five-fold the capital support under the Schools Access Initiative from the £4 million that we inherited to £20 million. There will be further increases in both those areas over the next two years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. asked specifically about funding under the CSR. Unfortunately, it is not possible separately to identify SEN spending out of general learning aid provision year on year. But we will be requiring LEAs to set out much more clearly how much they are allocating to SEN. That will enable us to make year-on-year comparisons in future, which is important.
I hope that this extra funding will allow us to make real progress in the five areas set out in the action programme, ensuring better support and advice for parents, which a number of noble Lords who have children with special educational needs mentioned; improving the SEN framework; developing a more inclusive education system; developing the knowledge and skills of all staff working with children with special educational needs; and promoting partnership in SEN locally, regionally and nationally. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about legislation. As she is aware, we are committed to legislation, although at this stage I cannot say when that will be.
Perhaps I can now say something about the third of the action programme objectives; that is, developing a more inclusive education system. Several noble Lords made reference to the excellent contribution that centres for conductive education in the UK play in supporting and developing children with cerebral palsy. I endorse that and acknowledge the important role that the many voluntary organisations like Scope, which are concerned with special educational needs, play in supporting children and their parents. Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Government have an open mind in relation to conductive education.

387
The Government want a more inclusive system where more children are able to have their needs met in a mainstream school. But the action programme also makes absolutely clear our commitment to a system which is both flexible and responsive; a system with a range of provision sufficiently diverse to meet the equally diverse needs of our children. Let me be absolutely clear. Within the overall framework there will be a continuing role for special schools, including centres which specialise in conductive education. As the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others made clear, there are many excellent special schools which provide teaching which is highly valued by both parents and pupils. We want to build on their strengths and ensure that they develop closer links with mainstream schools so that their expertise is used to the full. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the needs of the children have to come first and of course the views of parents are very important.
Conductive education is fundamentally about helping children with a motor disability towards independence. Noble Lords will know, as I do, of children who have been helped through conductive education to participate in mainstream schools. We want to build on that and enable more parents to feel confident that their child's needs can he met in mainstream schools.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, asked about the co-ordination of provision. Noble Lords will know that it is government policy that local education authorities should determine provision locally, according to the needs of the individual child. It must be right that parents, teachers and local education officers, working together, are best placed to reach a view on an individual child's needs and the provision to meet those needs, including any specialist equipment that the child might need. However, we recognise that not all LEAs are able to provide the full range of support to pupils in their area. For example, in some areas of low incidence disability there may he a need for provision which goes across local authority boundaries. That is why we are promoting regional co-ordination aimed at helping collaboration between LEAs and other providers.
There are already five first-phase projects which are investigating the co-ordination of different types of service and support. There has been a lot of interest in these projects which is why, just before Christmas, those local authorities not already involved were invited to join the second phase of the programme. It is our intention to extend regional co-ordination of provision in all areas from April next year.
Regional co-operation will help to develop links between local education authorities and other providers, including voluntary organisations. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned parents. Our action programme recognises the key role that they play and the need to ensure that they have better advice and support. That is why we are making at least £18 million available over the next three years to develop and expand parent partnership services. Our aim is that there should be a parent partnership service in every LEA. Through those services, we will
388
expect every parent of a child identified as having special educational needs to have access to independent advice.
Therefore, I have been very encouraged to learn of Scope's Schools for Parents Network. It is important that parents understand their child's special needs. That is particularly so in the area of conductive education where parents play a crucial role in helping to develop the child's motor skills.
The Schools for Parents Network is a good example of the initiatives that we want to see developed for parents. I am greatly encouraged by their expansion, which I believe to be a clear testimony of their success, and by the fact that over half of the schools are funded by statutory agencies—either health or education. I am also pleased that two of those schools are jointly funded by health, social services and education. That is an example of a multi-agency approach which is actually working in practice. A number of noble Lords commented on the need for highly skilled professionals to work with children with special needs so that we can maximise their achievements.
I recognise the importance within conductive education of ensuring that there are sufficient appropriately qualified conductors in this country, and the role that the courses run by Keele arid Wolverhampton universities play in helping to achieve that aim. I very much welcome the partnership that Scope has with Keele and the international Peto Institute to provide a course which trains UK conductors arid ensures that they receive an initial teacher training qualification. I also welcome the fact that we are able to fund this course through the Teacher Training Agency, and that Scope provides additional funds to support the third year of the course at the Pete Institute in Hungary. Officials will be working with Scope to evaluate the Keele course and consider its future development. I hope that that provides the assurance requested by the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may also add that, as part of our discussions with Scope, we will want to review the existing funding arrangements for the year in Hungary and, in the light of this, consider how the course might be funded in the future. We want to explore with Scope the possibility of students being able to carry out their work experience year in the UK as there become greater opportunities for these students to work alongside trained conductors in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, stressed the value of more conductive education in the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be possible, if we are able to train more students in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about research. As I believe the noble Baroness knows, the department's research priorities are determined through an annual planning cycle, which is designed to ensure that all proposals for research and evaluation result from clear policy and operational needs. Each summer we have a process in which we seek the views of others on possible areas of research; indeed, we do consult widely. However, if Scope or any Members of your Lordships' House believe that there is a case for the department

389
conducting further research on conductive education, I hope that they will submit proposals as part of that process.
A number of more specific questions were raised in the debate. I shall not have time to answer many of them, but I shall try to pick up one or two. I shall write to noble Lords with answers to those questions that I will not have time to cover this evening.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are looking at the implications of the Human Rights Act on SEN. We are awaiting the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consideration on the overall implications of the legislation. The noble Lord also raised issues about Scotland concerning which he has written to me. I am sorry that he is not altogether satisfied with my answer. However, I do not believe that there was anything in what I said in my letter which would imply that we do not take any notice of what happens in Scotland; we certainly do. Nevertheless, the systems there are somewhat different and, of course, that will continue to be so under devolution.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, commented on deaf children. In particular, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about research. The department published a literary review last year on the education of deaf children. We are currently working with a consortium of the major deaf organisations to co-ordinate work in the area of the educational attainments of deaf children. I believe that that will determine what further research is needed.
The noble Lady also asked a number of questions about teachers of visually impaired children, copyright issues and mobility training. I hope that she will forgive me if I write to her on those matters rather than try to deal with them tonight as some of them are not perhaps directly related to the subject of conductive education.
Questions were also raised about statementing. Indeed, the noble Earls, Lord Effingham, and Lord Iveagh, asked about that. As regards the independence of the assessor, I can say that LEAs do employ educational psychologists to give clear professional advice and make professional assessments of the child's needs.
I have to tell noble Lords that I have run out of time. However, I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for raising our awareness of the very important role that Scope and others play in promoting the contribution of conductive education. The Government want to work with the voluntary and other statutory organisations to secure improved provision for all children with special needs, including those who may benefit from a conductive education approach.
8.46 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been a debate of very high standard and one which has been both informative and illuminating. I should tell the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has
390
sent her apologies to me. She had a long-standing engagement this evening, but would very much have liked to be here.
Within the time available this evening we have covered many very serious issues concerning special needs education. I was delighted to hear many of the encouraging and enlightened words about this type of education from all parts of the Chamber, but most notably and encouragingly from the Minister.
The relevance of the debate has been emphasised by a week in which the Government have seen their largest revolt in the House of Commons over disability issues. Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a little piece of history: this may be the last time that an hereditary Cross-Bench Peer sponsors a Private Member's debate in the presently constituted House of Lords. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill [H.L.]
8.48 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NHS: Millennium Services
8.49 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the National Health Service has sufficient resources to cope from 11.00 p.m. on 31st December 1999 till 7.00 a.m. on 1st January 2000.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question gives the House the opportunity to consider the crucial few hours, so far as the NHS is concerned, of the millennium holiday period.
With the continual scare stories in the press, and the regular, and deliberate eye-catching status reports of Action 2000, we feel it is right that the Health Minister responsible for millennium cover should have a chance to put the public's understandable and widespread concerns to rest.
In 226 days staff throughout the NHS will have to cope with what is expected to be the busiest and most stressful time on record. A normal New Year's eve is almost the peak period of winter admissions. However, this year there will also be thousands of spontaneous events taking place at the same time all over the country. The likely exuberance of the night, heightened by the relaxation of the drinking laws, is widely expected to lead to an increase in drunkenness and potential violence.
All this may well be exacerbated by millennium bug chaos. Most people accept that there will be computer problems, but no one, not even the industry experts, can say how great, how widespread or how damaging this will be. Will there be equipment failures in the middle

391
of life saving operations? Will there be a loss of patient records? Nowhere does millennium compliance mean the difference between life and death as much as in the National Health Service.
The previous government were keenly alert to the potential problem of the millennium bug. Taskforce 2000, established in 1996, was the first of its kind to be set up anywhere in the world. Its aim was to convince the country of the threat, the need to take action, and to allow sufficient time for the essential testing.
As a result of the early planning, there is some hope that the software problem is largely resolved, and that the great majority of embedded chips in electrical equipment will not fail. Although there is still work to do, I sense that most of the IT issues are mopping themselves up, and that the majority of NHS organisations are making satisfactory progress.
This optimism, however, is not helped by the recent suggestion that the Territorial Army might be needed if a "worst case" millennium disaster stretches health services beyond their limit. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me if the NHS has plans to use the TA, and in what capacity.
The predicted cost of ensuring that computers and IT systems are millennium compliant in the NHS has been escalating. It was estimated to be £292 million in June 1998 and £312 million only two months later. The NHS Confederation estimates that it is now at least £500 million. Can the Minister confirm that there is some accuracy to these figures as they will have significant resource implications for this year, and for the NHS's clinical priorities thereafter?
There are a number of millennium compliance issues that are still to be resolved, but I have time only to refer to four key areas. The first and most important issue is the lack of compliance information from suppliers, which is affecting the ability of NHS managers to plan effectively and with confidence. Secondly, a common concern raised in returns to the NHS Executive is the need for further assurances regarding the continuity of supply from the utility companies. Hospitals are particularly concerned about the millennium bug wrecking supplies of electricity and water, which are both computer programmed. Electricity and water supplies are an absolute baseline requirement. Indeed without electricity, the compliance, or otherwise, of many IT systems becomes purely academic. Many of the more sophisticated diagnostic services, which the NHS uses on a daily basis, rely extensively on electronic equipment. The failure of such systems will have serious and perhaps fatal conequences for patients.
Despite this, a major electricity supplier sent round a letter at the end of last year which conceded that, despite its best efforts, it could not guarantee a continuity of electricity supply. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House some assurance that, as far as the NHS is concerned, the Government believe that essential utilities will not be affected.
Thirdly, there are limited and declining numbers of local, skilled IT staff in some areas. There is much evidence that freelance programmers who agree to stand by as "firefighters" on millennium night can expect to
392
earn up to £1,000 per hour. Freelance rates normally stand at between £30 and £90 per hour. Is the Minister concerned that the NHS will not only have difficulty in recruiting the necessary IT staff, but also having the money to pay them?
Fourthly, computer virus experts are warning that the rogue programmers' next big trick is likely to be the "millennium virus". It would seem that the significant date, and concern over the millennium bug, will prove to be only too tempting for them. Can the Minister confirm that the latest anti-virus software has been installed throughout the NHS to offer protection against a virus such as this?
On 30th September the NHS must have completed contingency plans to provide health care without these IT systems or the machines that may be at risk. Action 2000 tells me that the NHS still has a mountain to climb, particularly some individual hospitals. However, if these hospitals maintain their present rate of progress, Action 2000 anticipates that there will he no significant disruption. I am reasonably confident that almost all parts of the NHS will achieve this millennium compliance deadline and that the real problem that the NHS will have to face over the millennium period is one of staffing.
The Government have made it clear that they will not provide any national millennium pay bonus for NHS staff, insisting that staff's public service duty should override financial gain. Bearing in mind that some babysitters and waiters are charging £1,000 for the night, this decision has understandably bred an atmosphere of discontent and low morale.
At Unison's annual health conference delegates voted by a margin of three to one to strike over the two days of the millennium. If this happens, can the Minister tell me what impact the Government believe this will have on NHS services, and what alternative provisions are in place?
Some NHS staff, despite possessing a deep commitment to the public sector, may decide that spending time with their families and friends during this momentous period is more attractive than turning up for work. Does the Minister foresee absenteeism as a significant problem?
The NHS Confederation estimates that the NHS will have to employ thousands more staff, and negotiate considerable stand-by allowances, particularly as flu and bad weather will have an impact on staff sickness levels. How do the Government believe that NHS trusts will cope without substantial budget overruns? It seems unreasonable to expect trusts to meet these costs within their normal budget in a difficult financial year. and one with such a unique period of clinical stress. Will the Minister consider reviewing the Government's approach since the Year 2000 situation is such an exceptional one?
With regard to primary care, GP practices, co-operatives and deputising services are likely to receive the brunt of the pressures over this period. Additional funding will surely be required in order to

393
cope with the extra costs of support staff such as nurses, receptionists, telephonists and the out-of-hours co-operative staff.
Although by the holiday period 60 per cent of England will be covered by NHS Direct, only one-third of that coverage will have been in place from the beginning of December 1999. It will therefore be largely untested. What will be the role of NHS Direct over the holiday period and what further publicity do the Government intend providing to ensure that the service is used?
GPs in some areas will also wish to avoid the problems encountered last winter when the capacity of some telephone services was heavily exceeded, leaving patients unable to contact the out-of-hours services and GPs unable to contact patients and hospitals. The Department of Health must insist that BT provides adequate service capacity at this vital time.
Unlike many other NHS employees, junior doctors do not attract premium rates for working nights, weekends or bank holidays. Under a national agreement, each additional duty hour is paid at less than the full rate, usually half. Junior doctors, after at least six years of arduous training at medical school, will be treating sick and injured revellers for long hours for as little as £4 per hour. That compares with £3.20 per hour that an unqualified 16 year-old can earn in McDonald's. Do the Government believe that that is adequate for those highly skilled professionals who will not only not have the option of celebrating the millennium but probably will be saving the lives of those who have been? The junior doctors committee of the British Medical Association is balloting members on their willingness to strike on this issue. I understand that there is a strong mood tending towards industrial action.
The combination of the shortage of NHS staff and the inevitable pressures of the millennium holiday period will cause hospitals to prioritise emergency cases, inevitably delaying the treatment of others. In previous winter crises there has been a dramatic increase in waiting times, even for major surgery. Does the Minister anticipate that waiting lists will increase as a result of the millennium period?
In the short time available I have covered only a few of the most important points. Our aim is to ensure that there is the necessary quality care for those who need it from the National Health Service over the millennium period. I am much looking forward to the Minister responding for the Government.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Astor, has raised some very important issues in his Unstarred Question today. I do not plan to deal with all the issues he has raised but shall concentrate purely on the issues of staffing and pay, which he described as the key question.
As a result of a circular from the NHS Director of Human Resources we know that there will be no national deal for millennium holiday working. Local
394
deals will also be discouraged. In the circular trusts are told to,
"draw on this tradition of public service and the commitment to the NHS as part of your action to make sure you maintain services over the millennium holiday period'.
and to provide staff with extra accommodation, rest facilities and hot food. Yet clearly hospitals such as the Northern General in Sheffield, which has agreed to pay consultants five times their normal fee, feel that they have to make a local deal in order to meet expected demand. The fact of the matter is that if there is no national deal many other local hospitals, apart from the Northern General, will make a judgment that they need to pay to get the appropriate staff over the millennium holiday.
Despite deficits being lower than last year, trusts still cannot afford it. The estimated amount that they will have to pay out—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—is £100 million in total or £200,000 per hospital trust. Do we want to put trusts back into major deficit again?
However, unless there are such local deals, junior doctors—who, after all, comprise some 50 per cent of the 62,000 doctors in the health service—because a bank holiday has been declared for 31st December, will receive only half their normal rate, that is, £4 per hour. on both New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Over the full Christmas and New Year period they will receive only two working days' pay out of the 12 days that are worked. This will give rise to all kinds of injustices. In many hospitals leave is already being cancelled for the New Year.
How is a junior doctor or a nurse, whose spouse is also working over the millennium or who is a single parent, going to employ a baby-sitter or a nanny over the millennium? They will have to be paid far more than the doctor or nurse receives. In effect, they will be subsidising the health service.
The meanness to employed hospital staff is in stark contrast to the treatment of locum and agency staff. Agency nurses may receive £700 for working on a millennium bank holiday. In the private sector, Allied Domecq bar staff will receive treble their hourly rate over the millennium New Year. The Nationwide Building Society information technology staff who will be on call over the New Year will receive overtime pay worth six times their hourly rate. Cable and Wireless will be paying its staff four times their basic salary. Scottish Power staff will receive special disturbance payments. Yorkshire Water and BBC employees will receive a £500 bonus. AA employees will receive a £750 bonus. I could go on.
Votes will be shortly taking place both by Unison and by the junior doctors which could have major consequences for the health service in terms of stoppages and strikes in protest at this decision, at precisely the time when NHS staff will be most needed.
At the end of all this, what assurance do we have that the NHS will be properly staffed? Do we even know that there will be a sufficient number of ambulance drivers to deal with emergencies? What about NHS Direct? On a lighter note, who will help deliver those carefully

395
planned millennium babies? Reports from Superdrug suggest that sales of pregnancy tests grew by 42 per cent last month, suggesting that couples are trying for a millennium baby.
Who will he in casualty to tend to the injuries caused during no doubt boisterous and sometimes violent celebrations? Is the NHS's planning for the millennium any better than its workforce planning?
The situation reminds me of nothing so much as when the Conservative government came into office in 1979, when they considered that central planning was a dirty word. The attitude was let the market take its course.
Effectively, the Government have left it to others to sort the matter out. They are leaving it to others to pick up the pieces, such as the Doctor Patient Partnership and its Health Alert 2000 task force, who in an extremely effective way are trying to make sure that the best use of primary care health resources is made over the millennium New Year period. Has a Labour Government really come to this?
The usual response to these matters is to hope that the Government get it right next time. I am not sure that in this case we on these Benches are prepared to wait that long.
9.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for introducing this topic. It is an extremely important one. As he said, some of the press coverage in this area has been lurid to the point of sensationalism; and there has been inadequate recognition of the scale, depth and complexity of planning that has gone on throughout the public and the private sector in this country. In that context, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were unusually intemperate in terms of his suggestion of a lack of responsibility, effort and co-ordination. I hope that I can illustrate that in some of my remarks.
The millennium poses particularly difficult challenges for those in the NHS. It brings together the IT complexities of dealing with the date change at a time when major celebrations and large public gatherings are anticipated. That means that there must be contingency planning for whatever might occur as a result, as there is every time there is a large pop concert or football match, but we recognise that these large events will occur on the same night. In addition, it will be the middle of winter, when the NHS is always stretched very hard by winter pressures. Also, a large number of bank holidays will come together, so that there will be only two normal working days in a 10-day period. So it will be a particularly challenging time.
But none of the factors described is unique. Even millennia happen every thousand years! Earlier this evening I went to ask for a document in the Printed Paper Office, and the computers were down. I am sure that they are working again now. Computers do go down from time to time, in NHS hospitals as in other organisations, and we must have standby systems in order to cope in that event. Electricity supplies are
396
known to fail in bad weather and there are interruptions to supply. The NHS would be in a fine state if we did not have adequate contingency planning and standby generators within hospitals to make sure that we can cope with those events. Even water mains burst from time to time, and the water companies have contingency plans. Health service users, from major institutions to individuals who are having renal dialysis at home and need to have a pure water supply, are catered for in the emergency planning. So there is a great deal of emergency planning in the NHS for any contingency which will be brought into play in the plans for this year.
While I understand the passion with which some staff have argued their case over special funding, in the time that I have been associated with the health service I have been in hospitals many times on Christmas Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. We are a 365-day a year service. We are a 24-hour service. We cannot opt out of providing emergency care when it is needed. We must recognise that. Although these celebrations are very special and very unusual, we should not go completely over the top. A survey published this week indicates that the vast majority of the population are planning to do nothing more than put their feet up on New Year's Eve. So we should not get carried away with the idea that everyone will be getting drunk and being violent. It is possible that a lot of people will behave responsibly.
Putting that to one side, this year there are, as I said at the beginning, particular challenges: I hope to be able to demonstrate to noble Lords that we are planning to meet them very comprehensively. The year 2000 date change has challenged the intellects of those involved in the IT industry and beyond. Planning for it in the NHS started two and a half years ago and is subject to rigorous scrutiny internally, and we now also have a system of external audit. We are part of the National Infrastructure Forum. In the spirit of openness in which Action 2000 is conducting its affairs, we report our progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor. pointed out.
We have made it absolutely clear to the NHS that it must be assured of the compliance of its own organisations or of alternative contingency plans being in place by 30th September of this year. The NHS Executive analyses bi-monthly monitoring returns from all NHS organisations on year 2000 readiness and follows them up through visits and other action. This is being very closely managed from the centre, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. will be pleased to hear, and then through the regional offices. Current estimates of the cost of the work in the NHS are about £320 million over a three-year period. The results of this process are regularly reported to Parliament and published on the Internet. We are ensuring that those organisations which at the moment are not making the progress that we would wish are effectively coached and managed so that they, too, will reach readiness by 30th September.
If I have one quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it is with his narrow definition of the period referred to in his Unstarred Question. The challenge facing the NHS is far wider than simply that eight-hour shift. The challenge is to plan effectively for the whole winter.

397
Aficionados of year 2000 issues know that there are other significant dates which we must ensure we can deal with. For some systems, 9/9/99 will be a challenge and test, and we shall not finish on 1st January; some systems will have difficulty in dealing with 29th February 2000. Just as there is a whole range of IT issues there is a range of service planning issues, in that we must ensure that there are plans to cover the whole period.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, pointed out the demand on services on New Year's Eve. It is absolutely true that that is a busy night for emergency services. It is a busy night for ambulance services and personnel and also in casualty. However, that is not the peak of admissions. The pattern of peak admissions tends to be after bank holiday periods when primary care and social services come back into train. Therefore, we have to plan for the post-bank holiday period. But I assure the noble Lord that, in respect of elective work, the planning of hospitals for this winter recognises that they will face a very challenging period of emergency work extending over several weeks at the year end. We look to organisations to schedule their elective work so that it will not be driven off course by that. We are enormously helped by the very great success that we have witnessed in the reduction of waiting lists during the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, rightly drew attention to the dependence of the NHS on other sectors, particularly the public utilities, and the importance of assuring the supplies of electricity and water. A great deal of work has been done in the National Infrastructure Forum, where Don Cruickshank, chief executive of Action 2000, has reported to us his confidence in the utilities being able to cope with the demands placed upon them. They are showing up very well in his traffic light system in terms of their compliance planning.
But it goes wider than simply the utilities. We have looked particularly at the availability of medicines. We have drawn together the private sector, pharmaceutical manufacturing companies, and pharmacies themselves, GPs and a whole group of interested parties into a pharmacy alliance to look at the whole supply chain both nationally and internationally. Organisations have to ensure that they have availability for other commodities and medical devices. There is a whole tranche of work going on to ensure year 2000 compliance for medical devices, and to inform the public who have medical devices in their own homes about what they need to do and where they can obtain advice.
It is an enormous challenge to bring together effective service planning. I believe that that is best done at a local level within very clear national leadership. We recently issued joint guidance to health services and local authorities, defining the health authority's lead responsibility for local NHS planning, together with social care, and to other local government and emergency service partners. The guidance includes the comprehensive checklist of planning issues that must be addressed locally. We have made it clear that planning must be at least on an integrated health authority basis, and we have told health authorities to establish local
398
winter planning groups, combining those NHS and social services. These groups will be at the centre of local planning for the winter and the millennium holiday. NHS executive regional offices will ensure that plans dovetail across health authority boundaries and advise on good practice and innovative solutions to local problems.
We are putting in place tight monitoring arrangements so that the service's performance will be actively managed against key review points. The date of 30th September is that by which we will ensure that we have confidence in the plans that have been made.
As to telephone services for primary care, I can assure the noble Lord that although there were problems last year, these were discussed between individual co-ops and NHS Direct at a conference last week. There are firm plans in place to double and even quadruple the number of incoming lines, at the same time reserving other lines to ensure outgoing calls can be made so that we can learn from some of the problems that arose last year.
As the noble Lord said, NHS Direct will cover up to 60 per cent of the country by the beginning of December this year. By the millennium weekend, 30 million people will have access to this convenient, highly popular service, one that has enormous potential for providing a more effective and convenient service for patients and for reducing demand on both hospitals and primary care.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about new services. We are learning as we go along from the success of existing services, but many of the new services will extend those that are up and running to larger geographical areas, so I do not anticipate a big learning curve there.
A great deal has been made about the issues of staff. I know that these are difficult issues, but perhaps I can correct two misapprehensions. There has been no definite vote to strike by Unison. It would not be possible to initiate any ballot until we are much nearer the end of the year. Those junior doctors who are rostered to work on the millennium bank holiday will not lose money. They will receive their full pay. Those junior doctors on call will, equally, receive the same on-call payments as they would at other bank holidays.
We recognise the difficulties of this situation and we have told employers to recognise the commitment of staff who work over the holiday period to meet their needs in terms of catering, accommodation and transport, to see that staff receive their full entitlements under terms and conditions of service and encourage employers to show their appreciation of staff who work over the millennium period. We are also expecting employers to explain their planning and rostering arrangements to staff as soon as possible and to consult staff representatives locally.
Our overall responsibility on this New Year's Eve and this New Year's Day, just as in every other year, is to ensure patient safety and patient services. I hope that, in the limited time I have had available, I have given noble Lords some flavour of the very comprehensive work that is going on throughout the NHS to ensure that we do exactly that at the turn of the century.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.