Sitting of 5 October 2000

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

UN Peacekeeping Operations
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they intend to make to the recommendation of the Panel on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (the Brahimi Report) that member states working in partnership should develop coherent, multinational brigade-sized forces in readiness for future peacekeeping needs.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we welcome the report of the Secretary-General's panel on peace operations. We want to work with others for swift and effective implementation. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.
We agree with the panel on the need to improve the UN's rapid deployment capabilities. We shall be examining our existing bilateral and regional arrangements, training and exercise programmes to see whether those can be further enhanced in support of UN peacekeeping. The feasibility of developing multinational brigade-size forces for rapid deployment on UN operations requires further study in this context.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness a little further on this matter. The United Kingdom is actively involved in a European defence initiative which is, indeed, intended to develop coherent multinational brigade-size forces, and I wonder to what extent this report feeds into that. The United Kingdom also maintains very close relations with a number of Commonwealth forces which would provide the basis for closer integration, given that we all know that much of the problem with UN forces, as in Sierra Leone, is that they are not coherent and they fail to work together.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, one of the principal objectives of the European defence initiative is to ensure that EU member states can best meet their responsibilities in contributing to the work of the international community in responding to crisis situations. We are working with our partners in the EU to ensure that the EU's new crisis management capacity dovetails with that of the UN. The same is certainly true with our partners in the Commonwealth.
There is agreement around the world by countries which are involved in peacekeeping missions that it is essential to try to strengthen, to help and to streamline the UN's operations around the world. We all know of examples where things have not worked in the way
1682
that any of us would have wanted. So I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that extremely profound negotiations are being undertaken with co-operation between all parties concerned to take this report forward in the best possible way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the Brahimi report is crucially important, it is equally important, in the light of recent experiences, to look at how civilian police presence in crisis areas can be increased and made more effective? Does my noble friend agree also that we must not allow ourselves to drift into a crisis management culture, a peacekeeping culture, at the expense of conflict resolution? There is a tremendous need to beef up the resources of the Secretary-General in anticipating crises and defusing them before they need a military presence.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, yes, indeed, I agree with the point which my noble friend Lord Judd has just made. In the Prime Minister's interventions in New York at the recent UN summit, he made the very point that it is necessary to deal with the causes of conflict and not just to deal with the results on the ground in a military way.
The Brahimi report is much broader than my noble friend perhaps understood it. One of its specific recommendations is that member states should be encouraged to enter into regional training partnerships for civilian police. The report goes on to expand on that. Her Majesty's Government fully support that recommendation. The UN should consider establishing an inspectorate-general of civilian police in parallel with the inspectorate-general of military forces to oversee development of selection, training and equipment guidelines to advise police contributors and to develop an understanding of training and equipment needs.
I should just mention that one of the members of the Brahimi panel was from Britain; namely, M r Richard Monk, who is the civilian policing expert on the panel. He was a retired British assistant chief commissioner. So we are not treating this as only a military problem.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House to what extent, in a case of committing such forces, the elected Government of this country will keep control both over the decision to deploy and the rules of engagement under which our troops are deployed?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as always, in situations like this, the MoD and, therefore, ultimately the Government will always make sure that they are looking after the interests and control of British troops. We do not commit our troops until we are sure that they are going to do the right kind of job in the right kind of place in the right kind of way.
Lord Roper: My Lords, does the Minister agree, in view of the experience of the United Kingdom in peacekeeping, and in view of the use of English in most

1683
UN forces, that it would be appropriate to establish a staff college in the United Kingdom for the training of UN officers entering this area? Will the Government consider that proposal?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I can assure the House that the Government will do more than simply consider the matter. We have already indicated to the UN Secretary-General that we would be willing to host a UN military staff college in the United Kingdom. That would train forces of various nationalities for service in UN peacekeeping. The Secretary-General has welcomed the idea. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, will be aware that that was one of the recommendations of the report of the joint consultative committee, which included the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for giving us information about British contributions to the peacekeeping missions. Can she also say how much those contributions cost, how many such missions exist and where are they?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in the current financial year the United Kingdom is set to contribute some £118 million to the cost of peacekeeping. That includes some £92 million as a contribution towards the common costs of UN missions and some £26 million as the cost of direct UK contributions, some of which will be subject to UN reimbursements.
Currently UK personnel are serving on UN-led missions in Bosnia, Cyprus, DRC, East Timor, Georgia, the Iraq/Kuwait border, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. They have won widespread praise for their courage and professionalism. Having visited Georgia just over a year ago, and having visited UNOMIG, where there is a tiny handful of British officers, I can tell the House that their contribution is immense. It is out of all proportion to their numbers. I am sure that that is true in other missions as well.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, this is one more commitment for our Armed Forces. I have read the Brahimi report and it is a serious commitment. We already have the European commitment and the NATO commitment. A new Budget is due soon, so can the Minister tell the House whether such a commitment will be reflected in the defence budget? The Strategic Defence Review certainly did not review all the commitments all at once.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review streamlined arrangements with our resources and forces so that we can look at the demands placed upon us. However, no one can ever predict exactly what demands there will be on our Armed Forces. The Brahimi report will not create commitments in addition to those that we carry out already. The point of the report is to streamline and to
1684
make more efficient the use of the UN machinery. It need not mean a lot of additional resources, but it does mean using existing resources in a much better way.
Millennium Dome: Financial Position
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the financial position of the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, visitor numbers have been considerably lower than anticipated. Revenue has, therefore, been lower, which has necessitated increases of grant from the lottery. The alternative would have been greater expenditure and losses for those involved in the project, particularly staff, visitors and suppliers. The New Millennium Experience Company is currently in the process of finalising its detailed budget and I shall, as promised in my Statement last week, place copies in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether all the pre-conditions attached to the last £47 million tranche given to the Dome are now in place? If not, which are still outstanding?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the pre-conditions that were imposed by the Millennium Commission included ensuring that there was proper management and that that amount represented the last draw-down from the Millennium Commission. The management is in place and discussions are taking place to finalise how the other pre-condition will be achieved, but they are almost there.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend remind me who set up the board and the accounting standards for the Dome? Was it this Government or the previous government? If he inherited the structure from the previous government, did he find it satisfactory?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the structure that runs the Millennium Dome was set up in 1996 under a previous Conservative government. We adopted that structure and did all that we could to make the process work. It was a structure that had cross-party support until there was an element of unpopularity, at which point the Conservatives abandoned their support.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, has the Minister read the Question, which is whether the Government are satisfied with the financial position of the Millennium Dome? He did not answer the Question. He did not say that they were satisfied. Therefore, may we construe that they are not satisfied?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I read the Question and I answered the Question. Of course, it is

1685
a matter of regret that more lottery money is required. I have always accepted that that is the position. On the financial management of the Dome, I am quite satisfied that it is in safe hands.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if he and the Government have done their best, it would be a sad look-out for this country if they ever did their worst? Their best has proved to be an absolute disaster. They abused public money and betrayed public trust. If they are so keen on the regeneration of Greenwich, why did they not allocate government funds for that? It would have cost everybody a great deal less.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not accept the premise of the question. Everybody knew when this project was embarked upon that risks were involved. The Millennium Commission, the previous government and this Government went into it with the best of intentions; namely, to regenerate that part of the country and to provide an exhibition for the millennium. We were not wrong to do that and it will certainly bring regenerative benefits.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister able to provide details about the assets of the Dome to prospective buyers? If such information is available, is it possible for this House to see it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that question probably relates to whether or not there is a register of the assets within the Millennium Dome. There were difficulties in relation to that in regard to Nomura. There was an exchange of correspondence in that regard, which I placed in the Library of the House last Wednesday. I tried to provide as much detail as possible. I suspect that some of the information will be commercially confidential but, in so far as I can provide more details, I shall.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when both governments decided to initiate and continue with this project, they showed vision and imagination? Any leisure project would have found it difficult to succeed in the face of such enormous hostility, both from the media and from politicians who do not have the imagination to see what is at stake.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that both our Government and the previous government showed vision and imagination in taking the risk in relation to the Dome. Plainly, the attitude of the press had some part to play, but other factors were involved as well. For example, it was said, "It can never succeed within just a year", and, "The public sector may not be the right people to run an attraction of this sort". But we have learnt lessons from it and I am quite sure that both parties went into it with the right motives.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Dome has had three lots of what
1686
were called "last tranches" of money? Can the noble and learned Lord give us a confident assurance that the Dome will not be back for another lot of "last" money? Perhaps I may whisper some advice in his ear as one Scot to another: I would get out from under.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the last point, the noble Lord may be the sort of person who would get out from under, but my intention is to stay with this until the conclusion. As to whether or not this is the last tranche of money from the lottery, we received advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers. That has been looked at by both the Millennium Commission and Mr David James—a man in whom there is universal confidence; it has also been looked at by independent accountants on the part of the Millennium Commission. All those people believe that no further money will be required from the lottery.

Fuel Supplies: Task Force Proposals
3.25 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the recommendations of the recently formed fuel emergency task force to be made public.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 29th September that members of the Fuel Supply Task Force had signed a memorandum of understanding to put in place more robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies. The full text of the memorandum and its signatories has been published and placed in the Library of the House. The task force continues to meet to discuss whether further measures need to be taken to ensure that the disruption caused by the recent protests is not repeated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I heard in the Statement made in this House last Thursday that some broad principles had been agreed within the task force but had not been made public. The Statement went on to say that the task force would continue to look for possible changes in the criminal law. When the resulting recommendations are made, will the Government consider carefully the personal situations of tanker drivers and others involved, some of them self-employed, some sub-contractors and many members of trade associations and trade unions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the memorandum of understanding made clear where the work of the task force would be focused; that is, on the joint early warning systems and the joint crisis management systems and in tackling the potential for, and allegations of, intimidation of tanker drivers. That is the work to be done. It is not appropriate to give all the details of those issues. The House can be certain

1687
that the whole subject of intimidation of drivers is being looked at. It is a complicated area but in due course it will be resolved.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of allegations from the Transport and General Workers' Union that many tanker drivers were leant on by their employers to say that they were being threatened and should not drive when actually many of them were quite happy to drive? Has that situation changed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the evidence on the question of intimidation is largely anecdotal. An attempt is being made as part of the review to obtain more firm evidence. However, it is anecdotal and therefore to make judgments on that basis is premature at this stage.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will always be a huge risk for either the oil companies or drivers to take petrol tankers through hostile pickets at refineries when anyone perhaps going a bit over the top could set off a catastrophic explosion of 5,000 gallons of highly inflammable fuel? Is not that one of the real problems and what can be done about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we need to distinguish between peaceful protesters and other people who get involved in these demonstrations. Clearly, there are risks in those situations. That is exactly the sort of issue at which the task force will look.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, are those hostile pickets who threaten to do catastrophic damage to the environment and so forth the same people described by Mr William Hague as being decent, honest citizens?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, everyone would agree that in that situation there were two different kinds of protesters. The great majority were perfectly peaceful protesters, and nothing should take place in the law which in any way discourages peaceful protests. On the other hand, we have heard of people whose intentions were less admirable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in dealing with this matter and in the measures now proposed, has a short-term view been taken to deal with the present difficulties or are longer-term measures in mind?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, what is proposed is essentially to put in place systems which can deal with this kind of crisis as effectively as possible, both in the short term and the long term. But, obviously, as we go forward, the systems will be increasingly refined.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the Minister suggest that one of the proposals in mind is the
1688
direction of private individuals who are self-employed to carry out work they are not otherwise prepared to do?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the memorandum of understanding involves the oil companies, and they signed up to it. One of the questions to be considered is whether there is a greater obligation on the oil companies in line with what is imposed on the utility companies to make certain that supplies get through.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of the task force to a report in today's Financial Times that the oil companies are poised to increase forecourt prices yet again, despite a 19 per cent reduction in the world market spot prices for oil over the past month?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the whole question of petrol prices and the pricing by oil companies clearly has to be a matter for them. However, everyone, including the Government, will be looking carefully to ensure that they do not exploit this situation.

Speed Cameras: Human Rights Implications
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law this week, the use of enforcement cameras against speeding motorists is legal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the use of enforcement cameras against speeding motorists is compatible with the convention rights.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of court cases in Scotland and more recently in England, are the Government confident that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence for a registered keeper to decline to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence, is compatible with the keeper's right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights not to incriminate himself or herself?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there has been much misinformation and misreporting of those two cases. The case of Brown in the Scottish court was said to affect the use of cameras. That was not correct; no cameras were involved in the case. The judgment specifically excluded any application of the ruling to the use of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act in camera cases.

1689
The second case—that of Chauhan and Hollingsworth in Birmingham—did not involve the use of speed cameras either. The court did not conclude that Section 172 procedures for obtaining details of the driver were in breach of the convention.
I can also advise the House that there already exists well-established European case law going back to 1995; that of Tora Tolmos. It upheld the principle that owners of vehicles have obligations to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an offence and that it is not in breach of the convention.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Does my noble friend agree that while we have a record of killing and maiming more children in our country in road accidents than any other country in Europe bar one we need every conceivable measure to ensure that drivers drive responsibly?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I completely accord with that view. For that reason, in March this year the Government published their road safety strategy. It has the desirable intention of reducing casualties by some 40 per cent by 2010. Furthermore, we could do without people making mischief around the use of this section of the Road Traffic Act. That is most important.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as one of the promoters of the Human Rights Act, will the Minister accept that I and other promoters and supporters would regard it as a disaster if the Act were used in a highly legalistic way—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am pleased to hear, by their laughter, that colleagues on the Conservative Benches apparently disagree with that. Will the Minister accept that we would regard it as a disaster if the fair balance inherent in the whole of the convention of the Human Rights Act between the rights of the individual and the interests of the general community were sacrificed? Does he agree that the European Court of Human Rights, much loved by the Conservative Party, has made it quite clear that the presumption of innocence is not to be used in order to hamper the effective detection and prosecution of crime and the conviction of criminals according to fair procedures?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it will come as no great shock or surprise if I entirely agree with the noble Lord's analysis. And would it not be rich, too, if in this argument there were the promotion of a get-out clause which ran in breach of Article 2, which protects the right to life?
Lord Burnham: My Lords, are the Government aware that the use of the E-Z-Pass system on motorways in America has given rise to a considerable
1690
number of claims for damages in both divorce and driving cases because the photographs demonstrate where the driver was at a specific time and who was with him?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, or her! I dare say that the noble Lord has a point and that it is embarrassing for some people to be caught out in that way. However, it is not for me to speculate on another jurisdiction.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, as the party opposite has successively shown that it is in favour of petrol blockaders, yesterday that it favours illegality by demonstrators against GM foods, and today that it wants speeding motorists to get away with that, are not we on this side now the party of law and order and not the party opposite?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Labour Party has always been the party of law and order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is completely wrong? No one on this side of the House has suggested that we are in favour of any kind of bad driving or do not like convictions against bad drivers.
We have raised the issue because we are extremely concerned about the cases which have taken place in Scotland and England because it appears that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act has been set aside by the courts. If that is the case—that is what has been stated in the press and the cases are subject to appeal—what are the Government going to do about it? How will they ensure convictions unless the driver happens to be behind the wheel of the car at the time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, one would hope that the driver might be behind the wheel at the time! I thought, or hoped in vain, that the noble Lord had heard my response. I made it clear to your Lordships' House that both cases had been widely misreported. I am completely driven by the belief that they should not be misinterpreted and misinformation spread as a product of them. The fact is that the Road Traffic Act has not led to the principle being undermined; the cases have not altered one jot the position as it has always been.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the recent live electronics exhibition at Earls Court a stand advertised electronic devices which could be fitted to cars and motorcycles so as to give the drivers warnings of police speed traps and which were heavily labelled "Legal in the United Kingdom"? If I were selling devices which showed the position of burglar alarms I am sure that the police would be interested. Why should such devices, which enable drivers to break the law, be legal in the United Kingdom?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, in his customary and forthright way, has made

1691
a good case for that matter to be referred to the police. I shall be interested to hear their opinion of those devices.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a possible way out of a Section 172 identification would be the use of infra-red or digital cameras which could take pictures only of the drivers? Following on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, if the drivers had not been exceeding the speed limit in the first place they would not have been found out!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount has made a sensible suggestion. Perhaps those expert in road traffic matters can examine it closely.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Byelaws]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 10, line 14, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State or, as may be the case, the National Assembly for Wales, shall draw up model byelaws for the use of access authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has the aim of ensuring that model by-laws will be drawn up by the Secretary of State. We do not want to see different by-laws being introduced in different parts of the country, making it difficult for the public to understand which apply in various areas.
That is common sense and the Countryside Agency is drawing up such by-laws. However, it would be sensible to have a provision in the Bill to ensure that they are put in place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The Committee returns to a point it debated earlier. I support the noble Baroness's amendment because, together with my noble friend Lord Northbrook, I have put my name to a later amendment which is linked with it. The case for by-laws is well made. I hope the Minister accepts that by-laws need to be as national as possible. If someone wants access to land under the provisions of the Bill it is much better that the by-laws are common
1692
throughout England and Wales. There must always be room for slight alterations because of closure orders and the specific requirements of areas. I am sure the Minister agrees that one very good reason for having by-laws is that the police will take much quicker and more effective action than without them, as is well demonstrated in the case of travellers.
Baroness Byford: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 217 which is linked with Amendments Nos. 213 and 214. Amendment No. 217 deals with by-laws. I too believe that the burden of work involved in exercising the power to prepare by-laws would be greatly eased if the access authority had a set of national model by-laws to consult. Various models exist. For example, there are by-laws for access land in the Peak District National Park and Dartmoor. There are also model by-laws for the control of dogs: dogs on leads; dogs on leads by direction; prohibition of dogs from grounds; dogs on seashores and promenades; and the removal of canine faeces from carriageways. Doubtless there are many other precedents. However, there does not appear to be one national model. Both previous speakers suggested that that would be immensely helpful to the general public.
The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales could usefully bring together existing examples to develop a national model set of by-laws for access land which could be made readily available to all access authorities and other relevant interests. That would speed up the process of selecting and preparing appropriate by-laws for any one site or area. The amendment requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to prepare model by-laws and, in so doing, to consult the relevant bodies, for example the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, MAFF and voluntary bodies such as the CLA, the NFU, the Ramblers' Association and the British Mountaineering Council, all of which have been referred to in earlier debates. Surely, it is possible to develop a consensus on this issue to be reflected in any national model, taking into account existing experience such as that in the national parks.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: By-laws are a useful tool in the management of access land, but I do not believe that we should be over-ambitious about the actions that they can support. Nevertheless, the Minister could find it useful to consider a model set of by-laws to be available in the rare circumstances where that is the best way forward in terms of this Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support this group of amendments. I do not much mind who produces the model by-laws, but it would be helpful to have them. I was unable to remain until yesterday morning when the Committee debated the Bill, but, having read the report of it, I believe that the Government still do not understand the aggro that will be created by all the finicky controls and bits of law involved with access land. I do not know how they could have avoided it, but it has happened. There will be a good deal of trouble on the ground once the legislation comes into

1693
force. One example is the potential trouble caused by by-laws. Farmers, whether they are tenants, owner occupiers or those running commercial operations, are anxious that the legislation should work. People with little knowledge of the by-laws will arrive. We are told that they cannot come to a common access point, so the by-laws will not appear in any one place.
I would have thought that those who sought access would be unlikely to carry the by-laws in their pockets, although some might. If they moved from one area of access land to another they would require two sets of by-laws. If all the by-laws were different they would not know the relevant ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, says that by-laws are a useful tool. That is one view. They are probably a necessity when one runs matters in this way. But if it is not known how by-laws will work right across access land and there is no similarity or common core attaching to them, there will be terrible trouble. People will break the rules; they may even break the law. That will create great problems. The Government must be very careful and ensure that the by-laws are more or less the same across the country, although there will still need to be variations. I hope that the Government can accept one of these amendments.
Earl Peel: I too very much support the principles behind the amendments. I ask the Minister to take particular note of the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford in relation to the Peak Park by-laws. The Peak Park Authority has been involved in access agreements for a great number of years and has tremendous experience of these matters. I would have thought that by-laws developed in areas of the Peak Park would be of enormous importance to these new access areas. I hope that the Minister will take into account my noble friend's comments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not believe that any of these amendments states clearly what is to be done with the model by-laws and what respect the access authorities are to pay to them. Are they to be adopted universally by all access authorities or simply referred to as model by-laws? The very fact, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, that there are at least two sets in the Peak District and Dartmoor—and, I dare say, elsewhere—means that a variety of by-laws already exists in different areas. From what we know of the areas covered by the Bill and the access land which will develop as a result, it is clear that there will be considerable differences between one area of land and another.
If the Minister is in favour of a model set of by-laws I am sure that he will clarify exactly what its function will be and how much regard access authorities should pay to it. I cannot but notice that the amendments call for the National Assembly for Wales as well as the Secretary of State in England to draw up sets of model by-laws. So it is already anticipated that there will be at least two different sets of by-laws.
Lord Whitty: All of these amendments require the Secretary of State or the countryside authorities to
1694
issue model by-laws to access authorities. This afternoon and in earlier debates in Committee there has been a certain misapprehension and ambiguity about the role of by-laws, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, put his finger on. The main way in which modifications to the national provisions on access land are made is via applications to the countryside agencies in England and Wales. Therefore, most of the local anomalies will be dealt with in that context rather than in the context of by-laws.
We would not expect to see a whole range of different by-laws applying to access land. Nevertheless, there is a role for by-laws. We expect that the combination of existing by-laws and existing civil and criminal sanctions will be appropriate in most cases. Where there are by-laws, it is helpful to have advice from the countryside agencies or the local departments on the nature of those by-laws. It is also essential to recognise that by-laws are regulations appropriate to local circumstances. Therefore, to require on the face of the Bill by-laws to be issued without saying whether they are mandatory or not, and in what circumstances the access authorities would have to adopt them, is missing the point.
The amendment made by the Government at Report stage in another place clearly gives power to the countryside agencies to issue model by-laws and guidelines. It was explained then that those recommendations—they would be recommendations rather than binding on the local access fora—are likely to include advice on where by-laws might be appropriate and useful and how best they should be framed and publicised.
The power to have model by-laws is there. It could be useful to access authorities in these circumstances. The requirement that we issue model by-laws suggests an authority for them which goes beyond the useful role we think they could play. We are in favour of the ability to issue model by-laws and other forms of advice to back up access authorities which wish to issue by-laws. Model by-laws can be helpful to local authorities in these circumstances. If necessary we shall develop model guidance, but to issue the exact form of by-laws, and with the implication that they lay down the law in the form of a by-law which has authority, would not be appropriate. The face of the Bill should not read that way when the power so to do is already there.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the noble Lord not put himself in the shoes of the ramblers? Can he imagine what it would be like going across one piece of access land, knowing that there are likely to be by-laws but not having seen them or having any idea of what they are likely to be, and then crossing to another piece of access land which may have different by-laws and not knowing what the difference is? We very much want the Bill to work. I personally am very anxious about this business of aggro being caused by ramblers not knowing what the rules are. Will the noble Lord not concede that it would be helpful to them if there was a fairly large common element in the by-laws?

1695
That would happen if there was a model which the authorities could follow. None of the amendments requires anything. There is not an assumption either. It would be helpful if there was a model that could be worked on by everyone so that a common core of by-laws can be developed. Surely that would help the ramblers and so help everyone else.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may follow up what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. It seems to me that the Minister is in favour of a degree of uniformity. The question is whether that uniformity can best be achieved by the Secretary of State acting under subsection (6) of Clause 17 merely as a confirming authority, confirming by-laws which will vary in their content, or whether he would achieve the purpose much better acting under Amendment No. 217, under which he will publish model by-laws for the various local bodies to follow when they draft by-laws. I should have thought that the Minister's purpose would be much better achieved that way.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may raise a practical issue. The authorities will have to inform people using the access what the rules are. Surely it is better to have a set of standard rules so that the authorities have only to put up a notice saying, "In this particular case there is an additional by-law, which says that you may not do such and such", or alternatively, "In this particular case by-law number so and so, which says such and such, does not apply".
Lord Glentoran: At the risk of repetition, it was quite clear in the debate the day before yesterday that there are very different needs for many areas on many subjects—hence the complexity of the debate. I am anxious to know how the general public—I do not include those who are part of organisations which are able to afford a secretariat and so on—are to be aware of and fully understand their rights.
Lord Whitty: All by-laws, including those on existing access land, may be subject to advice from the countryside agencies, local government bodies and conservation bodies. In the Bill, therefore, there is a duty on the countryside agencies to issue guidance on how by-laws are drawn up. That provides a degree of consistency of approach to those by-laws. To put myself in the boots of the rambler, he will not know in advance exactly how a by-law will apply in a particular case. For example, if there is a restriction on access to water, there may be different restrictions at different times of the year, different hours of the day, and so on. Therefore, if there was a national model by-law a rambler would not necessarily know what hours, what months and what activities were actually covered by that by-law.
I do not object to access authorities seeking advice on achieving consistency in the way the by-laws are drafted. We are all in favour of that. But to talk about model by-laws, which sound on the face of the Bill as if they will be exactly the same and have exactly the same
1696
impact on land owners' and ramblers' right across the country, is misleading. That would not be the case. The power to advise on the framework and to develop models for the framework of the by-laws is already in the Bill as a result of an earlier amendment to the Countryside Act 1968. The idea that one would have a standard model does not seem to me to be appropriate. I repeat, by-laws are intended to deal with local situations and they have to vary. Therefore, while their legal structure may be standard the details are bound to be local. To apply anything else would be difficult.
Given the assurances I have given the Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment. There is already a requirement on the countryside agencies to provide advice, guidance and drafting standards. Therefore, there would be some legal consistency but not specific consistency in the detail where by-laws have to address particular local circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord has dealt with the power to make the by-laws, but what about enforcement? What is the practical position? One finds a person on one's land. One goes up to him and says, "You are in breach of the by-laws". He says, "What by-laws?", so one tries to explain which by-laws. One asks him his name. He gives a false name and a false address. How does one enforce this as a practical proposition? Perhaps I am being terribly naive but it does not seem to me to be much good having a power to do something if there is no effective power of enforcement.
Lord Rotherwick: I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy was putting herself in the shoes of ramblers and the Minister went on to talk about having his feet in their boots. One of the questions I thought the Minister was asked was how one would inform those ramblers of the different by-laws. We have talked about things—for example, closure for 28 days—which most ramblers will have to know. How will they receive this information? How will they find out?
4 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. It would help the by-laws to be better known if all walkers were members of their local branch of the Ramblers' Association, which could publicise the by-laws.
Lord Whitty: I am interested in the advocacy of a closed shop for ramblers. We want to encourage associations to have a wide membership and to publicise this information. We had a lengthy debate about publicising the basic information. Clearly, we shall need to ensure that, as far as possible, the information is available. Indeed, we shall come in a few moments to a group of amendments which deal with publicity.

1697
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about enforcement. We have already had a wide-ranging debate on that subject. We have existing by-laws which relate to the powers of a landowner to restrict activity. Enforcement occurs in a number of ways—either by the landowner's agents or by the police—and leads to criminal sanctions in many cases. The enforcement issue is important but it does not relate to this amendment, which concerns a standardised form of by-law. I am in favour of a standard framework, or at least advice on a framework, but the details of any by-law are bound to be local.
The Earl of Caithness: Can the noble Lord give the Committee any idea of the timing of the guidance by-laws to which he has referred? It can take a long time to make a one-off set of by-laws. The noble Lord will be aware that it took 12 years to do it for the Basingstoke canal.
Lord Whitty: The Countryside Agency will already be working on it. Bearing in mind that the mapping process is bound to take a few years—we have estimated up to five years—it will take a little time; but, it is to be hoped, not as long as the by-laws for the Basingstoke canal.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I welcome the Minister's comments about not wanting to centralise and about allowing things to be done locally. My amendment would allow models that could be adopted and adapted. The principle behind the amendment was that it should tie in with the country code, which, following our amendment on the issue, the Government have decided to put on the face of the Bill. Having model by-laws would make it much easier to tie in with the country code. Furthermore, access authorities would have something to turn to, as they will be hard-pressed, too. But I hear what the Minister says about ensuring that the Countryside Agency proceeds with urgency on the matter. I am sure that, between his department and that agency, something will now happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 10, line 14, after ("land") insert ("or land which in their opinion is likely to become access land").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 219A. The purpose of the amendments is to allow plans to be made before land has become access land; for example, during the mapping process. By-laws can then be in place when the access right arises. The Bill gives an access authority the power to put in place measures to ensure that access on access land by the public is not hindered in any way. The amendments give access
1698
authorities the power to be putting such measures into place while the mapping process is in progress. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment for the same reason as I supported the previous ones. It is important that people should know what the by-laws are from the moment access is available. I think here of the ramblers. We were told that the ramblers' associations would help, but one thinks of all the ramblers who do not belong to those associations. Parliament is supposed to govern for all the people. We have to think of all the ramblers. It would help the ramblers very much indeed if we could be sure that the by-laws were in place before the access was available.
Lord Whitty: Initially, the Government felt that, since it would not be known until towards the end of the mapping process what land was being mapped, it might be difficult to see how the specific by-laws relating to the locality might be drawn up. Therefore, we did not see the need for this provision. However, we accept that in some areas there may be evidence as to what would happen before the right of access comes into force, particularly if there has already been de facto access in the area, and that therefore there may be the opportunity to draw up by-laws prior to the right coming into force. For that reason I should like to take away these amendments with a view to tabling similar amendments at Report stage.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. Having battled away for many hours, as we did, without gaining much initial reaction, it is lovely early in the day to receive a positive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert (", and
(d) to safeguard public health and safety.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 216 seeks to safeguard public health and safety. This refers to by-laws to be made on the grounds of public health and safety. Clause 17 provides for by-laws to be made in relation to access land on three grounds: the preservation of order, the prevention of damage to land, and the prevention of conflicts between those using the land and the enjoyment of land by other persons. These powers are identical to those in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which provides for by-laws to be made for land subject to access agreements or orders.
This enabling power should be updated—some 50 years on—to take proper account of modern concerns. For example, dog walking and new recreational pursuits on the access land can pose risks to the public which were simply not present to the same degree, if at all in many cases, back in 1949. In particular, it is not clear whether the power to make by-laws under the Bill would extend to the provision of by-laws to safeguard public health and safety. For

1699
example, it could be important on some small, heavily used sites in or near villages and towns, such as common land and small areas of heath and down, that the by-laws be made for the control of dog fouling which can pose a serious risk to people, particularly children.
Uncontrolled dogs off leads can also be frightening. Children and other walkers have been affected, as many of us know. Even well-behaved dogs—I should like to think that our dog is well-behaved—can occasionally run amok. There might also be particularly hazardous features or activities on some land that would merit control through by-laws—for example, hang-gliding or para-gliding.
The amendment would make it clear beyond doubt that the by-laws could be made by the access authority to safeguard public health and safety. I beg to move
Lord Renton: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I do so for a reason which I mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill. We have to be careful about the danger that can occur to people if they are rambling after dark. We must realise that some of the country concerned will be land which is rocky or will have cliffs or steep hills. If we do not take the proper precautionary measures for people rambling after dark, very serious accidents could occur, especially to townspeople who are not accustomed to walking on country hillsides.
My noble friend's amendment is extremely necessary, including for the further reason that I have given.
Lord Marlesford: I can see a certain superficial attractiveness in the amendment moved by my noble friend. However, quite frankly, if we start a process whereby by-laws are required to cover aspects of public health and safety, there will be no limit to it. Walking in the countryside presents certain hazards—I hesitate to say that it presents dangers. I do not think that it would be possible to guard against every kind of hazard.
If we put on to public authorities an obligation to draw up specific codes to cover health and safety, I shudder to think of the length, complication and restrictiveness of such an exercise. It will make life in the countryside extremely unenjoyable.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Can the Minister confirm whether the existing wording would cover the fouling of waters? I do not think that it does so. The water supply for many villages comes from springs located on access land. They run the danger of being fouled.
Lord Whitty: I agree with a great deal of what has been said during this short debate. I regret that I am unable to sustain my generosity, but the reason why I
1700
must resist this amendment is that we consider that the issues raised here either fall under the existing provisions of this clause or are provided for under other powers vested in local authorities. For example, local authorities already have powers in relation to a number of specific safety issues. Furthermore, they have powers that enable them to impose by-laws as regards fouling by dogs. It is not necessary to confer on them additional powers in relation to access land in those respects.
I believe that hang-gliding could almost certainly be dealt with under subsection (1)(c) of this clause because it may impair the enjoyment of the land by others.
As I have said, powers are already in place to deal with the kinds of hazards referred to by noble Lords during this debate. For that reason, I do not believe that it is necessary to repeat them on the face of the Bill.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, although he mentioned other clauses in the Bill which will address these matters, will those other clauses deal with the point I raised as regards the dangers of roaming after dark, in particular if there is mist or fog?
Lord Whitty: As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am not sure whether by-laws can be used to address general issues of safety. However, by-laws can be used to address known individual safety hazards such as mineshafts and so forth. Under existing legislation rather than under the terms of this Bill, by-laws may be used for exceptional circumstances of that kind. Similarly, dog fouling may be dealt with under the provisions of other legislation.
Although I have some sympathy with the points that have been made as regards the specific problems, I do not believe that an additional issue has been raised here which needs to be addressed.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate his sympathy for the thinking that lies behind the amendment. I accept the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford; namely, that if we are not careful, we shall encounter great difficulties in attempting to get right the balance of the Bill. That is part of the problem here; we need to accept that this is an extremely complex piece of legislation. Indeed, I believe that I made that comment at the start of our debates. The Minister responded by saying that he did not think it was complicated. Nevertheless, we need to get all the details right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 219 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 219A not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Any byelaws introduced shall be publicised in such a manner as to he quite apparent to users of the access land.").
The noble Baroness said: We have already debated to an extent the issue of by-laws. This amendment seeks to address the matter from a somewhat different angle by putting on to the face of the Bill a requirement that, should by-laws be introduced by access authorities, they should be,
"publicised in such a manner as to be … apparent to users of the access land".
It would be unfair on the public if by-laws and their attendant penalties were introduced but the public did not know that they were in place. It is essential that people know about such laws.
I shall be interested to learn whether the Minister agrees that such an amendment is necessary to take into account the local variations in by-laws that will inevitably occur on access land. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford: I feel that this is a very impractical proposal. Perhaps I may make a simple analogy. Customs posts are often sited on roads at borders between different countries, but it is not possible to arrange for customs posts to run across fields and mountains as well. If people choose to cross borders by those routes, they will not encounter the customs posts.
By definition, as a result of this legislation, access to the country is going to become far less restricted. People will not access such land via places where they would necessarily see the signs. If an obligation is imposed that signposts should be placed everywhere, we shall see a plethora of such signs. I would abhor that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps I may respond to that particular point since I believe that the noble Lord was addressing it directly to me.
I could not agree more that it would be undesirable and inappropriate to litter the countryside with signposts. However, my amendment does not specify in any way the geographical location of such signs. Many ways could be found to achieve this end, but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by going into those details. I stress only that I have tabled the amendment because I feel that it will be unfair on the public if such by-laws are not made quite apparent to them.
Viscount Bledisloe: I support the spirit of the amendment, although I am puzzled by the word so carefully omitted by the noble Baroness in her speech. The amendment uses the words "quite apparent", but I am not sure whether she means "totally apparent" or "somewhat apparent", even though she carefully referred only to "apparent" when she moved the
1702
amendment at the beginning of the debate. In my view the spirit of this proposal is very good, although that particular part of the flesh may be a little weak.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made plain when he responded to the earlier amendment, the rules will vary from one area of the country to another. It is that which gives me the greatest concern. How on earth will walkers know what particular rules will apply in a certain place? It is not good enough merely to say that it is their duty to know the law and that if they do not, they will become trespassers. That is because, first, if they do not know the rules and then break them, they will be fairly dusty when taxed with a breach of them. Secondly, the purpose of the rules is not to enable the landowner to create a fuss and turn people off his land. The rules are there to stop people doing undesirable things in the first place. Unless people know what things are undesirable in the first place, they will not be able to avoid doing them.
The Minister has been ducking and weaving about that point. He has not told the Committee how it is intended in practice that the rules relating to particular areas of access land will be made known to the general walker. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—who plans a complicated climb for several days, reads the books and so on—a much more casual, ignorant and inexperienced visitor will see a nice bit of land, park his car and start walking across it.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am mystified by the wording of the amendment. On first reading it, I thought that in stating that the by-laws should be quite apparent to users of access land this meant that they should be displayed on a signpost easily visible to the user of the access land. However, after considering the amendment rather more carefully, I can interpret it to mean that the by-laws should be published in local newspapers. I prefer the interpretation that the by-laws should be available and easily discernible by the user of the access land. To me, that means that they should be displayed on some kind of signpost, as many local authority by-laws are these days.
Lord Greaves: The noble Viscount kindly referred to the amount of time I spend anxiously reading guidebooks and trying to memorise routes—and trying to conjure up the personal courage to travel them and wondering if I ever will. That may be true in some cases, although, as I said earlier, in many cases the decision to go out is spontaneous. It is taken at short notice and depends very often on certain circumstances, particularly the weather.
The debate has moved away from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Miller. I should like to make some points relating to the question of signing in the countryside in relation to points of access, rules and regulations, and general information. Much experience has been gained of signing, particularly in the national parks and in areas such as the south Pennines. It is done in a discreet and attractive manner which does not disfigure the countryside but at the same time provides a lot of information.

1703
Many people going into the countryside want information. They do not want to know detailed rules and regulations. They want to know where the footpaths lead; they want to know the areas in which they can walk; and they want to be told about wildlife and so on. The key is to make sure that the rules and regulations are in the same place and on the same notice as that kind of information. The experience is that the message gets through to people in that way.
Perhaps I may now consider the question of how people get into access land. In general, there are two broad categories of land—although clearly they are not exclusive. First, there are areas which can only be accessed through a small number of access points—via rights of way, stiles in walls and so on. In such areas, those access points are the obvious places to put the information. Again, particularly in the national parks, much has been learnt about doing this in a sensible and discreet way. The obvious place to site the information in those areas is at the access points that people have to use because there is no other way of accessing the land.
The other category is land which can be accessed anywhere—for example, unfenced moorland which has a road crossing it. But even in such places, most people will use the same points of access as everyone else. They do so for two reasons: first, very often people travel to the access land by car or, if they are fortunate enough, by public transport, and they will all stop at a particular place, a car park. Those car parks are useful. They are the places to which a high proportion of people travel before going on to the land, for the obvious reason that they need somewhere to park their cars.
Secondly, no matter what rights are laid down in the legislation or what rights people have in existing areas of open access, the great majority of people will use defined footpaths. That is a fact of life. It is a fact which means that many of the fears that some people have about this legislation are probably unfounded; people will use the footpaths. Where there are not any footpaths at the moment, I hope that landowners will be sensible and define new footpath routes, which the vast majority of people would then use. So the sensible place to put information is where the main footpath goes into an area or where the footpath intersects with a road.
Lord Marlesford: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in a sense, makes my point. When I was on the Countryside Commission we spent years campaigning, first, for footpath signs, and, secondly, for signs that were carefully designed so as not to intrude upon the landscape. Various parts of England and Wales have different kinds of signing, many of them excellent. But they certainly do not include great lists of by-laws, warnings and so on. They could not include all that information and remain discreet and sensible. It simply is not practical.
Of course such information can be displayed in some places—the national parks have visitor centres where that kind of information is available—but if the noble Lord is saying that where there is a footpath sign this kind of information could be displayed, I strongly suggest that that would be undesirable.
Lord Greaves: There has to be a sensible compromise. If it is a sign saying simply "public footpath" or "access land", it may well be that one does not want a big sign. But, as the noble Lord said, there is now a great deal of knowledge—I do not think we disagree—about how to provide well designed and unobtrusive signing. I am aware that the Countryside Agency is working on new kinds of signs, which can be adapted to local circumstances by use of local materials but which, nevertheless, will be of a standard form throughout the country.
Often the national parks put the material that people want—information about local birds or local maps—on the front of signs and the by-laws on the back, with a little notice saying "Please observe the by-laws". By and large, people do, and the message gets through.
My final point concerns the question of who enforces the rules in the countryside. Members of the Committee who do not walk or climb may not be aware of the degree to which what might be called "peer pressure" operates among climbers and walkers. I am not referring to people like me—who happen to be Members of this House—telling people what to do, but people generally are concerned about sensible rules and regulations, which have been agreed, sometimes statutorily and sometimes on a voluntary basis, on the use of the countryside being observed by other users of the countryside. There are people who, if they see people contravening the rules, will point it out. Quite often they will not be as polite as Members of the House might be.
Lord Burnham: It is essential that everyone behaves responsibly and sensibly when they are walking. However, I must emphasise that we seem to be talking about some curious person called "a rambler". I am not a rambler; I walk. I would not go within a hundred miles of a ramblers' association; and not within a thousand miles of Miss Ashbrook, even though she is a fairly near neighbour.
I hope it is realised that in the places where I walk in the south there are footpaths which now have an efficient and discreet method of signposting. The same occurs in northern parts of the Lake District, which I know well. All the paths and directions are well signposted. People are told where they may and may not go, and where the paths lead to; but it is done discreetly and can cause no offence to anyone. I am not certain that anything further can be done. All large notices would be offensive purely in terms of their appearance. We have gone as far as is necessary.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: Before my noble friend responds, it may be helpful to the Committee if I report some thoughts from the Countryside Agency in the general context of giving information to landowners as well as land users. The agency states:
"At all stages we will use a wide range of information techniques from colourful leaflets, activity packs and displays to websites, information boards and signs. We will consider the feasibility of a

1705
telephone information line and assess the scope for providing information to a range of local outlets, as well as on site. We also plan to commission a range of educational materials, closely linked to the National Curriculum, to help in teaching children and young people about their rights and responsibilities in the countryside, and about its management".
I use that quotation to illustrate that getting information across, whether in relation to by-laws or anything else in this context, has been, and is being, addressed by the Countryside Agency. I believe that fears are greatly exaggerated.
Perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. The noble Lord is right: not all walkers ramble, but all ramblers walk. I should like to defend the Ramblers' Association, which gives information to its members and makes sure as far as possible that they observe whatever restrictions are necessary on the land on which they walk.
Lord Burnham: It is a pity that they do not do so.
Earl Peel: I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made one or two points which are worth focusing on. The noble Lord rightly said that many of the local authorities have great experience in providing signs and establishing the correct and most effective place to site them. However, I believe I am correct in saying that under the Bill there is no duty for them to consult the owner in regard to the erection of signs or on access points. We discussed this matter yesterday. It is a weakness.
The noble Lord made an interesting point. He said that the majority of people who go out into the countryside do so for specific purposes—bird-watching, for example, or whatever it happens to be. But he also said that they do not want to know what the rules and regulations are.
We are coming back full circle on this issue. Once again, we are discussing the weaknesses in the Bill regarding how we get these messages across to people—for example, when land is closed and what the rules and regulations are. I am sorry to have to repeat the point, but again our attention is drawn to the fact that sanctions against those who repeatedly ignore the rules and regulations are non-existent in the Bill. To ask someone to go away for 24 hours is, frankly, nonsense. The noble Lord's comment about people not wanting to know the rules and regulations brought home to me how important it is to get the matter right. We need to get the messages across, and proper sanctions should be in place—otherwise, this will be a complete nonsense.
I am sorry to return to this issue, but in a sense the noble Lord has done us a service. He has given credence to many of my fears in regard to the Bill and, I suspect, those of other Members of the Committee.
Lord Whitty: As my noble friend Lady Nicol said, the whole question of conveying information on by-laws is but a small part of conveying information on
1706
the totality of access rights. This matter arose in the debate that we had a couple of nights ago on the need for the countryside agencies to ensure that there is adequate publicity to inform people about their rights, about the land to which they apply, and about the restrictions and variations on that land. I do not think that it is sensible specifically to pick out by-laws; nor is it sensible to suggest that there will be new signs up and down the country on every potential point of access. Clearly, there will be preferred points of access, sensible points such as car parks, and other points where most people accessing the land will cross. We do not want a plethora of signs across the country. But where the by-laws clearly change what are otherwise the normal rules of access, it is important that that is conveyed to the majority of people who use the land.
As to how that arises and who is consulted, we discussed this at some length the other day. Preferred points of access and other local rules will be discussed by local access forums and others, and local landowners will have a major part in that structure.
The countryside bodies will want to advise access authorities about the form of publicity, and that will be done in the general context. In some cases it may well be that access authorities—as is done in the national parks and by the National Trust—will want to print out the totality of the by-law and stick it on the back of the notice. I am not sure how effective that it is; and that may lie behind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—which was, I think, slightly misinterpreted by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The full detail and the legal jargon of by-laws may well pass people by, but the key message needs to be conveyed. For example, on a piece of National Trust land that I use frequently, the trust does precisely that. On the back of the logo there is the full by-law, but there is also a notice on the front stating that dogs must be kept on a lead, which is part of the by-law and is the main message that needs to be put across. Providing the full by-laws locally—
Earl Peel: On a number of occasions the noble Lord has understandably referred to the National Trust. It must be remembered that the National Trust—and my noble friend Lord Marlesford knows a great deal about it—is a well-endowed organisation. It has considerable resources at its fingertips, and it is able to deal with these problems in-house. Many of the people who will be affected by these access proposals do not have the resources and will therefore rely very much on the access authorities to carry out the kind of approach referred to by the noble Lord. I hope that he will bear that in mind. The National Trust is a rather different animal from the kind of people about whom we are talking, who will have to deal with these very real problems on the ground once the Bill is on the statute book.
Lord Whitty: I referred to the National Trust and national parks and many other pieces of more private access land where we presently manage to convey the main messages about the way in which the rules apply, and by and large those rules are followed. The noble

1707
Earl is right: under the Bill the responsibility falls entirely on the access authorities. By-laws are but a small part of what they need to convey. Particular landowners may want to add information, but there is no requirement in the Bill for them to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, we do not want to see notices all over the place attempting to convey the content of a rather complex by-law.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Will the Minister clarify this point? Is there not an obligation on the access authority to publicise its by-laws? Under subsection (5) of this clause, Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government 1972 apply. A person on access land may well be subject to legal proceedings if he breaks a by-law and may suffer as a result. Is there not at least an obligation on the access authority to make sure that the user of access land is aware of relevant by-laws?
Lord Whitty: There is indeed an obligation on local authorities to ensure that the public are made aware of the existence of by-laws. The by-laws were on view yesterday in St James's Park where I took a walk at lunchtime. However, I suppose that is a royal park rather than a local authority park and therefore is not a good example to mention as royal parks enjoy plentiful resources. However, as regards most parks and open spaces, local authorities are obliged to publicise by-laws.
The point I am making is that although that process enables people to check the by-laws, the most effective way to get across the key message of the by-laws may be somewhat different and somewhat more blunt. It is up to the access authorities to seek guidance from the Countryside Agency to ensure that adequate publicity is given to the by-laws in the interests of the people who are likely to use the land in question. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are a number of ways of publicising by-laws which do not intrude on the countryside and do not require landowners to undertake that task themselves. It is in that context that the need to publicise specific by-laws needs to be considered rather than in the terms of the amendment that we are considering. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Lord Renton: I was interested in what the noble Lord said, but I wonder whether he can amplify it a bit. By-laws are publicised sometimes on notice boards out in the open and sometimes by being printed in pamphlets which are available to the public if they happen to be near a suitable office. However, as regards the rambling by-laws, how does the noble Lord contemplate that they will usually be publicised?
Lord Whitty: We have just been through that. There are many different ways in which they may be publicised. The Countryside Agency will advise access authorities on that matter who will decide on the best way to publicise them in a local area. In some cases they may be situated in car parks; in other cases they
1708
may be printed in literature that will be made available; in yet other cases they will be situated in places where people are likely to pass. There will probably be a combination of all those methods. The by-law information will form only part of the total information that is to be made available. For that reason I object to dealing with it specifically as the amendment proposes. As I say, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Byford: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will comment on the question posed by my noble friend Lord Peel with regard to the purpose and the use of by-laws if they are not to be enforced and no sanction is to be imposed. The noble Lord has answered fully the other questions that have been asked but did not respond to the point made by my noble friend.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: There is always a sanction in relation to by-laws. A breach of a by-law invokes a criminal penalty. We shall return to the matter of enforcement. The agents of the landowner or of the access authority may draw people's attention to the by-laws and be able to enforce them. The question of sanctions is clear in relation to by-laws. It is in most cases a criminal sanction.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Minister accept that although this is not what the public thought they were going to get when they heard about the Government's intention to create a right to roam, what will be needed is an enormous advertisement constantly being put in the newspapers which states, "Going walking? Find out the rules"?
Lord Whitty: Something of that nature may help when access rights are implemented. However, what walkers will really need is more detailed local information. That will be a matter for the access authorities.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I found the debate useful. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that I use the words "quite apparent" in my amendment in the sense that my American brother-in-law uses the word "quite" when he says, "You look quite nice". He assures me that that means very nice.
Viscount Bledisloe: I say to the noble Baroness that on the whole it is undesirable that we should legislate in "American".
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not think that I am in a position to comment on that. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, illustrates why I considered it necessary to table the amendment. As the Minister said, by-law breaches incur a criminal penalty. A duty to publicise by-laws on the part of an access authority is different from having to make them "quite apparent". One can fulfil one's duty in that

1709
regard by putting up a small sign somewhere. I feel strongly that the public should be protected in some way. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Wardens]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 11, line 1, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that sufficient funding is available to enable an access authority or district council to comply with this section.").
The noble Baroness said: This is possibly the most important amendment that I shall move in the whole of Part I. Therefore I make no apology for the length of the case I intend to make for it.
The amendment seeks to ensure that sufficient funding is available to access authorities or district councils to comply with the provisions of Clause 18(1) on the appointment of wardens. The regulatory impact study mentions a cost of £2.2 million per annum, whereas the Local Government Association's estimate is £5.46 million per annum. I seek to explore the gap between those two figures and seek an explanation from the Minister as to how the Government intend to fund this particularly important service. The appointment of wardens is a key provision and yet the financing of wardens is discretionary as the Bill is drafted at present. However, other provisions in the Bill are not discretionary in this regard; for example, the hearing of appeals. As I say, the appointment of wardens is absolutely key to the success of open access. It would be disastrous if some of the statutory provisions were to be adequately funded, but not the appointment of wardens.
The amendment seeks to ensure that access authorities can meet the need to appoint wardens and can be assured of obtaining sufficient funding from the Government. Wardens—or "rangers" as I prefer to call them, as that is the accepted term for people who work in open spaces, whereas I believe that "wardens" usually work in prisons—will be essential to make the opportunities offered by the Bill work. They will be essential to monitor the interface between the public enjoying the access, landowners trying to manage their businesses and make a living from the land, and wildlife. Their presence will be essential to prevent conflicts occurring.
The Bill states that an access authority "may appoint such number". That is the correct terminology as the access authorities are in the best position to judge what is needed in that regard. However, estimates vary according to the kind of access land that is being managed and the pressure upon it. For example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in its report, Land Management Implications of Enhanced Access estimates that in the densely populated heaths and commons of southern England one ranger per 400 hectares is the minimum. With back-up, tools and administration, it estimates this is likely to cost £35,000 to £45,000 per 400 hectares. The
1710
same report estimates a moorland cost of about £24,000 per year for two rangers who cover about 2,000 hectares and spend half their time on visitor management.
Members of the Committee may have received the Local Government Association's report, Costs to Local Authorities of New Access Legislation. That is an informative report which I hope the Committee and the Minister have received. It was published last week. The detail is extremely useful. Having consulted widely with its membership of national park authorities and local authorities, it concludes that management costs will be about £3.50 per hectare. That is an average; the figure will vary widely. Members of the Committee will be aware that local authorities which face these costs are the very authorities which are struggling with the difficulties of delivering services in sparsely populated areas.
If sufficient funding is not provided by central Government to enable them to appoint an appropriate number of wardens, they will not be able to do so. They will be unable to cut further their social services budget, and the cost of maintaining, for example, a rural schools network has already involved choices. I believe strongly in maintaining that rural school network. However, choices are sometimes made that rural roads will suffer. Provision of rangers will be somewhat towards the end of that list. If no finance is supplied, it will be difficult to fit that cost into the budget.
Appointing rangers is a choice for local authorities but one that they are unlikely to be able to make if they do not have the money. Under the Bill, local authorities will have to give evidence at mapping inquiries, estimated at about £2,500 per inquiry. They may have to enforce means of access. The order will cost about £2,000 per case and the hearing £2,500. They may have to conduct detailed investigations of queries over common land, again about £2,000 a case. They will not have a choice over those but they need to be able to make the choice of appointing an appropriate number of wardens.
In addition, the costs of dealing with footpath erosion, especially in the national parks, are already unable to be met. That problem is likely to increase. Lake District erosion is estimated to be £2.5 million over the next five years, with probably a similar programme after that. I gather that the national figure is even higher.
Excellent figures are available from Bob Cartwright's research in the Lake District. He prepared it on behalf of the Association of National Park Authorities. Parks are making an excellent use of voluntary rangers, but even those volunteers cost money. Let us take the North York Moors with four rangers and five vehicles. It estimates that it will take on 50 additional voluntary rangers, and with provision of information and local access forums the total costs under Part I of the Bill will come to an extra £302,000 per year—and that is with extensive use of volunteers. I have not quoted the costs under Part II. For access authorities they will be higher—we shall deal with

1711
them later; the Government have made their own estimate. Neither have I dealt with the costs of AONBs, which are under-funded. Again we shall deal with those later.
How do the Government intend to fund access authorities for the increased costs of the discretionary aspects of the Bill and the gap between the regulatory impact assessment and the authorities' own assessment—it seems very fair—of what their costs will be? Will they make a blanket increase based on the area of land and the way in which and how much that land is used by the public? What formula are they likely to use? I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am very glad the noble Baroness moved this amendment and that she spoke in the way that she did. I, too, received a communication from local government councils on the subject. It was extremely interesting. The Minister has sitting beside him the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who knows as much as anyone in this Chamber about how local government works and the pressures upon it.
All of us who have been in local government know how keen governments are to pile expense upon local authorities without adding to their funding. When the noble Baroness winds up, perhaps she will tell us whether she is asking for ring-fenced funding. I am not keen on encouraging ring-fenced funding because I am a believer in the discretion of local government. The noble Baroness spoke of this issue being a matter of choice for local government so she is probably not asking for ring-fenced funding. However, when she replies I, and I think the Committee, will be interested to know.
I hope that the Minister listened to her questions which were very much to the point. I hope that the noble Lord will reply with a fairly detailed answer.
Earl Peel: The noble Baroness raises some important questions. I, too, have seen the figures to which she referred. It is incumbent on the Government to give a clear answer.
Having been involved with the Yorkshire Dales for many years, my experience of the warden system there brings me to a somewhat cynical outlook. The largest privately owned estate in the Yorkshire Dales entered some years ago into an access agreement with the national park authorities. It was assured that it would be provided with a proper warden service. Over the years the wardens have become depleted. I do not know the present level. For all I know, it could be down to one lone warden—or, in the words of the noble Baroness, one lone ranger. It is an unsatisfactory outcome. It is essential that if the Bill is to work effectively we must have a proper warden system which will be an important link between the general public and those who wish to exercise the access provisions in the Bill.
The noble Baroness referred to the figure of £3.50 per hectare. On the matter of costing—it is slightly irrelevant but it may be indicative of the Government's
1712
attitude towards funding—in the Peak Park the cost to local owners of the access provisions for areas where access has been negotiated was in the nature of £4 per hectare. That seems to have been forgotten conveniently by the Government. There are no realistic provisions in the Bill for meeting the true access costs. The noble Baroness puts forward the realistic figure of £3.50 per hectare. I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
Viscount Bledisloe: I share the view of the noble Baroness that this is an important provision and topic. I venture to suggest that she is wrong to say that it is correct for Section 18 to say "may" appoint. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which is grouped with this amendment; I hope that he will speak to it in a moment. It changes "may" to "shall".
The noble Baroness is right that it shall be for the authority to decide how many wardens are needed. But if "may" remains in the provision, perhaps I may explain to her that if the local authority decides that it needs four wardens, it does not have then to appoint them. The discretion should be to decide what is needed. If there is only a tiny area of access land in one's area one may not need a warden. Having decided that, there should be the obligation to appoint them. Unless there is an obligation on the local authority to supply them, her amendment does not achieve what it intends. The noble Baroness wants funds to enable local authorities to comply with this section. If they have a discretion as to whether to appoint a warden, no funds are needed to comply with the section. It is only if they have to appoint wardens that funds are needed to enable them to comply. Having done a little lawyerly nit-picking, subject to that point the noble Baroness's amendment is not only important but also vital.
Without wardens, the Bill will be a farce and a con on those whose land is subject to the new access right. It is full of things that walkers should not do, but if there is no one there to see that they do not do them, they will happen and the poor landowner will have to put up with it. Unless the Government can assure us that wardens will be in place and, taking up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will continue to be in place for longer than just the initial period, the Bill is doomed to cause trouble and to be deeply unfair to landowners.
It is wholly right that the necessary funding should come from central sources. The areas we are talking about—the Lake District and, to make sure that I do not offend the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Snowdonia—are in relatively poor rural areas. Rights are being given so that the urban or semi-urban dweller may spill out of his city and walk over the land. The costs of that should be funded nationally, not by the local authorities that happen to have the pleasure of having Snowdonia, the Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales in their area. They probably do not have the funds to take all the measures that are needed to control the urban dweller when he comes out. Going back to my point about the noble Lord, Lord Greaves,

1713
it is the urban dweller wandering around in his plimsolls and jeans, not the well equipped noble Lord, with his proper walking shoes on, who will cause trouble and need assistance. I strongly support the amendment and Amendment No. 222 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
5 p.m.
Lord Greaves: Does the noble Viscount accept that, except in major honeypot areas such as the Peak District, the majority of people who walk in a given area of countryside are relatively local, many of them living in the countryside themselves? I cannot say whether they always wear plimsolls or sandals.
Viscount Bledisloe: That may be so at the moment, but surely the point of the Bill is to give rights and encouragement to a whole lot of other people to whom that does not apply.
Lord Bridges: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, funding is very important. That applies not just to wardens, but to a range of activities covered by the Bill. If we are to be convinced that the Bill will work, it would be helpful to have some reassurance about the Government's intentions. For example, local authorities already have responsibilities for footpaths, which we will deal with later in the Bill, but they often do not act on them because they are inadequately funded. I take note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about ring-fencing or earmarking funds, presumably in the rate support grant. These issues are fundamental to the success of the Bill.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said that this was one of her most important amendments in this part of the Bill. It is certainly a very important subject. I, too, have seen the letter from the Local Government Association, which hired a consultancy group—I believe that it is called ENTEC—whose figures differ considerably from the estimates provided by the Government. The LGA rightly points out that authorities have not done a great deal about their responsibilities for footpaths because they do not have adequate resources. Like many of us, the LGA fears that authorities will not be provided with adequate resources for the purpose specified in Clause 18.
The appointment of wardens will be at the discretion of local authorities, but they will be key to the implementation of the Bill and ensuring that by-laws are respected. When I moved an amendment at our last sitting that would have required those taking advantage of night access on the hills to give prior notification to the access authority, I imagined them telling a local warden on behalf of the authority. They would know the area where the night walker or climber intended to go and would probably be able to give guidance.
Earl Peel: Is the noble Lord suggesting that the warden should be on night duty as well as day duty?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I certainly suggest that. We have agreed to the Government's proposal for night access, so surely the access authority must take some responsibility for what happens on the land during the day and the night. It cannot avoid the responsibility of knowing who is on its access land day and night.
I acknowledge the importance of wardens to the access authority, but we do not want too much multiplication of appointments. We want an adequate supply of wardens, but not a glut of them. Many local authorities with access land will be on the borders of national parks. They may wish the parks to take certain responsibilities from them for access land. I anticipate that in my area of north Wales, Snowdonia National Park will exercise substantial responsibilities on behalf of the bordering local authorities, even to the extent of securing warden services for them.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: From my background in managing nature reserves over the past 10 years—in some cases very extensive nature reserves that will have extended access provisions under the Bill—I should like to put a little caution into some of the statements that have been made.
The successful implementation of Part I will depend on adequate management of access and proper dissemination of information. Wardens will have a role to play in many areas. In some circumstances, it will be difficult to police the access conditions without wardening arrangements. However, in many other areas wardening will not be required. Much will depend on the pressure of access, the nature of the land and the conditions that are laid on by by-laws or by restrictions under Part II. Therefore, if we are to use money cost-effectively in this area, I believe that we need to be realistic about where and when wardening will be appropriate.
I turn to another cautionary point. Governments of all complexions have an unhappy knack of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be unfortunate if budgets in the same department for the countryside and conservation agencies—budgets intended for the improvement of the conservation status and management of those areas—were to be raided disproportionately in order to enhance considerably the funds available to local government for wardens. It is not an unknown phenomenon which governments provoke from time to time. I believe that it would be unfortunate if, in extending access to those wonderful areas, we were inadvertently to precipitate a situation whereby the conservation status of those areas suffered due to lack of funds.
Earl Peel: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that, when one is dealing with a national nature reserve, one is dealing with a different land type from the ones that we are discussing in this Bill? Generally speaking, people who enter national nature reserves do so from fairly fixed areas where it is

1715
possible to put up signs and do all the things that we believe this Bill is so short of. At the same time, one can manage the access in a much more restrictive and effective way, if one so wishes. Therefore, I note what the noble Baroness says, but I believe that it is a little disingenuous of her to compare a national nature reserve with the type of land that we are talking about under the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may clarify the matter for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Some national nature reserves are, indeed, quite restricted in size, and access is available only through a small number of points. However, I am not speaking simply from a background of management of national nature reserves. I am also talking about the extensive management of large-scale nature reserves in the voluntary sector where the type of scale that we are talking about in relation to upland and moorland areas is replicated. They do not have a single point of access. They are very lightly wardened because the voluntary sector is of course, as the Committee knows, excessively poor.
Generally speaking, the problems experienced are not substantial. Therefore, my point is that we must be realistic in differentiating between areas where wardening will definitely be required and will be essential and other areas where, I suspect, the type of light supervisory arrangements that exist in many extensive reserves in the voluntary sector is satisfactory.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that no one is suggesting that wardens should be appointed except where they are needed. It will be for the authorities to decide whether any—and, if so, how many—wardens are necessary or expedient. If they decide that none is required, they do not appoint any. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when they decide that they are necessary, they do not then say, "But we can't afford it and therefore there won't be any".
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Viscount's point. I believe that the second point that I made was that we need to be very clear about the circumstances in which such wardening, if funded by central government, would be required. Inevitably, alas, governments do rob Peter to pay Paul. The same department is also responsible for the budgets for agencies such as the Countryside Agency and, indeed, English Nature, in which I must declare an interest.
I should hate to think that the value of the land and that some of the useful collaborative and funding arrangements undertaken by such bodies with landowners would be squeezed in order to fund demands from local authorities. In some cases, those demands will be justified but, in others, they will need to be examined with a degree of scrupulousness.
Lord Mancroft: What always appear to be relatively simple issues at first become more and more complex as the debates develop—I see that the clock shows that we have been debating this amendment for 28 minutes. However, there is no doubt that the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is extremely important. It is important for a number of reasons, most of which have been discussed. However, the one that I consider to be most important is that it is a test. It demonstrates whether the Government are to put their money where their mouth is.
During the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill, we established that, as in so many pieces of legislation, the devil will be in the detail. A few minutes ago we talked about the difficulties of publishing information. That has a cost implication, too. Now we are talking about the cost of wardens. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was immensely helpful when she said that costs will vary from area to area and that different types of land will require different levels of wardening and, therefore, of expense. That is quite right.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out entirely correctly that the level of costs is dependent on whether the Government will obligate the access authorities to appoint as many wardens as they need, whether the number be one, two or four. The next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, places that obligation upon them. Of course the obligation should be in place because it is the wardens, rather like the signage that we discussed in the previous batch of amendments, that will make the Bill work.
We must have wardens and the access authorities must be obliged to provide them. They must therefore have the funding in order to do so. In many ways, whichever way one looks at this particularly complex issue, at the end of the day it comes down to a question of whether the Government really mean what they claim they mean in regard to the Bill. Are they really prepared to allow such access? Of course, my noble friend Lord Roberts was absolutely right: if we are to have night access, which we shall now have—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, described it as 50 per cent of the access—then presumably we shall need 50 per cent, or, in this case, 100 per cent more wardens. It is obvious that if one doubles the amount of access, one needs to double the number of wardens. Clearly, we cannot have people wardening 24 hours a day; that would be silly.
Therefore, whichever way one looks at this matter and from whichever angle one comes at it, this is a very important amendment. It asks whether the Government are prepared to back the principle that they regard as so important. It asks whether they are prepared to back it with their money and not to oblige local authorities or access authorities to strip their budgets elsewhere in order to pay for that principle. If central government is not prepared to pay for the principle, frankly it is worthless and the Bill will not work.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I say to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that it is not the Government's money; it is our money as taxpayers.
Lord Mancroft: Of course, my noble friend is entirely correct. It is our money, but it is the Government in their usual generous way who are dishing it out on our behalf, whether we like it or not.
Baroness Byford: I rise to raise three quick points with the Minister. Before I do so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for putting forward the amendment. Those of us who took part at Second Reading will remember clearly two points that were raised. One related to the practicality of the Bill and the other to funding. This amendment hits on that very issue and I thank her for that.
First, when the Government carried out an assessment of the costs of access, did they include in their estimates a night-time provision for providing wardens? As my noble friend has just reiterated, if night-time access goes through, and the Government are obviously keen that it should, it will incur another 50 per cent of the costs. Therefore, if that was not accounted for, the estimate will be even higher than it was originally.
Secondly, presumably the Government will consider putting money through the SSA—the standard spending assessments. While I mention that, perhaps I may also remind the Government that virtually all access will be in rural areas. However, the very rural counties have had cuts recently in their standard spending assessments. I simply raise that as an issue. I do not know what the Minister wants to say about it.
Thirdly, what will the role of the wardens be? We have been talking about wardens acting purely as keepers of law and order. I believe that originally we talked about them helping the general public by providing advice and making sure that things were running in an orderly fashion. We also discussed the possibility of their having conservation responsibilities. Those are my three short points.
Lord Whitty: This has been an interesting debate. A number of assertions have been made. We certainly share the view that it is important that adequate wardening takes place, although I am not sure that wardens will solve all the problems to which Members of the Committee have alluded. A number of important, what I might call political, issues have been raised and perhaps I should begin with those. That is unusual for me because I am trying to deal with the Bill in its legal form.
First, I deplore the attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, perhaps inadvertently, to open up a huge urban/rural divide. This is not the case. The majority of people who will benefit from these rights are not hordes from urban areas who have never been in the countryside before. They fall into two broad categories. In my experience, it is not people in the
1718
centre of towns who resent the current situation. The biggest resentment comes from the people who look out of their back window every day and see the top of the moor that they can never visit freely themselves. That group of local people will take great advantage of the opportunity.
The second group are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have enjoyed many parts of the countryside and rambles of varying degrees of difficulty and strenuousness but have enjoyed the existing areas of vacant access. They want to go to other areas with people who are experienced in the countryside. The idea that we have to police the access areas heavily is not the case. Clearly, we want to extend the enjoyment of our countryside, but the people who will take advantage of the new acreage opened up to them are those who live in, and have knowledge of, the countryside or their friends who accompany them. That is one quasi-political point.
In response to the noble Baroness, I make a straightforward political point. The experience and suspicion of many people in relation to local government financing has been that over the past 20 years we have suffered from a severe restriction in the resources provided to local authorities, however it has been provided. That has been reversed very substantially and generously. Yes, it is all our money but it is money that is being deployed on behalf of all of the people. I refute directly the idea put by the noble Baroness—and the figures will prove it—that the rural areas have been squeezed by this Government. In fact, they have had some of the most generous settlements they have ever had. Unlike the period of government of her party, when the inner-city areas were severely squeezed to the detriment of society as a whole, we have been generous to the whole of the population of Britain, including in particular the shire counties and the shire districts. So we want to fund the access authorities in order that they can fulfil their obligations under this Bill.
I thought that I had made clear the position of funding twice on the previous occasion. Obviously, I was not clear enough, so I will try again. The £2.3 million that the Government put in the regulatory impact assessment is part of what will be required during the current spending review period of three years—that is, before the access rights come into play—for all the preparatory work required by access authorities, others and in particular the countryside agencies so we can build up to manage effectively the right of access. It is much more difficult to give specific figures on the funding needed once the access land is opened.
I cannot entirely tie the hands of future Chancellors of Exchequer or the present Chancellor who will probably still be in office. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that we will wish to fund the management of the right of access and that we would expect the cost of that to be four or five times the figure in the regulatory impact assessment. One can compare that figure and that estimate of what will be required with the estimate made in the report of the LGA. That was referred to by several noble Lords. It suggests that the access

1719
provisions of the Bill will require local authorities and national parks to spend about £4.5 million per year, excluding the funding for local access forums. The figure to come out of that would be much less than the figure to which we have said we are committed to funding in the longer term.
Moreover, that larger figure would include some of the funding for the countryside agencies. So we agree with the LGA and its consultants that £5.5 million is the ball-park figure for the on-going management of this scheme required by local authorities. The cost of employment of wardens and the back-up would be paid from that figure. I hope that that makes clear and underlines the degree of commitment to funding that this Government are prepared to make now and our commitment to making this system work.
Exactly how the money will be conveyed may be a matter for future Chancellors. I am not absolutely certain that I would rule out a specific fund, although pressed to do so by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. It is more likely to come through the general funding of local authorities because that is a general approach. There would be obligations on local authorities requiring them to spend it, including on the employment of wardens where appropriate. We would not want wardens to be appointed with such a wide range of responsibilities referred to sometimes in this debate, but clearly wardens are required in order to make sure that the main provisions of the Bill operate.
Is the noble Earl willing that I deal with the other amendment in this clause because he did not speak to it?
The Earl of Caithness: I purposely did not speak to that amendment because I think that the two issues are distinct although there is a common thread. I would like to tackle my particular point separately.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does what the noble Lord said about the funding mean that the large, generous amounts of money which the Chancellor has told local government it is to receive to assist with its responsibilities in relation to schools, roads and social services will be reduced by the figure which must be spent on wardens and other functions which have to be undertaken because of this Bill? Will that have to be subtracted? Local councils would like to know that. Is the cost of this new responsibility included?
Lord Whitty: Members of the Committee will be aware that the whole issue of local authority finance is subject to a major review at present. We are talking of a period beyond the current review when these access rights will come into play. I cannot answer the noble Baroness absolutely. I may have inadvertently referred to costs being four to five times the figure in the regulatory impact assessment. However, what I was trying to convey was that we would provide four to five times that figure in order to carry out the access provisions. That would be additional money to the other responsibilties for local authorities. What I cannot be absolutely clear about is whether we will
1720
have a ring-fenced fund of some sort on which local authorities would draw or whether it would be part of the general allocation to local authorities—for which the SSA in these areas would reflect the obligations of this Bill. But it is extra money. I hope that that clarifies the funding position and that in the light of those assurances the noble Baroness will not puruse her amendment.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: Will the noble Lord answer the point or agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Roberts about the possible need for wardens to control or to monitor night access? Is that something the noble Lord has thought about or something he may want to answer later? Is it something that ought to be considered?
Lord Whitty: Unlike certain noble Lords, the Government have always assumed that access means 24-hour access, as it does in relation to access land in general at present. We have always assumed that there will be night access. Our estimates are based on the inclusion of night access, as are estimates from the Local Government Association.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank him for spelling out that the Government agree with the LGA figure and that there will be additional money for some of the other work to be carried out, for example, through the agencies. That is all very helpful.
The Minister says that there might be a pot. I am concerned that it should not be yet another bidding round for local authorities; that it should be their money as of right in whichever way the Government decide to give it to them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the fact that, on the whole, we do not like ring-fenced funds. Local authorities are well able to make their own decisions. We do not see this as a fight between the conservation bodies and agencies. I should remind the Committee of my interest as a Somerset county councillor. But the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, impugn a motive which simply does not exist. We do not want to take the money away. We want a recognition that local government is paid for what it has to do.
The Minister has reassured me that the Government intend to put sufficient financing behind Part I. If he is able to say anything more at a later stage about the way in which his department thinks that that might be delivered, that would be extremely helpful. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Before I start on this amendment, perhaps I may say how sad I was to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, felt about surveyors. She might think that I belong to an

1721
"institute". In fact, I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I believe there to be a significant difference between the two words.
I listened with great care to the last debate that we had and in particular, to what the Minister said. I was very pleased to hear that the local authorities are now awash with funds and that he believes there is a need for wardens. But there has been a need for wardens in the past. The local authorities have had the finance available to them, but they have not chosen to use it in order to supply wardens where there have been access agreements.
My noble friend Lord Peel gave the example of the Yorkshire Dales where an agreement had been entered into and, over time, other spending had taken priority for the local authority. If the funds which we discussed on the last amendment are not to be ring-fenced, there will be the usual local government argy-bargy which has been going on for years about how it is to spend its finance. My great fear is that although there is plenty of good intention, there is very little good action.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has much greater experience of local government than I. But she will have to compete against other demands in Somerset if she is to secure funds for wardens. Over time, it is unfortunately the non-statutory areas of local government which are squeezed and which traditionally have been squeezed. We have seen that in Surrey and elsewhere. That is what gives me the great concern that I have about the word "may" in line 1 of Clause 18. I believe that that should be "shall". There should be a firm duty on the access authority or the local authority to provide a wardening service.
How that wardening service is then constructed and made up is a matter for the local and access authorities and it will vary from area to area. It occurred to me that those authorities could use some initiative in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to voluntary wardens. The employees of the landowners or farmers might take on, with a little bit of help from the access authority, that extra work.
I can remember when I started my career in farming being irritated by some obstruction in the middle of the field which I was told I could not plough. I had to go round it. It would have made a lot more sense had I been told the full value of that particular obstruction; that other people wanted to come to see that obstruction; access was to be given to it; and those were the reasons why. I should have then understood the situation far more clearly and it would not have been such an irritation to me. I am sure that there are many small areas in which local people, living on the land, could be used in a wardening type of service for some extra finance, which would be of extra benefit in the rural areas. It would enhance their knowledge of the countryside and they are the best people to transmit that knowledge to those who wish to make use of those provisions.
However, I return to the fundamental point. It is absolutely right that there should be a wardening service. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said that there is a vital role for those wardens
1722
to play in most areas. Of course, it will vary from area to area. But there must be a duty on the access authority to provide them. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may gently correct the noble Earl on his interpretation of my statement about wardens. I said that wardens will be important in some areas, not in most areas.
Lord Northbourne: I support the noble Earl's amendment. The difficulty about a power rather than an obligation is that it leads to very wide variations between local authorities in the degree to which the power is implemented. From what I see in other contexts, central government have remarkably little ability to coerce local authorities into performing their optional functions. I have in mind the provision of youth services where the provision varies between the best and worst authority—£8 per head as against £236 per head. Therefore, wide variation between local authorities is a serious risk.
I am prepared to bet that the Minister will not like the idea of this amendment. However, I draw his attention to one other factor. I am informed that in response to a scheme relating to rights of way in north Hampshire and West Sussex, the commissioner for local administration, in reply to complaint No. 1340H of 7th December 1976 questioned whether a highway authority could justify putting resources into discretionary work rather than using those resources for its statutory responsibilities.
Baroness Byford: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment which would mean that the Bill would read:
"An access authority or a district council shall appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority making the appointment to be necessary or expedient, to act as wardens as respects access in their area".
This is a very sensible amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, left the word "may" in her amendment because that weakens the matter. This amendment improves the wording of the Bill.
Lord Mancroft: There is an important point in this amendment which it is worth bearing in mind. If the Minister does not accept the amendment and if it is left as currently drafted, it may appear necessary or expedient to the authority making the appointment— in other words, it recognises that it is necessary or expedient—but it has no obligation to appoint so it does not appoint. Therefore, the authority has recognised the necessity for a warden. That takes into account the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in that there are some areas where they will not be necessary. However, there are some areas where the authority, and perhaps everybody else, recognises that wardens are necessary, for whatever reason it may be, but it still will not appoint them. That is the problem that this amendment solves. Therefore, it is simple and eminently desirable.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: All three clauses, which are miscellaneous provisions relating to the right of access,

1723
are discretionary as far as local authorities are concerned. The fact that they are discretionary leads one to try to conceive of a situation in which by-laws are not passed by an access authority, in which wardens are not appointed and notices indicating boundaries, and so on, are not erected. Many of us fear that that situation will occur on access land.
A further important point in relation to those clauses is that they involve the restrictions to be imposed under Schedule 2. Clearly, the wardens have an important role in enforcing those restrictions as well as the by-laws. It seems to me that the absence of wardens in such a situation would wreck the Bill. Nevertheless, one must emphasise that whether wardens are appointed or not is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. That point was made early in our debates by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
Lord Rotherwick: In answer to a previous question the Minister said that he felt that those who live at the bottom of a hill and want to experience the delights of going up a hill are not the kind of people who damage the environment. He said that people like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who choose to go on one type of walk one day and another type of walk another day, or do a climb one day and another climb another day are not the kind of people to damage the environment. I totally agree with him.
The Minister misunderstands if he believes that walkers and ramblers damage the countryside. If that were so, the countryside would be in ruins because of the large numbers. No, it is a small percentage of people who visit the countryside who damage it. It is the odd person who dismantles a monk at the top of a reservoir and throws it in; it is the odd person who dismantles part of a deer fence; it is the odd person who tends to pick up a sign and throw it away. For that reason I welcome the amendment of my noble friend as it would strengthen the situation by saying that the authorities shall appoint wardens.
In this Bill we are trying to avoid conflict. It is most important that we lessen the conflict between the land manager and those accessing the land. If we can be sure to have these provisions in place, we can look forward to good co-operation between them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister said that he thought that there may be earmarked or ring-fenced funding for such a matter. Is that correct, even though the Government do not want it to be mandatory? The two do not go together.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am trying to be careful not to tie the hands of future Chancellors. I shall leave the commitment of additional funds and how they will be channelled to be dealt with by someone closer to the point where the access rights become a reality. I understand the logic of the question posed by the noble Baroness, but in this area it is important to leave a degree of discretion with the local authorities.
1724
The Government recognise the importance of wardens, but we want to be flexible about how we channel resources and about the balance of wardening as against other methods of ensuring that the access provisions work as they appear to the individual local authority. The provision would require local authorities to put their resources into wardening when that may not be the priority locally and there may be other ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, indicated, such as having others to provide and designate the wardening.
We need a degree of flexibility. The word "shall" would be too mandatory, albeit that it is still subject to identification, and so forth, and it would not necessarily impose an obligation on those authorities that did not require wardening, but it would mean that other ways of providing that wardening, or equivalent cover, would not be available to them. I believe that there is such a wide variety of access land to be managed by access authorities that we need some discretion.
While I understand the points that have been made, it is important that local authorities ensure that the access provisions are properly managed. In most cases wardening will be an important aspect, but I do not believe that we should make it mandatory as provided for in the amendment of the noble Earl.
Lord Skelmersdale: I find that the most extraordinary answer that I have heard in this House for a long time. The Minister talks about discretion for local authorities. Local authorities have as much discretion in Clause 18(1) as is necessary with either "may" or "shall". The point is that having identified the need for wardens, my noble friends want them to be appointed. That is absolutely right.
Lord Whitty: I agree that the two positions are not a million miles apart but at the edges there may be local authorities that can provide the wardening service in a different way than by appointing their own wardens. We want to cover that situation. Therefore, some discretion is needed at the edges. I hope that we do not fall out over this matter, but it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Earl would deny a small amount of discretion.
Viscount Bledisloe: If a local authority believes it can provide the service in another way, it is not necessary or expedient to appoint a warden. The Minister is saying that the first purpose of having a warden is to secure compliance with the restrictions. A landowner may ring the local authority to say, "On my land the restrictions are consistently being ignored; I cannot do anything about it; surely there should be a warden". The local authority will say, "Yes, we accept that it is absolutely necessary to have a warden because that is the only way of securing compliance with the restrictions; nonetheless we have decided not to appoint one". Is that satisfactory?
Lord Swinfen: The first line of the clause says that the council "may", or if the amendment is agreed

1725
"shall", "appoint". It does not say "employ". It is quite possible for the local authority to appoint someone as a warden who is in the employment of a local landowner or a tenant fanner. The authority may decide that it is necessary or expedient to have a warden, but the clause is drafted in such a way that it does not have to pay for that warden, or at least not the whole of the warden's salary. It can find someone who is working locally, who may be self-employed, to work as a warden at a low salary or not a full salary. The word in the Bill, which has been drafted by the Government, is "appoint" and not "employ".
Lord Whitty: It is indeed. "Appoint" implies that the wardens are responsible to the local authority; that whatever the contractual relationship is with that local authority, they are responsible to it. But there can be situations where the person performing the wardening task is not responsible directly to the local authority; for example, it might be a neighbouring authority or a neighbouring parks authority, or in some cases even a local landowner. Therefore if we make this provision mandatory, problems will arise. So I wish to maintain a little flexibility.
We are probably making a meal of this point. As has just been said, the outcome of the noble Earl's amendment would still leave some discretion to local authorities. However, it would not leave discretion in that specific area. Therefore the Bill's present wording is rather better than the implications of Amendment No. 222.
Lord Rotherwick: Perhaps I can ask a small question. Who has the responsibility for ensuring that the lands are wardened? If Clause 18(1) stands, it may be that local authorities do not wish to take on that responsibility. Who will then be responsible for ensuring that the lands are wardened?
Lord Whitty: The access authority has the responsibility for ensuring that access is managed properly. Whether or not that involves wardening and, if so, how it will be provided, is a matter for their judgment.
The Earl of Caithness: This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part.
I want Amendment No. 221 to work. The best way of making it work is by inserting "shall". I agree with the Minister that it reduces the flexibility slightly. But that is not a bad thing. I do not believe the Minister's heart was in his brief on this one. He was just beginning to see that there was quite a good argument against him.
Amendment No. 222 strengthens the hand of the local authority in negotiating for funds. The fact that those within the rural departments of local authorities have a statutory duty rather than a non-statutory duty will certainly strengthen their hands when they seek to obtain funds. And we have to set that little flexibility which the Minister wants against the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who said
1726
on the previous amendments that if there were not wardens in appropriate places, conservation status could suffer.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Earl made a direct reference to my amendment and how Amendment No. 222 would strengthen it. Perhaps I can say therefore that I feel there is a difficulty with his amendment.
I fully understand the spirit of Amendment No. 222. But there are a number of ways in 'which local authorities could choose to exercise this provision; For example, in partnership with farmers or in taking out contracts with conservation organisations. In that regard I must declare an interest as Vice-President of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers which does an immense amount of work in national parks and other open spaces. So there is a vast number of ways in which this clause could be fulfilled if the money was in place.
Therefore, although I entirely applaud the spirit of the noble Earl's amendment—that there will be people on the ground once the money is in place—I am nervous about using the words, "shall appoint". Although I understood the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, if we were going down that route I would have looked at wording which said, "shall ensure that". I am not very happy with the words, "shall appoint". It is much too definite in taking a local authority down a certain route. After all, they often choose to fulfil obligations in imaginative ways and that is what the "best value" regime is all about; that local authorities should move away from direct employment and into a range of different methods of carrying out their functions.
For those reasons I do not support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his Amendment No. 222.
Earl Peel: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I can say that I do not understand how my noble friend's amendment can in any way interfere with "imaginative ways". All it does is ensure that the wardening system is in place. That does not in any way impinge on the idea of imagination.
Viscount Bledisloe: Unless these people are appointed as wardens, technically they will not have the power that wardens have under the Bill. But they can be volunteers; they can be members of the noble Baroness's association; they can be anybody. But they must have a ticket from the access authority saying that they are the wardens and they have been appointed. That is all "appoint" means.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The difference between the two arguments is that, on the one hand the noble Earl's amendment says, "shall appoint", and on the other the spirit of my amendment is to say "shall ensure that the land is wardened".
Viscount Bledisloe: It can only be wardened by people who have been appointed, otherwise they will not have the powers under the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: That is the telling argument for using the word "shall". I agree with the noble Baroness that we need some flexibility. When I moved the amendment I said that we should have some innovative ideas from local authorities. But if this question of the word "appoint" still worries the noble Baroness, we could come back to that at a later stage. I hope she will reconsider her thought and help me to help her to help the Bill work by having "shall" rather than "may".
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 222) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Listowel, E.

Arran, E.

Luke, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Mancroft, L.

Biffen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Monson, L.

Boardman, L.

Montrose, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Northbourne, L.

Bridges, L.

Northesk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Burnham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Byford, B.

Peel, E.

Caithness, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Colwyn, L.

Renton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Courtown, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Selborne, E.

Flather, B.

Selsdon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hanham, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Weatherill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barker, B.

Addington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Berkeley, L.

Alderdice, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Alli, L.

Billingham, B.

Amos, B.

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Borrie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bragg, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B

Brookman, L.

Avebury, L.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L.

Carter, L.

1728

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McNally, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mitchell, L.

Diamond, L.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dubs, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Greaves, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warner, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Winston, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Lipsey, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 11, line 7, after ("17") insert (", with closures and restrictions under sections 21 and 22,").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we remain with wardens. The proposal makes sense and is clear. I trust that the Government will find ways to fund wardens; dare I suggest that the Countryside Agency should become a beneficiary of the National Lottery?
Opening large areas of land to public access for the first time will inevitably lead to problems. I believe that no one in the Chamber, including the Minister, has any illusion about that. That is why we are here, debating the best ways of pre-empting those difficulties so as to smooth the way.
Clause 18 provides for the appointment of wardens, albeit at the discretion of the access authorities. I hope that at the Report stage we shall succeed in changing the provisions relating to that discretion, putting more pressure on the authorities to appoint wardens.
While the clause gives the necessary powers for wardens to secure compliance with by-laws to advise and assist walkers and to perform any other various and interesting duties which the authorities see fit, there is no mention of how the landowners are to enforce the restrictions which the Bill provides.
We suggest that it is not fair that landowners should first be forced to open their land to public access whether they like it or not and then that they should be forced to enforce those grudgingly given restrictions unaided. If a landowner secures a restriction, is he to turn back hoards of ramblers, all of whom will be deeply suspicious of his motives and disinclined to believe what he tells them? If they decide to ignore him and walk on, how is he supposed to stop them?
On the other hand, a duly constituted warden bearing his official papers will be believed and, for 99.9 per cent of the time, respected. Therefore, for the sake of equity and tranquillity wardens should be given power to enforce compliance with every requirement impartially, whether on behalf of the access authority or the landowner.
Members of the Committee will be aware that all over this country, and perhaps in others, wardening schemes are a service to everyone to help make the experience of the countryside or locality more pleasurable. I see the policing role of the warden (if I may call it that) as a minor part of his job. That role is a comfort to all concerned. The warden can be summoned on the telephone to assist, whether it is a call from a landowner who has trouble with unruly visitors or a group of people who, with the use of a mobile telephone, wish to call for help, or whatever. It may be that the warden is able to work in an educational role.
The amendment seeks to insert on the face of the Bill in Clause 18 as part of the duties of the would-be warden the ability to assist with closures and restrictions under Clauses 21 and 22. That clarifies the situation. I believe that it is important to put that on the face of the legislation because there is already a list of his other duties in the Bill. Some of the wardens, not all, will be remunerated. When assessing the workload and writing the job description of a particular person the access authority will need something substantive from which to work. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I should very much like to support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I indicate the view of the Government on this matter. Although it is arguable that enforcement and restrictions are already covered under subsection (2)(c), I rather agree that this matter should be made explicit on the face of the Bill. If the Committee agrees, I shall take this away and provide
1730
an amendment which covers not only Clauses 21 and 22 but any exclusions or restrictions under Chapter II. I hope that that is acceptable to the noble Lord.
Lord Glentoran: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take it away. I am sure that he will find the right terminology when we come to Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 223A:
After Clause 18 insert the following new Clause—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  LITTER
  (".—(l) Access authorities shall make arrangements with the owner and occupier of access land for the collection or litter left by persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1).
  (2) The arrangements may include the employment of wardens or other persons appointed by the access authority to collect litter or the making of payments to the owner or occupier for the collection of litter.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223A, which is not dissimilar, seeks to insert the following new clause:
  "(1) Access authorities shall make arrangements with the owner and occupier of access land for the collection of litter left by persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1).
  (2) The arrangements may include the employment of wardens or other persons appointed by the access authority to collect litter or the making of payments to the owner or occupier for the collection of litter".
  It is a sad fact that when walking in the country all too many people bring with them their dirty habits and drop litter. We debated this matter the other night. Inevitably, it varies from area to area and in direct relation to the numbers of people in a particular part of the country.
  I query the strength of the commitment to the environment of many people when they cannot even bother to take home their litter. We are talking about a minority of people. Litter is unpleasant and unsightly. I refer to sweet papers and cigarette packets. You can bet your bottom dollar that landscapes near towns are sullied by Coca-Cola paper cups and the wrappings of McDonald's vegiburgers, beefburgers or whatever else. I remember that when I frequented Snowdonia National Park several days a week for most of the year—because I was paid to do so, and loved it—there were voluntary litter collection days. People who regularly visited the park, for example climbers, members of local clubs and people who did the kind of work in which I was engaged, which was to deal with young people, set off with rucksacks and spent the day collecting litter. One would be amazed how much litter was collected in one day, usually after bank holidays, even in the 1960s when the number of people was not as great as today. I do not believe that life has changed that much. Litter will remain a serious problem. I am sure that those closer to the national parks than I am will be able to tell us something about that in a moment.
  However, litter also consists of glass bottles, many of which break as they are thrown away. Shards of broken glass are dangerous and can pierce leather and rubber boots and cause serious injury to livestock and wildlife. Another danger which may arise that is directly attributable to broken glass is fire as a result of sun reflection. Whole heaths and forests may be set alight in times of strong sunshine and drought as a result of a bit of broken glass acting as a magnifying glass, with potentially devastating effects. We have seen plenty of examples of that recently on the western side of the United States. Believe it or not, I have seen heath fires caused in that way in my part of the world. Such conditions occur only in one summer in 50 in Northern Ireland; maybe that is why.
  Litter will be a problem. We believe that if this amendment is inserted into the Bill it will improve the management of the litter problem. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: I rise to support the amendment. In a fairly long life in which I have walked, roamed and even rambled in the countryside I have probably seen more crisp packets than cowslips, or even grouse. Therefore, it is a little odd that we have before us a Bill of 114 pages—it is a rather heavy read—which is about the countryside but does not appear to include anywhere the word "litter".
  Those who enjoy the benefits of the right to roam would reasonably expect this point to be covered in the Bill. We shall not change the situation in which, at least close to the designated access points, there will be a good deal of litter. That is a fact. I do not blame any particular group. The amendment has the advantage that, first, it is intelligible, which is very welcome; secondly, it does not give rise to the question whether it should say "shall" or "may". The amendment provides that the authority shall make arrangements for the collection of litter that is left in the countryside, which is quite clear. That is the main point that we seek to make. It goes on to say that those arrangements may include certain ways of doing it. Therefore, it is open to the access authorities to decide how to do it.
  I believe that it is reasonable to make some provision to deal with a problem on which ordinary people walking in the countryside so often comment. We could clear that up by the amendment now proposed, and I support it.
  Lord Judd: Whether or not this amendment is the right one, this is a serious issue which needs to be addressed. I have noticed in National Trust property that if wardens are not regularly working the situation can rapidly deteriorate. The problem is that if only a small minority of people—I believe it is a very small minority—abuse the situation the whole character of land begins to change. Then other people begin to slip. The only way to tackle the problem is to have very high standards that are maintained. They set the cultural
  1732
  pattern. There is a very important issue here. I am not sure that this is the right amendment. But I am certain that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
  Lord Monson: Perhaps I may support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in his amendment and say that the position is even worse than he has described. In country areas not only are Coca-Cola bottles, crisp packets and hamburger cartons discarded; so are syringes and needles. The danger posed can hardly be over-emphasised.
  Lord Marlesford: I strongly support the amendment. There is absolutely no doubt that in terms of enjoyment litter is damaging to the countryside. As a large part of the Bill is about increasing the enjoyment of the countryside, litter is not something that can be tolerated. The Government have made it reasonably clear that additional costs arising as a result of imposing access on private landowners will be met from public funds. This is clearly such an additional cost. It seems reasonable that it should come into that category.
  There is no doubt that if litter is not picked up more litter arrives. Litter attracts litter. I am the chairman of the Marlesford parish council. One of my main duties—self-imposed—is once a month to go around the village with a litter-picker. For a few days there is no litter. Then someone leaves some, and quite quickly the amount grows again. If this gets out of control the minority who dispose of litter will ruin everything for the majority who would not dream of so doing. It is a really important issue.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support the amendment very strongly indeed. It must be welcome to the Government because, as we have heard, litter is currently a very considerable problem in the countryside generally. It is not the first time that I have spoken on this matter in the Chamber. Part of the problem is that so much of modern litter is indestructible. Plastic bags, tin cans, aluminium cans and so on have a certain capacity to resist all weathers and all attempts at disposal. In my own part of Snowdonia litter is such a problem that I have taken it in hand myself. Every walk I take I aim to pick up litter and dispose of it properly.
  I am bound to tell the Committee of a recent experience. On an open road, close to my home, someone disposed of a canvas chair—a picnic chair— and simply left it there. I thought that that would be a one and only occurrence, but now someone has left a door. It really defies the imagination as to how anyone decides to dispose of these things at the roadside in the country. Heaven only knows where they come from.
  I give those examples to show to the Committee what is likely to be an ever-worsening situation. Particularly with the increase in access land, we shall certainly have a great deal more litter. I, and others, will not be at all surprised if cars are disposed of on the mountainside. It is already happening. Our fear is that the situation will worsen. Something has to be done.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment. It has not been mentioned that rubbish is dangerous to stock. Cattle can graze around in a field and hoover up plastic bags or can lids. That can be very dangerous. I should like to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. On Tuesday, as I drove to the House, I saw that a mattress had been thrown over a hedge.
  Lord Bridges: It is with particular enthusiasm that I mention the voluntary nature of subsection (2) of the new clause, which states:
  "The arrangements may include the employment of wardens or other persons".
  Often this work can be done voluntarily. In our village on the edge of an estuary in East Anglia every spring a local association mounts a campaign. It divides up the river bank into sections. We all go out with plastic bags to collect the litter that has accumulated during the winter. That kind of activity can be arranged in communities.
  Some years ago I was particularly impressed when driving in Sweden from Gothenburg to Stockholm. It was in the early spring just after the thaw. It was notable that every parish had schoolchildren out cleaning up the litter which had been thrown out of car windows during the winter. We should try to encourage voluntary activities of that kind. The new clause permits that kind of arrangement. Therefore, I support it.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have considerable sympathy with the reasons behind the amendment. It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are places where litter is too often found. We have considered the matter with great care. As Members of the Committee have recognised, much of the land concerned will be in relatively remote areas away from centres of population. Previous debates on amendments in the Chamber have identified that the overwhelming majority of people making use of the provisions proposed in the Bill will be responsible and respectful of the countryside.
  I should like to add to the groups to which reference was made earlier those involved with youth organisations and children. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was right to refer to the work done by young people, both informally and through the schools. I well remember a project on the foreshore at Lytham St. Anne's in Lancashire involving local primary schoolchildren who had an exhibition where they dated the length of life of the litter and the fact—as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said—that much of today's litter is non-biodegradable and lasts for a very long time.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the dangers to livestock and other noble Lords referred to mattresses, chairs and doors. This is a major problem. Perhaps we should all think back to the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is not in his place. When we were debating the subject of access to the countryside he referred to people who drove and ended
  1734
  up depositing as litter a four-wheel drive vehicle in a lake. Perhaps I may remind Members of his words. He said:
  "The problem is that the legislation for access to the countryside deals with the responsible. The irresponsible exist all over the place already and we must continue to tackle them as much as we can".
  For that reason, and particularly in response to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Williamson—because of the irresponsible minority who can spoil things for the rest of us—leaving litter on access land will be a criminal offence. Those who drop litter will automatically lose their right to be there. The provision of wardens and the development of different projects in areas subject to greatest visitor pressure will help to prevent the problems arising.
  In addition, the department has been discussing with the Countryside Agency the whole question of how best to manage and encourage responsible access. One option we are actively considering is to fund the agency so that it can give grant aid direct to landowners and occupiers for work and facilities which help with that function. If there is a problem with litter in a particular area, funds could be ma de available through such a grant regime.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, we believe that channelling funds directly to people on the ground—for preventive measures such as wardening or litter clearance—is the most effective way of dealing with the problem. We are not attracted to the idea of local authorities having to make arrangements with owners and occupiers for the collection of litter as that could involve considerable bureaucracy and negotiation and might not be the most cost-effective solution, given the circumstances in a particular area. However, the local authority would have a responsibility to assist with the removal of litter; indeed, local authorities already cope with the removal of litter, such as that on the wayside.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Glentoran: If the local access authority is not involved, how will the channelling of funds directly to people on the ground operate?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Bill contains an amendment to the Local Government Act 1974, which means that the Countryside Agency and the agencies will be able to give assistance to anyone who has incurred expenditure in doing anything which helps to attain the purposes of the legislation. Clearly, the management and promotion of public access to the countryside fall within that.
  We are in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that measures should be in place to prevent litter in the first place, but failing that, to provide resources for its collection. Such measures are best targeted to where problems might arise, rather than having a general requirement on all access authorities, irrespective of local needs and circumstances. Therefore, with those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Government's full commitment to

  1735
  resolving the problem which this short debate has highlighted. I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that positive response. As we have heard, Members on all sides of the Committee are concerned about the problem. The Government have clearly stated that they are also concerned and that they are working on ways to solve it. I look forward to seeing what they produce at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 [Notices indicating boundaries, etc.]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 224:
  Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall at appropriate points, after consultation with their local access forum,").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 224 is to do with the erection and maintenance of notices. During the earlier debate about by-laws, we said how essential information boards and notices will be. We said that they should be at appropriate points, that they should not litter the countryside in an unsightly way and that they should be placed in such a way that the public are clear about their rights and responsibilities. I shall not rehearse those arguments again. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am happy to support the noble Baroness on the amendment. It is a delight to me that she has now used the word "shall" rather than "may". Having voted against "shall" only a few minutes ago, I shall not be churlish and go back to "may". I shall continue to support her.
  Lord Marlesford: I oppose the amendment for the reasons I gave earlier. I do not want to see a plethora of signs. I would much rather leave it to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether it may be necessary to put up some signs. If in due course the Act imposes an obligation to put up signs, I suspect that a good many unnecessary and undesirable signs will be put up. That is why I would much rather leave the Bill as it is presently drafted.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had understood that Amendments Nos. 227 and 229 to 231 were grouped with this amendment. I thought that it would be preferable to debate the amendments together. Those amendments are very much on the same theme.
  It may not be politically correct but I agree once again with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford— although this time it is against his colleagues. It is right that there should be signs and notices where appropriate to ensure that the public are aware of their rights and responsibilities. It is also right that we should give careful thought to how they should be provided for. But if we were to accept any of the amendments, we would be in danger of promoting a landscape littered with signs.
  1736
  Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 225 and 224. Amendment No. 225 imposes a duty on authorities to provide notices without any indication of where to provide notices or when they might know that they had fulfilled their duty. They might find it quite difficult to defend themselves against pressure to provide notices in inappropriate places. Amendment No. 224 would allow access authorities rather more discretion in deciding where and when to erect notices. We would expect this to be one of the matters on which local access forums advise. We shall be bringing forward appropriate amendments to deal with that. The amendment refers to "appropriate points". Our concern would be the scope for litigation as to whether or not it was an appropriate point.
  Amendments Nos. 227, 229, 230 and 231 would run the risk of putting an unmanageable burden on the authorities. They might find themselves obliged to erect a small forest of signs. That would be a blight on the landscape and it would also cost a good deal of money. I am not suggesting that the views and advice of landowners should be overlooked by authorities in deciding where notices should be provided. I would expect the authorities to consult as fully as practicable on matters of local concern. I see a role for local access forums in advising on these matters. But, ultimately, it is right for local authorities to use their discretion in assessing where and when notices are required. Those authorities that have already had experience of providing notices relating to public access may well be in a position to offer good practice for others to follow.
  In the light of what I have promised to do about local access forums, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I look forward to seeing the government amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 226:
  Page 11, line 25, after ("may") insert (", after consulting persons interested in the land,").
  The noble Lord said: With this amendment we are dealing with the erection of signs and notices and the duty to consult owners. The amendment would require the countryside body to consult owners before putting up notices indicating the extent of access land or providing information on access closures and restrictions.
  This would parallel the requirement for consultation in relation to signs and waymarks placed on rights of way, provided for in Section 27(1) of the Countryside Act 1968. The aim is to maintain good working relationships between those with an interest in land and the countryside bodies. Signs should be put up in places which are convenient for owners as well as for walkers.
  In Committee in another place, the Minister said that:
  "I do not consider it necessary to require authorities to consult those with an interest in the land before erecting notices. Access authorities will be able to ascertain the precise location of boundaries and restrictions applying on the land. However, I agree that authorities will usually want to discuss their proposals with landowners and, perhaps, other interested bodies such as local access forums and walkers' associations. Those with an interest in the land may well know which sites are used most. It would be in the interests of the authority and those involved with the land to liaise with each other to ensure that an adequate number of notices are erected in the right places. Indeed, authorities may often act in response to specific requests from landowners. It is unnecessary to provide for that in statute; again, it is more a matter of good practice. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 2/5/00; col. 444.]
  The Minister asserted that access authorities would liaise sufficiently. It remains to be seen whether this will happen in practice. Why are the Government set against this duty if the precedent already exists? Section 27(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 places an obligation on a local authority to consult the owner or occupier when erecting signs on rights of way, for example, to indicate where footpaths leave metalled roads. It seems wrong and inequitable that consultation required where there is one type of statutory public access is considered unnecessary in relation to another statutory right of access.
  It should be stressed that the requirement is for consultation only. The authority does not need to gain the consent of the owner as to the location of the sign. In practice, consultation on signs on rights of way is often important in avoiding problems caused to occupiers by poorly located signs. Examples include signs placed so as to block field gates and private vehicular access.
  If the Government are still not disposed to include this provision in the Bill, firm assurances would be welcomed that the codes of practice being drafted by the countryside bodies for local authorities will contain guidelines, as suggested by the Minister himself. They should, first, discuss any proposals for signing with the necessary interests; secondly, liaise with occupiers as to the positioning of notices; and, thirdly, pay due attention to and deal fairly and responsibly with, any requests for signs from an occupier.
  Earlier on we debated at considerable length the issue of signs. For that reason, I do not believe that I need to explain further this side of the argument.
  Amendment No. 232 inserts at the end of Clause 19(3) the words:
  "(4) A notice under this section may only be erected or maintained on land with the permission of the owner of the land."
  This amendment prevents access authorities from placing or keeping notices on private land without the consent of the owner. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 226 seeks to give a duty to access authorities to consult persons with an interest in the land before erecting
  1738
  notices indicating the extent of access land or providing information on access closures and restrictions.
  We have already indicated that we think that authorities will generally wish to consult landowners and others such as local access forums on their plans for erecting notices, as they will on a range of local access issues. However, I accept that it may be desirable to provide for this in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, told the Committee, under Section 27(1) of the Countryside Act 1968, highway authorities must consult owners and occupiers of land before erecting signposts. We propose to follow that example. On that basis, we shall return to this issue with appropriate amendments.
  The reason why I cannot accept Amendment No. 226 as it is drafted is that it requires consultation with,
  "persons interested in the land".
  The Countryside Act 1968 refers to owners and occupiers. "Interest in the land" could include people with rights of commons, sporting rights or even the right to graze sheep or hang-glide on the land. We think that that would be going rather far.
  I shall turn now to Amendment No. 232. This proposal would require access authorities to obtain the landowner's consent, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly pointed out, was not the case with Amendment No. 226. The amendments are somewhat in conflict.
  What would happen if permission were to be withheld? If we have agreed to consider giving the countryside bodies a duty to provide information about the new right of access, we could be considered perverse were we now to consider measures that would make it difficult for them to do that.
  I hope that, with the assurances that I have given as regards Amendment No. 226, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the Minister sits down, can he clarify for me whether people who have been granted a right of access under the Bill will then qualify as people who have an interest in the land?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that it matters, because the amendments I propose to bring forward would restrict themselves to addressing only owners and occupiers. For that reason, I believe that the answer to the noble Earl's question is no.
  Lord Glentoran: Again, I have a smile on my face and I thank the Minister for his encouraging response. I look forward to seeing his amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
  I understand completely the difficulties he would have had in accepting Amendment No. 226 and I shall wait to see the wording which will be brought for ward by the Government to cover that situation.

  1739
  As regards Amendment No. 232, I am quite content with the Minister's response here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 228:
  Page 11, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) An access authority shall take such steps and carry out such work (including the erection and maintenance of fences, signs or notices) as appear to it requisite for protecting the public from any source of danger on access land or on adjoining land.").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would place on the Government a duty to erect "fences, signs or notices" to protect the public from any source of danger on access land or adjoining land.
  Where legislation dictates that unsafe areas should be made safe by the owner or occupier, it is obvious that that obligation should be carried out. However, where a new right suddenly imposes additional costs on an occupier because there has been no compulsion to make safe certain features, it is unreasonable to expect the occupier to incur such costs. We discussed this point to a certain extent on an earlier amendment.
  The amendment would ensure that any expense incurred as a result of the need to protect the public from a source of danger above and beyond that which would be incurred in honouring statutory responsibilities would be borne by the public purse, not by the owners of the land affected. This issue arises with the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which relates to the duties imposed on the owners of abandoned or disused mine or quarry workings.
  The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 requires all mines not used for a period of 12 months or more to have an efficient closure, barrier, plug or other device to prevent any person from accidentally falling in or entering the outlet. All such devices must be properly maintained. The provisions of the Act do not apply to mines unused since before 9th August 1872—I do not believe that many of us were around then!—where the minerals mined were not coal, ironstone, shale or clay. Some workings for minerals such as lead and tin used before 1872 could still be dangerous, but apparently would not be covered by the existing legislation. There are many such workings in some of our moorland areas.
  Similarly, a quarry, working or otherwise, can be defined as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if it does not have a properly maintained barrier to prevent persons from falling into it and if, by reason of its accessibility from a highway or a place of public resort, it constitutes a danger to members of the public. Will the owner of a disused quarry which is unfenced because it is not readily accessible, have to fence that quarry once this Bill has established a right of access to land around it?
  These cases—where certain mines and quarries on potential access land are not covered by existing legislation which requires them to be fenced or
  1740
  otherwise protected to exclude the public—could give rise to additional costs to the owners and to increased risk to the public. One way of reducing this would be to exclude land containing such mines and quarries from the right of access at the outset by not mapping it as access land, as another amendment provides.
  Another approach would be to require the local authorities to make safe any areas where the users may injure themselves. That is the approach taken in the amendment. There is a precedent for the authorities to fence dangerous land or to erect warning notices under Section 80(4) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. A similar provision is needed to provide safeguards in a situation where far more land will be open to the public under the current Bill.
  As I said in our earlier discussions, we readily acknowledge that there will be many more people visiting our rural and remote areas. This is a worrying problem. I beg to move.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall be interested to hear the Government's views on the amendment. I suspect that the Government will say that the majority of these hazards in open country are already covered by legislation and that there are fences, markers, caps on mines and so on. But it may well be, as my noble friend Lady Byford implied, that many new crevices and so on will be a danger to the public as a result of the creation of access land. It is those hazards, which are not clearly recorded and marked currently, that we wish to be sure are made safe for the public visiting access land.
  I know that in South Wales, in the Brecon Beacons and elsewhere—perhaps where the noble Baroness, Baroness Gale, takes her spontaneous walks—there are many deep, unmarked crevices resulting from old mine workings going back to time immemorial. I also know the Halkyn mountain area in north-east Wales where there were many tin workings. Again, the majority of those old workings are properly capped. Nevertheless, it may well be that with these provisions in the Bill we are opening up new areas where such hazards are not properly fenced and will therefore be a hazard to the visiting public.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, concerns the safety of those exercising the new right of access and how that safety should be protected. I should say at the outset that we had understood there was a general consensus that the new right of access should not lead to the disfigurement of open countryside by excessive numbers of signs and fences. We have made it clear that those exercising the new right should take responsibility for their own safety. That is one of the reasons why the Bill removes occupiers' liability in relation to natural features of the landscape, and we are considering what further changes might be needed to Clause 13.
  The noble Baroness's amendment would require access authorities to assess access land in their area to see whether there is any source of danger on it, or from adjacent land, and to take action where necessary by

  1741
  erecting signs or fences. We have said before that parts of access land are intrinsically dangerous—a high rock face half-way up a fell, for example. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and I thought of Pen y Fan, which has many natural hazards. I well remember my first visit there. To my amazement, I ended up having to call out the mountain rescue people to save a local farmer who had walked up but could not walk down. When he got to the bottom he explained that he was a Conservative county councillor. Some of my colleagues made comments that were not very kind.
  I hope that the Committee will agree that such dangers are part of the reason that many people wish to explore open country, and it is their responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary training and equipment to enjoy their visit. The Committee will be aware that we are removing all occupiers' liability in respect of features such as rock faces, potholes and any other natural features. In the region of the country where I live, that reassurance needs to be given wide publicity. Some of the local farmers—particularly in the Yorkshire Dales—believe that they will acquire a responsibility to protect people from the existence of potholes.
  Clause 23 of the Bill provides that exclusions or restrictions may be directed to protect the public from danger arising from anything done or proposed to be done on access land or adjacent land. This includes activities which have occurred in the past. So if, for example, a disused quarry is mapped as access land, the relevant authority may, if necessary, direct that the land where the quarry is situated is closed to access.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the 1949 Act, which contained provision for areas of access land to be fenced off on grounds of safety to the public. However, that Act did not contain a provision similar to that in Clause 23 of the present Bill, which enables exclusions or restrictions to be directed by the relevant authority on such grounds. Nor did it eliminate landowners' liability in relation to some features of the landscape. That is the approach we have favoured in the Bill and it will enable the public's safety to be protected where necessary without unduly littering the landscape with fences and signs.
  Access authorities have the power under Clause 19 to erect notices informing the public of any matters relating to access land. Such signs might indicate at points of access that there were hazards on the land, or could he placed near to hazards as a warning—perhaps to explain that access is excluded from the land surrounding the site. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is as aware as I of the kind of circumstance that arises in Swithland Woods in Leicestershire.
  This power is sufficient to enable warning to be given where it is needed without placing the access authority under a duty to fence off any land which might pose a slight risk to public safety. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that there will be clear areas, where everything is black or white, but that other areas will be more grey and local judgment will
  1742
  be needed. Owners and occupiers of land may well be under existing duties to fence off dangers—for example, most mines and quarries. There are duties under environmental protection legislation and under health and safety legislation which require landowners or employers to remove dangers. Local authorities have, in some circumstances, powers to remove dangers on land and to make payments to others who carry out work to prevent or remove danger to the public.
  We shall discuss with the Countryside Agency, local authorities and others whether funding arrangements, including possible grant schemes, are required and, if so, how they would be established.
  I hope that with that detailed response the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. She always responds fully and with due care to the amendments. Her reference to Swithland Woods is because that area is part of an old quarry and some of it is quite rightly clearly marked. I thank the Minister for commenting on that and I accept what she said.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that land managers will not incur extra cost. As I am sure the Minister will understand, sometimes not even the land managers know exactly where some of these areas are, and that is the problem. The amendment seeks to ensure that if, for example, someone has a mishap on the site of an old quarry or whatever, landowners would not be liable, nor would they have to erect fences. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what the Minister said.
  I, like the Minister, am concerned that our countryside does not become littered with notices. It would be a great tragedy if that were the result of this legislation. However, it was not clear to me from the Minister's response whether the example I gave would be included. We debated natural features two days ago and I accept the idea; however, I am not sure whether the example I have given would come within (I shall not say "fall" within!) the definition of such features. I am happy to give way to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: On this point I should be very cautious indeed, because of the range of judgments that have to be taken locally about the circumstances. We are talking about circumstances in which grants may be available which may not be used by someone for some other reason. I should not like to give a blanket assurance. I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness with detailed advice from the lawyers because in that way I can answer her question fully without giving a misleading blanket assurance.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. That is a sensible suggestion. This matter is difficult. As the Minister knows, there are areas where one is not sure where such problems might arise. Under these circumstances, I accept the Minister's response.

  1743
  Perhaps between now and Report we may be able to examine the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 not moved.]
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 233:
  Page 11, line 44, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say rather cheekily that this is more of a tidying amendment, or an attempt at it, than something more substantive.
  Clause 20(1) makes reference to the interpretation of exclusion or restriction of access in Chapter II. The amendment seeks to apply the definition of exclusion or restriction to the entire part, thus obviating the need for duplication elsewhere. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I am always grateful for drafting suggestions from the noble Lord; however, I am not sure that I share his concern. The amendment seeks to extend the definition to include all of Part I. The definitions of the exclusion and restriction of access are set out in Clause 20 at the beginning of Chapter II, which then proceeds to provide for how such exclusions or restrictions may be imposed. There is a special provision in Clause 19(2) which avoids any doubt that the exclusions or restrictions referred to in Clause 19(1) are indeed those defined in Clause 20.
  Of course, it would have the effect that the noble Lord suggests if the definition in Clause 20 were to be applied to the whole of Part I; therefore, in one sense the amendment is entirely proper. But there is no particular benefit to be gained from such an amendment because the other parts of Part I refer forward to Clause 20 in any case. Therefore, the situation is already covered, albeit slightly more indirectly than the noble Lord would like. For that reason, his amendment would not make the provision any clearer than it already is. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that conclusion, and I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am sorry that he does not like my suggested improvement. However, I bow to his greater knowledge on this occasion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 234:
  Page 12, line 2, after ("any") insert ("access").
  The noble Lord said: All the amendments in this group refer to the proper identification of land which may or may not be access land.
  In subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 20 there is reference to the exclusion or restriction of access to any land. The amendment proposes that for the sake of clarity specific reference should be made where it is
  1744
  necessary to identify that land as access land and whether reference is made to the whole of it or to part of it, and the amendment seeks to do just that.
  Perhaps I may speak also to the other amendments in the group, starting with Amendments Nos. 239, 240 and 241. As with the amendments under Clause 20, this batch of three amendments simply seeks to clarify and make specific reference to land which is access land rather than any land, which must be helpful to all concerned.
  Amendments Nos. 256 and 259 relate to Clause 21, and to the extension of time for exclusion or restriction at the descretion of the landowner. In this respect the Bill is vague and imprecise in its reference to land and the purpose of these two amendments is to clarify and identify the land referred to.
  Amendment No. 263 relating to Clause 22 refers to an application regarding land that is not access land. The subsection attempts to provide for a situation where the relevant authority is able to forecast whether or not land will be access land at some point during all or part of the period to which an application relates. That is simply not practicable and our amendment ensures that applications deal not with conjecture but with reality.
  Amendment No. 266 relates to Clause 23 and refers to access land. For the purpose of clarification the amendment proposes that relevant land shall be referred to as access land.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 270 to 274. Again, we say that the reference in the Bill is vague and unspecific in many cases. This batch of amendments simply seeks to make specific reference to access land.
  The final amendment in the group refers to Clause 23 and to land that is not access land at the time when the application is made. This matter was referred to in relation to Clause 22, where the Bill was described as conjecturing what might become access land but is not access land at the time when the application is made. We believe that that is irrelevant and the amendment seeks to exclude that possibility. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Many of the amendments tabled by the Conservative Front Bench have been most helpful. However, I venture to suggest that they are grossly over-doing it with this set of amendments. Clause 20(2) reads:
  "A person excludes access … where he excludes the application of that subsection in relation to that land".
  How can one exclude access, which can only be given over access land, except in relation to access land? How can adding the word "access" make any useful addition to the wording of the clause, other than making it longer and taking up yet more of our time?
  Lord Whitty: For reasons that I shall explain, I believe that the Opposition are being slightly inconsistent on this occasion. The effect of this group of amendments would be literally to reverse government amendments put forward on Report in another place, which were tabled as a result of representations that had been made. It would be

  1745
  helpful to allow applications for restrictions to be made and dealt with before the actual right of access came into effect.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, argued quite strongly earlier that we should allow for a certain situation where we could anticipate the need for bylaws before the actual right came into effect. The earlier amendments allow for the directions to be made in relation to restrictions and for landowners to be allowed to exercise their discretion under Clause 21 in anticipation of land becoming access land. They provide a mechanism whereby restrictions on access could be directed before the right of access came into effect, so that not only the access but also the restriction would be in place on day one of the operation of the right. That is the equivalent position to the one we discussed earlier on by-laws. We accepted the principle of the noble Baroness's amendment on by-laws and, therefore, we are being consistent in resisting this amendment.
  As I have explicitly explained the reason why the reference to "land" rather than "access land" was made, any other reading of those amendments is mistaken. I believe that virtually all of the cases here are the mirror image of the amendments made in order to provide for that contingency, which I believe we now all agree would be both appropriate and helpful in terms of managing the approach to access land and the access right. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Luke: I am sorry to displease the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; and, indeed, the Minister. In view of that response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 235:
  Page 12, line 3, at end insert ("or part thereof").
  The noble Lord said: It is with some trepidation that I move Amendment No. 235. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 236 and 238. Again, the issue here is identification. In Clause 20(2) and (3) reference is made to the exclusion or restriction of access to any land. For the sake of clarity, our amendment proposes that specific reference should be made, where necessary, to identify that land as access land and to clarify whether reference is being made to the whole or part of it. That is the purpose of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 236 refers to the same argument in relation to Clause 21. Amendment No. 238 seeks to provide greater clarification as to how such land is identified. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I regret to have to tell the noble Lord yet again that this set of amendments is based on a misunderstanding of Chapter II of the Bill. The phrase "any land" means just that: any land. The exclusion or
  1746
  restriction of access does not relate to a predetermined area, such as all land in the same ownership or all land within a specific geographical boundary. For example, it would clearly make little sense to require that an owner of extensive areas of moorland wishing to conduct a grouse shoot on one relatively small part of that moor should be obliged to close his entire estate. Indeed, that would be contrary to the intention; namely, to allow maximum flexibility within the closure and restriction regime so that it is responsive to the widest range of land management, nature conservation and other needs that may well vary within the area of one ownership.
  When assessing the need for restriction or for closure, we expect the relevant authorities to approve the minimum restriction or exclusion to protect those interests. I can, therefore, reassure the noble Lord that the concerns lying behind his amendments are misplaced and that they are fully met by the Bill. In view of my explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will not pursue these amendments.
  Lord Luke: That was a rather interesting response. With regard to the 28-day exclusion, the Minister mentioned the fact that it could refer only to one part of an estate, all of which may be access land; in other words, another part of that access land could actually be excluded for another part of that 28-day period. I hope that I am correct in that respect. I beg Leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Exclusion or restriction at discretion of owner and others]:
  [Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 237:
  Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
  ("( ) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), an entitled person may, by giving notice to the relevant authority in accordance with regulations under section 30(1)(a), exclude or restrict access by virtue of section 2(1) to any land on a Saturday between August 11th and February 2nd where that land is used commercially for shooting.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248. This amendment would allow landowners to close land on Saturdays during the game shooting season. The majority of game shooting takes place on a Saturday, mainly because this is when most people can take the opportunity to shoot but also because, by law, game cannot be shot on Sundays.
  The importance of shooting to the economy and conservation of rural areas is crucial. Over £653 million is spent on shooting per year and much of the countryside is conserved by shooting interests. It is important to note that much shooting takes place during the harsh winter months. The public are much, more likely to want to enjoy access during the spring and summer months. Further, the amendment would not deter the public from enjoying access on a Sunday during the period 12th August to 1st February—something that is denied by law to game shooters.
  The rural economy often depends on sporting activities such as shooting during the winter months, especially as this is the very time when other tourists are less likely to visit remote areas. Therefore, the amendment seeks to strike an appropriate balance. It would allow those members of the public who wish to enjoy their right of access during the winter months to do so on Sundays, and it would not preclude land managers from shooting on the most popular day of the week during the statutory game seasons.
  I turn to Amendment No. 248 which reads:
  "Page 13, line 14, leave out subsection (6)".
  It is not clear why access land should not be closed at weekends, given that the right to close it is limited to a specific number of days. Given that there is a limit to the number of days land can be closed, the public will be able to enjoy access land at the weekends for the vast majority of the year. But that right should also extend to those who wish to close access land for legitimate reasons. For example, shooting days often take place on Saturday. Removing that right would have severe implications for the viability of estates. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: It is a pity that the first amendment in this group, which deals with the important question of weekend access, should deal specifically with shooting which although important is by no means the whole of the matter. However, I should perhaps declare an interest as an enthusiastic participant in the sport of shooting who is likely to shoot on moorland on Saturdays. I hope that any noble Lord who owns a grouse moor and is present in the Chamber will take note of that!
  The general problem of weekend access is much more important. I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 248 which seeks to remove subsection (6) of Clause 21. Clause 21 provides that a landowner may exclude access to land on certain days. It is obviously intended that he should do so at critical times such as lambing time or when birds are hatching. If we assume that that is the main purpose of the closure provision, it must be utterly illogical, and indeed destructive of that whole purpose, if weekends are excluded from the 28 days when closure is permitted.
  I suggest to the Government that they take a little advice from King Canute and recognise that nature's rules do not bend to the wishes of human rulers. It is unfortunate but true that sheep and nesting birds and their eggs do not read Hansard or even the statutes at large and do not carry with them calendars which enable them to identify when weekends occur. Therefore, unfortunately, they will not refrain from lambing or hatching over a weekend. If those processes are to be protected on Fridays, they also need to be protected on Saturdays and Sundays. Even New Labour cannot persuade sheep not to lamb over a weekend because the former would like to allow people on to the land.
  1748
  An exemption for weekends at such critical times renders the power to exclude utterly illogical. As many of us have sought to suggest, countrymen consider many of the Bill's provisions unreasonable and unfair. The concept of a Monday to Friday period of closure to protect lambs, birds and so on at critical periods demonstrates to those who know about the countryside that the Bill was drafted in Whitehall by persons with no tittle of understanding of what happens in the countryside. If the Government truly intend that landowners or tenants should be able to close their land at critical times, such as lambing or hatching, they must concede that it must also be closed at weekends and allow nature to take precedence over the vagaries of the calendar.
  The Earl of Mar and Katie: Amendments Nos. 244 and 245, which are grouped with Amendment No. 237, stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. These amendments have the purpose of extending the period of closure. The amendments propose that four weekends should be added to the period of statutory closure as laid down in Clause 21(4). In arithmetic terms this would increase statutory closure from 28 days to 36 days.
  Amendment No. 244 adds four weekends to the relevant maximum; and Amendment No. 245 spells out how the weekend should be interpreted. It seems to me that the presumption behind the Bill is that closure is for maintenance purposes and also for the pleasure of those who do not have to work. This seems to be unfair to those who wish to shoot or stalk—which are particularly dangerous activities if you are not taking part in them—but can do so only on Saturday. It seems also to be unhelpful to those estates—this has been mentioned—whose income is derived from selling shooting days. As the Bill is presumably not intended to disadvantage the rural economy, I hope that these amendments can be incorporated into the Bill.
  Earl Peel: I support what the noble Earl has just said. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I should hate these discussions to concern only shooting. However, I shall return to that matter in a moment. How owners, occupiers and tenants will utilise their 28 closure days remains to be seen. I cannot speak for them. However, I believe that a number of people will use their 28 closure days during the breeding season in May. That is my hunch. If that is the case, the noble Viscount's comments were absolutely right and proper because clearly birds will not cease nesting during weekends or bank holidays. This is an important issue which I hope the Government will take extremely seriously.
  I turn to shooting. The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that shooting—we are talking here principally of grouse shooting—is of enormous economic importance to certain country areas. I venture to suggest—this is an extremely important point—that most of the money that is generated by shooting is used to support the management of those areas. I go so far as to say that if it was not for the shooting interests a great number of sites of special scientific interest—

  1749
  many of which will now be designated as SPAs and SACs under the European habitats and birds directive—would not exist in the first place. Therefore it would be disingenuous of the Government to ignore the goose which lays the golden egg. That is a most important point.
  As regards shooting, difficulties would arise for many people if they could not participate in that sport on a Saturday. I am not talking about people with vast sums of money. Many members of shooting clubs enjoy their weekend shooting and have no other opportunity to do so. It is important to note that this matter affects people across the whole social spectrum. The income generated from shooting is of enormous importance not just in terms of the maintenance of hills or the wildlife benefits; it has a considerable knock-on effect in other industries such as the hotel industry and the transport industry. The Government need to bear in mind all those points when considering this matter. I very much welcome the opportunity to increase the number of weekends where access can be closed for whatever reason, not just shooting.
  I go back to what I said at the beginning. We must not forget that some people may use these days to try to close these areas for the benefit of nesting birds. These are not just game birds but also Schedule 1 birds.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask two questions. If someone wanders through a drive on a foggy day while shooting is in operation and is shot, whose responsibility will it be? Will there be conflict between owners of land and tenant farmers? For example, will a tenant farmer be able to have 28 days for his lambing while a landowner has a different 28 days for his shooting?
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps the Minister will consider a degree of flexibility as regards weekend closures. It is not that I hate to think that upland landowners with shooting interests would be financially embarrassed by being unable to sell shooting days at the weekends, particularly on a Saturday. It is the more serious point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about the ecology of the uplands being heavily dependent on the income that shooting brings to those areas. It is a point that we need to emphasise.
  I am less convinced by the arguments based on sheep or nesting birds. Birds set up territories. They nest; they hatch; and they breed and raise young over quite extensive periods. The odd Saturday or 28-day closure will not make much difference to nesting birds. Closures in order to protect nesting birds should be on the ground of conservation rather than discretionary.
  On the sheep question, I am not convinced that there is evidence that walkers and lambing do not mix. As an ex-shepherd of 600 sheep, a horse and a dog, my ewes were concentrating on something else when lambing on the hill rather than whether walkers were close by. The odd Saturday closure will not help if the sheep are lambing on the open hill.
  1750
  Nevertheless, perhaps we can prevail upon the Minister to be flexible. The points made about the economics of shooting are fundamental to our upland areas. I suggest that we should consider giving landowners more discretion about weekend closures within the proposed 28 discretionary days.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Let us consider the reason that the Government introduced the 28 day period. It was so that landowners would have a period in which to undertake those activities vital to their landholding without having to go through the difficulties of applying for closures to quangos which might argue the case. It does not seem unreasonable that they should have a block of time which is not broken up by these three or four weekends.
  In Standing Committee B, at cols. 474 and 475 of the Official Report of 2nd May, Mr Meacher said:
  "I am not sure that we can justify providing in the Bill for shutting open countryside to the public for a whole month without giving any reason".
  He continued:
  "My problem is to find a way of reconciling the two views that does not severely or drastically undermine the purpose of tilt Bill".
  I suggest that closing for that useful 28-day block period does not,
  "severely or drastically undermine the purpose of the Bill".
  The Government have said that people may abuse the provision and close the area for all the most popular weekends. On the other hand, landowners may say, "We can apply for closure orders in order to undertake those activities we have not had time to do and the quangos will make our lives difficult". If we approach the issue on the basis of scepticism, we shall not get far.
  It is common sense for this to occur. At col. 475, Mr Meacher said:
  "I accept that the 28-days' discretion gives landowners a simple way to close their land for any reason, without seeking approval".
  That non-bureaucratic route is important. That time should not be broken into because there might be possible abuse. It is a weak case. It is time the Government admitted it.
  Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may add my voice to those who ask the Minister to be more flexible, particularly about Saturdays. It was not the intention, of the Government that access would be increased at the expense of the livelihoods of those who work there. Indeed, when Mr Meacher was asked about the Government's intention regarding compensation, at col. 669 of the Official Report of 17th March 1999, he said that the independent study which the Government had commissioned indicated that there were unlikely to be any significant losses or costs to landlords because, among other things, there would be the continued ability of landowners,
  "to develop and use their land after the introduction of the right".
  There is no question that commercial shooting—I am no expert; there are many in the Chamber who are—relies in many cases on being able to let days on a Saturday. There is equally no doubt that shooting

  1751
  provides in many upland areas the only income, and it is that which pays for the maintenance, heather burning and so on, as Members on all sides of the Chamber have said. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns and perhaps make suggestions.
  Lord Monson: Although we are literally a long way from mountains or moorlands, I do not know anyone in my part of the world who shoots on any day other than a Saturday. Nearly all the guns work from Monday to Friday; and most of the beaters have other jobs from Monday to Friday. For that reason, I favour either Amendment No. 237 or possibly Amendment 250 which would seem to fill the bill quite well.
  Lord Whitty: Let us go back to first principles. The right of access is to enable the people of this country to enjoy areas of the countryside which are currently closed to them. Most of those people, irrespective of whether they are ramblers or live in the countryside or town, work for five days a week. To extend the discretion to cover the weekends when the vast majority of people would utilise this right, without any check and without the authority of the countryside agencies, severely undermines a basic right.
  The 28 days provides some flexibility to landowners without having to go through the Countryside Agency. That does not alter the fact that people who want to organise shoots on a Saturday, those who, for conservation reasons, during lambing, or whatever, need to close on a weekend or series of weekends still have the ability to obtain the authority from the agencies in addition to those 28 days. We are talking here about virtually total discretion for the landowner without reference to anyone else. If shooting is carried out on a Saturday, the Countryside Agency will be able to be persuaded that that is a sensible reason for closing the land on that day or series of days. Indeed, as I have said before, once agreed, the restrictions on the right of access can apply over a period of time.
  Some of the amendments—this is certainly true of Amendment No. 237 and the subsequent ones—are a means of extending the 28 days. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was explicit about that, although the others dodged the point. They would extend the discretion of the landowner to close access land without reference to the countryside authorities. Land could be closed for the whole of August, when most people take their holiday, or for seven weekends across the summer, restricting access for people whose only time for walking is at weekends.
  Many of the points that have been raised can reasonably be met by landowners approaching the Countryside Agency to ensure that land management and access needs are appropriately balanced. If there is a need for weekend closure beyond the 28 days because of breeding, shooting or other land management purposes, the Countryside Agency will decide.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I find that quite worrying, because the Bill does not give the
  1752
  Countryside Agency much of a policy framework to determine when weekend closures are reasonable. No framework was laid down in the other place and nothing has been done here. It will be down to the whim of a local Countryside Agency officer to decide whether weekend closure is reasonable. That is unsatisfactory.
  Lord Whitty: But neither are there any criteria in the amendments on how the 28 days can be used or extended. The 28 days could be used by an irresponsible landowner to exclude access for the period when people are most likely to want it. Some of the amendments, including Amendment No. 237, would extend the 28-day period considerably, without setting out any criteria for when those 28 days plus however many weekends applied. That could greatly extend the time that parts of the countryside are closed to the public.
  As I pointed out earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, landowners also have the flexibility of applying one set of 28 days to part of their land and another set of 28 days to another part of their land. That also answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. A tenant's land could be closed for one set of 28 days and the rest of thefreeholder's land could be closed for a different 28 days. There is considerable flexibility in the Bill.
  Earl Peel: There may be considerable flexibility in the Bill, but, although the Minister tried to assure us earlier that the access authorities would be reasonable, there is no guarantee of how they will behave, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has pointed out. If the Minister wants to assure us that the access authority will be reasonable, why is he not prepared to be reasonable? It amounts to the same thing. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the amendments would save all the bureaucratic nonsense of the owner having to go through the system. The Minister is arguing against himself.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: The income gained from shooting in the uplands is incredibly important to the ability to manage the area properly and to conserve wildlife. Shooting cannot be planned very far in advance. Very often, whether shooting can take place is determined by the keeper walking the hill to see the lie of the land, what the weather is likely to be and how the birds are. It is often not possible to seek agreement about closures through the Countryside Agency even modestly far in advance. The Minister should give serious consideration to allocating at least some of the 28 days to Saturday closure.
  7.45 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: The Minister has criticised some of the amendments because they would extend the 28-day period. Does he accept that Amendment No. 248 would do no such thing? It would leave the number of days at 28, but would remove the bar on weekend closure. If the Minister is worried that some landowners might abuse the situation by closing for

  1753
  28 Saturdays during the holiday season or for the whole of August he should come back on Report with an amendment to limit the number of Saturdays or the number of days in August that can be taken as part of the 28 days allowed. Will he give serious consideration to that and come back with an amendment that deletes the wholesale ban on weekends but restricts abuses by those who cherrypick their days excessively?
  Lord Whitty: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked me to be reasonable. I think that I am being reasonable, but I am also trying to avoid bureaucracy. The 28-day provision was included to avoid having to go through bureaucracy and to give a basic right of discretion over land management. The provision is flexible, because different parcels of land can be dealt with separately. There are also clear provisions for how the Countryside Agency is to assess applications for closure. If it does not act reasonably, it will be inbreach of its duty and the landowner will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State.
  Amendment No. 237 is an attempt, for whatever motivation, to extend the 28-day period. I cannot consider any amendment that would do that. Landlords have other ways of excluding their land for particular purposes outwith those 28 days. That is why we have included the application provisions. Applications for shooting on a Saturday would undoubtedly meet the Countryside Agency's criteria for the use of the land and the need to close the land for safety and management reasons.
  Earl Peel: The Minister said "undoubtedly". Is he giving us a firm assurance that if somebody applies for an extension on the 28 days for Saturday shooting, they will definitely get it?
  Lord Whitty: I did not quite say that. Each case will be taken on its merits, but clearly the need for shooting for land management purposes and the safety implications of shooting when there is public access will be pretty strong grounds for the Countryside Agency to take into account.
  I take in part the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. There may be another way of looking at the issue, but putting restrictions on the way in which weekends can be used within the 28 days could make things even more complicated.
  Amendment No. 237 is certainly an attempt to extend the 28 days and I shall continue to resist it. I have not seen an amendment relating to weekends within the 28 days that would be sensible and workable. There may be such an amendment, but I have not seen it yet. I therefore continue to oppose the amendment before us. I shall take into account the views that have been expressed, but I hope that the amendment before us will be withdrawn. Having considered the views, I cannot give a commitment as to how far we would go because I believe that we could still end up with a completely unsatisfactory situation. Nevertheless, I hear the voices around the Chamber and will, without commitment, consider the matter further.
  Lord Glentoran: I am very disappointed with what I have heard. I am afraid that I shall change my attitude slightly with regard to this matter. I believe that the argument and the case put forward by the Minister are the first sign of real old-fashioned dogma. It is dogma that a Labour Government who are sensitive to the misuse of something such as this should believe that big landowners might do everything that they can to misuse their privilege. Yet the Government are willing to open up land to other groups of people, including the antis, to misuse the privilege of walking across the land and shooting grouse moors on Saturdays. That is dogma.
  The commonsense parts of the arguments that we have heard are still in place. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made two pleas about the value of shooting. She and others have made pleas about the need for conservation. It may interest the Committee to know that some places are sensitive conservation areas. For 52 days a year the RSPB closes everything to the public. It closes every Tuesday. I repeat: 52 days a year.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: Will the noble Lord give way? I may be wrong about the current practice of the RSPB but, certainly when I was its chief executive, if we were closing on 52 days of the year, I was uniquely unaware of the fact.
  Lord Glentoran: Minsmere closes every Tuesday for maintenance. It is also closed during its holiday periods. I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and for correcting me on that point. I should have been more precise. My own knowledge was weak.
  However, the point is made. I believe that the inability to close land over a block of time also presents a problem for conservation and farming. Under this proposal, if it is not possible to close on Saturdays and Sundays, there will never be a period of six or seven days when one can, by right, close one's land for a consecutive period. This regime allows only five days in a row on which to restrict access without going through the problems of bureaucracy.
  I put forward another small argument. Members of the Committee are well aware that a serious battle is taking place over country sports. One end of it is violent; another end is seriously and professionally orchestrated so far as concerns lobbying. By transferring to the local access authority the decision as to whether the land on which a person who shoots may or may not be closed on a Saturday or Sunday, one is also transferring the burden of resisting the lobby groups, both serious and violent—activists and those who have considerably more money than one could dream of to run heavily orchestrated lobbying.
  Perhaps I show a weakness, but I am nervous that the countryside agencies may give way to the lobbyists and the antis—occasionally a little, then a bit more. There may be sympathetic members within local access authorities. Having experienced violence from the antis myself, I believe that that is a serious risk. Such violence is not pleasant and it makes one wonder

  1755
  why sometimes one does not simply give in, particularly if one is elderly and weak. It is a very serious issue.
  I have made several points, as have many Members of the Committee. I make a final point relating to dogs. As the dog issue has not been settled, we must assume that dogs will be allowed to go free on any Saturday of the year on any area unless we go through a bureaucratic process and think a long way ahead—I do not know how many months. Then the arguments that I have been making about the antis, and so on, come into play. I believe that the present situation is intolerable. We shall return to this matter on Report and I hope that the Minister and the Government—
  Viscount Bledisloe: Before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do with his amendment, perhaps I may say that, far from being disappointed with the reply from the Minister, I am very disappointed with the ungrateful and intransigent attitude being taken by the noble Lord and the Conservative Front Bench. I believe that the Minister has gone some way towards recognising that there is a problem. I believe that we should gracefully give him an opportunity to consider the matter and to come back to us.
  Lord Glentoran: I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not like the tone of what I said. That is the direction in which I was heading. However, I have every intention of withdrawing the amendment and hope that the Government will return on Report with something with which we can all work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 238 to 241 not moved.]
  Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that that we do not continue with the Committee stage before 8.55 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Theatres
7.56 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report by Peter Boyden to the Arts Council on English regional producing theatres.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, British boxer, Audley Harrison, winning gold last weekend in the theatre of the Sydney Olympics, was moved to quote French dramatist, Pierre Corneille, in describing his victory:
"Triumph without hardship is not triumph at all".
At box offices up and down the land, the act of achieving "triumph through hardship" is experienced by the bands of the happy few who, with ever slenderer means, courageously bring live theatre nightly to our people. English regional-producing theatre is in a parlous financial state. Years of under-funding have led to the closure of houses at Ipswich, Greenwich and Leatherhead and cutbacks at renowned producing theatres, such as the Octagon at Bolton and the Sheffield Crucible.
Retrenchment in theatre has had a deleterious effect on the product itself. Conservative programmes, demoralised staff, restrictive rehearsal times and slashed casts have all taken their toll. For too long we have been cutting down the cherry orchard and, with it, the quality, breadth and reputation associated with English repertory theatre. It is time to bring down the curtain on such cultural suicide.
Theatre is the well-spring of some of our most important, job-creating industries. English tourism owes its pre-eminence to the arts in which live theatre has a pivotal and leading role. The big-bang industries of TV, film and entertainments depend on the actors apprenticed in England's local theatres. But for too long we have treated such theatres as the cheap end of the West End.
Recently I was reappointed as governor of The Gateway Theatre in Chester. I declare an interest. It is a fine playhouse which has struggled financially over the past 20 years, leading to its recent temporary closure. Revived and now producing theatre of the highest quality, it survives on a shoestring. Each night's performance is literally threatened with imminent darkness while we wait for the funds to replace a defective lighting system.
The Gateway's travails illustrate all too tellingly the benighted state of English theatre today as so graphically depicted in tonight's excellent and influential report, The Roles and Functions of the English Regional Reproducing Theatre. How grateful we are for Peter Boyden—at last "The Inspector Calls". Peter Boyden notes the underlying strength of our theatre. Like many of its contemporaries, The Gateway Theatre still produces quality under fire. Indeed, many of the eight challenges promulgated in the national policy of the Arts Council of England, published in July 2000, are already part of The Gateway's central philosophy and culture. Its education work in local schools and youth clubs, in collaboration with the South Cheshire Health Authority, dramatises for instance the problem of drugs for young people in a way that mere prescription and proscription cannot. Its recent production of the Polychronicon illustrating the fascinating story of Chester past and present, using professional actors alongside local school talent brilliantly achieves the ACE's goal of recreating local and regional distinctiveness. The theatre's imaginative collaboration with the BP/Amoco oil company has developed a mode of working way beyond static sponsorship.
In theatre-based business seminars a better understanding of their industry is inculcated in oil drillers, petrol station forecourt designers, oil-rig health and safety officers, through the parallel study of theatre and the jigsaw of tasks entailed in keeping the show on the road. Theatre as a paradigm of business! Like oil, drama has to be delivered on time, to schedule and at the right price. Business learns from theatre just as theatre learns from business. Theatre can illumine and explain other worlds—the police, the health service to name but two—to the mutual benefit of all. Even your Lordships' House is not unfamiliar with costume drama. Even the Arts Council imperative for theatre to develop a European arm to build an international reputation is not foreign to us in Chester where the last quinquennial production of the medievil cycle of mystery plays was leavened by a contingent of actors from deepest Lapland.
What of the Arts Council's exhortation to reach new audiences, especially for those for whom theatre is the place where the audience dress up more than the actors, and wholly to impress their peers.
I well remember my wife's account of taking her pupils from the local council house/state comprehensive to the Gateway Theatre downtown. For all, it was a crossing of a Berlin Wall of etiquette—"Miss", asked one of her pupils, "do we have to pass the chocolates down the row to all the other theatre goers?" was an excerpt from that particular comedy of manners. But for some, that night at the theatre stirred the imagination and led to the gateway of dreams.
How welcome, then, is Boyden! How timely the Government's response of £25 million of revenue funding to help theatres to produce and actors to act. The money from the alchemist—Gordon Brown—is just the fillip that repertory theatre across the land, experiencing the same privations as The Gateway at Chester, deserve and need. But the year 2003–2004 is a time away. I only hope that the Government's further generosity of an interim £12 million will fend off further closures.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister might comment on the allocation of the interim funding, on the criteria determining the distribution of the £25 million revenue monies and also on the definition of "theatre". Boyden, one will recall, confines himself to physical playhouses. Are all forms of producing theatre eligible for Boyden funding?
For those whose lives are enriched by a visit to the theatre, the 78 per cent overall increase in arts funding is a godsend—a deus ex machina—as unexpected as it is welcome. A tribute must be paid to the persuasive powers of Gerry Robinson and Chris Smith in achieving it.
Live theatre is a quality of life issue and a national responsibility, or, as Garcia Lorca puts it and as quoted in the preface to Boyden:
"An intelligent theatre can change the sensibility of the people; a disintegrated theatre, with clumsy hooves instead of wings, can cheapen and lull into sleep an entire nation".
The Government's acknowledgement of the importance of English regional producing theatre is a vote of confidence in a home bred industry.
Like Audley Harrison, England's theatres in the future will be able to punch above their weight and for the foreseeable future, for our repertory theatres, thankfully, there will be no more "Waiting for Godot".
8.5 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I have to start by thanking my noble friend, Lord Harrison, for introducing this short debate. I would like 'to congratulate him on a barnstorming performance. He may have missed his vocation. Certainly, the theatre can do with many advocates of his persuasiveness. I hope that we shall hear much more from him.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic, which is quite close to my heart. I declare an interest in this respect: I was consulted in my capacity as a then member of the Board of the Young Vic Theatre by the Boyden team. I would agree with my noble friend, Lord Harrison, that the Boyden Report is an excellent report about which a great deal can be said and has already been said by my noble friend.
In the limited time available I am going to concentrate on two issues to which the report draws attention—the role of regional theatre in the development of creative talent, to which my noble friend has alluded, and the importance to theatre of sustained core funding.
I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House the high regard in which British artists are held worldwide. This year two directors—Sam Mendes and Stephen Daldry—have become the latest to achieve major success in the notoriously difficult and unforgiving world of film. Both of them did their early work in regional theatre and so did the artistic directors of both our national theatre companies, Trevor Nunn and Adrian Noble, as did their predecessors. All these are artists of international standing.
Many of our finest actors obtained their grounding in regional theatre. Many writers in film and television, as well as in theatre, have emerged over the years through the opportunities provided by regional companies. As the Boyden Report states:
"Years of funding attrition have undoubtedly had a negative impact on the development of creative talent".
The report points to a long-term decline in the numbers of actors employed, in the number of commissions offered to writers, in the number of productions created, and therefore in the number of directors employed. Technical, managerial and production staff have traditionally learned their skills in the regional theatre. These opportunities too have declined and the work that is available is often low paid, with long hours and poor working conditions. The report goes on to say:
"There is a widening gap between the English Regional Producing Theatre's potential to act as a training ground for creative talent and craft skills and its capacity to do so. The knock-on effect will be felt across the creative industries which require a stream of writing, directing, designing and acting talent as well as of production and technical staff".

1759
As a long-time observer and employer of theatre professionals, I can say that this effect is already being felt. When I started my career, regional theatre was providing a huge range of opportunity for young practitioners to learn their craft. This is no longer the case. I intend no disrespect to anyone in noting how much we have lost. If we are to ensure that those who come after us can point with pride to the next Nunn or Mendes or Dench or Fiennes—major or minor—then we must reinvest now in the training grounds that they need.
How is this to be achieved? In his recent New Statesman arts lecture, the chairman of the Arts Council of England, Gerry Robinson, stressed three issues in the Arts that he believed required particular attention—education, core funding and theatre.
In emphasising the especially vital importance of sustained core funding, he pointed out that,
"fixed costs in arts organisations, because they are so labour-intensive, are high".
But provision of adequate core funding has, at least until recently, been a politically sensitive matter. Widespread misunderstanding, sometimes wilful, of the necessarily high costs to which Gerry Robinson referred, led to the accusations of inefficiency over staffing and waste which have bedevilled discussion of the arts for two decades. I can tell your Lordships, speaking from the war zone, that it is a relief to find an acknowledged expert in business saying unambiguously that he has looked closely at the arts world and found a sector with very little slack.
He rightly asserts that cutting back on core funding to arts organisations is counterproductive because fixed costs do not go away; what goes away is the art. Programming is always the first thing to suffer when the financial going gets tough. That is nowhere more evident than in our regional theatres, as Boyden has shown. They have been progressively starved of core funds for years.
But looking forward, there are reasons to be cheerful. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has finally succeeded, as my noble friend Lord Harrison pointed out, through the recent spending review, in doing what few of his predecessors ever achieved; that is, he has wrung a decent settlement for the arts out of the Treasury. I take this opportunity to congratulate him.
A significant sum within that settlement has been earmarked by the Arts Council for addressing the problems in theatre which Boyden has identified. Much can be done with what has been provided but the health and strength of theatre will be achieved only by sustained investment over a long period of time.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I must draw the House's attention to the fact that the limit for each speech is four minutes. The time is extremely limited in this debate and we really must stick to it.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, my last sentence. The Boyden report puts it thus:
"The prize is an integrated theatre working with renewed confidence to deliver to its full potential a range of important artistic, social and economic benefits".
I look forward to hearing my noble friend confirm, as I anticipate he will, the Government's view that that is a prize worth striving for.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Boyden report and the two fine supportive speeches we have already heard. My own interest is that in December I shall have the immense excitement of taking the chair at the Royal Shakespeare Company. I am fortunate that my deputy chair will be Lady Sainsbury of Turville who brings her ability and passionate commitment to our work.
The company is led with great flair by Adrian Noble and the current standing of our artistic work is splendidly high. While the Royal Shakespeare Company is a national company, its work, as Boyden recognised, is intertwined with that of the regional theatres. We tour widely, performing in some of the theatres mentioned in the report such as the Theatre Royal, Plymouth, and in Newcastle upon Tyne. Our small-scale tour takes both stage and auditorium to towns which, to adapt the old Heineken advertisement, other theatres do not reach. In the last years we have been from Penrith to Penzance, from Braintree to Brighton and from Sheffield to St Austell. We aim to perform, if possible, within 45 minutes of the homes of 80 per cent of the people of England and Wales. It is a touring programme without any parallel and a major contribution to the accessibility of theatre.
The contribution of the Royal Shakespeare Company to theatre is breathtaking. Between Stratford and London and our touring, we played last year to more than 1 million people. We give annually about 2,000 performances of about 30 plays in 50 venues. Some two-thirds of audiences see our plays outside London. Our national coverage is unrivalled. And thrillingly, 25 per cent of our audience are under 16.
Yet our Arts Council subsidy has, for too long, been considerably lower in absolute terms than that of the other fine national companies. So, by a long chalk, is our subsidy per customer, our subsidy per performance and, indeed, our cost per performance. We pay back to the Government in taxes 85 per cent of what we receive in subsidy. We contribute strongly to employment, particularly in the Midlands and in Stratford, a town of 25,000 people which has 3 million visitors per year.
We are passionate about touring but we cannot stretch ourselves ever more tightly. Gerry Robinson, the excellent chairman of the Arts Council, said in June, in his New Statesman lecture:
"With no increase in funding, the RSC would probably have to retrench to Stratford, reduce and, in time, withdraw from national touring. Further cuts would have to take place in its London work. Yet with a reasonable increase, it could turn a disaster into a triumph, consolidating its touring and residences work, reaching

1761
new audiences through new media and new technology, significantly enhancing its educational programme and ensuring that its work for the main stage continues to confirm its positioning as the great Shakespeare company of the world".
I ask the Minister: do the Government share that vision? Gerry Robinson is absolutely right. He highlights the fact that where excellence is delivered with efficiency, investment should be made.
We are currently engaged in a stabilisation exercise with the Arts Council. It is being conducted very constructively with full consultation. Out of it will come a formidable case for investment and it has been understood from the outset that that will mean appropriate increases in revenue funding.
I conclude within my timescale by asking the Minister whether we have full support for that programme and for the development of work with which I am quite thrilled to be in any way associated.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for giving us the opportunity to speak on this Question, even though he makes Roger Bannisters of us all.
This sprint through regional theatre seems a long way from the massed marathon forces that are currently deployed on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. But all is not as it seems. I speak of the right to roam in the imagination and of cultural health delivered with great skill and devotion in many theatres in the regions of this country night after night. I declare an interest. I am president of the National Campaign for the Arts.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Harrison about the deleterious state of the regional theatres at the moment but I am more stirred to optimism because of the work of Chris Smith and Gerry Robinson and impressed by what they have wrung out of the stony Treasury. But regional theatres are right to warn about surviving until that promised moneyed lifeboat arrives. Interim measures must be given priority or the lifeboat will arrive to find nothing but flotsam.
Nettles must be grasped. Subsidy is not a pension for life. Someone has to take the axe here so that the seedcorn can be planted there. Perhaps above all, for too long and unfairly, the regional theatre in particular has been kept in business only by the low wages paid to those who work in it. That must be changed.
Even now, there is not full recognition of the multiple benefits brought by the arts and perhaps by theatre in particular. Like sport, the arts have long ceased to be a hobby and now, as well as being art and as well as being a passion and a source of individual and communal regeneration, they are a skill-based economic locomotive of growing power. It is possible now to build a new environment, not around the arts but alongside the arts. Look at Leeds, Manchester, Colchester, Watford, Nottingham, Sheffield, Keswick, Ulverston. I could go on.
1762
But here, to welcome this report, I want to conclude by describing one regional theatre and what it does, which I think stands for the best of what regional theatre can do. That company is the Northern Stage. It recently adapted William Trevor's novella The Ballroom of Romance. That is set in a village in Ireland in the late 1950s. It has been transplanted to northern Britain.
What needs to be emphasised is that Northern Stage has used its dramatic resources, its plant—the Playhouse Theatre—its professional talents, its equipment and its energies to fuse together gainfully elements in that north-eastern society which could cohere in no other way. The company went out to six village halls in Northumbria and, with its musicians and actors, made an event which galvanised those places across the class and generational spectrum, bringing them into the adaptation of the piece and, at the end, the performance of the piece.
A regional culture is refreshed, examined, celebrated and linked to what can be seen at first as a most unlikely project. The living past of that rich part of our nation is uncovered. The town centre is financially enriched by the villages outside its walls.
Theatres everywhere in the region can deliver all of that and more, more than is dreamt of in our philosophy. This is only the beginning. The 21st century will turn what we now see as leisure into big and growing businesses. I welcome the report and trust it manages the tightrope walk from the still embattled present to the sunrise of a future well foretold by Boyden.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, it has always been my view that the arts are one of the primary things that make us human. Through drama we can explore and express our humanity. The best drama makes us think and feel differently about things. Since ancient times drama has been used by society to air the most contentious social, moral and political issues of the day. As such, drama is a valuable tool of communication within society and it is a way of enriching our lives. It should never be looked on purely as an economic activity.
My belief in that means that I welcome this report, the attention that the Government are belatedly paying to our regional producing theatres and the additional funds that are being allocated. It is surely the eleventh hour for some of them. For too tong we have taken for granted the devotion of people who work in the theatre. For too long we have underpaid and overworked them, made it difficult for their managers to plan properly and relied too much on the goodwill of local volunteers. For too long we have accepted that building-based theatre companies should struggle, often with a fabric that badly needs investment, to compete with exciting new arts venues and the burgeoning world of electronic entertainment.
However, the fact that many such theatres rely on local volunteers to help, particularly front-of-house, is good, because it is a clear illustration that the

1763
theatres are and must always be a focus of the local community. I have rarely felt such a strong sense of community as I did recently sitting in my local theatre, the excellent New Victoria, Newcastle. That little theatre serves Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke-on-Trent and the whole of North Staffordshire. It often has three plays in production at any one time. The ability to create new work and new productions of old work makes such theatres the life blood of British theatre, which is a very successful part of our national economy.
However, there is much more to it than that. If we stopped the creative process by forcing these local community theatres to perform only that which is considered "safe programming", we would cut off the life-saving drip from the veins of the bigger professional theatres which are so important for the tourism industry. Therefore, it is vital that those companies do not have to rely totally on box-office takings to survive. It is appropriate that they should be realistically subsidised—although I would rather call it investment—for the services that they render to society.
Regional producing theatres were, and still could be, micro-universities of theatrical skills. Not only the obvious performing skills, but also directing, writing, design, technical and production skills, front-of-house and financial management can be learned and developed there.
As to work in the community, recent cash from single regeneration budget bids, in co-operation with the local authorities, and Arts for Everyone grants have allowed the New Vic and others to undertake valuable work in the community and to demonstrate clearly the opportunity cost of failing to support them.
Such partnerships with local authorities are vital for the survival of those theatres. However, if the local authority does not see the need to support the arts, or is struggling financially, the theatres lose out. The Arts Council should be seeking to provide a buffer of core funding against that situation while, of course, encouraging such partnerships. At the same time, it is important that money allocated in that way is properly accountable to the local community for delivering its objectives.
Extra cash should not be seen as a subsidy but an investment. The benefits are clear and include jobs, training, tax-take, high quality, dynamic, relevant cultural experiences for our citizens and opportunities for young people, older people and unemployed people to volunteer. In my view, the key words are accountability and regionalism. If the structures put in place to deliver the national policy are not firmly underpinned by those two considerations, they will fail.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for drawing attention to this report. In discussing it I
1764
shall not attempt to compete with the vivid metaphors used already by several noble Lords. I want to highlight the need for strong strategies for education, particularly for young people in regional theatre and in any future national plan for the theatre.
As the report says in more than one place, theatre makes a contribution to the cultural wealth of the nation. I believe that young people should be engaged in that wealth from an early age, with schools, parents and the theatre itself encouraging that involvement.
There may be tension between live production and education programmes. Surely they must be complementary if young people are to be drawn into the theatre as writers, actors or on the technical side, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Indeed the Arts Council's response to the report suggests that the spend on education should be doubled.
Most theatres in the survey seemed to agree that being part of a wider community is important, not only in itself, but also in order to attract local funding. Thirty-four out of 47 respondents quoted in the report employed a full-time head of education, but resources are a problem. The report suggests that education programmes make up just under 4 per cent of expenditure, while production costs take up almost 43 per cent. We are back to the tension about where a theatre puts its emphasis and its money. I suggest that, without determination to attract young people as participants and as audiences, the theatre cannot flourish.
I quote the experience of an opera company as an example of that determination that is applicable to the arts in general. The programme brochure for Opera North, based in Leeds, has a section on education. It says:
"Providing access to opera goes beyond cheaper ticket prices: it involves the demystification of the art form itself and the encouragement to participate in the creation of truthful, contemporary responses".
That surely applies to all the arts. Opera North has worked in communities such as Bradford—in multicultural communities—producing opera that attracts young people.
In order to encourage the arts, the first thing to do is to attract interest. The sophistication and the finer points come later. Some young people will have access to the arts, some will discover an interest by accident but some will never, sadly, be touched. I am arguing for a deliberate policy which draws in young people and cultivates talent and accessibility.
Regional theatre is in a unique position to educate according to local needs. A good case must be made for strategic funding for education, particularly education to encourage the involvement of young people in the theatre.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for initiating this debate.

1765
I also want to associate myself with other noble Lords who have welcomed the Boyden report which is very instructive.
In the 1980s and 1990s I was chairman of the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester for 10 years. The Royal Exchange is one of the major regional producing theatres that puts on eight or nine productions a year. Despite being designated a centre of excellence by the Arts Council, its grant was cut, in real terms, almost every year by Conservative Governments that seemed to have little concern for the arts.
Therefore, I congratulate Chris Smith at the DCMS and Gerry Robinson at the Arts Council on allocating an increase of £25 million for regional theatre which is in a desperate state. The money is only just in the nick of time.
Both the Boyden report and the Arts council stress that money is not the only problem facing theatres. They say that,
"the theatres need to produce vision and talent".
That is undoubtedly true. The theatre audience is still mainly white, middle class and middle-aged. If it is to remain a relevant art form in the longer term, theatre must appeal to the young and to those who would not normally go to the theatre.
The Government are quite right to place great emphasis on education and access, but I make a plea to the DCMS and the Arts Council: in your understandable desire to further your policies, please avoid the temptation to lay down detailed plans and targets from the centre and do not make funding dependent on special schemes designed to achieve your aims. This has happened before and it is counterproductive. There have been many schemes-based funding initiatives coming from the centre and they have led to a mound of paperwork, additional administrative staff and a liberal use of consultants. Money has been spent on administration and not on what appears on the stage.
I say trust the artistic directors. By all means agree objectives with them; by all means evaluate their work each year; and by all means hold them accountable if they do not perform. But do not circumscribe them with detailed and aimless initiatives; people matter, not procedures. If we want excellence, we must give them adequate core funding and let them get on with the job. The Boyden report says of artistic directors,
"Without their passion and talent, our cultural world would be diminished, our communities less capable of self-expression and all our lives made smaller".
I congratulate again the DCMS and the Arts Council on making available additional funds. I hope they will now permit the theatres to use them in the most constructive and creative way and without undue direction from the centre.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I reiterate the thanks of others to the instigator of this debate. I must confess to being a complete theatre nut. My
1766
first memory of my parents taking me to a production in London in either 1947 or 1948 was of "Annie get your gun" where I believe, probably for the first and last time in British theatrical history, people came down the aisles throwing pound notes into the audience singing, "Money is the root of all evil".
I do not believe the theatre thinks that any more. The problem is rather different, as we have heard. As the excellent Boyden report so accurately says, the decline in local authority funding in particular, according to his statistics, has been dramatic. It is as well to remember that local authorities provide a great deal more support to theatres than do central government—between £300 million and £70 million.
I hope to spend a moment talking about what used to be "little theatres" and small and medium-sized theatres—others have referred to them. A week or so ago we had a debate on sport. It was interesting to hear the analogies between the dependence of national excellence in sport upon local amateur sports clubs and their vital contribution, as with small theatres, to issues of social exclusion, community vitality and so forth. It is also interesting that nearly half the speakers in tonight's debate spoke then.
To give a story from the front, I come from a little town in Suffolk called Sudbury. We must be one of the smallest towns in England that has sustained its own theatre for many years. That went into near liquidation last week—an administrator has been put in. It is worth saying—neither the Boyden report nor the Government's response to it adequately recognises this—that though a theatre may not be a producing theatre, it is nonetheless a crucial locus of local artistic awareness, effort and performance. The Sudbury Quay Theatre is no exception. Wirth a turnover of £250,000, the total support by the regional arts board is only 2.5 per cent of its budget. The total local authority and regional arts board support is a mere 16 per cent of its budget, which is only half the average for a producing theatre.
One of the problems is that local authorities and regional arts boards sometimes stand in opposition to each other. The regional arts board says it wants more high culture, more classical and innovative works, whereas the local authorities say that they do not want that high-falutin stuff. They want popular stuff. Somewhere in the middle the poor old theatres are trapped. Frankly, unless they can put enough "bums on seats" they will go out of existence altogether. It is no good expecting small theatres to produce Richard Condons or some of the other brilliant, innovative and highly talented theatre managers that fortunately we have got.
In Suffolk we saw the Wolsey Theatre, a purpose-built repertory theatre, close. In north Essex, the Colchester and Mercury Theatre nearly went under last year. Fortunately it has a bright young woman administrator, Dee Evans, who is now doing all the things that an effective administrator will do and it is on its way back. But I emphasise that local authority

1767
financing needs more attention. At the moment it is only a discretionary expenditure and I believe that that needs looking at. Perhaps, being a Liberal Democrat, I am suspicious of any mandatory requirements. However, perhaps one could have a central fund into which local government could dip for topping up finance, which would reward those who spent most and give incentives to local authorities to spend. And perhaps I can briefly mention the prospect of some form of hypothecation of local rates which might bring in more finance.
This has been a frustrating evening. The issue is so large and important. I am afraid I must conclude by simply saying—in this I agree with my noble friend Lady Walmsley—that it is not sufficient to look at theatre funding in the role of subsidy. As others have said, it is a crucial component of a massive industry. Tourism in this country depends more, I suspect, on the brilliance of British theatre than any other single attribute. When we look at the entertainment industry all in the round—music, arts, television—it comes back again and again to providing more resource.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Boyden report. Among the panoply of talent that has spoken tonight I very much see myself as the ordinary member of the audience but none the less someone who loves the theatre as much as anybody who may be present tonight. Our theatre is still amongst the best in the world and we should be grateful to all those who make it possible for us to enjoy it.
In July I tabled some Written Questions on the report and in one of his Answers the Minister said:
"We need to ensure that the range, viability, accessibility and excellence of theatre across the regions of England end up stronger as a result of this review".—[Official Report, 6/7/00; col. WA155.]
That is exactly the point. The question is: how does that happen? Over what period? And how will the Government measure success? They are very much a government into measuring things. For example, do they intend to apply the recommendations of the Quest Reports published earlier this month to the activities of the Arts Council? The reports I refer to are Creating e-Value, Developing Risk Management in DCMS Sponsored Bodies, A New Approach to Funding Agreements. I remind the Minister tonight, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, that there might be cause for him to be alarmed by Appendix K: Template for linking performance indicators to objectives.
Is the Minister aware that a recurring theme at the Equity conference earlier this year was the growth of bureaucracy in arts funding, not the way that people in the arts spend the money that they are given where there is little or no slack. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said earlier, at that conference speaker after speaker complained that an ever-decreasing
1768
percentage of government money for the arts was actually getting into productions and on to our stages. It was said that there was an overwhelming feeling that the roles of the Arts Council of England and of the original arts boards need to be rigorously clarified and assessed—something the Boyden report itself recommended.
Do the Government agree with Boyden's suggestion that the Arts Council of England should be limited to a strategic and focused policy development role delivered by a much smaller organisation than presently heretofore? Are the Government satisfied with the percentage of its budget that the Arts Council spends on its bureaucracy and with its performance? Do the Government agree with me that the Arts Council needs to acknowledge the importance of private investors such as Cameron Mackintosh, Natwest and Equity Partners—I hold no brief for any of those—and that the Arts Council needs to make more of an effort to establish a dialogue with business?
We are pressed for time tonight. We went a little over with two speakers so I am trying to cut down my contribution. When the Minister answered my Written Questions in July, he did so in his customary courteous fashion. The Answers were as full and fair as he could make them at that time. I look forward tonight to hearing his response as to how far Government policy has moved on since then to take account of the reactions to the report. And I very much look forward to hearing his response to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I am delighted that when he becomes chair the RSC will maintain its passion about touring. I am sure everybody delights in its work. I assure my noble friend that it does get to Woking too where I live. I hope the Minister can give my noble friend the commitment that he seeks.
8.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing the debate. I congratulate him on attracting a body of speakers who are extraordinarily expert, well informed and passionate about the subject. They are also skilled at staccato delivery. Making a four-minute speech is a fine art form; a parliamentary version of a haiku. But when it works it works well—and it has worked well tonight.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the arm's length principle and the way in which we deal with the Arts Council and those to whom it gives grants. We could be tempted into saying, "Yes, more money for the Chester Gateway; yes, more money for the Sheffield Crucible; no, no more money for that other one", but that would be generally agreed to be extremely dangerous. The Arts Council's responsibility is to decide national strategy together with the regional arts boards which have devolved funding responsibility. Ministers do not intervene.
The point about that is that the Boyden report was not to Ministers but to the Arts Council. However, we try to give a general steer and Chris Smith has

1769
been doing exactly that. As part of our funding agreement with the Arts Council, we have already agreed that priority will be given to try and resolve the problems of the regional producing theatres. Perhaps I may quote from Chris Smith's press release at the end of July. He stated:
"I have asked the Arts Council to give priority to two particular programmes of work within the new allocation. The first is to try and resolve once and for all the endemic problems of regional producing theatres up and down the country. In far too many of our towns and cities, theatres are struggling financially. Some are dark for long periods. Artistic excellence is threatened. Following on from the Boyden report, this settlement"—
which I shall explain in a moment—
"will enable these problems to be addressed".
He went on to say, as I am sure my noble friend Lady McIntosh is aware, that the second particular programme is the development of creative partnerships, bringing together the artistic and cultural organisations in an area to work in particular with schools. What my noble friend said about the educational role of the theatre is important.
Beyond those general directions within the funding agreement, we do not interfere with the allocation of money. Indeed, the detailed allocation by the Arts Council from the spending review 2000, which was announced in July, will not be announced until February next year.
I want to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who seems to believe that there is a particular problem of bureaucracy in the Arts Council. I believe that she should look at what has happened to the Arts Council since Gerry Robinson went there. There has been a significant reduction in the number of what she calls "bureaucrats". Of course there has been an increase in the regional arts boards but the thrust of the past two years has been the reduction of bureaucracy. I hope that when the noble Baroness looks at the figures she will accept that.
We must recognise that although many people regard the theatre in this country as the best in the world it has enormous difficulties. Everyone knows about the triumphs of the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre. We are pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh here, not to represent them but to present the case for them.
However, we recognise that the theatre is an art form in crisis. The overall situation has been of theatres surviving rather than thriving, as many speakers have made clear. Richard Eyre, in his LAMDA lecture, said:
"Established actors, writers, directors and designers continue to produce occasional stabs"—
"occasional stabs" is a threatening phrase—
"of thrilling theatre and are challenged by a new generation of actors/writers—Patrick Marber, Martin McDonagh and Jonathan Harvey, to name a few—and directors—Simon McBurney, Stephen Daldry, Nicholas Hytner, Deborah Warner, Declan Donellan, Sam Mendes, to name a few more".
But he added:
1770
"The body of British theatre is atrophying, largely, it might appear, through lack of consistent financial work, which has induced a lack of confidence and ambition, leading to poor work, which has been rewarded by poor audiences … No one—at least privately—believes that the current problems with the theatre are all due to lack of money, but everyone believes that they have been greatly aggravated by it".
Those views—both the praise and the criticism—are reflected in the Boyden report.
Boyden concluded that there had beer fewer performances, contributing to a reduction in audiences. There is less employment in the theatre, the average actor being employed in the theatre for only 11 weeks a year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, they are badly paid, particularly in the regional theatres. Boyden also concluded that there are smaller casts; shorter rehearsal periods; less new work being commissioned; a significant reduction in the number of tours; and an accumulated deficit of £4.4 million to the end of March 1999.
That is the basis on which we have been able to encourage the Arts Council to refine a national policy based on the wider theatre ecology. I want to say a little about how that has developed and is developing. In the Government's first spending review in 1998, we were able to start reversing the decline in real term spending on the arts. In July, the Secretary of State was able to do even better over the next three years. This year, arts funding stands at £238 million. In 2003–04, it will be £338 million. With that settlement, arts funding will have increased by 60 per cent in real terms in five years. That is an average annual growth of almost 5 per cent. That cannot be right; it does not make sense! I must think about that again. There are different figures from different phases and I guess that I have calculated some of them myself.
However, looking at the record of previous years, I am afraid it is true that during the period 1993–99 the national theatres had a standstill in cash terms and the regional theatres had an increase of only 10 per cent compared with a growth in the economy of 15 per cent. That is a significant decline.
With the additional funding that we have been able to announce for the period up to 2003–04, which by then will exactly match the figure that Gerry Robinson said was necessary in his excellent New Statesman lecture, it must be appreciated that we recognise the range of artistic activity flourishing in every region and every art form. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards have a challenging task in determining how best to support the many artists. However, the Secretary of State's announcement adds significantly to their ability to give that support and to enhance the nation's cultural life. It is fair to say that both Gerry Robinson and Peter Hewitt., chief executive, have recognised that.
The total spend on theatre by the Arts Council and the regional arts boards in 2000–01 will be approximately £70 million, including funding through the national touring programme, new audiences and other programmes. The Arts Council has already announced additional money for the

1771
theatre; honouring existing commitments in 2001–02; £12 million extra in 2002–03; and £25 million extra in 2003–04. As I said earlier, the allocation of that money will be announced in February next year. This is a collaboration which depends upon the theatre community coming up with imaginative programmes to revitalise the theatre. In many parts of the country it is dependent on local authority funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that private support is both necessary and very welcome.
I refer next to the thoughtful speech of my noble friend Lord Bernstein. There is a difficulty about how far we seek to intervene in the way that the money is spent. He made a plea against undue direction from the centre, with which I sympathise. At the same time, we must positively encourage the educational and outreach work of the theatre and its touring activities, particularly those of our national theatres. We must ensure that the policy of the Arts Council embraces the theatre as a whole: producing, receiving and touring. We do not look for change for change's sake. We are not just about doing more but doing it better, and sometimes differently, and spending the money in new ways. We believe that the regional arts boards, like local authorities, can play a major part in developing the regional context. It is important that, like the Boyden report, we address the failures of the regional theatre as well as applaud its successes.
As far as we know, theatre has been a living force in this country since the mystery plays of the Middle Ages. I am sure that it goes further back than that, although it has been lost. Even now with so much electronic entertainment, theatre has a power which comes from creating a shared live experience that can move, surprise and engage us in a way that a screen or radio can never do. I shall not say that in a television debate.
Stephen Daldry said in a recent interview:
"Finding truth in the theatre is not enough. The actor also has to find that truth repeatedly, night after night, in front of very different audiences … which is why the theatre will always be a more dangerous medium. It's not just the excitement that the audience knows things can go wrong, it is also the knowledge that the moment witnessed is unique, never to be seen by anyone else".
The Government genuinely recognise the excitement and difference of the theatre, including the regional producing theatre. I hope that I have shown how much we care.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.52 to 8.55 p.m.]

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 21.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 13, line 3, leave out from ("land") to end of line 4.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 242, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 246. These two amendments seek clarification as to which interests will be able to make discretionary closures. Clause 21 provides for restrictions on access, or the closure of access land, at the discretion of the owner and,
"any other person having an interest in the land and falling within a prescribed description".
It is not clear to me why the clause provides that interests other than the owner must be prescribed. Clause 41 provides a clear definition of an interest in land:
"'interest', in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of the ownership of an estate or interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, and in particular includes right of common and sporting rights, and references to a person interested in land shall be construed accordingly".
Many of those listed in this definition could quite legitimately have reasons for wanting to restrict or exclude access. For example, a shooting tenant might seek restrictions during a shoot or when undertaking moor-burning; commoners and grazing licensees might wish to restrict access at various times. A sports club with an agreement with the owner might wish to restrict access during an event—for example, hang-gliding, fell running, orienteering or motorcycling. All those interests, as well as the owner and any agricultural tenant, should be able to make use of the discretionary powers under Clause 21.
The provision to prescribe other interests suggests that the Government wish to limit the range of interests able to make discretionary closures. If that is the intention, the Government should make it clear and set out their arguments.
The amendment would remove the reference to prescription, thereby giving any interested parties in access land the ability to close land or to restrict access at their discretion. The ability of all interested parties to have access to these provisions is important if their legitimate interests are to be fully safeguarded. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have already debated the discretion available to the owner of the land under Clause 21 to close or otherwise restrict access to it on up to 28 days in each year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the amendment would make it possible for anyone with any interest in the land to use all or some part of the period allowed for the discretionary closure of the land. In effect, that would mean that the freeholder, the tenant, a grazing licensee, the holder of a sporting lease and each commoner would have the right to close the land. That would be a recipe for complete confusion.

1773
We have therefore provided for the discretion to be vested under the Bill solely in the owner or farm tenant, but for the Secretary of State to have powers to divide up some of the 28 days' discretion among other persons with an interest in the land. For example, the regulations could allow, say, 14 days to be reallocated from the owner to the sporting tenant.
We recognise that the vesting of the entitlement to the discretion in the owner is not a perfect solution. But there is no perfect solution. In general, we expect that the landowner, or the farm tenant, if there is one, will be the person who has most interest in securing the closure of the land, or restrictions on access to it, for the purposes of day-to-day land management reasons.
There will be nothing to stop the owner using some or all of his discretionary 28 days in favour of someone else with an interest in the land. Indeed, in due course, it may be that leases will make specific provision for one party to apply all or part of the discretion on behalf of the other party.
We recognise that there will be cases where someone with an interest in the land is unable to persuade the owner to close the land on his behalf, perhaps because some or all of the discretionary 28 days have already been committed to some other purpose, or because the two parties simply do not get on. We are certainly ready to look at the scope for using the regulation-making power in Clause 21 to vest some of the 28 days in other identifiable interests. But any such regulations would bring both benefits for some and disadvantages for others. We would therefore wish to consult extensively before making any such provision.
It is important to remember that, even where an interested party has no entitlement to the 28 days and cannot win over the owner's co-operation, he will still be entitled to apply to the relevant authority for a direction for the purposes of land management, public safety or the prevention of fire. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this will ensure that the requirements of all persons with an interest in the land to restrict or exclude access can be achieved regardless of the vesting of the discretionary days.
Amendment No. 246 would seek to make it a requirement that regulations are made under Clause 21(3)(b). We believe that the provision in the Bill that regulations may be made is right. I have already explained that we do not have a closed mind on this issue. The Government will continue to listen carefully to those who will be most directly involved in managing access. We want to be clear about the merits of apportioning the 28 discretionary days between people with different interests in the land before deciding whether such apportionment is sensible and workable.
The Bill allows us the flexibility to make that decision in the light of views and experience. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response. The Government are well aware of the sensitivities and difficulties in organizing
1774
these days. The Minister pointed out that it was possible for the land manager to reallocate some of the days—for example, to a shooting licensee. She said — I hope I have this right—that it is not a perfect solution. I am grateful to her for stating that the Government understand that there is a problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 13, line 6, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("ninety").
The noble Lord said: I want to assure the Minister that I listened when he said that the 28 days are sacrosanct. The question of splitting up the 28 clays across an estate seems to be something of a compromise. I should like to ask him one or two questions. They concern how the situation applies to high land. Much of the access land will he high land. Sheep in the highlands are likely to be more nervous than those further down. Lambing is likely to take longer. Lambs are more liable to be disturbed by people, particularly people with dogs. Further down, when lambs arrive and people are around, the ewes are not too upset. High land is very significant.
It is not very satisfactory to have a blanket 28 days which applies to all the access land. I appreciate that the Minister will not agree to 90 days. Why did the Government arrive at 28 days; why not 27 days or, indeed, 29 days? Some criteria must have been used to arrive at that figure. Was it a percentage of the amount of land that was thought to be suitable for this application? I shall be interested to hear the answer to that question. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: I had originally thought that 28 days was far too little, although I recognise that 90 days is a rather optimistic period for extension. However, I have been very much encouraged by what the Minister said. He accepted that normally it would be appropriate for further closure time to be given where, for example, birds were hatching on grouse moors or lambing was in progress. If I am right in understanding him to that extent—that the 28-day period is meant to be the basic minimum and that proper land management, husbandry and so on are accepted as good grounds for extending that period—my concerns about the 28 days will be considerably diminished.
Lord Whitty: I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Luke, recognised that he might be pushing his luck slightly on the 90 days. The noble Viscount may also be slightly pushing his luck in terms of his interpretation of what I said earlier. For all the reasons he outlined, and many others as well, the 28-day period can be extended by application to the Countryside Agency. That consent would not be unreasonably withheld, taking all factors into account. What is more difficult is to say that the 28 days could be systematically extended. It would have to be on a case-by-case basis on the grounds of a particular activity—for land management, conservation or safety reasons. That would be by application to the agency.

1775
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked me why we had decided on 28 days. It seemed to be a reasonable balance between the original approach, under which there was no discretionary power, and a position where excessive discretion could lead, in effect, to the land being closed for the periods when people would be most likely to visit it. Twenty-eight days has quite a history in certain legislation, but it is a different 28 days from that set out in planning legislation and so forth. It is a reasonable length of time to give people more or less absolute discretion for land management purposes and with the right to extend that, or to have days outside of that period, for particular purposes.
The noble Lord asked about sheep on the hillside as compared with sheep further down. I am not entirely sure that I can give a straightforward answer to that question. An application for additional days over and above the 28 days, which may include weekends within the 28 days, for lambing purposes would have to be considered by the Countryside Agency in relation to the difficulties which access by people, particularly people with dogs, might cause during that period. It may be that a different case could be made for the highlands. I am not sure that I would wish to commit the Countryside Agency to take that view. Nevertheless, the case could be made. In addition, as I said in relation to the previous debate, there is the flexibility of different parts of land being subject to different 28-day periods. That could not be used unreasonably so that all access was blocked for successive periods down the most accessible route. Nevertheless, a good degree of flexibility is involved there.
I think the noble Lord recognises that it would be unwise to press the 90-day period. I hope that I have at least made an attempt to answer his questions.
Earl Peel: Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we refer to the high ground rather than the highlands. Otherwise people may think that we are moving into territory over which we have no legislative jurisdiction.
I wonder whether the Minister can help me. To what extent could any request for an extension over and above the 28 days be compromised by how the 28 days was or had been used? For example, let us suppose that a landowner or shooting tenant submitted a request to the access authority for further closure days for shooting purposes because he had used up his 28 days to safeguard his nesting birds from, say, 15th May through to the middle of June. Could the access authority respond to that request by saying, "Well, we don't really approve of the way you've used your 28 days and therefore we shall decline your request for further days"?. That is quite an important point.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I may put a related question to the Minister that looks at this matter from another angle. Could one apply for a special extension period before the permitted 28 days had all been used? For example, could one say, "I have a large number of nesting birds. Give me a closure order for them. I'll
1776
keep the 28 days for use later in the year". Can that be done, or can one apply for special extension days only after the 28 days have been used?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: In both those cases, the Countryside Agency may well respond to a request for extra days for shooting by asking why they cannot be accommodated within the 28 days. It is reasonable for the Countryside Agency, where it does not receive a reasonable response, to refuse the application.
As regards the timing, the request does not necessarily have to be sequential, but the Countryside Agency might well pose one or two questions to the applicant. The provisions of Clause 22 set out the detail of how the 28 days are to be used. For that reason, in response to the noble Viscount, the application does not have to be sequential; it can be made at any time.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: If a landowner does not agree with the response to his application, does he have any right of appeal? Can he appeal to a higher authority?
Lord Whitty: Yes, on the matter of restrictions, one may appeal to the Secretary of State.
Lord Luke: I thank the Minister for that interesting reply, which was what I expected to hear. We are probing this whole area and I hope that there may be a possibility of a little more give and take. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 244 to 255 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I have given notice of my intention to speak to whether Clause 21 should stand part of the Bill for the following rather gloomy reasons.
I do not believe that the closure process—of exclusion and restriction—over a portion of access land will work. It is important that we do not legislate in an impractical way. The issues are as follows. First, how will notification ever be effective and complete? Secondly, what will happen if a closure is violated? Thirdly, what will happen if a commercial activity taking place on a closed day is disrupted? I shall go through each of those questions in slightly more detail.
I foresee considerable difficulties in notifying all access users that access to a particular piece of land has been suspended. Some will not know and some, I fear, will not care. Their presence on the temporarily closed access land would lead to the second issue. If a closure day is violated, can the land manager claim another day in lieu? Violation could disrupt a legitimate business activity, such as the sale of a shooting day. As regards the third issue, will compensation be payable for such disrupted days, some of which would positively harm the rural economy?

1777
So far the Bill is silent on these issues, which are the product of this clause. My point is that the clause will cause more heartbreak and stress than may be worthwhile.
I should briefly like to take the opportunity to raise one more related problem; namely, that of unwitnessed damage. The Minister rightly reminded the Committee that witnessed damage could lead to criminal proceedings being brought under existing legislation. But the nature of this beast is that damage is rarely witnessed. How will compensation be made, or will it fall on the land manager's head? At present, the Bill makes no provision for this, so it would appear to fall on the manager. However, my main concern is about the disrupted days. How will the land manager achieve a day in lieu of a disrupted day?
Lord Whitty: I am not entirely clear what the noble Earl means by "disrupted day". Clearly, if someone enters land which is normally access land but has a restriction on it which allows a closure, he or she becomes a trespasser on that day and the law of trespass applies. If they cause criminal damage, then the law of criminal damage applies. That is what happens to either a single person or a group of people.
If the noble Earl is envisaging a situation where a shoot, for example, was disrupted in the sense that it was not possible for the shoot to proceed and therefore a day's shooting was lost, clearly that is a good argument for the land manager or landowner to talk to the Countryside Agency and say, "Can I have another day because this is what happened to one of my 28 days?"
It would not be granted automatically; it would have to be shown that there had been disruption—and "disruption" would mean a loss of the total activity, or something like it, rather than the fact that there was a single trespasser or a few trespassers on the land that day.
Lord Glentoran: What would the Minister expect the response time to be in such a situation?
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is entitled to ask me that question, but I cannot give him a straight answer. All applications would be dealt with as speedily as possible and would be subject to the same requirements on the Countryside Agency. I assume that if it were a day of shooting one would need at least a week before one could organise a substitute day.
I should make it clear that in relation to actual disruption or damage, the law of aggravated trespass would be available in addition to the normal powers over a trespasser.
I shall need time to interpret the latest piece of information that has been passed to me. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his opposition to Clause 21.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to probe further. I think the Committee now understands that there may be a good case in the event of a disrupted commercial day. I also have in mind a situation where
1778
perhaps the land manager wants to have a picnic in solitude, which means that anyone on the skyline is disrupting that picnic in solitude. What would happen in that situation?
Lord Whitty: The land manager would clearly be entitled to approach the Countryside Agency—although if I were the Countryside Agency I would not entertain that one for very long. But I would not like to pre-empt its decision.
I failed to respond to the other point made by the noble Earl in terms of notification. Some of this falls within the general discussion about notification and the issue of closures or temporary closures—ad hoc closures, if you like. We have discussed the arrangements that the Countryside Agency hopes to put in place to inform people of restrictions and closures. Clearly, a temporary closure for a few days or a day would need to be communicated as effectively as possible. As mentioned in an earlier debate, there may well be a role for wardens in this respect as well.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Land management]:
[Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 13, line 28, after ("management") insert ("or use").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments again refers to permitted closures, but it seeks to make the Bill a little less precise—a change from my tack until now, I confess. It concerns the words "use" and "management". I think that the noble Lord will have little trouble with it.
Defining land management to include "use" would ensure that closures and restrictions could be provided in relation to activities that took place on access land but did not in themselves involve the management of it—for example, shooting, hang-gliding, fell races. It would put beyond doubt the issue of whether shooting per se, as contrasted with heather-burning, pest control or bracken-spraying, amounts to "management". In everyday language, shooting would probably not be considered land management. It might be, if it is undertaken for pest control; it might not. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, catches my eye, prompting me that it could possibly be management.
On Report in another place, Mr Meacher stated that shooting itself was a form of land management. He said:
"our attitude involves giving land management a pretty wide meaning. We do not consider it sensible to provide an exhaustive list of definitions. Such a list would certainly include agricultural and forestry activities as well as shooting—I am happy to place that on record—but defining land management in the way proposed by amendment No. 98 risks excluding activities that should fall within the scope of the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/00; col. 889.]
While that assurance goes some way to easing the concerns over shooting on access land, it falls far short of the Government's initial determination that extending access should not interfere unduly with other legitimate activities. It also does not consider

1779
that owners or occupiers may have personal or social reasons—I am looking at the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—for excluding the public on certain occasions.
Under the current provisions it will be impossible to close land at weekends for any reason under the discretionary system. Closures at weekends can, therefore, only arise through permission, and only for land management reasons. Commercial enterprises that may be undertaken on access land, such as paintballing or tank driving, would be visitor based and probably more dependent on weekend use than weekdays, and would generate revenue. If these types of enterprises do not fall under the definition of "land management", they will be unable to gain permission to close on the days when it is essential for their economic viability.
Defining "land management" to include "use" would also remove uncertainty as to whether access land could be closed for such uses as hang-gliding, motorcycling events, paintballing and fell running (God forbid!), which take place either regularly under agreement or on an occasional basis.
I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 260, 261, 262 and 265 in this grouping. Amendment No. 260 relates to Clause 22 and reads as follows:
"Page 13, line 28, after ("land") insert ", or for the conservation of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features,").
The amendment would permit closures for the conservation of the land as well as for its management.
There is currently no formal right of application in the Bill for owners or occupiers to seek closures or restrictions on conservation grounds. Some conservation bodies may own access land—for example, the RSPB, wildlife trusts, the National Trust—and other private owners may also wish to secure closures or restrictions for the purposes of protecting wildlife. While they may be able to request closures, the lack of a formal right to apply means that there is no corresponding appeal against a refusal to grant an application made under these conditions.
The effect of these provisions is that the case for closures on conservation grounds is given less overall weight than the case for closures for land management in Clause 22; or, indeed, for fire or safety, as set out in Clause 23. This lack of balance should be corrected. The Game Conservancy Trust is also concerned about the issue. It is important that owners should be able to apply for conservation closures; for example, for pest control or conservation purposes.
The amendment would widen the definition of land management under Clause 22 to include closures to conserve important features of the land. The right of application for occupiers to close on nature conservation grounds would then be accompanied by a right to appeal under the provisions relating to the land management closures in Clause 28. If there was a separate right to apply for conservation closures outside Clause 22, it would need a separate right of appeal. Sweeping it up under the existing appeal
1780
provision by widening the scope of the existing right of application under Clause 22 represents, we suggest, the best way forward.
However, it may be argued that, although there is no formal right of application for closures on conservation grounds, owners are able at any time to ask the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, or NPAs to exercise their power under Clause 24 to make a direction to close or restrict access. But there is no guarantee that any such request will be properly considered, let alone granted, especially if it comes from an individual owner, as opposed to a wildlife trust. Conservation objectives risk being frustrated if there is no formal right of application for closures or restrictions on conservation grounds. Extending Clause 22 to cover conservation, as well as land management, would provide the necessary right of application to ensure that proper weight is given to conservation objectives on access land.
The Government's original consultation paper stated that,
"owners and occupiers may have personal or social reasons for excluding the public on certain occasions".
With discretionary closures only allowing for 28-day closures and restrictions, excluding weekends, and "land management" being narrowly defined, how will an occupier be able to protect his land, on conservation grounds, from possible damage by the public? So we have broadened the concept of management to include "use" and we now have reference to "conservation".
I turn to Amendment No. 261. Clause 22 needs to provide a more detailed definition of "land management" for the purposes of permitted closures. It is important that the Government make clear what grounds for closures they view as being legitimate. Landowners and managers need to be certain that any enabling powers will be adequate to cover their legitimate needs. I am confident that the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the national parks agencies will consider seriously their requests for such closures and that they will respond positively to them. Such closures may need to be granted for single days while a specific activity like shooting is under way. They may also be required for groups of several days at a time, such as during military training exercises; and, indeed, they may be required for longer periods where there is a risk to animal or plant health. They may also be required for specific reasons—for example, during the bird nesting season—or all the year round in respect of particularly dangerous land.
The current provision also fails to take into consideration any other use of land for which it would be appropriate to close for a period longer than 28 days. I have in mind activities like hang-gliding, fell races, and so on. Various sports may well have a licence agreement with the owner, in addition to other activities, that the Government may not have considered. Land should be able to be closed by agreement for reasons that are not directly linked to what is normally perceived as land management.
There is no definition of land management. Although the Government have confirmed that shooting would be a legitimate ground for closure, this is not specifically included in the Bill, nor are other land management procedures on access land—for example, the burning of heather, grazing of livestock or pest control. Further clarification is required. There is no advantage in defining what land management means in great detail whether by an inclusive or exclusive list. Flexibility should be retained given the great variation in present (and likely future) forms of land management on the land affected. This amendment aims to accomplish that.
I turn to Amendment No. 262 in this lengthy group. Amendment No. 262 concerns a possible definition of the management of land. Amendment No. 262 reads:
"Page 13, line 36, at end insert—
For the purposes of this section, the management of land shall include heather burning, shooting of pest and game, gamekeeping practices and bracken spraying".
The term "management of the land" in Clause 22 is too vague and imprecise. Whereas it may well be considered that prudent land management includes the activities mentioned in the amendment on the ground that they fall within the term I have mentioned, the matter needs spelling out.
We need to consider who will interpret the measure. Heather burning is a part of prudent land management. It is essential in the interests of nature conservation, as are the shooting of pests and game and gamekeeping practices. The bracken fern is a weed whose range extends world wide. It is difficult to control. I know that from first-hand experience as I have spent too much money trying to kill it. It spreads by underground rhizomes and by spores in the wind. It is estimated to occupy between 1.3 and 2.8 per cent of the land surface of the United Kingdom and has the potential to expand by 1 per cent to 3 per cent per annum.
Whereas it is acknowledged that bracken has some advantages in terms of landscape and wildlife protection—I refer to fritillary butterflies, butterfly orchids and cover for birds such as pipits, nightjars, whinchats, redstarts and some warblers—it has many disadvantages. In large masses it reduces visual diversity, harbours flies and is a fire risk. It is a cause of disease, ticks and flystrike. It is carcinogenic and is a serious cause of disease in cattle and sheep, including blindness, carcinomas, louping, tick-borne fever, lyme disease and skin rash. I have too many acres of it and have spent much time killing it. That is a worthwhile occupation but it is necessary to keep people off the land while one is doing that.
Amendment No. 265 reads:
"Page 14, line 5, at end insert—
In this section 'purposes of land management' and 'purposes of the management of the land' include—"
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Most Members of the Committee are at least semi-literate and are probably
1782
capable of reading the amendments in the Marshalled List without the noble Lord's assistance in reading out every one of his amendments.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Viscount for his comments. I shall attempt to speak a little more briefly, if that is required. I trust that the Committee is following the amendments line by line. Therefore I shall not read out Amendment No. 265.
Amendment No. 265 concerns land management. The provisions of the Bill are imprecise and vague. The amendment sets out what activities should be included for the purposes of land management. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: Amendment No. 261 contains a credible list of land management activities. But surely grazing is a normal activity on much land and could hardly be called a land management exercise.
Lord Glentoran: Did the noble Baroness refer to grazing?
Baroness Nicol: I do not take grazing to be the kind of abnormal exercise which would require a day for extra management.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask a question on paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 265. I do not think that I am deviating; I want clarification. What relationship will the Countryside Agency have with MAFF, for instance over a stewardship scheme? Will there be conflict over the control of invasive plants? As regards the way herbicides are used, might there be a muddle, with different messages?
The Earl of Caithness: I speak to Amendment No. 264 in this group. It addresses the same problem as that addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: to find some suitable definition of land management. It is nice to see that the noble Lord the Chief Whip is in the Chamber. He has a great deal of experience on the agricultural side of land management. I am sure that he has come specifically to hear this debate, as he will doubtless have sympathy with my noble friend and me in trying to define this subject.
I am attacking this definition from two angles: first, from the point of view of those who have to make the Bill work; and, secondly, to try to stop a lot of stupid and fruitless applications going forward, thus saving time. As drafted, the Bill does not define land management. I have attempted a limited but not exclusive definition of what it might include. It is now recognised, and the Government have said, that shooting can clearly be within the list of activities which could be classed as for land management purposes. It would be impossible, I believe, to have a definitive list. However, I believe that we should give the managers of land and the appropriate authorities a more workable definition than the words in the Bill at present.

1783
I have attempted to do so. I have included in my definition,
"conservation, maintenance or enhancement of the land".
I am sure there can be no difference between the Government and ourselves on that issue. I have also added the words,
"in pursuit of the economic interests of any person with an interest in the land".
We are almost at the stage of overlooking the economic interest of those who have an interest in the land. There is more to managing land than just agriculture and forestry. Those noble Lords who have read the debate in Committee in another place will note that there were discussions on such matters as festivals, concerts and events where fees were charged for entrance. With rural diversification, we need to look at this aspect. Land is being increasingly managed in other ways. If farming continues down its present course, land will have to be managed in a different way. People will have to use land for other purposes. Closure orders may be necessary in order to allow that diversity and for the countryside to be preserved. That is why I have included it within my definition.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, got to the heart of the issue when he said that there is no statutory definition of land management in the Bill. If I may say so, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, attempt to increase the precision of the Bill rather than to reduce it.
We have considered carefully whether we need the statutory definition of land management in Clause 22. We have come to the conclusion that leaving the definition open will enable the bodies making the decisions about restrictions of access and exclusions—the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the national parks authorities—to do so on the basis of the information before them without being constrained by a statutory definition of the activities and purposes that land management may cover.
In another place, Chris Mullin said that we wanted Clause 22 to be interpreted as flexibly as is necessary. If we define in the Bill the activities that might be included as land management, as the amendments would, we might prevent the decision-making bodies from approving a restriction for an activity that did not fall squarely within the statutory definition, despite the body being of the opinion that the restriction was justified.
It is for the countryside bodies in the first instance to indicate the criteria for land management restrictions. They will draw up draft guidance. I know that they will wish to consult widely, including with the relevant national access forum. We expect them to adopt criteria that fully protect the legitimate interests of the owners, occupiers and managers of land. I expect their interpretation to include provision for any of the activities listed in Amendment No. 265 if directions can be justified on a case by case basis.
1784
I cannot resist drawing attention to the wording of Amendment No. 265, even though the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did not read it out. My favourite paragraph is (g), which says:
"use of the land for other lawful activities (whether or not of a commercial nature)".
That covers use of the land for anything whatsoever. It reminds me of my favourite song about drinking. I am not going to sing it, but the poem goes:

"If all be true that I do think,

There are five reasons we should drink;

Good wine—a friend—or being dry—

Or lest we should be by and by—

Or any other reason why".

The amendment is equivalent to "any other reason why".
We firmly believe that few activities will conflict with the new right of access. Listening to the comments of some noble Lords during some of our debates—although not necessarily on these amendments—you would imagine that the farming of and walking on open country were mutually incompatible. We do not subscribe to that view and we are not prepared to allow directions under Clause 22 to be used as a mechanism for excluding access to land on the flimsiest of pretexts. We do not expect that there will be widespread applications for additional restrictions on enclosures. Shooting is one example for which closure of the land would be likely to be necessary, but other activities might require only restrictions to the right of access, such as a requirement to keep to paths or to keep dogs on leads or to ban them altogether.
Clause 22 provides for the decision-making body to approve the minimum restriction necessary for the activity to take place, in order that the relevant countryside authorities may enable full use of the right of access consistent with the legitimate needs of land management, conservation and public safety.
Amendment No. 258 would allow a direction to be made on the grounds of land management and use. It is intended to clarify that directions may be made to restrict access while activities take place on the land that are perceived to fall outside traditional land management, such as shooting or motor trials. We are happy to confirm that, as was said in another place, in this context "land management" has a wide application, embracing not only agriculture, but other activities on the land that intrinsically require the use of the land to be managed, including sporting and connected activities, as well as commercial activities, such as the use of the land for motor sports. The amendment is not needed, because its purpose has already been achieved in the Bill.
Amendment No. 260 would allow for directions under Clause 22 to be made in the interests of conservation of wildlife. Directions on the grounds of nature conservation are dealt with under Clause 24 and do not need to be repeated here.
Amendments Nos. 261 and 262, taken together, would make it clear that "land management" was intended to include various moorland, sporting and traditional land management activities, together with

1785
recreational and other activities taking place with the agreement of the owner. As I said when I was talking about Amendment No. 258, the use made of land may entail a perfectly valid form of land management and therefore no further clarification would be required. Certainly, activities such as shoots and pest control could well justify applications for directions.
On the question of pest control, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I am confident that the Countryside Agency will wish to consult MAFF on the need for restrictions to allow landowners to address animal and plant health problems. Any closure of land under the plant and animal health Acts will take precedence over the right of access. I believe that that is the assurance that the noble Baroness required.
Finally, Amendment No. 264, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, goes slightly further than Amendments Nos. 261 and 262 and embraces the,
"pursuit of the economic interests of any person with an interest in the land".
We certainly believe that the right of access should not interfere with the proper economic interests of landowners; nor, indeed, do we expect that it will. We consider that the clause as drafted allows for that.
I am happy to assure all Members of the Committee who tabled the amendments that land management will cover less traditional forms of activity such as car rallies, pop festivals and war games as well as farming and shooting. That may be unwelcome to some Members. However, that is certainly the way we view the matter and we do not intend to have any restrictive definition of land management. We fear that the amendments would be restrictive in a way that I do not believe their proposers would wish.
Lord Rotherwick: I wonder why the Government want to go down that route. They say clearly that they are prepared to accept certain land management techniques. They talk of shooting and other activities, but I do not understand why they cannot be more specific now by saying which management techniques they accept. I do not understand why the Government are not prepared to do that but are prepared for the Countryside Agency to do so. That gives land managers a certain amount of uneasiness. It would be better if the Government could go that bit further to give them comfort. I believe that everyone would be much happier if that could be done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that if I were a landowner, which I certainly am not, I should take much comfort from knowing that the definition of land management was being provided by the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales or the national park authority on the basis of the information before them and that it was not being distorted by a statutory definition imposed in October 2000 which might be different in future years. I am afraid that the problem is that any list of activities in any of the amendments, except, of course, the catch-all
1786
phrase at the end of Amendment No. 265, tends to imply the exclusion of those which are not listed. That is a well known principle in law and in legislation.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for what he has said. It has relieved some of my concerns. I believe that there was common ground between us in much of what he said, particularly at the beginning. I was trying to get away from the idea that someone with an interest in land can go to the appropriate authority with a flimsy reason. I was trying to be helpful to the appropriate authority. My amendment is not restrictive. It merely includes certain types of work but is not exclusive. In fact, it allows people to go further than that. However, it gives some guidance as to the ambit both to the appropriate authority and to the land manager.
I should like to go away and read what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I believe that he may have met most of my concerns but probably not all, and I reserve the right to come back at a later stage.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for his usual clear explanations and, in particular, for his anecdotal piece about Amendment No. 265. I felt that Amendment No. 258 was the all-emcompassing amendment that could have been of some use.
I hear what the noble Lord has said. The debate has been very useful and worth while. The fact that the noble Lord has said what he has said, and it is in Hansard for future reference, probably would suffice to reassure certainly me and others who may be concerned about this definition of management. I also understand that to some extent where the legal process is concerned it is sometimes better not to be too precise and to leave some flexibility. We will have another look at it, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259 to 265 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Avoidance of risk of fire or of danger to the public]
[Amendment No. 266 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 267
Page 14, line 9, leave out ("by reason of any exceptional conditions of weather,").
The noble Lord said: Clause 23 currently provides that weather conditions alone, and exceptional weather conditions at that, which would be difficult to define, are to be used to determine whether or not land should be closed for the purposes of fire prevention.
We feel that this is inadequate. The condition of the land is also a highly relevant factor when considering the need for closures to avoid risk of fire. The amendment would remove the reference to weather conditions so that closure could be considered on any grounds where fire risk had to be avoided.
I think that I can be brief because it is fairly self-explanatory but it is clearly a very serious possibility. We would like to feel that this amendment was acceptable to the noble Baroness and the Government on the basis of the fire risk. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I would very much like to support this amendment. I accept that at first glance it may appear somewhat pedantic. I think that my noble friend has drawn attention to a very serious matter because, as he quite rightly says, it is not the weather as such, it is the condition of the ground that should determine what decisions are made and what closure orders should be imposed if necessary.
I can envisage a situation where—although I accept that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said yesterday, in North Yorkshire the weather has not been very good recently—there have been two or three weeks of intense heat and the heather is extremely dry and could be a fire risk. One may then have a week of rain and everybody thinks that the situation has redeemed itself. With one or two more days of sunshine, particularly on heathland as opposed to blanket bog, one could be very quickly back into the same situation again. It is the condition of the ground rather than the weather that counts. I need hardly remind your Lordships about the dangers of fire, both from a public sector and environmental point of view. Fires, particularly summer fires, can do immense environmental damage. I can bring a number to mind. There was a particularly bad one in 1976 on Rosedale on the North Yorkshire Moors and that ground has not recovered to this day. It has had quite a serious impact on that environment, with obvious effects on the bird species which use that part of the moor.
Therefore, this is a serious amendment. I do not suggest that the other amendments are not important, but this is of particular importance. As I said, it may look unimportant and appear to be pedantic but it is not. I hope very much that the Minister will take it extremely seriously.
10 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I invite the Government to look carefully at the wording of the current Bill. The phrase "exceptional conditions of weather" is quite difficult to interpret. So, irrespective of the argument as to whether it is the condition of the land or the weather, the Bill, as drafted, seems to be capable of causing some difficulty for the authorities who would have to take these decisions. Perhaps the wording could be looked at.
The Earl of Caithness: I must confess that I had not taken on board quite the relevance of this matter until this debate. When I listened to what my noble friend Lord Peel said, my mind went back to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as a result of which closure orders could be made to prevent shooting when land is under certain conditions.
1788
In particular, I remember there being a prevention order made—and I think it was under that legislation, although I stand to be corrected because I am speaking entirely from memory—against shooting snipe. Although the weather at the time was absolutely fine, the previous weather conditions had been such that it was deemed wrong, because there had been so many hard frosts, to continue shooting. However, by the time the order was made, the weather had changed but the relevance was in relation to the ground conditions. It is in that regard that I support my noble friend Lord Peel. That is so particularly in relation to heather and moors because any Members of the Committee who have been involved in fighting a fire on a moor will know what a horrible and dangerous experience that can be. It takes more than a week of rain to soak a moor which has dried out.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to have another look at the wording of this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: At this time of night, it becomes difficult for all of us to concentrate. But my attention has been caught by various noble Lords referring to the very hot weather that occurs in Yorkshire, on the other side of the Pennines. I think I shall travel to Yorkshire more often!
Clause 23 allows the relevant authorities to make directions excluding or restricting public access in the interests of fire prevention by reason of exceptional weather conditions.
This amendment would remove the reference to exceptional weather as a precondition, so that closures could be considered on any grounds where fire risk needs to be minimised. We do not think that it is likely that conditions of high fire risk will occur independently of exceptional weather conditions. I have listened very carefully to the points made by Members of the Committee during this short debate.
We believe that the circumstances which have been outlined, where there has been a long period of dry weather followed by a short period of rain, would be covered by the Bill with the wording proposed because, even if the conditions no longer prevailed in terms of the immediate weather, the preceding weather conditions would have been exceptional. Therefore, the preceding weather conditions could be the reason for acting. The relevant authority would be able to make a direction in those circumstances.
It may be that there are other circumstances where there is a possible fire risk which has not arisen due to exceptional conditions of weather; for example, some types of vegetative cover may be flammable even in an ordinary summer. We do not believe that such circumstances are exceptional and, therefore, we do not believe that they are caused by unusual weather conditions. They are part of the fabric of the open countryside. We are not satisfied that they give sufficient reasons to restrict access to the land.
If we were to allow restrictions to be placed on public access in ordinary circumstances such as I have just described, that could mean that many parts of the countryside would be closed to the public throughout

1789
the summer months every year—the very time when such places are most popular. However, I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and other noble Lords that, where the fire risk arises as a result of something done on the land and would constitute a danger to the public, a direction may be made under Clause 23(1)(b). It is also possible that, in some circumstances where there is a risk of fire, a direction for nature conservation reasons may be made under Clause 24 on the advice of English Nature.
I hope that the reply that I have given has been detailed enough to give the reassurance that noble Lords have sought without denying access to the open countryside in many parts of the country in a way which, were we to go too far in the other direction, would deny access almost completely in the summer.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I had hoped that she would take this amendment away for consideration, but she led us on to Clause 24, and nature conservation. Such closure orders may be needed quickly. Can she reassure the Committee on the speed with which such decisions will be made? If there is a threat to nature conservation or a sudden hot spell, which Yorkshire has at regular intervals, the fire risk increases and action needs to be taken quickly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Subject to confirmation of what I am about to say, I am certain that, within its terms of reference, English Nature would react with great speed in circumstances where there was the kind of risk to which the noble Earl has referred.
Lord Greaves: Would the Minister consider whether the word "exceptional" should be in this part of the Bill? I do not believe, for example, that the Meteorological Office would want to use a loose word like "exceptional" to describe weather. It talks about events that may occur once in five years or once in 50 years. Whether a particular weather condition is exceptional or not is a matter of opinion. What the weather is at a particular time is a matter of fact. It may help if the Government consider removing the word "exceptional", which at best is redundant and at worse inaccurate.
Lord Williamson of Horton: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in a sense is making the same point as I did. I am not necessarily in favour of removing a reference to the weather, as is proposed in the amendment, but the phrase "exceptional conditions of weather" will cause difficulties for the authority that has to take the decision. It is quite possible to have a continuously hot summer. So far in this debate we have talked only of Yorkshire, but there are other parts of the country where we have hot summers—they will get hotter too. There can be a hot summer, which is safe from the point of view of fire risk for a large number of months, but perhaps by September the situation may be sufficiently dangerous to make it necessary to have a
1790
closure. I do not like the phrase "exceptional conditions of weather". It could just be the cumulative effect of normal weather.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Come back Michael Fish! There is a difficulty in the points being raised by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Williamson of Horton. If we were to remove the reference to "exceptional weather", the converse situation could be applied; that is, the normal pattern of weather in summer could be used as a reason for closing large areas of the countryside for long periods.
Lord Greaves: But then we come back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; that is, that it is a combination of the weather and its effect on the land that is important. Whatever the weather conditions, even if there had been a long hot summer, they may not have affected a specific moor very much and so the provision would not apply. It is the combination of the weather and the condition of the land that must be taken into consideration and the most important factor must be the condition of the land.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but I have a concern that the solution he seeks to put forward could be used as a means of ensuring that public access is restricted in many areas for long periods of time.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, whether I am prepared to reconsider the arguments put forward and see if they can be applied without denying people access to land for long periods of time in conditions that are normal for the vegetation in a specific part of the country. I do not want to mislead Members of the Committee by implying that we will come back and change the wording. However, everybody appears to seek the same objective. But there is a difference of opinion on how to achieve it without, on the one hand, reducing access too much and, on the other, still responding to exceptional circumstances.
Emergencies can be quickly dealt with under Clause 29. I promise to look carefully at all the arguments, without implying that the Government will definitely come back with an alternative.
Earl Peel: The noble Baroness implied that if the words were changed in the Bill to meet this amendment, it could result in large areas of land being closed for long periods of time, which I understand would be unacceptable. But the Government have constantly told us throughout the passage of this Bill, "Do not worry, the Countryside Agency will be reasonable and look after your interests". Now that the boot is on the other foot, does not that reasonableness apply just as well?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Of course. That is why I undertook to consider carefully the points that have been raised. Where there is a risk of fire and the

1791
need for a direction for reasons of nature conservation, that can be made speedily under Clause 24. I feel the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suspects me of a sleight of hand in my language. But I do not wish the situation to arise where, when we come back on Report, the noble Earl accuses me of bad faith because the Government considered the points carefully but remained of the opinion that the original wording was the best to achieve the objectives that we all want.
Earl Peel: I should never dream of accusing the Minister of bad faith and certainly I was not doing so in this case. But having heard the argument used constantly, "Do not worry, the Countryside Agency will look after your interests", I thought in this case it could be turned to our advantage. However, the noble Baroness does not accept my argument on that.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: That has been a useful and valuable debate and I thank the Minister for her encouragement. The weather is subjective but the ground—what is growing or is dead on it and the type of terrain—is more relevant. I am sure that the Minister knows, but it might be worth recording, that the Peak District National Park Authority has a sophisticated system using the Meteorological Office and computers to assess fire risk. Considering all the work that will be done, the time is coming to make our fire prevention a little more sophisticated than relying on the weather.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord raised the issue of the Peak District National Park Authority which, I understand, considers a range of criteria in deciding whether to use its powers of closure under the National Park and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 on access agreement land. The authority's powers under the 1949 Act are based on a similar form of words to those which appear in the Bill and we are not aware of any representations that those powers have been found wanting.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 14, line 13, after ("anything") insert ("being").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to keep Clause 23 in the present as opposed to the past or in the future. The clause deals with things done or proposed to be done. Most people would understand that to refer to the past and the future. Therefore, the drafting opens up the possibility of saying that because something was done in the past the land should be restricted or closed. I refer, for example, to Ministry of Defence land which, once it has been taken out of use and made reasonably safe, need not continue to be closed. However, the provision could apply to all kinds
1792
of situations so the amendment suggests the wording "being" done, because that work would be a danger to the public. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne: Normally I follow the noble Baroness because she is the sole of clarity, but on this occasion I am slightly mystified. Is it not possible that something in the past tense might be a good reason for not allowing people on to the land? Let us suppose, for example, that for good reason the soil had been fumigated. It might then be most undesirable to give people access over it. Does she intend that people cannot be restricted from access in such circumstances?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: When tabling the amendment I was more concerned that the Bill appeared to preclude many things which were "being" done. They are not mentioned. It is possible that the noble Earl is correct and perhaps I should have drafted an amendment which read "being done or proposed to be done". However, I believe that the exclusion of the present tense is dangerous.
Baroness Byford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 269 and 272 in the group. I shall be brief. The first amendment refers to the "conditions prevailing" as well as to the operations taking place or proposed. Clause 23(1)(a) refers to the weather conditions and paragraph (b) refers to "anything done, or proposed to be done". That does not cover the spread of bracken, which I have referred to, or to a plague of rabbits or other vermin. The amendment provides reference to "conditions prevailing" in order to cover those points.
Amendment No. 272, inserting the words "an indefinite period", provides for exclusion or restriction for an indefinite period. It is not possible to quantify the likely period of closure for such things as weather conditions. The amendment provides that closure or restriction may be for an indefinite period.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 23(1)(b) enables the relevant authority to exclude or restrict access to land to protect the public from any danger by reason of anything done, or proposed to be done, on the land. The expression "anything done" in this provision refers to things done in the past, while "proposed to be done" looks to the future.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would remove scope for directions to be imposed with respect to manmade hazards which already exist on the land but where there is no continuing activity. It would mean, for example, that directions could not be made if necessary to exclude access to land with disused mine shafts or a quarry which still constituted a danger.
There is no significance in the absence of an explicit reference to the present tense. As drafted, the Bill will cover things that are past, present and to come. In terms of legislation, "done" can mean "to be done", "having been done", "to be done" or "being done

1793
now". I hope that, at the very least, the noble Earl accepts that I have made the noble Baroness sound clearer in comparison.
Where land containing such hazards is open country we believe it is important that there should be discretion for the relevant authority to be able to exclude or restrict access to the land if it believes it necessary to avoid danger to the public. Of course, we do not believe that directions would be commonly required: in most cases, it would be reasonable for the public to take suitable precautions for their own safety.
Amendment No. 269 adds that directions may be made under Clause 23(1)(b) by reason of "conditions prevailing" on the land. I must inform the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that that is a very general and vague amendment. The Bill already provides that directions under Clause 23 may be made because of danger to the public by virtue of something done on the land. We do not believe that it is necessary to go even wider than that. The amendment might allow directions to be made because, for example, rain had made the ground a little slippery, or there was deep snow on a fell top. Those are not the kinds of reasons for which land should be closed. Instead, we have repeatedly made clear that users must take responsibility for their own safety in respect of such natural hazards. The Bill already provides that landowners owe no liability to walkers arising from any natural features of the landscape.
We believe that Clause 23(1)(b) provides sufficient flexibility to address the need to close land because of any man-made hazards and see no reason to provide for a mechanism to restrict access in consequence of natural hazards, which are part and parcel of the experience of walking in the countryside.
Amendment No. 272 would enable directions under Clause 23 to be made for an indefinite period. We have provided that such directions must be for a specified period, which reflects the circumstances in which directions under Clause 23 are likely to be needed. Where a closure is needed because of fire risk caused by exceptional weather there will be no need for closures to be indefinite. Similarly, if anything done on the land is likely to pose a danger to the public generally there will be a need to restrict access for only a limited period of time. If there are more long-term dangers, such as unprotected mine shafts, restrictions may be directed for a longer specified period, such as five or 10 years, and renewed if the direction remains necessary on its expiry.
I hope that I have covered the points raised by both noble Baronesses and, for the reasons given, ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: On the first day in Committee some noble Lords referred to their Latin teachers. I believe that my teacher would have been very upset to hear that a past tense could apply to the present. If, however, that is what legal jargon does in Bills 1 accept the assurances of the noble Baroness and seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1794
[Amendments Nos. 269 to 275 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Nature conservation and heritage preservation]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 15, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) the purpose of protecting any dry stone wall;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 276 extends Clause 24 of the Bill to cover certain matters that we consider to be of particular value. I refer to stone walls and water. Amendment No. 276 refers to stone walls and Amendment No. 277 refers to water. The Bill makes provision in the clause for excluding or restricting access land in the interests of wildlife and habitat conservation or to protect sites of historical or archaeological importance. Dry stone walls are a feature of historical and archaeological importance across the country, as is water which falls and collects over and above ground and on which much of our landscape and wildlife relies.
The amendments are designed to protect those features. There are areas that I personally know of where there are dry stone walls. They are beautiful. In the mountains of Mourne there has been a government scheme to encourage people to rebuild their dry stone walls. The effect of that is fantastic. The walls need to be protected. Noble Lords will know that if a person attempts to climb a dry stone wall, unless there are stones specifically placed, which there are by the shepherds and the sheep carers, it will fall down. It is as basic as that. They are solid to weather. They are solid to most animals but not to the two-legged ones. It does not apply in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales there must be areas where there are particularly precious areas of dry stone walling which are hundreds of years old.
Water probably speaks for itself. Most of our water from reservoirs and so on ends up in someone's tummy sooner or later. Any form of water pollution or damaging of the water seams and springs where the water comes from is serious. I do not suppose there are many areas where the issue is particularly sensitive, but there must be some. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I should like to defend Clause 24 against all comers. Clause 24 is the nature conservation clause in the Bill. It is specifically constructed to give a clear role to the advisory bodies if exclusions and restrictions are to be enforced. Muddying the water quality—if noble Lords will pardon the pun on water quality—may not he in the best interests of clarity in this case.
In Clause 2(1)(a) stone walls get their place in the sun on the face of the Bill. Clause 2(1)(a) specifically states that access is only permitted if a person does not break or damage any boundary area. I assume that stone walls are boundaries. Stone walls have had their go. Clause 24 is the opportunity for nature conservation to have its go. I have failed to think of an example of a restriction or an exclusion on behalf of water quality. Therefore, I feel justified in saying that

1795
Clause 24 ought to remain as it is, focusing on exclusions and restrictions for nature conservation and heritage.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I was working out whether to speak on this clause or the next clause. What I should like to say is not directly related to dry stone walls—much as I love and live among them—and is not directly related to the amendments. It relates to the clause.
As the noble Baroness has just said, this is an important clause so far as concerns nature conservation and protecting wildlife in access areas. I should like to speak from the point of view of climbers. I do not disagree with the clause and would not wish it to be tampered with. I stand firm with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on that. At the moment voluntary restrictions are agreed by climbers—no one else is mad enough to scale rock faces. Where those voluntary restrictions relating to climbers are working, they should not be pushed aside by blanket and more bureaucratic statutory restrictions. I shall explain why.
By their very nature, such statutory restrictions, directions, and so on, are relatively blunt instruments. Perhaps I may tell the Committee what happens at present. Restrictions on climbing where birds are nesting are negotiated in detail—usually each year—by local representatives of the British Mountaineering Council and the RSPB. They are negotiated piece of rock by piece of rock, year by year, so that the restrictions are put on when they are necessary and removed when they are not necessary.
I shall give some examples. There is a crag in the Lake District where the restriction was provisionally put on in the spring of this year in case the peregrines nested there. However, the option was left open to lift the restriction. I believe that was done because the peregrines decided not to nest there this year. On a long stretch of limestone coastline in south Pembrokeshire the restrictions are put on year by year. It is done literally route by route, climb by climb. One can climb on one part of the cliff up to a certain point; one cannot climb on the rest until perhaps the end of July. That kind of flexibility can be achieved only by voluntary restriction. By its very nature, it would not lend itself to statutory restrictions. Plastic markers are put on the cliffs showing where one can climb and there is a good deal of publicity about it. The point is that it works. If it did not work, I would not be arguing for it.
I hope that the provisions of the Bill will not disrupt arrangements which work and work with the consent of climbers. They are enforced by peer pressure as much as anything else. Climbers know that if they climb on routes where there is a bird ban—for a certain month in any year—they put at risk the opportunity to climb on that cliff. Statutory restrictions would no doubt enforce such a ban, but the present system works by the consent of individual climbers, who are a very anarchic lot. They obey the restrictions because it is in everyone's interest to do so. The great worry is
1796
that if blanket bans are imposed, including bans on routes where they are not necessary, climbers will say, "The ban is nonsense", and then start to flout the bans. Then the whole voluntary system, which covers large areas of the country, works very well indeed by agreement and consent, and has the support of climbers, the RSPB and conservation interests, will break down.
I make those comments about the way in which the legislation should operate. I do not in any way suggest that the legislation should not be passed in its present form.
Lord Whitty: I endorse the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. This clause is pre-eminently concerned with nature conservation. For that reason I believe that it should stand part of the Bill and other considerations are not relevant here. However, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that—although his remarks are not directly related and he commented that he did want the clause to stand part of the Bill—I see no reason why the restrictions imposed under the Bill should cut across or be more onerous than any voluntary arrangements currently in place. Clause 24(2)(c) allows for restrictions to be imposed only when required, for example, when a rare bird is present.
So far as concerns the detail of the two amendments, dry stone walls are covered in part elsewhere, as was pointed out by my noble friend. As the clause mainly concerns conservation, the protection of the environment and wildlife, were a walker to cause damage to a wall or to pollute a water course, he or she would clearly be guilty of a criminal offence on the one hand and would lose the right of access on the other. That is already covered in the Bill.
Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of many cases where the presence of walkers on the land as such would threaten water quality or cause pollution to drinking water. Even in remote areas, it is rare for water from springs to be used directly as drinking water. Even in those cases, the Bill provides that the right of open-air recreation does not include a right to bathe. Being in the water is not covered by the right of access.
Similarly should any particular problems he encountered as regards water sources, we would consider introducing by-laws. That is an area where that course would be appropriate. Nevertheless, the Bill provides additional safeguards. Clause 24 already provides for the protection of structures of historic or traditional interest. Dry stone walls may well fall into that category. Clause 24(3)(b) also refers to heritage protection, which would include traditional features.
The protection of water supplies could fall within the existing nature conservation purposes set out in the clause. Any person with an interest in the land who believes that there is a risk of damage to dry stone walls or deterioration of water quality as a result of access because of special problems in the area, should be able to seek restrictions by means of directions under Clause 22. It would also be open to him to address any

1797
problems by appropriate management measures, such as the creation of new means of access which reduce the need for walkers to cross walls in order to gain access to the land.
For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. It is best to keep Clause 24 related firmly to nature conservation and heritage preservation and not, as my noble friend said, to muddy the waters with additional factors that are adequately covered elsewhere. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am quite comfortably reassured that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, commented, dry stone walls will fare well out in the sun and that water will be cared for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved]
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Selborne: On the question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, perhaps I may seek an assurance from the Minister. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Young, extol the clause as an important one and I agree with her. However, I wanted to ensure that we all agree that it will achieve as much as we hope.
The kernel of the clause lies in subsection (3)(a) which spells out that,
"the purpose of conserving flora and fauna or geological or physiographical features of the land in question".
The concern caused by unlimited access to sensitive areas is often due to the fear of erosion to the site. Over-use of tracks leads to erosion and to soil movement of landscape features, which are clearly undesirable.
This is not covered by conserving flora and fauna, that is for sure. I am not even sure it is covered by the word "geological". After all, it takes an awful lot to threaten the geology of anything if all one is doing is moving the particles. It may well be covered by the words "physiographical features of the land". That is what I seek the Minister's assurance about. I suspect that words like "topography" or even "geomorphology" may be more appropriate in order to deal with what is clearly by far the largest concern about access—that is, the effect of unbridled access channelled into sensitive areas, causing the erosion with which we are all familiar, particularly in the uplands. Perhaps the Minister can assure me that those areas suffering from erosion will be covered by subsection (3)(a).
Lord Whitty: Where erosion through excessive numbers causes damage to the land or to the access itself, it could fall within the clause, depending on the topography, under the reference to physiographical.
1798
If it is causing a problem for land management—shifting soil and so on—it could come under Clause 22, the land management clause. So it is covered eit her way.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Directions by relevant authority: general]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
("(1A) In giving, revoking or varying any direction under section 22, 23 or 24, the relevant authority shall take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features of the land thereby affected.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which seeks to spread the protection mantel. New Section 28E of the 1981 Act, inserted by Schedule 8 at page 95 of the Bill, provides that the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the national park authorities and local authorities have a new duty in exercising any of their functions to "take reasonable steps" to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. The Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and national park authorities will need to apply this duty in giving, revoking or varying any directions regarding closure or restrictions made in relation to access land which is also notified as an SSSI.
While welcome, this provision should be extended to all access land, much of which, although not notified as an SSSI, may also be of considerable ecological quality. The amendment would accordingly extend this duty to all access land. I am sure that we can all think of many small areas of land which are particularly special, whether it be for various lichens on the rocks, rare wild orchids growing in remote places or other precious things which need protection. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My noble friend's amendment raises an interesting question which I should like to put to the Minister. Before I do so, it would probably help the Committee if I now make a few points in relation to Amendment No. 304, which stands in my name, and not speak to that amendment later.
The question I put to the Minister is this. As my noble friend said, when the access authority gives, revokes or varies any direction under Clauses 22, 23 and 24 in relation to a site of special scientific interest, will the authority be bound by the duty under Part III of the Bill in relation specifically to new Section 28E, which is an amendment to the 1981 Act; and will that require the access authority to take reasonable steps consistent with its functions to further the enhancement of SSSIs? I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to consider that relationship, but it poses an interesting question. It would go some way towards appeasing the difficulties that I have with the Bill in regard to what [ have referred to previously as the precautionary principle.
What has constantly concerned me is the question of precedent, and whether access will take precedence over conservation. On a number of occasions I have asked the Minister whether he is satisfied that

1799
sufficient research has been done on the correlation between access and ground-nesting birds. To date, the noble Lord has not given me a satisfactory answer.
That leads to another basic question. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is in her place. I shall be extremely interested to hear her opinion on this. Are the Government satisfied that the Countryside Agency has a sufficient conservation brief in relation to the many aspects of the Bill with which it will ultimately be dealing?
I recall a conference that I attended some time ago, at which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was present (not president!). There was indeed a representative there from the Countryside Agency. The question was put to him whether it was felt that the agency had a conservation brief. The response that we received was a rather surprising one. He implied that the answer was no. That set alarm bells ringing. When I thought of the enormous responsibilities that have been given to the agency under the Bill, and given the enormous impact that so much of the Bill is likely to have on conservation, I began to wonder.
My question is twofold. First, will the Minister comment on the relationship between new Section 28E relating to Part III and the access provisions in Part I? Again, I return to the question: is the precautionary principle, or even the Sandford principle, which goes back to 1974, to prevail in conditions where a conflict is likely to exist?
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wonder if I can help the Committee on this point. In these circumstances it is not only a question of belt-and-braces; we also have our trousers held up by a piece of string!
Clause 25, in terms of revocations, requires the relevant authorities to ask the advice of the people of whom they asked advice originally when they put in place the restriction or exclusion. So I believe that there is protection from any change in the provisions in terms of not taking advice from nature conservation organisations.
The second point—the "braces" element of the safeguards—is the one made by the noble Earl in relation to Part III of the Bill and Section 28E authorities. The relevant authorities are indeed Section 28E authorities, and they will have responsibilities under Part III to ensure that nature conservation is taken account of. That is the belt-and-braces part.
But there is also, as I said, a piece of string. I am delighted to announce for about the 14th time that both English Nature and the Countryside Agency have made a formal agreement, which we signed on 10th July—in rather bizarre circumstances. It was supposed to be signed with much resplendent photography and press attention on the top of a hill somewhere in Hampshire. Unfortunately, I got stuck for four hours on a train that broke down, so we signed it by mobile phone! Nevertheless, it is now a formal document between English Nature and the
1800
Countryside Agency. They have agreed to adopt what is called the "Sandford principle", which says that where nature conservation and access are compatible, provisions will exist to support both concepts. But where there is conflict and nature conservation and access cannot be reconciled, English Nature and the Countryside Agency have jointly agreed that nature conservation will prevail. That is now enshrined in our compact, which was signed by way of the wonders of modern technology. I hope that all three of those provisions will mean that we are unlikely to to go too far astray in this area.
Lord Whitty: I do not think that I can add much to what my noble friend said in relation to the requirements on conservation and the co-operation between English Nature and the Countryside Agency as regards the powers under new Section 28E to the 1981 Act, which refer back to the exercise of powers under this clause. I am grateful to my noble friend. At least I was, until she started her attack on the British transport system.
More generally, noble Lords may not be aware that, when exercising any functions relating to land, public bodies already have an existing duty under Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. This specifically includes the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured in that respect. In addition, there are the powers on SSSIs which are given new weight in Part III of this Bill and to which the new arrangement between the Countryside Agency and English Nature applies, as explained by my noble friend Lady Young. So the safeguards are in place.
As regards any serious threat to wildlife outside SSSIs, I believe that there will be relatively few sensitive areas; indeed, most of those sensitive areas will almost certainly be within SSSIs. In any case, we have given the widest powers to relevant authorities to enable them to make directions under Clause 14 to exclude or restrict access specifically for the purposes of nature conservation. Therefore, we believe that a further measure along the lines suggested is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
Lord Glentoran: Again, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her reassurances. Indeed, to hear them from someone with all the knowledge and authority that she has encourages me to believe that we are fairly safe, pretty safe, or even very safe—
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I could suggest an amendment here: we are quite safe.
Lord Glentoran: I shall accept the noble Baroness's suggestion that we are "quite safe" in this area.
When moving my amendment, I was also concerned about those areas outside SSSIs. It has crossed my mind from time to time—as is the case with

1801
others—that, as we go through this Bill and things start to happen, there will be a considerable concentration of effort and resources on SSSIs and, to some extent, on AONBs. That is where the larger numbers of people will roam; indeed, the through-put of human beings will be greatest in those areas that are well advertised and promoted.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many very special little areas with special attractions that will not form part of SSSIs because they are part of private land and have been nurtured and looked after for many years. I am encouraged by what the Minister said about such areas; namely, that there are provisions within the Bill which will afford them some protection. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Defence or national security]:
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—

("(6) If in any calendar year the Secretary of State reviews a defence direction, he shall—

(a) prepare a report on all reviews of defence directions which he has undertaken during that year, and

(b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.

(7) In subsection (6) "defence direction" means a direction given under this section for the purposes of defence.").

The noble Lord said: During discussion of this Bill in another place my honourable friend Chris Mullin agreed to consider an amendment tabled by David Heath, the Liberal Democrat Member for Somerton and Frome. We very much agree with the reason for that amendment; namely, that there should be effective scrutiny of directions for long-term closures or restrictions on defence grounds.
My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment made clear in another place that the Government would consider the most appropriate way to meet the concerns raised. We concluded that we needed the amendment which I now move. The amendment will require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on all reviews of defence directions under Clause 26 which have been undertaken in a given year. I believe that the amendment demonstrates that the Government are willing to listen to genuine points of concern and can provide a means of reconciling the demand for greater public access with the need not to compromise vital defence interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for clarifying government Amendment No. 280. I read with interest the debate in another place but I was somewhat unclear about its outcome. We are anxious to get as much access land available as possible for everyone to use. However, people are anxious that on some of these sites there may still be unexploded bombs. I believe that Salisbury Plain was mentioned in another place as a possible access site. I may be mistaken but
1802
I believe that there may still be an unknown quantity of unexploded shells on these sites. I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter.
Lord Burnham: Which Secretary of State is involved?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for moving this amendment. I believe that my honourable friend in another place, David Heath, will be pleased to see it. The public have felt strongly that Ministry of Defence land should be considered with a view to permitting public access. The amendment goes a long way to meeting that objective in its mention of reviews and laying a report before Parliament. I thank the Minister for the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful for that support. As regards the safety aspect of munitions, as part of any review the Ministry of Defence would have to assess not only the need to maintain restrictions for defence reasons but also whether it was safe to open sites for public access. I was asked which Secretary of State would be involved in this matter. Legally speaking, the Secretary of State is a single entity. Therefore we do not in legislation describe the different roles of different Secretaries of State. The restrictions we are discussing are clearly DETR restrictions but the Secretary of State for Defence will be involved in the review. That matter was mentioned in the Ministry of Defence document, The Strategy for the Defence Estate, which was published earlier this year. That ministry will be responsible for assessing the military interest in keeping a site closed or otherwise.
Baroness Byford: I hope that I may press the Minister a little further. I am not involved in military matters and therefore I may ask my next question from ignorance. Presumably the relevant Minister may not know accurately where the problems we have discussed may arise. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me that that is not the case. If they do not know where problems may arise, it will be a costly exercise to find that out. I do not know how one goes about declaring land "clean land" that is safe for people to walk on. I understand that there are some areas of land not used for that purpose. I am still unclear. Will the Minister take back the amendment, or bring back some provision at the next stage? I do not understand how it will be achieved.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am not much of a military expert myself. Clearly the responsibility for management of these sites at present is a responsibility for the Ministry of Defence. Most military training areas—they will include target practice areas and so on—will be excluded from the right of access under military bylaws. In terms of the restrictions and the by-laws the reviews would need to assess the safety conditions. As regards some, sites there may be safety problems in part of a site, but not the whole site. That does not necessarily oblige the Ministry of Defence to spend

1803
millions clearing the site. It needs to asses the risk at each of those sites and exclude areas where there is still a risk.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Selborne: We referred to Clause 24 as a jewel in the Bill for nature conservation. One has to recognise that Clause 26 is equally effective simply because the Ministry of Defence has a peerless reputation for wildlife conservation. It is no accident. The reason that it has some of the best large estates with wildlife which is not seen any more outside Ministry of Defence land is that there has been limited access to that land over the years. While I recognise that Clause 26 requires that Ministry of Defence land or other land can be restricted only on grounds of defence or national security it is, nevertheless, a happy chance for nature conservation that this clause exists. Without it, as I think that we have recognised so many other times in the Bill, it would be incompatible to keep this high quality nature conservation and have the access which might otherwise be available.
Lord Whitty: In so far as that remark requires a comment, let me say that it is correct so far as it goes and does not challenge the purposes of Clause 26. While it is true that in recent decades the Ministry of Defence has a good record in respect of nature conservation, it is also true, regrettably, that some military land is severely environmentally damaged because of the use to which the military have put it. Taking it out of that context would improve the nature situation. Both situations would be taken into account when assessing whether we should lift the restriction.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Reference by relevant advisory body]: [Amendments Nos. 281 to 285 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Appeal by person interested in land]: [Amendments Nos. 286 to 291 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 18, line 32, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 293.
Amendment No. 292 deals with the regulations governing closures of common land. Clause 30(1)(e) provides for the regulations to restrict applications from commoners for closures of land management or the avoidance of risk of fire or danger (Clauses 22 and 23) where the landed interest is that of a commoner. The inclusion of such a provision might well restrict the ability of commoners to close land. That would interfere with their legitimate land management needs.
Each commoner may have his own hefted flock, for which he will require a closure. The Government have stressed that the right of access should not unduly impose on land management interests, but subsection (1)(e) risks doing so for commoners. The rights of a commoner trying to make a living on access land should not take second place to those of walkers who use the access land. By deleting the paragraph, the amendment would result in commoners being treated in the same way as any other interest in the land. An alternative approach would be to provide that any regulations made under that paragraph must not act to the detriment of the use or management of the land by commoners.
Amendment No. 293 would make notification of closures the responsibility of the relevant authorities, not of owners. Subsection (1)(i) provides that regulations may make provision as to the steps to be taken by persons interested in the land, relevant authorities and the countryside bodies in informing the public about restrictions or closures. It is surprising that owners might be expected to take any steps to inform the public about restrictions and closures. They have not asked for the new right. The Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the national parks authorities should undertake to notify users of closures, as is currently the case in the Peak District, for example.
Requiring owners or occupiers to notify closures or restrictions to the public will necessarily involve costs in placing notices on the site or advertisements in the papers, as well as in the time lost to their business. If numerous closures are needed every year, those costs could be substantial and should be borne by the public purse rather than by the owners.
The Government must remember that any individual required to expend money for the benefit of the public should receive compensation for that expenditure. I believe that the Government have said that that will be the case. If not, there could be a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no compensation provision in the Bill. The amendment would remove the possibility of regulations being made to require owners to inform the public about restrictions and closures. That duty would then lie solely with the relevant authorities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Subsection (1)(e) was introduced by the Government on Report in another place. It was not in the Bill originally. We introduced it to address two problems. The first was the possibility that on some areas of common land grazed by many commoners, it would be desirable to require the commoners, or a number of them, to apply jointly for any direction to restrict or exclude access. A joint application would demonstrate that there was a real need for a direction and that the commoners were prepared to enforce any direction as a body.
It would be absurd if the relevant authorities were required—as they would be without the paragraph—to consider separate applications from, say, 100 commoners grazing on a stretch of moor, each of which sought different restrictions or exclusions for

1805
different periods. An individual commoner may still seek a direction in respect of the land on which his flock is hefted, but it would impracticable to apply and enforce directions in respect of such units. It is far better that commoners should agree among themselves what restrictions, if any, are required, and submit a joint application representing all or a majority of them.
The second problem is that regulations may require confirmation that the applicants have the power to enforce any direction given, by demonstrating, for example, that the commoners have the right to exclude trespassers from the land.
The effect of a direction is to remove or restrict the public right of access over land. Thus, the public will lose the statutory right if they are in breach of the direction. However, it is quite possible that the rights of commoners on access land may not extend to excluding trespassers. That is normally the right of the owner or occupier and their agents.
Therefore, when regulations are framed on applications from commoners, it may be desirable to ensure that the applicants will have some effective means of enforcing a direction; for example, that the landowner has authorised the commoners to act as his agents in excluding trespassers or that the access authority, using its wardens, has agreed to enforce the direction with the approval of the landowner. That was a serious addition to the Bill at Report stage in another place. It was added for good reasons and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will not seek to take it out.
Amendment No. 293 would remove the—
Earl Peel: Before the noble Lord moves on, I wonder whether I may ask him a question. I believe that what he said about a joint application is absolutely right; otherwise, it could in certain circumstances get out of hand. However, we must not forget that, in addition to grazing rights, other rights exist on commons. There are rights of turbary, rights of piscary and rights of estovers, which sometimes are held by people who do not have the grazing rights. I wonder whether those other rights-holders on commons would have to be approached if the joint application was submitted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it affected the issue of access, yes, they would have to be approached because the purpose of paragraph (e) is that we are able to frame amendments which provide exactly for that. If, on the other hand, those other rights did not affect access to the land, they would not have to be considered. However, that is the reason for putting the matter into regulations rather than trying to frame it on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 293 relates to Clause 30(1)(i), which allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations which prescribe the steps to be taken by various bodies to inform the public about the exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II. It makes clear that such steps
1806
could include the display of notices on the affected land. The amendment would remove the power for the regulations to prescribe the steps.
Where a landowner or anyone else with an interest wishes to exclude or restrict access under the provisions in Chapter II, it will be in his own interest that such restrictions are brought home to the public. We have already described the steps which the Countryside Agency is taking to ensure that information about restrictions is made widely available to the public, including plans for an Internet website and a telephone hotline. However, there will also be a place for restrictions to be publicised at a local level. That could be achieved by displaying notices about the effect of restrictions at principal points of access. Sometimes it may be enough for the landowner or his agents simply to inform anyone who wanders on to the land of the restrictions in force.
In some areas, access authorities, working through the warden service, may offer assistance to landowners in providing local publicity. We have already undertaken in debate on Amendment No. 223 to consider an amendment to Clause 18 which would allow wardens to be appointed for the specific purpose of enforcing exclusions and restrictions under Chapter II.
In other areas it may be appropriate for the landowner to arrange for notices to be posted or issued. Where the restrictions in force relate sensibly to operational requirements, that should not be an excessive burden, as there will be a need for the landowner to have a presence on the land for the purposes for which the restrictions have been sought. Regulations will be able to prescribe the form of any notices displayed on the land, as well as any requirements for displaying them. That will help to ensure clarity and consistency about the nature of the restrictions in force.
Of course, the regulations should not impose detailed, burdensome requirements about the number and location of the notices. It will be in the interests of the owner to ensure that sufficient notices are in place, but it may be sensible if regulations prescribe the form of those notices.
However, we do not agree that regulations should not impose any requirements on landowners. It would be absurd if there were a requirement on some other party, presumably the warden service, to publicise the closure of any parcels of land on every occasion that the landowner chose to exercise his discretion to close under Clause 21. As we have seen, potentially one landowner could choose to close each of 100 separate parcels of land on 28 days in each year for any reason. Publicising these closures would keep one warden employed full time on entirely unproductive work.
If landowners choose to exercise their discretion in this way, it is right that the primary responsibility for informing the public should rest with them. In cases where there is a potential risk to public safety it may be entirely proper for the warden service to help them and I would expect access authorities to be positive about any requests for help. We think that, while it will be

1807
important to avoid any undue burden on landowners, the powers for regulations to prescribe a role for landowners are justified and should remain in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No 294.
Baroness Byford: I stopped because there seemed to be a little confusion at that time. I have not spoken to it yet.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We will deal with that in a minute. I say another word to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on his intervention. It probably would not be the case that a regulator would require different grazing common right holders to join in an application for a direction. That cannot be right.
Earl Peel: The noble Lord has given me the answer for which I was hoping.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was all right, was it not?
Earl Peel: Yes. It was absolutely fine. It was a very good effort for a Londoner.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his response. In relation to Amendment No. 292, I appreciate that where there are many people who share common grazing a joint approach is the most sensible way. I fully understand that.
I am slightly less happy with the response to Amendment No. 293. I would like to think about that. I thought my understanding, having read Hansard on the debate in the other place, was that Mr Meacher said that it would not be a cost that had to be borne by land managers. I will look carefully again in my papers. My understanding was that the agency would bear quite a bit of this cost. Perhaps it is something that we can discuss. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Guidance by countryside bodies to National Park Authorities]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 19, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("and the Nature Conservancy Council for England may jointly").
The noble Baroness said: We consider it is important that any guidance produced by the Countryside Agency under Clause 31(1) for the national parks authorities and the Forestry Commission regarding their duty under Chapter 2 and Clause 20 respectively takes full account of the need to conserve flora, fauna and geological and physiological features.
I am delighted with the debate we have just had with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. However, there is no provision for expert advice from English Nature to be
1808
taken into account by the agency in preparing the guidance unless the conversation we have just had overrides my understanding from before. Perhaps I may seek clarification on that.
By contrast, the Countryside Council for Wales, which has a similar power to issue guidance in Wales under Clause 31(2), will be able to take full account of those conservation interests because it combines the wildlife functions of English Nature and the access functions of the Countryside Agency in Wales. An integrated approach will automatically be taken.
To ensure that a properly integrated approach is taken in England, the Bill should be amended to provide that guidance in England should be prepared and given jointly by the Countryside Agency and English Nature. This amendment would achieve that aim. Having heard our earlier debate, I should have thought that the Government would be pleased to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The guidance which the Countryside Agency may issue under Clause 31 will cover directions which may be made under any part of Chapter II. The Bill provides that the relevant authority must take account of any advice given by English Nature in considering whether to make a direction under Clause 24. That is the appropriate time for English Nature to provide expert guidance on whether restrictions or closures for nature conservation purposes are needed.
However, we agree entirely that it will be desirable for the guidance, in so far as it sets out the criteria for directions to be made under Clause 24, and, indeed, generally, to take into account the views of English Nature. We expect the Countryside Agency to consult English Nature in drafting the guidance. The Secretary of State will wish to be sure, in approving the guidance under Clause 31(3)(a), that such consultation has taken place and that the draft guidance properly reflects the views of English Nature.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the difference with regard to Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales, in addition to its role as a countryside body, performs a similar role to that of English Nature, as the noble Baroness recognised. However, although part of the same body, the countryside and conservation aspects of CCW function separately where appropriate. We expect that, where it is given a power in parallel with the Countryside Agency, the functions will be carried out in a similar way to that of England.
I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that the guidance issued under Clause 31 will indeed take into account the advice of English Nature. English Nature will also be able to provide advice on specific cases of directions under Clause 24. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I suspect that there are many who have joined in our debates this evening who have been

1809
extremely reassured by the fact that the Government regard conservation as a high priority. We all welcome and look forward to greater access being available to people. But many of us feared that the protection of our wildlife, flora and fauna might be at risk at some stages. I have been greatly encouraged by what we have heard tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Agreements with respect to means of access]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 20, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 296 to 298. They are straightforward amendments which deal with means of access and the agreements made with respect to those means of access and failure to comply on the part of owners.
As regards Amendment No. 295, we believe that subsection (2)(b)(ii) should be deleted because it provides for access authorities to make payments to owners or occupiers,
"in consideration of the imposition of any restriction".
Unless the Minister tells me differently, I believe that that means that this is a provision for access authorities to pay owners and occupiers for not doing things.
In the past 15 years or so we had a system under which we paid owners of land not to do things, but I believe we have now moved into an era of more positive management. Ideally, the Bill would give access authorities a duty to take action to prevent important means of access being stopped up or otherwise being made unusable rather than paying an ongoing amount of owners not to restrict access.
Amendment No. 296 deals with the fact that where owners are in breach of an agreement, an access authority can give notice of only 21 days to the owner to take action. We feel that the figure of 21 days is too short; we believe that it should be extended to 40 days. Much of this Bill applies, for example, to land over 600 metres. There may be periods of 21 days when it would be difficult to carry out the work and an owner might be lucky enough to be on holiday for two weeks and so have only a week in which to comply. We feel that 40 days would be far more reasonable.
Amendment No. 297 simply introduces the idea that if the local authority undertakes the work, for which the owner would be charged because the owner had failed to comply, it is reasonable, even under those circumstances, that the local authority should show evidence of obtaining quotations for the work, which is normal practice. The work could be expensive if it concerned a bridge. It is reasonable to expect the local authority to make an effort to obtain different quotations for such work.
Amendment No. 298 introduces a reason for appeal that does not appear in the Bill. It seems reasonable that such a reason for appeal against enforcement may be that different work was proposed. The owner may have planned to provide a different means of access; for example, the access authority may believe that a simple bridge is the answer whereas the owner wishes to provide stepping stones which may take longer to install. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I support Amendment No. 298. We need to ensure that where there is a possibility of appeal it genuinely covers reasonable cases. Even at this time of night one can think of reasonable cases, covered by the amendment, that are not covered by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I believe that we should make this change. I hope that the Government will accept it. I have categorised all the amendments that we have discussed tonight as good, bad and gung-ho. We have finished with the gung-ho amendments and I believe that this is a good one, so perhaps we can adopt it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Chapter III allows an access authority to enter into agreements to construct a new means of access, or to maintain or impose restrictions on stopping-up or altering an existing means of access. If agreement cannot be reached it makes provision for an access authority to secure the means of access by carrying out any necessary works at its own expense. These provisions will allow access authorities to improve or to secure access to or across open country where there are insufficient facilities for walkers at present.
Clause 33(2)(b) gives the access authority specific powers to pay landowners for entering into such agreements, including agreements restricting the stopping-up or alteration of an existing means of access. A restriction may include agreeing not to stop up an opening in a wall, or agreeing not to put a lock on a gate. Amendment No. 295 would remove the power for authorities to make payments for such agreements.
In general, we would not expect access authorities to make payments of any substance to landowners in return for not doing something. That is just the sort of transaction from which we have tried to steer away in the context of Part III of the Bill. But agreements are, by their nature, voluntary, and it may be that an access authority will find it worth while to enter into such an agreement for a small consideration, which may secure a valuable means of access for long-term use and may perhaps be part of a larger agreement covering a number of different means of access, some of which are being constructed or improved. The means of access could then be shown on maps and guide books with reasonable certainty about their future security.
If a landowner were to hold out for an unreasonable payment in return for entering into such an agreement, it would be open to the access authority to do nothing. If, in the absence of an agreement, the landowner stopped up a means of access, the authority could seek: to proceed by way of notice to unblock it under

1811
Clause 35. So we do not see this provision as a licence for landowners to print money in return for not obstructing access. But it does represent flexibility for access authorities in appropriate cases to pay small sums of money in return for the long-term security of means of access and by that means avoiding the procedures in Clause 35. We therefore believe it has merit and should be retained.
Turning to Amendment No. 296, we believe that, where a landowner entered into an agreement to maintain or construct a means of access of his own volition, it is only right that there should be some mechanism to ensure that the terms of that agreement are fulfilled. Clause 34(1) therefore provides that, if the landowner fails to discharge his responsibilities under an agreement within the time specified, then the access authority may ensure that the agreement is fulfilled by carrying out the works themselves.
It is not the concept of reasonable notice that is in question, but what period should be considered as reasonable. We believe 21 days' notice is more than reasonable. We are talking about cases where a landowner has previously agreed to provide or enhance a means of access to his land—perhaps in return for some payment—and is subsequently in breach of that agreement. He would be fully aware that, in breaching the agreement, he left himself open to action by the access authority to carry out the work itself, as he would be if he had not agreed. So any notice by the authorities of their intention to carry out work would not be unexpected. In those circumstances 21 days' notice provides ample opportunity for the landowner to undertake the work himself, should he intend to do so. Should he not intend to honour the agreement, we see no reason to extend the potential period of delay by requiring the authorities to give no less than 40 days' notice. I therefore cannot support that amendment.
Amendment No. 297 aims to ensure that the provisions for recovery of costs from landowners is fair. It may wish to do that where it carries out works which a landowner has already agreed to carry out.I am pleased to see that the amendment takes account of the principles of "best value" which all local authorities must follow. However, it is not necessary to include such a provision in the Bill. The principles of "best value" apply to all access authorities and already mean that the authority must carry out appropriate procedures for letting contracts, so there is no need to duplicate that requirement in this legislation.
Finally, Amendment No. 298 provides for appeals against a notice under Clause 36(3) on the grounds that the works are not required to give reasonable access to the land or that the means of access should be installed elsewhere, or that any of the works in question have already been carried out. Where an access authority is unable to enter into an agreement to provide a means of access, it may serve notice on the landowner or the occupier of an intention to carry out works to secure such a means of access.
1812
This amendment would enable landowners to appeal if they believed that different works should be carried out such as a different type of means of access. That might be, for example, because the access authority proposed the installation of a gate but the landowner felt that a stile or a kissing gate would be more appropriate. That would be covered by the ground in sub-paragraph (a)—that the works were not necessary to allow reasonable access. The situation which the Bill may not cover is where an access authority had, for example, proposed works to install a stile, but the landowner wanted a gate fitted instead.
We agree that there could be legitimate reasons why landowners might want to appeal against the notice on the grounds that different works are needed and that they might not be able to do them under the terms of the Bill. We are therefore happy to consider the matter further with a view to tabling an appropriate amendment at the Report stage but I am afraid that I must resist the first three amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for agreeing further to consider the final amendment in the group. I am pleased about that. However, I am disappointed that Amendment No. 295 is not acceptable because the provision is a retrograde step. I understand his reasoning as regards the other two and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Failure to comply with agreement]:[Amendments Nos. 296 and 297 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Appeals relating to notices]:
[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Powers of entry for purposes of Part I]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 24, line 21, at end insert—
("(7A) It is the duty of the appropriate countryside body, a local highway authority, a National Park authority, and the Forestry Commission, as the case may be, to compensate any person who has sustained damage as a result of—

(a)the exercise of the power conferred by subsections (1) to (4) by a person authorised to do so, or

(b)the failure of a person on leaving land entered in the exercise of a power under subsections (1) to (4), and which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is temporarily absent at the time of entry, to leave the land as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it,

except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it; and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation under this subsection or as to its amount shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 38 relates to compensation provisions for powers of entry under Part I to be consistent with parallel powers for SSSIs. Clause 70 of the Bill sets out powers of entry in relation

1813
to sites of special interest. These include, in subsections (6) and (7), provisions for compensation to be paid where any person has sustained damage as a result of the exercise of those powers of entry.
The amendment seeks to replicate those provisions in relation to access land. It is important to anyone who suffers loss as a result of the exercise of the powers of entry by the appropriate countryside body, a local highway authority, a national park authority and the Forestry Commission, as the case may be.
While damage is unlikely to occur, there is always the possibility that it will occur. We submit that in these cases appropriate compensation for the affected owner/occupier of land should be available. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I accept that there is a possibility—albeit remote because the powers are narrow in terms of Part I—that a public body might cause damage in construction, repairing a means of access or erecting a notice. Therefore we probably need the parallel amendments. I am happy to take the amendment away with a view to bringing forward our own amendment on Report. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 300:
After Clause 38. insert the following new clause—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  REFERENCES TO PUBLIC PLACES IN EXISTING ENACTMENTS
  (".—(1) This section applies to any enactment which—

  (a) is contained in an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act, and

  1814

  (b) relates to things done in public places or places to which the public have access.

  (2) Regulations may provide that, in determining for the purposes of any specified enactment to which this section applies whether a place is a public place or a place to which the public have access, the right conferred by section 2(1), or access by virtue of that right, is to he disregarded, either generally or in prescribed cases.").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment will enable regulations to be made to avoid possible undesirable consequences arising from access land being treated as a public place under other legislation. We do not envisage that there are many areas, but one example, which was raised by the Countryside Alliance, relates to firearms legislation. The Firearms Act 1968 provides that a person may not carry a loaded shotgun or firearm with ammunition in a public place without reasonable excuse. It seems right that that should apply to members of the public but there is a strong case for saying that farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and others should be able, as now, to carry firearms without having to show authority to the courts. The amendment is therefore tabled to deal with such situations. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.

  Espionage by East Germany
  Espionage by East Germany
  South-east England: Distribution of New Dwellings
  South-east England: Distribution of New Dwellings
  Central Line Breakdown, 4 September 2000
  Central Line Breakdown, 4 September 2000
  Fishing Vessels: Fatal Accidents
  Fishing Vessels: Fatal Accidents
  Negligence Claims against Judges
  Negligence Claims against Judges
  Needle Exchange Services
  Needle Exchange Services
  Dental Patients: Sedation
  Dental Patients: Sedation
  Chief Medical and Chief Dental Officers
  Chief Medical and Chief Dental Officers
  Chief Dental Officer: New Appointment
  Chief Dental Officer: New Appointment
  Residential, Nursing Home and Intermediate Care: Allocation of Funds
  Residential, Nursing Home and Intermediate Care: Allocation of Funds
  Computers in Schools
  Computers in Schools
  Ministers' Speeches to Parliament: Release to Media
  Ministers' Speeches to Parliament: Release to Media