That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Asylum (Designated States) Order 2010.

My Lords, this is the sixth order that we have brought forward adding countries to the list of those to which the non-suspensive appeal provisions in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 apply. This section allows the Secretary of State to add a country to the list if he is satisfied that there is in general no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside there and that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there will not result in a general breach of the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The section also provides that an unsuccessful asylum or human rights claim made by a person entitled to reside in a designated state must be certified as clearly unfounded, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. The effect of such a certification is that a person must leave the United Kingdom before appealing the decision to refuse their claim, while still having an out-of-country right of appeal.

I should add that the test to determine whether a claim is clearly unfounded, and therefore certifiable under the provisions of the 2002 Act, can be applied to any asylum claim—those made by residents of designated states and those made by residents of other countries if the claim is considered to be clearly unfounded.

Since their introduction, the powers to add countries to the list have been used on a progressive basis to ensure that the provisions work well and are successful in stopping people making unfounded applications for asylum and unnecessarily prolonging the appeals process. The evidence to date on the 24 countries already on the list demonstrates that this is indeed the case and that the powers have made a significant impact in reducing the number of asylum applicants from those countries. Asylum intake from the 24 designated countries in the first year of designation has shown a consistent drop of 49 per cent on average.

On the decision-making process for considering an asylum or human rights claims from a resident of a designated country, each claim is given full and proper consideration on its individual merits by a fully trained caseworker. Applicants are entitled to legal aid and advice as part of the process, as well as the right of appeal against any refusal decision, albeit from outside the country. Fail-safes in addition to those already in place for asylum claims from those not entitled to reside in designated countries are built into the process. These include senior caseworker approval for each and every decision, thus ensuring the integrity of the decision-making process, and judicial review of decisions certified as clearly unfounded, where an applicant believes that their case was wrongly certified.

As a result of this process, we have been able to remove from the United Kingdom individuals whose asylum claims were established to be unfounded and who have diverted resources away from processing claims of those in genuine need of international protection. In view of the successful operation of the provisions thus far, we have decided that the time is right for us to add a further two countries to the list. The draft order adds South Korea and Kosovo to the list. The addition of the latter is a technical amendment, as Kosovo was designated as a province of Serbia in 2003. Kosovo became independent of Serbia on 17 February 2008 and, therefore, is now added separately in its own right. The number of asylum claims from South Koreans is in real terms relatively low, but is none the less disproportionately high given what we know about the situation in South Korea.

The assessment as to whether a particular country meets the test for designation is based not simply on the number of applications received from people who are entitled to reside in that country or the percentage of those applications that are unsuccessful. We instead consider the general conditions for the population in the country itself, not the profile of claimants who have made applications in the UK. Broadly speaking, we look to see what evidence there is of persecution or human rights breaches within a country and how widespread such treatment is.

In considering the two countries listed in the draft order, we took into account our published country of origin information material, which utilises a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable governmental and non-governmental sources. I remind the Committee that we gave an undertaking to consult the Advisory Panel on Country Information on the country information that is used as a basis for the decision to designate a country. The APCI was an independent body created under the 2002 Act to advise the Secretary of State on the accuracy and objectivity of country information produced by the Home Office in the context of asylum applications. The APCI has now been replaced by the Independent Advisory Group on Country Information under the auspices of the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, so we consulted the IAGCI.

The panel’s role in the country designation process is solely to consider the country of origin information material; it has no power to comment on the decision whether or not to designate. The panel considered the country of origin information produced on the two countries proposed in the draft order and confirmed that it is satisfied with the country information for these two states. The extension of the list to include these countries is not to say that they are totally safe for everyone; what we are saying is that we are satisfied that South Korea and Kosovo meet the legal test.

The draft order represents a gradual increase and progressive use of the powers under the 2002 Act and builds on the programme to reform our asylum and immigration system. At the same time, we continue to ensure that we do not deny legitimate claims a right and proper hearing and that we provide a safe haven for those in genuine need of international protection. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

My Lords, we on these Benches support the order and I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the background. We note that the Republic of Korea—South Korea—and Kosovo are the subject of the order. I have three questions. In fact, I now have two, as the Minister has given an assurance that each asylum claim is assessed on a case-by-case basis. First, can the Minister say how many asylum applications the Government receive on average per year from these countries and what the most common cause is of asylum applications? Secondly, how regularly is the list reviewed and according to what criteria?

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order and for explaining the effect of putting a country on the white list, which, as he said, already applies to 24 other countries. A person from those countries on the list whose application for asylum is unsuccessful no longer has the right of appeal.

The last time we had a designated states order was July 2007, when I asked, for the second time, whether the Government had considered the use of the power to designate states in respect of straight people only, given that so many countries tolerate hate speech and violence against homosexuals or even pass explicitly anti-gay legislation, such as the Bill in Uganda, which President Obama has described as “odious”. I had no answer on either occasion, so I try for the third time to persuade the Minister to agree that subsection (5C)(h) would allow the Secretary of State to designate a state for persons of a given sexual orientation if he considered that appropriate and, further, that the persecution of gays in some states would fully justify this use of the power.

Before I turn to the two states covered by this order, let me deal with the statistics that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, requested. They are already available, as the Minister may remind us, on the Home Office website, although they are slightly difficult to find—I had to ask the assistance of the Library this morning in locating them.

Although Kosovo became independent on 7 February 2008, as the Minister explained, it is not distinguished separately in the figures; presumably, it is included under Serbia and Montenegro. Is it the intention to separate out the Kosovo figures? Why was that not done immediately Kosovo became independent?

As regards Korea, the figures show a substantial inflow of asylum applicants, curiously enough peaking in the third quarter of all the past few years that I have looked at. For example, in quarter 3 of 2009 there were 3,630. I shall deal later with the reason why some of these people apply to the UK for asylum.

On Kosovo, the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX, is the largest civilian mission ever launched under the common security and defence policy, with about 3,000 personnel. Its central aim is to assist and support the Kosovo authorities in the rule of law, specifically in the police, judiciary and customs areas. There is also a UN mission, UNMIK, with a budget of over $200 million, and the Secretary-General has a special representative, who told the Security Council last month that,

“Northern Kosovo … remains a flashpoint. Relations between the Kosovo Serb and Kosovo Albanian communities there remain tense”.

The SRSG reported “positive news” on the relocation by the EU and USAID of 140 Roma families on a heavily lead-contaminated site in northern Mitrovica to more suitable residential accommodation, but all the people on this site need immediate medical attention. They also need to be part of a social inclusion plan that addresses the problems of minority IDPs from a human rights perspective and deals effectively with the equally poisonous inter-ethnic environment that affects the Roma in Kosovo in particular.

A state that needs such huge inputs from international agencies but still has not solved many of its own human rights problems does not appear at first sight to be one in which the Secretary of State can be satisfied that there is no serious risk of persecution, particularly of minorities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reported last October that the UNHCR was recommending against the return of existing Roma refugees and it urged member states not to return failed Roma asylum seekers to Kosovo until the UNHCR considered that it was safe to do so. Here, again, I appeal to the Minister and ask whether the Government have considered exercising the powers in subsection (5C)(h) of the parent Act to designate the state of Kosovo in relation to persons of a particular ethnic orientation so that Roma may be exempted from this order.

On Korea, we have one major concern. At some point in 2008—perhaps the Minister can give the exact date—the UKBA began refusing the asylum claims of North Korean nationals on the basis that they had or were entitled to South Korean nationality and that, irrespective of the risk in North Korea, they could safely be returned to South Korea. A major country guidance case on the legality of this approach is due to be heard by the tribunal in April or May 2010. I have given the Minister notice of the case and of the reference to it.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated and, as usual, asked testing questions. I turn first to the questions asked by the noble Viscount. I can assist with those about the number of asylum seekers, but less so with those about reasons, because we do not record them. We do not have a central record. On numbers, taking the three years 2007, 2008 and 2009, we had 25 applications from South Korea in 2007, 10 in 2008 and five in 2009. From Kosovo, we had 50 applications in 2007, 70 in 2008 and 20 in 2009. The figures for 2008 and 2009 are provisional.

To digress to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about why the applications come in the third quarter, that will, I am afraid, remain a mystery, at least to me. It is not a question that I have an answer to. I have already dealt with the question of assurance. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as ever, put to me a series of testing questions with great knowledge and research. I can probably do some justice to these, but not as much as he might wish. On the certification of heterosexual people only, I take on board the noble Lord’s points. Gay people’s situations will be considered as part of a country’s general situation, but I take the noble Lord’s point and I will respond to him in more detail on that.

On Kosovo, we are not saying that such countries are safer for everyone but in general we accept that they have a legal system that does not discriminate against groups of people in law. I can reassure the noble Lord that numbers for Kosovo are recorded separately from those for Serbia and Montenegro. Since 2003, Kosovo has been a fully designated state, separate from Serbia. Our judgment is that it is generally politically, ethnically and religiously stable and has a good human rights record. There are some areas of concern, which I think the noble Lord cited: societal discrimination against ethnic minorities and homosexuals; domestic violence against women; some concerns about human trafficking; and abuses that take place. These do not generally reach the Article 3 thresholds and avenues for redress are available. I will, as I have said, respond to the noble Lord in greater detail in writing.

With regard to North Korea, again, I shall write to the noble Lord on why asylum applications have been refused. Our in-country guidance is that asylum applications from North Korea should continue to be considered on their individual merits. If an application is refused and the individual is entitled to reside in South Korea, the claim is considered to be clearly unfounded. The case will be reconsidered for certification but it should be noted that that will be after the case has been looked at on its individual merits. However, as I said, I shall write to the noble Lord on that broader issue.

I shall also write to the noble Lord on the question that he raised in respect of the AIT. It is very important that we consider carefully the situation in North Korea. We cannot give the undertaking that the noble Lord requested but I give a commitment to investigate the matter and to write to him in the detail that his question deserves. I hope that with those assurances the order will commend itself to your Lordships.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010.

My Lords, the Government are of course committed to providing a route around the coast of England for people to enjoy. The draft order currently before the Committee is the next important step in ensuring that that becomes a reality within the next 10 years. It has been laid before Parliament under the powers in Section 44(3) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Section 303(5) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 amends the CROW Act to include coastal margin in the definition of access land. It also inserts a provision that enables the Secretary of State to specify certain land as coastal margin.

The Marine and Coastal Access Act is a great achievement. It took almost a year to complete its passage through Parliament and came out all the stronger for the careful scrutiny that it received in this House and the other place. Today I offer my plaudits to the noble Lords I see before me who contributed to the deliberations in our extensive scrutiny of the Bill, which we all enjoyed and look back on with the greatest pleasure, given that the outcome was so constructive. I also pay tribute to the excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work completed by Members of this House in the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.

Part 9 of the Act provides for improving access to the English coast. It does this through introducing new sections into two existing pieces of legislation: the long-distance path provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. New Section 3A of the CROW Act, inserted by Section 303 of the 2009 Act, enables amendments to be made by affirmative resolution order to the existing provisions in the CROW Act as they will apply to coastal land. The draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order before us introduces necessary amendments to the CROW Act which are appropriate to the circumstances on the coast and which, alongside the 2009 Act, will help us to deliver our vision for clear, consistent and, as far as possible, continuous access along the English coast.

We consulted on the proposals for the order between September and December last year and received 197 responses from a range of organisations and individuals. We are grateful to all those who took the time to respond; a summary of those responses is available on the Defra website. We considered carefully all the comments received, which in general have supported our consultation proposals, but we have amended the proposals in some respects as a result of the views expressed. I believe that we have before us a way forward that will contribute to striking a fair balance between the interests of the public and the interests of landowners and occupiers.

Article 3 of the order sets out descriptions of land to which the right of access under Section 2(1) of the CROW Act will apply. The descriptions include the line of the English coastal route, land within 2 metres either side of the line of the route, land to the seaward of the route and land to the landward of the route where it is foreshore, cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat.

Part 1 of the schedule to the order amends the categories of excepted land at Schedule 1 to the CROW Act as they apply to the coastal margin, removing some existing categories, amending some categories to allow the coastal route to go though and adding new categories appropriate to the circumstances of the coast. Part 2 of the schedule amends the general restrictions at Schedule 2 to the CROW Act, in particular the requirements for control of dogs; for example, it introduces a requirement that a person on the coastal margin accompanied by a dog must keep the dog under effective control and it relaxes restrictions on angling-related activity, for obvious reasons as far as the coast is concerned. Part 3 of the schedule amends the process for making exclusions or restrictions of access and adds a new power to restrict or exclude access to areas of salt marsh or flats where they are unsuitable for the public.

The changes are proportionate and appropriate. The flexibility in the Act and the extensive consultation that Natural England will undertake prior to recommending any route will ensure that all interests are taken into account and that any necessary exclusions and restrictions are in place from the outset. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, which we welcome. Those of us who saw through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, of which he kindly reminded us, will have fond memories of those days spent in Committee but a year ago; it seems a distant memory. However, it is not under that Act that the order is being made; the Minister rightly said that the purpose of the order is to amend the CROW Act.

I must declare an interest: I am a farmer and landowner. Although I do not farm on the coast, I am a member of the National Farmers’ Union, which I know made submissions to the consultation process.

The schedule is where the key matters lie. If I pose questions to the Minister, it is just to get clarification of quite complex legislation that has many impacts, not only on the coastal route strip but also on the margin, which is also part and parcel of the coast. The order in some cases changes arrangements for existing CROW Act land and an owner’s ability to control visitors and activities on it. It is important to try to set those in context.

First, land ploughed in the previous 12 months for the purpose of growing crops or trees is no longer excepted if it is part of the coastal route strip. As I understand it, the margin will be able to be accessed, contrary to what we were led to believe when we discussed these matters. We understood that the strip was confined and that “spreading room”, as it came to be known, would not extend into ploughed land adjacent to the coastal strip. Can the Minister reassure us on that? Similarly, land within 20 metres of a dwelling is no longer excepted if it is part of coastal margin—that means the spreading room area. Assurances were given about privacy and I hope that the provisions do not affect the privacy of people whose property happens to be in that situation.

My Lords, I, too, am pleased to be present at this reunion of—I am not quite sure what to say—old colleagues. We should perhaps toast as an absent friend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who, along with the Minister, did so much to get the marathon Bill past the rest of us. I understand that people are now calling the Act “MACA”. I am not sure whether that is a desirable acronym, but that is what happens nowadays.

The Minister said that the order is a way forward. I am not sure whether that is a pun about the coastal path or whether the coastal path is going round in circles, but the order is very welcome. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, say that the Conservatives welcome the order and that they support, in his words,

“the principles of coastal access”.

It is possible—but perhaps not likely—that after the coming general election the noble Lord may have more to do with the implementation of this order than the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I remain to be convinced about that, but we will see. Who knows?

As far as I can tell, having tried to go through the order with a fine-tooth comb, it is in line with the Act and the commitments and statements made by the Government and Ministers as the Bill was going through this House and the House of Commons. As always in these matters, I am astonished by the complexity of the order. I wonder whether modern legislation needs to be quite as complex as it is; the country did not collapse 30, 40 or 80 years ago when Acts of Parliament were much simpler and there was much less secondary legislation. However, we are where we are and we get what we are presented with. As always, I blame computers because they make it all possible. However, as I said, the order seems to be generally in line with the Act and what we were told and I very much welcome it.

As the Bill was going through your Lordships’ House, we made the point that nearly everything in the order should have been in the primary legislation. When the CROW Act was passed nearly 10 years ago, the equivalent regulations were in the primary legislation, particularly in Schedules 1 and 2. I still do not understand why it was not possible to amend them directly through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was going through the House and before it was passed. However, we are where we are and we now have the order in front of us.

One general question concerns where we are with the draft scheme. I understand that the consultation period has now closed and I wonder how long it will take Natural England to present the definitive scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.

One or two minor points struck me as I was going through the order. Some of them are repetitions of points that I made when we were discussing Part 9 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was going through the House, while the others have just occurred to me. These will probably come to light when we see the final version of the scheme but, more important, as we see the proposals for each section of coast. The proof of the pudding will be in how it works out in practice. Some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in connection with the relationship with farmland, farmers and farming will have to be resolved locally on the ground and we will see in two or three years’ time whether it succeeds or not. We need to come to a solution that is, if not the most desirable, acceptable to all the different parties involved. Clearly there will have to be compromises.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order before us. I reiterate what has been said about the amount of work that went into the passing of the original Act.

I shall pick up on one or two important points raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor, as well as one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who asked how big an object would have to be before the route went around it. What about any listed buildings, which might be much smaller? Pure size may not be the answer.

I declare an interest as a member of the NFU and the CLA, which is perhaps more relevant to discussions on access.

My noble friend mentioned golf courses, many of which I suspect will be privately owned. I have the joy of playing on a small, nine-hole course at Southwold. That is a public course and members of the public who go over it know that they are likely to get hit by balls if they do not look where they are going. My noble friend’s point, however, is important if accidents occur. Would the individual be liable, or would it be the club? There are two different ways of looking at the same question.

I am sorry to return to the question of dogs, because we spent an awful lot of time on it when discussing the CROW Act. I am glad that dogs will be required to be on leads at a particular time, but I am still concerned about the phrasing of the definition of “control”; that is, the owner is,

“confident that the dog will return”.

We happen to have a really super Labrador who is gun-trained and was trialled. He is not just a normal shooting dog; he has done trials as well. I could not be 100 per cent certain that, if something occurred, he might not take a liking to it and perhaps go and have a look for himself, while ignoring me—he does not normally ignore me, because that is the way he was trained before we had him. How confident is the Minister about that provision? What happens if the dog in question is out of control and somebody comes across it? When we discussed the matter previously, colleagues from Wales mentioned going through the Brecon Beacons, where sheep graze as well. They said that when dogs got out of control, the farmer invariably received a mouthful of abuse. Where do the respective parties stand in the law? The provision is idealistic—and I believe in an ideal world—but it is still not quite as it might be.

That brings me back to the whole question of this not having been dealt with in detail in the Act, because, as we know, we can talk about these things today but there is no way in which we can alter them. I do not want more legislation to be brought in—for goodness’ sake, we have enough—but will any guidance be given? Is this the final document? What are the public told about access? Will there be guides or encouragement? What is written down?

Our Chairman last week rightly raised in the House the question of Chinese lanterns. I raise it again because Chinese lanterns are an innovation from not that many years ago, but they travel and are likely to cause damage to livestock.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his considerable assiduity in explaining the Government’s legislation to us time and again. He and I have exchanged views on the question of access rights and golf courses on several occasions. I am aware of his enthusiasm for the game, as much as I am that he does not appreciate the difficulties and dangers as much as I would like.

I have declared my interest as a farmer and as the manager of a golf course. In responding to my concerns when we discussed this issue in Committee on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, the Minister’s words, as Hansard recorded them, were:

“The noble Duke will have to accept that considerable discussion will go on for a long time before the Bill is completed, and there will be further discussion before the order is drafted ... We will have to engage in additional consultation about these issues”.—[Official Report, 30/3/09; col. 915.]

It is interesting to look at what the consultation has amounted to. Prior to our consideration of the Bill, there was consultation by Natural England in a February 2007 paper. At Annexe 2, it says that the availability of continuous access was considered. The problems with various developments were highlighted, such as the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was worried about, including caravan sites and golf courses. The paper ended by saying that providing suitable diversions or ways through could make a real difference to the continuity of access.

I have recently been in touch with the English Golf Union, which was included in this consultation and was required to undertake studies in four areas—Suffolk, Devon North, Durham and Cumbria—where it identified 18 golf courses that would be affected. It presented its findings to the coastal lands advisory group. Last year, presumably as part of the 8 September consultation that the Minister has referred to, the EGU received a pro forma, which had to be completed by 1 December, that asked, at question 19: “Do you agree that where there is no suitable route for the seaward side of a golf course, the route should pass through the golf course?”. The answer that the EGU gave to this highly conditional question was yes, provided that the route could be planned in consultation with the golf club managers. It was left with the impression, though, that this legislation would not greatly affect golf courses. There are 147 golf courses that abut coastal areas within their bounds, so there is a considerable involvement of businesses. The EGU, like others, received notice of this current measure on 20 January, yet here we are on 8 February actually considering the matter. I am not yet sure whether the consultation that was put out and ended in December contained the text of the measure that we are looking at today.

My noble friend Lord Taylor raised quite a few questions about the margins of golf courses once the route is established. One of my worries is that in the terms of the Act, as far as I understand it, all the land to the landward side of the route is included as access land up to the first definable boundary. That is liable to become access land——that is, available for the activities that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, described. The question is whether the first definable boundary is likely to be a wall, a fence or something like that—this is where the question arises of the whole course being included—or does the Minister think that the edge of a fairway would be a definable boundary?

Another approach that might have offered a solution appears to have been removed under the measure that we are considering today. Under the CROW Act, landowners had the power to request the closure of access for periods of up to 28 days as long as an alternative was provided. Presumably, that could have provided the protection that golf club competition days might have needed, particularly with regard to the issue of danger to the public. Tempers get quite hot on golf club competition days and heaven knows how much care some golfers might be inclined to take. Why was that not considered in this difficult area?

I understand that there is a proposal that on campsites access will be restricted to the route itself and that further access land surrounding the route will not be created. Will this be the approach that is taken in respect of golf courses?

I realise that I forgot to declare my interests. I am a member of the British Mountaineering Council and its access, conservation and environment group. I am also a member of the Open Spaces Society, as well as its vice-president.

While I am on my feet, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the points that she made about litter. The amount of litter that people spread everywhere nowadays is appalling. The amount of litter on mountains is appalling, as is the amount of litter even on crags, which must in many cases come from climbers. That is why from time to time the BMC organises teams of volunteers to do crag clean-ups. It is a curse of this age, with which we all ought to be completely obsessed until we stamp it out.

Perhaps I may respond to one point with something of an anecdotal nature. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, does not necessarily have to blame climbers, because when I was once sitting on the top of Ben Lomond a piece of rubbish blew past me. I sat there for another 10 minutes and it blew past me again. It was going round and round.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the volley of questions to which I am meant to produce a response—presumably before 7 pm, as the Committee will not continue for much longer than that. I am not entirely surprised, as we will all recall our extensive discussions on these important issues regarding the coastal path during the passage of the Bill. I am keen to commend the order but I also wish to provide reassurance on the points that have been raised about the consultation that will take place and the decisions that will need to be taken before the construction of the coastal path is achieved in any significant dimension. I emphasise that the creation of the path will involve a process of consultation and, therefore, judgment will be exercised by Natural England, taking into account all those factors that have caused anxiety.

I take first the most obvious point. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked what will happen when the coastal path goes through ploughed land. We would not expect the extensive provision and width that will apply to aspects of the path when it causes no inconvenience to anyone and does not adversely affect farmland. The narrowest definition of the path would obtain in the circumstances that the noble Lord mentions. We have indicated that greater breadth might occur elsewhere, where local interests are readily reconciled to that extra dimension. It is clear that, in order to realise the concept of the coastal path, Natural England will seek to pursue a path as close as possible to the coast, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, emphasised. However, we all recognise the number of issues that manifestly need to be taken into account. Much of today’s discussion can be summed up against the background that, before decisions are arrived at, full consultation will have taken place and Natural England will have regard to such factors. That will be the situation with regard to ploughed land.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, spoke with great authority about golf courses, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I have some experience of golf courses and seaside courses in particular. I know that the issues raised by noble Lords are interesting and significant, but many golf courses already tackle such issues with the minimum amount of difficulty. A large number of golf courses include private rights of way. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is absolutely right to say that nothing at all in this order, or the Act from which it derives, in any way subverts, destroys or ends the rights that already obtain through historical factors and the exigencies of existing provision.

Those who play on golf courses often have to cope with such a situation and they do so with a degree of consideration. Also, the normal law of negligence will apply in these circumstances, although it will depend on the facts of the case as to whether a court decides that the golfer owed a duty of care to the walker and whether the danger was foreseeable. Most golfers are all too well aware of the dangers and many of them take out their own insurance. Most golf clubs whose courses have rights of access for the public insure all their members against any potential danger. In fact, they do so even when there are no rights of access. If a road adjoined a course, a stray golf ball could cause an accident and I assure noble Lords that a club would be singularly ill advised if it did not have insurance in those circumstances.

I do not think that the coastal path creates anything new. It may affect new areas but, following the concept of how golfers live with members of the public who have a right of way, there is nothing novel in this situation. The normal law of the land applies and people have to act with consideration where propelling a golf ball at considerable speed creates risks for those who are within range. Those are the inevitable facts of that pursuit, to which some of us are drawn for reasons that we would not dare to go into in rational company. I give way to the noble Baroness. She is concerned about the land.

No, I simply seek clarification. I thought that I heard the Minister say that, where there are existing arrangements, there will be no changes. Did I misunderstand him?

Golf clubs manage to deal with rights of way and with members of the public going across their courses, so there is nothing intrinsically new about the coastal path; it does not create a new issue with regard to the law. The natural law of care and concern and the absence of negligence must obtain. A golfer must have some regard to those who are on the path and, by the same token, people on the path are not meant to put themselves into absurd jeopardy with regard to the golfers.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said, I think, that 137 golf courses have a coastal element to them. I do not know how many golf courses have rights of way but very many do. I could not possibly give the number but I can say that accidents are few and far between. Under the law of the land, proper conduct is necessary so that people are not put at risk. I am simply saying that golf courses cope with rights of way now and I cannot think of any reason why they should fail to cope with regard to the coastal path. Golf courses are different—of course I understand that—but the same features obtain.

I am sorry to come back on this and I trust that I am not nit-picking. I was simply asking the noble Lord to confirm that, where areas are already agreed, the situation will not change. I was not arguing about insurance and so on but asking about the situation where the public already have access. Is the new coastal access path likely to change the arrangements that already exist on the golf courses concerned?

It depends where the path goes in relation to the golf course. I freely admit that the coastal path will affect some golf courses that are currently by the sea and have no public rights of way across them; that is bound to be the case. Natural England will consult the golf course owners about this and there will be discussions about it. Just as in the assurance that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with regard to ploughed land, on land where the public may face some kind of danger because of a legitimate pursuit on land alongside it, the path will be at its narrowest definition. The golf course will have to adjust to the fact that the path goes across its land, as all golf courses that have public rights of way adjust and provide the necessary arrangements at present. The practice is carried out with accidents being few and far between. We have to rely on good sense prevailing in those circumstances.

I am reassured to hear the Minister say that he considers that on golf courses the path will have its narrowest definition. Under the Bill at the moment, even with existing rights of way, the whole golf course might be added to the existing right of way as a form of access land. The question is what will be allowed as a definable boundary. Would it have to be something physical and impenetrable or just something visible?

Even on the most extensive golf course by the sea, even if it is linear, there could be only two or three holes that would be affected by a narrow path—the narrow definition of the right of way—proceeding along the coastline and along the course. Those circumstances have nothing to do with the other holes, but I recognise that the path being there, affecting those two or three holes, creates an issue. However, that already obtains with so many courses that I do not think that the coastal path raises anything different in law, in terms of anxiety and public concern, from what obtains at present.

The other significant area that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised—he was ably supported in this by others who contributed to the debate—was the issue of dogs. I emphasise that it will be important that we have an effective communications strategy for dog owners so that they are aware of their rights and responsibilities. There is no doubt that in certain circumstances, as we all know, dogs can have a serious effect in the countryside; that is why we have a clear definition of the law about where farm animals graze. We accept that there should be a general restriction requiring the keeper of a dog to keep the dog under effective control.

We set out in the order the sort of actions required of any person in effective control of a dog and exercising the right of access to coastal land. The requirements where a person may be considered to be keeping a dog under effective control are that the keeper of a dog keeps the dog on the relevant access land—after all, it is only that land that is available to the owner and therefore to the dog—and keeps the dog on a lead or keeps it in sight, remains aware of its actions and is reasonably confident that the dog will return reliably and promptly on command. In other words, the dog owner is responsible for the dog. In fact, we expect within that framework that people will act responsibly and will know, whenever they are going along the coastal path, that it will be necessary for dogs to be under control.

Natural England will be able to restrict dogs to leads or exclude dogs for land management or nature conservation reasons on coastal land. It may be, after all, that a dog would be a severe disturbance in a nature conservation area, so Natural England may say that in such an area it is not prepared to allow dogs on the coastal path. This is all part of the necessary consultation. Natural England is guided by the major priority of creating a coastal path that goes around England. By the same token, it has to take into account a range of other interests. If it is dealing with an area of the environment where a dog would be a severe disturbance to wildlife or would give rise to any other aspects of disturbance that an animal might create, it will be up to it to impose a prohibition if necessary.

A number of other issues were raised. On the question of dunes, to which the noble Lord referred, and other areas where it might be possible to walk but which will have to be looked at with care because of the topography, again I make the obvious point that Natural England will have regard to that topography. If the path can be established in a permanent form that does no damage to an area and its features, that will be done. If, as the noble Lord seemed to suggest, this was not possible on a long-run perspective or even a perspective over several years—for instance, if the coastal path was defined on somewhat shifting sands and changing topography—we would expect Natural England, for obvious reasons, to take account of that fact and for the path not to pursue that course.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether the path would be at the bottom or the top of a cliff. It is not going to be on the top of a cliff that is subject to erosion such that within a matter of a year or two of being defined it becomes inherently dangerous. There are some parts of East Anglia where the erosion is so rapid that the most considerable care would have to be taken.

I wish to make it clear that, when I was talking about the top or the bottom of a cliff, I was referring to the landward boundary of the coastal margin and not about the line of the path.

I understood that, but the noble Lord will forgive me if I talk first about the top of the cliff. After all, he expressed the view that, on the whole, that is the preferable location for the coastal path. All sensible people in certain parts of the country will agree with him because it is from the cliff top that views over the sea and inland can be experienced. We can all call to mind areas where that may not be possible or safe and where the path should be at the bottom. That is unlikely in areas of erosion because the waterside is unlikely to be much safer than the top of the cliff.

We are asking a body with a real sense of responsibility to create this path, to consult local interests and to take into account the factors articulated in the passage of the Bill on which assurances were given. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is how we expect Natural England to respond.

We do not regard the issue of privacy in this legislation in quite the same way as we regarded it with CROW. In that Act, we were concerned with a great many inland areas where it was anticipated that one could state right of access to the land without necessarily going too close to a dwelling, so privacy could easily be protected. It is more difficult with a coastal path, because dwellings are likely to be closer to where the path is obliged to go along the edge of the land. Natural England will seek to avoid locating the route where there could be an adverse impact on property.

In the same way, where the route might be quite wide when it approaches a campsite or, in particular, a caravan site that has some permanence to it—I know some campsites have permanence but noble Lords have raised the issue of caravan sites—if the path does not circumnavigate the caravan site and it is only practicable for it to go through the site, the path will be narrowly defined. The noble Baroness talked about access, but the coastal path does not create a fresh problem of access to a caravan site or campsite. After all, by definition, these areas are not bounded or encased in huge steel fences and owners and proprietors therefore take responsibility for access. However, if the path goes through a caravan site, it will be at its narrowest definition at that point. By the same token, assurance will be expected to be given that dogs are kept on leads, as well as all the other factors that ensure that walkers meet their obligations.

I am sure that I have not been able to respond in full to a number of other issues, but this has been a fairly long debate. It has not been as long as the debates that we had on the Bill, but it has been pretty extensive. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the order gives effect to an Act that commanded widespread support throughout the House. We all expressed the extent to which we could see benefit arising from the coastal path. It is quite clear that the obligations on Natural England are substantial. It concluded its consultation on the draft scheme last week. It is now looking at all the responses and we expect the final scheme to be submitted to the Secretary of State as soon as its analysis is complete. We will then know the terms under which Natural England envisages giving effect to the proposals.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the way in which he has dealt with the various points raised. He said that a lot of questions were asked. I hope that if, on examining the record, he feels that he can add to those points that he has not been able to cover in his principal contribution to the discussion, he will write to those of us who participated. It has been useful to have on the record some definitions of what this complex statutory instrument provides for. I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to that.

Well, of course, my Lords. The noble Lord has given me the chance to note that I did not say anything about litter, an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised. I make the obvious point that litter, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, is a curse of our contemporary society. We all know the terrible damage that it does to areas of scenic beauty. We are bound to anticipate that, on a coastal path of several hundreds of miles, litter problems will occur from time and time and in certain places. The only two solutions to the problem of litter are, first, that those responsible for clearing it up take their duties seriously—but we all know how difficult that is in remote areas such as the coastal path—and, secondly and most crucially, that the public are educated to the obvious fact that they should not destroy the very beauty that they have come to appreciate by being on the coastal path in the first place.

I am grateful for the debate. I had a number of commendatory things to say about the order’s relationship with the Act, but noble Lords have ensured that we have explored those in considerable detail. I shall of course ensure that a full letter is sent to all noble Lords who have participated covering those points that I regret I was unable to deal with.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010.

My Lords, I have spent a good part of the last half hour talking about dogs, so there is something wonderfully appropriate about moving on to greyhounds, although they are a rather special kind of dog and are open to regulation in a way in which some of us would like with regard to other dogs on occasions.

The regulations meet a government commitment, given during debates on the Animal Welfare Bill, to introduce welfare regulations for racing greyhounds. They will create minimum welfare standards for all greyhound tracks in England, without imposing disproportionate burdens on an industry that is already subject to the high standards required by the Animal Welfare Act. We know that welfare groups would prefer regulations that cover many more aspects of the sport. We have listened to those concerns but are confident that the regulations, combined with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, will provide significant protection for racing greyhounds. The regulations require all English tracks to meet the same minimum welfare standards. The standards will be enforced either by the local authority, or by a body that has United Kingdom Accreditation Service accreditation as an enforcement body.

Our consistent advice to the self-regulated sector of the greyhound industry has been that, to remain self-regulated in the 21st century, it must have UKAS accreditation. We have been assured that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain is on schedule to secure accreditation, and that it will be in place by the end of March. That means that most tracks in England will not require a local authority licence, as their membership of the GBGB and its UKAS accreditation, will ensure that those welfare standards are being enforced. The remaining six or so independent tracks will be required to be licensed by their local authority to the same standards.

All tracks will need to have a veterinarian present for all race meetings, trials and sale trials. The veterinarian must inspect every greyhound before it runs and will administer treatment to any greyhound that is injured while running. The vet will also be required to make a record, to be kept by the track, of any greyhound that is injured during a race or trial. These records can be used by the track and the track vet, over the long term, to judge whether there are any improvements that track managers could make to reduce the number of injuries. The regulations will also require that the veterinarians be provided with appropriate facilities to carry out their work.

All greyhounds that race and trial at tracks in England will be required to be permanently identified by both earmark and microchip, with the details placed on one of a number of databases that are available to hold such records. The criteria for suitable databases are set out in Part 2 of the schedule to the regulations. The Great Britain Greyhound Board has its own database, with standards that meet the requirements in the schedule, so most dogs will be on one central database. The remaining small minority of greyhounds that race only on independent tracks also need to be chipped and tattooed, but their details will only need to be recorded on a suitable database.

Tracks will be required to keep records of all greyhounds that race or trial at the track, and owners and trainers will need to produce ID the first time that the greyhound runs at the track under their ownership. Tracks will also be required to keep kennels for at least 20 per cent of dogs that attend a meeting. The GBGB requires kennels for all greyhounds that race. However, this is aimed at maintaining integrity. We do not believe that we can justify, for welfare purposes, requiring all greyhounds to be kennelled. However, we accept that some kennelling must be available where trainers bring multiple greyhounds to a meeting. It may take independent tracks some time to install such kennels and we have therefore provided a lead-in time for this important requirement.

These regulations are a proportionate and targeted response to the welfare problems within the industry. For the first time, a set of standards will apply to all tracks in England. The regulations will ensure greater welfare at tracks where injuries are most likely to occur and will improve the traceability of greyhounds both during and after their racing lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

My Lords, we welcome the introduction of these regulations. There has been considerable concern about the welfare of greyhounds and with one substantial exception these regulations appear to address that concern. The key issue relates, as the Minister pointed out, to the fact that the 27 tracks covered by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain will not be regulated under these regulations. Those tracks will not need the licences introduced by the regulations, provided that they obtain UKAS accreditation. That is a very good device and we are confident that they will do so.

I have a note regarding seven independent tracks which will require local authority licences. I have a number of notes on the whole issue of those licences, but, given that we do not wish consideration of other matters to be put under pressure, I shall skip to my principal concern: there is no specific cover for the welfare of dogs off the track. To this extent, there is a risk that the Government will create the illusion of tackling the greyhound scandal, as reported in the media, but fail to get to grips with its essential elements.

There is nothing about breeding, which is a hot topic in the dog world. Above all, there is nothing about euthanasia. Are the Government content to rely on the general provisions of animal welfare to deal with this? I should indicate my interest as I occasionally attend the meetings of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, which is meeting at this present time. It estimates that 4,728 retired dogs were not accounted for in the period under review. Even simple sums show that the annual cohort of racing dogs is around 7,000 out of 14,000 dogs racing at any one time—dogs have a two-year active life in the racing world. It would appear that 4,500 are rehoused. Everyone knows where a proportion of those dogs have gone, but there is a black hole in relation to the remainder. It is particularly disappointing that while the Government have conducted a consultation on this process, they did not consider that issue.

The outcry about the number greyhounds killed at the end of their racing career was well publicised in the Sunday Times. At the time, one could have been forgiven for concluding that concern about premature death and the means by which it was achieved by far outweighed concern about conditions on racetracks. The Government claim on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that there was insufficient evidence to support the introduction of regulations concerning retired greyhounds. As page 9 of the memorandum points out at paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4, the number of dogs not recorded as rehomed is several thousand. There is certainly no reason to disbelieve the figures for deaths quoted in the paper and on the radio during the passage of the Animal Welfare Act. To that extent, the regulations ignore this and they represent unfinished business.

My Lords, we on these Benches also broadly support the order. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, declared that he was an irregular attender at the All-Party Parliamentary Greyhound Group. I am afraid that I need to declare an interest as an all-too-regular attender at Oxford, Swindon, Reading, White City, Wimbledon, Haringey, Wembley, Birmingham Hall Green, Brighton and Catford in my misspent youth. I stopped going to the dogs about a quarter of a century ago, but I should declare that I was responsible for leading the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, astray when we were both special advisers; I introduced him to dog racing at Wimbledon. I believe—the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will tell me if I am wrong—that to this day he and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, have a share in a slow dog running there. Like probably too many noble Lords I speak from intimate knowledge of this matter, but from a long time ago.

These regulations apply to only a few remaining flapper tracks, as dog-fanciers call them in this country—that is, independent tracks—and I would appreciate if we could know how many there are left; whether it is six or seven, I am amazed by how few there are. Perhaps the Minister could write to us and let us know. These tracks are the remnants of a long tradition of working men, often retired miners, enjoying this sport, particularly in the north of the country.

We share some of the same concerns about whether the regulations go far enough and whether the welfare of dogs is properly covered. Given how far the sport has now declined, though, one has to accept that the capacity of those tracks to spend a lot more is very limited. I am sure that the Government are right to say that to go further would be disproportionate because there would then be a danger that these tracks would close.

I want to ask particularly about the questions raised by the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA as to whether there should be more access to statutory information so that they can protect injured greyhounds or greyhounds that may well be coming to them after they have left the sport. Have the Government considered that?

In general, though, we would appreciate knowing how many independent tracks there are left. We broadly support the order.

I shall intercede for a few seconds to give my support to these regulations. I do so on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Greyhound Group, of which I am joint chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to his past involvement with greyhound racing and I have been involved with it for about 50 years. Consequently, I think I know something about greyhounds and the greyhound industry.

I speak on behalf of the parliamentary group in commending this regulation. We do so because we believe that we have made extensive progress over the past few years in the welfare of greyhounds. I concede to the criticism that may be made of greyhounds’ welfare that, years ago, that was not always the case. However, our group has spent considerable time in the past four or five years concentrating on the important issue of greyhound welfare in conjunction with Defra and Ministers, who have come continuously to our group meetings in order us to discuss how we can progress this important issue.

I believe we are making good progress. This is a very important regulation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, for the independent tracks—the old flapper tracks—which until recently were not under any control at all. It ought to be recognised that our own parliamentary group and the GBGB, the organisation for greyhounds, have taken a great deal of the initiative to bring about the present situation. When we talk about the independent tracks in this legislation, it is they that we feel ought to have the benefit of the oversight of local authorities.

It is fair to say that, under the accreditation system that applies to registered tracks, we already have the high regulations that are included in these regulations. All I urge on noble Lords today is that this is a very important milestone but it is not the end. We have continually to be vigilant about greyhound welfare. We must concentrate, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, on rehoming, which is very important. A few years ago probably only 25 per cent of greyhounds were being rehomed; I think the figure is now around 80 per cent. But that is still not good enough; we still need to make further progress—and we will do so if we have noble Lords’ support for these regulations today.

Incidentally, as we know, the regulations went through the House of Commons this morning, where honourable Members approved them. I hope that both Houses of Parliament give their blessing to these regulations. We shall continue, as an all-party parliamentary group, to represent all our interests, the interests of greyhounds and the interests of those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, enjoy the pleasure of greyhound racing. It is a great sport and many thousands of people enjoy it, but it can only succeed and be a good and happy sport that is pleasurable for people if we know that, at the end of the greyhounds’ racing days, they will have a happy and contented life. We all want to see that. That is why we work in harmony, in B-flat, with the animal welfare organisations to achieve it.

I am never quite certain when it is appropriate to speak in these Committees so if I am out of order tell me now. I speak as an owner of greyhounds, past and present, and I have two concerns to raise today. The first has to do with the greyhound orphanages, which are wonderful creations but very expensive to put your dogs into. It costs roughly £5.50 a day to lodge them there; it can take up to 200 days or more to find them a home; and you can face a bill for £1,000 for a dog that has retired. How much better it would be if a subsidy could come into those orphanages from the racetracks themselves in some form of earlier levy that would make it a better incentive for the owners to contribute their dogs to the orphanages. They are beautifully run and very successful, but they take time.

I come to my second and far greater concern. I currently have two dogs that raced for me and are now retired. Both are subject to one thing that is quite appalling: they have been tattooed in each ear. As a result, they have a lifelong aversion to anybody touching their ears, to the point where they scream. It was done very painfully and it is not a nice process. The Irish are particularly brutal on it because they use a longer number. Furthermore, the dogs that come from Ireland—this is deplorable—are all terrified of their ears being touched because they are dragged around by plastic pincers in the yards there. We ought to make some sort of law against those dogs being imported to this country as a disincentive to the Irish to do that. We should have some far stricter control on this deplorable treatment of these lovely animals.

I was a member of the animal welfare group that looked into this matter. While the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, has had greyhounds that run, whenever I go to a track, unfortunately for me, I never win at all. So whatever I say in relation to that does not apply.

I am pleased that we are going as far as we are, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we should go much further. We should be looking at what happens with the breeders, the kennels and the rest. I am concerned about the fact that there are still greyhounds—we estimated 4,700 in the report—that are unaccounted for.

This is a start. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, say that it was not the end; that we have to go much further. We have to see what happens to the dogs. I agree with what was said about Irish dogs, which account for a large percentage of our greyhounds. In many cases they do not enjoy even the minimum welfare standards that we have here and that needs to be looked at. Something needs to be done about them because greyhound racing is very dependent on dogs coming in from Ireland.

I shall not prolong the debate because many of the things I wanted to say have been said. We ought to be able to account for a greyhound from its birth, through its short racing life and through to what happens to it when it has finished racing. I look forward to these regulations being only the start. We should extend them to breeders and trainers and ensure that good welfare standards also apply when greyhounds have finished racing.

My Lords, I must, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, implied, declare and admit that I am currently a half-owner of not just a slow but an increasingly slower greyhound. I should add that although she is among my many loss-making investments, she is the most beautiful and much preferable to any of the others.

I chaired the recent committee of inquiry into the sport whose report put dog welfare at the centre. I should declare that, when a young teenager, I was an assistant to the bookmaker at the old Earls Barton track, certainly a flapper by any standards. I have never forgotten the occasion when he was driving home and he pulled a revolver from his pocket, showed it to me while driving and simply said, “You get some dodgy people at the greyhounds”. You get some nice ones too, though.

I support these regulations. I know that for some dog welfare people they do not go far enough, but that is always the case. I spoke to a leading executive from the Dogs Trust this week and she said that they were not quite enough, but they were pretty good. We can be pleased with that.

The independent tracks are the main welfare issue. We suggested the regulations, and they are the most practical way to approach the issue. On a visit to a flapping track in Lancashire, near Bolton, I had the most pleasurable greyhound evening of my life, so the objective should not be, as some people suggested to my committee, to eliminate these independent tracks; rather, we should help them and encourage them in stages—they cannot do it immediately—to become UKAS-accredited and part of the mainstream. We should not claim to be against them.

The noble Lord referred to the “greyhound scandal”. That is an unfortunate and excessive phrase to use about the sport. Frankly, that is typical of media trash. When I was on the committee, I deliberately asked that journalist to come to give evidence so that we could question him. Not to my surprise, having worked on the same newspaper myself, he was too busy to come to be grilled. Do not talk about the greyhound scandal, especially because of the enormous improvement that has taken place and is continuing.

The issue of retired greyhounds is a major factor, but the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, when he was chairman, did an enormous amount to advance that. The provisions for retired greyhounds are now excellent and are wholly to the credit of the committee. I thank the Government. I have a question regarding paragraph (6)(2) in Part 1 of the schedule, on greyhound injuries. It rightly relates to licensed tracks keeping, through the vet, records of injuries. I am unclear as to whether tracks are encouraged or required to publish those records. My impression was that different tracks, because they have different configurations and surfaces, keep different records. It would be helpful if the sport was aware that some tracks were more injury-prone than others. Perhaps they could be encouraged to alter and improve the surfaces.

Apart from those points, I congratulate the Government and the department on the progress that they have made. I hope that noble Lords will wholly approve of what is before them.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke, particularly those members of the all-party group who spoke with such authority and have rendered this response somewhat redundant. I am grateful for the recognition that the regulations take the welfare of greyhounds forward substantially, and for the endorsement of noble Lords who have worked with the all-party group and in other quarters to produce the benefits which the regulations will bring.

I noted a number of points of criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his opening remarks, somewhat echoed by noble Lords on the Committee, said that the regulations could go further. The Government think that the Animal Welfare Act gives considerable protection to greyhounds. The additional factors that are part of the regulations take matters a good deal further. The basic provisions of the Act are nevertheless an important and substantial basis for the care of greyhounds. The debate highlighted that the position of racing may be well covered and safeguarded.

I apologise that I said there were six independent tracks, but I was corrected. The figure is certainly seven and I do not know why on earth I dared to strain such august company with an incorrect number. Why do we not get figures from those seven tracks about safety? There is the obvious anxiety that they might not record injuries effectively if they thought that fingers would be pointed directly at them regarding their record compared to other tracks. We are interested in the overall welfare of greyhounds.

We persist in our stance that it is better that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain produces overall statistics in which we can measure either the improvement or, heaven forbid, a deterioration in greyhound welfare, whereas identifying individual tracks might be a counterproductive measure—not least because I have again noted that noble Lords have suggested that someone can pay up for additional welfare. This is not an industry that is enormously replete with funds, and where the funds are, it is often difficult to prise them away for the benefit of the greyhounds themselves.

There is no question of a compulsory levy. The industry would not stand for that in the consultation. I am, however, happy to report, although they have scarcely been mentioned in this debate, that an interest group related to greyhound racing is bookmakers, who are contributing towards a levy for welfare, and that gives extra resources. We can build upon what we have here.

We are, of course, concerned about the aspect that concerned all noble Lords in this debate: the welfare of greyhounds after they finish racing. The noble Lord, Lord James, was entirely in order in making his contribution, and a very constructive contribution it was. One part that was very constructive, although I cannot follow him in his construction, is his point that if dogs are treated cruelly and painfully then, as intelligent animals, they sustain the mark of that cruelty. With regard to aggressive tattooing of the ears, though, we are not able to restrict greyhounds from the Republic of Ireland. We are part of the European Community, and we could not lightly take on distraint upon trade in those terms without facing potential wrath from elsewhere.

The chip is better, cheaper and more effective, and it would be a simple requirement to impose.

Yes, it is easy to impose upon British greyhounds, but not upon greyhounds that are imported. The noble Lord knows that; he is not one who advocates great distraints upon trade, and he will recognise that we would get into trouble if we introduced the dimension of putting a distraint on the importation of greyhounds from the Republic. We must expect, though, that when we set standards for our tracks and the care of our animals, in due course those standards will be reflected in other dogs that arrive here. The Irish practice that the noble Lord has referred to as being unacceptable will gradually not be perpetrated there as they follow the patterns that we use for identification here.

There is no way that I can match the levels of expertise that have been reflected in this Committee, but I am delighted that our measures are recognised as advancing the welfare of greyhounds. I appreciate that if a sufficient head of steam with regard to the industry is generated for additional measures, some of which have been suggested today, we will improve even on what we have.

As a result of these regulations, the All-Party Parliamentary Greyhound Group has been deprived of a wonderful evening at Wimbledon; we were going greyhound racing tonight. We shall be going in the near future, though, and the Minister and other Members of this august Committee will be very welcome to join us.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilston, is still in time. The hare is not running yet, you know.

I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful for that invitation; I will be in contact with my noble friend about that. If we do go, we will be looking at dogs that are inherently healthy and well cared for. We want to see their welfare improved.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2010.

My Lords, before I explain these orders, noble Lords may find it helpful if I say a little about the work of the PPF in the year since we last debated these orders.

As noble Lords are aware, the Pension Protection Fund protects members of defined-benefit occupational pension schemes and members of defined-benefit parts of hybrid defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. It pays a statutory level of compensation if the sponsoring employer of the scheme experiences what is called a qualifying insolvency event—for example, where a company enters administration, where there is no possibility of a scheme rescue or where there are insufficient assets in the scheme to pay benefits at PPF compensation levels—that is, 90 per cent for deferred and active members and 100 per cent for people over normal pension age. The fund is administered by the board of the Pension Protection Fund, which is a public corporation.

The Pension Protection Fund is funded from three sources: the assets of pension schemes that transfer to it, including any recoveries from former employers; a levy charged on the schemes that are protected by it; and investment returns on those assets. The fund ensures that members of eligible defined-benefit schemes still receive a meaningful income in place of the pension they had worked for and would have received, had their employer not experienced a qualifying insolvency event and the fund of which they were a member not been unable to pay benefits at Pension Protection Fund levels.

Since 2005, 181 schemes have been assessed by the Pension Protection Fund following an employer insolvency event. At present 363 schemes, with around 203,000 members, are currently being assessed. As at the end of December 2009, 109 schemes had transferred into the PPF and over 32,800 people were either receiving PPF compensation or due to receive it in the future. The average yearly payment per person is around £4,000.

When the 2009 versions of these instruments were debated around this time last year, 74 schemes, with around 20,000 members, had transferred into the PPF, and 295 schemes, with around 134,000 members, were in assessment. This increase in numbers over the previous year shows the challenges that the PPF has had to face and the results of its efforts over the past year. The PPF’s contribution is welcomed, I am sure, by noble Lords. At these difficult times, I am sure that the 12 million people protected by the PPF will be particularly glad to know of its protection.

However, I know that noble Lords will also be keen to understand that the PPF is fulfilling its statutory purpose and that it will continue to be able to pay compensation going forward. Let me be clear on this: with around £3.7 billion under management, and a levy intended to raise £720 million in 2010-11, there is no doubt that the PPF has the liquidity to pay a monthly compensation bill of around £6.5 million.

Importantly, under even the most taxing economic scenarios that we have tested, the PPF could continue to pay compensation for at least 20 years into the future. However, it is right that we should be vigilant, and we and the PPF continue to monitor its position.

Despite the welcome news that the recovery has begun and that the UK is no longer in recession, we know that employers sponsoring defined-benefit pension schemes will continue to experience insolvency events, and the PPF will continue to play a vital role in supporting pensioners in retirement.

My Lords, these are pretty standard uprating orders but they give us an opportunity to discuss a consequence of Labour’s great recession that is often overlooked. When a company goes into insolvency, an employee does not just lose his job and his salary; he is also in danger of losing his pension entitlement. A record number of companies went into insolvency during the recession that we have just barely come out of—over 3,000 more than went bust in the previous recession in the 1990s. It is no surprise that the Pension Protection Fund website shows a record number of pension schemes seeking compensation. The list of transferred schemes is pretty bad, with a rise from 12 schemes in 2007 to 53 in 2008 and 41 in 2009, and, as the Minister informed us, the number of schemes still in the assessment period is much higher.

Ensuring that the Pension Protection Fund stays sufficiently funded to meet its commitments to these schemes is critical. I hope that the short-term cash flow problems that the recession caused are now over. However, the board of the fund has decided to amend its insolvency probabilities in order to take into account the effect of the economic climate on companies. The board notes that even companies regarded as low-risk have seen increased levels of failure, and previously healthy companies that survived the recession will now face the greatest increase in levies. These changes will not be implemented until the financial year 2011-12. Therefore, it is clear that the effect of Labour’s mismanagement of the economy will continue to be felt throughout the UK for many years to come.

However, the biggest elephant in the room whenever the health of the Pension Protection Fund is discussed continues to be the Royal Mail pension fund. We are fast approaching the date by which the revaluation of the scheme will have to be announced. Since the Prime Minister bottled the Postal Services Bill, postal workers across the country have been left in limbo, knowing that their scheme is running an unsustainable deficit that the Pension Protection Fund cannot possibly afford to compensate. The current problems that the PPF is facing as a consequence of the recession will be as nothing compared with the demands that will be placed on it if that scheme is forced into insolvency.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that his department has not just brushed that problem under the carpet until the election. Remaining in denial until May in the full knowledge that every delay to the necessary reforms will only make it harder in the long run would be deeply irresponsible. Are discussions with the Royal Mail pension plan ongoing, and are the Government still committed to implementing the Hooper review, with its plan for saving the pension fund, in full?

My Lords, this is an annual event. I think that we last discussed these orders about 10 and a half months ago. I am not going to make a party-political broadcast but, as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said, this is an appropriate opportunity to ask one or two questions about the state of pension funds generally and about the PPF in particular.

I am sure that, as an accountant, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will be able to help me. I am only an economist and statistician and I am afraid that, despite his kind letter and explanation, I am still struggling to understand exactly why one figure has gone up by 3.5 per cent while the other has gone up by 0.9 per cent. I understand that the 3.5 per cent is the increase in average earnings between March or April 2008—I am not sure which month was used—and March or April 2009. That is clear enough, but can the Minister tell me exactly what figure is being used for the 0.9 per cent? It relates to 31 July, but which year? I am still in the dark, so can he tell me which figure I should look up in the Labour statistics for that?

Last year, the noble Lord pointed out that the PPF was paying out £3.7 million a month in compensation. Today, he tells us that that figure has jumped to £6.5 million, so one sees how the pressures are building. He also said last year that, on the basis of the analysis that had been undertaken, the PPF had enough cash to continue to pay benefits for at least 25 years. However, this year he tells us that the calculation is now 20 years. Perhaps he can confirm that.

There is a more general point. We are talking here about very long-term liabilities and a long-term pension fund. It is the same sort of defence that one hears from the Government when one tries to raise serious questions about the long-term viability of public sector pension schemes. It is not a question of running out of cash in the short term but a question of these liabilities being properly provided for.

I have one or two more detailed questions on the PPF and the figures that have come from its very useful publication, the Purple Book. One should pay tribute to the PPF for the way that it reports properly and has built up in the Purple Book a good picture of pension funds in this country. Frankly, it was a scandal that this was never available before. The PPF is talking here about its sample of around 7,300 schemes. I am surprised that it says that open schemes still constitute 27 per cent of schemes. Could the noble Lord comment on this? For any of these questions, if he does not have the full answer, could he look into it and write to me? Admittedly, that figure is down from 31 per cent in 2008 and 36 per cent in 2007. It is not entirely clear from the way it is written whether that 27 per cent refers to schemes that are open to both new membership and new accrual. Could the Minister clarify that?

We also see that there has been a catastrophic decline in the funding position of the schemes that the PPF Purple Book refers to. Again, could the Minister confirm that? Aggregate funding on a Section 179 basis has gone down from a £12.3 billion surplus in March 2008 to a deficit of £200.6 billion in 2009. That is down from an even bigger surplus of £87.4 billion in March 2007. The full buy-out funding level is even worse, falling from 62.9 per cent in March 2008 to only 57.7 per cent in 2009. On the technical provisions basis, we are talking about a deficit that has gone up from £98 billion a year ago to £329 billion this year. For all that one fully accepts that there is no danger of the PPF running out of money in the short term, there is a good deal of evidence that the pressures are building. We will also come to the growing insolvency figures. When a company fails and the pension fund lands on the PPF, the size of the black hole in each case is likely to be much more.

There were over 50 per cent more liquidations in the third quarter of 2009 than at the low point in 2007. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that I am glad he is so sure that the recession has ended. We have had one-quarter of barely perceptible economic growth, which is well within the margin of error. I would not be at all sure that the recession has ended. It certainly has not ended as far as many of these hard-pressed manufacturing companies are concerned. This tends still to be the area where the big defined benefit schemes and liabilities are.

Those are my main questions. I will also ask about something I raised last year but is still a serious problem. As well as liquidations, what is the effect of the continuing tide of pre-pack administrations, by which companies get rid of the pension fund and some of their debts and start again, particularly in phoenix administrations? Are there figures from the last year for how many pension funds of companies in that category have been dumped on the PPF?

Finally, on risk reduction, we are told on page 20 of the Red Book that the total number of contingent assets—which are pledged by the company to help support the pension scheme; it is a perfectly sensible way of doing things—has risen by 30 per cent from 452 for the previous levy year to 587 for this year. What is the total value of those assets in each year?

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am not sure that I heard from either noble Lord who spoke whether they support the orders.

Yes, we do.

I am delighted to hear that. A number of quite technical questions were raised and I shall to try to deal with as many of them as I can. On some, I shall definitely have to follow up.

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, talked about the mismanagement of the economy, which we do not accept for a moment. I stress to the noble Lord that the measures that this Government have implemented, which have taken us through the consequences of what has been a worldwide recession, were opposed by his party. If we had not taken the steps that we did to stabilise the banking system and put in the fiscal stimulus, matters would have been a great deal worse. Therefore, I do not accept the noble Lord’s proposition to start with.

I cannot let that pass. The mismanagement encompasses the whole period, not just the period of rescue. Running an economy at a level of gearing in both the private and the banking sector, which is what has happened, has left us in a much worse position than that of the bulk of European countries. That is a level of financial mismanagement which even the Minister, with his considerable expertise, would find it hard to argue his way out of.

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that we are straying somewhat from the orders. Pretty much every time that we have talked about regulation and its scope, his party has argued for less onerous regulation across the banking system and across a whole range of other areas.

The noble Lord talked about people losing their jobs and being in danger of losing their pensions. In previous recessions, that is what happened. We now have the Pension Protection Fund; it did not exist before, and we had the interim arrangements around the FAS. The Pension Protection Fund means that if a person’s employer becomes insolvent and their scheme is underfunded, they can rely on a stream of income in retirement. That simply did not exist before.

The noble Lord talked about insolvency probabilities. This issue is still out for consultation. It is important that the PPF considers how best to assess this risk, but, at the end of the day, it is a matter for the PPF.

The noble Lord strayed rather ingeniously to get on to the future of Royal Mail under this order. That is obviously a matter for BIS, and the Pensions Regulator is responsible for regulating scheme funding. Royal Mail will submit valuation and recovery plans in the normal way, like every other pension scheme. Issues around the future of Royal Mail and the Hooper plan are not matters for our deliberations today.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, wanted clarification on the percentages and on where they were derived from. The 0.9 per cent relates to the 12 months ending July 2009; 3.5 per cent is the earnings factor for the 12 months ending April 2009. In fact, it may be 2008 rather than 2009, because the earnings factor is related to the year preceding the year with which we are dealing.

It is possibly still not crystal-clear to the Minister. Is it the whole year compared with the previous year, as opposed to a month? The percentage cannot have moved from 3.5 to 0.9 over those three months. Something is still not quite clear, I think.

I am sorry; it is for a whole year period. I will write to the noble Lord specifically to confirm that, but that is why.

The noble Lord asked about the PPF’s assessment, which was over 25 years but is now to be over 20 years. To be clear, the modelling still indicates a period over 25 years. I think that I said it would be at least 20—I was being conservative, with a small “c”, as ever on this. The modelling has now been reviewed by the National Audit Office in its positive report published last Friday.

The noble Lord referred to the PPF’s 7,800 series of reports. An updated report is issued today. I do not know whether he has seen it; it may be helpful if I update him on that. The aggregate funding position of the almost 7,400 schemes protected by the PPF is estimated to have worsened slightly over the month to a deficit of £51.9 billion at the end of January 2010—compared with a deficit of £32.6 billion at the end of November 2009—but the scheme funding is better than it was a year previously, when there was a deficit of £183.6 billion. I know that the noble Lord understands full well that those figures refer to a net of aggregates that swing around increases in asset values and changes in gilt yields and what they mean for liabilities.

The noble Lord asked about the 27 per cent of the sample that constitute open schemes and he wanted clarification on whether that meant open both to new members and to new accrual. I look for support from the back of the Room, but I am not getting it, so I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

On several of those points, I should be quite happy to have a written answer, if that suits the Minister.

I would prefer to do that because they are quite technical points—certainly those relating to the total value of contingency assets and an update on pre-pack schemes. Around the whole issue of buyouts, buy-ins and the raft of arrangements that may be in place, the market has generally cooled during the past year—perhaps not surprisingly. Subject to those detailed points, on which I owe the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, an answer, which I shall share with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, I commend the orders.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2010.

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground Metropolitan Line S8 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2010.

My Lords, this House has always demonstrated a keen interest in the accessibility of rail vehicles, and that is why we are here today. We know that, without public transport that they can use, disabled people are limited in their ability to get to work, visit friends and family, participate in leisure activities or access healthcare and education facilities. The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998—or RVAR—are just one example of the action we have taken to ensure that public transport services are increasingly available to the estimated 11 million disabled people in the United Kingdom.

More than a third of the national rail fleet, more than 5,600 vehicles, is already compliant with RVAR, and almost all older rail vehicles have been made more accessible during refurbishment. We have also set an end date of 1 January 2020, by which time all rail vehicles must be accessible.

However, it is sometimes not possible for new trains to meet the requirements of RVAR in full and the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground Metropolitan Line S8 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2010 will allow London Underground to introduce new trains on the Metropolitan line which are fully compliant with RVAR in all but five respects. These can be directly traced to the significant operational and infrastructure challenges that London Underground faces and are similar to those granted by Parliament for London Underground’s new Victoria line trains in 2008. These were the first London Underground trains to be built to modern accessibility standards and we learned a number of lessons during that process which have been applied here to the new Metropolitan line stock to minimise a number of exemptions which are necessary.

The first and second exemptions requested relate to audible and visual warnings of door closure. They will allow LU to use an audible and visual door-closure warning which is shorter than that required by RVAR—1.75 seconds as opposed to three seconds. Until all the new trains are delivered, they must run alongside existing vehicles which were designed in the 1960s and consequently fail to meet many aspects of modern accessibility standards. I should share with the Committee the information that I grew up in Metroland and travelled daily to school on those A-stock trains from the first day of their introduction over 50 years ago.

As there will be a mixture of new and old vehicles on the Metropolitan line until 2013 and on the other sub-surface lines until May 2015, it would be confusing and potentially hazardous to have two different durations of door-closure warnings on the same route. As it would be difficult and wasteful to change the warnings on existing trains for the one or two years that they remain in service, allowing London Underground to continue with its current warning periods will provide consistency and allow disabled people to be confident about what the warning actually means.

London Underground is already committed, as part of the terms of its similar Victoria line exemption, to undertake a trial to establish whether a compliant warning is appropriate for its operations without impacting on the safety of all passengers once all its new trains are introduced in 2013. The results will inform the position on the Metropolitan line and future policy in this area.

The third exemption relates to the announcements made on board the train at each station. RVAR requires both the next stop and terminating station to be announced while the train is stationary at a station. This requirement was originally included to enable passengers to distinguish between fast and stopping services. For key sections of the Metropolitan line, where there are branch lines and junctions or where there is a choice between fast and stopping services, we have insisted that compliant announcements be made. However, at certain non-key sections—by that I mean, predominantly, the stretch between Aldgate and Baker Street, where there are no branches or junctions and all trains stop at all stations—the exemption will allow some, but not all, of the mandated information to be given during transit between some stations instead.

To insist on the provision of all the mandated information at these stations would greatly limit the amount of other information that can be given to passengers at that time, such as connections to other routes and services. Additionally, some platforms on the line will be shorter than the trains arriving there, and London Underground wishes to use the passenger information system to ensure that customers move towards an opening door in time for them to alight should they wish to. Again, similar exemptions were granted for London Underground’s new Victoria line fleet and it is undertaking a trial to determine what announcements passengers find most useful. These results will inform future policy.

The fourth exemption will allow the placement of a horizontal handrail in the designated wheelchair spaces on each train. This recognises the level of crowding which passengers on Metropolitan line services can experience at peak times and addresses concerns about standing customers falling against or on to wheelchair users due to the lack of an appropriate handrail or other support in this area. This is an issue that we have sought to address in revised RVAR regulations, which we expect to introduce later this year. Consultation on a draft of those regulations, completed in 2009, indicates unanimous stakeholder support for this amendment and will render similar exemptions unnecessary in future.

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his clear introduction of the order. I should say immediately that it is largely uncontentious, although it raises some issues about the amount of time that will elapse before Metropolitan line trains are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We appreciate that the consultation has been undertaken on this and that broadly there seem to be few disagreements with the order.

We appreciate that the Metropolitan line is the oldest Tube line and therefore was not built to accommodate the standards that we now demand: that disabled people should be able to travel without hindrance, or with as little hindrance as possible, to enable them to live as full lives as possible. The uniformity of the timing of announcements across all the trains seems to make sense as it means that the wheelchair-bound, who need to know how long they have to exit or enter the train, can do so with confidence, and the timing announcements are of course invaluable to blind people, who rely on them to enable them to judge when they should, in particular, leave the train. We accept that the 1.75-second amendment to the order, to be held for the time being, is sensible across the piece. A change to three seconds would be of greater benefit, but we assume that that will come in due course if the timing of the trains can also be sorted out—that seems to be a problem as well.

The one major area of concern is, of course, step-free access. While I hear what the Minister says about the humps that will be used, which seem to be a perfectly useful and sensible measure, without step-free access the trains are unavailable to those in wheelchairs and, it has to be said, to mothers with buggies. I know we are talking here about disabled access but there are other people in the world who have moveable vehicles, and mothers with buggies are among them. As a result of this, they will continue to have to use other stations or make different journeys for a number of years to come.

Step-free access is also germane in the context of movement from the station entrance to the platforms. If there are no lifts or escalators then wheelchair users and mothers with buggies cannot get to the trains. I noticed that this matter is being looked at, and the salient remark was made that people should not be allowed to get out of trains on to a platform to which there is no step-free access, but this is a continuing problem. There are a number of stations in London, not only on the Metropolitan line, where it is just impossible for anyone who has any wheels at all to get themselves down to the Tube.

Will the Minister explain in more detail what plans are being made to provide step-free platform access and entrance-to-platform access, and who is responsible for the latter provision—the mayor or LUL? The Minister explained this quite clearly but it is important to establish it: is it correct that a significant number of stations will never be able to accept trains that are compliant because the platforms themselves cannot structurally be made to fit the trains or to be accessible to them? We ought to be clear that there will be, as I think the Minister said, nine platforms that will never be accessible for these trains.

With regard to the provision of accessible trains so that all the trains on this line will comply with the Disability Discrimination Act, 2020 has been cited as the date by which all trains will be compliant. I think 5,600 trains out of 26,000 have already been done, but what progress is being made to ensure that the target will be met, and are there any contractual disciplines to ensure that it is? With that, we are happy to accept these orders.

We, too, support the order. In many respects the railway outside London is very old, as is much of its rolling stock, and the modifications necessary to meet these standards will be incredibly expensive. The noble Baroness touched on the subject of stations to which there will be no step-free access, and at many of these the cost of providing lifts will be very high. One of the problems in a democracy is deciding where limited money will be spent; in the end, we have to make judgments that some people may find unacceptable but which the majority may accept. The order is a good and clear agreement as to what can best be done.

As to the introduction of new rolling stock, both for London Underground and the big railway, there will be a lot of obstacles between now and the date that the new rolling stock will become available. The Government have still not published their rolling stock plan for the big railway and London Transport is in tremendous contractual trouble as a result of the PFI arrangements that the Government introduced and which were supported manifestly by the Prime Minister. It is difficult to see how the necessary rolling stock will be provided to meet the dates outlined.

I shall make one other point that is not strictly related to London Underground. Disability discrimination legislation applies equally, of course, to road transport, with which I am more familiar, and bus companies have invested hugely in buses that kneel and that have ramps, visible handrails, audible warnings, visual warnings and so on. However, the Government have manifestly failed to deal with the big objection that often these buses cannot berth alongside the kerb because of the flagrant breaches of parking restrictions that are allowed. On the railways we have the benefit that the train will pull up at the platform; unfortunately, bus passengers have no guarantee whatever that the bus will be able to get to the kerb.

The Government have major problems but, having made those points, I will happily otherwise support the order.

My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. We now have a happy tradition where the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I debate these issues more or less on our own, quite often in this Room. We have done so again today. I thank them both most sincerely for the constructive and helpful speeches they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, strayed a little wide of the order relating to the Metropolitan line, and I hope he will appreciate that I cannot comment on access to buses today. However, I am sure that he, with his usual ingenuity, will find an opportunity to return to that subject at some stage in the future

I am able to answer the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. She rightly drew attention to the problems at stations where, at present, we have no solution, normally because the levels are wrong or because they are severely curved. As I said in my opening speech, the exemption does not have a time limit applied to it for the 12 stations for which it is sought. We accept that there are problems there. The mayor is responsible for allocating the budget for London Underground and how he allocates the budget in this area is a matter for him. Some of the work required would be very expensive and it is he who will have to decide what the correct priorities are.

However, the order ensures that the platforms listed in the schedule are made step-free by the exemption dates. As a consequence, the number of exemptions should fall as the works are completed. I am sure that London Underground will note very carefully what the noble Baroness said about mothers with buggies—or, indeed, dads with buggies. They, too, need to get on and off trains. She is right to draw attention to them.

The noble Baroness also asked about the progress being made to ensure that the 2020 RVAR target is being met and whether any contractual difficulties are being experienced. So far, as I said, 5,600 vehicles are already compliant out of a total fleet of about 16,000. The department is working closely with industry and with DPTAC to ensure that the end date is met. That has already included work to bring the older vehicles up to compliance in recent franchises—that is a condition of new franchises. At this stage, we do not expect contractual issues to get in the way of meeting the 2020 target.

What contractual constraints are on the company to deliver by 2020? Presumably, conditions are attached to the contract or the delivery date not being met. There must be something that says that the contract must be delivered at a certain time and that, if it is not, what the penalties are.

Yes, the penalties are in the legislation and the requirement to make vehicles compliant is part of the new franchises, so a train operator that failed to comply—as I said, we have no knowledge that there is likely to be any difficulty in this area—would be in breach of its franchise, with the implications of that for the continuation of the franchise.

Would the Minister clarify that? We are talking principally about the Metropolitan line, where there is no franchise, is there not?

I think that the noble Baroness was referring to the compliance of the national railway.

I was referring to the contract that must at the moment be in place for the new trains and for the improvements to be made to the old trains. I was asking: in that contract, what are the penalties if it is not met?

I apologise to the noble Baroness for misunderstanding her. I thought that she was asking about the national picture. The position with the Metropolitan line is that all the new trains are capable of complying with the regulations now. With the order, we are effectively holding back the implementation of the RVAR regulations so that the new trains can run on the same track alongside the stock that I used to go to school on in 1960, the A-stock trains. Those trains are being progressively phased out. By 2015 the whole of the Metropolitan line will be served by the new trains, and they will all be fully compliant.

Will the date be met? The tension I am trying to get at is that we have these exemptions coming in. As I understand it, the new trains are all due to be delivered by 2020. What are the penalties to the company if they are not? It is not the exemptions to the disability Act that I am worried about at the moment; it is what happens if the trains that we are exempting are not built and ready. What are the penalties to the company for that?

I think that the noble Baroness may be misunderstanding one of the elements in the order. The order exempts the new trains temporarily so that they can run in an identical manner to the 50 year-old A stock. Those trains will be compliant when they are the only trains operating on the Metropolitan line. The other exemptions that we are discussing under the order are the exemptions that apply to things such as stations, which in the majority of cases can be met but, as I said earlier, there are 12 stations where we cannot put an end date on the exemption because the engineering work that would be required is too considerable. The trains on the Metropolitan line will all be compliant by 2015; what will not be compliant by 2015 are all the stations. There will still be stations that, because of their curves, will not be compliant.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the Government publishing their rolling stock plan. Again, that goes a little wide of the order, but I can tell him that the plan is still under development and we will be writing to the committee with the details when the work is completed.

My Lords, I should not like Hansard to indicate that I had not understood what the order was about. I think I have probably indicated that I did understand it, but I was widening the issue slightly to say that these trains are due to be provided by 2020. There must be some contractual arrangement by which they are provided by 2020 fully compliant, and, if they are not, there must be some contractual penalties. I do not mind if the Minister does not have the answer, but that was my question. I agree that it went slightly wider than the order, but I want it to be understood that I understand what the order is about.

The noble Baroness is right to press this matter. From my understanding, there is no contractual obligation because the company responsible, Metronet, has gone into liquidation. Does LUL simply pick up what the bankrupt company has left and does it have to adopt all the contractual obligations? It seems a very strange way for a company in liquidation to perform.

I certainly did not wish to imply that the noble Baroness had not understood the details. It is obviously my fault for not understanding what she was saying and I apologise for that.

The position is that the Secretary of State is required to ensure that all rail vehicles are compliant by 2020, except the heritage vehicles, which we debated some while ago and which are exempted indefinitely for reasons that we agreed at that time. New trains have to be compliant from the moment they come in. Therefore, all the new trains that come in on London Underground will be compliant unless an exemption is sought for operational reasons. In the case of Metropolitan line trains, the operational reason is the fact that the new trains are running on the same track and offering exactly the same service to customers as the 1960 A-stock vehicles. When the A-stock vehicles are withdrawn, the new trains will become entirely compliant and the exemptions will no longer need to apply. The contractual obligation is indeed on the Government and on Transport for London because that is what the law says: it is what happens with new rolling stock coming in after the passage of the legislation. I hope that, with those answers, I have satisfied the Committee.