asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we welcome the report of the Secretary-General's panel on peace operations. We want to work with others for swift and effective implementation. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

We agree with the panel on the need to improve the UN's rapid deployment capabilities. We shall be examining our existing bilateral and regional arrangements, training and exercise programmes to see whether those can be further enhanced in support of UN peacekeeping. The feasibility of developing multinational brigade-size forces for rapid deployment on UN operations requires further study in this context.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness a little further on this matter. The United Kingdom is actively involved in a European defence initiative which is, indeed, intended to develop coherent multinational brigade-size forces, and I wonder to what extent this report feeds into that. The United Kingdom also maintains very close relations with a number of Commonwealth forces which would provide the basis for closer integration, given that we all know that much of the problem with UN forces, as in Sierra Leone, is that they are not coherent and they fail to work together.

My Lords, one of the principal objectives of the European defence initiative is to ensure that EU member states can best meet their responsibilities in contributing to the work of the international community in responding to crisis situations. We are working with our partners in the EU to ensure that the EU's new crisis management capacity dovetails with that of the UN. The same is certainly true with our partners in the Commonwealth.

There is agreement around the world by countries which are involved in peacekeeping missions that it is essential to try to strengthen, to help and to streamline the UN's operations around the world. We all know of examples where things have not worked in the way that any of us would have wanted. So I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that extremely profound negotiations are being undertaken with co-operation between all parties concerned to take this report forward in the best possible way.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the Brahimi report is crucially important, it is equally important, in the light of recent experiences, to look at how civilian police presence in crisis areas can be increased and made more effective? Does my noble friend agree also that we must not allow ourselves to drift into a crisis management culture, a peacekeeping culture, at the expense of conflict resolution? There is a tremendous need to beef up the resources of the Secretary-General in anticipating crises and defusing them before they need a military presence.

My Lords, yes, indeed, I agree with the point which my noble friend Lord Judd has just made. In the Prime Minister's interventions in New York at the recent UN summit, he made the very point that it is necessary to deal with the causes of conflict and not just to deal with the results on the ground in a military way.

The Brahimi report is much broader than my noble friend perhaps understood it. One of its specific recommendations is that member states should be encouraged to enter into regional training partnerships for civilian police. The report goes on to expand on that. Her Majesty's Government fully support that recommendation. The UN should consider establishing an inspectorate-general of civilian police in parallel with the inspectorate-general of military forces to oversee development of selection, training and equipment guidelines to advise police contributors and to develop an understanding of training and equipment needs.

I should just mention that one of the members of the Brahimi panel was from Britain; namely, M r Richard Monk, who is the civilian policing expert on the panel. He was a retired British assistant chief commissioner. So we are not treating this as only a military problem.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House to what extent, in a case of committing such forces, the elected Government of this country will keep control both over the decision to deploy and the rules of engagement under which our troops are deployed?

My Lords, as always, in situations like this, the MoD and, therefore, ultimately the Government will always make sure that they are looking after the interests and control of British troops. We do not commit our troops until we are sure that they are going to do the right kind of job in the right kind of place in the right kind of way.

My Lords, does the Minister agree, in view of the experience of the United Kingdom in peacekeeping, and in view of the use of English in most UN forces, that it would be appropriate to establish a staff college in the United Kingdom for the training of UN officers entering this area? Will the Government consider that proposal?

My Lords, I can assure the House that the Government will do more than simply consider the matter. We have already indicated to the UN Secretary-General that we would be willing to host a UN military staff college in the United Kingdom. That would train forces of various nationalities for service in UN peacekeeping. The Secretary-General has welcomed the idea. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, will be aware that that was one of the recommendations of the report of the joint consultative committee, which included the Liberal Democrats.

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for giving us information about British contributions to the peacekeeping missions. Can she also say how much those contributions cost, how many such missions exist and where are they?

My Lords, in the current financial year the United Kingdom is set to contribute some £118 million to the cost of peacekeeping. That includes some £92 million as a contribution towards the common costs of UN missions and some £26 million as the cost of direct UK contributions, some of which will be subject to UN reimbursements.

Currently UK personnel are serving on UN-led missions in Bosnia, Cyprus, DRC, East Timor, Georgia, the Iraq/Kuwait border, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. They have won widespread praise for their courage and professionalism. Having visited Georgia just over a year ago, and having visited UNOMIG, where there is a tiny handful of British officers, I can tell the House that their contribution is immense. It is out of all proportion to their numbers. I am sure that that is true in other missions as well.

My Lords, this is one more commitment for our Armed Forces. I have read the Brahimi report and it is a serious commitment. We already have the European commitment and the NATO commitment. A new Budget is due soon, so can the Minister tell the House whether such a commitment will be reflected in the defence budget? The Strategic Defence Review certainly did not review all the commitments all at once.

My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review streamlined arrangements with our resources and forces so that we can look at the demands placed upon us. However, no one can ever predict exactly what demands there will be on our Armed Forces. The Brahimi report will not create commitments in addition to those that we carry out already. The point of the report is to streamline and to make more efficient the use of the UN machinery. It need not mean a lot of additional resources, but it does mean using existing resources in a much better way.

Financial Position

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, visitor numbers have been considerably lower than anticipated. Revenue has, therefore, been lower, which has necessitated increases of grant from the lottery. The alternative would have been greater expenditure and losses for those involved in the project, particularly staff, visitors and suppliers. The New Millennium Experience Company is currently in the process of finalising its detailed budget and I shall, as promised in my Statement last week, place copies in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether all the pre-conditions attached to the last £47 million tranche given to the Dome are now in place? If not, which are still outstanding?

My Lords, the pre-conditions that were imposed by the Millennium Commission included ensuring that there was proper management and that that amount represented the last draw-down from the Millennium Commission. The management is in place and discussions are taking place to finalise how the other pre-condition will be achieved, but they are almost there.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend remind me who set up the board and the accounting standards for the Dome? Was it this Government or the previous government? If he inherited the structure from the previous government, did he find it satisfactory?

My Lords, the structure that runs the Millennium Dome was set up in 1996 under a previous Conservative government. We adopted that structure and did all that we could to make the process work. It was a structure that had cross-party support until there was an element of unpopularity, at which point the Conservatives abandoned their support.

My Lords, has the Minister read the Question, which is whether the Government are satisfied with the financial position of the Millennium Dome? He did not answer the Question. He did not say that they were satisfied. Therefore, may we construe that they are not satisfied?

My Lords, I read the Question and I answered the Question. Of course, it is a matter of regret that more lottery money is required. I have always accepted that that is the position. On the financial management of the Dome, I am quite satisfied that it is in safe hands.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if he and the Government have done their best, it would be a sad look-out for this country if they ever did their worst? Their best has proved to be an absolute disaster. They abused public money and betrayed public trust. If they are so keen on the regeneration of Greenwich, why did they not allocate government funds for that? It would have cost everybody a great deal less.

My Lords, I do not accept the premise of the question. Everybody knew when this project was embarked upon that risks were involved. The Millennium Commission, the previous government and this Government went into it with the best of intentions; namely, to regenerate that part of the country and to provide an exhibition for the millennium. We were not wrong to do that and it will certainly bring regenerative benefits.

My Lords, is the Minister able to provide details about the assets of the Dome to prospective buyers? If such information is available, is it possible for this House to see it?

My Lords, that question probably relates to whether or not there is a register of the assets within the Millennium Dome. There were difficulties in relation to that in regard to Nomura. There was an exchange of correspondence in that regard, which I placed in the Library of the House last Wednesday. I tried to provide as much detail as possible. I suspect that some of the information will be commercially confidential but, in so far as I can provide more details, I shall.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when both governments decided to initiate and continue with this project, they showed vision and imagination? Any leisure project would have found it difficult to succeed in the face of such enormous hostility, both from the media and from politicians who do not have the imagination to see what is at stake.

My Lords, I agree that both our Government and the previous government showed vision and imagination in taking the risk in relation to the Dome. Plainly, the attitude of the press had some part to play, but other factors were involved as well. For example, it was said, "It can never succeed within just a year", and, "The public sector may not be the right people to run an attraction of this sort". But we have learnt lessons from it and I am quite sure that both parties went into it with the right motives.

My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Dome has had three lots of what were called "last tranches" of money? Can the noble and learned Lord give us a confident assurance that the Dome will not be back for another lot of "last" money? Perhaps I may whisper some advice in his ear as one Scot to another: I would get out from under.

My Lords, as to the last point, the noble Lord may be the sort of person who would get out from under, but my intention is to stay with this until the conclusion. As to whether or not this is the last tranche of money from the lottery, we received advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers. That has been looked at by both the Millennium Commission and Mr David James—a man in whom there is universal confidence; it has also been looked at by independent accountants on the part of the Millennium Commission. All those people believe that no further money will be required from the lottery.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 29th September that members of the Fuel Supply Task Force had signed a memorandum of understanding to put in place more robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies. The full text of the memorandum and its signatories has been published and placed in the Library of the House. The task force continues to meet to discuss whether further measures need to be taken to ensure that the disruption caused by the recent protests is not repeated.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I heard in the Statement made in this House last Thursday that some broad principles had been agreed within the task force but had not been made public. The Statement went on to say that the task force would continue to look for possible changes in the criminal law. When the resulting recommendations are made, will the Government consider carefully the personal situations of tanker drivers and others involved, some of them self-employed, some sub-contractors and many members of trade associations and trade unions?

My Lords, the memorandum of understanding made clear where the work of the task force would be focused; that is, on the joint early warning systems and the joint crisis management systems and in tackling the potential for, and allegations of, intimidation of tanker drivers. That is the work to be done. It is not appropriate to give all the details of those issues. The House can be certain that the whole subject of intimidation of drivers is being looked at. It is a complicated area but in due course it will be resolved.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of allegations from the Transport and General Workers' Union that many tanker drivers were leant on by their employers to say that they were being threatened and should not drive when actually many of them were quite happy to drive? Has that situation changed?

My Lords, the evidence on the question of intimidation is largely anecdotal. An attempt is being made as part of the review to obtain more firm evidence. However, it is anecdotal and therefore to make judgments on that basis is premature at this stage.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will always be a huge risk for either the oil companies or drivers to take petrol tankers through hostile pickets at refineries when anyone perhaps going a bit over the top could set off a catastrophic explosion of 5,000 gallons of highly inflammable fuel? Is not that one of the real problems and what can be done about it?

My Lords, we need to distinguish between peaceful protesters and other people who get involved in these demonstrations. Clearly, there are risks in those situations. That is exactly the sort of issue at which the task force will look.

My Lords, are those hostile pickets who threaten to do catastrophic damage to the environment and so forth the same people described by Mr William Hague as being decent, honest citizens?

My Lords, everyone would agree that in that situation there were two different kinds of protesters. The great majority were perfectly peaceful protesters, and nothing should take place in the law which in any way discourages peaceful protests. On the other hand, we have heard of people whose intentions were less admirable.

My Lords, in dealing with this matter and in the measures now proposed, has a short-term view been taken to deal with the present difficulties or are longer-term measures in mind?

My Lords, what is proposed is essentially to put in place systems which can deal with this kind of crisis as effectively as possible, both in the short term and the long term. But, obviously, as we go forward, the systems will be increasingly refined.

My Lords, does the Minister suggest that one of the proposals in mind is the direction of private individuals who are self-employed to carry out work they are not otherwise prepared to do?

My Lords, the memorandum of understanding involves the oil companies, and they signed up to it. One of the questions to be considered is whether there is a greater obligation on the oil companies in line with what is imposed on the utility companies to make certain that supplies get through.

My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of the task force to a report in today's Financial Times that the oil companies are poised to increase forecourt prices yet again, despite a 19 per cent reduction in the world market spot prices for oil over the past month?

My Lords, the whole question of petrol prices and the pricing by oil companies clearly has to be a matter for them. However, everyone, including the Government, will be looking carefully to ensure that they do not exploit this situation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the use of enforcement cameras against speeding motorists is compatible with the convention rights.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of court cases in Scotland and more recently in England, are the Government confident that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence for a registered keeper to decline to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence, is compatible with the keeper's right under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights not to incriminate himself or herself?

My Lords, there has been much misinformation and misreporting of those two cases. The case of Brown in the Scottish court was said to affect the use of cameras. That was not correct; no cameras were involved in the case. The judgment specifically excluded any application of the ruling to the use of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act in camera cases.

The second case—that of Chauhan and Hollingsworth in Birmingham—did not involve the use of speed cameras either. The court did not conclude that Section 172 procedures for obtaining details of the driver were in breach of the convention.

I can also advise the House that there already exists well-established European case law going back to 1995; that of Tora Tolmos. It upheld the principle that owners of vehicles have obligations to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an offence and that it is not in breach of the convention.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Does my noble friend agree that while we have a record of killing and maiming more children in our country in road accidents than any other country in Europe bar one we need every conceivable measure to ensure that drivers drive responsibly?

My Lords, I completely accord with that view. For that reason, in March this year the Government published their road safety strategy. It has the desirable intention of reducing casualties by some 40 per cent by 2010. Furthermore, we could do without people making mischief around the use of this section of the Road Traffic Act. That is most important.

My Lords, as one of the promoters of the Human Rights Act, will the Minister accept that I and other promoters and supporters would regard it as a disaster if the Act were used in a highly legalistic way—

Oh!

My Lords, I am pleased to hear, by their laughter, that colleagues on the Conservative Benches apparently disagree with that. Will the Minister accept that we would regard it as a disaster if the fair balance inherent in the whole of the convention of the Human Rights Act between the rights of the individual and the interests of the general community were sacrificed? Does he agree that the European Court of Human Rights, much loved by the Conservative Party, has made it quite clear that the presumption of innocence is not to be used in order to hamper the effective detection and prosecution of crime and the conviction of criminals according to fair procedures?

My Lords, it will come as no great shock or surprise if I entirely agree with the noble Lord's analysis. And would it not be rich, too, if in this argument there were the promotion of a get-out clause which ran in breach of Article 2, which protects the right to life?

My Lords, are the Government aware that the use of the E-Z-Pass system on motorways in America has given rise to a considerable number of claims for damages in both divorce and driving cases because the photographs demonstrate where the driver was at a specific time and who was with him?

My Lords, or her! I dare say that the noble Lord has a point and that it is embarrassing for some people to be caught out in that way. However, it is not for me to speculate on another jurisdiction.

My Lords, as the party opposite has successively shown that it is in favour of petrol blockaders, yesterday that it favours illegality by demonstrators against GM foods, and today that it wants speeding motorists to get away with that, are not we on this side now the party of law and order and not the party opposite?

My Lords, the Labour Party has always been the party of law and order.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is completely wrong? No one on this side of the House has suggested that we are in favour of any kind of bad driving or do not like convictions against bad drivers.

We have raised the issue because we are extremely concerned about the cases which have taken place in Scotland and England because it appears that Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act has been set aside by the courts. If that is the case—that is what has been stated in the press and the cases are subject to appeal—what are the Government going to do about it? How will they ensure convictions unless the driver happens to be behind the wheel of the car at the time?

My Lords, one would hope that the driver might be behind the wheel at the time! I thought, or hoped in vain, that the noble Lord had heard my response. I made it clear to your Lordships' House that both cases had been widely misreported. I am completely driven by the belief that they should not be misinterpreted and misinformation spread as a product of them. The fact is that the Road Traffic Act has not led to the principle being undermined; the cases have not altered one jot the position as it has always been.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the recent live electronics exhibition at Earls Court a stand advertised electronic devices which could be fitted to cars and motorcycles so as to give the drivers warnings of police speed traps and which were heavily labelled "Legal in the United Kingdom"? If I were selling devices which showed the position of burglar alarms I am sure that the police would be interested. Why should such devices, which enable drivers to break the law, be legal in the United Kingdom?

My Lords, the noble Lord, in his customary and forthright way, has made a good case for that matter to be referred to the police. I shall be interested to hear their opinion of those devices.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a possible way out of a Section 172 identification would be the use of infra-red or digital cameras which could take pictures only of the drivers? Following on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, if the drivers had not been exceeding the speed limit in the first place they would not have been found out!

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount has made a sensible suggestion. Perhaps those expert in road traffic matters can examine it closely.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 213:

Page 10, line 14, at beginning insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State or, as may be the case, the National Assembly for Wales, shall draw up model byelaws for the use of access authorities.").

The Committee returns to a point it debated earlier. I support the noble Baroness's amendment because, together with my noble friend Lord Northbrook, I have put my name to a later amendment which is linked with it. The case for by-laws is well made. I hope the Minister accepts that by-laws need to be as national as possible. If someone wants access to land under the provisions of the Bill it is much better that the by-laws are common throughout England and Wales. There must always be room for slight alterations because of closure orders and the specific requirements of areas. I am sure the Minister agrees that one very good reason for having by-laws is that the police will take much quicker and more effective action than without them, as is well demonstrated in the case of travellers.

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 217 which is linked with Amendments Nos. 213 and 214. Amendment No. 217 deals with by-laws. I too believe that the burden of work involved in exercising the power to prepare by-laws would be greatly eased if the access authority had a set of national model by-laws to consult. Various models exist. For example, there are by-laws for access land in the Peak District National Park and Dartmoor. There are also model by-laws for the control of dogs: dogs on leads; dogs on leads by direction; prohibition of dogs from grounds; dogs on seashores and promenades; and the removal of canine faeces from carriageways. Doubtless there are many other precedents. However, there does not appear to be one national model. Both previous speakers suggested that that would be immensely helpful to the general public.

The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales could usefully bring together existing examples to develop a national model set of by-laws for access land which could be made readily available to all access authorities and other relevant interests. That would speed up the process of selecting and preparing appropriate by-laws for any one site or area. The amendment requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to prepare model by-laws and, in so doing, to consult the relevant bodies, for example the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, MAFF and voluntary bodies such as the CLA, the NFU, the Ramblers' Association and the British Mountaineering Council, all of which have been referred to in earlier debates. Surely, it is possible to develop a consensus on this issue to be reflected in any national model, taking into account existing experience such as that in the national parks.

By-laws are a useful tool in the management of access land, but I do not believe that we should be over-ambitious about the actions that they can support. Nevertheless, the Minister could find it useful to consider a model set of by-laws to be available in the rare circumstances where that is the best way forward in terms of this Bill.

I support this group of amendments. I do not much mind who produces the model by-laws, but it would be helpful to have them. I was unable to remain until yesterday morning when the Committee debated the Bill, but, having read the report of it, I believe that the Government still do not understand the aggro that will be created by all the finicky controls and bits of law involved with access land. I do not know how they could have avoided it, but it has happened. There will be a good deal of trouble on the ground once the legislation comes into force. One example is the potential trouble caused by by-laws. Farmers, whether they are tenants, owner occupiers or those running commercial operations, are anxious that the legislation should work. People with little knowledge of the by-laws will arrive. We are told that they cannot come to a common access point, so the by-laws will not appear in any one place.

I would have thought that those who sought access would be unlikely to carry the by-laws in their pockets, although some might. If they moved from one area of access land to another they would require two sets of by-laws. If all the by-laws were different they would not know the relevant ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, says that by-laws are a useful tool. That is one view. They are probably a necessity when one runs matters in this way. But if it is not known how by-laws will work right across access land and there is no similarity or common core attaching to them, there will be terrible trouble. People will break the rules; they may even break the law. That will create great problems. The Government must be very careful and ensure that the by-laws are more or less the same across the country, although there will still need to be variations. I hope that the Government can accept one of these amendments.

I too very much support the principles behind the amendments. I ask the Minister to take particular note of the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford in relation to the Peak Park by-laws. The Peak Park Authority has been involved in access agreements for a great number of years and has tremendous experience of these matters. I would have thought that by-laws developed in areas of the Peak Park would be of enormous importance to these new access areas. I hope that the Minister will take into account my noble friend's comments.

I do not believe that any of these amendments states clearly what is to be done with the model by-laws and what respect the access authorities are to pay to them. Are they to be adopted universally by all access authorities or simply referred to as model by-laws? The very fact, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, that there are at least two sets in the Peak District and Dartmoor—and, I dare say, elsewhere—means that a variety of by-laws already exists in different areas. From what we know of the areas covered by the Bill and the access land which will develop as a result, it is clear that there will be considerable differences between one area of land and another.

If the Minister is in favour of a model set of by-laws I am sure that he will clarify exactly what its function will be and how much regard access authorities should pay to it. I cannot but notice that the amendments call for the National Assembly for Wales as well as the Secretary of State in England to draw up sets of model by-laws. So it is already anticipated that there will be at least two different sets of by-laws.

All of these amendments require the Secretary of State or the countryside authorities to issue model by-laws to access authorities. This afternoon and in earlier debates in Committee there has been a certain misapprehension and ambiguity about the role of by-laws, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, put his finger on. The main way in which modifications to the national provisions on access land are made is via applications to the countryside agencies in England and Wales. Therefore, most of the local anomalies will be dealt with in that context rather than in the context of by-laws.

We would not expect to see a whole range of different by-laws applying to access land. Nevertheless, there is a role for by-laws. We expect that the combination of existing by-laws and existing civil and criminal sanctions will be appropriate in most cases. Where there are by-laws, it is helpful to have advice from the countryside agencies or the local departments on the nature of those by-laws. It is also essential to recognise that by-laws are regulations appropriate to local circumstances. Therefore, to require on the face of the Bill by-laws to be issued without saying whether they are mandatory or not, and in what circumstances the access authorities would have to adopt them, is missing the point.

The amendment made by the Government at Report stage in another place clearly gives power to the countryside agencies to issue model by-laws and guidelines. It was explained then that those recommendations—they would be recommendations rather than binding on the local access fora—are likely to include advice on where by-laws might be appropriate and useful and how best they should be framed and publicised.

The power to have model by-laws is there. It could be useful to access authorities in these circumstances. The requirement that we issue model by-laws suggests an authority for them which goes beyond the useful role we think they could play. We are in favour of the ability to issue model by-laws and other forms of advice to back up access authorities which wish to issue by-laws. Model by-laws can be helpful to local authorities in these circumstances. If necessary we shall develop model guidance, but to issue the exact form of by-laws, and with the implication that they lay down the law in the form of a by-law which has authority, would not be appropriate. The face of the Bill should not read that way when the power so to do is already there.

Can the noble Lord not put himself in the shoes of the ramblers? Can he imagine what it would be like going across one piece of access land, knowing that there are likely to be by-laws but not having seen them or having any idea of what they are likely to be, and then crossing to another piece of access land which may have different by-laws and not knowing what the difference is? We very much want the Bill to work. I personally am very anxious about this business of aggro being caused by ramblers not knowing what the rules are. Will the noble Lord not concede that it would be helpful to them if there was a fairly large common element in the by-laws?

That would happen if there was a model which the authorities could follow. None of the amendments requires anything. There is not an assumption either. It would be helpful if there was a model that could be worked on by everyone so that a common core of by-laws can be developed. Surely that would help the ramblers and so help everyone else.

Perhaps I may follow up what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. It seems to me that the Minister is in favour of a degree of uniformity. The question is whether that uniformity can best be achieved by the Secretary of State acting under subsection (6) of Clause 17 merely as a confirming authority, confirming by-laws which will vary in their content, or whether he would achieve the purpose much better acting under Amendment No. 217, under which he will publish model by-laws for the various local bodies to follow when they draft by-laws. I should have thought that the Minister's purpose would be much better achieved that way.

Perhaps I may raise a practical issue. The authorities will have to inform people using the access what the rules are. Surely it is better to have a set of standard rules so that the authorities have only to put up a notice saying, "In this particular case there is an additional by-law, which says that you may not do such and such", or alternatively, "In this particular case by-law number so and so, which says such and such, does not apply".

At the risk of repetition, it was quite clear in the debate the day before yesterday that there are very different needs for many areas on many subjects—hence the complexity of the debate. I am anxious to know how the general public—I do not include those who are part of organisations which are able to afford a secretariat and so on—are to be aware of and fully understand their rights.

All by-laws, including those on existing access land, may be subject to advice from the countryside agencies, local government bodies and conservation bodies. In the Bill, therefore, there is a duty on the countryside agencies to issue guidance on how by-laws are drawn up. That provides a degree of consistency of approach to those by-laws. To put myself in the boots of the rambler, he will not know in advance exactly how a by-law will apply in a particular case. For example, if there is a restriction on access to water, there may be different restrictions at different times of the year, different hours of the day, and so on. Therefore, if there was a national model by-law a rambler would not necessarily know what hours, what months and what activities were actually covered by that by-law.

I do not object to access authorities seeking advice on achieving consistency in the way the by-laws are drafted. We are all in favour of that. But to talk about model by-laws, which sound on the face of the Bill as if they will be exactly the same and have exactly the same impact on land owners' and ramblers' right across the country, is misleading. That would not be the case. The power to advise on the framework and to develop models for the framework of the by-laws is already in the Bill as a result of an earlier amendment to the Countryside Act 1968. The idea that one would have a standard model does not seem to me to be appropriate. I repeat, by-laws are intended to deal with local situations and they have to vary. Therefore, while their legal structure may be standard the details are bound to be local. To apply anything else would be difficult.

Given the assurances I have given the Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment. There is already a requirement on the countryside agencies to provide advice, guidance and drafting standards. Therefore, there would be some legal consistency but not specific consistency in the detail where by-laws have to address particular local circumstances.

The noble Lord has dealt with the power to make the by-laws, but what about enforcement? What is the practical position? One finds a person on one's land. One goes up to him and says, "You are in breach of the by-laws". He says, "What by-laws?", so one tries to explain which by-laws. One asks him his name. He gives a false name and a false address. How does one enforce this as a practical proposition? Perhaps I am being terribly naive but it does not seem to me to be much good having a power to do something if there is no effective power of enforcement.

I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy was putting herself in the shoes of ramblers and the Minister went on to talk about having his feet in their boots. One of the questions I thought the Minister was asked was how one would inform those ramblers of the different by-laws. We have talked about things—for example, closure for 28 days—which most ramblers will have to know. How will they receive this information? How will they find out?

Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. It would help the by-laws to be better known if all walkers were members of their local branch of the Ramblers' Association, which could publicise the by-laws.

I am interested in the advocacy of a closed shop for ramblers. We want to encourage associations to have a wide membership and to publicise this information. We had a lengthy debate about publicising the basic information. Clearly, we shall need to ensure that, as far as possible, the information is available. Indeed, we shall come in a few moments to a group of amendments which deal with publicity.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about enforcement. We have already had a wide-ranging debate on that subject. We have existing by-laws which relate to the powers of a landowner to restrict activity. Enforcement occurs in a number of ways—either by the landowner's agents or by the police—and leads to criminal sanctions in many cases. The enforcement issue is important but it does not relate to this amendment, which concerns a standardised form of by-law. I am in favour of a standard framework, or at least advice on a framework, but the details of any by-law are bound to be local.

Can the noble Lord give the Committee any idea of the timing of the guidance by-laws to which he has referred? It can take a long time to make a one-off set of by-laws. The noble Lord will be aware that it took 12 years to do it for the Basingstoke canal.

The Countryside Agency will already be working on it. Bearing in mind that the mapping process is bound to take a few years—we have estimated up to five years—it will take a little time; but, it is to be hoped, not as long as the by-laws for the Basingstoke canal.

I welcome the Minister's comments about not wanting to centralise and about allowing things to be done locally. My amendment would allow models that could be adopted and adapted. The principle behind the amendment was that it should tie in with the country code, which, following our amendment on the issue, the Government have decided to put on the face of the Bill. Having model by-laws would make it much easier to tie in with the country code. Furthermore, access authorities would have something to turn to, as they will be hard-pressed, too. But I hear what the Minister says about ensuring that the Countryside Agency proceeds with urgency on the matter. I am sure that, between his department and that agency, something will now happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 215A:

Page 10, line 14, after ("land") insert ("or land which in their opinion is likely to become access land").

I support the amendment for the same reason as I supported the previous ones. It is important that people should know what the by-laws are from the moment access is available. I think here of the ramblers. We were told that the ramblers' associations would help, but one thinks of all the ramblers who do not belong to those associations. Parliament is supposed to govern for all the people. We have to think of all the ramblers. It would help the ramblers very much indeed if we could be sure that the by-laws were in place before the access was available.

Initially, the Government felt that, since it would not be known until towards the end of the mapping process what land was being mapped, it might be difficult to see how the specific by-laws relating to the locality might be drawn up. Therefore, we did not see the need for this provision. However, we accept that in some areas there may be evidence as to what would happen before the right of access comes into force, particularly if there has already been de facto access in the area, and that therefore there may be the opportunity to draw up by-laws prior to the right coming into force. For that reason I should like to take away these amendments with a view to tabling similar amendments at Report stage.

I am grateful to the Minister. Having battled away for many hours, as we did, without gaining much initial reaction, it is lovely early in the day to receive a positive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 216:

Page 10, line 20, at end insert (", and

(d) to safeguard public health and safety.").

I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I do so for a reason which I mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill. We have to be careful about the danger that can occur to people if they are rambling after dark. We must realise that some of the country concerned will be land which is rocky or will have cliffs or steep hills. If we do not take the proper precautionary measures for people rambling after dark, very serious accidents could occur, especially to townspeople who are not accustomed to walking on country hillsides.

My noble friend's amendment is extremely necessary, including for the further reason that I have given.

I can see a certain superficial attractiveness in the amendment moved by my noble friend. However, quite frankly, if we start a process whereby by-laws are required to cover aspects of public health and safety, there will be no limit to it. Walking in the countryside presents certain hazards—I hesitate to say that it presents dangers. I do not think that it would be possible to guard against every kind of hazard.

If we put on to public authorities an obligation to draw up specific codes to cover health and safety, I shudder to think of the length, complication and restrictiveness of such an exercise. It will make life in the countryside extremely unenjoyable.

I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Can the Minister confirm whether the existing wording would cover the fouling of waters? I do not think that it does so. The water supply for many villages comes from springs located on access land. They run the danger of being fouled.

I agree with a great deal of what has been said during this short debate. I regret that I am unable to sustain my generosity, but the reason why I must resist this amendment is that we consider that the issues raised here either fall under the existing provisions of this clause or are provided for under other powers vested in local authorities. For example, local authorities already have powers in relation to a number of specific safety issues. Furthermore, they have powers that enable them to impose by-laws as regards fouling by dogs. It is not necessary to confer on them additional powers in relation to access land in those respects.

I believe that hang-gliding could almost certainly be dealt with under subsection (1)(c) of this clause because it may impair the enjoyment of the land by others.

As I have said, powers are already in place to deal with the kinds of hazards referred to by noble Lords during this debate. For that reason, I do not believe that it is necessary to repeat them on the face of the Bill.

Before the noble Lord sits down, although he mentioned other clauses in the Bill which will address these matters, will those other clauses deal with the point I raised as regards the dangers of roaming after dark, in particular if there is mist or fog?

As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am not sure whether by-laws can be used to address general issues of safety. However, by-laws can be used to address known individual safety hazards such as mineshafts and so forth. Under existing legislation rather than under the terms of this Bill, by-laws may be used for exceptional circumstances of that kind. Similarly, dog fouling may be dealt with under the provisions of other legislation.

Although I have some sympathy with the points that have been made as regards the specific problems, I do not believe that an additional issue has been raised here which needs to be addressed.

I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate his sympathy for the thinking that lies behind the amendment. I accept the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford; namely, that if we are not careful, we shall encounter great difficulties in attempting to get right the balance of the Bill. That is part of the problem here; we need to accept that this is an extremely complex piece of legislation. Indeed, I believe that I made that comment at the start of our debates. The Minister responded by saying that he did not think it was complicated. Nevertheless, we need to get all the details right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 219 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 219A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 220:

Page 10, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) Any byelaws introduced shall be publicised in such a manner as to he quite apparent to users of the access land.").

I feel that this is a very impractical proposal. Perhaps I may make a simple analogy. Customs posts are often sited on roads at borders between different countries, but it is not possible to arrange for customs posts to run across fields and mountains as well. If people choose to cross borders by those routes, they will not encounter the customs posts.

By definition, as a result of this legislation, access to the country is going to become far less restricted. People will not access such land via places where they would necessarily see the signs. If an obligation is imposed that signposts should be placed everywhere, we shall see a plethora of such signs. I would abhor that.

Perhaps I may respond to that particular point since I believe that the noble Lord was addressing it directly to me.

I could not agree more that it would be undesirable and inappropriate to litter the countryside with signposts. However, my amendment does not specify in any way the geographical location of such signs. Many ways could be found to achieve this end, but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by going into those details. I stress only that I have tabled the amendment because I feel that it will be unfair on the public if such by-laws are not made quite apparent to them.

I support the spirit of the amendment, although I am puzzled by the word so carefully omitted by the noble Baroness in her speech. The amendment uses the words "quite apparent", but I am not sure whether she means "totally apparent" or "somewhat apparent", even though she carefully referred only to "apparent" when she moved the amendment at the beginning of the debate. In my view the spirit of this proposal is very good, although that particular part of the flesh may be a little weak.

As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made plain when he responded to the earlier amendment, the rules will vary from one area of the country to another. It is that which gives me the greatest concern. How on earth will walkers know what particular rules will apply in a certain place? It is not good enough merely to say that it is their duty to know the law and that if they do not, they will become trespassers. That is because, first, if they do not know the rules and then break them, they will be fairly dusty when taxed with a breach of them. Secondly, the purpose of the rules is not to enable the landowner to create a fuss and turn people off his land. The rules are there to stop people doing undesirable things in the first place. Unless people know what things are undesirable in the first place, they will not be able to avoid doing them.

The Minister has been ducking and weaving about that point. He has not told the Committee how it is intended in practice that the rules relating to particular areas of access land will be made known to the general walker. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—who plans a complicated climb for several days, reads the books and so on—a much more casual, ignorant and inexperienced visitor will see a nice bit of land, park his car and start walking across it.

I am mystified by the wording of the amendment. On first reading it, I thought that in stating that the by-laws should be quite apparent to users of access land this meant that they should be displayed on a signpost easily visible to the user of the access land. However, after considering the amendment rather more carefully, I can interpret it to mean that the by-laws should be published in local newspapers. I prefer the interpretation that the by-laws should be available and easily discernible by the user of the access land. To me, that means that they should be displayed on some kind of signpost, as many local authority by-laws are these days.

The noble Viscount kindly referred to the amount of time I spend anxiously reading guidebooks and trying to memorise routes—and trying to conjure up the personal courage to travel them and wondering if I ever will. That may be true in some cases, although, as I said earlier, in many cases the decision to go out is spontaneous. It is taken at short notice and depends very often on certain circumstances, particularly the weather.

The debate has moved away from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Miller. I should like to make some points relating to the question of signing in the countryside in relation to points of access, rules and regulations, and general information. Much experience has been gained of signing, particularly in the national parks and in areas such as the south Pennines. It is done in a discreet and attractive manner which does not disfigure the countryside but at the same time provides a lot of information.

Many people going into the countryside want information. They do not want to know detailed rules and regulations. They want to know where the footpaths lead; they want to know the areas in which they can walk; and they want to be told about wildlife and so on. The key is to make sure that the rules and regulations are in the same place and on the same notice as that kind of information. The experience is that the message gets through to people in that way.

Perhaps I may now consider the question of how people get into access land. In general, there are two broad categories of land—although clearly they are not exclusive. First, there are areas which can only be accessed through a small number of access points—via rights of way, stiles in walls and so on. In such areas, those access points are the obvious places to put the information. Again, particularly in the national parks, much has been learnt about doing this in a sensible and discreet way. The obvious place to site the information in those areas is at the access points that people have to use because there is no other way of accessing the land.

The other category is land which can be accessed anywhere—for example, unfenced moorland which has a road crossing it. But even in such places, most people will use the same points of access as everyone else. They do so for two reasons: first, very often people travel to the access land by car or, if they are fortunate enough, by public transport, and they will all stop at a particular place, a car park. Those car parks are useful. They are the places to which a high proportion of people travel before going on to the land, for the obvious reason that they need somewhere to park their cars.

Secondly, no matter what rights are laid down in the legislation or what rights people have in existing areas of open access, the great majority of people will use defined footpaths. That is a fact of life. It is a fact which means that many of the fears that some people have about this legislation are probably unfounded; people will use the footpaths. Where there are not any footpaths at the moment, I hope that landowners will be sensible and define new footpath routes, which the vast majority of people would then use. So the sensible place to put information is where the main footpath goes into an area or where the footpath intersects with a road.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in a sense, makes my point. When I was on the Countryside Commission we spent years campaigning, first, for footpath signs, and, secondly, for signs that were carefully designed so as not to intrude upon the landscape. Various parts of England and Wales have different kinds of signing, many of them excellent. But they certainly do not include great lists of by-laws, warnings and so on. They could not include all that information and remain discreet and sensible. It simply is not practical.

Of course such information can be displayed in some places—the national parks have visitor centres where that kind of information is available—but if the noble Lord is saying that where there is a footpath sign this kind of information could be displayed, I strongly suggest that that would be undesirable.

There has to be a sensible compromise. If it is a sign saying simply "public footpath" or "access land", it may well be that one does not want a big sign. But, as the noble Lord said, there is now a great deal of knowledge—I do not think we disagree—about how to provide well designed and unobtrusive signing. I am aware that the Countryside Agency is working on new kinds of signs, which can be adapted to local circumstances by use of local materials but which, nevertheless, will be of a standard form throughout the country.

Often the national parks put the material that people want—information about local birds or local maps—on the front of signs and the by-laws on the back, with a little notice saying "Please observe the by-laws". By and large, people do, and the message gets through.

My final point concerns the question of who enforces the rules in the countryside. Members of the Committee who do not walk or climb may not be aware of the degree to which what might be called "peer pressure" operates among climbers and walkers. I am not referring to people like me—who happen to be Members of this House—telling people what to do, but people generally are concerned about sensible rules and regulations, which have been agreed, sometimes statutorily and sometimes on a voluntary basis, on the use of the countryside being observed by other users of the countryside. There are people who, if they see people contravening the rules, will point it out. Quite often they will not be as polite as Members of the House might be.

It is essential that everyone behaves responsibly and sensibly when they are walking. However, I must emphasise that we seem to be talking about some curious person called "a rambler". I am not a rambler; I walk. I would not go within a hundred miles of a ramblers' association; and not within a thousand miles of Miss Ashbrook, even though she is a fairly near neighbour.

I hope it is realised that in the places where I walk in the south there are footpaths which now have an efficient and discreet method of signposting. The same occurs in northern parts of the Lake District, which I know well. All the paths and directions are well signposted. People are told where they may and may not go, and where the paths lead to; but it is done discreetly and can cause no offence to anyone. I am not certain that anything further can be done. All large notices would be offensive purely in terms of their appearance. We have gone as far as is necessary.

Before my noble friend responds, it may be helpful to the Committee if I report some thoughts from the Countryside Agency in the general context of giving information to landowners as well as land users. The agency states:

"At all stages we will use a wide range of information techniques from colourful leaflets, activity packs and displays to websites, information boards and signs. We will consider the feasibility of a telephone information line and assess the scope for providing information to a range of local outlets, as well as on site. We also plan to commission a range of educational materials, closely linked to the National Curriculum, to help in teaching children and young people about their rights and responsibilities in the countryside, and about its management".

I use that quotation to illustrate that getting information across, whether in relation to by-laws or anything else in this context, has been, and is being, addressed by the Countryside Agency. I believe that fears are greatly exaggerated.

Perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. The noble Lord is right: not all walkers ramble, but all ramblers walk. I should like to defend the Ramblers' Association, which gives information to its members and makes sure as far as possible that they observe whatever restrictions are necessary on the land on which they walk.

It is a pity that they do not do so.

I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made one or two points which are worth focusing on. The noble Lord rightly said that many of the local authorities have great experience in providing signs and establishing the correct and most effective place to site them. However, I believe I am correct in saying that under the Bill there is no duty for them to consult the owner in regard to the erection of signs or on access points. We discussed this matter yesterday. It is a weakness.

The noble Lord made an interesting point. He said that the majority of people who go out into the countryside do so for specific purposes—bird-watching, for example, or whatever it happens to be. But he also said that they do not want to know what the rules and regulations are.

We are coming back full circle on this issue. Once again, we are discussing the weaknesses in the Bill regarding how we get these messages across to people—for example, when land is closed and what the rules and regulations are. I am sorry to have to repeat the point, but again our attention is drawn to the fact that sanctions against those who repeatedly ignore the rules and regulations are non-existent in the Bill. To ask someone to go away for 24 hours is, frankly, nonsense. The noble Lord's comment about people not wanting to know the rules and regulations brought home to me how important it is to get the matter right. We need to get the messages across, and proper sanctions should be in place—otherwise, this will be a complete nonsense.

I am sorry to return to this issue, but in a sense the noble Lord has done us a service. He has given credence to many of my fears in regard to the Bill and, I suspect, those of other Members of the Committee.

As my noble friend Lady Nicol said, the whole question of conveying information on by-laws is but a small part of conveying information on the totality of access rights. This matter arose in the debate that we had a couple of nights ago on the need for the countryside agencies to ensure that there is adequate publicity to inform people about their rights, about the land to which they apply, and about the restrictions and variations on that land. I do not think that it is sensible specifically to pick out by-laws; nor is it sensible to suggest that there will be new signs up and down the country on every potential point of access. Clearly, there will be preferred points of access, sensible points such as car parks, and other points where most people accessing the land will cross. We do not want a plethora of signs across the country. But where the by-laws clearly change what are otherwise the normal rules of access, it is important that that is conveyed to the majority of people who use the land.

As to how that arises and who is consulted, we discussed this at some length the other day. Preferred points of access and other local rules will be discussed by local access forums and others, and local landowners will have a major part in that structure.

The countryside bodies will want to advise access authorities about the form of publicity, and that will be done in the general context. In some cases it may well be that access authorities—as is done in the national parks and by the National Trust—will want to print out the totality of the by-law and stick it on the back of the notice. I am not sure how effective that it is; and that may lie behind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—which was, I think, slightly misinterpreted by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The full detail and the legal jargon of by-laws may well pass people by, but the key message needs to be conveyed. For example, on a piece of National Trust land that I use frequently, the trust does precisely that. On the back of the logo there is the full by-law, but there is also a notice on the front stating that dogs must be kept on a lead, which is part of the by-law and is the main message that needs to be put across. Providing the full by-laws locally—

On a number of occasions the noble Lord has understandably referred to the National Trust. It must be remembered that the National Trust—and my noble friend Lord Marlesford knows a great deal about it—is a well-endowed organisation. It has considerable resources at its fingertips, and it is able to deal with these problems in-house. Many of the people who will be affected by these access proposals do not have the resources and will therefore rely very much on the access authorities to carry out the kind of approach referred to by the noble Lord. I hope that he will bear that in mind. The National Trust is a rather different animal from the kind of people about whom we are talking, who will have to deal with these very real problems on the ground once the Bill is on the statute book.

I referred to the National Trust and national parks and many other pieces of more private access land where we presently manage to convey the main messages about the way in which the rules apply, and by and large those rules are followed. The noble Earl is right: under the Bill the responsibility falls entirely on the access authorities. By-laws are but a small part of what they need to convey. Particular landowners may want to add information, but there is no requirement in the Bill for them to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, we do not want to see notices all over the place attempting to convey the content of a rather complex by-law.

Will the Minister clarify this point? Is there not an obligation on the access authority to publicise its by-laws? Under subsection (5) of this clause, Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government 1972 apply. A person on access land may well be subject to legal proceedings if he breaks a by-law and may suffer as a result. Is there not at least an obligation on the access authority to make sure that the user of access land is aware of relevant by-laws?

There is indeed an obligation on local authorities to ensure that the public are made aware of the existence of by-laws. The by-laws were on view yesterday in St James's Park where I took a walk at lunchtime. However, I suppose that is a royal park rather than a local authority park and therefore is not a good example to mention as royal parks enjoy plentiful resources. However, as regards most parks and open spaces, local authorities are obliged to publicise by-laws.

The point I am making is that although that process enables people to check the by-laws, the most effective way to get across the key message of the by-laws may be somewhat different and somewhat more blunt. It is up to the access authorities to seek guidance from the Countryside Agency to ensure that adequate publicity is given to the by-laws in the interests of the people who are likely to use the land in question. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are a number of ways of publicising by-laws which do not intrude on the countryside and do not require landowners to undertake that task themselves. It is in that context that the need to publicise specific by-laws needs to be considered rather than in the terms of the amendment that we are considering. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press it.

I was interested in what the noble Lord said, but I wonder whether he can amplify it a bit. By-laws are publicised sometimes on notice boards out in the open and sometimes by being printed in pamphlets which are available to the public if they happen to be near a suitable office. However, as regards the rambling by-laws, how does the noble Lord contemplate that they will usually be publicised?

We have just been through that. There are many different ways in which they may be publicised. The Countryside Agency will advise access authorities on that matter who will decide on the best way to publicise them in a local area. In some cases they may be situated in car parks; in other cases they may be printed in literature that will be made available; in yet other cases they will be situated in places where people are likely to pass. There will probably be a combination of all those methods. The by-law information will form only part of the total information that is to be made available. For that reason I object to dealing with it specifically as the amendment proposes. As I say, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will comment on the question posed by my noble friend Lord Peel with regard to the purpose and the use of by-laws if they are not to be enforced and no sanction is to be imposed. The noble Lord has answered fully the other questions that have been asked but did not respond to the point made by my noble friend.

There is always a sanction in relation to by-laws. A breach of a by-law invokes a criminal penalty. We shall return to the matter of enforcement. The agents of the landowner or of the access authority may draw people's attention to the by-laws and be able to enforce them. The question of sanctions is clear in relation to by-laws. It is in most cases a criminal sanction.

Does the Minister accept that although this is not what the public thought they were going to get when they heard about the Government's intention to create a right to roam, what will be needed is an enormous advertisement constantly being put in the newspapers which states, "Going walking? Find out the rules"?

Something of that nature may help when access rights are implemented. However, what walkers will really need is more detailed local information. That will be a matter for the access authorities.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I found the debate useful. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that I use the words "quite apparent" in my amendment in the sense that my American brother-in-law uses the word "quite" when he says, "You look quite nice". He assures me that that means very nice.

I say to the noble Baroness that on the whole it is undesirable that we should legislate in "American".

I do not think that I am in a position to comment on that. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, illustrates why I considered it necessary to table the amendment. As the Minister said, by-law breaches incur a criminal penalty. A duty to publicise by-laws on the part of an access authority is different from having to make them "quite apparent". One can fulfil one's duty in that regard by putting up a small sign somewhere. I feel strongly that the public should be protected in some way. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 11, line 1, at beginning insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that sufficient funding is available to enable an access authority or district council to comply with this section.").

I am very glad the noble Baroness moved this amendment and that she spoke in the way that she did. I, too, received a communication from local government councils on the subject. It was extremely interesting. The Minister has sitting beside him the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who knows as much as anyone in this Chamber about how local government works and the pressures upon it.

All of us who have been in local government know how keen governments are to pile expense upon local authorities without adding to their funding. When the noble Baroness winds up, perhaps she will tell us whether she is asking for ring-fenced funding. I am not keen on encouraging ring-fenced funding because I am a believer in the discretion of local government. The noble Baroness spoke of this issue being a matter of choice for local government so she is probably not asking for ring-fenced funding. However, when she replies I, and I think the Committee, will be interested to know.

I hope that the Minister listened to her questions which were very much to the point. I hope that the noble Lord will reply with a fairly detailed answer.

The noble Baroness raises some important questions. I, too, have seen the figures to which she referred. It is incumbent on the Government to give a clear answer.

Having been involved with the Yorkshire Dales for many years, my experience of the warden system there brings me to a somewhat cynical outlook. The largest privately owned estate in the Yorkshire Dales entered some years ago into an access agreement with the national park authorities. It was assured that it would be provided with a proper warden service. Over the years the wardens have become depleted. I do not know the present level. For all I know, it could be down to one lone warden—or, in the words of the noble Baroness, one lone ranger. It is an unsatisfactory outcome. It is essential that if the Bill is to work effectively we must have a proper warden system which will be an important link between the general public and those who wish to exercise the access provisions in the Bill.

The noble Baroness referred to the figure of £3.50 per hectare. On the matter of costing—it is slightly irrelevant but it may be indicative of the Government's attitude towards funding—in the Peak Park the cost to local owners of the access provisions for areas where access has been negotiated was in the nature of £4 per hectare. That seems to have been forgotten conveniently by the Government. There are no realistic provisions in the Bill for meeting the true access costs. The noble Baroness puts forward the realistic figure of £3.50 per hectare. I shall listen carefully to the Minister.

I share the view of the noble Baroness that this is an important provision and topic. I venture to suggest that she is wrong to say that it is correct for Section 18 to say "may" appoint. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which is grouped with this amendment; I hope that he will speak to it in a moment. It changes "may" to "shall".

The noble Baroness is right that it shall be for the authority to decide how many wardens are needed. But if "may" remains in the provision, perhaps I may explain to her that if the local authority decides that it needs four wardens, it does not have then to appoint them. The discretion should be to decide what is needed. If there is only a tiny area of access land in one's area one may not need a warden. Having decided that, there should be the obligation to appoint them. Unless there is an obligation on the local authority to supply them, her amendment does not achieve what it intends. The noble Baroness wants funds to enable local authorities to comply with this section. If they have a discretion as to whether to appoint a warden, no funds are needed to comply with the section. It is only if they have to appoint wardens that funds are needed to enable them to comply. Having done a little lawyerly nit-picking, subject to that point the noble Baroness's amendment is not only important but also vital.

Without wardens, the Bill will be a farce and a con on those whose land is subject to the new access right. It is full of things that walkers should not do, but if there is no one there to see that they do not do them, they will happen and the poor landowner will have to put up with it. Unless the Government can assure us that wardens will be in place and, taking up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will continue to be in place for longer than just the initial period, the Bill is doomed to cause trouble and to be deeply unfair to landowners.

It is wholly right that the necessary funding should come from central sources. The areas we are talking about—the Lake District and, to make sure that I do not offend the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Snowdonia—are in relatively poor rural areas. Rights are being given so that the urban or semi-urban dweller may spill out of his city and walk over the land. The costs of that should be funded nationally, not by the local authorities that happen to have the pleasure of having Snowdonia, the Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales in their area. They probably do not have the funds to take all the measures that are needed to control the urban dweller when he comes out. Going back to my point about the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it is the urban dweller wandering around in his plimsolls and jeans, not the well equipped noble Lord, with his proper walking shoes on, who will cause trouble and need assistance. I strongly support the amendment and Amendment No. 222 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

Does the noble Viscount accept that, except in major honeypot areas such as the Peak District, the majority of people who walk in a given area of countryside are relatively local, many of them living in the countryside themselves? I cannot say whether they always wear plimsolls or sandals.

That may be so at the moment, but surely the point of the Bill is to give rights and encouragement to a whole lot of other people to whom that does not apply.

I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, funding is very important. That applies not just to wardens, but to a range of activities covered by the Bill. If we are to be convinced that the Bill will work, it would be helpful to have some reassurance about the Government's intentions. For example, local authorities already have responsibilities for footpaths, which we will deal with later in the Bill, but they often do not act on them because they are inadequately funded. I take note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about ring-fencing or earmarking funds, presumably in the rate support grant. These issues are fundamental to the success of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said that this was one of her most important amendments in this part of the Bill. It is certainly a very important subject. I, too, have seen the letter from the Local Government Association, which hired a consultancy group—I believe that it is called ENTEC—whose figures differ considerably from the estimates provided by the Government. The LGA rightly points out that authorities have not done a great deal about their responsibilities for footpaths because they do not have adequate resources. Like many of us, the LGA fears that authorities will not be provided with adequate resources for the purpose specified in Clause 18.

The appointment of wardens will be at the discretion of local authorities, but they will be key to the implementation of the Bill and ensuring that by-laws are respected. When I moved an amendment at our last sitting that would have required those taking advantage of night access on the hills to give prior notification to the access authority, I imagined them telling a local warden on behalf of the authority. They would know the area where the night walker or climber intended to go and would probably be able to give guidance.

Is the noble Lord suggesting that the warden should be on night duty as well as day duty?

I certainly suggest that. We have agreed to the Government's proposal for night access, so surely the access authority must take some responsibility for what happens on the land during the day and the night. It cannot avoid the responsibility of knowing who is on its access land day and night.

I acknowledge the importance of wardens to the access authority, but we do not want too much multiplication of appointments. We want an adequate supply of wardens, but not a glut of them. Many local authorities with access land will be on the borders of national parks. They may wish the parks to take certain responsibilities from them for access land. I anticipate that in my area of north Wales, Snowdonia National Park will exercise substantial responsibilities on behalf of the bordering local authorities, even to the extent of securing warden services for them.

From my background in managing nature reserves over the past 10 years—in some cases very extensive nature reserves that will have extended access provisions under the Bill—I should like to put a little caution into some of the statements that have been made.

The successful implementation of Part I will depend on adequate management of access and proper dissemination of information. Wardens will have a role to play in many areas. In some circumstances, it will be difficult to police the access conditions without wardening arrangements. However, in many other areas wardening will not be required. Much will depend on the pressure of access, the nature of the land and the conditions that are laid on by by-laws or by restrictions under Part II. Therefore, if we are to use money cost-effectively in this area, I believe that we need to be realistic about where and when wardening will be appropriate.

I turn to another cautionary point. Governments of all complexions have an unhappy knack of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be unfortunate if budgets in the same department for the countryside and conservation agencies—budgets intended for the improvement of the conservation status and management of those areas—were to be raided disproportionately in order to enhance considerably the funds available to local government for wardens. It is not an unknown phenomenon which governments provoke from time to time. I believe that it would be unfortunate if, in extending access to those wonderful areas, we were inadvertently to precipitate a situation whereby the conservation status of those areas suffered due to lack of funds.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that, when one is dealing with a national nature reserve, one is dealing with a different land type from the ones that we are discussing in this Bill? Generally speaking, people who enter national nature reserves do so from fairly fixed areas where it is possible to put up signs and do all the things that we believe this Bill is so short of. At the same time, one can manage the access in a much more restrictive and effective way, if one so wishes. Therefore, I note what the noble Baroness says, but I believe that it is a little disingenuous of her to compare a national nature reserve with the type of land that we are talking about under the Bill.

Perhaps I may clarify the matter for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Some national nature reserves are, indeed, quite restricted in size, and access is available only through a small number of points. However, I am not speaking simply from a background of management of national nature reserves. I am also talking about the extensive management of large-scale nature reserves in the voluntary sector where the type of scale that we are talking about in relation to upland and moorland areas is replicated. They do not have a single point of access. They are very lightly wardened because the voluntary sector is of course, as the Committee knows, excessively poor.

Generally speaking, the problems experienced are not substantial. Therefore, my point is that we must be realistic in differentiating between areas where wardening will definitely be required and will be essential and other areas where, I suspect, the type of light supervisory arrangements that exist in many extensive reserves in the voluntary sector is satisfactory.

Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that no one is suggesting that wardens should be appointed except where they are needed. It will be for the authorities to decide whether any—and, if so, how many—wardens are necessary or expedient. If they decide that none is required, they do not appoint any. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when they decide that they are necessary, they do not then say, "But we can't afford it and therefore there won't be any".

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Viscount's point. I believe that the second point that I made was that we need to be very clear about the circumstances in which such wardening, if funded by central government, would be required. Inevitably, alas, governments do rob Peter to pay Paul. The same department is also responsible for the budgets for agencies such as the Countryside Agency and, indeed, English Nature, in which I must declare an interest.

I should hate to think that the value of the land and that some of the useful collaborative and funding arrangements undertaken by such bodies with landowners would be squeezed in order to fund demands from local authorities. In some cases, those demands will be justified but, in others, they will need to be examined with a degree of scrupulousness.

What always appear to be relatively simple issues at first become more and more complex as the debates develop—I see that the clock shows that we have been debating this amendment for 28 minutes. However, there is no doubt that the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is extremely important. It is important for a number of reasons, most of which have been discussed. However, the one that I consider to be most important is that it is a test. It demonstrates whether the Government are to put their money where their mouth is.

During the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill, we established that, as in so many pieces of legislation, the devil will be in the detail. A few minutes ago we talked about the difficulties of publishing information. That has a cost implication, too. Now we are talking about the cost of wardens. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was immensely helpful when she said that costs will vary from area to area and that different types of land will require different levels of wardening and, therefore, of expense. That is quite right.

The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out entirely correctly that the level of costs is dependent on whether the Government will obligate the access authorities to appoint as many wardens as they need, whether the number be one, two or four. The next amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, places that obligation upon them. Of course the obligation should be in place because it is the wardens, rather like the signage that we discussed in the previous batch of amendments, that will make the Bill work.

We must have wardens and the access authorities must be obliged to provide them. They must therefore have the funding in order to do so. In many ways, whichever way one looks at this particularly complex issue, at the end of the day it comes down to a question of whether the Government really mean what they claim they mean in regard to the Bill. Are they really prepared to allow such access? Of course, my noble friend Lord Roberts was absolutely right: if we are to have night access, which we shall now have—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, described it as 50 per cent of the access—then presumably we shall need 50 per cent, or, in this case, 100 per cent more wardens. It is obvious that if one doubles the amount of access, one needs to double the number of wardens. Clearly, we cannot have people wardening 24 hours a day; that would be silly.

Therefore, whichever way one looks at this matter and from whichever angle one comes at it, this is a very important amendment. It asks whether the Government are prepared to back the principle that they regard as so important. It asks whether they are prepared to back it with their money and not to oblige local authorities or access authorities to strip their budgets elsewhere in order to pay for that principle. If central government is not prepared to pay for the principle, frankly it is worthless and the Bill will not work.

I say to my noble friend Lord Mancroft that it is not the Government's money; it is our money as taxpayers.

Of course, my noble friend is entirely correct. It is our money, but it is the Government in their usual generous way who are dishing it out on our behalf, whether we like it or not.

I rise to raise three quick points with the Minister. Before I do so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for putting forward the amendment. Those of us who took part at Second Reading will remember clearly two points that were raised. One related to the practicality of the Bill and the other to funding. This amendment hits on that very issue and I thank her for that.

First, when the Government carried out an assessment of the costs of access, did they include in their estimates a night-time provision for providing wardens? As my noble friend has just reiterated, if night-time access goes through, and the Government are obviously keen that it should, it will incur another 50 per cent of the costs. Therefore, if that was not accounted for, the estimate will be even higher than it was originally.

Secondly, presumably the Government will consider putting money through the SSA—the standard spending assessments. While I mention that, perhaps I may also remind the Government that virtually all access will be in rural areas. However, the very rural counties have had cuts recently in their standard spending assessments. I simply raise that as an issue. I do not know what the Minister wants to say about it.

Thirdly, what will the role of the wardens be? We have been talking about wardens acting purely as keepers of law and order. I believe that originally we talked about them helping the general public by providing advice and making sure that things were running in an orderly fashion. We also discussed the possibility of their having conservation responsibilities. Those are my three short points.

This has been an interesting debate. A number of assertions have been made. We certainly share the view that it is important that adequate wardening takes place, although I am not sure that wardens will solve all the problems to which Members of the Committee have alluded. A number of important, what I might call political, issues have been raised and perhaps I should begin with those. That is unusual for me because I am trying to deal with the Bill in its legal form.

First, I deplore the attempt by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, perhaps inadvertently, to open up a huge urban/rural divide. This is not the case. The majority of people who will benefit from these rights are not hordes from urban areas who have never been in the countryside before. They fall into two broad categories. In my experience, it is not people in the centre of towns who resent the current situation. The biggest resentment comes from the people who look out of their back window every day and see the top of the moor that they can never visit freely themselves. That group of local people will take great advantage of the opportunity.

The second group are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have enjoyed many parts of the countryside and rambles of varying degrees of difficulty and strenuousness but have enjoyed the existing areas of vacant access. They want to go to other areas with people who are experienced in the countryside. The idea that we have to police the access areas heavily is not the case. Clearly, we want to extend the enjoyment of our countryside, but the people who will take advantage of the new acreage opened up to them are those who live in, and have knowledge of, the countryside or their friends who accompany them. That is one quasi-political point.

In response to the noble Baroness, I make a straightforward political point. The experience and suspicion of many people in relation to local government financing has been that over the past 20 years we have suffered from a severe restriction in the resources provided to local authorities, however it has been provided. That has been reversed very substantially and generously. Yes, it is all our money but it is money that is being deployed on behalf of all of the people. I refute directly the idea put by the noble Baroness—and the figures will prove it—that the rural areas have been squeezed by this Government. In fact, they have had some of the most generous settlements they have ever had. Unlike the period of government of her party, when the inner-city areas were severely squeezed to the detriment of society as a whole, we have been generous to the whole of the population of Britain, including in particular the shire counties and the shire districts. So we want to fund the access authorities in order that they can fulfil their obligations under this Bill.

I thought that I had made clear the position of funding twice on the previous occasion. Obviously, I was not clear enough, so I will try again. The £2.3 million that the Government put in the regulatory impact assessment is part of what will be required during the current spending review period of three years—that is, before the access rights come into play—for all the preparatory work required by access authorities, others and in particular the countryside agencies so we can build up to manage effectively the right of access. It is much more difficult to give specific figures on the funding needed once the access land is opened.

I cannot entirely tie the hands of future Chancellors of Exchequer or the present Chancellor who will probably still be in office. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that we will wish to fund the management of the right of access and that we would expect the cost of that to be four or five times the figure in the regulatory impact assessment. One can compare that figure and that estimate of what will be required with the estimate made in the report of the LGA. That was referred to by several noble Lords. It suggests that the access provisions of the Bill will require local authorities and national parks to spend about £4.5 million per year, excluding the funding for local access forums. The figure to come out of that would be much less than the figure to which we have said we are committed to funding in the longer term.

Moreover, that larger figure would include some of the funding for the countryside agencies. So we agree with the LGA and its consultants that £5.5 million is the ball-park figure for the on-going management of this scheme required by local authorities. The cost of employment of wardens and the back-up would be paid from that figure. I hope that that makes clear and underlines the degree of commitment to funding that this Government are prepared to make now and our commitment to making this system work.

Exactly how the money will be conveyed may be a matter for future Chancellors. I am not absolutely certain that I would rule out a specific fund, although pressed to do so by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. It is more likely to come through the general funding of local authorities because that is a general approach. There would be obligations on local authorities requiring them to spend it, including on the employment of wardens where appropriate. We would not want wardens to be appointed with such a wide range of responsibilities referred to sometimes in this debate, but clearly wardens are required in order to make sure that the main provisions of the Bill operate.

Is the noble Earl willing that I deal with the other amendment in this clause because he did not speak to it?

I purposely did not speak to that amendment because I think that the two issues are distinct although there is a common thread. I would like to tackle my particular point separately.

Does what the noble Lord said about the funding mean that the large, generous amounts of money which the Chancellor has told local government it is to receive to assist with its responsibilities in relation to schools, roads and social services will be reduced by the figure which must be spent on wardens and other functions which have to be undertaken because of this Bill? Will that have to be subtracted? Local councils would like to know that. Is the cost of this new responsibility included?

Members of the Committee will be aware that the whole issue of local authority finance is subject to a major review at present. We are talking of a period beyond the current review when these access rights will come into play. I cannot answer the noble Baroness absolutely. I may have inadvertently referred to costs being four to five times the figure in the regulatory impact assessment. However, what I was trying to convey was that we would provide four to five times that figure in order to carry out the access provisions. That would be additional money to the other responsibilties for local authorities. What I cannot be absolutely clear about is whether we will have a ring-fenced fund of some sort on which local authorities would draw or whether it would be part of the general allocation to local authorities—for which the SSA in these areas would reflect the obligations of this Bill. But it is extra money. I hope that that clarifies the funding position and that in the light of those assurances the noble Baroness will not puruse her amendment.

Will the noble Lord answer the point or agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Roberts about the possible need for wardens to control or to monitor night access? Is that something the noble Lord has thought about or something he may want to answer later? Is it something that ought to be considered?

Unlike certain noble Lords, the Government have always assumed that access means 24-hour access, as it does in relation to access land in general at present. We have always assumed that there will be night access. Our estimates are based on the inclusion of night access, as are estimates from the Local Government Association.

I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank him for spelling out that the Government agree with the LGA figure and that there will be additional money for some of the other work to be carried out, for example, through the agencies. That is all very helpful.

The Minister says that there might be a pot. I am concerned that it should not be yet another bidding round for local authorities; that it should be their money as of right in whichever way the Government decide to give it to them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the fact that, on the whole, we do not like ring-fenced funds. Local authorities are well able to make their own decisions. We do not see this as a fight between the conservation bodies and agencies. I should remind the Committee of my interest as a Somerset county councillor. But the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, impugn a motive which simply does not exist. We do not want to take the money away. We want a recognition that local government is paid for what it has to do.

The Minister has reassured me that the Government intend to put sufficient financing behind Part I. If he is able to say anything more at a later stage about the way in which his department thinks that that might be delivered, that would be extremely helpful. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 222:

Page 11, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Perhaps I may gently correct the noble Earl on his interpretation of my statement about wardens. I said that wardens will be important in some areas, not in most areas.

I support the noble Earl's amendment. The difficulty about a power rather than an obligation is that it leads to very wide variations between local authorities in the degree to which the power is implemented. From what I see in other contexts, central government have remarkably little ability to coerce local authorities into performing their optional functions. I have in mind the provision of youth services where the provision varies between the best and worst authority—£8 per head as against £236 per head. Therefore, wide variation between local authorities is a serious risk.

I am prepared to bet that the Minister will not like the idea of this amendment. However, I draw his attention to one other factor. I am informed that in response to a scheme relating to rights of way in north Hampshire and West Sussex, the commissioner for local administration, in reply to complaint No. 1340H of 7th December 1976 questioned whether a highway authority could justify putting resources into discretionary work rather than using those resources for its statutory responsibilities.

I rise to support my noble friend's amendment which would mean that the Bill would read:

"An access authority or a district council shall appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority making the appointment to be necessary or expedient, to act as wardens as respects access in their area".

This is a very sensible amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, left the word "may" in her amendment because that weakens the matter. This amendment improves the wording of the Bill.

There is an important point in this amendment which it is worth bearing in mind. If the Minister does not accept the amendment and if it is left as currently drafted, it may appear necessary or expedient to the authority making the appointment— in other words, it recognises that it is necessary or expedient—but it has no obligation to appoint so it does not appoint. Therefore, the authority has recognised the necessity for a warden. That takes into account the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in that there are some areas where they will not be necessary. However, there are some areas where the authority, and perhaps everybody else, recognises that wardens are necessary, for whatever reason it may be, but it still will not appoint them. That is the problem that this amendment solves. Therefore, it is simple and eminently desirable.

All three clauses, which are miscellaneous provisions relating to the right of access, are discretionary as far as local authorities are concerned. The fact that they are discretionary leads one to try to conceive of a situation in which by-laws are not passed by an access authority, in which wardens are not appointed and notices indicating boundaries, and so on, are not erected. Many of us fear that that situation will occur on access land.

A further important point in relation to those clauses is that they involve the restrictions to be imposed under Schedule 2. Clearly, the wardens have an important role in enforcing those restrictions as well as the by-laws. It seems to me that the absence of wardens in such a situation would wreck the Bill. Nevertheless, one must emphasise that whether wardens are appointed or not is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. That point was made early in our debates by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

In answer to a previous question the Minister said that he felt that those who live at the bottom of a hill and want to experience the delights of going up a hill are not the kind of people who damage the environment. He said that people like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who choose to go on one type of walk one day and another type of walk another day, or do a climb one day and another climb another day are not the kind of people to damage the environment. I totally agree with him.

The Minister misunderstands if he believes that walkers and ramblers damage the countryside. If that were so, the countryside would be in ruins because of the large numbers. No, it is a small percentage of people who visit the countryside who damage it. It is the odd person who dismantles a monk at the top of a reservoir and throws it in; it is the odd person who dismantles part of a deer fence; it is the odd person who tends to pick up a sign and throw it away. For that reason I welcome the amendment of my noble friend as it would strengthen the situation by saying that the authorities shall appoint wardens.

In this Bill we are trying to avoid conflict. It is most important that we lessen the conflict between the land manager and those accessing the land. If we can be sure to have these provisions in place, we can look forward to good co-operation between them.

The Minister said that he thought that there may be earmarked or ring-fenced funding for such a matter. Is that correct, even though the Government do not want it to be mandatory? The two do not go together.

I am trying to be careful not to tie the hands of future Chancellors. I shall leave the commitment of additional funds and how they will be channelled to be dealt with by someone closer to the point where the access rights become a reality. I understand the logic of the question posed by the noble Baroness, but in this area it is important to leave a degree of discretion with the local authorities.

The Government recognise the importance of wardens, but we want to be flexible about how we channel resources and about the balance of wardening as against other methods of ensuring that the access provisions work as they appear to the individual local authority. The provision would require local authorities to put their resources into wardening when that may not be the priority locally and there may be other ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, indicated, such as having others to provide and designate the wardening.

We need a degree of flexibility. The word "shall" would be too mandatory, albeit that it is still subject to identification, and so forth, and it would not necessarily impose an obligation on those authorities that did not require wardening, but it would mean that other ways of providing that wardening, or equivalent cover, would not be available to them. I believe that there is such a wide variety of access land to be managed by access authorities that we need some discretion.

While I understand the points that have been made, it is important that local authorities ensure that the access provisions are properly managed. In most cases wardening will be an important aspect, but I do not believe that we should make it mandatory as provided for in the amendment of the noble Earl.

I find that the most extraordinary answer that I have heard in this House for a long time. The Minister talks about discretion for local authorities. Local authorities have as much discretion in Clause 18(1) as is necessary with either "may" or "shall". The point is that having identified the need for wardens, my noble friends want them to be appointed. That is absolutely right.

I agree that the two positions are not a million miles apart but at the edges there may be local authorities that can provide the wardening service in a different way than by appointing their own wardens. We want to cover that situation. Therefore, some discretion is needed at the edges. I hope that we do not fall out over this matter, but it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Earl would deny a small amount of discretion.

If a local authority believes it can provide the service in another way, it is not necessary or expedient to appoint a warden. The Minister is saying that the first purpose of having a warden is to secure compliance with the restrictions. A landowner may ring the local authority to say, "On my land the restrictions are consistently being ignored; I cannot do anything about it; surely there should be a warden". The local authority will say, "Yes, we accept that it is absolutely necessary to have a warden because that is the only way of securing compliance with the restrictions; nonetheless we have decided not to appoint one". Is that satisfactory?

The first line of the clause says that the council "may", or if the amendment is agreed "shall", "appoint". It does not say "employ". It is quite possible for the local authority to appoint someone as a warden who is in the employment of a local landowner or a tenant fanner. The authority may decide that it is necessary or expedient to have a warden, but the clause is drafted in such a way that it does not have to pay for that warden, or at least not the whole of the warden's salary. It can find someone who is working locally, who may be self-employed, to work as a warden at a low salary or not a full salary. The word in the Bill, which has been drafted by the Government, is "appoint" and not "employ".

It is indeed. "Appoint" implies that the wardens are responsible to the local authority; that whatever the contractual relationship is with that local authority, they are responsible to it. But there can be situations where the person performing the wardening task is not responsible directly to the local authority; for example, it might be a neighbouring authority or a neighbouring parks authority, or in some cases even a local landowner. Therefore if we make this provision mandatory, problems will arise. So I wish to maintain a little flexibility.

We are probably making a meal of this point. As has just been said, the outcome of the noble Earl's amendment would still leave some discretion to local authorities. However, it would not leave discretion in that specific area. Therefore the Bill's present wording is rather better than the implications of Amendment No. 222.

Perhaps I can ask a small question. Who has the responsibility for ensuring that the lands are wardened? If Clause 18(1) stands, it may be that local authorities do not wish to take on that responsibility. Who will then be responsible for ensuring that the lands are wardened?

The access authority has the responsibility for ensuring that access is managed properly. Whether or not that involves wardening and, if so, how it will be provided, is a matter for their judgment.

This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part.

I want Amendment No. 221 to work. The best way of making it work is by inserting "shall". I agree with the Minister that it reduces the flexibility slightly. But that is not a bad thing. I do not believe the Minister's heart was in his brief on this one. He was just beginning to see that there was quite a good argument against him.

Amendment No. 222 strengthens the hand of the local authority in negotiating for funds. The fact that those within the rural departments of local authorities have a statutory duty rather than a non-statutory duty will certainly strengthen their hands when they seek to obtain funds. And we have to set that little flexibility which the Minister wants against the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who said on the previous amendments that if there were not wardens in appropriate places, conservation status could suffer.

The noble Earl made a direct reference to my amendment and how Amendment No. 222 would strengthen it. Perhaps I can say therefore that I feel there is a difficulty with his amendment.

I fully understand the spirit of Amendment No. 222. But there are a number of ways in 'which local authorities could choose to exercise this provision; For example, in partnership with farmers or in taking out contracts with conservation organisations. In that regard I must declare an interest as Vice-President of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers which does an immense amount of work in national parks and other open spaces. So there is a vast number of ways in which this clause could be fulfilled if the money was in place.

Therefore, although I entirely applaud the spirit of the noble Earl's amendment—that there will be people on the ground once the money is in place—I am nervous about using the words, "shall appoint". Although I understood the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, if we were going down that route I would have looked at wording which said, "shall ensure that". I am not very happy with the words, "shall appoint". It is much too definite in taking a local authority down a certain route. After all, they often choose to fulfil obligations in imaginative ways and that is what the "best value" regime is all about; that local authorities should move away from direct employment and into a range of different methods of carrying out their functions.

For those reasons I do not support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his Amendment No. 222.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I can say that I do not understand how my noble friend's amendment can in any way interfere with "imaginative ways". All it does is ensure that the wardening system is in place. That does not in any way impinge on the idea of imagination.

Unless these people are appointed as wardens, technically they will not have the power that wardens have under the Bill. But they can be volunteers; they can be members of the noble Baroness's association; they can be anybody. But they must have a ticket from the access authority saying that they are the wardens and they have been appointed. That is all "appoint" means.

The difference between the two arguments is that, on the one hand the noble Earl's amendment says, "shall appoint", and on the other the spirit of my amendment is to say "shall ensure that the land is wardened".

It can only be wardened by people who have been appointed, otherwise they will not have the powers under the Bill.

That is the telling argument for using the word "shall". I agree with the noble Baroness that we need some flexibility. When I moved the amendment I said that we should have some innovative ideas from local authorities. But if this question of the word "appoint" still worries the noble Baroness, we could come back to that at a later stage. I hope she will reconsider her thought and help me to help her to help the Bill work by having "shall" rather than "may".

moved Amendment No. 223:

Page 11, line 7, after ("17") insert (", with closures and restrictions under sections 21 and 22,").

I should very much like to support the amendment.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I indicate the view of the Government on this matter. Although it is arguable that enforcement and restrictions are already covered under subsection (2)(c), I rather agree that this matter should be made explicit on the face of the Bill. If the Committee agrees, I shall take this away and provide an amendment which covers not only Clauses 21 and 22 but any exclusions or restrictions under Chapter II. I hope that that is acceptable to the noble Lord.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take it away. I am sure that he will find the right terminology when we come to Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 223A:

After Clause 18 insert the following new Clause—