asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it is because of our determination to tackle the problems of postcode prescribing that we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to conduct an authoritative appraisal of the evidence on Beta Interferon as part of its first appraisal programme; NICE has not yet issued any final guidance.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not extraordinary that NICE was asked in August 1999 to report on this important drug but there is still no sign of a report? I understand that appeals have been made. What appeals can there be against clinical judgment and scientific evidence?

My Lords, NICE undertakes a programme which allows for evidence to be carefully considered, for meetings to be held with manufacturers, sponsors and patient groups, for external submissions to be received and for assessment reports— in this case, from the Northern and Yorkshire Drug and Therapeutic Centre—to be made. When that process has been gone through, the initial appraisal committee meets to consider Beta Interferon. It produces a provisional assessment, which is made available to the interested parties. The final appraisal committee has to meet to consider these matters. There is also an independent appeals process. Clearly, there are a considerable number of stages in that process, but I believe that that is right because the guidance given by NICE is crucial in deciding whether a particular drug or treatment is effective and cost-effective. It is therefore right that it has to take some time to ensure that the final guidance is as good as it possibly can be.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the interim report on Beta Interferon issued by NICE was very unfavourably received by sufferers from multiple sclerosis? The report said that the drug should continue to be available to those already taking it but not to others.

The matter is now being further considered. Can the Minister say whether NICE takes into account the relative cost of £10,000 for the drug—I know that value for money is one of the considerations—as compared with the cost of supporting the patient if he is unable to work and has to rely entirely on the state? Is that one of the factors taken into consideration by NICE, or is it simply a question of the effectiveness of the drug?

My Lords, it is difficult for me to comment on the consideration of Beta Interferon because NICE is still in the process of producing final guidance. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment on that process until the final guidance has been received. The noble Baroness asked about the methodology used by NICE. Its task is to access the evidence of all the clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention. That is taken in a wide sense, to include impact on quality of life, the relief of pain or disability and any impact on likely length of life. It has to estimate the associated costs and reach a judgment on whether, on balance, the intervention can be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

My Lords, is not the real answer to my noble friend's Question a gross lack of resources on the part of NICE? This year, some 26 appraisals along with other work will need to be carried out by NICE. Next year, 45 appraisals will be carried out. Yet NICE operates with only 28 full-time equivalent staff. Is that why the head of NICE's appraisal section resigned in July this year?

My Lords, NICE has done a valuable job in the year it has been in operation. It has produced a considerable amount of valuable guidance on drugs and treatments. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall keep under review the budget and scale of work that we commit to NICE in order to ensure that it is able to keep pace with the demands being made of it. Coming back to the issue of Beta Interferon, the time NICE has taken to go through the various stages is absolutely justifiable in terms of reaching the right conclusion at the end of the process.

My Lords, can my noble friend give the House the text of the precise factors that are taken into account in determining whether the drug is cost-effective? Can he give an assurance that those who determine whether a particular course of treatment is cost-effective are capable of arriving, from an accounting stand-point, at the precise figures on which he relies?

My Lords, in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I mentioned the general indicators considered by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence when reaching a judgment on a treatment's efficacy and cost-effectiveness. NICE's own board and advisory committees, which comprise some of the best experts in this country, are able to offer advice on such considerations. The institute must ultimately make a judgment, taking into account factors such as how effective a particular treatment is likely to be, its cost and its impact on patients in the NHS. A balance has to be struck. If drug is expensive but offers only limited clinical benefit, NICE would probably be expected to advise against its use.

Perhaps I may say also that, over the past few months, NICE has sent guidance to NHS organisations recommending that a number of drugs which previously were available only sporadically in the NHS should be made more generally available. As I have said, NICE should have an impact in ensuring that the treatments and drugs used in the health service are both clinically effective and cost-effective. In many cases, if they are, they will be brought into general use within the NHS far more quickly than has been the case in the past.

My Lords, is it not a fact that Beta Interferon has been made available to certain NHS patients in certain NHS trusts? Does the Minister agree that this amounts to what is, in effect, a two-tier health system?

My Lords, that is precisely why we have referred this matter to NICE. At the moment, health authorities operate a policy introduced in 1995 by the previous government. Essentially, it provides for individual cases to be considered on their merits. It is clear that that has led to enormous variations in policy in terms of the number of people receiving Beta Interferon in different health authorities. The effect of the guidance from NICE, when eventually it is published, will be a much more uniform application in accordance with that guidance.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Department of Health is improving recruitment and retention by encouraging the National Health Service in England to become a better employer, increasing training places, attracting former staff back to the NHS, encouraging flexible retirement and supporting more effective collaborative international recruitment.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that nursing is the most understaffed profession in the National Health Service and that a large percentage of student nurses drop out of their training courses? Is this not essentially still a legacy from 18 years of Conservative government? Is the Minister not sad to see trusts up and down the country applying to the Philippines, to India, to South Africa and even to China for their recruits? I noticed that my own NHS trust in Gwent has been trying to attract recruits from Finland. Surely that cannot be right. What is needed is a radical reappraisal of nurses' pay and conditions, because nurses certainly deserve better.

My Lords, my noble friend has raised a number of interesting questions. I do not doubt for a moment that the impact of the internal market and the decision of the previous government to stage a number of recommendations from the nurses' pay review body led to demoralisation among nursing staff, alongside reductions in the number of training places. We are now turning this round. We have increased the number of training places. Through our recruitment campaign, we have attracted more qualified nurses back into the health service. Today, 10,000 more nurses are working in the health service than was the case two years ago.

As regards international recruitment, it is clear that we need to recruit more nurses. We have traditionally recruited internationally, provided that that does not have an adverse impact on health service provision in the home countries. I believe that it is entirely justifiable. Indeed, international recruits play an extremely important part in the provision of services by the NHS.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not correct to seek to benefit our national health system by recruiting nurses from countries such as the Philippines, which has been done over recent years? Surely it is wrong that such countries should be denied the benefit of using their own highly skilled nurses, who have been trained using only the scarce resources that are usually available?

My Lords, I agree with the general proposition that recruiting from countries overseas would not be advisable if that action would have a detrimental effect on the home healthcare systems of those countries. That is why, in November last year, the Government published guidance to the NHS which stressed that, while international recruitment should be valued for its contribution to this country's health services, it is a viable proposition only when, first, its benefit to an individual NHS organisation can be demonstrated and, secondly, such recruitment into the NHS will not have a negative impact on the home country's healthcare system. I am confident that NHS organisations are recruiting internationally according to those guidelines.

My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on the campaign launched to attract qualified nurses back into the profession. However, I should tell him about one difficulty that has arisen—

Question!

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, even when experienced people do decide to return to the service, they are often placed at the lower end of their grading for pay? That is the case even for those with great experience. Does the Minister agree that this does not serve to encourage experienced staff to apply for posts?

My Lords, my noble friend usually tells me what he wants me to know. I agree that it is important that experienced nurses who are attracted back into the National Health Service after having moved away from their careers for some time should be given every support and encouragement. As regards the issue of grading, of course such matters must be left to be decided by each individual NHS trust. However, I agree with my noble friend that, when reaching such decisions, it is important to take into account the valuable past experience of nurses who have been away from the profession for some time.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the recruitment of nurses is clearly urgent, of much greater concern is the retention of staff? Does he further agree that if he were to tackle low morale, inflexible working arrangements and low pay more effectively, that would help to solve the recruitment problem?

My Lords, I certainly agree that the retention of nurses is very important. In regard to pay, our decision to accept without question the recommendations of the pay review body has been a considerable improvement on previous practice. I also agree that introducing more flexible working practices is a way of encouraging more nurses to stay in the National Health Service. There are now many examples where NHS trusts have recognised the need for better HR strategies and improved support. This is paying dividends. We are seeing more nurses coming back into and staying in the service. We have to redouble our efforts, but I am convinced that we shall achieve the 20,000 extra nurses we require in accordance with the targets set in the NHS plan.

My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of how many nurses have been attracted back by this campaign?

My Lords, as I said, we have 10,000 more nurses working in the health service now as compared with two years ago. In relation to the specific campaigns, 3,000 nurses returned last year; nearly 2,500 have returned since March; and another 2,200 nurses are preparing to return to the health service. We are running another campaign in certain areas of the country this autumn; we shall run further campaigns in the future. We are very anxious that former nurses will consider the NHS as a place in which to work again in the future.

My Lords—

Next Question!

My Lords, does my noble friend agree—

My Lords, we have reached 16 minutes. I hope that my noble friend will understand if we move on.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have made clear on a number of occasions that we are prepared to look pragmatically at extending the areas subject to qualified majority voting where this would benefit Britain, while ruling it out for areas of key national interest. As at Amsterdam, we believe that in the interests of a more efficient Commission the larger member states should be prepared to give up their second Commissioner provided that a satisfactory agreement is achieved on the re-weighting of votes in the Council. We have made clear that there must be substantial re-weighting in Britain's favour if we are to give up one of our Commissioners.

My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome back the noble Baroness. Her friends on all sides of the House are very pleased to see her back on the Front Bench.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, is not this an issue on which the Government will have to come rather more off the fence, and fairly quickly? Clearly the question of the extension of qualified majority voting is highly emotive. Does the Minister agree that, arguably, it could be the fault line that divides those who, in the famous words of the treaties, want an ever closer Union from those who want a more effective Union but do not want it to be any closer? Will there not be an essential moment at Nice when this division may start to appear and the Government will have to be very clear on which side they will come down?

My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord for his kind compliments on my return, and all noble Lords who have generously asked after my health. I am very glad to be back.

As to the noble Lord's supplementary question, the Government have not been on the fence. We have taken a balanced and realistic view of what is in the best interests of this country. The noble Lord will know that the majority of decisions in Europe already are taken by the use of qualified majority voting. We have been clear that where qualified majority voting will inure to the benefit of Britain, we will contemplate change. Where it will not, we will not. That has been our position for some time. It is a sound position and one which we propose to continue.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that by the judicious extension of QMV we can make the single European market more open to British business? This will provide more opportunities for British firms and will translate into prosperity and jobs.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that judicious extension of QMV may inure to our benefit, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We shall be vigilant to ensure that it is only on occasions when it will inure to our benefit that we will give it consideration.

My Lords, perhaps we on these Benches may also welcome the Minister back to her brilliant defence of her wicket and say how pleased we are to see her.

Is it not correct that some extension of qualified majority voting and some reduction in the number of Commissioners is crucial to the enlargement of the Union, a goal shared by many of us on all sides of the House? Can she say whether, with the extension of qualified majority voting, the Government would support, as a broad general rule, co-decision making by the European Parliament in order to strengthen the democratic accountability which is so crucial to the success of the Union in future?

My Lords, I join wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness in saying that the Government are committed to the enlargement of the European Union. We have been at the forefront of that, and quite rightly too. So far as concerns qualified majority voting, I repeat what I said earlier. That must remain the case. The issue of co-decision making is being looked at by a number of parties and we have said that we shall consider the matter. But the noble Baroness perhaps pushes me to go further than the Government are minded to go at the moment.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any treaty signed at Nice will require ratification by both Houses of Parliament? If that is so, could she speculate as to what rights Parliament would have were it minded to reject ratification? Would that be within its powers?

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question directly. The noble Viscount will know that at the conference the decision will be based on what each country decides. That will be the final determinator of the position. Scrutiny is certainly possible under our procedure. Whether that would enable the decision to be overturned is quite another matter. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with a fuller response after I have had an opportunity to give the matter mature consideration.

My Lords, whatever the powers and however emotive the issue, noble Lords on all sides of the House who want to see enlargement of the European Union must surely recognise that it would be absurd not to consider the issue of the number of Commissioners and other matters relating to qualified majority voting. Can my noble friend avoid apologising for the Government doing just that?

My Lords, I hope I have not apologised as my noble friend indicated. I make it plain that there are areas where a move to qualified majority voting would be advantageous to the United Kingdom. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made this clear at Biarritz. One such area concerns the rules of procedure for the European Court, where the United Kingdom have pushed for QMV to improve the court's efficiency and to speed up access to justice. Other areas concern aspects of transport, industrial policy, appointments and financial regulations. So there are areas where we would benefit from change. The Government are determined that Britain should enjoy that benefit wherever possible.

My Lords, while the number of Commissioners is obviously important, does the noble Baroness agree that an even more important issue is the curbing of the expansionary tendencies of the Commission, its desire to involve itself in inter-governmental areas and its enormously excessive workload? The Prime Minister touched on this in his Warsaw speech, but what precise proposals will the Government take to Nice in order to meet this central issue in the name of democracy in the European Union.

My Lords, we have made it clear that the real issues will be dealt with by the Council and not the Commission. I know that many noble Lords have expressed concern about the ambit of the Commission's work. We have continued to examine these issues but, clearly, the Commission's role is different, and separate, from that of the Council. Although there seems to be confusion in the minds of others, we need to be clear that the power base remains with the Council, not with the Commission.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the arrangements for deciding when mandatory life sentence prisoners should be released from prison. The Home Secretary takes that decision on the recommendation of the Parole Board.

My Lords, I have so much respect for the Minister that I am sure that he cannot be happy with that feeble reply. Is not the trouble with the Home Secretary deciding these matters that he has a duty to take account of public opinion in the widest sense, including that of the tabloid press, which may be cruel and unjust to prisoners? Secondly, is the Minister aware that leading Law Lords have expressed an opinion that is contrary to his?

My Lords, the Law Lords have been expressing that opinion for a very long time. The Home Secretary has made his position perfectly plain. We have no plans to change the current arrangements, with which we are entirely happy. As to the influence of the tabloid press, I cannot believe that a Labour Home Secretary would be in any way, shape or form influenced by the tabloid press. He will continue to form a balanced view, as he always has done in these matters.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Second Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, published on 15th May 1996 entitled, Murder: The Mandatory Life Sentence? At paragraph 14 of the report, the committee recommended that the responsibility for setting the tariff and for taking decisions on release should be removed from the Home Secretary and should go to the judges, with the Court of Appeal as the final arbiter. Why does the Home Secretary behave like a drowning man clinging to insubstantial wreckage?

My Lords, the last thing that one could accuse the Home Secretary of doing is clinging to wreckage like a drowning man. That is not at all his demeanour. I defer to the noble and learned Lord's knowledge of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I am aware of the report; but the Government take a different view.

My Lords, if the courts were to decide that the present law was incompatible with the human rights convention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recently suggested is likely, will the Government stick to their opinion?

My Lords, the Government, including the Home Secretary, take the view that, in terms of any action in the event of a declaration of incompatibility, it will be for government to propose and for Parliament to dispose. The matter will rest with the Government.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the simplest way to get rid of this problem is to abolish the mandatory life sentence? Is it not the case that murder ranges from sadistic serial killings at one end of the scale to mercy killings at the other? Would it not be appropriate for judges to be given the same kind of sentencing discretion over murder as they have over all other crimes?

My Lords, the noble Lord touches on an important issue. It must be remembered that, in practice, the mandatory life sentence is highly flexible. The noble Lord's question suggested that flexibility is required. The judiciary has the opportunity to take cognizance of the facts and the circumstances of, for example, mercy killings at one end of the scale and terrorist offences at the other. We believe that the flexibility is there, and we have no plans to change the mandatory life sentence.

My Lords, if a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act were to be issued by the Law Lords, is the Minister saying that the Home Secretary might nevertheless disregard that finding and continue on the present path?

My Lords, it will be a decision for government. Our view is that the current arrangements are satisfactory and we intend to stick by them.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in granting the release of those who have received a mandatory life sentence, the Home Secretary has a responsibility to consider the public benefit and the effect that their release will have? Does he further agree that such a requirement is not necessarily present if the Law Lords have to do that, because their responsibility is towards the person concerned, and not towards the public?

My Lords, the Home Secretary must take account of a broad range of views. The views of the public are important, as are those of the victims of crime. We must take careful account of both. That is one of the matters that has driven public policy in recent years, particularly under this Government.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and is at least 2 hectares in size").

My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. Clearly, the Government considered our original amendments. I remember "football pitches" being referred to in Committee and it was said that the original size proposed in the amendments was too big. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment that is now before the House.

My Lords, the noble Lord seems to regard this as a bit of a negotiating session; indeed, we have gone down from 10 to 5 and now to 2. I suppose that I should be grateful for that. However, there is a principle involved here. The Government have recognised some of the arguments put forward from various quarters of this House. We have, in total, tabled about 40 amendments, most of which give some further leeway or greater flexibility to landowners. Therefore, most of them reflect the degree to which we have been prepared to listen to arguments in this House.

The amendment now before us, and many that follow, seeks to take those restrictions further. We have provided a flexibility for the countryside bodies to take them further in appropriate circumstances. There seem to be two problems. The first is that there is a mood in some quarters of this House that the restrictions should be greater than the Government have accepted. We believe that we now have a sensible range of amendments, which take account of earlier arguments. However—I say this not necessarily in relation solely to this amendment—we believe that we have gone far enough down that road. Minor alterations may be necessary here and there which we will accept in terms of today's arguments, but, in general, we believe that what we now have is a sensible balance.

We have also provided for a means to adjust that balance in response to factors that become apparent in the administration, in the mapping, or in the experience of operating access. We have given a discretion to the countryside bodies, under Clause 4(5) of the Bill, to decide not to map small areas of open country if it appears impractical or not sensible. That provides a practical and sensible tool, but does not mean the exclusion of all small areas of open countryside, many of which are quite attractive and ought to be open to the general public. That provision will allow bodies to exclude parcels of land that would involve wholly disproportionate effort, wholly disproportionate costs to survey or provide wholly insignificant benefit to the potential users.

In implementing the legislation, the countryside bodies may exclude land greater or less than two hectares. It is a matter for them to resolve in the light of the mapping process and in the light of experience. For example, they may decide to apply different thresholds to some types of land. We do not see any reason to interfere with that discretion. Part of the problem seems to be that some noble Lords, especially from the party opposite, do not trust the Countryside Agency to exercise this discretion fairly and equitably. If we cannot trust our public bodies—there are great public servants who operate within the Countryside Agency—we shall have difficulty in making this Bill work in general. We should not make the situation worse for the agency by imposing on it arbitrary limitations. We should leave such matters to its discretion. I hope that noble Lords, both in respect of this amendment and others, will overcome their paranoia about the Countryside Agency and recognise that that is the way in which flexibility operates under our system of government in this area, as well as in others.

The amendment would not excuse the countryside bodies from the duty to consider including such land; it would simply introduce an arbitrary cut-off point. That seems to me to represent an inhibition as regards achieving equity and common sense in their task, rather than making it easier. The amendment also fails to recognise that open country comes in many shapes and sizes. A small area of wasteland formed by the angle of two roads might genuinely provide a useful recreational area in the vicinity of a village. But a similar sized area would be less significant if it were on the edge of, say, Dartmoor. We are certainly not prepared to assume that it is not worth granting a right of access to all land of a size of less than two hectares. Indeed, it is much better to leave such discretion to the countryside bodies. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not pursue this amendment, and others, that would fetter such discretion and make the job of mapping that much more difficult.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. However, I cannot follow his final comment; namely, that it would make the job of mapping more difficult if we excluded small areas. I believe that it would make that task that much easier. The whole point of my amendment is that if you say that no land below two hectares is to be mapped, it will make the whole process for the countryside bodies so much simpler. Indeed, everyone would be clear on the position—the countryside bodies and the owners and occupiers of land. But if you have a fully flexible system, which the noble Lord advocates, that will lead to wholly disproportionate costs in many areas and to inconsistencies throughout the country.

I believe that the noble Lord's arguments are wrong. It is not a question of mistrusting the countryside bodies. At the, end of the day, it is a question of pure practicality. That is what I am trying to achieve. It should be clear for the countryside bodies and for those occupying the land that small areas need not be mapped. That would be clear, cost effective and surely must be right. However, I realise that the Government are utterly entrenched on the matter. I believe them to be wrong, but only time will prove who is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to quantify in due course the extra costs to the countryside bodies of this work and that he will account to Parliament for it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 1A:

Page 2, line 8, after ("Agency") insert ("which shall carry out its obligations under this Act through its employees unless contracting out to third parties is agreed by the access authority in consultation with the local access forum").

My Lords, although the meaning of this amendment, as printed, is no doubt clear, I must point out to your Lordships that there are two printing mistakes in it. The quotation marks should appear before the words "covered" and "of", not before the words "leave" and "insert".

My Lords, this seems to me a sensible amendment. I believe that probably most Members of your Lordships' House have become increasingly anxious that the agency will have an enormous amount to do, and some of that in a short space of time. It is important that the agency should be able to contract out and that Parliament should know the conditions under which that is done and what happens if the people who do the contracting out do not properly fulfil their responsibilities. I am sure that noble Lords will listen to the Minister's response with great interest.

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships; it is I who have made a mistake on this occasion. I referred to two errors which we shall no doubt come to in due course. Amendment No. 1A, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, states:

"Page 2, line 8, after ('Agency') insert ('which shall carry out its duties under this Act through its employees unless contracting out to third parties is agreed by the access authority in consultation with the local access forum')".

I am sorry for having detained your Lordships because of my error.

My Lords, these amendments would require the countryside bodies to consult with local access forums before appointing a contractor. That is a significant inhibition on the Countryside Agency in carrying out this work. As we shall discover when we discuss the relevant amendments, local access forums are regarded as an important factor in assessing how we establish and manage access. However, we do not believe that they are appropriate bodies to consult in the context we are discussing.

The countryside bodies are required to produce maps of all registered common land and open country. They will be required by regulations to consult widely on draft maps, consider representations, then produce provisional maps for confirmation or amendment following the hearing of any appeals by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.

That is a considerable task. We cannot expect the countryside bodies to use directly employed staff in all contexts. The in-house staff will not have all of the technical expertise that is required. When specialist staff can be contracted to carry out certain work it would not be sensible for the countryside bodies to employ specialists for a limited period and then dispense with them. The bodies involved have already taken steps to identify, and where necessary contract, organisations and individuals with the right skills to do this work. As we discussed earlier, they are working closely with the Ordnance Survey to ensure high technical standards. In mapping and other areas they will need expertise which complements their in-house expertise. However, oversight and responsibility for all this work will rest with the countryside bodies. Their staff will set the parameters, oversee the operation of the contracts and will have a direct and vital role in discussions with the interested parties during the process and afterwards. They take extremely seriously the prospect of carrying out their functions. They are determined to carry out that work in a professional and transparent manner.

The amendments imply that we would employ particular bodies for particular mapping purposes. However, it is more likely that we would employ under contract particular organisations or personnel for their general expertise. It would therefore be difficult to engage a significant number of local access forums in the contractual arrangements, as the amendments would require, because they would be organised on a national or regional basis rather than on an area or county basis. There may be occasions where that is not the case but in those situations the countryside bodies' own staff would engage in full consultation with the relevant local access forums.

As regards guidance to the Countryside Agency, I think I have indicated that it will have tight overall management of this work. We shall not give specific guidance to the Countryside Agency on contracting out. However, the provisions in regulations—I refer, in particular, to Clause 11 which concerns regulations relating to maps—will set out in detail the requirements for consultation and appeal, which the noble Baroness was particularly worried about, and will allow us to concentrate on achieving the right outcomes without interfering in the way in which the Countryside Agency mobilises the inputs, whether in terms of direct staff or separate contracted companies or individuals. Therefore the fact that that body will be in charge of the procedure will safeguard the appeals process. What we are really talking about here is deploying expertise.

As I say, the Countryside Agency will be in charge of the process. It will consult with local interest groups and local access forums. Most of the expertise will probably consist of contracted specialists. I believe that the amendments are inappropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. He mentioned the spirit of the approach that the Government will adopt towards the agency. That is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 1 B not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("is open and which").

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is the first time that I have heard the noble Viscount's arguments. They sound eminently sensible and help with the description over which we struggled for such a long time in Committee.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in construing the definition of "open country", which appears to the appropriate body to consist of the various types of land described, that body must apply the usual Wednesbury principle? Bearing that in mind, the definition of open country is used to define access land and has to be read alongside the schedule of exceptions from open land. One has to marry the definitions together. Nevertheless, the point is already covered.

My Lords, the noble Viscount refers to this as a drafting amendment. Taken literally, it is closer to a wrecking amendment. I am not sure that that is the noble Viscount's intention but in practice that would be the effect. It would mean that enclosed land, typically fields, could not be mapped as open country for the purposes of the Bill. As the noble Viscount hinted, the effect would be to exclude most downland and significant areas of moor and heath from the definition of access land.

The term "open country" is defined effectively as mountain, moor, heath and down. In the Government's consultation paper published in February 1998, we said that,

"open does not necessarily mean 'unenclosed': some of the land may well be fenced, for example, to prevent grazing animals straying onto roads, or it may include walls to separate areas of grazing".

Indeed, much of our currently accessible open land is covered in drystone walls and can be regarded as enclosed land.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that does not mean that everything on downland would be treated as open country. The restrictions have to be read together with what appears to be mountain, moor, heath and down. Therefore, there would be substantial exceptions and restrictions on the downlands referred to, principally in relation to arable land. Enclosed arable land would be automatically excluded.

We thought that we had made clear that there is nothing in the Bill which restricts landowners from doing what they like with their land. Therefore, if they use the land for arable farming, even though otherwise it might fall within the definition of downland, it is excluded. If they wish to erect fences or walls around the field, they are entitled to do so but in certain circumstances that will still be open country. Providing a barrier, a wall, which may be there already or erected, will not exclude it from being access land.

Very little of the downland commons which range across the tops of the chalk ridges in south-east England remain common land, having succumbed to enclosure in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much, if not all, has been enclosed to permit the management of stock. Such enclosure need not affect the characteristics of downland, typified by rolling hills, steep slopes, dry valleys and short rich turf. Those areas will be identified as downland. But if they are used for purposes which lead to an exclusion or restriction, they will not be treated as access land.

It is also not axiomatic that moor and heath, for example, are unenclosed. Moorland has been enclosed or allotted by landowners at various times in the past 200 years. The changing economics of agriculture, and the poor productivity of the soil, has caused some of that land to resume the characteristics of unimproved moorland.

Therefore we do not accept the principle of the amendment. In all the categories of mountain, moor, heath and down there may be enclosed land which it is appropriate to treat as access land. Yes, countryside bodies will need to act reasonably when they apply their discretion. They will need to review the definitions and to have careful regard to the exclusions and restrictions in the other clauses of the Bill. But they will not be expected to exclude excepted land from maps unless they believe that to be not predominantly open country. Therefore they will identify mountain, moor, heath and down and then consider whether that land is being used for purposes which are inappropriate for treatment as access land and covered by the exceptions in the Bill.

The implication of the amendment is that all enclosed land should be excluded from the definition. That is a substantial undermining of the principle of the Bill and would cause grave difficulties in delivering the main purpose of the Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. I am sure that he knows me too well even to contemplate the idea that I might seek to wreck his Bill. For the reasons he gives, I accept that this is not the proper solution. However, I suggest that the debate in Committee on what is or is not downland will need resolving. I hope that he will give that point further thought and return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 17, after ("down") insert ("(but excluding land habitually used for the making of hay, silage or haylage)").

My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is in this group. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 8 separately. As the Bill stands, excepted land for access includes,

"Land on which the soil is being, or has at any time within the previous twelve months been, disturbed by any ploughing or drilling undertaken for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees".

In other words, the definition specifically covers cultivated land.

Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I believe that to be inadequate, as it may not cover improved or semi-improved grassland that produces hay, silage or haylage—a new word. That is clearly an essential part of farmers' livelihoods.

I am sure that it will not be the express intention of the access authorities to include such land within access provisions. I take issue with the Minister's suggestion that the Conservatives have an inherent mistrust of the Countryside Agency. That was a little blunt. As my noble friend has already said, we are trying to define the areas in question in a way that will not lead to confusion.

In Committee, we had a considerable debate on the definition of "open country" under Clause 1, which covers land that,

"appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".

Many of us felt that that description was too wide and could lead to difficulties and appeals during the mapping process. It is important to try to clarify as best we can the various land types. I agree that it is not always possible, but in this case it is possible and desirable. It would be inappropriate to allow the land that I am talking about to be included in the access provisions. Getting it right now will reduce the chances of confusion and appeals at the mapping stage. That alone would be very helpful.

I accept that Amendment No. 7 is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness. However, the definition in my amendment has been adopted previously in legislation, appearing in Sections 42 and 52 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so it has a sound precedent.

Furthermore, on Report in another place, at column 809, Mr Meacher, the Minister there, expressed sympathy with the idea that such land should be excepted. If the Minister in another place feels that it should be excepted, I expect the Minister in this House to adhere to that.

The amendment is straightforward and would make it clear that any land that was not used for any reason other than rough grazing was excepted land. I hope that the Minister will agree.

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been present in Committee. I would have supported the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Peel, at the time.

From a purely practical farming point of view, the Government are missing an important trick. They seem to forget that grassland or meadow land, particularly on hill farms, is often a link between the nearest access road and the open hill. During the summer growing months of June, July and August, it is very important that such land should not be disturbed if the farmer intends to take a crop of hay or silage from it.

The Government have said that cultivated land will be excepted, but hill grassland is not normally in any form of rotation. It would normally be broken perhaps only once every 10 years, or perhaps not at all if constant improvement was possible with lime and fertiliser. In those circumstances, it could not possibly come under the regular cultivation exception. In any event, as most hill farmers know, it takes two or three years to establish a good sward from a directly re-seeded meadow before it is fit for hay or silage.

Another important reason for not disturbing the fields in the summer is to protect certain ground-nesting birds. When I was the Minister for Rural Affairs in Scotland, I visited SSSIs in the Outer Hebrides—that may be a long way from England, but the issues are the same—where the farmers received management agreements provided that they did not cut the hay until 1st August. That enabled corncrakes and other ground-nesting birds such as curlews to nest in the hay. The birds would be fledged by the end of July or the beginning of August. There was therefore a double reason why the ground should not be disturbed by people using it for access to open hills.

There are good reasons to support the amendments. Winter keep is essential for hill farms. If it can be taken only from a few meadows or grassland fields around the farm that are likely to be used by the general public for access to open hills, those fields should be kept clear of footsloggers during the hay period, from the end of May until well into August. That would enable the hay to grow to best advantage and would avoid disturbance of ground-nesting birds, which is often a problem on such land. We should give the amendments a fair wind, even if we have to come back to the issue at Third Reading.

My Lords, the amendments are important. To put the issue in a slightly different way, the House should realise that grass is an important crop. In many parts of the country, particularly in Wales, it is increasingly important, because the low price of cereals makes it worth growing grass wherever it grows best. It is grown not just permanently as rough grazing, but for intensive grazing. Sometimes it is even divided into compartments so that stock can feed on one part and then on another, or for hay, silage or haylage, as the amendments specify.

It would be disastrous to have people walking across such grass. It is important for people to realise that it has to be treated in the same way as a field of grain or root crops.

I do not know whether we have come up with the right definition. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Peel has come up with the best solution, because his amendment specifies everything that is not rough grazing. It embraces all the different ways that grass may be grown in potential access areas and does not limit it only to hay, silage and haylage. The Minister may have a view on that.

I hope that this matter is being considered because it is a problem that may lead to the type of confrontation in the countryside that we want to avoid. We need clarity in relation to the definitions.

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has just said. In one way or another for 40 years I have had connections with the Redesdale Experimental Husbandry Farm.

I am most concerned to realise from this debate that the Government may be considering the possibility of making subject to access what is called "in-bye land"; at least, it is called that at Redesdale and in Northumberland.

The reason for my anxiety concerns not only the absolute necessity of having a hay supply, but also lambing. Over the past 30 or 40 years the practice of lambing on hills has been less and less popular. Sheep are now brought into in-bye fields for lambing or into lambing sheds. Building lambing sheds represents an extremely expensive capital project which many hill farmers would not be able to undertake. It is absolutely essential that fields should he available for lambing and that they should be undisturbed. I believe that this is another important argument for accepting the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rather than the others.

My Lords, without entering into an argument about the merits of a particular amendment, perhaps I may express sympathy with the approach. It is essential that we encourage farmers to grow rather than buy in feed. The BSE tragedy provides evidence of that desirability. If they are to be encouraged to grow feed, I believe that consideration must be given to this approach. It would, of course, be helpful to ground-nesting birds as well. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give careful thought to this matter.

My Lords, we on these Benches are concerned that the land used for growing grass crops does not have a closer definition. Indeed, on behalf of the Government in Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he recognised the concern of noble Lords. He acknowledged that access to fields could cause damage and went on to say that,

"farmers will have every opportunity to see that it"—

that is, the land used for grass crops—

"is excluded from the maps".—[Official Report, 27/9/00; col 919.]

Those of us who are concerned about smaller upland farmers believe that at the moment the boot seems to be on the wrong foot. Farmers who need land to grow grass crops for their animals should be able to expect that land to be excluded. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am not sure that any of the amendments in this group quite meet what we are seeking to achieve. I urge the Government to give one last thought to this matter and to return with their own amendment at the next stage.

My Lords, first, I apologise for not having been here for the earlier stages of the Bill. I support these amendments. At my home, groups of people ask permission to walk across our land and on many occasions we permit them to do so. However, people must be kept away from standing crops of hay which are to be cut for silage. Many people wonder what happens to the crops if they are walked on. Quite simply, they end up on the ground and the machinery cannot pick them up.

Although normally seen in grain, an indication of the damage that is done can be seen when flying into London airport in the summer over areas where standing grain grows in fields close to houses. It is possible to see from the air the amount of damage that is caused, even in areas where people do not necessarily have a right of access. One can see the damage caused to great swathes of crops which have been tracked through, let alone the damage created by crop circles. If one flies over the affected area a few weeks later after the crops have been cut, it is possible to see areas which have been left uncut purely because people have wandered through them. Therefore, I support the amendments.

My Lords, my mind was working on exactly the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he talked about the Redesdale Farm in Northumberland, with which I am familiar. I remember visiting that particular experimental farm when I was a Minister in MAFF a good many years ago.

I remember talking to people during that visit about hill farming in the north of England. It was put to me in strong terms that one of the greatest inhibitions for a hill farmer is his capacity to over-winter his sheep. I was told that there was always plenty of keep in the summer on the hill and moor but that it was difficult to conserve enough material, whether hay, silage or whatever, for keeping the stock over winter.

If the Minister wants an example of that I invite him to ask for advice about the demand from hill farmers for their sheep to go to the lowlands during the winter and to eat sugar beet tops. After the sugar beet has been removed, the tops keep sheep effectively for considerable lengths of time during the depths of winter. Many farmers cannot keep enough sheep to provide them with a reasonable livelihood during the winter because of the difficulty of providing enough winter keep for them from their farms. Therefore, I believe that these amendments are exceptionally important and I hope that the Government will take them seriously.

I want to make another point which I believe has been half made already. However, I should like to express it a little more fully. One thinks of lush meadows in the lowlands which are about to be cut for hay or silage, but on the uplands the crops are very much thinner. Often, people who visit the countryside do not know as much about the ways of the countryside as many of us would wish. I believe that in many upland areas a rambler could mistake a hay or silage crop for grazing land. It is possible that he would not realise that grass was being grown for conservation. Therefore, unless farmers can fall back on an Act of Parliament which states that land is excepted from the right to roam, it will be extremely difficult for them to keep the public off land where grass is being grown for conservation.

I plead with the Minister to take on board the points that have been made on all sides of the House. I hope that he will either accept the amendments or return at Third Reading with other amendments to deal with this practical problem for upland farmers.

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly as a landowner and manager who no longer makes silage, hay or haylage. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord on my right and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. However, a point which no one has yet raised is that of safety. I speak as someone who has grown such crops in the past. They are harvested with fast-moving, sharp-cutting, knived machines. The crops can be three feet high and it is not easy to see if anything is lying in them. Surely it cannot be right to allow people to have access to crops when they are being cut by dangerous machinery.

My Lords, I wish to make a tiny point. These fields contain food. They are not places in which to walk; they are growing food for sheep. It would be just the same if people had the right to roam in a restaurant and walk about on the tables all over the dishes.

My Lords, I am not sure how to follow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I understand what is meant. It is a graphic example of the problem that we face.

The Minister will be well aware of the feeling around the House this afternoon on the practicalities of the Bill's implications if we do not look at this issue in all seriousness. We refer particularly to the hill farmers who are struggling to survive at the moment. If these additional restrictions are not made, I fear that it will become worse and more difficult for them. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters very seriously.

My Lords, we gave assurances in Committee and assurances were given in another place that the criteria adopted by the countryside bodies for the mapping of open country will exclude improved agricultural land from maps of open country. We had said repeatedly that this land will fall outside the criteria which the countryside bodies are adopting for mapping open country. We wrote recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to explain that the Countryside Agency has already issued a paper for consideration by the National Countryside Access Forum setting out its initial views on the criteria it should adopt in mapping open country. If that paper was not copied to any noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I should be happy to do that.

The paper focuses on naturally occurring vegetation as an indicator of its status as mountain, moor, heath or down. The proposed criteria exclude land that comprises improved or semi-improved pastures, arable land, land used for rotational cropping and set aside.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What is the definition of "improved"? We have land at home that we wanted to plant out with trees. We obtained one level of grant for improved land and one level for unimproved land as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture. For improved land there has to be a certain percentage of certain types of grasses. There is very good unimproved land—by the definition the Ministry gives—which is used for cropping, grass, haylage and silage. Therefore, much of it would fall outside what the Minister just said.

My Lords, I had better pursue my argument which has to be seen as a whole rather than intervene in negotiations between the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. Clearly, whatever definitions are used for grant purposes, they are not the same as the definitions that the Countryside Agency will draw up for the purposes of this Act.

The criteria are not complete. They will be developed and refined and subject to consultation. They will include a working methodology as part of the pilot mapping exercise in respect of which a contract will be let later this year.

The Government endorse the selection of criteria that excludes these types of land. We can assure all who have taken part in this debate that the purposes for which these amendments have been tabled will be achieved by the Bill, and plans are being put in place for their implementation.

I deal with the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 3 would exclude from the definition of "open country" land which is habitually—and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right in taking the word "habitually" from Amendment Nos. 14 and 17—used for the making of hay, silage or haylage. It is drafted more narrowly than Amendment No. 58 which is on a similar subject but which is to be taken separately. It deals particularly with grassland capable of producing a commercial crop. The use of the word "habitually" should avoid the unnecessary exclusion of extensive areas of downland from maps of open country. It would still leave considerable doubt about the status of downland from which a hay cut is often taken. Much traditional downland is capable of providing a crop of hay in a good year. We do not believe that the potential for generating a crop of hay on downland makes it inconsistent with rights of access.

There may be a need at times to protect grass from trampling, and that point has been made very effectively this afternoon. I want to give three answers to that. First, it can often be achieved by encouraging the use of paths. Secondly, where restrictions are required, entitled persons will be able to close the land or restrict access using their discretion under Clause 21 which is enhanced by our Amendment No. 117 or, thirdly, to apply to the relevant authority for a direction for the purposes of land management. I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm.

Where a hay crop is regularly taken from the land, the relevant authority can make a direction that has effect for the appropriate period in every spring or early summer. I accept that if the Bill were to cover Scotland, the spring might go through to later than early summer.

How would the farmer demonstrate to the satisfaction of the countryside bodies or the Secretary of State his habitual practice of taking a cut of hay from the land? An amendment along these lines would be very difficult to apply in practice.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 13 represent an alternative approach in that they add provisions similar to Amendment No. 3 to the categories of excepted land in Schedule 1. Amendment No. 7 would simply exclude agricultural land rather than rough grazing.

Both the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, talked about the need for clarity. I agree with them. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke about the need for clarity in the appeals process. The need for clarity goes further than that. We explained in detail in Committee that it would be unhelpful to introduce into Schedule 1 any exception of land that was not readily identifiable by the public and by farmers. No walker could be expected to identify land that was habitually used for the making of hay, silage or haylage unless he were accompanied by a team of agricultural consultants; nor would a walker be any better informed about whether land was rough grazing.

It is much more sensible that land inappropriate to the right of access is excluded at the mapping stage. The process set out in the Bill, with the assurances that I have given, will achieve this objective.

The noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others referred to the definition used in earlier legislation of exclusion of agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock. That test has not worked very often. It has rarely, if ever, been necessary to use the test for exactly the reason that applies in this case because under the earlier legislation improved and semi-improved pastures were excluded from agreement land in the first place. In this legislation we have always made it clear that mountain, moor, heath and down are intended only to include agricultural land used for rough grazing. It is in the mapping process that this land will be identified and other agricultural land excluded.

The noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Jopling, mentioned in-bye land referring in particular to Northumberland. It is unlikely that much in-bye land would be mapped as open country as it is very rarely mountain, moor, heath or down. One must remember that that is the overriding control on what is included in mapping. Some land of this kind has long since ceased to be managed and has resumed characteristics typically of moorland, and surely that should be mapped as open country if it is so.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, talked about improved and reseeded fields. These lands are unlikely to be mapped as open country as they will not be mountain, moor, heath or down. The question of exception of this land in Schedule 1 does not arise.

I recognise that there is strong feeling around the House. We believe that the Bill as drafted provides the protection sought for hill farmers. But in the light of the strength of feeling which has been expressed, I am certainly willing to explore what more can be done on the face of the Bill to ensure that "open country" can be better defined so as to exclude land regularly used for the making of hay or silage.

If we can conclude a form of words which is satisfactory and which does not exclude large areas of downland which really should be covered by the Bill—and I can give no commitment on that point—then we shall consider whether, under those circumstances, we could table an amendment to that effect at Third Reading.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging but at the same time specific debate because it has focused on a major lacuna within the Bill. There has been support for the idea behind the amendment and the idea of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, from the Cross Benches, and from my own side. For that, I am extremely grateful.

I was very concerned by a number of the Minister's comments. I wish to read them carefully in Hansard. It sounded to me as though the Government were going back on what they had said both in another place and in this House. The Minister's words about land on which hay could be made were, in my view, a distinct retreat from the Government's earlier position. That will be of immense concern to every upland farmer who is following this issue with great anxiety.

The Minister made a rather dismissive remark that definitions are different in Northern Ireland. That was an insult to—

My Lords, I did not say that. I said that definitions of improved and semi-improved land used for the purposes of grant might be different. There were no aspersions cast on or praise given to Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for that clarification. It only goes to prove that more work is to be put on the owners and occupiers. One set of definitions is used for the purposes of grant and a completely different set will be dreamt up by the Government in relation to access. Life will be made more difficult for those in the countryside.

I was concerned about 99 per cent of what the noble Lord said. However, he produced a little pearl to hang on to at the end when he said that he would take away the matter for consideration. It would therefore be wrong to test the opinion of the House on this amendment or, indeed, on subsequent Amendments Nos. 6 and 13. I hope that the noble Lord is serious and that he will require his officials to come up with an appropriate amendment. Clearly, what is on the face of the Bill at the moment is totally unsatisfactory and represents a danger to wildlife as well as to the prosperity of the farming community. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

("(3) In this Part "registered common land" means—

(a) land which is registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 (in this section referred to as "the 1965 Act") and whose registration under that Act has become final, or

(b) subject to subsection (4), land which fell within paragraph (a) on the day on which this Act is passed or at any time after that day but has subsequently ceased to be registered as common land under the 1965 Act on the register of common land in which it was included being amended by reason of the land having ceased to be common land within the meaning of that Act.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for coming back with this amendment and for taking the opportunity to strengthen the position of commons and, later in the Bill, of village greens. I am glad that those areas have not been left unprotected, small though they may be. We believe that they are very important and, as I said, I thank the Government.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 21, at end insert—

("(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate countryside body to set out clear definitions of moor, heath and down.").

My Lords, the necessity for an amendment to this effect, although perhaps not the amendment itself, was demonstrated by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the debate on grassland.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appears to contemplate that the Countryside Agency will lay down certain definitions or instructions which will provide, for example, that improved grassland does not count as down. But under the Bill as it now stands the Countryside Agency does not have that power.

In the last resort, what is or is not "down" is a question of law and would be for the courts to decide. Neither the Government nor the Countryside Agency could say, "We have decided that improved grassland is not down and therefore we will not map it" if someone comes along and demonstrates that down does include certain areas where grassland is improved and therefore has to be mapped.

If the system intended is the highly desirable system which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained on Amendment No. 3, then he needs on the face of the Bill something which says that the countryside body shall define what is moor, heath or down and for that to be conclusive. If the Countryside Agency is meant to be the judge of that, that is very good but the Bill does not allow it because anyone dissatisfied with its decision would be able to mount a challenge in court and say that what is "down" is a matter of law and that something is not being mapped which is down or that something has been mapped which is not down.

I hope that the noble Lord will take away that point and think about it. Clearly, the system which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, outlined is a very sensible way of resolving this question but that is not what the Bill provides at present.

My Lords, there were many occasions in Committee when matters were referred back to the access authorities by the Minister, in the hope that everything would be all right. In many cases that will be so, but as the Bill is all about access on moor, heath and down, in the absence of clear definitions people will be unclear. That applies not just to the access authorities but to those whose access land will be incorporated in the Bill.

We constantly return to the point about reducing conflict, appeals and litigation. If we do not get certain things right at the beginning, those characteristics will raise their ugly heads time and again. I hope that the Government will listen seriously to my noble friend, whose amendment is fundamental.

My Lords, clarification is required because it is not right to leave the matter. I am anxious that the Government place a duty on the countryside body to make clear definitions, at least as a starting point. In the absence of such definitions, there will be total confusion. It has been suggested in earlier debates that we are misplaying some of our apprehensions, but if the Minister will have definitions clearly set down, that would relieve a lot of pressure and dispel the apprehension felt by many noble Lords.

My Lords, Amendment No. 5 would require the countryside bodies to set clear definitions of moor, heath and down. Some comments implied that those definitions should appear in the Bill, which would not be practicable or sensible.

The amendment's aim of ensuring sensible definition criteria for identifying moor, heath and down is sound. The Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are engaged in drafting such material. The National Countryside Access Forum, which includes landowning and user groups, has already discussed the agency's paper setting out draft criteria—a copy of which is in the Library. The agency needs to consult more widely before reaching a firm and final view.

The requirement on the Countryside Agency will be to identify and map downland, for example—then as a separate exercise, to consider what is excepted because of its use or the other qualifications in the Bill. Much of the discussion has confused those two processes. Clarity of definition will not necessarily relate to a particular piece of land, so would not overcome all the problems and complexities of finally defining what is access land and what is not.

We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to set rigid definitions in the legislation. We need to leave the access agencies some flexibility in carrying out their tasks. The precise parameters for moor, heath and down require careful consideration. The current proposals relating to England—I believe that a similar process will be observed in Wales—will need to be reviewed in light of the pilot mapping exercises by the Countryside Agency. The Bill already requires the countryside bodies to determine whether land is open country by reference to various categories.

The mapping process, accompanied by extensive consultation and a right of appeal for those interested in the land, provides sufficient safeguards for ensuring that work is done in a sensible, consistent and equitable way. The amendment would constrain that exercise and is not useful, despite our shared objective of achieving clarity.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify the following point. If definitions are to be delayed and the Countryside Agency will decide them, does the same apply to many of the other matters? We may be passing a Bill when we do not know what will happen at the end because definitions will not have been made.

My Lords, those matters would not be defined if we accepted the amendment, because the noble Earl is only asking for a requirement that the agencies define moor, heath and down. The criteria are in the consultative paper to which I have referred but neither the Bill nor the amendment places the definitions on the face of the legislation. Such a requirement might constrain the way in which the countryside agencies undertake their work of mapping. Definitions would not resolve problems such as those affecting hayland and haylage—which relate more to exclusions.

From the debate and the noble Baroness's last intervention, it seems that people are looking for more than the amendment would deliver. The process in which the countryside agencies are engaged will produce a degree of clarity, but it is not sensible to define how to achieve it. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue his amendment.

My Lords, will the Minister answer my point that if it is not for the Countryside Agency to define "downland", under what power in the Bill will the agency do as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said and exclude improved grassland?

My Lords, the noble Viscount is confusing two separate processes. The identification of downland will be based on the criteria in the agency's draft paper and be subject to the results of consultation. Then there is the process of determining whether certain activities or the nature of what would otherwise be downland—for example, arable land—should be excluded. That consideration should be treated separately and be dealt with by the agencies in accordance with the rules in the appropriate schedule.

My Lords, the noble, Lord, Lord McIntosh—

No!

My Lords, we must remember that we are at Report stage, not in Committee.

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that it would be totally wrong to seek a definition on the face of the Bill. I take his point that there are two distinct processes for the Countryside Agency—identifying and mapping the land, then considering exceptions from the general provision. However, unless there are clear definitions, how will the land be identified and mapped in the first place? There is nothing on the face of the Bill to say that that work must be done by one body or that it has been done. If what the Minister says is correct—I have no reason to doubt it as I have seen the effect of what he said—surely that should go on the face of the Bill. It will lead to greater clarity for all who will suffer under or receive the benefit of this Bill.

However, I am concerned about one point made by the Minister. He said that we must not be too clear in our definitions because the Countryside Agency must have flexibility to do this or that or to change its mind. We must bear in mind that, on 9th October 2000 at col. 25 of Hansard, the Minister said that there will be no compensation paid to landowners and occupiers because everyone will be treated equally. The words now used by the Minister put that statement in doubt. If there is to be flexibility, some people may be treated differently from others.

For that reason it is important to have a clear definition. I agree that it should not be on the face of the Bill. However, I believe that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that there is an instruction to one body to make clear definitions for the whole country. Therefore I intend to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 63, line 8, at end insert—

(". Woodland or forest which is fenced against access land which adjoins or surrounds it.").

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is right in saying that woodland is not added to mountain, moor, heath or down. In general terms, it is not covered by the Bill. However, it is possible that maps of open country could include small areas of woodland if they are part of a larger area of mountain, moor, heath or down. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in Committee, it would be a matter of discretion for the countryside body whether to exclude such pockets of woodland. My noble friend also pointed out that it is most unlikely that a fenced plantation would be mapped as part of open country. However, it would not be appropriate to except access from a naturally occurring woodland simply because, for example, it is fenced to exclude livestock.

The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made a valid point about biodiversity but the conservation provisions in the Bill should be introduced in order to protect biodiversity and conservation. Naturally occurring woodland is increasingly fenced to exclude livestock but that is not the same issue. There is no intention to extend the right of access to woodland by stealth. One is concerned only with access to mountain, moor, heath, down—some of which may be encroached upon by small areas of woodland—and common land, which historically is often woodland. The question is whether the woodland occurs naturally, as one would expect on common land.

I am not convinced that this amendment with its emphasis on fencing is appropriate in terms of its effect or necessity or the definition of the threshold between land which is open country and land which is not. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.

My Lords, I received the answer that I expected. Perhaps I should take comfort from the fact that there will be flexibility. I understand the point which the Minister makes. Perhaps the noble Lord's most telling point is that there is no intent to extend access by stealth. I never thought that there was such an intent, but it is nice to know that that is the position. Having heard the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("which curtilage shall be deemed to include all land within 30 metres of a building which is a dwelling-house").

My Lords, am I correct in believing that if the Minister speaks to his amendment I cannot make a contribution?

My Lords, to assist the House, if any noble Lord wishes to speak to a group of amendments he should do so. I want to clarify the position. I believe that if the Minister moves a lead amendment other noble Lords may speak thereafter. I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to speak now.

My Lords, if I wait for the Minister to speak, I cannot speak myself. I understand that I can speak. I am trying to be terribly correct. I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. As the noble Viscount will not persuade the Minister to accept 30 metres, I understand that he is content to accept 20 metres. In rising to support the amendment, I thank the Minister for tabling a government amendment which deals with a problem which was debated earlier.

I should like to clarify two matters. Amendment No. 11 in the name of the Government seeks to insert paragraph 2A, presumably after paragraph 2. The provision as it now stands deals with,

"Land covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land".

Presumably, the Government intend to include land within 20 metres of a dwelling. I seek clarification on the difference between paragraph 2A and what stands in the Bill now.

My Lords, can we not hear the Minister speak to his amendment before we speak?

My Lords, I intervene briefly. We have a good number of amendments to deal with and I do not want the Minister to fail to complete his century before close of play. This amendment is a good example of where the Bill is lacking in certainty, and clarification can be achieved. That has been the theme of the whole debate at Report stage so far, and no doubt we shall return to it en masse in relation to other issues. The Bill as it stands makes no specific reference to dwelling-houses in the excepted land, although it refers to tramways, golf courses and what have you. Obviously, it is important that those who live in the country are clear as co where access land around their dwelling-houses begins and ends. The government amendment before us is excellent. I would have preferred 30 metres, but I am content with 20 metres.

As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am content with the way in which the Government have presented the amendment with a specific heading to deal with dwelling-houses, leaving other buildings to be dealt with separately. That is an advantage from the point of view of presentation. In any event, I believe that, except for those people who do crosswords, the great majority of the population do not know what a curtilage is. The government amendment is clear and meets the point, and I welcome it.

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have all indicated that, with varying degrees of reluctance, they accept 20 metres, I shall not put the case for 20 versus 30. The government amendment responds to indications at previous stages of the Bill that there was a problem about the security of people who live in isolated cottages and other places in the countryside. Although I was reluctant at the previous stage to concede the point on the basis that most people live fairly dose to a right of way, I recognise that isolated dwellings give rise to particular problems. Therefore, we believe that it is sensible to place a 20-metre circle around such houses. We have confined the amendment to dwellings. The question as to whether it should be extended to other buildings arises on the next group of amendments. In case the noble Earl is in any doubt, I shall resist it.

I believe that I have answered the point raised by the noble Baroness. The amendment relates specifically to dwellings, whereas some of the other provisions relate to all buildings. I shall move my amendment at the appropriate point, and I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.

I am amazed that the Minister has not given me 25 metres. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 63, line 9, at end insert ("and in any case the curtilage shall extend for not less than 20 metres from any such building in every direction").

My Lords, I intended to speak on the previous amendment. I failed to do so before it was withdrawn. But the principles are the same on this amendment.

I speak as someone who lives in a house where people can walk along the back wall of what is part of the house. So I do not get terribly worked up about these matters. I understand that in isolated separate dwellings in remote places people may become concerned. That is not a major problem, since the number of dwellings which will be affected is actually quite small. Clearly, some will be affected.

I have closely scrutinised the 2½-inch maps of the Pennines and the North Yorkshire moors. I can find very few dwellings or buildings which would be affected. As was discussed in Committee, in practice most of the buildings have rights of way quite near them and often going directly past them. So there is no major problem in gaining access to the access land.

There are two problems with the amendment. First, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that people will find it difficult to distinguish between what is and what is not a dwelling, particularly if a dwelling is actually a building in which people are living as opposed to a cottage or indeed an old farmhouse in which people used to live. Some thought is needed on how that matter can be dealt with. However, I would not support the noble Earl's proposal that all buildings should be included. That would be unnecessarily restrictive.

There is a second, more difficult problem. How will people know where the boundary of access land lies if there is a circle 20 metres around dwelling-houses, particularly if it is not clear whether or not the buildings are lived in? The Bill rightly accepts the principle that in many cases the boundaries will be drawn along obvious features on the ground—banks, walls or natural features—rather than the precise features at the edge of what may be moor, heath and so on, as opposed to kinds of pasture. That principle is rightly established in the Bill. It is necessary for people to understand where the boundary lies of the land to which they are entitled to have access.

What is now proposed is an entirely arbitrary boundary. It will almost never be the case that a boundary 20 metres around a dwelling will coincide with any natural features. That may encourage people to erect fences where fences do not exist at the moment. That may be detrimental to the local landscape. It may be that they are not able to do that because of the constraints in the area. I am trying to find out how the boundary of access land will be established when that access land is an arbitrary 20-metre circle around a building which does not coincide with anything on the ground.

My Lords, the amendment deals with a small but important point. I base what I say on my own experience.

On a hill farm one often has a dwelling-house and then farm buildings 50 to 100 yards up the hill. If the farm buildings contain cattle there will probably be straw storage as part of the building. There will also be straw within the building. The great fear for those in the dwelling-house is that the people walking about at night with torches might set fire to that building. A long time ago that happened on three successive occasions on land for which I was responsible. If it was known that people had to stay outside a boundary, and one saw torches within less than 100 yards of one's house, one would know whether those people were walking lawfully across the land or whether they were trying to get into the building. It would be a great advantage if Amendment No. 10 were accepted. It is a small point. But it would simplify the whole arrangement in the minds of the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said.

My Lords, I wish to make two points in support of the amendment. First, of what benefit will it be to those people who want to enjoy the countryside to be able to walk around the buildings? They are there to enjoy the countryside. That is why we are giving them access to it.

Secondly, before the Minister tells me to go back to Northern Ireland—that is not relevant to this argument and I realise he did not do that last time—perhaps I may suggest that we have something from which the rest of the United Kingdom might learn just a little. Because of our problems in Northern Ireland, all military and police personnel have had access to the countryside throughout the hours of darkness and daylight.

It is extremely important that people do not surprise animals within the area of farm buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned rights of way. That is entirely different. Animals get used to routine. They will get used to a football match or a quarry blasting in the countryside. They will also get totally used to a right of way where children laugh and shout and to whatever else might happen on that right of way.

However, they are very susceptible to being surprised. In the farm buildings there will often be cattle—especially in wintertime—enclosed in close confines within metal bars, standing on slippery floors because of slats and so on. There may be sheep which are either about to lamb or have just lambed. So there may be lambs all over the place. When they are surprised, ewes abort their lambs and cows abort or give birth to dead calves.

I am not producing these facts out of a hat. We have had hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of claims. Those noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland, especially the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will know perfectly well that the claims arose as a result of people surprising animals at night. I often patrolled in Fermanagh at night. We were all farmers so we had some idea of what would happen. When you came up to a farm in the dark you had to be incredibly careful. Apart from anything else, animals gave you away if you were trying to he covert.

As I said, we have had claims for damages. I simply do not see why people who want to enjoy the countryside should be allowed to enjoy the farmyard when it is none of their business and there is an inherent danger. Indeed, if anyone is hurt, there will be a claim the other way. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Peel. The Government should look at this amendment as a way of making the legislation acceptable to the rural community. We are enacting a very big change and, in general, as the Government know, I support it. But it is important that we should not unnecessarily antagonise people who live and work in the countryside. There is an increasing amount of rural crime of every kind, particularly thefts from farm buildings—tractors, batteries and every type of small tool. It is not a matter of whether there is a specific line—a circle of 20 metres—around a building. What my noble friend seeks is something in the statute which makes it possible for the land occupier, owner or farmer to challenge someone who perhaps is up to no good without that person being able to say, "I have a perfect right to be here".

Such challenges would not be made very often. Ordinary, genuine walkers who strayed within the 20 metres—it would be much easier if we said 100 yards as most people in my part of the country would understand that a great deal better—would not be a problem. It is a matter of making the legislation "country friendly". If that is not done, there is a danger of causing antagonism that could be avoided.

M y Lords, noble Lords have set out a number of reasons why the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, makes some sense, particularly if we are to have night access. It is hard to prejudge exactly where we should go on this issue, but I understand the arguments that have been put forward. How will people tell whether a building is a dwelling-house or a farm building? I understand also the argument about animals being frightened. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the amendment.

My Lords, I do not accept the arguments that have been put forward. I indicated earlier that I was reluctant to give the concession in relation to the 20 metres. I did so because in many circumstances the most obvious way for people to move around access land would involve going along areas that are fairly close to buildings. That, regrettably, is the fact in many parts of the country. There is therefore a balance to be struck. I was persuaded that the protection and the feeling of security of people who lived in houses that were isolated but would be passed fairly close by people who were using the area overrode the need to provide walkers with the most obvious path from which otherwise they would have to divert unless it was a right of way. I repeat the point that many people in the countryside will be passed considerably closer than the 20 metres by rights of way.

I have accepted the balance of protecting rural households in isolated dwellings where there is not a right of way close to them. That is common sense. However, the noble Earl's amendment suggests that every shed or isolated building, whether used or unused, should be surrounded by a 20 metre exclusion zone. That is a serious incursion into many areas where the obvious path will be within the 20 metres, particularly as regards access higher land. I therefore suggest that the balance suggested by the noble Earl is not appropriate.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that we are talking about farmyards. We are not talking about farmyards. In most cases farmyards will be excluded, but in any case we are talking here about isolated buildings around which there is not a curtilage greater than 20 metres and there is not a garden or cultivated area. Therefore, we are not talking here about access to what, in common parlance, would be regarded as a farmyard. We are talking about protecting the privacy and security of people who live in isolated cottages. We are not talking about denying the right of passage to every shed that happens to exist in the countryside. The noble Earl is pressing further unnecessary exclusions from the Bill. I do not think that we should accept them.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was concerned about how people would know. In relation to dwelling-houses, it would be one of the simpler rules. People would know that if it was a house they should not move within 20 metres of it. That would be common right across the countryside. If the garden was larger than 20 metres, they would keep that far away as well. That is a fairly straightforward rule which can be justified to walkers. The idea that every building could similarly be protected is not appropriate and would be a serious incursion into the amount of land that was available. I therefore hope that the noble Earl does not pursue the amendment and sticks with the protection of country dwellers rather than of every building that happens to be in the countryside.

My Lords, I received the answer from the Minister which he told me in advance of moving the amendment I would receive. I thank him for that. At least he has been consistent.

The Minister said that he was reluctant in the first place to give 20 metres. He may be interested to know that in their right to access legislation the Danes give 150 metres. But I suspect that the Government are not particularly interested in what the Danes do. That apart, the noble Lord said that my amendment would be a serious incursion into the amount of land that was available. I do not think that that is so. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was absolutely right. We are looking for something that will make people realise that the legislation is not there to drive a wedge between town and country people. That is an important point, but it is one that is so often ignored.

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on opening the night-time access debate very successfully indeed. He made some extremely telling points. The Government should heed carefully the information given by the noble Viscount from his experiences in Northern Ireland.

I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I think I am right in saying that they have a degree of sympathy for the amendment. I shall take the opportunity of discussing the matter further with them. Perhaps we will come back at the next stage with a joint Conservative/Liberal Democrat amendment. That would make an interesting move forward! Given those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 63, line 9, at end insert—

("2A. Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.").

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 63, line 10, at end insert ("or allotment").

My Lords, as a firm supporter of allotments, I understand why the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. Given that the House has shown itself keen on definitions this afternoon, does her proposition cover allotments which are defined as such? If someone digs a patch of land 12 metres square and plants a few Brussels sprouts, would that qualify?

My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to respond to the noble Baroness. I had assumed that the amendment would cover what are classed as "acknowledged" allotments rather than any patch of land which has been dug. Official allotments are registered and it is those to which I refer in this amendment.

My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to registered allotments rather than to the kind of circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, or to areas where, perhaps historically, allotments were sited but have now fallen into disuse, such as in some moorland areas as a result of wartime or other cultivation, then I have some sympathy with her amendment. We shall need to tidy it a little in that respect. If the noble Baroness would allow me that leeway and withdraw her amendment at this stage, I shall then consult with her between now and Third Reading.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. Many people are very keen on allotments and an amendment to the Bill would provide a solution to this small problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 13A:

Page 63, line 21 (leave out "covered by pens") and (insert "of under 10 hectares in size").

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may be taking us forward, in part, to the rather lengthy series of groupings that deal with dogs, which we will discuss later. However, the noble Lord's amendment would exclude walkers with or without dogs. For that reason, I would resist it. Plenty of perfectly viable access countryside comprising land of more or less than 10 hectares already exists. Walkers on such land coexist with grazing livestock. It would be inappropriate to exclude all of that land from walkers. I therefore could not accept the amendment.

The issue of walkers with dogs raises different and more widespread concerns. The Government have already ensured that the Bill contains certain restrictions in relation to dogs. These require walkers to keep dogs on leads while on access land during March to July and at all times in the vicinity of livestock. The phrase "in the vicinity" would certainly include within a field of 10 hectares. Perhaps we should have that discussion when we discuss the amendments relating to dogs. However, because this amendment is more widely drawn, I would ask the noble Lord not to pursue it.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read carefully his response in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 13B not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 63, line 22, at end insert—

("9A. Land habitually used for the training of racehorses.").

My Lords, I should declare an interest as an owner and breeder of racehorses. The Government have listened carefully to the views of the racing interests as regards access to these areas. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his advisers for the helpful way in which they have looked at this problem and come forward with their amendments.

We were considering an extremely dangerous situation where the public at large might quite innocently walk across land used for racehorses in the middle of an exercise during the early hours of the morning. Someone could easily have met with serious injury. I believe that the amendment will be helpful to trainers, their staff, riders and jockeys.

I believe that it may interest noble Lords to know of the statistics at Newmarket, supplied by the Jockey Club land agent. Some 24 hospitalised cases are reported every year, along with one death—and those incidents do not in any way involve the general public. If someone should stand up after sleeping behind a bush just as horses—in particular two year-olds— walked by, the horses would scatter. Serious damage would probably be incurred by the horses but, more importantly, serious injury could easily be caused to the riders.

What the Government have suggested is excellent and will be welcomed by all sections of the racing industry.

My Lords, my name was added to the amendment tabled in Committee which has led to this most welcome pair of government amendments. Perhaps I may add my thanks. This move will give a great many people pleasure and will probably save many lives.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question: are point-to-point courses to be covered by the same conditions that are to be applied to racecourses and gallops?

My Lords, from these Benches I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for tabling these two amendments. I should like in particular to compliment the Minister on including sub-paragraph (b) to new Paragraph 13 in Amendment No. 17. As noble Lords know, some training takes place in the morning, while some takes place in the afternoon. The Government have recognised this and have offered the required flexibility. That is much appreciated.

My Lords, I apologise that I did not intervene before my noble friend rose to speak. I also attended the meeting arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to consider this subject. I appreciated enormously the sensitivity with which he listened to the discussions.

Perhaps I may ask a question. My contact on this subject is a trainer with gallops in the Lam bourn area. He told me that severe problems can arise if bottles or cans are dropped on the gallops because they can hurt the horses very badly. Does the Minister have it in mind to ensure that any code of practice or guidance which is issued to walkers will point out the importance to the welfare of horses of not dropping litter in areas which are used as gallops?

My Lords, let me to try to respond, with thanks, to the comments that have been made.

So far as concerns point-to-point meetings, my understanding is that if such a meeting is to be held on access land, an application would be made for the closure of that land for that purpose during the period that the point-to-point is taking place.

Of course, not all training gallops will be mapped as open country for the purpose of right of access. I would guess that most gallops would take place out of open country because their management and setting would not qualify them to be mapped as mountain, moor, heath or down. We have made this provision for the minority which fall into that category.

As to litter, bottles and cans and so on are litter. The dropping of litter is an offence in many places, not only on access land. The same regulations will apply to access land as to other places.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 63, line 24, at end insert—

(" . Land within a recognised nature reserve where public access could destroy or damage protected fauna or flora.").

My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may offer the Government a suggestion. We have heard already that the MoD has sanctuaries in many places—on Salisbury Plain, at Lulworth Cove and so on—and that it is one of the best custodians of conserved land in this country. If we look at the way in which it manages such areas, we will find that the MoD has become very flexible in its understanding of which areas people should be kept out of and which areas they should be allowed into. After all, the MoD has full access to training areas at all times of the day and night, but there are parts of every training area in Great Britain to which soldiers are not permitted access because of the value of the flora or fauna to be found there, or for some other reason. I support the amendment.

My Lords, we on these Benches support the thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. He admitted that his amendment may not be perfect and he has indicated that he is willing to allow the Minister to come back with a different version.

The amendment concerns "a recognised nature reserve". Perhaps one of the Government's fears is that anyone, anywhere, could say that a site should be excepted land. Many voluntary organisations are working to preserve and conserve the countryside. If this is not acknowledged to be a problem, the fear is that that support may dwindle. That would be a great shame because individuals make contributions either through the practical running of the centres or through the money they raise.

The noble Lord seeks some form of protection within nature reserves which enables them to be enjoyed by people, but on an organised basis. If I understand the noble Lord correctly—which I hope I do—I am happy to support the amendment.

My Lords, the purpose of the list of exceptions in Schedule 1 is to exclude public access from land which may be mapped as open country or registered common land but to which a right of access should none the less not apply—for example, buildings and their curtilages. Nature reserves do not fall into that category.

English Nature has powers stemming from the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to designate land as a national nature reserve or a local nature reserve, with the aim of securing protection and appropriate management of the most important areas of wildlife habitat. Many reserves have public access. Indeed, they positively encourage it, as my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said. With relatively few exceptions, access and wildlife can co-exist without significant problems.

My noble friend referred to public access in Scotland to see the osprey. There is a marvellous bird sanctuary near the Llyn Brianne reservoir in Wales where the same applies. There should be no automatic presumption that the conservation of such sites is incompatible with access, particularly when account is taken of the modest nature of the new right and the restrictions that will apply to it.

If a reserve has been mapped as open countryside or registered as common land and there are particular problems with access, the Bill specifically provides for closures or restrictions on grounds of conservation. Clause 24 provides for the relevant authority—the Countryside Agency in England and the Countryside Council for Wales, or in national parks, the relevant national park authority—to issue directions excluding or restricting access for reasons of nature conservation. In doing so, the authority must have regard to the advice of the appropriate statutory advisory body: English Nature for land in England. We have made provision for any case to be referred to the Secretary of State (or the National Assembly) if English Nature (or its Welsh equivalent) still has concerns.

There is no question of compromising our conservation objectives in favour of access. Part III of the Bill reflects our commitment to the protection of wildlife and nature conservation. We are determined to ensure that vulnerable habitats are protected as necessary. But the impact of access on wildlife must be put in perspective: most designated reserves have some form of access and this has not given rise to significant problems.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the issue of MoD land. There is a variety of factors. It is certainly the case that the MoD is very proud of some of the work that it has done. On occasions, it may be because slightly less mechanised and less intensive forms of farming take place on some MoD land. However, I agree that the MoD has a good record.

The Government recognise that there may be cases where conflicts arise and where access needs to be restricted, or even excluded altogether. I assure my noble friend Lord Hardy that the Bill provides for that. We therefore believe that a blanket exclusion of nature reserves is not the right approach; it is neither needed nor justified. I hope that I have thoroughly convinced my noble friend, and that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. Before responding to my noble friend, perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that I am well aware of the contribution made on Ministry of Defence land. The MoD once embarrassed me, on the day before I was to present the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Bill. The Bill included the protection of the natterjack toad, which is extremely rare. The officer in charge in the Aldershot-Salisbury area contacted me to say that they were just about to release several thousand natterjack toads that they had bred on Salisbury Plain. I asked him to treat it as a matter of great confidentiality; otherwise, my Bill might have been in peril the next day.

One of my anxieties has not been entirely relieved by my noble friend's response. I accept the reference to the 1949 Act. However, one of the difficulties in this whole area is that the location of species needs to be kept secret; otherwise they will be stolen. I do not know whether there are any Snowdon lilies left in Snowdonia, but they were among the rare species that were protected under my Bill, which became an Act in 1975. One of the reasons for their decline was that people had gone round stealing them.

If the matter is left to English Nature, it is possible for the risk of publicity to be greatly enhanced. If it is left with the conservation bodies, they can be a little more discreet. That is one reason why the lady's slipper orchid still survives, when it was down to only one plant in 1976.

If we are to ensure the survival of certain natural species, and the guarantee of consistent support for biological diversity in a sensible way, it may well be that a little more responsibility or influence should be accepted on the part of the voluntary bodies—which work happily with English Nature and will continue to do so while my noble friend Lady Young is involved.

I should like to clear up one misapprehension, which my noble friend might acknowledge. The amendment relates to land within nature reserves. I did not intend it to apply to the whole of a nature reserve—because some are very large indeed. But there may be pockets of a nature reserve where there is a sudden recognition or identification of an extremely rare species. Fast action may be needed, and may be more likely to come about if those who are responsible for the reserve can respond immediately to that need. The amendment would provide a greater degree of flexibility. Perhaps my noble friend and her assistants will re-examine the whole question of the need to maintain confidentiality and the ability to respond urgently should the need arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 63, line 24, at end insert—

(" . Land subject to a management agreement under the countryside stewardship scheme, or other environmental protection measures, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food finds that access is, or liable to be, damaging to the purposes of the scheme.").

My Lords, I should point out to the House that the word, or half-word, "agri-" should be added to the beginning of the word "environmental" in line 2 of this amendment.

My Lords, with this amendment we return to the question of balance within the countryside. I believe that existing management agreements could be put in jeopardy and penalty clauses invoked as a result of this Bill, which would be detrimental to the conservation aspects of the agri-environment and country stewardship schemes. Therefore, in my view, it is totally wrong for one department within government to be encouraging farmers to go in one direction, while the DETR will, with this Bill, be quite unintentionally undermining the efforts of MAFF to encourage farmers to improve their farming practices and adopt more conservation-oriented ways of carrying out their work. Those are the reasons behind my support for my noble friend and this amendment.

My Lords, as a result of this Bill reaching the statute book, I hope that MAFF will take an overall look at the way that its schemes and regulations impact on farmers and consider how that ties in with this legislation. Previous speakers have made some interesting points. In Committee, I raised the point several times that the new hill farm allowance scheme has no provision for taking into account the forthcoming impact that open access will have. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in the criteria. Therefore, I add a plea from these Benches that MAFF should be asked to consider the impact of this Bill. It should also give some thought to the way that its schemes and grants tie in with the kind of objectives that we are working towards under this legislation.

My Lords, I wish also to support this amendment, which I believe to be of tremendous importance. It is of particular importance to Wales because we have what is known as the tir cymen scheme, which is similar but rather better, so I am told, than the stewardship scheme. It is run by the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore, one assumes that the council would have a power to exclude any land that is under a management scheme, if it thought that the conditions would be vitiated by its declaration as "open access land".

I stress the importance of this matter because the these management schemes are becoming a vital source of income, especially for hill farmers. We are aware of what the average farm income is in England—I believe that it is about £10,000 a year—but it is £5,000 and decreasing in Wales. Therefore, such management schemes are very popular with the farming community because they make a substantial contribution to farm incomes.

My Lords, I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendment. We have had a number of discussions on this matter, which clearly show that the impact of this Bill will cross departmental boundaries on many fronts. I believe that the issue now before us highlights the situation because of the sensitivity of the agricultural industry at present. I look forward to hearing some reassurance from either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord that they can really turn on some joined-up government.

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there will of course be joined-up government; indeed, it is a fundamental part of the Government's approach to all parts of this Bill.

I should like also to reassure all speakers in the debate that Chapter II of the Bill already makes full provision for the exclusion or restriction of access where that is necessary in the interests of land management or conservation. All the examples that have been referred to would fall within that category, were that to be the case. Therefore, it is extremely important for me to reassure noble Lords that there are already sufficient mechanisms in place in the Bill to protect the interests of countryside stewardship sites, as for any other land.

It is inconceivable that a farmer would be held liable for any breach of an agri-environmental agreement, if the breach arose as a result of access. However, as I said, the mechanisms exist within the Bill to ensure that such schemes will not be put at risk in the first instance because of access. I agree with those who have spoken in this debate that the existence of such schemes is very important in many areas, especially in the north of England and in Wales. They are also crucial to the objective of protecting the countryside. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Duke will not find it necessary to press his amendment. I can assure him that we are fully aware of the importance of the subject to which he spoke.

My Lords, I was most interested in the noble Baroness's response. I believe that I am reassured. However, before she concludes, can she confirm that, if I were an owner of land—which I am not—that was subject to a stewardship scheme, I could approach the Countryside Agency, tell the officials that the land was under such a scheme, show them a map and then it would automatically become excluded land?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl does not expect my answer to be "yes" to that question. However, the answer would be "yes" in circumstances where either the interests of land management or conservation interests were best served by such an exclusion. It is not automatically the case. But, quite clearly, many of the situations to which other noble Lords referred would be very relevant in terms of conservation. I repeat: it is not automatic.

My Lords, I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Baroness said in her response. I was similarly interested in the various aspects of conservation that were mentioned by other noble Lords. However, I am left with this question. If the farmer sees deterioration taking place, will it be his responsibility to approach the body concerned? I am not quite sure which body he would have to approach—for example, whether it would be the Countryside Agency, or whoever—in order to get an exclusion order implemented. It may well become the responsibility of the farmer, but the point here is to stop the access before the deterioration goes too far. Nevertheless, in view of the assurances given by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 64, line 15, at end insert—

("13. Land which is habitually used for the training of racehorses is not to be treated by virtue of paragraph 9A as excepted land except—

(a) between dawn and midday on any day, and

(b) at any other time when it is in use for that purpose.").

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 2, line 28, at end insert (", and

(c) he observes the byelaws which the access authority shall prescribe").

My Lords, I am sorry that in Committee the noble Earl did not obtain the response he wanted. He makes an unusual request in asking for by-laws to be established in every area. The value of by-laws lies in their ability to respond to particular local circumstances. It is unusual to seek to impose a network of by-laws. People may consider that by-laws are not needed in certain areas. Where bylaws are put in place by the access authority under Clause 17, it will be a criminal offence to breach them, as the noble Earl recognises. A fine of up to £500 may be imposed.

The effect of Clause 2(1) and paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 2 is that any person who commits a criminal offence is not entitled to exercise the statutory right of access. Those exercising the right of access must comply with any by-law in order to retain that right. It is not logical for us to seek to impose by-laws unilaterally and uniformly, whatever the local circumstances. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.