asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the law provides protection from stalking in the form of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Recent Home Office research indicates that the Act is being used effectively to combat incidents of stalking. Criminal prosecution is not, however, the only response; for example, the police may give a warning to nip such behaviour in the bud. The research pointed out ways in which the use of the Protection from Harassment Act could be improved. We are currently working on the recommendations contained in the report.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. First, does he agree that the figure of 900,000 instances of stalking may be an underestimate due to under-reporting? In the light of that, will he consider giving legal status to the offence of stalking? Secondly, will he ensure that victims of stalking are referred to a victim support scheme?

My Lords, we think that the figure of 900,000 possible victims is likely to be an accurate estimate. It is based on the British Crime Survey, which is updated approximately every two years and provides us with robust data. It recently revealed that, under Labour, crime is coming down.

As to the noble Lord's final points, the definition that relates to stalking enables us to capture all forms of harassment offences. For that reason, the Act is very effective. It is a good idea to pursue the noble Lord's suggestion of ensuring that victims of stalking, harassment and other anti-social behaviour are referred to victim support schemes.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, a comparative study of the options for air and sea access to St Helena is currently being undertaken. The team undertaking the study visited St Helena in mid-October and we expect its draft report to he produced by the end of this year. The final report will then need to be considered and discussed with the St Helena Government.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply; also, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his reply to me at the end of October. Does the noble Baroness agree that, with an airport, St Helena might have a real chance of economic development and of freeing itself from dependency on overseas aid? Does she further agree that the proposals for development put forward by the St Helena Leisure Corporation (SHELCO) for not only an airport on the island but also a five-star hotel and the formation of an airline to serve the island deserve our support? Will the report to which the noble Baroness has referred deal not only with public sector development: plans, but also with plans such as those proposed by SHELCO?

My Lords, the Department for International Development has agreed that, subject to the outcome of the comparative study, it will provide funding equal to the least capital cost option: that is, either the cost of replacing RMS "St Helena" or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure. We have to await the outcome of the study. We are aware that the St Helena Government have a preference for air access. If, however that happens not to be the least capital cost option, clearly they will need to ensure that there is private sector investment to meet any difference in cost.

We are aware of SHELCO's proposals for an hotel, a golf course and an airport. Officials from the FCO and DfID met representatives from SHELCO earlier this year. When the report is published—indeed, whether it is published—is up to the St Helena Government. Clearly, the report will contain a n umber of options that will have to be considered.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has not been a ministerial visit to St Helena since 1699—which perhaps demonstrates how far away and difficult to get to the island is? In welcoming my noble friend's remarks about the publication of the report, will she give an assurance that the islanders of St Helena will be consulted widely? I understand that there is more than one point of view on whether they prefer air or sea access.

My Lords, indeed, there has not been a ministerial visit since 1699. Given the length of time it takes to get to St Helena, and to get back again, I am not sure that the Chief Whip would approve of anyone from these Benches going there on a ministerial visit. With regard to consultation, I assure my noble friend that the government of St Helena, councillors, civil society organisations and other stakeholders, including SHELCO, have been widely consulted as part of the comparative study process. I am sure that, once the draft report is published, further consultations will take place.

My Lords, is not the need for an airport emphasised by medical emergencies? I believe that, last year, a young girl had to be taken by ship to South Africa, and that the only way in which a ship could be contacted was by sending out a Mayday call. Is that acceptable?

My Lords, the comparative study will consider health issues, including emergency medical evacuation from the island. That will feed into the process of deciding which is the best option.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of how very long this question of an airport has been under consideration? It is a very serious situation for the people of St Helena, who are almost entirely dependent on overseas aid to survive in any way at all. Indeed, the journey by boat is so long that it makes it difficult for anyone to visit the island. Will the noble Baroness ensure that great pressure is put on those concerned to reach a decision on this issue which is of such importance to the people of St Helena?

My Lords, consideration was given in the 1980s to the possibility of airport access. It was agreed then that it would be far too difficult and complicated. However, this Government have made the decision to go ahead with the comparative cost study on the basis of developments in air technology. As I said in my Answer, the draft report will be available in, I hope, December of this year. We shall then have consultation on the document; the St Helena Government will decide whether or not they want the report to be published; and decisions can then be taken. This Government have not sat down and done nothing.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House the complete picture? Can she tell us, for example, how often ships visit St Helena, whether from this country, South Africa, or wherever? What is the frequency of sea travel to the island? Clearly, neither people nor goods can reach that destination in any other way.

My Lords, I believe that RMS "St Helena" sails to the island twice a year. However, I shall check that fact and write to the noble Baroness to ensure that she receives the relevant information. I shall also place a copy of that letter in the Library.

My Lords, as with the airport, for years we have heard much talk about citizenship, with little action. In December 1999 in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness assured us that British citizenship was promised, as soon as practicable, to the people of the overseas territories like St Helena. Further, in answering a supplementary question of mine last month, the noble Baroness said that parliamentary time had been sought for such a Bill. Can the noble Baroness say what progress has been made in that respect?

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that we remain committed to our promise to grant UK citizenship to all our overseas territories. Preparations for an overseas territory Bill granting British citizenship have reached an advanced stage. Her Majesty's Government will make available a slot in the timetable for the business as soon as it is feasible.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most important aspects of the SHELCO report is its imaginative plan for building the airport at a very much lower cost than that originally forecast by DfID? Further, is not what she said about the time that it would take for a Minister to visit the island a conclusive argument for an airport, rather than having more ships visiting the island?

My Lords, I hope that I have made clear to the House the exact position of the UK Government. We have made a commitment to the St Helena Government that we shall meet the costs of the least capital cost option, be that sea access or air access. We cannot prejudge the outcome of the comparative study, which is due to be published at the end of the year.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the day-to-day task of escorting abnormal loads is an operational matter for chief officers of police, but both we and they wish to reduce the police service's involvement in this area— provided, of course, that it can be done in a way which does not endanger or compromise road safety. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently revised its guidance to police forces on the criteria for escorts of abnormal loads. The alteration reduces the occasions on which a police escort is considered to be necessary. I am glad to say that it has been estimated that it could reduce police involvement in this work by as much as 35 per cent. The Government will, of course, continue to work closely with ACPO to seek further reductions by the introduction of private escorts.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that I asked a similar Question on the 28th March of this year? On that occasion, he said that the report had been completed, that it was out for discussion and that an announcement would shortly be made. We both also agreed that this matter had been outstanding since before 1994. Can my noble friend tell us what we are waiting for in relation to the announcement?

My Lords, the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his persistence. I think that the noble Lord's persistence has actually been rewarded this afternoon. I am sure that when he reads Hansard he will realise that it is a very significant fact that guidance has been changed—the criteria have been changed—so that the police will be much less involved in this by some 35 per cent, which is a big leap forward. Of course, discussions continue, subject to safety considerations, to see what further progress can be made to introduce private escorts to reduce further the burden on already over-worked and over-burdened police forces.

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to 35 per cent, but can he tell us to what that figure applies?

My Lords, 1.5 million escort exercises annually.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is not good enough? First, those of us who travel regularly on the motorways wish to see the transport of abnormal loads switched from daytime to night-time. Secondly, we would hope that the transporters would pay the cost and not the police. Incidentally, how much is it costing the police each year?

My Lords, it is obviously very difficult to provide precise figures, but I shall endeavour to do my best. We think that it costs somewhere in the region of £7 million a year to police abnormal loads travelling on the motorway and dual carriageway network. I entirely take the point that my noble friend has made. He has had long experience of this. Of course we shall be seeking further moves to reduce the burden on police forces and to encourage the use of private escorts which would, of course, transfer in part some of the costs to those road hauliers involved in abnormal load movements.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. The Minister talked of safety. Is it correct that there is no direct radio link between a police car and an abnormal load?

My Lords, I would be extremely surprised if that were the case.

My Lords, I too declare an interest, as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I press my noble friend further on this matter of seeking to keep abnormal loads off our busy roads in daytime. Only a month ago a load blocked two lanes of the northbound carriageway of the M1 at three o'clock in the afternoon. That is enormously frustrating for all other traffic.

My Lords, this is a more complex matter than one might at first think. Moving loads during the evening and at night would have the benefit of the roads being less busy, but that is, of course, the time when, traditionally, motorway maintenance has been carried out. Very often it is the case that a whole lane or perhaps even two lanes of a motorway will be taken out. That is precisely the sort of width that abnormal loads, particularly the larger ones, might require. So the police have a very difficult operational choice to make about when such loads should be moved. They also have to negotiate these with the points of reception and departure for those abnormal loads.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I used to have a government driver who at Christmas gave me a very nice silver flask neatly inscribed with the words, "To my abnormal load"?

My Lords, there is just no answer to that.

My Lords, it is difficult to follow that. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police who this morning arrested many criminals for trying to remove an abnormal load from the Dome?

My Lords, in response to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—which is somewhat bypassing the system—when I escorted an abnormal load earlier this year there was no communication between the police vehicle and the driver of the abnormal load. Not only that, although the police vehicle had on its blue lights, people were trying to pass it, which would be a problem if the load was being followed or escorted by non-police vehicles. Will my noble friend consider the fact that there are problems regarding non-police escorts? For example, how does one overcome the fact that they currently have no powers to contravene traffic regulations or to direct vehicles to avoid abnormal loads?

My Lords, I thought that I had made it plainly clear earlier that the question of safety is very important in the movement of abnormal loads: safety for the driver, safety for other drivers, and public safety generally. All of those matters bear very careful consideration. No doubt where private escorts are provided there will be very careful negotiations with the local police forces involved and, of course, with those who ultimately are responsible for the abnormal load. We take very great care in addressing this issue and I suspect that it is for that reason that there has been some slow progress towards the objective, which I know many of your Lordships equally share, of reducing the burden on the police in moving abnormal loads.

My Lords, the Minister said that discussions which have been going on a long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, continue. How much longer will they continue?

My Lords, I have no doubt that those discussions will continue for a very long time because there will always be a need to keep this very sensitive matter under review.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that there is an important point to this Question inasmuch as the police must be allowed to concentrate on their most important job, preventing crime? Does not he agree that the police should be encouraged—as we heard last night at the DIVERT trust's annual general meeting—to work with communities and spend their time on that important aspect of their work?

My Lords, those officers that are involved in moving abnormal loads are, of course, traffic officers whose primary responsibility is to keep the arteries of the nation, as it were, free, accessible and moving. Of course it remains an objective of the police at all times to reduce crime and whatever this Government can do, they will do to ensure that the police can concentrate on their primary core task of reducing crime across the country. We have been very successful in that undertaking over the past two to three years.

My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether it is the philosophy of the Government to privatise or outsource more police duties?

My Lords, obviously how police forces run and maintain their business is very much a matter for each chief constable. There may well be operations that the police undertake that can be privatised, to use the noble Lord's expression, and I have no doubt that some back-office work has been externalised in that way, perhaps enhancing police efficiency, and enabling extra resources to be put into front-line policing—something which I know the noble Lord shares as an objective with Her Majesty's Government.

My Lords, when the Minister told the House just now that discussions on this matter would go on ad infinitum, did he mean to refer to the precise Question that was asked, which is when we shall have a decision about whether private sector bodies can accompany these loads instead of the police? That is the key question.

My Lords, I think in principle there is little disagreement that the use of private escorts is appropriate. No doubt those discussions to resolve issues relating to safety will have to continue. The point I was making generally is that discussions will always continue on this subject because there are always new problems; and no doubt the form and management of such services changes over time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have regularly raised with the Indonesian Government the matter of the deaths of the British journalists at Balibo in East Timor in 1975. We welcome the decision by the UN administration in East Timor to reopen the investigation into this case.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Naturally I welcome the recent United Nations initiatives and wish them well. However, will the Minister accept that it has simply not been good enough for successive British governments to have left the investigation of the murder of two British citizens to the Australian Government for the past 25 years—a government which many recent revelations from many sources show was implicated in this atrocity through the negligence of some of its officials? Is the Minister therefore able to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will take a more proactive role and leave no stone unturned until the murderers of the two British journalists and many others in East Timor are brought to justice?

My Lords, I say straight away that of course I acknowledge the concern that the noble Baroness expresses in relation to this matter and join with her in that. However, successive British governments have been involved in this issue although they have not taken the primary role. There were no plans for a British inquiry because the five journalists killed were all based in Australia and worked for the Australian TV station. For that reason it was the Australian Government which led on this issue. It commissioned the comprehensive investigation by a former solicitor general, Tom Sherman, in 1995 and this remains the bench-mark. I should reassure the House that there was no reason to suppose that that investigation was not carried out vigorously and fully. We were kept informed about it; and it is a matter which we were content to accept.

It is obviously important that the matter is being considered now. More information may have come to light. We are very keen indeed that the investigations should be full, frank and searching.

My Lords, it is clear that documents were available to the Australian foreign ministry which were not disclosed to the Sherman inquiry. How do we know that similar documents are not in the possession of the Foreign Office? Will the Minister give an undertaking that whatever documents the Foreign Office may have will not be withheld because of the 30-year rule but made available to any inquiry undertaken by the authorities in East Timor?

My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that all documents which can properly be disclosed will be disclosed in accordance with the normal rules. But no noble Lord should be left in any doubt that Her Majesty's Government are very keen indeed for the perpetrators of these heinous offences to be found and that we have every hope and aspiration that all of those involved in this process have a similar good intent.

My Lords, since we have a little Question Time available, perhaps I may ask the Minister a slightly peripheral question. Can my noble friend report on the current situation of the forced refugees of East Timorese who are now in West Timor, in particular after the United Nations group which was looking after them was withdrawn when some of its members were killed? Is there any chance of that team returning to West Timor?

My Lords, this issue is not only peripheral, it is very wide of the Question.

However, it is right to say that we were appalled by the brutal murder of the UNHCR staff on 6th September. We have consistently pressed the Indonesian Government to comply with the terms of UN Security Resolution 1319, to disarm and disband the militia in West Timor and to arrest those responsible for the murders. We are encouraging the UN Security Council mission. It will visit East Timor, West Timor and Indonesia from 9th to 18th November. It will look at the progress in compliance with Resolution 1319 and at encouraging the Indonesians to bring those responsible for the murders to account. Six suspects are currently in detention.

Although I have answered that question, I hope that it will not be an incitement to any other noble Lord to ask questions which are far wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Minister used the word "properly". Can the noble Baroness say who will decide on the propriety of disclosure of documents?

My Lords, the Foreign Office decides on the propriety.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Burlison will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Far East prisoners of war compensation.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

• Clause 1,
• Schedule 1,
• Clause 2,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 3 to 15,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 16 to 31,
• Schedule 4,
• Clauses 32 to 47,
• Schedule 5,
• Clauses 48 to 61,
• Schedule 6,
• Clauses 62 to 69,
• Schedule 7,
• Clause 70,
• Schedule 8,
• Clauses 71 to 77,
• Schedule 9,
• Clauses 78 to 92,
• Schedule 10,
• Clause 93,
• Schedule 11,
• Clauses 94 to 107,
• Schedule 12,
• Clause 108,
• Schedule 13,
• Clauses 109 to 115,
• Schedule 14,
• Clause 116,
• Schedule 15,
• Clauses 117 to 127,
• Schedule 16,
• Clauses 128 to 134,
• Schedule 17,
• Clause 135,
• Schedule 18,
• Clause 136,
• Schedule 19,
• Clauses 137 to 147,
• Schedule 20,
• Clauses 148 to 155,
• Schedules 21 and 22,
• Clauses 156 to 159,
• Schedule 23.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)

moved Amendment No. 71:

Clause 11, page 6, line 44, after ("authorities") insert (", local access forums").

My Lords, we are pleased that the Government have placed provisions for local access forums on the face of the Bill. We believed strongly that they were key to making Parts I and II effective. Many other interest groups—landowners, farmers, walkers and those with wildlife interests—are equally pleased that these provisions are now on the face of the Bill and that the Government have made a commitment to fund those forums.

Amendment No. 254 is a probing amendment to test in what circumstances the Government intend to use subsection (8). It would be unfortunate if some areas of the country were not covered by these forums. We wish to examine the criteria used by the Secretary of State when no forum is in place; and the criteria used whereby part of an area which is covered by an access authority has no forum in place. That might apply, for instance, to a large section of MoD land. However, even then it would seem reasonable to have a local access forum which might comment only occasionally as regards that area of land.

The amendment deleting subsection (9) is consequential on deletion of subsection (8). I am glad the Minister sees the sense of Amendment No. 256 which inserts,

"other interests especially relevant to that area".

There could be many such interests, which would vary from area to area. There might be particular wildlife interest groups in many areas, or the British Horse Society might want a representative if horse riders had had de facto access for a number of years. We are pleased that the Government are minded to accept Amendment No. 256.

My Lords, in accepting the idea that local access forums should be statutory, the Government must have calculated the extra cost to the taxpayer. At what cost has the amendment been accepted?

My Lords, I spoke in favour of local access forums in Committee. I thank the Government for coming forward with their proposals.

My Lords, I endorse Amendment No. 256, which would include,

"other interests especially relevant to that area".

I had some concerns about how the regulations for the appointment of people to local access forums were couched, referring to users and owners and occupiers. It will be very helpful to constructive debate if a wider range of interest groups are involved in local access forums, rather than just two groups that might be forced into polarised positions. I endorse the view that conservation interests would help to leaven the debate and would represent the important interests of conservation in the discussions of local access forums.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for coming back with a full and fairly long clause and for his other amendments, which we welcome. The Liberal Democrats led in this case, but we were happy to support.

Following upon what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just said, it is important that our approach is across the board rather than narrow. At earlier stages of the Bill we voiced our concerns that the owners or managers of land might not be included on the access forum, so I am delighted to see that they will be. In Amendment No. 253, the Government have recognised the needs of land managers, which will vary from area to area, and,

"the desirability of conserving the natural beauty",

of the countryside.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, also referred to areas where there will not be local access forums. In Committee we argued that some areas might not want to adopt that approach to start with but would grow towards it. In the meantime, if there are no local access forums in some areas, how do the Government envisage the relationship continuing? I do not think that I have missed the answer to that point in the amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for coming forward with the amendments, but I should like answers to those important questions.

My Lords, I am glad that the Government have tabled the amendments, as far as they go. Amendment No. 253 seems to be the operative one. Subsection (6) specifies the points that a local access forum shall have regard to in carrying out its functions. The first is,

"the needs of land management".

That is splendid. The second is,

"the desirability of conserving the natural beauty of the area … including the flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of the area".

The last one is,

"guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State … or the National Assembly for Wales".

Those are words of limitation. If local access forums find that giving access by night is causing a problem, will they have a way of overcoming it?

My Lords, I am grateful for the support around the House for the amendments, which address the concerns expressed at earlier stages. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I gave some indication of the overall costs of the management of access and rights of way that would probably be incurred with or without forums, but the specific funding allocation for local access forums will be broadly £1 million a year.

My Lords, does that include the extra cost of making the forums statutory, or is there no extra cost? I may be asking an invalid question.

My Lords, in a sense the answer is yes. Given that there is to be a requirement to have access forums rather than their being one way of dealing with the management and representation of all interests, I guess that the £1 million represents the additional cost. There will be other costs associated with the process, which I have already referred to.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about Amendment No. 253. Local access forums—I think that we all agree that that is the appropriate plural—will not have executive power, but they will be able to raise any problems that arise with the access authority and the Countryside Agency. That could include specific problems relating to access by night. However, they would not be the decision-making body on that issue.

On Amendment No. 256, we have left the detailed requirements of membership to regulations, but I accept that we need to ensure that the forums are representative of a cross-section of interests and do not end up being polarised between users and landowners. For them to operate properly, other interests will have to be represented. I appreciate that local interests will be particularly relevant in certain areas and circumstances. To put the matter beyond doubt, we shall not leave it to regulations and will accept the amendment as it stands.

On Amendment No. 254, however, we consider that there will be circumstances in which particular authorities will not need to be under a duty to establish a local access forum. Subsection (8) of Amendment No. 253 allows the Secretary of State to exclude them by direction. A specific decision to exclude such areas will be required, not the other way round. There will not be a presumption that there will be no local access forum until one is set up. We have included that provision because there may be some metropolitan boroughs with no open country and very few recreational rights of way. In those areas, it would be an inappropriate use of resources to require the establishment of a local access forum. It will be for ourselves and the Countryside Agency to listen to the views of those authorities. But there will clearly be some urban authorities where rights of way are minimal and access non-existent. If two or more authorities set up a joint forum, it might be appropriate to exclude the operation of the duty from some highly built-up parts of the area. That is unlikely to apply in many areas, but we would need to exclude them on the basis of a direction.

With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 254. I shall accept Amendment No. 256 when we reach it.

moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 8, line 13, after ("owes") insert ("(subject to subsection (6C) below)").

My Lords, if the government amendments are accepted—and, at least in a modest way, we are grateful to the Government for bringing them forward—a two-pronged situation would arise. First, in certain respects, the Bill will wholly exclude a duty in respect of certain natural features on the land and in respect of certain waters and gates, etc, when they are being used properly.

Secondly, by reason of Amendment No. 77, in other cases where the duty is not wholly excluded, the court will have to perform a balancing act to decide whether or not there should be a duty. In performing that balancing act, the court would take into account the factors set out in Amendment No. 77; namely, whether the existence of a duty would place an undue burden on the occupier, and the importance of maintaining historic features as set out in the code.

I fully acknowledge that these amendments improve the Bill. As I said, we are grateful for that. However, they still leave considerable problems. It must be remembered that it is more important to an occupier that the prospect of claims is eliminated rather than an offence is created, in pursuit of which he will probably succeed at the end of an expensive trial. Where the duty is wholly excluded, there can be no claim. But where, as in the second part of Amendment No. 77, the question of whether or not there is a duty depends on the view which an individual judge takes of the balancing between those factors and, presumably, the interest of the plaintiff in receiving compensation, then the occupier is faced with a trial.

No one can know what view the judge will take until all the circumstances have been investigated. Therefore, the occupier will be faced with the prospect of a trial, probably at the suit of a plaintiff who is not good for the costs even if the defence succeeds. Inevitably the occupier will be under strong pressure to pay something in order to get rid of the claim rather than to incur costs which he will probably not get back. In addition, of course, he will face the risk of losing. For that reason, the aim of the Bill should be to exclude a duty. If a discretionary duty remains, that still imposes a substantial burden on the occupier.

I venture to suggest that there are two unsatisfactory features in Amendment No. 73. First, the amendment only exempts liability for a gate except by proper use of a gate. Let us look at the scenario where a gate is on access land but is never used by the occupier. It is of no use to him because it is not situated on a route that he now needs to take. Therefore, the occupier does not need to repair it. A man exercising his access right opens the unrepaired gate which then falls over and injures him. In one sense, the man is using the gate properly, but the occupier has no need to use it. I ask the noble Lord to explain why the occupier should have to repair that gate—a gate which he does not use and which he will put into repair only for the benefit of people who exercise access rights.

The second defective part of Amendment No. 73 relates to features other than gates and waters. The amendment exempts liability only for natural features, which are closely and narrowly defined, and are such items as trees and shrubs. I suggest that the proper exclusion should apply to anything which is on the land, at least if it is there in the ordinary course of the use of the land—a shed that the farmer has put up for his use. I am prepared to concede that there should be no exclusion where there is something very odd on the land such as a rocket site or something like that. But liability should be excluded in relation to the ordinary features that one would expect to see on land of this kind, whether or not they are within the definition of "natural" contained in the Bill.

My Amendment No. 75A seeks to enlarge the list of matters so as to achieve that result. It exempts liability for all houses, buildings, erections and so on which were constructed o r retained on the land for the purposes of any natural use of the land—farming or whatever it may be.

The main difference—and this is something which only transpired in conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful—is that I have included there, as one sees, houses and buildings and so on. The Minister said in Committee that there is no need to exclude buildings because they are already excluded. On investigation, that refers to the fact that by virtue of Schedule 1(2), land with buildings on it is excluded from being access land, but that is a wholly different point.

Let us take the case where, in the middle of some access land, there is an old and attractive barn or byre which is not much used and which is, therefore, out of repair but which it would be a sad pity to see pulled down. Some young people exercising their access rights may go into the barn and get hurt. They sue, admitting they were trespassers but claiming that there is a duty, as there is, under Section 1 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

If buildings are included in Section 13 exclusions, then the simple answer is that there is no duty. But if they are not so excluded, then there is an arguable case which has, as I say, to go to trial and, in fact, would probably be settled.

The Minister suggested that that is no different from the situation as it is at present. If somebody gets into that barn now, he has the rights conferred on a trespasser. But with respect to the Minister, his point is not right. First, there is the practical point that, without the access rights, it is very much less likely that anybody would be there. But, secondly, there is the legal point that under Section 1(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, in deciding whether or not there is a duty, the court must have regard, among other things, to the likelihood of somebody being there.

Before access was conferred, there was very little likelihood of anybody being in this barn in the middle of this moorland. But now access rights are given, that likelihood has greatly increased. Therefore, the liability of the occupier has, both in practice and in law, been increased.

In my respectful submission, it is vital that that liability is excluded. It is extremely important that we stick to the wording of the Bill which exempts the owner of access land from all relevant claims by someone exercising the access rights, whether or not the incident occurs on access land or in a building immediately adjoining it. I stress that the real worry is that of a claim being brought, and not the ultimate outcome of a claim.

I venture to suggest to the Minister that if he does not accept that point, he is pressurising the occupiers to pull down elderly buildings for which they have no great use and certainly cannot afford to repair, which would surely be a sorry pity. Therefore, I hope that in spite of the somewhat intransigent remarks of the Minister that he was not prepared to go any further, he will, on hearing my explanation, see the force of the point and be minded to include buildings and other ordinary features of the landscape which have been put there in the course of the normal development and use of that land and which it would be a pity to see removed.

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for having at least come some way towards dealing with this very thorny question. In that regard, I declare an interest in that the land that I own will be subject to access and, therefore, liability will have a direct effect on me personally.

I was a little disappointed that the Minister has already rejected my amendment before even listening to the arguments that I am going to advance. But having said that, I hope that he will listen carefully now because, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I have something to say on this subject.

I was extremely interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said and particularly his legal interpretation of Amendment No. 77.

In speaking to Amendments Nos. 74 and 76, perhaps I may make the following comments. Clause 13 currently exempts occupier from liability for the safety of walkers on access land in relation to "natural features of the landscape". Government Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 extend that exemption to include certain man-made features such as stiles and gates. But as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, there is the caveat that that applies only in circumstances where those are not being used properly, whatever that means. The difficulty is that there will be quite a number of gates and stiles which the owner will have put up, perhaps for his own use, which are not suitable for use by people exercising their rights of access. Is it really, therefore, right and proper that they should be, under the law, made to put those into a proper state to allow people to use them while exercising their access rights? That really is carrying the question of liability far too far.

Furthermore, as yet, government amendments fail to exclude liability in relation to other hazards likely to occur on access land.

As a starting point in examining how those provisions need to be improved, it must be said that the law of occupiers' liability is complicated. The provisions in the Bill, unlike those in the Occupiers' Liability Acts, do not result from careful consideration of the issues by the Law Commission, but from the very real need to resolve the liability problems inherent in the Government's original proposals, as highlighted by the Country Landowners' Association, of which many of your Lordships will be aware.

In trying to sort out the problems associated with the liability regime for access land, the Government have created an entirely new category of occupiers' liability—that for non-natural features, a point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. That brings in its train all sorts of problems, as I shall try to explain.

The precedent before this Bill, both in statute and in case law, has been that liability is not imposed on the occupier for the state of the land where access is of right. As an example, users of highways are specifically excluded from protection under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Such an approach does not remove the occupier from liability for hazards recklessly created, or for negligent activities. What has been recognised, however, is that it is inequitable to place liability upon an occupier when that occupier cannot control access. That is a very important point.

Indeed, an occupier can owe a duty to a trespasser under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. However, the occupier can exclude the trespasser, fence his land or ask the trespasser to leave. In those ways, the owner can require the trespasser to take himself away from a hazard on the land, so reducing the risk of an accident. None of those things can happen where access is as of right, as under the provisions in this Bill. In other words, the owner cannot require someone to leave the land in the interests of his own safety.

Looking at Clause 13, as drafted, there appears to be no logical justification for the division between natural and non-natural features. Many non-natural features are immovable, fixed features, that are longstanding and form part of the landscape. Indeed, features such as dry stone walls often give the landscape the very character which is so valued by the public.

As an illustration of that point, mines—other than mines for coal, ironstone, shale or clay—dating from before 1872 are exempt from the requirements of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 to have an efficient enclosure, barrier, plug or other device to prevent any person accidentally falling into the mine or entering its outlet. That means that the obligations under the Act do not apply to the several thousand lead and tin mines which were abandoned in moorland areas before that date. Such old mines—some may be medieval or even Roman—form part of the landscape and have not been used in generations for any form of profit-making activity. However, under the Bill, liability could attach to the occupier for an accident in such a mine on access land.

In case there should be any doubt about the extent of these mine workings in upland areas, perhaps I may cite the example of one recent estate audit in the Pennines by the surveying firm Wardell Armstrong. That identified 136 lead mine entrances. During the survey, several previously unrecorded entrances were also discovered. If, as I suspect, those lead mines were abandoned before 1872, the owner is under no duty at the moment to fence them. I believe that the experience of this one estate could be widely replicated, particularly in the North East and South West of England and in Wales.

Presumably, the justification for imposing upon occupiers the new liability for non-natural features is that it is a prudent way to ensure public safety. However, the argument fails on two grounds. First, why should occupiers, who have not invited parties on to their land, and who have no control over the entrants, bear liability for their safety, particularly where no compensation is payable under the Bill? Secondly, as we know, open country comprises about 4 million acres of land. Such land will be occupied by a wide variety of owners, each with differing opinions on the steps necessary to fulfil any obligation on their particular piece of land, and differing resources available to meet any such obligations. Some occupiers may fence the hazards; some will only insure; many will simply not have the resources to take either step. How can that approach be seen as a suitable way to ensure public safety? I believe that, overall, the better approach is to follow legal precedent and remove liability from occupiers for all features of the landscape as my amendments propose.

As a final point, there is another problem with the present clause, which I am bound to say is not covered by my amendments but which I believe should be highlighted. Under the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act, a quarry, whether working or otherwise, can be defined as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if, first, it does not have a properly maintained barrier to prevent persons falling into it, and, secondly, by reason of its accessibility from a highway or place of public resort, it constitutes a danger to the public. There are many thousands of quarries on land which will become subject to the new right of access. Many of those will not have been fenced to date because they are far away from the nearest highway. However, as soon as the right of access comes into force, they will automatically become potential statutory nuisances because the public will have a statutory right to walk around them.

My amendments would exempt occupiers from liability in relation to these quarries under the Occupiers' Liability Act. However, they would not prevent a local authority taking the view that the quarry amounted to a statutory nuisance. The owner could be faced with enforcement action; for example, he could be required to fence the quarry. I urge the Government to consider this potential problem and to table their own amendment at Third Reading to exclude that possibility.

Overall, the occupiers' liability regime set out in the Bill is deficient. New liabilities will fall on owners unless the Bill is amended. Owners will be put to considerable cost to minimise the risk of accidents and of claims from walkers. That costly action could include undertaking audits of hazards; undertaking risk assessments in relation to those found; fencing hazards; erecting warning signs and taking out additional insurance. In addition, an owner is not entitled to fence common land without the express permission of the Secretary of State. As regards quarries, as I have mentioned, enforcement action by local authorities is a real risk. It is surely wrong for the Bill to expose owners to those risks and expense; for example, in relation to thousands of mines and quarries spread across millions of acres of access land.

I believe that this section of the Bill must be amended in order to allow for a fair and equitable arrangement to be reached which would not impose considerable costs on owners who are being subjected to new access provisions which they did not initiate. The Government brought in this legislation. I believe that it is only right and proper that the Government should remove liability on occupiers for any expense on liability which is caused by the access provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 72 moved by the Minister and the other amendments in the grouping. I shall speak also to Amendments No. 73A and 73D, which are amendments to the main amendment. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer will speak to Amendments Nos. 73B and 73C.

I welcome the fact that, to a degree, the Government have moved on the question of occupiers' liability in relation to Part I of the Bill. That is welcome. However, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I do not think that the Government have moved sufficiently far. I shall speak briefly to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl and the noble Viscount. If I start to speak gibberish, it is because I have spent seven and a half hours trying to drive down the M1. I then had to fight my way into the building through a demonstration and am feeling somewhat shell-shocked.

I substantially agreed with the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on his amendment. However, I have difficulty in understanding the wording, and at this stage could not support it. I do not understand what it means, but perhaps that can be discussed. In Committee, I stated that in general terms I supported the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Since then, nothing has been said by the Government to change my view. Other things being equal, I am still disposed to support that amendment. Indeed, I agree with everything said by the noble Earl. I shall not repeat that, but merely state the position. It seems to me that there is probably majority support in this House for the Government to move further on this matter. I hope that they will reflect on that and come back to it at Third Reading.

Amendment No. 73D refers specifically to activities which in general terms I shall refer to as "climbing". In Committee and since, those of us who are interested in climbing welcomed the fact that climbing and ancillary activities are included within the scope of Clause 2. Nevertheless, there has been increasing concern that the Government have not yet understood the relationship between people engaging in climbing, abseiling and so on, and the owners of the land on which they climb.

I had considerable discussions in relation to these amendments last weekend with senior people in the British Mountaineering Council—the national representative body for climbers in this country—and my amendments were tabled with its full support. They also meet with the support of the Country Landowners' Association. At an earlier stage a joint letter was sent by the BMC and the CLA effectively asking for an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 73A.

Rock climbing is an inherently dangerous activity that people undertake voluntarily and deliberately in order to pit their skills and abilities of various kinds—athletic, technical and psychological—against the natural environment in which they find themselves. That applies whether we are talking about rock climbing on a short gritstone outcrop in Derbyshire or mountaineering in high mountains.

There is a general principle among the climbing fraternity that the risk of climbing belongs to the climbers themselves; that it should not be the responsibility of owners and occupiers unless they behave in a reckless way, and the government amendment now covers that. Clearly, if someone pulls down ropes while someone else is climbing, they are committing a criminal offence because people's lives are being put at risk. But in general the principle is that the risk in climbing should in no circumstances be the responsibility of the occupiers of the land. Indeed, if it was thought to be their responsibility, climbers would not have access to a lot of crags and cliffs which they presently have access to by voluntary agreement. It is the view of the climbing community that that principle should be embodied in the Bill.

There are growing problems of what I call "irresponsible" litigation, encouraged by lawyers offering to take up cases on the basis that they are paid only if they win. It is a tendency spreading from the United States of America and one which climbers generally want stamped upon. It would therefore be helpful if climbing as an activity, or the crags upon which climbers climb, were exempted from any liability under the Bill.

Another danger is that if landowners and occupiers believe that they have a liability, they may remove some of the features put in place to enable climbing to take place; for instance, posts at the top of crags for people to tie themselves to for abseiling and so forth. Owners may believe that, if they have given express consent to the placing of apparatus or even tacit consent because they are aware that the gear is there, if there is an accident resulting from the failure of that material they may be held responsible.

So these amendments contain three approaches. All three together would be extremely beneficial, but any one on its own would be valuable. First, Amendment No. 73A seeks to apply to rock features the principles set out in the government amendment in relation to water features. Amendment No. 72 says,

"any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature".

Amendment No. 73A asks for the same principle to be applied to rock features. Indeed, many crags in this country can be walked upon. Some have obviously been quarried in the past but some are absolutely natural. And it is difficult to tell the difference between the two. At the extremes one can say "Yes, that has definitely been quarried" or "That looks as though it never has been". I would love to take noble Lords along Stanage Edge in Derbyshire, which is the biggest of the gritstone edges and is used by over 1,000 rock climbers. Some of it has been quarried for millstone, some for local building materials and some is completely natural. Not including manmade rock features in the Bill will produce a can of worms. It is a simple amendment and the one which the climbing community would most like the Government to accept.

Amendment No. 73D applies to climbing as an activity. It simply says that if people are on the land climbing, any accidents that occur as a result are not the occupier's responsibility. That is the position that climbers want and it would be a simple matter to write it into this Bill in relation to access land. The second part of Amendment No. 73D relates to climbing posts and other climbing apparatus. Noble Lords will be astonished at some of the devices climbers use basically to make the crags safer and climbing possible. But many of those devices over a period of time become unsafe. There is a general acceptance within the climbing world that if one uses bolts which have been drilled into a crag in the past—that happens in limestone areas—or an old piton (what climbers call pegs) that has been banged into a crack in the past, or a post at the top of the crag which was put there for people to belay on, to tie themselves to or abseil from, one does it at one's own risk. It is our responsibility to check every time we use it that it is in a satisfactory condition for use.

The danger is that if occupiers of land give consent to the placing of apparatus, or even tacit consent by not removing it, and it turns out to be defective and somebody is hurt or even killed because they used that defective apparatus, unless the liability is specifically taken away from the occupier and placed squarely upon the climber, occupiers will remove such apparatus from the climbs. That will make climbing impossible and thereby undermine the aims of this Act.

Amendment No. 77 contains wording which is causing concern. It says,

"where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier … with the intention of creating that risk".

The worry is that that wording could be used against an occupier if he did things in, on or around a piece of rock which in itself made climbing possible. If it is not possible to climb, there is no risk. But, for example, if a path is dug at the top of a crag and access for climbers is made possible, there is a danger that the wording of the amendment could imply that, not only is the occupier liable if there is an accident, but that he actually created the conditions for the accident in digging the path. I am not sure that that is the most serious point being put forward but it is the worry.

I ask the Government to look seriously at these amendments. They relate to a specific activity which is undertaken by perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It would be a shame if the rights applying to climbers given under Clause 2 of this Bill were not able to he applied properly because of the fears of landowners over liability. It would be an even greater shame if, because of that, there was a spate of litigation or two or three cases which set litigation in train. That in turn may create a climate of hostility and prejudice between occupiers and climbers. At the moment the climate in many areas is one of co-operation and friendship.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's amendments and recognise how far the Government have moved on this topic. However, notwithstanding the robust way in which he introduced his amendment, will the Minister reflect on whether the balance is right? It seems that in Amendment No. 73 the Government have accepted that occupiers' liability should be removed from some non-natural features. Those set out appear to be either boundary or perimeter features.

We would all accept that a landowner should be liable where he creates the problem, but the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed to a real difficulty. Indeed, some real problems would remain if the Government's amendment were accepted. Mention has been made of some non-natural features which are likely to cause problems, in particular the disused quarries, the mineshafts, of which there are a great many, and, as regards the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, buildings such as old barns. All those features are likely to prove a magnet for children and the Government should have that uppermost in mind.

At present, there is no duty on landowners to fence mine entrances if they were abandoned before 1872, as many were. The Bill, if it becomes an Act in this form, is likely to impose a duty on those landowners to fence, or otherwise fill in, what would seem to be an enormous number of possible hazards. Under the Bill as it stands, the costs would be borne by the landowners. It cannot be right to leave such features, which were not created by landowners and which are not being used by them for the purposes of managing their land, to become a serious problem and expense for them. Even if the Government believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, goes too far, surely, there are ways in which such clear hazards could be exempted from occupiers' liability. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to what is said in the debate.

My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, briefly and clearly made several important and cogent points. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made a long and detailed speech, although I should have thought that paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 73D, proposed by the noble Lord, was unnecessary because rock, snow and ice are natural features. I would not have thought that climbing over them was different from climbing over a wall or a gate. I may be wrong and the Minister will probably comment on it.

Amendment No. 73 makes no mention of hedges. Are thorn hedges, many of which have been planted and through which people may push and be injured, natural features if they have been planted comparatively recently? The Minister may also wish to comment on that.

Furthermore, what about boggy areas which have been created by occupiers in response to government grants for the creation of wetlands? A great deal of such work has been done recently. Those points need to be taken into account.

My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two points for the Minister's consideration. What is the landowner's position when he has an interest in a construction which does not belong to him? I am thinking in particular of electricity supply lines and water leaks, which occur in considerable numbers in access areas, particularly mountains. Although it is not immediately obvious that they pose a hazard, accidents can occur. Storms can bring down electricity supply lines and people can come into contact with them and suffer as a result. The same applies to leaks which during the day are obvious and can be avoided, but problems may occur as a result of night access. I am concerned about the occupiers' liability when they may not own the construction but when a rental may be payable to them.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for edging towards a more equitable situation than that which we discussed in Committee. The Minister spoke reassuringly about constructing a balance. Having listened to today's debate from all around the House—contributions coming from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend Lord Peel—it appears that an unsatisfactory balance has been achieved.

However, it would be wrong for us to believe that the Minister was right in saying that we should be achieving a balance. People are being given the right to roam often against the wishes of owners and occupiers. Correctly apportioning liability in that respect is not a question of balance but of fairness. That is totally different. It is not a question of what is right for the person gaining access but of whether that is fairly balanced as against the landowner.

The landowner will undoubtedly be prejudiced by the Bill. As it stands, he will be faced with the dilemma of incurring additional costs in order to fence off old mine shafts, pull down buildings and reorganise his land in order to minimise the liability to which he might be exposed. The Minister ought to take the proposal away again because I do not believe that the owners or occupiers should be faced with additional liabilities as a result of the provisions of the Bill.

I want to ask the Minister a particular question. What advice has he received from the Countryside Agency on this issue?

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's Amendment No. 73 and believe that it has helped the situation. However, what will be the effect if, as we discussed on the first day of the Report stage, the 20-metre curtilage around a house is reintroduced? Is the proposal contained in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, necessary? If we were also to create a curtilage around buildings, would liability issues arise because no one should be around the building? Unlike some other noble Lords, I believe that we are nearly there.

I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 73B and 73C. While they may appear to raise small points, at the moment Amendment No. 73 makes provision only for people who pass over or through the items listed. However, they may pass by a fence, perhaps carelessly, and have a nasty accident. Further, small people may pass under items. Although this may appear to be a matter of semantics, if one argues liability in court the fact that some of these words are excluded is important. We believe that it is much simpler to refer to any injury from these items.

As to Amendment No. 73C, the list of items from which people may suffer injury when crossing a boundary excludes, for example, bridges or stepping stones over water. In the areas with which the Bill is concerned water will form a good number of boundaries. Cattle grids are also common items on which it is easy to slip and break an ankle. We believe that there is good reason to include our wording in these amendments.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify her party's view on whether quarries and mine shafts should be fenced?

My Lords, I agree with the observations of my noble friend Lord Greaves about rock features, to which I need not refer again. As to mine shafts, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised some interesting points. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply and give the matter further thought.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I thank the Government for having listened to the arguments in Committee. I am sure that the Minister is reeling from the suggestion that the Government should consider lifting all liability with regard to natural features. My noble friend quite rightly highlighted the important question of mines, which was well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Landowners will be put to great extra cost if they must deal with the many mines around the country.

My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to one important issue which runs throughout the Bill: whereas the Bill gives people a right of access—which is welcome enough—it also places an extra burden, in this case a liability, on those whose land is open to access. We have encouraged the Government to move so far, but we hope that the debates around the House will encourage them to consider the valid points which have been made by noble Lords on all sides of the House.

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate, virtually none of which has convinced me that I should change my initial opinion. I deal first with one or two specific items before turning to more general matters. Slightly aside from the remainder of the amendments, those spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, deal with rock climbing and mountaineering on quarry faces or other man-made rock faces. I understand the problem that he attempts to address. Clearly, mountaineers do not want any increase in liability to give rise to hostility from landowners or to encourage them to fence off places which would otherwise be available for use. I also understand the purpose of Amendment No. 73D which seeks to exclude all occupier's liability, apart from reckless and intentional acts, in relation to injuries suffered in undertaking rock climbing, snow and ice climbing and so on. It would also remove liability for injuries arising from posts, anchors or other equipment fixed near to rock faces.

However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary in view of the provisions of the Bill and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. That Act already provides that no duty of any kind is owed to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted. Clearly, that would apply to rock climbers, abseilers and snow and ice climbers in the kind of situation to which the noble Lord referred. They are already excluded in relation to natural features, but they would also be excluded from rock faces in this regard. Therefore, I believe that their anxieties in this respect are misplaced. Likewise, landowners' anxieties are misplaced in relation to those who undertake such activities.

In any case, I am not prepared to sanction the blanket removal of liability in respect of all disused quarries or other rock faces created by man. For example, if there was a particularly dangerous disused quarry close to where people lived, it might be reasonable to expect at least a warning notice and, in some cases, fencing. We are not dealing here solely with rock climbers who knowingly and intentionally put themselves at risk; we may also be dealing with children or other walkers to whom there is some liability in respect of quarries. I shall return to other aspects of mines and quarries in a moment.

Although I understand the anxieties of the rock climbing community in this respect, I believe that they are already covered. To do what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggests and remove the liability will put others at risk when there is no particular reason to remove what is, after all, a pretty minimal liability.

Perhaps I may address the central issue in this group of amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that this is not a matter of balance but fairness. I believe that we have been very fair to landowners. The general message is that we have reduced the liability towards people who are legally on their land to a level which is lower than that owed by other property owners to people who are illegally on their land; and, in respect of particularly hazardous or difficult areas, we have totally removed the liability. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is wrong to say that that breaks all precedent. The noble Earl's proposal goes in the opposite direction. The precedent is the liability to trespassers which applies to all other property owners throughout the land. We are making some exclusions from that precedent for the benefit of landowners of access land. Anything less than that is a matter of serious unfairness not only to potential users of access land but to every other property owner who has greater liability than the owners of access land in this respect.

My Lords, this Bill gives new rights of access. At the moment, people do not have the right to walk on other people's land. Therefore, surely the liability cannot be viewed in the same way—unless I am mistaken.

My Lords, the liability of access land owners to someone who is legally on their land as a result of this Bill is less than that which other property owners have to people who are illegally on their land. That is the disparity to which I refer. We have already balanced the increase in the right by reducing the liability across the board. Further, in particularly difficult cases we have agreed—in some respects slightly against my better judgment, although we must try to reach a degree of understanding of landowners' concerns in this regard—to exclude that liability altogether. Therefore, we have made at least two moves away from the general liability which applies, in the case of every other property owner, not to individuals who are legally on other people's property but to those who are illegally on other people's property.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Have the Government checked that argument against the Human Rights Act?

My Lords, the issue in relation to the Human Rights Act is again a question of balance. The Human Rights Act will have to take into account any modifications to the law which have been made by restricting the right of ownership in this respect. We have done so by reducing the liability in that regard and making other provisions which protect the interests of landowners in the way in which the right of access will operate. The Human Rights Act is itself concerned with balance.

The other precedent to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred, which is basically the question of highways, is a very misplaced one. I know a thing or two about highways. In general, highways are maintained by the highways authorities who are aware of defects and can address them. The liability of the occupier of a highway to highway users is not uniformly low, as the noble Earl suggests. The occupier is liable not only for the effects or non-effects of his own activities in relation to the state of the highway, but also for the state of overhanging trees, vegetation, the condition of gates, stiles and adjacent fences when we are dealing with pathways and bridleways and so on. Therefore, there is a substantial liability on he occupiers of highways. In the Bill we have virtually excluded all that. We have excluded liability for natural features, which includes all these overhanging features and for people climbing over gates and fences. So the liability of occupiers of access lands will frequently be substantially less than the liability that occupiers of highways owe to the users of highways.

In general, I feel that the Government have moved substantially to balance out the increased rights which users will have against the rights of landowners to make better use of their property with these restrictions in liability. With the additional amendments in the group we have moved the matter further.

I am not persuaded by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we should move yet further and take into account not only the possibility of a claim, but the likelihood of any claim and the removal of any residual liability. We believe that occupiers should retain a minimal liability, particularly for reckless and intentional acts and that that liability should be owed to trespassers.

The noble Viscount's other point related to buildings, a subject on which, as he says, he and I have spoken. I still cannot accept his basic argument that liability should be excluded in respect of buildings which are not even on access land because the increase of access means that it is more of a temptation to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in part made the same point in relation to other features. We are talking about buildings which are not on access land. The status of those buildings has not changed. If we were to accept the amendment of the noble Viscount, we would be removing liability even in relation to inherently dangerous structures close to areas where children live, on commons or in urban areas. That cannot be right. We are not talking here about full liability, we are talking about the minimal duty owed to trespassers.

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked whether the landlord would be responsible for something which affected his land which he did not own or operate. I think the answer to the noble Lord is that if he does not own or operate the feature then he would not be liable, but the person who did own or operate it could be liable if it were on access land or indeed any other land. I do not think that an access land landowner would be responsible in those circumstances.

A number of noble Lords referred to mines and quarries. There is an existing duty to fence most disused mines. There is some increased duty in relation to tin mines. We would expect the countryside bodies to provide information about the existence of mines and quarries. We would expect the access authorities, rather than the landowners, to be able to erect notices warning of such dangers. If necessary, access to the areas covered by mines and quarries could be subject to restrictions on grounds of safety or completely excluded by application to the countryside bodies. We also envisage that funding would be provided in appropriate circumstances for the access authorities to help with the provision of signing and fencing. Having said all that, both in terms of existing Acts and of the provisions in the Bill, it would be wrong to remove liability from the landowner altogether in relation to mines and quarries.

Several points were raised in relation to gates, walls and fences. Amendment No. 73B, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would widen the exclusion from liability in relation to walls and fences. We need to be careful about such a proposal. In many circumstances it might operate reasonably, but potentially it could mean that an occupier would bear no responsibility for a wall which collapsed on people, even if they were not touching it but merely standing by it, although the owner knew it was dangerous. I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment, but it could well be its effect.

Amendment No. 73C would exclude liability in relation to stiles and other access points in addition to gates. However, again there is a problem with that in that it would mean the occupier would effectively bear no responsibility for, say, a dangerous stile or a dangerous footbridge, even where it constituted the most popular means of access to the access land. I do not think we should go down that road. A minimal liability is still owed in that respect.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about advice from the Countryside Agency. We have discussed liability issues with the Countryside Agency on a number of occasions. Its view is that some restriction of liability should operate. But we are talking about the wider balance in this respect. Our concern is that that balance is best achieved by what we have in the Bill at present as further extended in favour of the landowners by the amendments to which the Government have referred.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether a number of features are actually natural. Hedges are a natural feature. As a result of another amendment hedges are designated as a natural feature. The noble Baroness also asked about bogs and wetlands. If they are natural features then they again have no liability. It is likely that all such features would be seen as natural, even though there may have been a few minor changes made to them as a result of man's activities.

I have tried to deal with most of the specific points that were raised. I think I am correct in saying that no one spoke to Amendment No. 78, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Therefore, I propose not to refer to it. The consequences of that amendment would move in the opposite direction from that which most noble Lords are urging. I, too, am maintaining a degree of balance in the debate. Had the amendment been spoken to, I should have demonstrated that at this point. Nevertheless, I think I have made clear my overall position. I believe that the balance we have struck in the Bill is the right balance. A number of the features which we have reflected in our amendments in the group would tighten up the balance. In this context, they all move in favour of the landowner and make it a clearer and more coherent approach. I have pointed out that, whatever the motivation behind some of the amendments, their effect would be difficult to implement and could be damaging to the overall position. I hope that none of the other amendments will be pursued. I beg to move.

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 73, I have to point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 74 owing to pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 73:

Clause 13, page 8, line 14, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 15 and insert—

("(a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or

(b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile.").

My Lords, under the rules of pre-emption, I should tell the House that Amendment No. 74 cannot be called.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75A:

Clause 13, page 8, line 17, after ("origin,") insert ("or any house, building, erection, wall, fence, hedge, gate or stile constructed or retained on the land for the purpose of any natural use of the land,").

moved Amendment No. 77:

Clause 13, page 8, line 18, at end insert—

("(6C) Subsection (6A) does not prevent an occupier from owing a duty by virtue of this section in respect of any risk where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier—

(a) with the intention of creating that risk, or

(b) being reckless as to whether that risk is created."

(3) After section 1 of that Act there is inserted—

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:

"In April this year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister held a meeting with representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the British groups who had been held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War. He subsequently initiated a reconsideration of the long-standing policy of Her Majesty's Government towards these Far East prisoners. Owing to the complexity of the issues involved, that review took time to carry out but it has now been completed.

"I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that as a result of the review the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. Where a person who would have been entitled to this payment has died, their surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.

"As honourable Members will recall, on a number of occasions in recent months this House has debated the situation of those who were held prisoner in the Far East during the Second World War. The reason we have done so is that what happened to those prisoners was often so appalling that for many it has remained with them for the rest of their lives. Many Members will be aware of the stories told by now frail constituents about that terrible time; members of the public will be familiar with the books and films about it. However, if we look back at the histories, we come across a simple, stark fact that makes clear to everybody the enormity of what happened. Of the 50,016 British service personnel who were reported captured by the Japanese, 12,433 died or were killed in captivity. In other words, conditions were so bad that one in four did not survive.

"We are all very thankful that such a situation did not occur anywhere else during the Second World War and has not recurred since. The unique nature of the Japanese captivity in the Far East was recognised in the 1950s, when those who had been held became eligible for modest payments from assets, made under the provisions of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan. As noble Lords are aware, the maximum payment available at that time was £76.10s.

"In the intervening years, the former Far East prisoners pursued the issue of additional compensation with Japan. More recently, they have also campaigned for the British Government to make a payment. However, as Members of both sides of the House will be well aware, it has been the policy of successive governments over many years not to make payments in such circumstances.

"We are now making an exception for the British groups that were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War in recognition of the unique circumstances of their collective captivity. Those who will be entitled to receive the payment are former members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who were made prisoners of war, former members of the Merchant Navy who were captured and imprisoned and British civilians who were interned. Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, Indian army and Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under United Kingdom auspices will also be eligible. As I said earlier, where a person who would have been entitled to this payment has died, their surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.

"We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for these ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make. I shall not now go into detail about the new payment scheme, except to say that this single ex gratia payment will not be taxable, nor will it be taken into account for benefits purposes. We intend to make these payments as quickly as possible, although it will take a little time for the appropriate regulations to be made. However, we expect everything to be in place by February.

"Further details of the scheme are being published today in a leaflet by the War Pensions Agency, which will be administering it. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The leaflet and a claim form will also be available on the agency's website.

"The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the Armed Forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances. But the experience of those who went into captivity in the Far East during the Second World War was unique. We have said before that we believe the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone here when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I hope that he will not take it the wrong way when I say that we hope for the speedy return of his noble friend the Minister of State.

We welcome unconditionally the generous and good offer that the Government are making to former Far East prisoners of war and their dependants. Many congratulations should be offered to the Royal British Legion, the Far East prisoner of war associations and the other bodies which have fought so hard and so long for the settlement that has been announced today.

It is understandable that it has taken so long to make this settlement because up until 1998 we had been hoping that the Japanese Government would pay compensation to the former prisoners of war. It is only since that time, after the final decision in their high court that they would not make such a payment, that it became clear that other governments would have to do so. The pattern has been set by the Canadians and Her Majesty's Government have rightly followed.

I particularly welcome three aspects of the payment: that it will be paid to all who were imprisoned or interned in the Far East, including civilians, men and women, members of the Merchant Navy and others; that it will he paid to widows, for they, too, suffered from the difficulties, dangers and horrors that their men endured in prison; and that the payment will not be taxable or set against benefits.

These have been the forgotten warriors. It is appropriate that in this week the forgotten army should be remembered.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. While nothing can ever compensate the men and women who suffered at Japanese hands during the Second World War, it is excellent that the Government have recognised their plight and have made a generous offer, which, as I understand it, extends to both widows and civilian internees. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the same conditions will apply to them as to members of the Armed Forces.

I should like to point out the substantial difference between the way in which the German Government have treated those who were enslaved as workers during the war and those who worked as slaves in the Far East and who, to this day, have still not been compensated by the Japanese Government.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, what is the position of those who are now citizens of Hong Kong who were previously subjects of the United Kingdom, who suffered equally from internment and who, in some cases, were members of the Armed Forces? For reasons quite outside their control, some of them are now Hong Kong citizens— and therefore citizens of the Republic of China— rather than British citizens, but their position, their plight and the suffering that they underwent was not very different from that of the citizens to whom the Minister has referred.

Finally, can the Minister say a little more about the section in the Statement that deals with those who served with us from Commonwealth countries, particularly those from India, Burma and the colonial forces? Perhaps he can say how far the settlement will extend to them. He mentioned them, but be did not say in precise terms who would qualify and who would not.

May I again say how grateful we are that the Government have recognised the desperate position of those who served and then suffered so much at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his kind remarks about my noble friend Lady Symons. I shall certainly pass them on to her. We hope that she will return very quickly.

The remarks of the noble Lord were well meant and genuinely appreciative of the move that has now been made. I am sure that he will wish to join with the Government in celebrating the fact that we have now been able to do what needed to be done—perhaps many years ago—for these people.

The noble Baroness added her welcome to the Government's decision. She asked about civilian internees. As I understand it, that group involves a number of people. They will, of course, be recognised. Should any of those she mentioned fall outside the scheme, I shall write to the noble Baroness with details. Similarly, I expect those colonials—from wherever they came—who were part of this group, and who were prisoners of war during that period on our behalf, to be recognised.

So far as concerns those who were imprisoned or interned for other reasons—for instance, as the noble Baroness mentioned, those from states such as Hong Kong— details are not yet fully available on this issue. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness is informed of the position of such people.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in reply to the noble Baroness he referred to other persons who would receive the compensation. Does not the Statement describe who they are when it refers to:

"Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, Indian army, and Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under UK auspices"?

It would seem to be quite clear from that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I tried to indicate that the people mentioned were indeed covered. I was a little concerned that the noble Baroness may have touched on a group outside those. It was for that reason that I was cautious in my answer. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness is given the correct reply.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the excellent news for those who will benefit from this sum of money. It is very late in coming for 80 year-olds, but it is, nevertheless, very welcome.

In relation to spouses, is there any restriction on the period of marriage? If the spouse has remarried, will that affect the payment of this sum of money?

My Lords, while I did not comprehensively cover the issue of spouses in my delivery of the Statement, I should like to assure the noble Lord that, to my knowledge, nothing will debar spouses from receiving the payment. The Government have tried as hard as they possibly can to ensure that a surviving spouse will receive her husband's entitlement. One or two complications may arise in this area, but the Government intend to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, a surviving spouse will receive her husband's entitlement.

My Lords, as the only diocesan bishop whose father was killed in action during the Second World War—although against the Germans—I warmly welcome the Government's Statement. One of my former clergy was in action against the Japanese; he was captured and suffered grievously at their hands. Throughout the remaining years of his ministry after he returned to this country, the effect on that and his family life was terrible to see. I believe that what hurt him most was his feeling that all that he and so many others had gone through was not really appreciated by those of us back home. I welcome what the Government have said and I understand why the payment has been so long in coming. This afternoon I feel for the dead priest and the fact that this has come, sadly, too late for him and for many others.

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments and for his compliments to the Government on their action. I sympathise with his friend and with the many other prisoners of war who suffered during that period. I point out to noble Lords that as regards prisoners of war in the Far East, the reason we have taken this decision is because of the unique circumstances in which they found themselves during their captivity.

My Lords, I rise with some emotion to declare an interest. My brother-in-law was captured at Singapore. He had a very unpleasant time in Changi gaol. He then worked on the Burma railway. Happily, he is still with us at the age of 83. I know that during the 55 years since his release he has been very much looking forward to the day when the plight of the prisoners would be recognised. I know that while he bore in stoic silence his astonishment at the treatment meted out after their release—a payment of £76.10s—he was very active in seeking redress for colleagues worse afflicted than he was.

I am sure that he will be enormously relieved to know that the surviving spouses of his PoW colleagues who died in the intervening years will be the beneficiaries. Would it not be appropriate that with their payment they receive a letter from the Government thanking them for their great patience in waiting for this compensation?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments, particularly in relation to countries such as Singapore where many people suffered during that period in a similar fashion. I take note of my noble friend's comment as regards a letter. I shall raise the issue outside the Chamber.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a high proportion of the Armed Forces who became prisoners of war were members of the East Anglian Division? Many were constituents of mine when I was elected in 1945. They suffered terribly. Many wondered whether they would survive their time in captivity and, thank goodness, a few of them did return including, as noble Lords may remember, Lord de Ramseay who became Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire.

As the patron of the Huntingdonshire Royal British Legion I add my thanks for the Government's decision.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I am sure that many Members and ex-Members of Parliament must have had similar circumstances brought to their attention. I certainly appreciate how the noble Lord feels at this time.

My Lords, I give heartfelt thanks to the Government for this very welcome news today about prisoners of war in the Far East, however late. I congratulate the Minister on his Statement. Can he tell us whether widows of Japanese prisoners of war who died in Japanese camps will also benefit as well as the widows of those who have since died?

My Lords, I hope I shall not mislead here. If there are living widows of prisoners of war who died in the camps, my assessment is that they will come within these particular circumstances. I shall clear that matter and ensure that the Baroness is written to.

My Lords, a former partner of mine, Colonel Cecil Wells, of the Suffolk Regiment, was in Japanese prisoner of war camps throughout the war. He died just 15 days ago. Do I understand from the Minister's Statement that his estate will not receive anything or is the proposed date for the award prior to today? If, as I suspect, the answer is that the Statement shows that the award is from today and his wife died some while ago, is there no intention on the Government's part for any part of the sum to inure for the benefit of his children?

My Lords, I believe that it is clear from the scheme that the ex-gratia payment starts from today. Under these circumstances it is always very difficult to create the date when such a payment is applied. If his widow had survived him she would have been entitled to the payment. In the circumstances it is my view that there is no entitlement to the payment. If anyone were to die from this point on, the estate would receive the £10,000.

My Lords, I am sure that we shall all wish to recognise the hard work of the Burma Star Association and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in this area. As an RAF pilot I flew a number of our prisoners of war back from Singapore to Ceylon at the cessation of hostilities. I can confirm their dreadful physical condition. Subsequently, as a constituency MP, a number of ex-prisoners of war and their wives came to see me and put forward their case very strongly indeed. The Government have done extremely well over the settlement. Many people will feel that at long last they have been appreciated.

My Lords, when I hear people like the noble Lord, Lord Monro, speak of their activities I feel quite humble. I really appreciate the comments that he made as regards the Government's effort.

My Lords, as one who fought in the Burma campaigns with Indian troops, I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for this generous settlement. Perhaps I may say how sorry I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who is president of the Burma Star Association, is unable to be with us today. The Burma Star Association, the British Legion and the Far East Prisoners of War Association have been fighting for a long time for this recognition.

The Minister said that Indian troops who were prisoners of war will be included in this settlement. How will the Government go about discovering exactly who they are and how many exist in the subcontinent today? This is a very generous settlement for them; such a sum of money will be of colossal advantage. How will the Government go about discovering exactly who they are?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments in relation to the ex gratia payment, and for his mention of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. On the question of benefit for Indian troops and colonials who became prisoners of war, I understand that there is a record of most of those who were involved. I believe that the organisations concerned also have a record. There will be an effort on behalf of the Government to ensure that all groups are contacted so that those who are entitled to payments receive them. That includes the group that the noble Lord mentioned. I believe that there are presently about 100 people on the record.

My Lords, in August 1945, as my family prepared to light bonfires for the VJ celebrations, my grandfather received a telegram saying that his son, my uncle, would not be returning from his Far Eastern captivity. My uncle's wife died quite a long time ago. So that is one family who will not receive any financial benefit. But there will be thousands of families in that position who will very much welcome the recognition and appreciation demonstrated today.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point.

My Lords, many Members of this House who served as Members in another place will have memories of trying over the years to deal with the plight of constituents who were in need of assistance. Those of us who regularly attend memorial services in November will be able to hold our heads up a little higher in future. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many. I ask the Minister to take back to his colleagues our gratitude for taking action now, and so generously.

A voice that we should have heard, had he been present, would have been that of my noble friend Lord Molloy, who was deeply involved in the work of the British Legion. He had a distinguished war record, but never lost an opportunity to stand up and defend the interests not only of prisoners but of ex-servicemen. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to place on record the gratitude of my noble friend in his absence.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I am delighted to take them back to my colleagues. I should also like to associate myself with his mention of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the efforts of the British Legion.

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Williams raised a question about civilians in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. There were two categories. My predecessor, a chief of the Hong Kong Bank, was tortured to death. But there were also people who were called up and who fought for King and country in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. Is there a differential between those who died or were taken prisoner fighting, and those who were taken prisoner merely because they were British and living in what were then colonies?

My Lords, I am looking desperately across at the Box in relation to this issue. I do not believe that there is a difference; however, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.

My Lords, will my noble friend give the House two assurances? First, will Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to make sure that this extremely welcome decision receives as much publicity as possible inside Japan? Secondly, will my noble friend assure us that it is no part of the settlement that those attempting to bring pressure to bear on the government of Japan to recognise their responsibilities in these matters should desist their activities?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I know of no pressure that is likely to be put on the groups he has mentioned. I hope that that will not be the case.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement. However, I should like to discharge a debt. Noble Lords have referred to the privations that prisoners of war underwent. When I was a 14 year-old schoolboy, in 1956, I was taught by a man of extreme gifts—one of those teachers who have a profound influence on one's life. One afternoon, as a result of an episode in a classroom, he burst into tears. He had spent three years on the Burma railway and the episode had brought back to him some of the extraordinary privations he had undergone. He died a bachelor some years ago. I feel that I owe it to him to say that we have all allowed far too much time to elapse—it is 58 years since my schoolmaster was captured in Singapore—before righting this grievous wrong.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. The Government have now taken steps to make this ex gratia payment. Indeed, many of us feel, as he does, that the action has possibly come a little too late. Nevertheless, it has been taken now, and I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome it in the same fashion as other noble Lords have done.

moved Amendment No. 80:

After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—