Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 13.

[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 80:

After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:INDEMNITY FOR COSTS OF ACCESS

(" .--(1) Any person having an interest in access land shall be entitled to be indemnified for any additional costs and expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the right conferred by section 2(1) or for any liability or loss resulting from the exercise, or purported exercise, of that right, which he cannot practicably recover from any other person.

(2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the conditions for entitlement to such indemnity and as to the form and procedure by which such amounts may be recovered.").

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

It is reasonable, as a matter of common justice, to provide that someone whose land becomes less valuable as a result of the granting of the right of access to that land should receive compensation. Also, apart from whether it is reasonable, it is highly likely to be a breach of Article 1 of the human rights convention if the Bill is passed without the possibility of redress in those circumstances. I shall not repeat my remarks in Committee on this issue, and I apologise for being absent for so much of the subsequent debate--although I shall return to the matter later in our proceedings.

The amendment does not relate directly to the issue of compensation. However, if passed, it would help to reduce the chances of the legislation falling foul of human rights legislation. It is a modest and limited proposal. It is based on the premise that, in the first instance, the person who has suffered loss and incurred costs has a duty to recover them from the person who has caused those costs or expenses to be incurred--for example, in a situation where it is necessary to repair damage to a wall caused by someone purporting to exercise the right of access. It is only if it is not practical to recover the costs and expenses incurred as a result of someone exercising or purporting to exercise the right of access that the provision bites. So it is very narrowly defined, as well as being a most reasonable provision.

However, the question arises as to whether it is likely or feasible that costs or expenses will be incurred as a result of the access provisions. There is little doubt that that is the case. It may be necessary to post notices advising of closures--closures that are permitted under the legislation as it has now reached this House. It may also be necessary to make risk assessments in relation to gates or stiles, which will involve expense. Indeed, it may be necessary to fence off mines. Above all, as a result of the provisions of the legislation, expense may be incurred as regards the necessity to increase insurance premiums. If I may say so, the attitude of the Government to the previous set of amendments makes it all the more likely that costs and expenses will be incurred, whether because of suits as a result of liability or the increased insurance necessary to avoid such suits.

Therefore, it is necessary to take account of the Bill as it stands when considering such matters. Although it has been improved as a result of government amendments, it is, none the less, perfectly plain that substantial costs will be incurred by many people and that such costs will not always be recoverable in practice, as opposed to in law, from anyone who is guilty in that respect. Indeed, in some cases there will not be anyone in particular who is responsible.

When considering this issue and my later amendment proposing a new compensation clause, it is necessary to take account of the fact that it is the Government's intention and desire--indeed, the whole purpose of the legislation--that there should be a substantial increase in the number of people who go on to the type of countryside covered by the Bill; otherwise, there would be no point in it. Therefore, something that does not involve cost, or which involves modest cost at present, will inevitably lead to substantially greater cost, or costs that previously did not exist, if what we are talking about turns out to be a flood right across the land rather than a trickle on a right of way.

We do not know how many people will exercise the right, but I am sure that the Government would not go through the trouble of introducing this legislation unless they assumed that the numbers would be quite substantial. There is a difference, which may be a difference in kind, not just a difference in quantity, when one is talking about large numbers of people following unfamiliar paths and going anywhere over land. The prospect of costs and expenses being incurred that are irrecoverable from any particular person is a real one. It would be unjust, unfair and probably contrary to the provisions of the convention on human rights for there to be no means of redress in such circumstances.

I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on whose behalf I have been proposing the amendment, is now back in his place. I am sure that a more full and cogent exposition of the merits of this proposed new clause will come from his lips in due course. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall begin my apologising for not being in my place when the amendment was called. My only mitigation, which may not excuse me, is the fact that the annunciator indicated that the House was still dealing with the Statement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, for moving the amendment. As for the part of his speech that I heard, he certainly did so very much better than I could have done. I am sure that he did equally as well in the part of his speech that I did not hear.

The amendment is based on the simple and, I venture to say, undeniable principle that a man must not be out of pocket because the Government have decided to give other people the right to walk across his land. I stress the words "out of pocket". This is not a clause about compensation; it is a clause solely about reimbursement of actual expenditure or loss. At present, if someone working with the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme, or whatever, seeks permission to take people across an occupier's land, the latter can say, "Yes, all right; but you must pay for any damage caused"--for example, a wall may be knocked down, sheep killed or something like that may happen. Even if that is not expressly stipulated, such an organisation would almost inevitably pay voluntarily for any damage caused because those concerned will want to return, and because they are decent people.

However, why should an occupier be worse off when the Government are giving permission on his behalf for people to enter the land and that results in damage by someone who cannot be identified, or who cannot pay? Why should the occupier have to expend money? Just before we adjourned to deal with the Statement, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, expressly said, in answer to the previous debate, that in those circumstances a landowner may well have to repair a stile, a gate or something like that--indeed, a stile or a gate that he does not need to use, but one that he has to repair because people will now be coming on to his land. Why should the landowner be put to such expense?

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that,

"only a very few landowners are likely to be significantly affected".--[Official Report, 3/10/00; col. 1498.]

I have two points to make in response. First, if that is right, it will not involve much money; and, therefore, I do not know what he is worrying about. Secondly, it is very little consolation to one landowner, who is "significantly affected" and seriously out of pocket, to know that there are many other occupiers who are not in the same boat. Indeed, one might go as far as to say that it will really add insult to injury to know that he is one of the few people who is suffering serious loss. The whole point of the concept of reimbursement of actual loss is to protect those people, who the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may say will be relatively few, who are adversely affected.

I should also stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, about the convention on human rights. In the light of that point, I am absolutely confident that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches who are so enthusiastic about that legislation will no doubt feel very keen to support this amendment.

My Lords, given that cue, I think that I should speak next. We are keen to support the Human Rights Act. I am sure that we shall return to that legislation when we deal with the other amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. However, I am not sure that this amendment is very attractive to us, except in a superficial way. Perhaps I may explain to noble Lords the problems that we have with it.

The amendment would encourage landowners to seek individual solutions every time that there seemed to be a problem or a cost involved. When we discuss the issue of wardens later, I believe that we shall begin to realise why an individual solution to every situation may well be less desirable than having a warden appointed to deal with the problems that will arise as a result of open access to land. It may perhaps be clearer if I give noble Lords an example.

An individual may well have already suffered as a result of granting open access on his land prior to this legislation coming into force. That may well be in the form of path erosion, especially if the land in question is popular. Where you have an access authority that is both active and responsible, the solution may be to form a partnership. Here I must declare an interest as I am vice-president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV). That partnership could be formed between, say, the voluntary sector, the private sector--for example, the hotels in the area--and the public sector. I think of the example of a national park authority. I should declare another interest as I am married to the chairman of Exmoor National Park Authority. I suggest that a successful partnership can be established to deal with the problem of path erosion.

Many other solutions would be more effective than simply paying an individual to solve a problem. That would be expensive for the public purse and may not prove to be the best solution. I certainly believe in looking after the interests of the public and the landowner in terms of ensuring that the public do not behave in an irresponsible manner. I believe that a warden scheme is likely to be the most effective solution to the problem we are discussing rather than a landowner employing someone to deal with it. I fear that Amendment No. 80 might lead us too far down the individual solution path. Therefore, we do not support it.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that, in the absence of the solution that she proposes and in the absence of any kind of guarantee of proper wardening, individuals will incur costs and expenses and it is right that those should be met? Only if she were completely confident that all of those costs and expenses could be met some other way would there be any justification for rejecting the amendment.

My Lords, if our amendments on local access forums had not been accepted and therefore landowners in the areas concerned did not have a strong voice, I might agree with the noble Lord. However, those amendments have been accepted and landowners will be strongly represented on local access forums. Given that landlords will have a strong voice and will have an input as to how public money will be spent in their interest as well as in that of the user groups, that solution should be the right one.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I think that she has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to compensate for expenses, costs and loss reasonably incurred as a result of the right we are discussing. It does not mention preventing damage through wardening. I fully accept what the noble Baroness said in that regard but I am talking about the situation where harm has occurred--for example, where one's sheep have been killed and one cannot find the man responsible; or where one has had to repair a stile; or where one's wall has been knocked down. None of that can be stopped by a warden. I fully accept that, where the access authority can deal with a situation, the damage will not be considered to be reasonably incurred. The amendment does not concern wardening or prevention but compensation or indemnification against out of pocket expenses. The noble Baroness mentioned human rights but is she confident that the amendment on compensation will be accepted?

My Lords, the provisions appear to be tightly drawn and do not relate to the kind of circumstances which the noble Baroness mentioned, for example, where there is already some erosion on paths and where schemes are already in place. The amendment deals specifically with instances where additional costs and expenses fall to the occupier as a direct result of the right given by this legislation, or the circumstances that the noble Viscount has just mentioned where some loss or liability results directly from the exercise of the right which is given under the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill, after all, is to give the public rights of access which they did not previously have. The burden of those rights of access must necessarily fall on landowners. Legislation which is intended to benefit us all should surely be paid for by us all. Few costs may result from the provisions. Other agencies or in some cases individuals may be responsible for the costs. But where a private landowner necessarily incurs out of pocket expenses in order to provide rights which all the rest of us can enjoy, there must surely, as a matter of fairness quite apart from any legal justification, be some provision in the legislation for those expenses to be met; otherwise, fairness goes out of the window.

My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. Again I declare an interest here. It might be worth remembering that when the Peak park authority drew up its access provisions--I believe that that occurred some time in the 1980s--it sought the services of the senior district valuer from Scotland whose job it was to assess what costs landowners were likely to incur (by "costs" I mean management costs as well as direct costs) as a direct result of the management agreements that were drawn up between that national park authority and owners and occupiers. Interestingly enough, they arrived at a figure of £4 an acre, notwithstanding any special costs that might have been incurred--to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred--or indeed the additional costs that landowners would have to incur on fencing mine shafts and so on which we discussed on a previous amendment.

Therefore a precedent has already been set. I am surprised therefore that the Government are taking what I might regard as a rather cavalier attitude towards this whole question of compensation. Incidentally, in addition to the £4 an acre which was paid to the owner and occupier as a direct result of the intervention of the district valuer from Scotland, it was assessed that the local access authority was likely to incur a further cost of £6 an acre. That would, of course, include the costs of wardening.

On the question of access forums and wardens dealing with these matters, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong. They will have a role and play a part but they cannot be involved in any agreements that are likely to be drawn up between owners and occupiers and the access authority. Those agreements take time to draw up and they are expensive, as many of us already know to our cost. Certainly any direct costs that are incurred have nothing to do with access forums and wardens. As I say, a precedent has been set. I should have thought therefore that my noble friend's amendment is all the more relevant.

My Lords, will the Minister explain what happens when access leads to the need for a change in a farming system? I have a particular example in mind. On many hill farms it is still the practice to lamb on the hill. It is believed that lambs grow up hardy as a result of that exposure. On the hill there is much rough country, and lambs and ewes can get behind tussocks of grass for protection. For a variety of reasons many farmers lamb on the hill. The hill may be situated two, three or four miles away from a farm. If people come on the hill with dogs during lambing, or during the period when ewes are heavy in lamb--one must recognise that the shepherds will already be walking the hill in question three times a day--there is a real possibility that on some farms lambing on the hill will cease to be possible. Let us assume for the sake of argument that that is the case. If farming is to be sustained on those farms, it will then be necessary to put up a lambing shed. Who will pay for that lambing shed?

My Lords, on a somewhat smaller but important point, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Brittan mentioned insurance--although I missed the first half-minute of his speech and apologise to him.

Landowners and occupiers have an insurance policy against people being injured on their land in the general way. In England and Wales there is at present the law of trespass. That is, presumably, mainly an insurance policy against people being damaged by, let us say, a fallen tree on a footpath. My experience is that that is a quite low premium. However, that premium is bound to increase when people can roam across the land in many directions. That will be a cost. Surely that must be recouped in some way because it is a cost expressly imposed by Parliament on people who are running their business. That seems to me an additional reason why the amendment is important.

My Lords, I mention two matters in support of the amendment which limit its effect and which the Government should bear in mind with some comfort to themselves. First, subsection (1) refers to,

"costs and expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the right conferred by section 2(1)".

I shall not go into the full details of Clause 2(1) because it refers to considerable parts of the Bill. It means that there are limitations.

The Government can take even more comfort from this second point. Subsection (2) of the amendment provides that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations as to the conditions for entitlement to the indemnity. That gives the Government very great power for limiting the application. With those two thoughts in mind, I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment.

My Lords, if the Bill is to be a success, the key word is harmony. I refer to harmony between the countryside and those who wish to have access under the new legislation. In order to help those farmers and landowners who put their fences, gates and stiles in good shape, it seems a small concession for the Government to be somewhat more generous than at present.

We have had some concessions from the Government, but nothing like enough. It would be a big step forward for those who will have to face expensive costs--the landowners or tenants of the land--if the Government were prepared to meet those costs. If the Government agree to meet them, let us try to cut out some of the bureaucracy which attaches at present to almost any application for any grant for any quango in this country. All noble Lords who speak from practical experience of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the NCC, English Nature or SNH and so on, know that it is a major task to obtain what the farmer or landowner may consider a legitimate grant.

If the Government are keen to make the Bill a success--from the efforts they have put into it one presumes that they are--it is right that they should support the amendment put forward so well by my noble friend Lord Brittan and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and demonstrate some support for the agricultural and land-owning industry which will undoubtedly be put to immense costs by the Bill. The Minister may say that the provision will affect relatively few landowners and farms. That is all the more reason that he should be more conciliatory.

We have spent many days debating how to minimise the impact of the Bill on landowners and land managers, including the cost to them. I am still unclear why Members opposite feel the need for extra compensation. Many of our debates have centred on how to minimise the effects of the Bill and how to provide support through warden schemes and extra financial help. I am not convinced of the need for the amendment.

My Lords, I wish to raise three points. First, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just said, the Liberal Party spokesman has not addressed the amendment. Before we vote on the issue, I hope that someone from the Liberal Benches will address the amendment; otherwise it would be rather unreasonable to leave Members of the Liberal Party without guidance. I give way.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may clarify what I said. The amendment refers to "any"--I emphasise that word-- "additional costs and expenses". It does not refer to exceptional costs and expenses. That is why I gave a broad reply. It is a broad amendment.

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has made that point. It brings me to my second point.

The amendment relates to specific costs, which have to be demonstrable and, therefore, a matter of fact. I am not a lawyer; we are surrounded by brilliant lawyers. But I understand that matters of fact in these cases are for the courts to determine, as the Inland Revenue is always telling us.

Thirdly, if the Government resist the amendment, do they not put themselves in a different position from other third parties which impose costs on others? I hope that they will deal with that specific point. If they are doing so, perhaps I may suggest to them that under the provisions of the European convention again it will not be for the Government but for the courts to determine whether liability exists.

My Lords, I support the amendment. I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton--she is normally very clued up--who implied that, as we have spent a great deal of time on the issue, the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that I misunderstand her. She is a realist. In reality there is a problem. We have approved government Amendment No. 77 which states that there will be some burdens. The noble Baroness cannot argue that there will be no expenses when the Government clearly expect some. I do not follow her reasoning.

I shall not repeat the many points raised. However, if the issue will not affect many people, I do not understand why the Government shy away from it. Perhaps there are more hidden issues on the agenda than we have touched on. I do not anticipate that the Government will say no to the amendment. We have not given the Minister a chance to say that he willingly accepts the amendment. I shall encourage him to say that, having heard the many arguments, the Government are willing to consider the amendment.

My Lords, I deeply regret that I cannot respond positively in the way requested by the noble Baroness. We have discussed previously general provisions on compensation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is a somewhat open-ended call for compensation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, and others, I acknowledge that the amendment is more precisely drafted than any that we have dealt with before on the subject. It reflects the concern that any right of access will give rise to substantial costs.

Everything that we have done in the Bill and in every amendment that we have conceded in favour of the landlords minimises the cost on landowners. Substantial costs will not arise in this case. The aim of the Bill is to enable people to walk over countryside that has limited--possibly important, but still limited--use without interfering with the ability of owners or occupiers to use or develop the land as they did before. There is no requirement on landowners to become involved in expenditure to facilitate access to the land.

The impact of walkers on owners and occupiers will be minimal. The amendments to which we have already agreed will reduce that minimal impact still further. For example, the new restrictions on dogs and feeding livestock that we agreed the other day will limit the impact to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred.

My Lords, am I right in believing that the amendments limit the impact of dogs only in fields and enclosures and not on the open hill? I was referring to lambing on the open hill, which is quite common.

My Lords, it depends on the definition of "enclosure". In many cases, hill farming will include an enclosure. The noble Lord may be right in part in relation to dogs, but the main right is for people to walk.

My Lords, I was referring to Amendment No. 118.

Yes, my Lords, we are referring to the amendments that were debated the other day on dogs in the lambing season. There is only a limited likelihood of any additional cost being imposed on hill farmers as a result of a relatively small number of people walking on the land. Other circumstances, such as severe weather, are much more likely to have an adverse impact on open fell lambing. We do not see any reason to fund the building of lambing sheds or any other change in operations that the farmer might have to undertake.

If problems arose in a particular area and there was a serious impact on the landowner, the relevant authorities could make a direction to exclude or restrict access during the relevant period. I know that many noble Lords do not trust the access authorities or the countryside authorities to undertake activities in the landowners' interests, but that is a seriously misplaced and wrong judgment. Any impact that seriously affects the ability to carry out land management in the usual way will be taken seriously by the authorities in agreeing to a restriction.

The liability of owners and occupiers is minimal. It is a liability in relation to trespassers. That minimal liability has been further qualified by the many amendments that we have made during the passage of the Bill, which have been consistently in favour of landowners. The right of access will be tightly prescribed. We will finance the access authorities to fund measures to facilitate access. That cross will not fall on the landowners. The access authorities may well co-operate with landowners in establishing stiles or other means of access, but the cost for access purposes will fall on the access authorities. We also propose to enable the Countryside Agency to operate a grant scheme for works to help landowners manage access in the best possible way.

We are providing a number of ways to avoid any costs falling on landowners. The demand that compensation should be paid in such a relatively open-ended way because of substantial costs to landowners does not stand up.

My Lords, will the Minister address my specific point about the assessment made by the district valuer from Scotland of the costs incurred by landowners because of the access agreements in the Peak park at £4 an acre?

My Lords, on existing access land there are arrangements between the access authority--usually the national park--and landowners, under which payments are made to landowners in respect of access. However, in those places landowners have no right to apply for restrictions, there is no reduction in their liability and there is no provision for reimbursement by the access authorities for expenditure to facilitate access in the way that I have described. All those aspects are reflected in statutory rights or limitations and statutory reimbursement in the Bill. That does not apply to voluntary access in the Peak park.

My Lords, with respect, I have a copy of the Peak District National Park Authority agreement on access. There is a general indemnity against anybody incurring liabilities under the agreement.

My Lords, that is not a statutory indemnity. We are talking about the statutory balance between restricting liability, providing for reimbursement and restricting the impact of access to minimise the costs to occupiers and land managers. All of that operates in favour of the landowner. The amendment would provide for financial compensation that is already met by the other provisions of the Bill.

In some circumstances the landowner will voluntarily undertake certain costs. There may be benefits to him from co-operating with the access authority to provide a facility that benefits him at least as much as it benefits the users of the access right. The costs of making provision solely for access rights would fall on the access authority where it judged the work necessary, not on the landowner.

The impact may be more significant for a minority of landowners, such as those who own honeypot sites. Our approach is to deal with such situations by agreement and by management. That is why the attack on the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was misplaced. She said clearly that arrangements ought to be established by consensus and agreement, not by an adversarial process of compensation. The local access forum will have a major role to play, as will the agreements between the access authority and landowners.

In some honeypot situations, the landowner will have opportunities to recoup some costs by diversifying and providing commercial facilities. The costs can be met in all sorts of ways. Compensation creates a psychology of confrontation and an inappropriately adversarial arrangement. Only a few hours ago we made provision for local access forums and for arrangements under which the access authority would cover the cost of facilitating access.

The argument that the Government should provide for compensation if they think that the costs are minimal should be addressed in that context. Providing for a general right of compensation, even in the relatively precise terms of the amendment, means presuming that the issues will be dealt with through a system of compensation and claims, whereas we want the facilitating, managing and operating of access to be addressed in local access forums by agreements and by co-operation between the access authorities and landowners and users.

It is in that context that we address the problems where costs are incurred. By and large, such costs would be met in other ways. If we start to provide for a system of compensation, not only will the access authorities be tempted to say, "OK, that is what we want. If you don't like it then go for compensation", it will also provide for unscrupulous landowners to go through the courts and claim compensation before they agree to any form of access. We want the presumption to be that there will be agreement. This amendment is based on the presumption that there will not be agreement.

Finally, perhaps I may address--

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will assist me on one point. Much concern has been expressed in many areas about the future of agreements such as those operative in the Peak District, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Peel. Will the passage of this Bill into law mean the end of those agreements?

No, my Lords. As with other voluntary access, the voluntary agreements are not affected directly by this Bill. Should those agreements fall at some point, the statutory back-up may well come into play; currently it does not. However, there is no presumption that such voluntary arrangements would fall with the passage of this Bill and I would not expect them to do so.

Finally, I address briefly the point raised in relation to human rights. We went over this matter at an earlier stage and I rather suspect that it will be addressed more fully when we come to the later amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. I was asked to check our legal advice on this matter. I have now done so. The legal advice remains that this issue does not create a problem in relation to the Human Rights Act and that the proposals are fully consistent with that Act. As I said, we may well wish to return to the issue and I shall save further details until then.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that he has dealt with only half of the amendment? He has spoken at great length about why the landowner will not need to incur costs and expenses. However, he has not dealt at all with loss caused to a landowner by someone who exercises the right. Someone may let his dog off the lead and it may then kill some sheep. We may not know who that person is or he may not have any money. The noble Lord has not dealt with such a scenario. No amount of saying that the access authority will carry out many good deeds will prevent such a situation happening or give the owner consolation for his dead sheep. The noble Lord has not dealt at all with that aspect.

My Lords, the matter of someone letting loose a dog will not be covered by this Act any more than it is at present by any other legislation. If we expect the statutes of the land to provide for compensation from the public purse for all unidentified vandals and all people who breach the restrictions of the law, that should apply to all property owners and all commercial operations right across the land.

Once again, the landowners in this debate are seeking special treatment for landowners in this particular situation. That is something that I have attempted to resist throughout our debates. I accept that a degree of balance must be established. However, I do not believe that the type of special treatment sought under this amendment is appropriate in these circumstances.

My Lords, it must be wrong to say that if this amendment were passed it would mean that unidentified vandalism of any property would have to be compensated by the Government. After all, this Bill proposes a new risk to landowners which is not the same type of risk to which all householders are exposed. Because access will be granted, damage may indeed be incurred to the landowner's property and also to his preferred way of farming, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has already pointed out. Compensation is being proposed only within the context of this Bill. So far as I understand the amendment, it has no further general application whatever.

My Lords, that is precisely the point that I am making. Effectively, subsection (2) of the amendment suggests that the state will compensate such landowners for unidentified criminal damage--to livestock in the example given by the noble Viscount--whereas in no other situation does the state provide such an indemnity. I do not consider that to be appropriate in these circumstances. Given all the other safeguards that we have built into the Bill in the course of the deliberations in this House, I believe that it would open a door and create a precedent which is not to be found in any other area of property law.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say in what other circumstances members of the general public can go on private land as a matter of right? What compensation is available for the landowners in such cases? I think particularly of someone who is careless with a cigarette, throws it away and burns a man's grazing. How will the owner of the grazing feed his stock if the area where people are allowed to walk is burnt?

My Lords, it is a criminal offence to light a fire. If one cannot catch the criminal, one cannot prosecute him. That applies just as much to all owners of property as it does to owners of access land. From time to time, all owners of property are subject to graffiti, damage and other activity by vandals and criminals. However, we do not turn to the state to compensate them.

My Lords, in listening to the Minister's response to this debate, I could not help feeling that his sense of justice was overwhelmed by his admiration for his own generosity. I do not believe that that is a justified response to a debate or an answer to a serious point. In fact, the last points made by the Minister were the least persuasive of all.

It simply will not do to present this amendment as if it were seeking to give landlords a privileged position or a special benefit. It is wholly different from a situation in which in the ordinary course of events someone suffers loss or incurs expense and cannot recoup it because he cannot find the person responsible or the person cannot find money. The fundamental difference is that in this case the loss and expense have been incurred because of the action of the Government and Parliament in passing this legislation. That is a fundamental difference. It is no use the Minister shaking his head. In a reasonably extended response he has not given a single reason why it is not a wholly different situation.

The questions that the House must consider are whether costs and expenses are incurred; whether it is reasonable that those should be met; and whether this position is a reasonable way to meet them or whether there is an alternative. I want to address particularly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in the hope that, even at this late hour, I can persuade her to join us in the Division Lobbies where I believe we should go in support of this amendment.

First, the relevance of what my noble friend Lord Peel said about the situation in the Peak District was simply that there it was recognised that special rights of entry were likely to cause injury or damage and therefore an indemnity existed for that. The point is that the district valuer calculated what the costs were likely to be. That shows that, in circumstances where extended rights of access are given, it is likely that costs will be incurred. From all quarters of the House countless examples have been given of costs, expenses and losses that would be incurred, and the Minister has not been able to deny them for a single moment.

I turn to the matter of insurance. The Minister made a point about the wonderful provisions in the Bill and the extreme generosity of the Government in mitigating the costs. No one denies the costs, whether they be incurred through insurance or the possibility of loss referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his recent intervention. Money will be expended and costs will be incurred. The question which arises is that, if costs and expenses are incurred as a result of legislation, should there not be a provision for those costs to be met? What is the answer to that? The answer is, first, it will not be as bad as all that because of the all the wonderful things we have done.

In that regard, I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and say that even if you accept that the provisions with regard to access forums make it possible to reduce substantially the risk of damage and losses being incurred, and even if you add to that the further provisions with regard to wardening and all the steps which the Government have genuinely taken which are good to try to reduce the likelihood that there will be costs or the extent of those costs, nobody could possibly say that that is a total solution to the problem. Even if the forums worked wonderfully, the wardens were put into existence and the authorities acted in good faith with generosity, nobody could possibly say that that would prevent costs or expenses being incurred by the individual landowner. At most, it will reduce the amount which will be incurred.

To the extent that it reduces it, it will reduce the amount of compensation which will be payable under this provision. Therefore, it is not right to say, as the Minister said, that that will stir up litigation and make it confrontational, whereas what the Minister prefers is the more conciliatory approach which has the agreement of everybody concerned.

Frankly, it is disingenuous to pretend that that is an answer to the debate, because if those provisions with regard to access forums reduce the amount of costs and expenses incurred, nobody could possibly suggest that they will eliminate them. The lower they are, the lower will be the bill that the Government have to meet if this amendment is passed. Therefore, the Minister should welcome it.

It is quite unfair and meretricious to pretend that this is stirring up litigation or confrontation when everything could be settled peacefully and comfortably around the forum table. That is absolute nonsense and the Minister in his heart of hearts knows it. The truth of the matter is that he is saying that he has gone far enough and he does not have the stomach or the patience to go further. That is not a way to legislate or to do justice.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, looks at the new clause, she will see that it is couched in extremely moderate terms. The point that she makes about exceptional expenditure is covered by the fact that costs and losses can be recovered only where the expenses have been reasonably incurred. That means that if the actions of the forum enable the problem to be solved in some way and the other wonderful measures enable the problem to be solved, then there is no claim. It is only after all that has failed and losses and expenses have been incurred that this provision bites.

It is extremely difficult to see that a concern for the human rights convention would enable one to come to the conclusion that if all other measures fail and losses are still incurred, there should not be this modest, carefully and narrowly-drawn provision for meeting those costs and expenses. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will join us in the Division Lobbies in support of adding an element of justice to what is already provided. I hope that the Minister will not feel that because he has met some concerns, he should resist others, provided that those concerns are legitimate and moderately couched.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 159.

Division number 2

See full list of votes (From The Public Whip)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 14 [Offence of displaying on access land notices deterring public use]:

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Clause 16 [Dedication of land as access land]:

[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 83:

After Clause 16, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:POWER TO CARRY OUT REMEDIAL WORKS

(" .--(1) Where any land which is open country is overgrown to the extent that its condition is likely to deter the use of that land by any person for the purposes of open air recreation, a competent authority may carry out such remedial work on that land as it considers necessary or expedient to restore that land to a condition suitable for such use.

(2) In the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1), a duly authorised officer of a competent authority may enter on the land and may take with him such vehicles, machinery and other equipment as may be requisite.

(3) Before entering on any land, a competent authority shall give the owner of the land not less than twenty-four hours notice of their intention to do so or, where it is not practicable to ascertain the name and address of the owner, shall affix a notice at a conspicuous position at the boundary of that land.

(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall specify--

(a) the land to which it relates;

(b) the work to be carried out; and

(c) the date and time when the power to enter on the land will be exercised.

(5) A competent authority may recover from the owner of any land the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in carrying out works on that land to the extent that the owner has received or is entitled to receive any grant or other money from public funds for such works.

(6) The power under subsection (1) shall not be exercised in respect of the same land by any competent authority more than once in any period of five years.

(7) In this section "competent authority" means a local authority or--

(a) in respect of land in England, the Countryside Agency; and

(b) in respect of land in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales.").

My Lords, Amendment No. 83 is tabled in my name. The new clause seeks to deal with a problem that I hope would not be a common one, but nevertheless is difficult and not easily resolved. I refer to the position where access land becomes overgrown to the point where those who have the right of access cannot, in practice, use it. In other words, the land would have to be in a very bad state indeed.

If that point was reached, as far as I can see in the Bill as it stands, no redress is possible. If that is not the case, I should be glad to be advised. I am not imputing to any landowner any malicious or evil intent in that regard. There may well be perfectly understandable reasons why the land goes to pot. However, if that does arise, there is the practical difficulty of resolving it.

The suggestion is that, having given proper notice, competent authorities--that is, local authorities, the Countryside Agency or the equivalent body in Wales--would be allowed to move in and deal with the land in the appropriate fashion, whatever that might be. It has been suggested to me that this is a draconian type of power. However, I suggest that it would not need to be used often. In any case, there are certain brakes on the procedure: first, through the competent authorities which are not likely to move in an unreasonable way; secondly, notice has to be given; and, thirdly, one cannot go onto the same land over and over again. There is a five-year limit on the time when one might enter the land for the purpose of clearing it.

After listening to the debates on the local access fora--or, as I believe we now must call them, forums--it occurred to me that if people are still concerned, that might be an additional filter. It might be useful to place before them for consideration the problem of neglected land before the procedure which I outline kicks in. Obviously, that cannot be done now. However, if the Government were minded to accept the purpose of the clause in principle, I have no doubt that that could be amended at a later stage.

The amendment attempts to deal with the problem of neglected land where it prevents those who have the right of access from so doing. In that spirit, I beg to move.

My Lords, I see the point of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. However, I have one concern. The land to which she refers as "neglected land" could, in the mean time, have developed considerable conservation value. There is nothing in the amendment which would protect that value. If the land has developed its value to such an extent that it becomes a site of special scientific interest, there is not a problem because the rest of the Bill looks after it. However, if it has simply become valuable in terms of its local biodiversity and therefore needs to be at least considered before it is destroyed, I would be worried that her amendment would prevent that happening. Apart from that, I can see what the noble Baroness is aiming at. In essence, I approve of what she is trying to do.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what she means by "overgrown"? Does she mean, for example, bracken? Very often that is combined with the sort of circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. Is she thinking of bracken or scrub of some kind? I would have thought that those are the kind of conditions which ramblers would enjoy. That is part of the fun of rambling. I cannot understand the concern of those who suggest that the amendment is important.

My Lords, I add my concerns to those of my noble friend Lady Nicol. I can understand the purpose behind the amendment but feel that it is rather too wholesale in its application.

The sorts of powers described to clear overgrown land are fairly unfettered. Scrubbing up of land is not always a bad thing. Scrub is a natural part of the landscape and may well be enjoyed by walkers. Areas of scrub, tall herbs and young trees are developed when grazing is reduced and it is often very good for birds. It provides shelter and food sources for butterflies and other invertebrates. I would be concerned that the wholesale powers to clean up scrub could well go beyond what is the intent of the amendment, which is simply to clear paths for access. That could be interpreted to mean the wholesale tidying up of access land, which could be bad for the diversity of the landscape and the wildlife it contains. It is a tenet that is true, and often misunderstood, that tidiness in the countryside is almost always a vice and not a virtue.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what is meant by the phrase, "a competent authority"? It seems to be somewhat imprecise. I can imagine circumstances in which there might be more than one authority which thought itself competent to deal with such a matter.

My Lords, I have limited sympathy with this amendment, to the extent that, as a child, I used to get scratched and have my clothes torn by going through scrub. My children have done it too and I confess that there have been times when I have done it as a grown-up. But that is part of being in the countryside. I would not like our countryside to be cleaned up too much. What is the fun of picking brambles unless one gets scratched at times; indeed, would there be any brambles if the scrub of which they are part was destroyed?

Although the amendment is clearly well meant and has been carefully thought out, it produces too many difficulties. We have been at pains to reassure landowners and farmers that the right of access will not interfere with their freedom to manage the land, subject to existing constraints. But this amendment would interfere with that freedom. It would not place any burden on landowners. But it would give local authorities the power to say, "We believe your land management is interfering with public access and intend to do something about it". There is a hint of the municipal park in that which does not make me happy.

Of course, lack of active land management is a bad thing. But that does not mean that land management has to be universal all over the landowner's land. My noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady Young made the point about conservation of wildlife. I agree with that point and do not need to repeat it. I just do not believe it is right for local authorities to interfere with matters like this and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on reflection, will think so as well.

My Lords, I am sorry that this amendment met such a lukewarm, if not hostile, response. But I shall take it as friendly criticism. I have no intention of creating municipal parks. I enjoy the countryside sufficiently to know that brambles and bracken are desirable rather than otherwise.

As I indicated at the beginning, I am concerned with the small minority of cases where the countryside is overgrown to such an extent that it is impossible to walk. It was only in those circumstances that I wanted this clause to bite.

I was asked who the competent authority would be. It is set out in the amendment that it would be a local authority, the Countryside Agency, or the Countryside Council for Wales. I would hope that at least the Countryside Agency could be absolved from any desire to sanitise or make municipal parks out of the natural countryside. However, I suggested that if people were unhappy about the nature of the powers in the amendment, it might be possible to use the local access forum before any decision is made. That is not in the amendment as it stands because I was not thinking about those forums at the time. But that might provide the kind of break which noble Lords would consider salutary.

I hoped to receive a more enthusiastic response. I must read the debate and see whether or not I can obtain further support. I doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 84:

After Clause 16, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:("Visitor Management facilities

:TITLE3:Visitor management facilities.

.--(1) Where access to access land gives rise to a need for the provision of new or improved visitor management facilities there shall be a duty on the access authority to provide funding for the provision and maintenance of the facility.

(2) Where agreement on the need for such facilities or the cost of providing them cannot be achieved, the parties shall have resort to a dispute resolution process prescribed by the Secretary of State.").

My Lords, we come back to touch in a more limited way on extra costs that might be imposed upon owners and occupiers. The Government reassured us from time to time and, when discussing Amendment No. 80, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, "Substantial costs will not arise" and "landlords will not be required to spend money as a result of the provisions of this Bill".

In the debate on Amendment No. 72 I commented on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Peel and the extra costs of fencing in and signing the mines that were at the moment open--those pre-1872. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at that time that there would be help with finances. But that does not appear on the face of the Bill.

My particular concern relates to what are termed "visitor management facilities". If the situation arises where it is clear that something is required in order to facilitate access to an area in a sensible and measured way but the access authority does not spend the money there will be a mess. For instance, there might be a mass of cars at the side of the road instead of being properly co-ordinated and parked; there may be a lack of signage in order to help people to find the areas where they can be provided with information such as the best route from where they parked their car.

So the purpose of Amendment No. 84 is to say that there "shall" be a duty on the access authority to provide funding in the event of a need for a visitor management facility. I included a second clause which provides that, if there is a dispute--this might arise between the landlord and the access authority--then it should be resolved by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore is designed to help in a potentially difficult situation and should benefit those who wish to have access to the countryside as well as the owners and occupiers. I beg to move.

My Lords, we agree with the aim of Amendment No. 84 in seeking to provide adequate visitor facilities. But we do not agree that the duty should always lie on the access authorities. First, as I mentioned in Committee, it is frequently the local pub which provides many of the facilities such as toilet blocks and car parks and relies on the trade from them. Secondly, the provision may be subject to other sorts of partnership.

Therefore, while I cannot support the amendment, I agree that access authorities need to take seriously their obligations in ensuring that there are visitor management facilities, perhaps by helping people to bid for funding to enhance their facilities or in drawing together public/private partnerships. So the aim is worthy, but we cannot support the amendment.

My Lords, the Government are in full agreement with those who wish to see facilities provided where they are needed to help manage the right of access for the benefit of walkers and land managers alike. We also agree that landowners should not generally be obliged to pay for such facilities. As was explained in Committee, the Bill already allows for facilities to be provided at taxpayers' expense; for example, as information points under Clause 19 or means of access land under Chapter II.

It is fair to say that the Bill allows for the possibility that an access authority may seek a contribution from a landowner in respect of an agreement to create or improve a means of access. The means is simple: there may be occasions when the landowner or farmer may benefit just as much as walkers from the provision of facilities. Or perhaps the access authority has offered to install a stile but the farmer would prefer a more expensive new gate. It could be agreed that the authority contributes, for example, the equivalent of the cost of the stile and the landowner contributes the additional amount in order to ensure that he acquires the suitable facility.

However, the key point is that there is no requirement for a landowner to pay towards the cost of facilities. If it is not possible to conclude an agreement between the landowner and the authority, the authority will have the power to carry out specified works at its own expense. Here, the landowner will not be required to pay a penny.

We would be fearful of opening the way for costly and bureaucratic disputes by imposing a duty on access authorities to provide new visitor management facilities "where they are needed". We believe that access authorities will have the necessary knowledge and expertise to decide where facilities are needed and the Bill already allows them to do that. The best way forward is open, constructive negotiation with those having an interest in the land and on the basis of discussion with others concerned, including the local access forum. Landowners will, in any case, be free to make representations to their local authority--or, indeed, to the local access forum--about where they believe facilities are needed and the form they should take.

Perhaps I may add a note of caution about the number and type of facilities that are appropriate to open countryside. We would caution against a sea of car parks and visitor centres. Major new facilities of that nature are unlikely to be needed often but there may be places, particularly near towns, where the landowner wants to be involved in the provision of a car park which could be a commercial venture allied to other facilities.

The facilities which are likely to be commonly needed--for example, stiles, gates and notices--are catered for under Clause 19 and Chapter III of the Bill. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the new clause is not necessary and I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before she sits down. She said that there was no requirement on landowners to bear the cost. Can she direct me to that provision in the Bill? It may be that I am not looking in the right place.

My Lords, at no point does the Bill impose a duty on the landowner to provide facilities. It is not possible to point to a place in the Bill because there is no such requirement on the landowner.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There is common ground between us. I tabled my amendment in order to ascertain what happens when a facility is clearly required but the access authority does not have the money. The access authority could well agree with the landowner, saying, "We could not agree more. Something needs to be done but we have no money because we decided to spend it on social security care and so on. It is too bad for those who want access to that piece of land. They will have to put up with the situation and so will you".

The Minister slightly misunderstood my point. The purpose behind my amendment is to force the access authority to do something. I take issue with her on a point, also made in Committee, that car parks can become commercial ventures. That is so only in very limited circumstances. By and large, car parks providing access are not paying ventures. They generally cost money to run either because someone must be paid to collect the money or because meters have to be provided. Alternatively, they must be free of charge.

I hope that the Government will ensure that the access authorities provide such facilities because they will be needed. I agree that there will not be a plethora of them--no one wants that in the countryside--but only when they are badly needed will the access authority act and spend the money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [Byelaws]:

moved Amendment No. 85:

Clause 17, page 10, line 10, at beginning insert--

("( ) The appropriate countryside body shall issue draft model byelaws which access authorities may adapt to take account of differing local circumstances.").

My Lords, we return to model by-laws. It is another amendment which the Left wing of the Labour Party--I am sorry, the Liberal Democrats--will meet half way but never the whole way. They will sit on the fence and say, "We quite like what you are saying but we are not going to do anything about it".

There should be draft model by-laws and I have taken on board what was said in Committee. I believe that the countryside body should issue national by-laws which give certainty to owners and occupiers and to those who want access to the country. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment and wish to speak to my Amendments Nos. 86 and 90. Amendment No. 86 ensures that under by-laws walkers do not interfere with the rights of owners and occupiers in managing and enjoying their own land. We believe that that is most important.

By omitting that requirement it might be argued that owners and occupiers are not specifically covered, except in so far as they are "other persons" referred to in the Bill. That is manifestly not the case because owners and occupiers have rights of ownership or tenancy over the land, entitling them to do things which walkers are not able to do.

Secondly, the point should be made that owners and occupiers have no fewer rights over the land than walkers. After a suitable interval, most people have a long holiday period. Many have five weeks plus statutory days, making 36 days in all. Under the Bill, the Government propose to allow owners and occupiers only 28 days in total, with no statutory days. An amendment recently moved would allow for Saturdays. We believe that we should allow owners and occupiers at least the right to a by-law to protect enjoyment of their own land in their own way.

I turn to Amendment No. 90, which I hope the Minister will accept because the Government have previously made suggestions about parishes. Much of the land over which open access will be granted is remote from large towns which tend to house the seat of local government. Parish councils can be miles away from the district offices. Unless parish councils can enforce by-laws the procedure for following up infringements will be long-winded and costly, and there is a danger that many will go by the board. That will lead to a growing awareness that the law is weak, and certain persons and interests may be tempted to take advantage of the situation.

By and large, people who live in urban areas do not suffer to the same extent as those who live in more rural areas. I refer to the practice of fly-tipping lorry loads of rubbish across gateways and minor roads and the disposal of litter, to which we shall return in later amendments. If those who live in urban areas find an intruder in their home the nearest policeman is likely to be only a couple of miles or just a few minutes away. For that precise reason, in the countryside an intruder is much more likely to finish his self-appointed task than to run for it immediately, knowing full well that the police will not be quickly at hand.

A parish council is much more immediate than a district authority. If circumstances require urgent attention the council can be convened in days, and for that reason we have tabled Amendment No. 90 which seeks to include a parish council.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, believes that we have been sitting on the fence. We have voted vigorously on all amendments.

Always with the Labour Party!

My Lords, we have always voted according to our beliefs.

I turn to Amendment No. 85 which was debated at length in Committee. We agreed then that model by-laws were important. Clause 17(3) makes plain that the access authority must consult the appropriate countryside body. We are pleased that, with the addition of Amendment No. 87 which has already been spoken to by the Government, the local access forum must also be consulted. We believe that that is particularly important when model by-laws are adapted to take account of differing circumstances.

I have no particular qualms about supporting the noble Earl's amendment, but I do not want him to believe that he has forced me into it. I am not sure that the amendment adds a great deal to what is already on the face of the Bill, but for what it is worth it appears to be a worthy amendment.

I understand the purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Perhaps the remoter parishes should have power to enforce by-laws. From my experience, the difficulty is that some parishes do not want that responsibility. However, the amendment says "may enforce" and the responsibility can be left to the county or district council. Therefore, I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable request.

My Lords, I refer briefly to Amendment No. 88 in my name. I have tabled this amendment in order to make a suggestion to the Government. Earlier in our debate today my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, quite properly, that the public would be given rights which they had not previously held. The problem is that sometimes the public may not accurately perceive what those rights are. There is at least the possibility that the public will assume that the present regulations which govern public rights of way are to be relaxed under by-laws. However, public rights of way--certainly footpaths--may be seriously damaged if a relaxed attitude is taken to them. A public footpath is for people to walk and the Bill is designed to extend access to people on foot.

Unfortunately, in many parts of the country people use wheeled vehicles on footpaths. I am strongly in favour of the provision of an adequate network of bridlepaths, but in areas where they are not in abundance some people take their horses on footpaths. In that event, particularly following weather of the kind that we are now experiencing, footpaths may be virtually impassable except by a young athlete. If we are to promote exercise, good health and so on, it is necessary to remind people that when the Bill becomes law the regulations which govern public rights of way should continue to specify that public footpaths are for people on foot and that bridlepaths are for people on horses; and I am not sure that wheeled vehicles should be used on either of them.

I hope the Government ensure that there is no public misunderstanding. For that reason, my amendment seeks to insert the words,

"by those acting in accordance with the nature of the right".

I shall not press the amendment. However, the Government would be wise to take careful note of the need, which I hope I have addressed in my brief remarks, to provide clear and positive advice to the public when the Bill is enacted.

My Lords, I should like to touch briefly on Amendment No. 85. These days my heart sinks when I hear the word "by-law". The making of by-laws under the Local Government Act procedures is tortuous in the extreme. It involves consultation with anyone with any interest whatever in the site, which can range from individuals, parish and district councils, statutory undertakers and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. With a favourable wind, it takes a minimum of about six months, and often longer. Amendment No. 85, which is concerned with model by-laws, has merit in that anything that helps to take the pain out of the process should be supported. I am not sure, however, that it needs to be on the face of the Bill; it should perhaps merely be an admonition to the Countryside Agency.

My Lords, first I refer to government Amendments Nos. 89 and 262 which are in this group. We gave a commitment during Committee to table an amendment which would enable access authorities to make by-laws in advance of the right coming into force. These amendments fulfil that commitment. Amendment No. 89 means that by-laws can be made when land is likely to become access land, but the Secretary of State may not confirm them until the land is access land. Amendment No. 262 provides that Clause 17 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.

As to by-laws, I have some sympathy for the observations of my noble friend Lady Young. We do not believe that access authorities should adopt a blanket approach to by-laws. By-laws should be made in response to particular problems which need to be addressed with a criminal penalty. Authorities are unlikely to know in advance whether any activities will cause problems, but we accept that there may be some cases, such as on land where there is already significant de facto access, where the authority sees a need for by-laws. Our amendments will enable by-laws to be made in those circumstances.

I turn to Amendment No. 85. My noble friend Lord Whitty explained in Committee that the countryside bodies were already under a duty, as a result of a government amendment at Report stage in another place, to provide guidance to access authorities about the exercise of their by-law making powers. Those recommendations are likely to include advice about where by-laws may be appropriate or useful, and, once confirmed, how they may best be publicised. We recognise that model by-laws can be a useful way to provide those guidelines. If experience shows that by-laws are needed in a significant number of areas--in other words, where the model is sufficiently widespread--the Secretary of State will consider whether it is helpful to issue model by-laws.

We accept that model by-laws can be helpful to local authorities. As my noble friend Lady Young says, they may cut short the consultation and planning stage. We shall be very ready to provide them if it becomes apparent that they are necessary and once we know what they are likely to cover. Therefore, one says without any sense of antagonism to Amendment No. 85 that one should let the countryside bodies issue the guidance and see whether it is sufficiently generalised to justify model by-laws. If so, not only would there be no objection to the Secretary of State making model by-laws--with the legal resources available to him, it would be a matter for him rather than the countryside bodies--but we believe that it would be a positively good idea. We just do not want to do it in blanket form.

Amendment No. 86, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would add that by-laws may be made to secure that those exercising the right of access do not interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the "owner or occupier". I can give the noble Baroness a categoric assurance that Clause 17(1)(c), which refers to the,

"enjoyment of the land by other persons", already provides for that. In other words, owners and occupiers are among those other persons. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.

I turn to Amendment No. 90. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, which unsuccessfully sought to persuade governments of all parties to extend parish councils to the urban areas of England. There are no parish councils in urban areas. Parish councils, both in urban areas and in rural areas, should have this power. We are happy to accept Amendment No. 90.

Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 88. The assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, seeks is that there should be no relaxation of the restrictions on rights of way, which he so graphically described. It is not necessary to clarify the phrase by adding that it applies only to those who are exercising the right of way in accordance with the nature of that right. The exercise of right of way means the lawful exercise of right of way. For example, it would not protect anyone unlawfully driving a vehicle on a footpath or bridleway. I believe that that is the noble Lord's concern. I hope that on that basis he will not press his amendment.

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was going to accept my amendment. I really thought that I had persuaded him because we were so very close. Rather than leaving the decision to the Secretary of State--in the fullness of time, when he has been able to consider it--whether by-laws should be issued, it is important that on the face of the Bill it is stated that it is the duty of the Countryside Agency to provide the model by-laws. It is for the various authorities to adapt and adopt them to take account of differing local circumstances.

My Lords, we are very close on this matter. I do not believe that there is a difference in substance. Perhaps we may talk about the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.

My Lords, this is too good. I have had an offer from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to come and vote with me. Now the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has offered to think about the issue. It is really too good an opportunity. I should be very happy to take up the noble Lord's offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 87:

Clause 17, page 10, line 20, at end insert (", and

(b) any local access forum established for an area to which the byelaws relate").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 89:

Clause 17, page 10, line 36, at end insert--

("(6A) Byelaws under this section relating to any land--

(a) may not be made unless the land is access land or the access authority are satisfied that it is likely to become access land, and

(b) may not be confirmed unless the land is access land.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 90:

Clause 17, page 10, line 39, after ("district") insert ("or parish").

My Lords, I thank the Government for accepting my amendments. We were very pleased that the Government tabled Amendment No. 89. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that I understand parish councils are being established in urban areas. I, too, am delighted about that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 [Wardens]:

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 91, I should say that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 and 93.

moved Amendment No. 91:

Clause 18, page 10, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 11 and insert--

("(1) Every access authority and district council shall take such steps (whether by the appointment of wardens or otherwise) as appear to it to be necessary or expedient to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (2) as respects access land in their area.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1) are--").

My Lords, in Committee we had considerable debate about the need to ensure that there is proper wardening or supervision of some kind to ensure the right results. Clause 18(2) of the Bill provides various purposes for which wardens are to be appointed. The first is to secure compliance with by-laws and restrictions. As Clause 18(1) stands at the moment, an access authority has power--I emphasise power--to appoint wardens if necessary or expedient to achieve those objectives, but it does not have to so do. Therefore, one can have a situation where there are by-laws or restrictions which are not being complied with. The access authority may accept that some action, such as, let us say, the appointment of wardens is the only way to achieve compliance. But it can still decide not to take that action. It is wholly unacceptable that one could have a position where the rules were being disregarded and there was no obligation on the authority to do anything about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, expressed good intentions. I have no doubt that in the initial stages after the Bill is enacted the Government will implement those intentions and seek to provide suitable wardening. But we do not know what will happen later when the first enthusiasm for the Act has gone, perhaps different persons are holding these offices and someone is searching for an economy. Those good intentions may lapse.

If the Government are giving people the right to walk across private land, there has to be an obligation--not merely a power--to provide ways of securing compliance with the restrictions under which they go there.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, enunciated in forceful language that principle. But she pointed out that there might be ways of achieving the desired result without actually appointing wardens. My amendment is designed with great care to solve that problem by saying that the,

"access authority ...[or the] district council shall take such steps (whether by the appointment of wardens or otherwise) as appear to it to be necessary or expedient to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (2)".

Thus, the authority has complete discretion to decide what steps, if any--I emphasise if any--are needed to ensure compliance. Only if the authority decides that something needs to be done and then decides what it should do for the best is it obliged to do it. It cannot duck the responsibility. I believe that the amendment covers all the points raised in Committee. Therefore, it should be acceptable to everyone. It achieves the aim that one cannot have a situation where there is no compliance, where everyone agrees that it is necessary to do something about the position but does nothing.

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are on much the same lines. Amendment No. 91 seeks to give the access authority the widest possible discretion as to how to achieve the purpose. Therefore, it should appeal particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is important that the amendment is accepted by the Government. Over the past 40 years attempts have been made to broaden access to the countryside. Those attempts have been fairly successful, despite the fact that many of the jobs given to local authorities, both under the 1949 and the 1981 Acts, have not been completed, not through any lack of desire but mainly for lack of adequate funding.

I have serious concerns about the funding for the Bill, especially as I feel that a well trained and qualified warden force will be essential to ensure that its provisions are observed by walkers and others. Even now the Government could reduce the workload significantly by removing some of the demands which will inevitably result following the decision to allow dogs to roam freely on access land. As the noble Viscount mentioned, the amendment puts a duty on the authority to appoint wardens where it considers it is "necessary" or "expedient". I hope that the Government will have regard to those two words.

The Local Government Association, which I am sure has written to many noble Lords, is particularly concerned about the funding of many aspects of the Bill. One such aspect is the provision of wardens. Perhaps I may quote from the Local Government Association's briefing:

"There are significant costs associated with these provisions. Many of the key local authority costs will be discretionary (wardening, access infrastructure, information provision). But in our view it is this type of investment which will be key to the success of the Bill's objectives".

I could not put it better.

A number of individuals and well-known organisations have been in contact with Members of this House, particularly with regard to dogs. The wardening responsibilities in the Bill will reflect on dogs. During debates on earlier amendments we discussed the whole question of controlling dogs, particularly in areas such asthe Peak District National Park. We heard that dogs are kept on leads but are let off as soon as someone is around the corner. Difficulties then occur. As our debates have proceeded we have done our best to try to show the Government what needs to be done to ensure that the Bill works correctly. I do not know about other noble Lords but up to this point I certainly have had no communications asking me to support access for dogs. Indeed, there was no such proposal in the manifesto.

Wardening is crucial to the success of the Bill. Last week the House decided that night-time access will not be banned. As a result people will be wandering around in the dark and may get into difficulties. We also have the spectre of dogs not being sufficiently restricted and the consequent damage to livestock, wild fowl and wildlife. It is important that we have adequate wardening services. It should not be a matter of discretion. We believe that wardens should be appointed where it is necessary or expedient.

The Bill provides no criminal sanction for trespass and few restrictions on dogs. There is no real statutory requirement for the appointment of wardens. We want people to enjoy the countryside but, sadly, as we have said in the debates on the Bill, there are those who will not have respect for the restrictions set out in the Bill. If we do not put on the face of the Bill a statutory responsibility for the provision of wardening services, the Bill's provisions will be unenforceable. In those circumstances, people who would like to enjoy the countryside will have some of their enjoyment spoilt. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will support the amendments, which are crucial if the Bill is to work. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.

My Lords, I am in favour of the appointment of wardens. I can think of a number of reasons for their appointment, one of which follows on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I have already mentioned my honorary membership of the Kennel Club, although I should point out that I am expressing my own opinion and not, as far as I know, that of the club. I take the view that the proportion of responsible dog owners is much higher today than used to be the case. Last week I spelt out the reasons for that. Wardens could be useful in identifying, discouraging and deterring the minority of people who do not control their dogs properly. That would be a very good thing. It might persuade the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench that dogs are not necessarily vile and evil and that they are very good, not least in promoting human health. I would be a good deal less fit if I did not walk my dogs.

I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. I trust that it will not be one he does not like. Last week I suggested that the owner or occupier should be able to give permission to a responsible dog owner to let his dog off the lead for the purposes of training. My noble friend said that there was no need for the amendment because the agreement of the owner or occupier could be given tacitly or otherwise. In a situation where the owner had been given tacit approval by the owner or occupier, the warden would have to be sure of the position before he became enraged by the owner letting loose his dog. Can my noble friend tell me how the warden should be informed that the dog owner has the tacit permission of the owner or occupier to train his dog to come when he lets if off the lead and to stay when it is so ordered?

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 92, which stands in my name. There is nothing I need add after what has been said today and what was said in Committee. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I have rephrased the amendment to take account of comments made by noble Lords. I do not think that there is much between the noble Viscount's Amendment No. 91 and my Amendment No. 92. I think that it is very courteous of us to give the Government a choice of which one to accept.

My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister another choice in speaking to Amendment No. 93, which stands in my name. When in Committee we discussed the issue of wardens, the Government seemed to be somewhat uncertain as to how they would resolve the matter. It was my impression that the Government were basically sympathetic to the principle of having wardens wherever it was desirable to have wardens but felt constrained by the likely financial implications. The argument was successfully made from all sides of the Chamber that if the authority considered it necessary or expedient to appoint wardens, it should be required to do so. It would be a dereliction of duty on behalf of the access authority to decide that wardens were needed and then not to appoint them.

It is worth pointing out that wardens do not need to be employed full-time by the authority. They could be part-time or they could be volunteers. That could go some way towards reducing the resource implications. However, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, if the Bill is to work and we are to reduce conflict, wardens will have an extremely important role as the interface between those who wish to come on to the land and enjoy access and the owners and occupiers who are responsible for the management of that land. My amendment simply requires that an access authority must appoint wardens once it has determined how many are needed.It is somewhat unsatisfactory to give the access authority the duty to determine the number of wardens but then no duty to appoint them.

Having said that, there is not a great deal between my amendment and the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Caithness. I would be happy with any of the amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will look sympathetically on them.

My Lords, I wish to make only a brief intervention. The warden system will be crucial to the impact of the Bill. We have heard about their training and so on. A warden's salary and the cost of any transport he will require will come to about £20,000 a year. But will access authorities be able to offer that kind of money? An access authority may need several wardens. If the power to appoint wardens is only discretionary, one can well see that a number of wardens will disappear like snow off a dike when the authority starts looking at the salary and transport implications of financing wardens, who will be crucial to the working of the Bill's provisions.

My Lords, as a landowner and manager, I know full well that when one goes to employ someone on the land one tends to get a good person if that person comes to the job knowing that it is a long-term job. The personcoming to the job will probably end up thoroughly skilled and well trained.

If the positions of wardens, whether they are part-time or full-time, are to be subject to annual budgetary reviews and thus become subject to other priorities within those budgets, then I foresee that those wardens on whom we would all wish to rely; namely, highly skilled and highly trained wardens, will probably not be forthcoming. They will apply only if they can be sure that their jobs will be long-term positions. I hope that the Minister will be able to move some way to deal with the concerns expressed by all noble Lords.

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was correct to say that he has drafted his amendment very carefully. I can confirm that I find it more appealing than the other amendments which have been tabled in this grouping. The noble Viscount has taken care to leave in place sufficient flexibility to enable the access authority to choose ways other than the direct appointment of wardens to solve the problems that may arise.

On these Benches, we believe that all the difficult issues on which we have held detailed discussions in Committee--night access, dogs and the enforcement of closures and restrictions--need to be managed. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Viscount has been able to draft an amendment which provides enough flexibility for local authorities to choose how to put in place these necessary management tasks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that the amendment, to which she has added her name, imposed a duty on local authorities to appoint wardens. However, I do not believe that the amendment does that. It imposes a duty on the authorities to take the necessary steps to manage the land, and that is why I find it more attractive than the other amendments tabled on this issue.

Access authorities operate under strict budgetary constraints and the ruling groups have to make difficult decisions at budget time. The fact that proper countryside management has already been practised by access authorities has, on occasion, been called into question by Members from all the Benches in this House. However, by putting it on to the face of the Bill, countryside management will become a valid reason for spending money. That duty will be extra to the duty of, for example, maintaining countryside roads. In the past, difficulties have arisen where countryside management has been perceived by the opposition party as an add-on--that may well have been the case as regards the county of which I am a member; namely, Somerset. Sometimes it is important to make it absolutely clear how essential is countryside management.

I have only one extremely small caveat. Indeed, when the noble Viscount introduced his amendment he said,

"Every access authority [or] district council", although his amendment refers to, "and district council". I query that only because I do not think that the county and national park and the district authority must take these steps. Much as we all agree on how necessary it will be to have wardens, that would represent something of an overkill. In these days of joint working and best value, I am sure that the access authority and district could agree between them the steps to be taken. I hope that the noble Viscount will accept that, when he spoke, he referred to "or". I feel that that would provide the better solution here. The matter should be settled by agreement between the different authorities.

My Lords, this is a case somewhat similar to that of model by-laws. We all agree on the fundamentals of what we want, but there may be disagreements about how to achieve them. Let us see if we can explore those differences.

Amendment No. 91 would require authorities, where they think it necessary or expedient, to appoint wardens or take other appropriate measures to achieve the purposes set out in subsection (2) of Clause 18. I should remind noble Lords that Clause 18(2) is subject to our Amendment No. 96 which has yet to be moved. The amendment will extend the scope of those purposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, it would be a mistake to impose the duty on both access authorities and district councils. However, I do not think it would be sufficient only to refer to "or district councils". We shall need to go into the detail as regards agreements reached between the different authorities, which might be complicated. Nevertheless, as drafted, that is the scope of Amendment No. 91.

Amendment No. 92 would require authorities to ensure that access land is wardened where necessary or expedient. Amendment No. 93 would place a duty on authorities to appoint such numbers of wardens as appear to be necessary or expedient. Our starting point has always been that we want to see authorities being able to use discretion when appointing wardens. Given the interventions that have been made around the House, it is clear that, while noble Lords recognise the value of discretion, they do not think that that discretion goes far enough. Amendment No. 91 would retain some discretion, but I have already explained the difficulties with it.

Amendment No. 92 would retain a considerable amount of discretion. However, I fear that Amendment No. 93 would be considered by a court to require the appointment of at least some wardens. I do not think that that is what is wanted here. Clearly, certain district councils will have very little or even virtually no access land in their areas. Because of that, we could get into some difficulties with the wording of Amendment No. 93.

Between now and Third Reading I should like to talk about this with all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. At the risk of embarrassing the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I have to say that, if we are to achieve something along these lines, I tend more towards Amendment No. 92 than to the other two amendments. However, I hope that, when we discuss model by-laws, we shall have a chance to talk about this matter at the same time. I do not think that any fundamental disagreement exists between us here. We all see the value of wardens. Indeed, the Government would not have tabled their amendments to Clause 18 if the value of wardens was not clear. However, as matters stand, and given that the amendments are alternative rather than cumulative, I am not able to accept the wording in any of the amendments presently before the House.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I was interested to hear about the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath; namely, that most dog owners are responsible. However, in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I must remind him that there are spaniels who do run in.

The point behind our amendment is that wardens do not need to be full-time employees. Scope is offered for authorities to arrange matters as they like. The amendment does not seek to take away discretion from the authorities. They would have total discretion to do whatever they think is necessary or expedient. If they are considering only a small piece of land, they would be free to say that no warden was needed. Alternatively, they may decide that a part-time warden is required, and that the local farmer could be approached.

The only point we wish to change is that, when authorities have decided what it is necessary to do, they cannot then say, "We know that this is necessary, but we're not going to do it".

My Lords, I understand that point and I do not disagree with it. However, perhaps I may make a further point which is relevant to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is saying here about part-time or voluntary wardens. This refers back to a point I neglected to make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro. A power to fund wardens, as is being proposed by the Government, may be more effective than a duty. That is because a "duty" suggests that funds for wardening should be included as a part of the normal revenue support grant. We want to be flexible about this. We would not wish to rule out the option of setting up a specific grant regime to cater for wardening and other items associated with management. Indeed, it may be that a specific grant regime would result in more wardens. That, again, is a matter that I should like to consider in any discussions that we may hold with all noble Lords who have proposed and spoken to these amendments.

My Lords, I shall of course be delighted to take up the generous offer made by the noble Lord. I have no pride of authorship. If the noble Lord prefers the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, then the only difference between us is that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, prefers the wording of my amendment. But I am sure that we can come to some compromise. Provided that the Minister is, as I understand he is, saying, "Yes, we will do this, but we have to find a nice, tidy way of doing it", on that basis I will be delighted to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 94:

Clause 18, page 10, line 44, at end insert--

("(1A) As respects access land in an area for which there is a local access forum, an access authority shall, before they first exercise the power under subsection (1) and thereafter from time to time, consult the local access forum about the exercise of that power.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.