Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for his kind words, which I much appreciated. I would like nothing more than to be able to be back here in the House on a regular basis. I miss the House and everyone here very much indeed.

I want to take this opportunity to add my voice to the disquiet that has already been expressed about these regulations, which are now in force and about which, as has been said, there has been no proper consultation despite the impact that they could have on so many members of the public with the loss of access to potentially thousands of miles of historic rights of way.

In an Answer on 27 May 2022, the Government stated that they had

“decided to take forward a streamlined package of measures to implement rights of way reform including repealing the 2026 cut-off date to record historic rights of way, as well as giving landowners the right to apply to divert or remove rights of ways in specific circumstances”.

No reason was given in that Answer for the change in policy, welcome as it was, to repeal the 2026 cut-off date. Likewise, no reason is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations as to why the Government have gone back on that policy of repealing the cut-off date provisions and are instead introducing a new cut-off date of 1 January 2031. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the change in circumstances between the Answer on 27 May 2022 repealing the cut-off date and now that has led to the complete change in announced policy on the repeal of that cut-off date.

The Explanatory Memorandum does not even admit that the Government are going back on the policy announced on 27 May 2022 of repealing the 2026 cut-off date. Yet it goes on to say:

“No formal consultation is required or been undertaken … There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”


or “on the public sector”. The Ramblers, of which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said he was a member, is a charity. It has 100,000 members and, through volunteering, works hard to keep our rights of way, including footpaths, open. They will be affected by these regulations and the reinstated cut-off date by which to register the estimated 41,000 miles of unregistered historic rights of way or risk losing them, as compared with the impact of the policy announced by the Government on 27 May 2022 to repeal the cut-off date. Likewise, local authorities may be stretched resource-wise to cope with the potential workload that the newly imposed cut-off date, as compared to having no cut-off date, will in all probability generate. Are the Government really saying that these regulations, on which there has been no consultation, will have no significant impact on organisations and bodies such as the Ramblers and their volunteers or on local authorities?

It is a question I hope the Minister will answer, because it also raises the issue of how often the Government meet organisations representing the public on access and rights of way issues, such as the Ramblers, the Open Spaces Society, the Byways and Bridleways Trust and the British Horse Society. How many times have the Government met these and similar organisations, for example, either collectively or individually, over the last two years? I would be grateful for an answer.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has also commented on these regulations, saying:

“We take the view that it would have been helpful to explain the current backlog of applications in the explanatory memorandum. While the planned rights of way reform may streamline the application and determination process, many local authorities are nevertheless likely to receive a significant number of new applications, adding to the existing backlog and to current resource pressures”.


On the basis of Defra’s own incomplete figures, there are already 4,000 applications for a definitive map modification order waiting to be determined. However, this figure covers only 21 local authorities. Will the Government say how many local authorities are potentially affected? Estimates from the Ramblers suggest that in England, there could already be over 10,000 applications waiting to be processed by authorities, with some, as has already been said, waiting 20 years to be determined.

It is inevitable that the number of applications will increase significantly in the run-up to 1 January 2031, based on the increase in applications researched and submitted for determination between 2018 and 2023 that have already been made in many local authority areas. In Lincolnshire, for example, that increase in applications is from 56 to 378 with 1,934 potential miles of historical rights of way to be researched and applied for by 2031, largely by volunteers, against a background of a pending decision, apparently, by the Government, to apply a higher threshold for applications for adding unrecorded pre-1949 rights of way. It looks as though going back on the commitment to repeal the 1 January 2026 cut-off date is but one part of a government programme to load the dice more heavily against volunteers and short-staffed, underfunded local authorities, seeking on behalf of the public to register an estimated 41,000 miles of historical rights of way. And still, the Government maintain there is no need to consult on these regulations.

A stakeholder working group was, I believe, established by Natural England in 2008 and involving Defra, to advise on what could be done to reform the processes governing the application and determination of historical rights of way. The group comprised a balance of interests: user groups, landowners and local government. The consensus reached by the SWG was put forward to Defra and the reforms enshrined, as I understand it, in the Deregulation Act 2015. However, the reforms required detailed regulations to be enacted, which still have not been, eight years on. It was always agreed by the SWG that the package of reforms should be delivered as a whole: all sides, users and landowners, for example, accepting that they had had to give way on some things to deliver the consensus.

The SWG, I understand, still exists. It is chaired by Defra officials and is still advising on the detail of the regulations. These include, crucially, the paths that will be exempt from the deadline, but also the right for landowners to apply for diversions. I understand, though, that the former Secretary of State, Thérèse Coffey, took some unilateral decisions of late which break the consensus achieved. The exemptions regulations, for example, would no longer include those paths that are unrecorded yet are currently in use by the public. Why do this? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the past and present role and position of the stakeholder working group, as well as the recent decisions by the previous Secretary of State in relation to the consensus achieved by the SWG.

I made reference to paths and historical rights of way that will apparently be exempt from the deadline. How many miles of rights of way, in how many local authority areas, is it expected that these exemptions will cover, and what kinds of historical rights of way are we talking about? Not knowing what impact these exemptions will have on the organisations and bodies involved in identifying the estimated 41,000 miles of historical rights of way not yet on local authority definitive maps makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess any reduction in their potential workload.

Although the cut-off date would not be postponed beyond 2031 in general, a provision, I believe, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, enables a further postponement, without limit, in relation to the former county boroughs which were excluded from the 1949 Act and given a duty to prepare definitive maps and statements only under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock addressed that issue. The 2000 Act appears to envisage that it might be necessary for those places to be granted a longer period to prepare their definitive maps and statements, but this opportunity has not been taken. Will the Government say why?

The Government’s Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 includes a clear commitment to ensure that everyone lives within a 15-minute walk of green and blue spaces, but 38% of people fall outside that threshold. Completely changing government policy to repeal the cut-off date and risking losing tens of thousands of miles of unregistered rights of way will do nothing to help achieve that 15-minute walk policy objective. Instead, it will deny people routes that they could have used to access green and blue spaces close to home.

I have asked a number of questions about government policy and its impact, and about changes made and the reasons for them, and would be grateful for answers from the Minister, either today or subsequently in writing.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will take the same tack as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and add my voice to his, following his welcome return to his place in this Chamber.

Unless I have misunderstood the proposal—if I have, the explanation is well buried—why proceed with a cut-off date on the registration of these long-forgotten rights of way at all? They are an ancient and important contribution to our social fabric in England. For a thousand years and more, these rights of way have evolved into a wonderful network of publicly accessible walks and bridle paths, which are much enjoyed by a large and growing cross-section of society.

The objective of the 2000 Act appears to be a desire to create

“a final and complete record of historical public rights of way”.

There seems to be no reason for not adding to maps as old, long-lost or forgotten rights of way come to light; simply update the records. As we know, this Government agreed to drop the cut-off date and, for no good reason, wish to reintroduce it. Scotland and Northern Ireland do not want a cut-off date. There is no explanation for why we need this. It sounds as though it is the result of a horse deal between different lobby groups of landowners and farmers. Where did the public fit into this discussion? I do not think that they have a voice or that they have been heard at all. I do not deny that irresponsible walkers in the countryside are a nuisance, but they are a small minority. Without access to the countryside, those who abuse it will never have a chance to learn the rules of good behaviour and learn to treat this resource as something so precious and special.

There has been comment on the backlog awaiting registration. This is a resourcing problem that can be dealt with, but the Act is not about resourcing; it should be about access to this national network. Defra says that it will

“speed up and streamline … bureaucratic procedures”

for the recording process. That is good news, but it is not a reason to prevent new registrations. The Explanatory Memorandum states, as we have heard more than once, that there will be no impact on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations or the public sector, but there is no mention of human beings. What about the impact on them—citizens, the public and society as a whole? Does Defra not credit this greater good?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I begin by expressing my personal appreciation for the very good working relationship that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in his capacity as Defence Minister. Like others, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to the interesting combination of new positions that he has just taken on in your Lordships’ House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, in her continuing role as Foreign Office Minister. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on her powerful and moving maiden speech, which has rightly been so well received.

This has been a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. It covered a number of different issues that have a common theme in that they relate, to a greater or lesser degree, to what the United Kingdom’s current and future role in the world at large should be and how that role should be carried out in relation to the resources that can reasonably be made available.

One such issue is our membership of the European Union and the Government’s intention to hold a referendum. We will support the Government’s Bill, although we also want to see 16 and 17 year-olds have the right to vote in that referendum and thus have a say on whether our country should remain in the EU, just as they were given a say in Scotland on whether or not to remain part of the United Kingdom. We believe that it would be better for Britain if we stay in the European Union, but we believe in a European Union that is rather more than simply a free trade area. Millions of UK jobs are dependent on the trade and investment benefits that we gain from EU membership. However, the European Union has also, for example, helped to raise labour standards, including the right to paid holidays and to equal treatment for part-time workers. Measures and standards protecting and furthering the safety, rights, interests and quality of life of European Union citizens, both inside and outside the workplace, do not normally constitute unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation; they are an integral part of the concept of social partnership, which to date has been a key building block of the European Union.

It remains to be seen what changes and reforms will emerge from the negotiations that the Government intend to have with our European partners. The Government apparently intend to keep such matters to themselves. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the key roles of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, who would, he said, consult the Cabinet and their Conservative Party colleagues. There must be a possibility that although there may be a similar call from a majority of political parties, including the governing party, for our membership of the European Union to continue, the arguments advanced for so doing may not be quite so similar. Whether, if that happens, it will increase or decrease the prospects of securing a yes vote remains to be seen.

The Government have made a commitment to undertake a full national security strategy and strategic defence and security review and do whatever is necessary to ensure that our Armed Forces can keep Britain safe. We depend on our Armed Forces to a greater extent than is sometimes recognised and acknowledged. We express our gratitude to them for their commitment, which, despite issues over morale, to which reference has been made, extends literally to putting their life on the line on our behalf and accepting in serving our country the potential prospect of fatal or life-changing injuries.

I noted that in his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that he could not say too much about the SDSR at this stage. I would like to ask, then, whether the Government intend to issue a Green Paper on the strategic defence and security review in order to promote the widest possible national consultation and debate prior to final decisions being made. If not, by what means do the Government intend to ensure that there is an open and inclusive national debate on the security and defence challenges now facing our country and what needs to be done to meet those challenges? Also, when would such a debate have to be concluded to meet the Government’s timetable for finishing the SDSR? To what extent will the forthcoming strategic defence and security review be financially driven as opposed to being strategically driven?

The Prime Minister has previously stated that the size of the regular armed services will be maintained and that the regular Army will not be reduced to below 82,000. In the light of the noble Earl’s slightly vague comment that the Government will continue to recruit the regulars and reserves that we need, does that commitment by the Prime Minister still stand and does it extend to implementing the previously declared objective of increasing our Army Reserve to 30,000, or is the future strength of the Army Reserve one area where further defence cuts are going to be made?

There were no specific legislative proposals relating to international development in the gracious Speech, but in its election manifesto the Conservative Party undertook to uphold the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury raised a number of points about the direction and objectives of our approach to international development to which I hope the Minister will respond. In particular, I ask her to say whether universal healthcare will be a clearly identifiable goal for the Government at the forthcoming negotiations in September in New York at the United Nations sustainable development goals discussions. I hope that she will also respond to the point raised by my noble friend on the need to ensure that the progress made in September in New York is clearly linked to the work and objectives of the UN Paris conference in December on climate change.

In his opening speech, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to a number of foreign affairs issues of importance to the Government, as have many other contributors, including securing peace and security in Syria and Iraq, the defeat of ISIL, stability in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, and the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea, as well as a major EU-India trade deal and the strengthening of our economic links with China.

On Syria and Iraq, the fall of Ramadi and Palmyra has called into question the effectiveness for whatever reason of the Iraqi and Syrian armies. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the US Defense Secretary has been quoted as saying that the Iraqi forces showed “no will to fight”. Is that a view that the Government share?

A UN Security Council report has stated that there are more than 25,000 “foreign terrorist fighters” involved in jihadi conflicts,

“travelling from more than 100 member states”.

It seems that the number of such fighters may have increased by more than 70% worldwide in the past nine months and that they pose,

“an immediate and long-term … threat”.

The situation in the Middle East is a major cause for concern, as we seem to be faced not only with the disturbing activities of ISIL and the consequential implications for security in this country but with the apparent reality that two of the region’s main powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are now involved in a quest for regional supremacy, and over Syria in particular.

On the other side of the world, China has announced a military strategy to project naval power well beyond its own shores, affecting the overlapping claims involving several regional powers in the South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest shipping routes.

The Government have said that they will continue to support the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Prime Minister. Can the Minister say whether the Government regard support to date as having been effective and what, if any, new or extended forms of support will we provide? The Government have also said that they will continue to seek a political settlement in Syria. What progress has been secured by initiatives in this regard to date and are any new initiatives or actions being considered?

As a nation we need to continue to ensure that any potential aggressor knows that, if attacked, we have the ability to hit back quickly and decisively, but, as has been said by a number of noble Lords in today’s debate, we have a key role to play in world affairs and in helping to address or defuse situations that represent hardship and a threat to the lives of innocent people, or a threat to our security and that of others whether directly or indirectly.

We cannot and should not opt out of our responsibilities, but nor can we act alone. We need to work with and through our allies, through other countries as appropriate and through international organisations to achieve objectives that will help to end hostilities and tensions and create the better and safer world that so many are denied and crave and desire above all else.

NATO

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton for securing this short but important debate on the outcome of the NATO deterrence and defence posture review, which was approved at the recent NATO summit in Chicago and which had been called for at the previous summit in Lisbon in 2010. The deterrence and defence posture review is of course only one of a number of issues which NATO has been addressing, and needs to continue to address, but it is the one that we are considering in this debate. At the previous Lisbon summit, NATO Heads of Government approved a new strategic concept that confirmed collective defence as the first of the Alliance’s “three … core tasks” and contained the statements:

“Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy”,

and,

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”.

However, as my noble friend has already said, the strategic concept did not resolve all outstanding issues within the alliance, not least in relation to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence.

One of the purposes in calling for the review to be undertaken appears to have been the need to try to resolve key issues on the future role and basic purpose of nuclear weapons in NATO policy, bearing in mind the differing views held within the alliance’s 28 member states, which range from calling for complete disarmament and withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe to retaining such weapons for the purposes of reassurance to more vulnerable states. The state of the relationship between NATO and Russia both now and in the future, which is referred to in the title of this debate, is of considerable significance, particularly to the latter point about reassurance.

The mandate of the review was,

“to continue to review NATO’s overall posture in deterring and defending against the full range of threats to the Alliance, taking into account changes in the evolving international security environment”.

Meanwhile,

“Essential elements of the review would include the range of NATO’s strategic capabilities required, including NATO’s nuclear posture, and missile defence and other means of strategic deterrence and defence”.

The review ended up confirming that the alliance was,

“committed to maintaining … defence capabilities necessary to ensure its security in an unpredictable world … NATO has determined that, in the current circumstances, the existing mix of capabilities and the plans for their development are sound”.

NATO will thus continue to be a nuclear alliance as long as potential adversaries possess nuclear weapons.

In the period since the 2010 Lisbon summit, however, there appears to have been no word from the Government to Parliament about their position on the deterrence and defence posture review. Neither does it appear that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee has done work on this issue. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton said that in Lisbon in 2010, NATO leaders committed themselves to the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how the Government consider that the deterrence and defence posture review has contributed towards meeting that goal, what the Government’s policy contribution was to that review and what representations they made.

What do the Government believe has been achieved by the deterrence and defence posture review? Can the Minister confirm that, to all intents and purposes, the review does not break any significant new ground on seeking to reduce levels of nuclear weapons and decreasing the number of nations that host nuclear weapons? In his speech, my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton argued that NATO should be seeking to reduce nuclear weapons and risks while seeking to enhance and improve the current difficult relationship with Russia. Is this what the Government believe NATO should be seeking to achieve, and if so do they believe that the deterrence and defence posture review and the Chicago summit have brought these goals any closer, particularly in the light of my noble friend’s view that by maintaining and upgrading US non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, NATO will do nothing to improve the relationship with Russia and may result in Russia investing further in its own nuclear arsenal?

Finally, the deterrence and defence posture review said very little about what happens next on the issues that it covered, beyond a reference to being,

“prepared to consider further reducing its requirement for non-strategic nuclear weapons assigned to the Alliance in the context of reciprocal steps by Russia”.

What courses of action will the Government now be pressing for in the light of the review and the issues it covered, or do they take the view that the review, which broadly confirms the status quo, addresses the “real change” for NATO, which my noble friend referred to, and which the Prime Minister referred to as being necessary in the Statement that he made to Parliament following the 2010 Lisbon summit?

Middle East

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate about a complex, diverse and less than entirely stable part of the world. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our diplomats and aid workers in the Middle East and north Africa, and also to the work of media personnel who put their lives at risk and, tragically, sometimes lose them as a result of their courageous efforts to ensure that the outside world is kept informed of the dramatic developments taking place and, in Syria, the sheer brutality of what is happening.

No one can fail to be moved by the horrific scenes of violence that we have seen in Syria, not least in Homs. It is clear that my noble friend Lady Amos was appalled by what she saw, and we wish her and Kofi Annan well in their endeavours. The latest United Nations estimate is that more than 7,500 civilians have lost their lives during the conflict. This brutal repression is inexcusable, and responsibility for the death of these innocent people lies at the door of President Assad and his regime—a President and a regime who must be called to account for their actions, no matter how long it takes. There is a need to sharpen the choice facing those military officers being directed to kill their own civilians by the Assad regime by providing them with safe havens if they choose to leave the armed forces. A twin-track approach of increasing accountability for actions taken, alongside support for those in the regime who make the right choice, such as the deputy Oil Minister, is essential.

However, condemnation by the international community is not enough. Continuing diplomatic efforts are required. The Assad regime has no future and the President must go, which is why the failure to reach agreement in the Security Council was such a stain on the conscience of the world. We must continue to press the Russians to exercise the influence they claim to have over Assad to at least end the violence. We must play whatever part we can to ensure that the important and crucial pressure from the Arab League and regional powers remains coherent and consistent, and that economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria through the European Union are effective.

The Syrian conflict has the potential to spill over into neighbouring countries, with tensions flaring in Lebanon and refugees fleeing across the borders at an ever increasing rate. As the Turkish Government have pointed out—and I fully support the Minister’s comments on the importance of Turkey’s role—the longer that this crisis continues, the greater are the prospects of ethnic, religious and sectarian fault lines re-emerging in Syria in ways that could make it harder still to reach a successful resolution to the conflict. Following the speech of my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, I ask the Minister whether the Government are liaising with Arab Governments about the future of Syria after the Assad regime, bearing in mind the possible internal and external influence and pressures that might come into play.

At the Syrian regime’s side stands Iran—an Iran more isolated today than it has been for some considerable time, as it moves towards a military nuclear capability. In recent years, Iran has sought to build its influence across the Middle East, supporting groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and repressive regimes that could help to enhance its influence in the region, most notably that of Assad in Syria. The recent events in Syria leave Iran even more isolated. Previously reluctant players, such as the Saudis, have now publicly condemned Iran and given their support to the EU oil boycott. Sanctions today, unlike those in the past are showing signs of having an impact and the Iranian regime seems to be struggling to contain their effect. Like other regimes finding themselves in a similar situation, the Iranian regime’s response to declining domestic legitimacy and increasing international isolation has been to seek to channel discontent towards external enemies beyond its borders and to continue to support terrorist groups.

In particular, members of the Iranian regime have directed their hatred towards Israel. The international community is united in condemnation of the regime’s violent and abhorrent rhetoric and the worldview that it reveals, but Israel needs to recognise that its friends in the international community see Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as affecting not just Israel’s security but that of the broader region and, indeed, the world. If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, its capability to destabilise the Middle East would be enhanced. The potential response from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among others, could put further at risk the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as they might well feel less inclined to rely on an American security guarantee. The risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be heightened further by the track record of Iran in supporting and arming non-state actors and their violent methods.

We need to use all the diplomatic tools available to force the Iranian Government to change course. On occasion in the past, Iranian leaders have adjusted their behaviour in the face of international pressure. Sanctions are now beginning to put considerable pressure on the Iranian regime. The combined effect of international sanctions on the Iranian financial sector, including steps taken by the Government last year, has triggered an enormous currency devaluation which the regime is struggling to contain. Unemployment is high, growth is low and anger is mounting. It now appears that the Iranians may be willing to resume talks, although even if that is so, there is still the very real prospect that they may seek to draw out talks while continuing with their nuclear programme unabated.

We welcome the diplomatic steps that the international community has taken to increase further the pressure on Iran. What is needed now is an even more concerted and co-ordinated international response to try finally to convince the Iranian regime that the cost of international isolation is simply too great a price to pay. That is where the focus must be.

Although the cost of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is too high, we must make it clear to our friends in Israel that now is not the time for any pre-emptive strike. However, we also believe that in the current situation, all options must remain on the table, because the prospects for negotiating a diplomatic solution and the international community achieving a peaceful resolution will be weakened, not enhanced, if that is not the case.

A peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does not seem any nearer, despite the recent tide of change elsewhere in the region. Israeli citizens still live in fear of rocket attacks from Gaza, while settlement building on Palestinian land continues in clear violation of international law. Both parties must be encouraged to resume negotiations, despite the latest setback. The international community, as well as a majority of Israelis and Palestinians, shares a common view of the principles on which a final agreement will be based: land swaps around the 1967 borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital and a fair settlement of refugees. There is no alternative to a negotiated peace. Perhaps the Minister will offer the Government’s view on how the present logjam might be broken.

Real change, however, has taken and is taking place in a number of countries in the region, including Tunisia, Libya and Egypt—albeit that we cannot be sure precisely where that change will lead. Egypt is the largest and strategically most significant country to have seen its Government overthrown recently, and Egypt’s stance is of considerable significance in making progress towards a solution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of democracy, but there is continuing concern as to the extent to which this has been or will be achieved in Egypt.

With the Egyptian economy having shrunk and unemployment well into double figures, the economic risks confronting Egypt are real and dangerous, and democratic political reform becomes a much more difficult task when it occurs against a backdrop of economic decline. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what is being done within the international community, including financial organisations, to try to assist the Egyptian economy and the economies of other countries in the region that are seeking democratic reform against a background of economic problems. Can he also tell us what the Government’s approach is on this point?

In Libya, the political leaders have begun the process of drawing up a constitution, and it is vital that that process is recognised to be fair and transparent. The swearing in of the transitional Government represented a vital step in the process towards elections. The United Nations envoy has recently expressed confidence that Libya will overcome its current difficulties, which include the activities of local militias and attempts to divide the country and pursue democracy.

Democratic transformation will not unfold uniformly across countries as diverse and different as, for example, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria, but the consistency of the demands made by those desperate for change is testament to the enduring values for which they have been struggling. The Government, of course, must act in the period ahead in ways consistent with the very different scale of the risks in different parts of the Middle East and North Africa, while also providing whatever support and encouragement we can give, either directly or through the international community, to all those who desire and demand freedom, stability, security, a change for the better in their lives, and the democratic right to elect and determine who should govern them and their own country as a whole.