Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

We have had a long and interesting debate. I start off by saying that the law has to be an enforceable one. We need to have a law which is understood by the people who have to enforce it—namely, police or wardens with police powers. In the area of the Thames Valley from which I come, we have one police constable to enforce the law on raves; he has now successfully used ASBOs to stop people making raves. We have hare-coursing too, and the misuse of byways by mechanically propelled vehicles. That is one of the most difficult parts of the law to enforce, as it is always extremely difficult to understand and to tell whether people are doing right or wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to opportunistic claims, which is one of our great worries in the countryside movement. I put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, concerning 2003 to recognise the fact that such claims were opportunistic.  They were not, in fact, claims that had been long in people’s minds but were, in many cases, very rough claims submitted by people against the deadline that they knew was coming. I now come to the nub of the issue. In our debate, reference has been made to sharing out access to the countryside between the walker, the horse rider, the cyclist and people who drive four-wheeled and scramble motorbikes. In fact, you cannot share it out like that. Use by one destroys the possibility of the others enjoying it. In this instance, use by one makes it impossible for the disabled or people who find it difficult to get along to use their rights of way in anything like normal winters, when it can be expected to be wet. It has not been wet this winter, but in normal winters it is. Not just the disabled in wheelchairs but people who are a little frail on their pins will be in danger of falling over. We must be aware that because the use of motor vehicles is noisy and intrusive on many of those rights of way, it is not possible for others to enjoy the countryside in peace and quiet. I also rather object to the idea that motorcyclists and four-wheel drivers only want a small percentage of the green lanes. As I imagine that 90 per cent of lanes are hardly used by anybody, they want a part of the proportion of green lanes that are in regular use, and it is a much bigger percentage of those. It is probably a lot of them and it will have a great effect. I am very grateful for the Minister’s reply. I am cheered by many things that he said. He has promised to take away some of the issues that we hold most dear. In Amendment No. 319, we seek to amend what the Government propose in Amendment No. 318. We just think that we have got the provision a little better. That was our only point there. As it is, I shall not press the amendment, but we shall take away what the Minister has said and think carefully about it. We are in absolute agreement about the larger part of Part 6 and there is no major disagreement between us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 61 agreed to. Clause 62 [Ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way]: [Amendment No. 310ZB not moved.] [Amendments Nos. 310A and 310B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 not moved.] [Amendment No. 313 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 314 not moved.] [Amendment No. 315 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendment No. 315A not moved.]