---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a comprehensive reply and for giving us the background that we now need to consider properly before we come to any conclusions. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it was not from lack of support for cyclists that I said nothing at the beginning of this debate, but it seemed highly improper in opening on a group of amendments to comment on amendments before their proposers had had a proper chance to have their say. I am a little concerned about the question of horse-drawn vehicles. I have lived in the countryside all my life, and there were some beautiful green lanes in Essex in my youth. Yet they were completely impassable virtually all the year round. The vehicular traffic that used them in those days was the horse and cart. The carts had narrow wheels and often heavy loads, and the horses had big feet and heavy steel shoes, so these tracks became immensely rutted. In winter, they were full of water and almost impassable. In summer, of course they dried out but the ruts were still there; you did not have to slop along in a lot of mud, but you could hardly walk because the ground was so uneven. The reason many of these green lanes are more passable today is that agricultural users—farmers—have in most cases levelled these lanes for their own convenience. The job is now taken on by local authorities, where they have the resources, for which we are immensely grateful, and the public are using access. That is the background. I am grateful to the Minister. He has conceded that there is a case but he has not conceded that it needs to be answered. I need to study what he has said and consider whether we need a further discussion. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 317 not moved.]