HL Deb 11 July 1995 vol 565 cc1523-34

126 Clause 58, page 68, line 29, leave out 'quiet enjoyment and understanding' and insert 'understanding and enjoyment'.

127 Clause 62, page 74, line 24, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 25 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.

128 Clause 66, page 80, line 47, leave out from 'heritage' to end of line 49 and insert 'of National Parks and of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those Parks by the public).'.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 128 en bloc. Much has been said in this House and in another place about the second national park purpose and what it means for the future management of the parks. I understand the importance which has been attached to the concept of the national parks as places to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Indeed, we recognised their importance in this respect in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the parks.

I know that our policy statement indicated a willingness to consider the term "quiet enjoyment". However, in drafting the clauses which were to be introduced as part of this Bill, we gave long and careful consideration to the meaning of this phrase and the consequences of its use for all those, and especially the national park authorities, who would need to interpret it on a daily basis. We became convinced that to enshrine this phrase in statute would raise more difficulties than it would solve. Most of the issues that have been raised during the passage of this Bill with regard to "quiet enjoyment" became obvious to us during the drafting process. Your Lordships considered that "quiet enjoyment" was a better and more appropriate phrase than "enjoyment" and in Committee your Lordships moved that the word "quiet" should he included in the Bill.

We have now had time to consider the matter in detail. While I understand the reasons for including the word "quiet", it is considered to be almost impossible to enforce in a court of law. One would ask—and I can see my noble friend Lord Peyton enjoying doing so—"What is quiet and what is noisy? Is sailing to be permitted but not power boat sailing? If power boat sailing is noisy, is an outboard motor noisy?". The difficulty of interpretation would be almost endless.

Some supporters of "quiet enjoyment" have put forward the view that the Bill, as your Lordships amended it, does no more than ensure that there is an emphasis on promoting opportunities for "quiet enjoyment". They claim that the inclusion of the word "quiet" could not be used to justify the exclusion of other activities which may be noisy. They also say that national park authorities will not be prevented from continuing to promote opportunities for activities which are not "quiet". Very many, who have made their position clear to Ministers, dispute these propositions. They claim the reverse; that the inclusion of the word "quiet" must imply a presumption against a whole range of recreational activities, many of which have traditionally been carried on in the parks and, indeed, can often be seen as part of the local culture and character but may not he quiet.

After a great deal of thought and deliberation, we have concluded that the term "quiet enjoyment" could be more serious and potentially detrimental to the future of the parks than the supporters of the phrase realise. Furthermore, your Lordships will be aware that the Government considered such an amendment in another place. My noble friend Lord Barber and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also introduced amendments but none of them commanded universal support. Nor did we believe that any of them solved the difficulties which arise with "quiet enjoyment". We do not believe that the second national park purpose can be resolved by further clarificatory amendments. We have therefore concluded, and another place has agreed, that it would be preferable to return to the wording which the Government introduced in the Bill. That wording was drafted after very careful consideration.

In returning the second national park purpose to its original form, we shall make clear in revised draft guidelines that there is a variety of ways in which the parks can be enjoyed and that the national park authorities should continue to promote the widest range of opportunities for recreation. I want to make it clear that we continue fully to respect the conservation values which the parks represent and which have led to so many appreciating the qualities which they seek to reflect in the phrase "quiet enjoyment". It will certainly not be appropriate for all forms of recreation to take place in every part of the parks. Large areas of the parks will, and should, continue to he quietly enjoyed for much of the time.

It will he the responsibility of the national park authorities to strike a balance between the legitimate demands to use all the opportunities which the parks afford for recreation and the equally legitimate desires of those who wish to enjoy only their beauty and tranquillity. National park authorities will continue to be able to promote activities which are most appropriate to the particular circumstances of their parks. I do not doubt that they will wish to place emphasis on "quiet" activities; but they must also ensure that the parks continue to accommodate a wide range of recreational opportunities.

In striking this balance, the national parks will, in those rare cases where there is a conflict between the conservation and recreation purposes of the parks which cannot be reconciled, be guided by the Sandford principle that the first purpose takes precedence. That is now set out in Clause 59 of the Bill.

I hope that despite and even because of all the discussions on this difficult subject your Lordships will agree that the new wording of the Bill as agreed by another place should be incorporated.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 to 128.—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Earl that we do not agree with the Commons in their amendment to the amendment passed on Division in your Lordships' House. The principle of quiet enjoyment has been strongly supported by all parties. Indeed, it was strongly supported on all sides of the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved his amendment. We supported attempts to clarify what "quiet enjoyment" meant in the context of national parks. However, in the end we decided that there was no substitute for case law when it came to interpreting what Parliament had decided.

After the publication of the Edwards Report, the Government made a commitment to the principle of park authorities promoting quiet enjoyment. That was the Government's response to the Edwards Report. It appears from what the Minister said that nothing has happened to detract from that principle. I understand that the Government remain committed to their response to the Edwards Report.

In another place during Committee, Members of all parties supported the principle. On Report, my right honourable and honourable friends tried to move an amendment, given that the Government were not happy with what your Lordships had approved on a Division. They fought hard for the retention of the words. Indeed, they were supported by many representations from all kinds of organisations and private individuals. Finally, it came down to whether there was a definition that was acceptable in statute as opposed to a phrase which would be interpreted in case law.

The Government wish to have in statute every conceivable dot and comma. Yet, we now have the position in which the Government, having accepted the Edwards Report and its conclusions on "quiet enjoyment", propose to put the measures into guidelines or guidance. I am wholly unclear—and during the course of the afternoon other noble Lords have raised the problem—as to what is the status of guidance or guidelines. Can they be challenged in either House of Parliament or in the courts? What is their status? If there are to be guidelines, I should prefer to have a simple phrase in the Bill such as "quiet enjoyment" and then to have that interpreted by the Government as to what they think it means. Indeed, in the light of Pepper v. Hart, as the noble Earl knows, the Government are entitled to put their gloss on what the expression means. The courts will then interpret it on a case by case basis.

I cannot see, and nor can noble friends more learned than I, any case against that. At this last llth hour and 59th minute, I ask the noble Earl to put on the record a very clear statement that the Government support the Edwards concept of quiet enjoyment—that even though there may be different words in the Bill, those words should be interpreted by the courts as an endorsement of the principle of "quiet enjoyment" as expressed by Edwards. If the noble Earl can do that, I am prepared to be satisfied.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I should find it of considerable interest if my noble friend could tell me whether the expression "quiet enjoyment" appears in any other statute and, if so, which one.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. However, perhaps I may return to what happened when we debated the Bill earlier this year. I was concerned that it did not reflect adequately the findings of the Edwards Committee because it did not clarify the forms of enjoyment which national park authorities should promote. Therefore, in Committee I moved an amendment to make it absolutely clear what should be the second purpose of national parks. To my delight, the amendment was accepted.

The amendment was based on the recommendations of the Edwards report and the subsequent policy statement by the Government to which my noble friend alluded. I wanted to ensure that the principle of park authorities promoting the quiet enjoyment of areas was set out clearly in statute. Since then, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have said, much debate has centred around the need for a definition of "quiet enjoyment". Although I am aware that technically a definition is not strictly necessary, I have supported the efforts of Ministers both in this House and another place to secure a definition so that there can he no misinterpretation of the recreational purpose of the parks. I was naturally disappointed that my amendment was reversed in another place due to difficulties in agreeing a suitable definition of "quiet enjoyment". I understand that that was due to reasons of technical drafting and does not represent a change of policy.

Therefore, I welcome warmly the Minister's commitment to include in detailed guidance how the Bill is to be interpreted. That should illustrate the kind of activities which national park authorities will he expected to promote. Although numerous organisations, and I myself, would be much happier to have the words "quiet enjoyment" on the face of the Bill, I hope that the Minister's words will reassure the House and those who live, work and take their recreation within the parks.

Last week I wrote to the Minister and requested him to reassure the House today that quiet enjoyment will remain a principle of national parks, as it has been since their creation almost 50 years ago. I hope that he will he able to reassure me that peacefulness and tranquillity are key special qualities of all national parks and that the types of activity which park authorities would he expected to promote should he only those which do not put in jeopardy those special qualities. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that, as a principle, quiet enjoyment remains as relevant as it always has been. I ask him to indicate that that principle would be made absolutely clear in the guidance which is to accompany the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I support the requests made by my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am worried that the whole exercise of including the words "quiet enjoyment" and then taking them out again will have an unfortunate effect. Publicity has been given to the fact that those words have been removed and I am worried that that may give the wrong impression to many people about what is now to be permitted in national parks, more so than if the argument had not taken place at all.

There has been a kind of minor hysteria in the other place about the effect of the word "quiet", leaving aside for the moment the legal difficulties. which I believe have been overemphasised. The clause that we are talking about is concerned with what the authorities are actively required to promote. Therefore, it does not give them power to close down any existing activity as far as I can see. Therefore, a great deal of the fuss that has been made about putting an end to activities which now take place in the parks appears to me to be quite unnecessary.

As the Bill went through in its earlier stages, we dealt with the composition of the authorities. That composition will be very important in relation to the interpretation of what is now proposed by the Government. Later this evening we shall be discussing the proposed changes to the composition of those authorities. It seems to me that those changes will give us additional cause for concern when we look at them in the context of the removal of that phrase. I very much regret what has happened and hope that the Minister will reassure us.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I welcome the removal of the word "quiet" from the Bill because it has caused a great deal of anxiety for a number of legitimate organisations which promote activities within the national parks.

I am a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC and I am concerned in particular about the RAC rally. Rallying and motor sports in general are very popular and in this country, we are extremely good at them. Indeed, those sports produce a great deal of revenue for the Exchequer, which I am sure will be welcomed by all noble Lords. But the fact is that two-thirds of the RAC rally takes place in national park areas and has done for many years, long before they were so designated in fact. To impose a duty on park authorities to promote quiet activity could put in serious doubt the continuation of the RAC rally, among other things.

It is all very well for noble Lords and others to say that the national park authorities have no intention of stopping the RAC rally. But others—what I might call the environmental puritans or zealots—may take the national park authorities to court for allowing something like the RAC rally to take place because it would not be promoting quiet enjoyment. The RAC rally is enjoyed by many thousands of people, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as quiet. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may not enjoy it. I believe that the environmental zealots would wish to remove the word "enjoyment" from national parks legislation because, on the whole, they seem to want to stop anybody enjoying anything at all.

The same applies to sailing. Anxieties have been expressed by sailing interests. Sailing is a quiet activity, but if there is to be competitive dinghy racing on a lake in a park, there must be a motorised safety boat. There are those who wish to ban all motor boats from lakes in national parks. If the word "quiet" is included in the Bill, they could probably attempt to do so.

There are a great number of other activities which legitimately take place in the national parks which could not be described as quiet. I believe that the Bill as currently drafted is a great deal better.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is repeating arguments which I thought had been thoroughly dealt with at a previous stage. The fact that we want quiet enjoyment of the parks does not automatically mean, or even imply, any kind of a ban on specific sports. To go as far as he did and say that people in the national parks are not in favour of anyone enjoying themselves suggests a total misunderstanding of what the national parks are for. The mere fact that the national parks are there means that people who use them are enjoying themselves and take great pleasure from that.

My purpose in rising to my feet is not to repeat the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Norrie, but to say that the previous desire to have quiet enjoyment was supported in all parts of the House and that certainly includes noble Lords on these Benches. Although we understand why that provision has been taken out, we are sorry. We look to the Government to produce the greatest possible reassurance in the guidance that will be given.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am informed that the words "quiet enjoyment" could curtail work, particularly agricultural work, in the national parks. I am aware that agricultural activities are often not quiet and certainly they are not peaceful. If there are to he guidelines, I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the "work activities", if I may call them that, will not be affected. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will support such a view as will the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, I support the remarks made by the previous speakers, with the particular exception of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, with whom I totally disagree. There was very wide support from all sides of the House when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved his successful amendment. I accept that the Government tried both then, and subsequently in another place, to come up with a definition. It may he that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right that that was not necessary and it could be done the other way round by case law. However, I believe that the Government tried but they have not come up with a suitable definition. The route by way of guidance is probably the best we can expect at this stage.

I would like to see particular attention paid to the remarks contained in the Edwards report. It states, While we do not support their"— by "their" it is speaking about such activities as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, including motor cycle scrambling, rally driving and so forth— total prohibition in national parks, they should only take place on those rare sites where they do not cause undue annoyance to other park users or damage to the fabric of the parks themselves". The report says that in most cases other places can be found to carry out those activities.

The point about the Edwards report is that it took the view that there are particular national parks where things can be done which should not be done in other parks. It is that kind of sentiment that one needs to get into the guidance. I do not know how these things are done, but when the Government draw up their guidelines I hope that they will consult with the relevant organisations like the NGOs and the National Trust, because we have a great deal of ownership in national parks. That would be important.

What is most important of all—and here I am taking up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—is that it would be deplorable if this Bill were to reach the statute book with any suggestion that the Government had in any way departed from the principle of quiet enjoyment as a special quality to be promoted and protected in our national parks.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, perhaps I may add my disappointment to that already expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House that the Government have been unable to produce an appropriate definition. In a way, I am rather surprised that they have not been able to do so. It is disappointing because it was a crucial part of the Edwards report that quiet enjoyment should be part of the policy towards the national parks.

I believe that most of us know what was intended. I recognise that it would be possible for ill-intentioned people to try to challenge perfectly legitimate activities. As regards what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would contemplate challenging agricultural activities. That seems to be dicta ad absurdum as an argument.

However, there is a need for tranquillity which is growing in this age. Things that may have been acceptable a while ago are not going to be acceptable. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Brabazon is right in saying that activities such as rallies would be acceptable forever. Recently I heard of someone with a business—and there is nothing immoral about it—taking people around national parks by helicopter. It is not right that in the future people's enjoyment of national parks should be spoilt by one or two persons being taken around by helicopter.

It is an unsatisfactory legislative process that we cannot define the problem and yet we are told that there will be guidance. At the very least the Government should have provided—and have had time to provide—some draft guidance so that we see the kind of things that they have in mind. I do not cast any aspersions on the Government's intentions. I take at face value their earlier commitment to the principle of quiet enjoyment, which was contained in the Edwards report. But we need to be given more detail of the kind of thing that would be in the guidance. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we must have a clearer idea of the vires of what the guidance would be.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, at the risk of prolonging this discussion, I would like to say from this Bench that I support what the Government have been doing. With so many voices saying that the term "quiet" should precede "enjoyment", in throwing my hat into the ring I would like to bring some of my own experiences to bear on this matter.

The Minister has quite rightly pointed out the difficulties of definition. I considered that myself in the light of some knowledge of commercial landlord and tenant where the term "quiet enjoyment" is a commonplace piece of terminology. But outside that rarified world of commercial activity, it clearly means different things to different people. Noble Lords will perhaps remember that I moved an amendment late in the proceedings in this House before the matter left for another place. It was evident to me, as it must have been to many others, that there was no consensus as to what that term meant. That is a very dangerous precedent and message to send out attached to an Act of Parliament.

I accept that the national parks authorities should not be in the business of encouraging noisy activities, but acoustic matters are only one part of the equation. It is possible to be a hostage to fortune because of the lack of interpretation and definition. The provision is being treated by local authorities as "a duty to prevent". I say that with a degree of certainty, having recently been in a national park local planning inquiry where I was obliged to challenge a reference to commercial shooting. There were other references to other things about quiet enjoyment, but that was the particular matter about which I was concerned. I must explain why that was the case. I run a shoot commercially. It probably makes the difference between the estate balancing its hooks as against making a thumping loss. It also gives rise to a managed activity which enables investment to be made in things which could not otherwise be afforded.

I am satisfied in my own mind that that national park authority and other local authorities will latch on to the principle of quiet enjoyment, like it or not, as a facility to decline consent for planning permission for anything that might be associated with a certain amount of noise. It is not just a matter of a particular class of activity; it is a question of quantum and of intensity of use. That brings in considerations of frequency and timing. These are the critical factors and they are matters of management. They are not a matter of absolutes whereby someone says that motoring is inherently noisy and walking is inherently quiet. If a large number of people walk along a footpath past someone's farmstead—I had reason to see the result of this when I took a potential purchaser round a farm last year which had a coastal footpath running next to it—it can create disamenity. This matter depends on one's point of view, on one's standpoint and on the position of the recipient of the acoustic or other disamenity. It is important that we get that straight.

Therefore I do not believe that it is just a question of clarifying what national park authorities should promote. As I said, I tried to get that clear at a late stage in this Bill. However, what is more to the point is what it is that they should reject. That is, if I may put it this way, the hidden agenda that people in the countryside are so worried about; that there is this unstated raft of activities which for whatever reason are considered inappropriate. As someone who farms and owns land in a national park I cannot accept that.

It has nothing to do with my activities, but I have been brought up with the concept of multi-use and multi-activity. I do not believe we should say that national parks are not appropriate places for the activities of the motorist or the power boat user. There ought to be the concept of national parks being used as the lungs of the nation, if you like, for all, and none, as the case may be. I have been brought up with that concept ever since I have managed my particular part of Exmoor.

I finish by supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, mentioned. I wish to reassure him that the citation of the Exmoor national park—noble Lords may recall that each national park has a citation attached to it—refers to it as fine country for motoring.

5.30 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I did not think that this group of amendments would be what one might call an easy ride, not only because your Lordships have discussed this matter frequently before and hold strong views on it, but also because you passed an amendment to insert the words "quiet enjoyment" into the Bill and another place has taken them out. I would not have expected your Lordships to change your views on that. This is a difficult matter. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me whether "quiet enjoyment" appear in any other statute. As far as I know, the words do not.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, they appear in landlord and tenant legislation.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord is telling me that the words appear in landlord and tenant legislation. In that case he has the advantage of me. I have no doubt that if he says that it is correct, in which case he has answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He might have intervened to tell him that, had he wanted to.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, perhaps I could formally intervene. The noble Earl alas, was not Minister at the time. There was a debate, as the noble Earl has read. in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out that the words "quiet enjoyment" occurred in landlord and tenant legislation.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I remember clearly an extremely powerful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in which he said that in that landlord and tenant legislation the words "quiet enjoyment" meant something totally different from what we have been talking about in this debate.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I have never known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, make a speech which was not powerful. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for correcting the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We must be careful not to be—

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did not correct me; it was a matter of fact. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quite rightly said that the words had a completely different meaning. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was, "Do these words occur in any other legislation"? The answer is yes.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—as is the House—is now far more fully aware of the problems than we all were before.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, if these words appear in a totally different sense, as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not that a relevant consideration as to whether it is sensible to use them in this Act?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, makes another pungent point, as he always does. It is perfectly true that if they have different meanings in different Acts it may he desirable not to include them in this Bill. That is why we thought it best not to do so.

To return to the real problem, I do not think that there is too much between anyone here as regards what we are trying to do. The question is whether this provision should be put into a statute. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said he thought that the best thing to do would be to insert a simple phrase into the Bill and then the Government can say what they think the phrase means. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do because eventually the courts would have to come to a conclusion as to what "quiet enjoyment" means. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that he wanted to know what the Government feel about the guidance, and he asked whether we accepted the Edwards recommendations. We continue to accept the concept which underlines the report's recommendations on quiet enjoyment. The guidance will make this clear, and it will be available to the national parks authorities and to others. It certainly will not be statutory, hut we would obviously expect the authorities and others to take full account of it.

Then the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the guidelines could be challenged. Guidelines are an explanation of government policy stating what should be done. However, if a national park were taken to court, the fact that it had not followed the guidelines could be held against it. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the guidelines would be subject to consultation. The answer is that they are subject to consultation. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that he had not yet seen the guidance. The draft guidance was published in January of this year. We intend to revise the guidance in the light of the debates in both Houses. We shall then consult widely on the revised draft later this year. I believe that that is the right way to do it. If one puts these words into a Bill, the only way one will know what they mean is when someone takes the matter to court.

It is all very fine my noble friend Lord Marlesford saying—I think it was a momentary slip of intellectual superiority—that we all know what we mean by "quiet enjoyment", but the fact is that we do not all know what is meant. My noble friend Lord Stanley said that the provision might curtail agriculture. It might do so. What happens when chain-saws are making the most appalling noise? Has anyone listened to a farmer preparing silage for three days on end? The buzzing is worse than a thousand drones of bees and it is constant. No one could say that that adds to quiet enjoyment.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, swatted my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara rather like a fly in saying that he raised issues that had been dealt with at an earlier stage. My noble friend Lord Brabazon was quite right. He raised issues which were considered at an earlier stage but which have not been resolved. They would not have been resolved with the incorporation of the words "quiet enjoyment".

If the words "quiet enjoyment" are included, a great many activities are put at risk. They also create considerable uncertainty. Some parks have speed boats; some have jet-skis; some have motor-bike rallies; some have soldiers. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he was all for national parks being for everyone. If one includes "quiet enjoyment", does that mean that one excludes the jet-skis, the speed boats, the motor-bike rallies and the soldiers? What is quiet enjoyment? Is it when you are sitting down in a national park having a cup of tea? If all of a sudden a man whose face is covered in black leaps out of a bush at you, being a soldier on an exercise, you could well say, "That's not quiet enjoyment. It disturbed my afternoon."

Once we put that into statute we run into trouble. I believe that another place was correct to say that we should not put it in statute but include it in the guidance. I can tell your Lordships that the first draft of the guidance has already gone out. We intend to revise the guidance in the light of what has been said in both Houses. Then it will be open to wide consultation. I believe that that is the best approach. I hope that your Lordships will agree.

I do not believe that it is possible to have one simple answer for all the national parks and the different parts of the national parks. That is why national park authorities are set up to conduct the parks as best they can and in the way they think fit in accordance with the guidance. As I said, the guidance will be very full.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the best way to deal with this vexatious and difficult problem. Once we enshrine such terms in law—words which are not simple of interpretation—we shall land ourselves in more trouble than if we leave them out.

On Question, Motion agreed to.