Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I certainly accept the apology of my noble friend—he is always one of the most courteous Ministers in dealing with the House. I am sure that no offence was intended. The letters may indeed be waiting for us when we get out of this Committee and go back to our desks. In the circumstances I would like commend the noble Baroness on having pursued her amendment as far as she did. I agree with what was said from the Liberal Front Bench. If we are to return to this matter only on Report, it is important for the Government in Committee to know a bit about the issues raised—and I ensure my noble friend Lord Carter that I will try to stay within his strictures—by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I apologise for speaking fully on this matter, but it is very important that I do so. I think that the noble Baroness will agree that the views she puts forward reflect the view of those who are unhappy about the creation of the South Downs National Park and who claim that the Bill will move the goalposts for the designation process. The outcome of the Meyrick case in the High Court, which excluded land at the Hinton estate in the New Forest from the new park, has clearly therefore provided ammunition for this anxiety and this proposition. I want to deal with that in the context of what the noble Baroness has said about her amendment. Section 5(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which gives the criteria for designating national parks, currently states:"““The said areas are those extensive tracts of country . . . as to which it appears to the Commission that by reason of (a) their natural beauty””." While Section 5(1) of the same Act gives the purposes of the national parks as:"““(a) to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage””." In the Meyrick case, the judge concentrated on the difference between the criteria and the purposes. His analysis, as I understand it, was that the added distinction of ““natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage”” in national park purposes, compared with the sole mention of ““natural beauty”” in their criteria, meant that wildlife and cultural heritage are not factors which can be considered when selecting areas of landscape for national park designation. But this is surely questionable. Prior to the 1995 Environment Act, the purposes and criteria of the national parks were the same. The purposes were only then amended so that national parks could be certain that they could focus more on biodiversity and heritage improvements. In practice, for the last half century, wildlife and cultural heritage have been a clear influence on what land should be included for national park designation. For whatever reasons, however, the judge did not address the issue of practice and precedent. However, because of the focus on ““natural beauty””, the judge pondered what that could mean and, in the absence of a legal definition in the 1949 Act, put forward his own. It was,"““a high degree of relative naturalness””" —in other words, very little interference by man. By that definition, the Hinton estate in the New Forest, with its parkland, farmland, woodland and Grade 1 listed building, did not qualify. That clearly has big implications for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty alike. The 1949 Act applies to the creation of both. They all contain land influenced by man, through farmland to physical infrastructure and settlements, and to areas very similar to the Hinton estate, like Chatsworth or Lyme Park in the Peak District. Again, it must be underlined that the judge did not address practice and precedent. All national parks in Britain are influenced by man. That is why the Government’s new clause, which we were expecting this evening, made common sense—but we must not discuss that. We need to look at some of the history. The application of the natural beauty criterion by the Countryside Agency has been fully exposed to debate and ratification in Parliament and by government for more than 50 years. Starting with the reports that led to the creation of national parks, it is obvious that ““natural beauty”” or ““scenic beauty”” and the influence of wildlife, cultural heritage and man have been critical to the designation process. The 1945 Dower report, which made the first post-war recommendations for national parks, set out the requirements clearly—the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved; access and facilities for public open-air enjoyment are amply provided; wildlife, buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected; and established farming use is effectively maintained. The report of the national parks committee chaired by Sir Arthur Hobhouse and presented to the Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1947 underlined that approach with its references to ““merit in variety””, ““wide diversity of landscape”” in England and Wales, and the need to include,"““other districts, which though of lesser grandeur, have their own distinct beauty””." The report tellingly observed:"““We are dealing with a closely populated and highly developed country where almost every acre of land is used in some degree for the economic needs of man and has its place in a complex design of agricultural, industrial or residential use””." Both the Dower and Hobhouse reports had far-reaching influence on the preparation and legislative process that produced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Between 1951 and 1957, 10 national parks and 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty were designated. Again, I emphasise that all of them contained manmade features—settlements, farmlands, and areas similar to the Hinton estate. In 1974, the so-called Sandford report, by the committee established by the government with the Reverend Lord Sandford in the chair, after taking much evidence and holding many public meetings did not find any need to review the criteria. Again in 1991, the national park review panel chaired by the distinguished professor, Ron Edwards, recommended no changes; indeed, it re-emphasised the influence of man, observing that,"““the essence of the concept of national parks lies in the striking quality and remoteness of much of the scenery, the harmony between man and nature it displays . . . the softer and less remote areas of our national parks also exemplify at their best a harmonious interaction between humanity and the natural world . . . This part of the national parks scene where man’s hand is most in evidence is no less an integral part””." If there is any question of the goalposts being moved, it is not by anything that we might have been debating this evening—I must remain in order—but by the ruling in the Meyrick case. I hope that what I have said will help to reassure the noble Baroness that the situation as it stood until that ruling is the one that overwhelmingly recognises what the national parks are about, clearly, explicitly and in every sense. In this Committee today, we should continue that tradition. Therefore, I hope that on consideration she will not find it necessary to press her amendment.