Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I am sorry to intervene at this stage and delay us still further into what is normally regarded as the dinner hour, but unfortunately I happen to have with me the Minister’s letter. It is appropriate to quote from it, so that we know why there is the dilemma, why my noble friend has rightly initiated this debate, and why it needs to continue to take place. The letter states:"““I explained in my letter that this recent High Court case has produced a difficult judgment regarding the purposes and criteria for designating land as a new National Park, and in particular on how the term ‘natural beauty’ is to be interpreted. The effect of the combination of amendments 305 and 353 with consequential amendments . . . sought: to clarify what may be considered under the ‘natural beauty’ criterion, to clarify the role of the purposes in designation, and to clarify that just because an area is used for agriculture, woodland, as parkland or is the product of human intervention in the landscape it is not prevented from being treated as area of natural beauty.""Since laying these amendments the Board of the Countryside Agency have only very recently raised an important possible ambiguity in amendment 305; i.e. that it could be taken to imply that wildlife and cultural heritage considerations carry the same weight as natural beauty, whereas in fact they should be subsidiary to it.""Defra lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel are looking at how that intention can be made unequivocal but have not been able to draft an alternative amendment in time””." It is therefore clear that the Government’s intention is that the general purport of the amendments should stand. Therefore, despite the fact that the amendments have not been moved tonight, they are the background to this discussion. In sympathy with my noble friend, I am bound to say that as time moves on it appears increasingly that the criteria for designating national parks is becoming relatively looser, if I can put it that way; my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry would be suitably furious with me for those words. While there is considerable justification in the original designations—the New Forest was an inevitable and natural extension—when we get to the South Downs, if we are not extremely careful we get to the point where almost any area that happens to look rather attractive scenically is included. I have an area of outstanding natural beauty in my area. It is an attractive piece of countryside—not particularly so, but it happened to be painted by a notorious artist and, as a consequence, everybody thinks that it must be special. It is a bit of the English countryside—heaven help us. The English countryside has its glories all over the place, but they do not all justify the designation of a national park. The way in which we are moving makes it increasingly possible that beautiful areas can be designated as national parks, whereas they are simply natural bits of glorious English countryside. It is right that we are having this discussion, although it is probably time to draw it to a conclusion, as we will clearly have it all again at some point on Report.