Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I felt that my noble friend Lord Peel gave valuable evidence to this House of some of the difficulties that arise when a national park is designated. Over the years the 1949 Act has weathered extremely well and the criteria laid down then have been adequate ever since over the 50 years that the Act has been in operation. We tend to forget that if we increase the number of national parks even by three, four or five, it devalues all the national parks. It is important that we try to keep a national park as something very special, to be so designated only if it has exceptional qualities. If one does have a national park designated, one can see and know of the problems that arise. Of course, it encourages a substantial increase in tourism. But that in turn requires facilities, restrooms, cafes and hotels, better roads and so on—and what was a quiet backwater of beauty sometimes becomes a honey pot of hell. We have to be very careful before we go down the route of creating more national parks. We really cannot have it both ways. If we want to have quiet beauty and the opportunity to tour about in one’s car to see the countryside, then we cannot expect it to remain that way if it is designated a national park, with all the developments that take place in parks. I visited all the national parks when I was the Minister responsible. At the same time I was able to feel some of the tensions between the national parks boards or authorities, the local authority and indeed the government. It was never a very happy relationship. In terms of housing and other facilities, many people felt that by living in a national park, they were hard done by—as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly said. We have to try to find a way forward which allows us to retain our present situation. After all, the AONBs do extremely well. They are easily designated, can be understood by all and sundry, and do not need the detailed problems of planning and local authority involvement that they would need if they became a national park. One does not like to be political about these things, but one tends to feel that the Government designate national parks because they think it will be popular with the public. When the public think about what happens subsequently, however, they may rather wish they were not living in a national park, or that more and more were not designated. In my mind, that goes for Scotland, too, which we are not discussing tonight. I know all the areas under consideration there and the difficulties. Whether we are talking about transmission lines, a windmill, or goodness knows what else, we have to try to concentrate on retaining the beauty of our national parks and not devalue them by making them commercial enterprises so that they can be viable. Finally, and most importantly, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly put forward the point that we have had no consultation on this very important change. I think the Minister should try to explain why he has not had detailed consultation and why there is no time for it to happen in future. There are, after all, a lot more people in the national parks authorities who want to give their views, including all the wildlife and countryside interests. They have been put to one side and have not been consulted. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford is marginally better than the Minister’s and does not make it easier to create national parks.