Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I farm in an area within the proposed designated area of the South Downs national park. I am afraid that I do not like either of these amendments. I cannot support my noble friend Lord Peel because the Meyrick definition of a degree of relative naturalness, enshrined into the criteria, would be far too restrictive. The Minister makes a perfectly sound case to say that, however you define such words, the amendments would exclude some of the national parks which we clearly value in England at the moment. I recognise that the Minister, in trying to clear up what he feels is a maverick judgment in the Meyrick case, is quite certainly adding to the criteria. My noble friend Lord Peel makes that point and I accept it. Unlike him, I am sometimes prepared to accept that new national parks might be an advantage. Indeed, I did something that I am sure he thinks totally eccentric: I opted to have more rather than less of my farm included within the designated area of the South Downs national park. I simply took the view that if we were going to have it—expensive though it was likely to be—we had better derive the benefits rather than be excluded. I recognise that once you have changed the criteria, there are issues which extend to all people, whether visiting, working or living in these areas. If, on the back of this judgment, we are to slip new criteria into this Bill, it is very reasonable that there should be a proper period of consultation once more. That includes those who may already have been consulted in such areas as the South Downs designated area. I oppose the Minister and I will be abstaining on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel.