Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I presume that it is in order for me to address the whole group, as all the amendments in it relate to national parks. One of the reasons that I wanted to table an amendment, apart from on its own merits—to which I will return in a moment—was that most of this section is completely new to the House. The reason for that, as I am sure that the Minister would tell us, is that the Meyrick judgment handed down by the courts came after we dealt with the Bill in the House. The Government took the decision that the Bill was a suitable vehicle to revert, as they intend, the law to what it was prior to the Meyrick judgment. I understand that the noble Lord Bach told the other place on Monday night that the Government have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Meyrick case. Lord Justice Keene was quoted at column 50 in House of Lords Hansard on 20 March:"““The grounds are properly arguable and, in any event, raise issues of importance which ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal””." We are considering these amendments in the absence of knowing the final outcome of the Meyrick judgment. Nevertheless, I agree with the Government that the Meyrick judgment, as it stands at the moment, is anomalous. It goes way beyond what any of us has previously understood as being the criteria for national parks, and refers to this high degree of ““naturalness””. The judge in the case, again quoted at column 50, said that,"““well-maintained historic parkland providing the setting for a grade 1 listed building, and well-ordered dairy fields of dairy farms would seem to be the antithesis of naturalness””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 50.]" Arguably he is right, but if we accept that as the criteria for national parks, there probably would not be any. We all know that the British landscape has been affected by mankind since time immemorial. Certainly, all the evidence suggests that since 12000 BC, when mesolithic man first invaded the wild woods and started cutting them down, the British landscape has been in a state of change and affected by mankind. To refer to naturalness seems a bit odd in that context. Having said that I entirely agree that Meyrick goes too far, I also believe that the amendments go too far in the other direction. I accept that the Government’s intention is simply to return the law to where it was before the Meyrick judgment—although if they won the appeal such action would not be necessary, because that would emphasise that the pre-Meyrick legislation stood, or that the interpretation of it stood. In many ways, I hope that the Government do win the appeal, but they tabled the amendments using the Bill as a vehicle, so it is therefore right for this House to have an opportunity to debate them. Lords amendment No. 17, which would insert a new clause on criteria for designating national parks, suggests measures that I believe would extend the criteria for designation beyond where they were before Meyrick. Indeed, I think they could almost be seen to be opening the whole of rural England to such designation, which goes too far in the opposite direction. I believe passionately in national parks, but they need to have specific attributes—to which I shall return—that identify them as being areas of particular importance. If we allow the criteria to be too lax and end up being able to designate much larger swathes of rural England in the coming years, the designation of national parks as a whole will be brought into disrepute, and will not be treated with the respect to which it is entitled. That would be a great sadness, which is why I tabled amendments (a) and (b). Lords amendment No. 17 proposes that Natural England may,"““when applying subsection (2)(a) in relation to an area, take into account its wildlife and cultural heritage””." I think that most of us would accept that it is sensible to include wildlife in a provision relating to national parks, for obvious reasons. It is the term ““cultural heritage”” that I find more difficult to understand. I am sure that the Minister, who has briefing papers, will point out that it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the phrase to national parks legislation. He nods—he was going to throw that at me, so I am glad that I got in first. That is perfectly true, but anyone who reads Lord Bach’s speeches and the briefing that we have all received from the Council for National Parks will observe that the terms ““cultural heritage”” and ““landscape”” appear to be interchangeable. It seems to me that the Government mean ““landscape””, and I would therefore prefer that word to be used in the Bill. We all understand what ““landscape”” means. It deals with the issue of naturalness, because we all know that the landscape of England is affected, has been affected and will be maintained by mankind. There can thus be no dispute about the interpretation of the word, whereas I believe that the phrase ““cultural heritage”” is open to much more question. New subsection 2A(b) provides that Natural England may"““take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public.””" Of course, we want the public to be able to enjoy the special qualities of a national park, but that ability has always been there. I do not understand why the Government want to open it up to that extent. The issue of enjoyment of those special qualities was clearly included in the criteria specified in the Countryside Act 1949. There have been various reports on national parks: the Addison, Dower and Hobhouse reports, and more recently the Sandford and Edwards reports. There seems to be a common theme in all that work, namely, the importance of special areas with an element of wildness, beautiful and suitable for public access at the time of designation. That is very important point and a constant theme, so we are forced to ask what it is that the Government are changing, given that such a provision already exists in legislation. It seems that, in using the phrase"““take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities””," the Government are implying that in future the public enjoyment of such special qualities could be opened up considerably. That, in turn, raises the possibility of damaging the special qualities that caused an area’s designation in the first place. Amendment No. 17 widens the criteria too far the other way, although I readily except that Meyrick needs to be redressed if the appeal is lost. Of course, if the Government win the appeal, this whole debate could become irrelevant. Indeed, the Minister may wish to tell the House this afternoon how he sees the legislation working. If we pass all this and the Government then win the Meyrick appeal, what impact will that have? In a sense, two different pieces of legislation would apply to national parks. Amendment No. 33 would insert a new clause defining:"““Natural beauty in the countryside.””" As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—this, too, is part of the Government’s desire to rebalance the Meyrick judgment, with which I wholly agree. Indeed, I do not disagree with any aspect of the new clause’s definition of natural beauty. That is fine, but why, having included that new clause, is amendment No. 17 still necessary? I appreciate that I have spoken first and that the Minister has not had a chance to respond, but I hope that he will indeed explain why amendment No. 17 is necessary, given that amendment No. 33 defines natural beauty, and that such a definition is fundamental to the criteria for designating national parks. We do not oppose the idea of correcting Meyrick or of national parks, but if national parks are to retain the value and esteem that people attach to them, they should remain areas with special qualities. My concern is that the Government, in their desire to rebalance the legislation following Meyrick, have gone too far the other way. In future years, attempts could be made to designate areas that perhaps do not have the special quality that we attribute to existing national parks. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why it is necessary for the Government to go as far as they are going with their amendments.