I shall, if I may, address some of the issues arising from other provisions that have already been approved by the Lords.
The new clauses relating to the criteria for designating national parks have allowed for a satisfactory definition that gives us back the standard that had been established in this country for almost 60 years. The Liberal Democrats’ only disappointment is that we are not discussing an amendment enabling local people to be elected to the boards of national parks, as an alternative to the Secretary of State making appointments. It is regrettable that neither the Government nor, it appears, the Conservatives could support such an amendment. However, in essence, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has rightly said, the new clauses re-establish the status quo before the Meyrick High Court judgment, which ruled that the Hinton estate in the New Forest need not form part of the South Downs national park on the ground that it was not sufficiently natural.
Amendment (a) would not allow a return to the status quo before Meyrick. Substituting ““landscape”” for ““cultural heritage”” would mean that national parks would be designated on the same basis as in the past. English Heritage estimates that the historical designation includes 11,000 listed buildings, 4,000 scheduled monuments and 30 registered parks and gardens. Although the parks and gardens might reasonably be regarded as landscape, I do not see how the monuments and listed buildings could be. Therefore, the amendment would be unduly restrictive, and inconsistent with the criteria used for the designation of national parks in the past. It would be regrettable to introduce that inconsistency now.
Amendment (b) is also unnecessary, as it would remove Natural England’s ability to take account of the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for people to understand and enjoy a national park’s special qualities. National parks are not wildernesses. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made an interesting and perhaps Freudian slip when he suggested that wildness was involved. For example, the landscape around Chatsworth is outstanding and beautiful, but it could not be called wild.
National parks are designed to be resources for the enjoyment of all, and it seems odd for the Conservatives to attempt to deny it. That is why we support the Lords amendments.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Huhne
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
444 c947 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:50:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313501
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313501
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_313501