Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 306A:"After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—" ““CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING NATIONAL PARKS (1)   In section 5(2)(a) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97) (national parks) the reference to natural beauty shall be construed as requiring a high degree of relative naturalness manifested by the physical beauty of the area in question. (2)   In section 5(2)(b) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 after ““afford”” insert ““at the present time””. (3)   This section applies for the purposes of the confirmation or variation on or after the day on which this section comes into force of orders made before that day as it applies for the purposes of the confirmation or variation of orders made on or after that day. (4)   This section shall come into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”” The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Minister. I put on record that he told me earlier today that the Government were going to withdraw their amendments because there was a technical fault with them. My Amendment No. 306A is grouped, and I explained to the Minister that I would speak to it as it seemed to me that if the Government were going to reflect on their amendments and come forward with new ones it would be of benefit to them to hear some of the views that might be expressed around the Committee in anticipation of those new amendments. The Minister has explained why he has withdrawn his amendments at this stage and that he will be bringing new amendments forward on Report. Mr Justice Sullivan, in the case of Meyrick v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,ruled that the land at Hinton Admiral Park was unsuitable, and the New Forest National Park Designation (Confirmation) Order was quashed. The Minister has indicated that the department will appeal. Even so, it seems to be at best hasty and at worst rash to push through legislation in the way that would have happened if the Minister had not decided to withdraw his amendments. Unless the amendments are changed in a major way, that will still apply. Does the noble Lord accept that this could be viewed as a case of sub judice? Mr Justice Sullivan said:"““It must be remembered that the question is not what factors should, as a matter of good countryside planning practice in the 21st century be taken into consideration in designating a National Park, but what factors may lawfully be taken into consideration under an enactment that is now over 55 years old””." Parliament had an opportunity to change that in 1995, but did not do so. Government Amendment No. 305 rewrites the legal basis for national parks, by changing both the criteria of natural beauty and open-air recreation. The addition of the words ““wildlife and cultural heritage”” overturns the High Court decision. What is meant by cultural heritage? It is not defined in this Bill or the 1949 Act. What will it cover, and who will decide what is or is not relevant? Any Secretary of State could choose to decide to that anything counted as cultural heritage and could feasibly designate any area with an old building—or in the case of the South Downs an Anglo-Saxon burial ground—as a national park. Our Amendment No. 306A would ensure that no land would be designated as a national park unless it had already achieved a high degree of ““relative naturalness””. We have chosen the wording that Mr Justice Sullivan used in the Meyrick case. It is a tried, tested and, at the moment, legally binding position. As the judge said, natural beauty is a relative concept. In the case of a national park, it is an extensive tract of land that is relatively natural. That will invariably include some more managed areas that would otherwise not have been considered as meeting the national park criteria, such as, for example, Chatsworth Park in the Derbyshire Peak District National Park, which is entirely surrounded by a very extensive area of moorland. In England, we have a spectrum of wild upland areas at one end, and intensively cultivated or managed land at the other. In the judge’s ruling, it was clear that the law needs to include criteria for designating national parks of a high degree of relative naturalness. In other words, national park land should be that which has been least interfered with by man. It should be the finest landscape in the country. The next part of our amendment would ensure that any recreational potential in the possible national park land was assessed on its present potential. The Government’s amendment—which has not been moved, so it is quite difficult for me; but I hope that I am still in order—redefines the criteria for open-air recreation. It enables national park designators to consider land that could be used for open-air recreation. In current legislation, open-air recreation is only a part of the national park criteria if that recreation already exists. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is meant by the fact that national parks,"““could be used to promote opportunities for open-air recreation””."