Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I was going to deal with that question when I responded to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). There are a number of reasons why we need to act now. A degree of uncertainty would otherwise be created in respect of other issues relating to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am not referring specifically to the south downs. The Countryside Agency is considering other issues in relation to extensions to some national parks, for example. We need to be able to offer certainty for that work to be continued. The opportunity to revise the 1949 Act in the future would be very uncertain. It could be many years before Parliament has another opportunity to restore what we believe is the status quo. That is why we would like to act now. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, as I hope it will in the next day or so, I will have to consider what our position should be on the appeal, in the light of having made those changes. The main amendment, Lords amendment No. 17, adapts the criteria by incorporating the terminology of the purposes to make it clear that national park purposes are behind the criteria. As I have explained, we believe that that approach is what was intended by the original legislation. I have already talked about amendment (a). I think from what has been said that amendment (b) is an objection to the forward-looking nature of promoting"““opportunities for . . . understanding and enjoyment””." By that I mean that in deciding whether a piece of land should be designated, one can consider whether, through the actions of the national park authority, or someone else, its values for understanding and enjoyment could be increased. I must point out that that was fully explored in the New Forest inquiry and the Meyrick judgment. The second criterion for designation in the 1949 Act, which amendment (b) does not alter, refers to opportunities for open air recreation. It is inherent in the word ““opportunities”” that an appropriate degree of looking to the future was intended; that point was even accepted by both the claimants and the judge in the Meyrick judgment. In response to the point about potential damage to the very environment and landscape that we are seeking to protect through national park status, the Sandford principle applies to national park authorities, so in the last resort their decisions would have to come down in favour of the environment. I could go on, but I suspect that some of my hon. Friends would not find that to their taste.