---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Let me just make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Court found that the interpretation of the designation criteria should not be informed by national park purposes and appeared to favour a more restrictive interpretation of what could be considered to be ““natural”” in the context of ““natural beauty””. During the past 56 years, the criteria for designation have been understood and read in the light of the purposes of national parks. In 1991 a report by the national parks review panel, ““Fit for the Future””, reviewed the criteria and the purposes and recommended that there should be more explicit references to the wildlife and cultural heritage of the parks in the first purpose. The Government accepted that recommendation, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, and used the Environment Act 1995 to amend the preservation and conservation purpose in section 5(1) of the 1949 Act. No changes were made to the designation criteria because it was thought to be generally understood at the time that the criteria were informed by the purposes. However, that assumed link was broken by the Meyrick judgment handed down last November. Therefore, the Government believe that we should now take explicit steps to make sure, in statute, that the 1995 Act changes do indeed apply to the designation criteria as well as to the purposes.