Representation on National Parks (Hansard, 4 July 1989)

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer the right of greater local representation on national park planning committees. The role of national parks has been debated in the House many times. The Bill that created the role of the national parks was introduced in the House 40 years ago and was given its Second Reading on 31 March 1949. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill defined a national park as: an extensive area of outstanding beauty, suitable for open air recreation by the general public, but where the normal life of the existing community goes on. Such an area may run to hundreds of square miles. The largest of the proposed national parks, the Lake District national park, is more than 800 square miles.
There are 10 national parks in England and Wales and none in Scotland. The 10 are the Peak district, the Lake district, Snowdonia, Dartmoor, the Pembrokeshire coast, the North Yorkshire, the Yorkshire dales, Exmoor, Northumberland and the Brecon Beacons, which represent an overall area of 5,251 sq. miles and a population, in 1981, of approximately 238,000.
When the Minister of Town and Country Planning, Mr. Silkin introduced the Bill he said, when dealing with representation on the national parks: The Bill provides that at least a quarter of the board or of the committee shall be appointed by the local planning authority on the nomination of the Minister, after consultation with the National Parks Commission. This will enable the Minister to ensure that persons are appointed to the parks committee without local interest or prejudices, who are able to put before the committee the so-called 'national' point of view". Mr. Silkin went on to say: There are considerable safeguards in the Bill as well. There is the presence of not less than 25 per cent. of members on the park committees who will put forward national considerations."—[Official Report, 31 March 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1471—83.] My argument is that there is insufficient local representation on those national parks. The Opposition spokesman at that time was Mr. W. S. Morrison, who was the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I am glad to see his successor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, on the Front Bench today. He has a similar role to that of his predecessor.
Not all of the Dower report, which was the forerunner to the national parks, was accepted by the Government, although the setting up of the national parks had a broad welcome from Members of all parties. There was no Division on Second Reading. When the Dower report and the later Hobhouse report were commissioned, they came out not with the idea of a national parks committee, but with the idea of appointing a small, select group of people to administer the whole role of the national parks. However, neither the Government nor the Opposition of the time thought that acceptable. It was felt that a wider range of people should serve on the national parks.
It is difficult to bring forward specific guidelines for the national parks as a whole in this country because, although there are 10, they are not administered in the same manner. The Peak park board, which covers part of my constituency, is a joint board to which seven county or 156 metropolitan councils appoint. The Lake district has a separate board and is distinct from Cumbria county council. Dartmoor, Northumberland, the Pembrokeshire coast and Snowdonia have single county committees, which is a slightly different way of administering those national parks. The Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, North Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales national parks have multi-county committees. Therefore, it is difficult to bring forward a set of proposals that could be applied to all our national parks.
However, I hope that what I am proposing will go some way to achieving balance in the administration of our national parks. I know that that view is shared by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who agrees that we should have more local representation from the local county councils and district councils. I argue strongly that it is the job and within the power of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint people with national expertise in this area and that the local element should come from the councils.
It is the purpose of my Bill to ensure that two thirds of the appointments made by local authorities should have a residential qualification—gained by living in the area of the national park—or should be an elected member of a local authority serving the area of the national park. If a county council seat or division is part of a national park, those serving in that capacity should serve on the national park authority. That would mean that, of the total of 168 local authority appointees, 112 would fall in those categories. That is by no means a majority, because I recognise that the idea behind the "national park" is to give national significance to those parks.
There are 258 appointees in all—168 coming from the local authorities, as I have said, and 84 who are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, while the Bill would not mean a predominance of local people, it would enable a national point of view to be expressed.
The local element in this is important because there is no other planning authority in the country where one can serve on a planning committee without meeting the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972, which states that a member of a planning board should be a local government elector for the area of the authority; or have occupied as owner or tenant, land or premises in the area for the whole of the preceding 12 months; or have worked in the area during the preceding 12 months, or have lived in the area during the whole of the preceding 12 months.
The Bill is meant as a way forward and as a way of bringing about some elected responsibility in the national parks administration without having to have full elections. I have doubts about full elections to the national parks committees, because it is not right to have an elected body to consider just one issue. I hope that, by striking the two thirds balance and by not saying that all county council nominees should come from the national parks, I have gone some way towards meeting some of the concerns about the establishment of the board.
I hope that I shall have the honour of bringing in my Bill, and I am glad that it will have cross-party support. The Bill aims to ensure locally elected representation on the national parks committees. It does not necessarily mean that locally elected representatives would be given a majority; it simply seeks to ensure that the 238,000 people who live in the national parks have access to elected 157 representatives, because planning law for most of the rest of the country is dealt with through local representation. They, too, will have the accountability to the people who elect them to those bodies, thus bringing a more representative form of accountability to the national parks.
I know that the chances of the Bill reaching the statute book are somewhat remote at this stage in the parliamentary year. However, I hope that this important issue will eventually be considered by the Select Committee on the Environment. It is an important issue. Everyone wants to see the national parks continue and thrive in their present form. I am concerned to see some form of local accountability, as I believe that is vital.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Barnes
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). He obviously made some serious points about extending the provision to local representation, but he said that the Bill was intended to arrange for two thirds of the appointees to a planning board to be resident in the area or to be elected representatives serving in that particular area.
I believe that the hon. Member presented the Bill because of his experiences with the Peak park joint planning board, in which he has a considerable interest because of his constituency connections. The problem is that it is over the top to suggest two thirds of the appointees for the Peak park joint planning board. That provision is merely part of the hon. Gentleman's general vendetta against Derbyshire county council.
The situation in Derbyshire is that the Peak park joint planning board has 34 members. Eleven are appointed by the Secretary of State, and I accept that those can be people who have national considerations to bring to bear, as well as important local ones, and 23 members are appointed from various councils, including eight from Derbyshire county council. The problem is that many of those, although not from within the specific area, have a considerable interest in the provisions of the Peak park joint planning board and are willing to devote resources and to assist in the building up of the provisions, which are important not just for the area itself but for the whole of 158 Derbyshire and many wider areas, because those areas are represented by members of the board. There may be a need for some rationalisation of membership and there is obviously a case for greater democratisation so that the area is reasonably represented.
However, the proposals of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West would lead to a situation where those members with outside but legitimate interests in the Peak park joint planning board would be eliminated. On those grounds, I oppose the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
The question is, That the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".

Hon. Members
Aye.

§ Mr. Speaker
To the contrary, "No."

Hon. Members
Aye.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West (Mr. Barnes) must sustain his opposition by saying "No".

§ Mr. Barnes
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.