§ 1 pm
§ Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown)I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with the south downs, having passed through the area on their way to Brighton for a party conference if at no other time. The downs comprise a fairly unique and sensitive area. They cover a large area, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne, and are bordered by fairly dense population centres. The area is very dear to the public throughout virtually all south England.
In 1949—when the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed—the south downs were one of 12 areas considered for designation as a national park. As it was thought that the downs had been too damaged by "digging for victory" in the war, it was decided that they should not be so designated. None the less, it was decided that the downs should be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Even in 1949, the downs clearly met the basic criteria for national park status. I submit that, today, the downs even more fully meet the criteria.
National parks must meet four important criteria, the first of which is that they should comprise extensive tracts of open countryside. The downs cover a total area of 1,375 sq km, which, in anyone's book, is quite a large area. The south downs are larger than four existing national parks. There is no question about the natural beauty of the downs. No one disputes their designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Do the downs offer opportunities for open-air recreation? Every year, 32.5 million people resort to the south downs, demonstrating their enormous leisure use. Moreover, leisure use is greater in the downs than in any existing national park. The downs certainly score on that criterion.
What about the proximity of the south downs to population centres? They are close to Southampton, Portsmouth, Winchester, Brighton and Hove, and Eastbourne. That does not even include—
§ Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)And Worthing.
§ Dr. TurnerI apologise to the hon. Gentleman for forgetting his wonderful constituency.
Undoubtedly there are large populations right next to the south downs. Moreover, it is only a short way up the road to the vast population centre of London. The south downs probably have more people living within very easy reach than any existing national park.
The south downs clearly meet the criteria for national park status. Comments by the Countryside Commission and others to the effect that the downs are not an upland area, and hence do not meet recent interpretations of the criteria, are poppycock. Quite simply, the criteria were established in 1949, since when no national park has been created. There has therefore been no reinterpretation of the criteria since 1949the reinterpretation argument is nonsense.
176 The south downs can match existing national parks also in their areas of unspoilt pasture and woodland, which—as a percentage of total area—exceed the comparable areas of at least four national parks. There can be no question but that the downs qualify as a national park.
All parties to the argument are agreed that something must be done to give greater protection to the downs.
§ Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester)rose—
§ Dr. TurnerI have a choice. I shall take the intervention of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the Countryside Commission has strongly recommended that the south downs should not be designated as a national park? Would he care to comment on the fact that we are all agreed that the downs should have the highest protection, and that the commission's recommendation possibly has something to do with arguments to which he has not yet done justice?
§ Dr. TurnerI thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to deal with that very point.
§ Dr. TurnerIf the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with one intervention at a time. My time is very short.
As I said, everyone agrees that current protection for the downs is inadequate. Several quite serious recent events have demonstrated the impotence of current protection. The only argument is whether the south downs should have national park status or be treated, under the Countryside Commission's recommendations, as an enhanced area of outstanding natural beauty. I should like quickly to examine what is offered by the options, to determine how well they might meet the objectives that must be met to protect the downs.
Conservation is a primary objective. Reconciling conservation with the demands of leisure use also must be a primary objective. If we opt for enhanced AONB status, we will address only conservation issues and not leisure use issues. That is a very important defect in the Countryside Commission's proposals. Conversely, a national park is established with the precise powers to address both sets of issues.
National parks are already covered by strong planning legislation, which would provide the minimum powers needed to protect the south downs. The only power provided by enhanced AONB status would be guaranteed, statutory consultation. That is not sufficient. I have been there—having served on county council planning committees—and have been through paragraph 5 consultations. I know that, sometimes, a district planning authority has already decided on a matter before it is referred to a council for consultation. Such a power is too weak to be of any real use.
177 The option of legislation should be very carefully considered. We have two choices on legislation. If we protect the downs under the 1949 Act, we will require no further legislation, because all the necessary powers already exist. The Secretary of State would only have to make an appropriate order. Subsequently, there would have to be a public inquiry to determine the boundaries of the area, which would be designated as a park within about 18 months.
If the downs were designated as an enhanced AONB, a Bill would have to be introduced, as there are insufficient legislative powers to make such a designation.
§ Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)Is my hon. Friend aware of a very good publication, from the Council for National Parks, entitled "Meeting the Challenge"? Although the publication deals specifically with the New forest, it makes some very useful general points on protecting national parks, particularly ensuring that decisions are taken independently of local vested interests.
§ Dr. TurnerI thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am aware of the publication. I am aware also that a debate similar to that on the south downs is occurring on the New forest. The forces ranged on either side of both debates are fairly comparable. I have great sympathy with the claims of the New forest, which I know well from my childhood. I think that my hon. Friend and I would probably agree on the issues.
As I said, if the south downs are to be made an enhanced AONB, a Bill will be required. I do not have to remind hon. Members of current pressures on parliamentary time. At the current rate of progress, there is no real chance of the House passing any such measure in the next five years or so—if by then. Moreover, all we will have achieved in so doing is a measure of protection for the south downs that is inferior to that which is available immediately, by giving them national park status under current legislation.
§ Mr. TyrieWe all want to do our best for the south downs, which is such a beautiful area. However, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of local people have made it clear that they would prefer to continue with the existing arrangements and not have a national park? There are 14 local authorities, only one of which—the hon. Gentleman's—has said that it wants to go ahead with national park status. As far as I am aware, the other 13 have made clear their opposition to it.
I came fresh to the subject, having moved into the area. I listened carefully to what people had to say before reaching my view that the overwhelming majority of local people want the existing arrangements, broadly speaking, to continue.
§ Dr. TurnerI thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention as I was about to deal precisely with his point. In fact, the overwhelming majority of those who have been consulted are in favour of a national park.
§ Dr. TurnerOf the 14 authorities consulted, 13 simply took a decision in committee—they did not consult a single member of their electorates. However, Brighton and Hove 178 consulted people living in Brighton and Hove, and the response was overwhelmingly in favour of national park status.
§ Mr. LoughtonHow many?
§ Dr. TurnerHundreds. A national opinion poll conducted by the Ramblers Association showed that in the Meridian television area some 84 per cent. of the public were in favour of national park status. Nationally, of all those aware of the debate, 83 per cent. were in favour. Those who thought that the area should not be given national park status were 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively.
§ Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion)Does my hon. Friend share my view that the recommendations from the Countryside Commission are flawed on three counts—first, the inadequate nature of the consultation process; secondly, the commission's failure to report accurately the response to that consultation process; and thirdly, the sheer lack of understanding of the criteria for national park status and the legal framework, as revealed in the report and recommendations?
§ Dr. TurnerI concur with my hon. Friend on all those points.
Time is running out, so I must try to conclude. We must ask, and the Countryside Commission must answer, one important question. As there is already legislation on the statute book to give the best possible protection and management of the south downs—which will give the body a status that will enable it to get funds from the European Union and other sources—why does the Countryside Commission recommend something that will require further legislation, will be exceedingly difficult to deliver and will provide a second-class alternative to national park status?
What I am about to say may also apply to the New forest. What is going on? Are we dealing with entrenched local interests—dare I say landlords? Is it a confrontation which, in a way, mirrors the confrontation between our two Houses? I suspect that there is slightly more to the Countryside Commission's arguments than meets the eye.
§ Mr. LoughtonOn the point about consultation, I am not impressed by the fact that only several hundred people responded out of a 500,000 population in West Sussex, and the same applies to East Sussex. The Sussex Downs conservation board includes representatives from 11 district councils, two county councils and the unitary authority. It has had an accountable and democratic part to play in planning.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting taking powers from local authorities that are answerable to their electorates. Is he really saying that the views of the councils that did not consult do not matter?
§ Dr. TurnerI am not saying that the views of those councils do not matter, but surely the hon. Gentleman cannot criticise consulting the public and claim that consulting a committee provides the same democratic accountability. Clearly it does not. There were thousands of responses from the public, strongly—overwhelmingly—in favour of national park status.
179 It is not necessary to take all planning powers away from district councils—that does not have to happen. It has been suggested that a strategic plan should be drawn up for a national park, to which all planning authorities should be party, and that the implementation of the plan should be delegated back to the local authorities; but that implementation must be consistent with the national park strategic plan that has been developed. So with respect, neither of the hon. Gentleman's points holds water.
The logic of national park status for the south downs is irrefutable. It is the obvious solution and it requires no new legislation. The alternatives not only require new legislation, but will ultimately provide an inferior measure of protection. The overwhelming interest that should be considered is the public concern to protect and manage the future of the south downs.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has been a tireless campaigner for national park status for the south downs. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply.
The Government are still looking very carefully at the options for the future sympathetic management of the south downs. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by not being able to tell him and the House today of any final decision. However, we do hope to be in a position to say something very soon.
Ministers are thoroughly convinced of the merits of the south downs as an outstanding landscape of national significance. It is one which receives an enormous number of visitors annually and which is, to many people, quintessentially English. I am glad to have this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend and others of my recent visit to the south downs. Thankfully, it was on a beautiful day at the end of September. As the guest of the Sussex Downs conservation board, I was shown some of the most famous and popular sites for visitors, including Devil's dyke and Ditchling beacon. Indeed, from Ditchling beacon I discovered how it is possible to get a real feel of the rolling "whale backed Downs" and the mosaic of landscape laid out at their feet.
What was striking about the downs was how remote a feel there is in countryside that is in such proximity to coastal towns and communities. It is incredible to find oneself in such a wilderness only a short distance from coastal resorts. I have had a number of requests from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to come and see more of the downs, and I intend to take up those invitations. Arrangements are in hand to do so.
I have had a number of meetings with those, from both sides of the national park debate, who are deeply concerned about the future of the downs.
When I visited the downs I had the benefit of having as local guides my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Kemptown, as well as leading officials from the Sussex Downs conservation board. I also had a meeting in Brighton with representatives of the South Downs campaign group, 180 which is the grouping of national and local organisations campaigning for a national park. I have since met again some of the interested parties at the Department in London and with several other people, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also discussed the issue with many of those who have a particular interest.
I assure hon. Members that I understand how important the downs are as a recreational resource for their constituents and for many other people living in East and West Sussex, Hampshire and further afield, including the many who enjoy visiting from the London area. I have many times heard quoted the figure of 32.5 million visitors to the downs each year, which is more than twice the number visiting the Lake district. Whatever the accuracy of that figure, what is important is that we can be sure that the south downs, like a number of other areas of national beauty, are not only visited by an enormous number of people who come for all sorts of good recreational reasons, but enjoyed on a regular basis by those lucky enough to live nearby.
What most struck me, as a visitor to the area, is that so many people feel so strongly about the south downs. Whether they declare themselves as for or against a national park, they usually want the same things. Both those who are for and those who are against a national park want a level of protection against major new development that respects the importance of the downs as a nationally recognised landscape and a resource for recreation and for biodiversity. They all want a body that is able to work with others to achieve objectives in a recognised strategic planning framework; one that has an assured future and an appropriate level of funding; and one that is able to manage the downs sympathetically and look after the interests of both local people and the downs' many visitors.
I assure the House that the Government want those things too, and that we are going to deliver them. We want to make sure that we get the precise choice of mechanism right, because the solution must be a long-term one. That is why I am not yet in a position to tell the House which of the options the Government will finally back.
Anyone with an interest in this debate will know that earlier this year the Countryside Commission, as the Government's statutory adviser, advised against a national park in the south downs and in favour of establishing a new statutory conservation board. That recommendation reflected the commission's assessment of the suitability of the south downs for national park status, which it has maintained since the 1950s. It does not constitute a judgment on the quality of the landscape in the south downs, because the legislation does not recognise a difference between the quality of landscapes in national parks and those in areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the designation that already applies to the south downs.
The recommendation reflects the way in which the Countryside Commission has applied the criteria in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, if we conclude that it is right to do so, we shall ask the commission to look again at the way it operates those criteria.
181 I have heard criticism from some groups of the way in which the Countryside Commission carried out its consultation process about the south downs in late 1997 and early 1998. I have no wish to enter into the debate on that issue now; suffice it to say that the Government have listened to all the views expressed. My Department has received hundreds of letters since the Commission's advice was received. Brighton and Hove council should be congratulated on the consultation that it carried out locally, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is legitimate for him to say that, at least in his area, people can feel confident that the consultation was broad and varied.
The Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas contains a number of strands. It is not only about the south downs, important though they are, but about the way forward in the New forest, which we shall have an opportunity to debate tomorrow. It also contains a considerable number of wider recommendations about the protection, funding and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Hon. Members will understand that there is a lot of interplay between these questions, and that together they are of some complexity. Those considerations have meant that it has taken some time to move toward our conclusions. To put it simply, we want to get the answers right.
§ Mr. LoughtonWill the Minister address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) about the legislative process? Will he tell us whether the Government would grant time before five years were up to push through legislation, if the existing status were enhanced instead of the national park alternative being chosen?
§ Mr. MealeWe shall give due consideration to the whole process and to the results of the consultations that have been carried out. As I said, we want to take a decision and make an announcement, but we have to get it right.
The Countryside Commission has recommended that the south downs should be the first area to benefit from a statutory AONB conservation board. It believes that that would build upon the success already achieved by the Sussex Downs conservation board, which was set up jointly by the local authorities on the Sussex downs and the Countryside Commission in 1992. Ministers have praised the performance of the Sussex Downs conservation board since it was set up and I echo that praise today. The establishment of the conservation board was purely a voluntary move toward working together by 182 local authorities, assisted by the Countryside Commission. They deserve praise for the effort and the funding that have gone and continue to go into it.
However, what is being sought now is quite different—a permanent body with a statutory framework and guaranteed funding. We are still looking in detail at the commission's recommendations on statutory conservation boards, as primary legislation would be needed to provide for them. The Commission recommended that they should be funded as a partnership, with 50:50 local and national funding. Ministers have since had a considerable postbag from local authorities managing AONBs, suggesting that the AONBs should be funded like national parks.
The Government want to do significantly more for AONBs, but we have to determine how far and how fast we can go, and what the most effective mechanisms are. As a start, we have already provided an extra £2.5 million for the new countryside agency to spend in AONBs next year. That will more than double the budget that the Countryside Commission has so far had for AONBs.
For the purposes of today's debate, the key question is whether the south downs should have the first of a new series of statutory conservation boards, rather than become a national park. As I have said, we are not ready to announce any decision yet. If we bring forward proposals for primary legislation to provide for AONB conservation boards, we shall have to take into account how the opportunity of primary legislation can best be used to provide for the future needs of the protected areas generally, including providing the best solution for both the south downs and the New forest. There are many questions involved, including the interplay with the planning system, local democracy and the regional agenda; the precise powers and responsibilities of the authorities concerned; and the membership and funding arrangements.
I understand the urgency felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about providing a long-term solution for the management of the south downs. The Sussex Downs conservation board currently has funding until March 2001, but we have said that we want to settle on a long-term solution well before the current funding arrangements expire. I assure the House that we will provide that solution as soon as we can.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, and hon. Members on both sides of the House and of differing points of view, for giving us the opportunity to consider these points today. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend, along with other hon. Members present today—