National Parks Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 31 March 1994 vol 553 cc1207-34

11.38 a.m.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Norrie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Establishment of National Park authorities]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List.

Perhaps I may say one or two words of introduction about this amendment. The Committee will be aware that in the case of Pepper v. Hart the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House accepted that it was possible to construe statute having regard to statements made by Ministers and recorded in the Official Report.

The Committee will be aware therefore that a number of the amendments that I intend to move are designed to elicit replies—either from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, or the Minister—which will be written into the Official Report. I should like to put the Minister on notice that that is the main thrust of most of major amendments that I shall move.

Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment along the lines that I have just described. This House has had occasion to pass legislation which has not been commenced. I think of a particular debate on criminal injuries matters which in fact disturbed noble Lords. When a Bill which gives the Secretary of State permission to act but does not make that action mandatory is passed and enacted, we need some assurance from the Government that they will activate the legislation and that it will not lie gathering dust on a shelf until the Government think of something better. If we are to spend time in Committee on this Bill, we need an assurance from the Minister—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, cannot give such an assurance and that it must come from the Government because it is a power to be given to the Secretary of State —that the legislation will be commenced and the Secretary of State will exercise his discretionary powers under Clause 1.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)

I can assure both the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Committee that it is certainly the Government's firm intention that each of the national parks in England and Wales set up under the 1949 Act will be managed by a national park authority. There will be a number of factors to be taken into account in setting the timetable for the establishment of each national park authority. The wording of the Bill makes clear that the Secretary of State may proceed at his discretion to a timetable appropriate for each park.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. Unless he contradicts me, I understand that it means that the Act —if this Bill becomes an Act—will be put into force by the Secretary of State on a timetable that could be flexible. I take it that the noble Earl is in agreement with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 a.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Kimball

I oppose the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill because I want to convey to the Committee how much I regret the way in which this very important Bill has been handled by the Government. This 16-clause Bill with five schedules comes forward as a Private Member's Bill. I in no way doubt the brilliance of my noble friend Lord Norrie either as a parliamentary draftsman or a parliamentarian. However, he himself admitted at Second Reading that the Bill came off the Government's shelf. So we are faced with a government Bill coming forward as a Private Member's Bill.

That has happened in many cases, and in certain circumstances I do not object to it. But I do not understand why the Bill was not offered in another place to any person who was successful in the ballot. After all, if it went forward as a government Bill, having been given to one of the first six people who drew a place in the Private Member's Bill ballot in the other place, there would be a full day's debate on Second Reading, one would have a position in standing committee and the Bill could be properly considered. I have checked with Members of the other place and seen three out of the first six listed and this Bill was not on offer at the time for a Private Member's Bill in the other place. There is all the difference in the world between giving a Bill to someone who has won the right to a Second Reading, Committee and Report stage in Private Member's Bill time and trying to ensure that a Bill of this size should proceed under standing orders in another place on Standing Order No. 58.

In fact, the Bill could perhaps succeed in that way; but it would have had to come forward to this Chamber in November. Why was the Bill not brought forward in this Chamber in November and given to a Member of this Chamber to introduce? As the Order Paper of another place operated, it so happened that the first Private Member's Bill—the Bill drawn first in the ballot —did not get a Second Reading. At that time, had this Bill completed its stages in this Chamber by Christmas or just after Christmas, it could have gone straight into Committee in another place. So an opportunity was missed. I do not know whether it was due to the fact that the Bill was not properly read or was still in one of its many redrafted forms.

There is no precedent whatsoever for government time to be given to a Private Member's Bill. That has always been upheld by the Conservative Party in this Chamber. With one exception, we have never had a Conservative Government give time to a Private Member's Bill. Some Members will remember that in 1956, to honour a pledge given at the general election, the Silverman Bill on homicide was given government time on the understanding that it obtained a Second Reading in the other place, as it did.

There is no chance today of this Bill becoming law. I feel that it is very wrong of noble Lords to employ the argument that the Bill is essential because of the shake-up that is happening in local government. Those of us who attended the debate yesterday must be beginning to feel that with any luck to a large extent we shall achieve the status quo in local government—so there is the demand that because of a change in local government and the move to unitary authorities this Bill must be on the statute book. Anyhow, I am always suspicious that any Bill brought forward as a matter or urgency must be allowed because of something else. One has only to look at other occasions, such as the dangerous dogs legislation. It gets us into trouble if we legislate in a hurry.

I am well aware that to bring forward a Bill along these lines was a manifesto commitment. History is littered with mistakes that have been made by implementing manifesto commitments without the full political consequences being understood. I do not wish to delay the proceedings any longer. I merely wish quite clearly to fire a warning shot across any government bows. To misuse a Private Bill procedure in this way is quite unacceptable. I hope that the Committee will back me in that view.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for his contribution. I am sure that his intentions are less drastic than would be the result of agreement to his opposition to this clause. Leaving out Clause 1 would tear out the heart from the Bill. It was the overwhelming opinion of this Chamber to give the Bill a Second Reading.

As I mentioned at that time, I am truly sorry that we are not discussing a government Bill on national parks. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister made it clear that the Government regretted that it had not been possible to find time for this measure. I also made clear at Second Reading that I took on the Bill because of the importance of securing the administration of national parks on a common basis in the light of changes arising out of the ongoing view of local government. The timetable for local government changes in Wales is known and makes this Bill particularly timely.

Earl Peel

My noble friend Lord Kimball raised some important and rather worrying points. There is no doubt that he is a great expert in parliamentary procedures, both in another place and in this Chamber. Pursuing what he said, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he believes that the Bill has a chance of becoming law and going through another place. That is fundamental to what we are now doing.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

On these Benches we are thoroughly in favour of what is in the Bill. But I confess that I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, knows. I do not feel that this matter has been handled in the right way. I am far from clear that the threat that is being uttered— that if we do not pass this Bill all disaster will happen and the national parks will suddenly disappear down a crevice— is so. I echo the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that this is something which your Lordships' House should take to heart and that we should never again be landed in a situation like this.

Having said that, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the Minister for at least negotiating two limited days for Committee so that we will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in this place. I hope that it will eventually become law but it is not a happy way for that to happen.

Baroness Nicol

I have the greatest sympathy with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. I too have been dismayed by the hurdles which the Bill must jump before it can become law. But I hope that he will not add to them by pressing us to a Division today. Our only hope is to take the Bill through this House as quickly as possible.

Lord Crickhowell

I too would like to add to what has been said regarding the desirability, if possible, of taking the Bill through this House. I confess that even after a good many years in the other place I do not have my noble friend's knowledge of procedural matters. Until I began to look into the possible progress of the Bill I had failed to appreciate how difficult it is for a Private Bill starting in this place to proceed successfully through the other place. It was only when began looking at the rules that I discovered that there is no provision for such a procedure unless the Bill is voted through without debate in the other place.

Members of this Committee should be aware that, unless the Bill goes through in a form that does not require change, and unless Members in another place are prepared to allow it to go through virtually without debate, its chances of success are extremely slim. Having said that, I hope that we shall allow the Bill to go through this House and send it to another place, but I share the pessimism of those who believe that our chances of eventual success are not very great.

Baroness White

Perhaps I may say a few words as a former Secretary of State for Wales. We in Wales are particularly concerned about the Bill. It is probable—though one can never tell in this life—that our local government changes will take place before those which were discussed recently in your Lordships' House. It is therefore even more important for the three Welsh parks that this legislation be enacted now. It is difficult to take a Private Member's Bill through the other place; but 40 years ago I did it and had the required over 100 people voting who had to be there.

The Earl of Arran

Perhaps I can add from the Government's point of view that my noble friend Lord Norrie is quite right. At Second Reading I said that we regret that the pressures on the parliamentary timetable have not allowed us to bring forward legislation in the current Session to put into effect our proposal for the national parks. We were therefore delighted when my noble friend announced his promotion of the Bill to establish a common administration for the parks. It was generally agreed by all your Lordships in Second Reading that he did an excellent job in bringing the Bill through to your Lordships' House.

With regard to what happens in another place, that is entirely for them to decide. In our 1992 policy statement we accepted the principal recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel. We recognise that the Bill fulfils only part of the commitment we made in response to the panel. However, we believe it to be the most important and urgent part. It remains firmly our intention to introduce further legislation to meet the rest of our commitments as soon as there is suitable opportunity to do so.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The Minister is being rather disingenuous on the subject. The fact is that it is a government Bill; it was drafted by parliamentary draftsmen on government instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, picked it up— that is fine— but if the Government really want the Bill then they should give it time. There is no problem in another place; if the Government pick up the Bill and make it a government Bill, then it will be given time.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Powers to make orders]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2: Page 10, line 12, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 13 and insert ("and no such statutory instrument shall come into force until a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 is again a probing amendment designed to bring the Committee's attention to the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers which reported on the National Parks Bill before the Committee today.

The scrutiny committee accepted that there was nothing in relation to the matter of delegated powers on which it wished to comment. Nevertheless, the committee accepted that the term "supplemental" used in Clause 11(3) is used in the sense indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when we were discussing the Local Government (Wales) Bill. It accepted that the definition given by the Lord Advocate on that occasion, which followed the definition given by Lord Dilhorne in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, would apply in all cases where "supplemental" was used in that context.

The point is that if the meaning became wider than that, then we would wish to see affirmative procedure followed. Affirmative procedure, which the amendment calls for, would bring orders under Clauses 1 and 4 arguably into the ambit of the Hybrid Instruments Committee and that would be quite a different ball game. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give an assurance that the definition given by the Lord Advocate during the Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill still holds in relation to this Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

At Second Reading I set out how we proposed to use the powers of the Bill. I hope that the Committee is reassured by the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers which concluded that, as the Bill's provisions will have effect only within or for the purposes of National Parks, and are very narrowly prescribed, it is not unreasonable for these powers to be subject to the negative procedure". Such orders are well precedented for orders of the kind provided for in the Bill. The Committee also reported that the National Parks Bill contains no other delegated powers on which it wished to comment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Earl did not respond totally to my question. The delegated powers scrutiny committee accepted that the term "supplemental", is used in the sense indicated by the Lord Advocate when the House considered the Committee's comments on what was originally Clause 52 of the Local Government Wales Bill". Will the expression "supplemental" in Clause 11(3) of this Bill follow the definition given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at that time?

The Earl of Arran

Yes, we accept that which was proposed and said by the Lord Advocate.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.

Noon

Schedule 1 [National Park authorities]:

Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 3: Page 14, line 10, at end insert ("and half of the members so appointed shall be persons genuinely representing the interests of local people.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of moving the amendment is to probe even further the question of the Secretary of State's appointees. Many people feel that they must genuinely represent local interests. In making his appointees, the Secretary of State has to consult the countryside bodies. Genuine concern is now felt by people in the national parks about the activities of some of the countryside bodies. In particular the press handouts that accompanied the publication of the Bill from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association must cause concern to people living in the national parks.

A Mr. Rodney Legg, the chairman of the Open Spaces Society, was jumping on the bandwagon and is quite obviously keen to see representatives of that society appointed to the governing bodies of the national parks. I am certain that he is quite open when he sees the appointment of people from the Open Spaces Society as a way of achieving his avowed and published aim of curtailing agriculture in the national parks. He went on to say at the same time that in his opinion farming was no longer compatible with landscape conservation. That must cause concern to people who live in the national parks. Many people in the countryside are concerned about the whole question of representation from the Ramblers Association. We have in the press handout which accompanied the Bill the remarks of the Ramblers Association that the 1949 Act only did half the job and that it did not produce authorities strong enough to protect the fragile landscape.

One other matter is causing concern. I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is in her place today. Outside Westminster it is not generally known what a tremendous understanding she has of all the traditional pursuits of the countryside and what a tremendous part she played in the 1960s in helping to preserve it. But grave concern has been caused by her remarks during the Second Reading debate (at col. 335 of the Official Report) that this was an opportunity to curtail unsuitable recreational activities in the parks. I know that the noble Baroness is in no way against any of the interests that I used to represent. I hope that this will give her an opportunity to clarify what she meant.

On the whole question of these appointees, I hope the Committee realises that underlying the concern there is still the feeling that there is a difference between both sides of the House. When the original national parks were discussed there was always a feeling on the other side of the House that they should be owned by the public and run as though the state was the landlord. That is why the whole question of the appointees by the Secretary of State becomes so important. Your Lordships should also take note of the debate on the amalgamation of English Nature and the Countryside Commission which is to follow this one. One wonders why the national parks cannot be run by the new body, a point made by my noble friend Lord Peel. We really should consider that point rather than the question of the appointees.

I do not intend to press the amendment, I should just like to take this opportunity to express to the Committee the concern that is felt by many interests in the national parks, particularly arising from some remarks during the Second Reading debate. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I do not wish to spend long on the noble Lord's amendment except to say that I think he is being slightly unfair to my noble friend Lady Castle about her remarks at Second Reading. I have a form of words in Amendment No. 13, to which we shall come shortly, which I think is preferable to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for mentioning, in the context of Amendment No. 3, the important role of local people in the national park authorities. As he will be aware, the Bill provides for a majority of local authority members on the national park authorities. The Minister helped to clarify the point by saying that, whatever the outcome of the local government review, he will issue guidance: to the effect that local authorities should, wherever possible, appoint members who live in or represent wards in the parks. That goes further than the Edwards Report recommendation that district council members must, wherever possible, represent wards within the parks.

My noble friend will also be aware of the role of the Secretary of State's appointees. The Edwards Report: said that they should have interests and expertise in the full range of national park responsibilities. The report. went on to state that it would be desirable for at least. some of the Secretary of State's appointees to live locally. In practice, that is precisely what happens. They are, in the main, local people with special interests and expertise to offer. I include people like landowners, farmers and parish councillors, all of whom fall into that category.

The Minister will take the decision on who should be appointed to serve on the national park authorities as the Secretary of State's appointees, having consulted widely and been advised by the Countryside Commission and by the Countryside Council for Wales. The views of the chairman of the Open Spaces Society on the prospects for farming have no relevance to this Bill. It may be of interest to my noble friend that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, told me that when she referred in her Second Reading speech to inappropriate leisure pursuits she was talking about tourists developments, such as timeshare complexes, cable cars and tropical paradise domes, which had been proposed for some of the national parks. It is the hallmark of the Bill that it has been welcomed by a very broad church. I see that as a credit to the extensive consultation carried out by the Edwards panel and the sound judgment contained in the published report.

Lord Elton

I apologise for joining in a debate on a Bill in which I have not before taken part, but perhaps my noble friend can explain something to me which arises from what he has just said. I understood him to say that there was provision in the Bill which would result in there being a majority of local or local authority members. As I read the Bill, it leaves the numbers in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State except that he may not appoint more than two-thirds from the local authorities. Therefore, I take it that my noble friend's assertion rests upon an undertaking given by the Government through my noble friend on the Front Bench. If my noble friend Lord Kimball is right in saying that there is a difference of basic policy between the two parties which represent most of the opinion in this House and in another place, it follows that that undertaking is only good for as long as a party of the present colour is in government. I rise merely to ask my noble friend whether he has taken on board that there is nothing in statute to ensure that there shall be a majority or indeed a very significant number of local authority members on this body.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is running a little ahead of us. There is a later amendment on the Marshalled List to probe that matter.

Lord Derwent

Before my noble friend on the Front Bench answers, perhaps I may give my general support to my noble friend Lord Kimball from a quite different angle. As we go to unitary government, it will be quite difficult for local people to feel that they are being adequately democratically represented by local authority representatives. For example, in North Yorkshire we will perhaps have unitary government covering a huge area. Many parishes may feel that there is no one on the national park authority to represent their views. Someone may sit for an area which, while it may be in the park, may not be within 60 or 70 miles. In fact, the new North Yorkshire county council is recommended to be 100 miles across. It is therefore important that local people should feel not only that local councillors have their interests at heart but that the Minister's representatives also have their interests at heart.

Earl Peel

It may be helpful if I were to speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in my name in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord Kimball has raised the whole question of local representation. It was a point which was stressed time and again during the course of Second Reading speeches. One of the difficulties is that we do not as yet know how local government is going to be formed. That is one of the major problems when dealing with a Bill of this nature.

However, as has been said, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that there will be proper, genuine local representation. I gave an example in my Second Reading speech of the case of North Yorkshire, to which my noble friend made reference. A county councillor from York, for example, does not represent the interests of the park members, even of the Yorkshire Dales national park or the North York Moors national park. That is what my amendment seeks to redress. It is of course a probing amendment at this stage. I am anxious to establish from my noble friend to what extent we shall have to find genuine local representation on the national park committees.

It is not simply a question of representation; it is understanding the way in which the national parks work. Local industries and the farming community feel in many cases—I am sorry to have to say this again— that they are isolated. They do not feel that their interests are being properly looked after. I believe that unless we can get on the face of the Bill—or at the very least through confirmed orders from the Government and through my noble friend on the Front Bench—that there is really going to be local representation, the divide which exists in so many parks at the moment will continue and much of the good which might have come about from my noble friend's Bill will be lost.

I ask my noble friend to what extent he can guarantee that in the Bill there will be genuine local representation. By "local" I mean representing the wards within the park. I suspect that my amendment may be technically incorrect. I suppose that if one had a single authority it might not be possible mathematically for two-thirds of the members of the national park committee—in other words, the locally represented members—to be actually representing wards in the national park. I have not sat down and done my sums, but I suspect that that is probably the case. As I say, this is a probing amendment to try to ensure that my noble friend can give the kind of assurances to which I have referred.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, the amendment applies only to the appointees of the Secretary of State. I believe that we shall discuss exactly where the local authority members should come from. Certainly, at the time when I was responsible for appointing members to three national parks, I always made a point of making sure that a significant number of them came from within the national parks and were local people. It is highly desirable that that should be so.

I can say in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that I would have had support for that action from the Countryside Commission at the time. I believe that it is a very desirable policy to follow and I hope that it will be followed.

I have only one point to make. I make it only because it was raised by my noble friend Lord Kimball who appeared to criticise what the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said at Second Reading. I warmly endorse what she said, particularly as she made it perfectly clear what she was thinking when she referred to theme parks. I made much the same point and expressed anxieties raised by the Edwards committee itself very forcefully as regards undesirable things happening in national parks. I have a particular concern about the growing practice of noisy motorcycles charging uncontrolled across the mountains around my home and other vehicle access to parts of the park where that is wholly unsuitable. Far from criticising the noble Baroness, she deserves praise for raising what seems to me an extremely important issue.

12.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Since the noble Earl, Lord Peel, quite rightly, spoke to his Amendment No. 11, it may be appropriate if I speak to my Amendment No. 13 which covers the same ground. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, we are dealing with Secretary of State appointees. If the Committee agrees, I would prefer to leave local authority appointees to the subsequent amendment.

As regards Secretary of State appointees, I believe that we need a great deal of clarification of how that is going to happen, how he will go about appointing members of a national park authority and in what respect and in what sense they will be representative of local people in one version and local interests in another.

My Amendment No. 13 attempts to clarify the issue by inviting the Secretary of State to appoint members from a list drawn up by the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales—whichever is the relevant authority for the purpose. In drawing up a list the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales, shall have regard to the interests of the local area". That expression is wider than the one used by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in his amendment and certainly wider than the expression used by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in his amendment. I prefer it because I regard the interests of the local area as being not necessarily confined to people. It may include industry and agriculture; it includes all kinds of things which are combined in the interests of the local area. I believe that the Committee will recognise that. I urge the Government to adopt the formula which I put forward in Amendment No. 13.

The amendment may be defective in drafting and I should be perfectly happy with an alternative suggestion along the same lines. I have a certain sympathy with the thrust of the argument which says that we must ensure that the Secretary of State appointees have a genuine interest in the local area of the national park authority to which they are appointed.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

The situation is getting a little complicated as regards the grouping of the amendments. Perhaps it would have been better if we had had a debate on all the membership amendments. However, since the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has spoken to his amendment, there is one point I wish to make. I believe I am right in saying that he is talking about elected members from local authorities. The difficulty about any limitation to people who live in the park is that one does not necessarily get any representation from the leading group on the local council. That would make for a very unfortunate situation. One requirement of local authority representatives is that they speak with the authority of representatives of the local authority. Members of minority parties on the council will not speak for that authority. But that could happen if membership is limited to people who live in the park. I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, would be a good idea. I am nevertheless sympathetic to the idea that there should be strong representation of the people who live in the park.

Earl Peel

Is the noble Lord referring to his Amendment No. 10? I suspect that it covers that particular point.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Yes, it would.

Earl Peel

Perhaps I may refer to that. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord is saying. It seems to me that the party which he represents is very keen on local democracy. It seems to me that he has gone against that policy.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I have quite a complex speech to deliver on that point and I do not believe that this is the moment to do it. I was picking up the single point of the representation of wards in the national park.

Earl Peel

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Returning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whereas I can see that there may be considerable ease in a list being drawn up directly by the Countryside Commission from the members whom it has vetted, it seems to me that that is a little restrictive. In fact, would not the Government be precluded from seeing other names that might go forward of people who would be totally suitable for appointment to serve on the. national park committees? I think that it would be a mistake if the appointments were restricted to names that had been recommended entirely by the Countryside Commission.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Before the noble Earl, Lord. Arran, responds to the general debate, perhaps I may pick up on that last point. I was drawing on the experience of your Lordships in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill where, after a lot of cross-party discussion and a good deal of slippage in the timetable, a formula was arranged not dissimilar to the formula that I am suggesting.

Earl Peel

If I may reply to that, I was drawing on my experience of the national parks.

The Earl of Arran

I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we seem to have gone all over the place on some of these amendments. It might be a good idea if we were to return to basics and to Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Kimball. Although we were tempted off route to consider Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, I shall respond to the general points that have been made about membership.

On Amendment No. 3, the Secretary of State's members are appointed to represent the wider national interests for which the parks are designated and, therefore, we intend to continue to make sure that the authorities continue to represent a reasonable mix of interests. In fact, the Secretary of State has observed the desirability of appointing local people and some 50 per cent. of his members currently live in the park on the authority of which they serve.

As regards the possibility of unitary authorities, we shall certainly need to look at the membership of the national park authorities after the local government reorganisation, but we shall strive to ensure that local people are fully represented.

Since my noble friend Lord Peel has spoken to his amendment, I think it only proper that I say something about it. Although we have some sympathy with the intention underlying my noble friend's amendment, we fear that such a provision could prove unworkable. There may not be sufficient local authority members to meet the criteria. We believe that it would be unwise unnecessarily to constrain the local authorities as to whom they may appoint. However, my noble friend may be reassured that we intend to advise the local authorities that they should, wherever possible, consider appointing members who live in or represent wards in the parks. We would certainly encourage all those with an interest in the parks to make nominations for Secretary of State appointees. We want to continue to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward names. We shall continue to seek the views of the countryside agencies before offers of appointment are made.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for his clarification of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel on Amendment No. 11. I trust that my noble friend will find that helpful.

Earl Peel

I am grateful to my noble friend. When the time is appropriate, I shall of course not move my amendment.

Lord Kimball

In view of the undertaking that we have just received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4: Page 14, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert: ("(3) The number of members appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (a) above shall be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, which stands in my name, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 5, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.

As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, Schedule 1, as drafted, is rather curious. It was my understanding from the Second Reading debate that the Government wished to see a two-thirds/one-third split between local authority appointees and Secretary of State appointees. That would follow practice and the recommendation of Edwards, but if that is what the Government want, why does not the Bill say that? That is what I cannot quite understand. There seems no reason at all why the Government should not state exactly what they mean in Schedule 1(1), which is what I have set out in my amendment: The number of members appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (a) above shall be twice that appointed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above". That seems a perfectly simple formula which would guarantee that local authority appointees would comprise two-thirds of the members of a national park authority and that Secretary of State appointees would comprise one-third. If for some obscure parliamentary drafting reason my recommendation is not acceptable, the least that I can expect from the Minister is an assurance of the most categorical nature that that is the Government's intention and that the Government will stick to the intention that they will announce. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I am unable to call Amendment No. 5.

Lord Derwent

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I comment on my Amendment No. 5 which is an alternative to Amendment No. 4 and stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Personally, I would be entirely satisfied with Amendment No. 4. However, I consider that it is absolutely essential that either one or the other amendment is passed and appears on the face of the Bill.

It is common ground that it is everybody's intention that the park authority should normally consist of one-third nominated members and two-thirds elected members. As drafted, the Bill makes it clear that at least one-third must be nominated, but it is not absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that there is any maximum percentage of nominated members. As the Bill reads at present, 80 per cent. could be nominated. Even if some other legislation implies this—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would call it a "parliamentary draftsman's wheeze"—I think it is very important that it should be absolutely clear. My amendment is therefore intended to make it clear on the face of the Bill that there must always be at least a majority of elected members. That is complementary to the formula that is used in the relevant Acts of 1949 and 1972. We need to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the authority is not going to be a quango—to use the jargon —and that it is part of local government.

The only reason that I have used a more flexible formula in my Amendment No. 5 is that my mathematics worked out that there would always have to be between 50 and 66⅔ members elected. That is purely because I suspect that something as rigid as the one-third/two-thirds formula will mean that we may find ourselves dealing with fractions of a member. Provided that there is a majority, I would be content. If my noble friend feels that Amendment No. 4 does not cause a problem, I would be equally happy with that.

The Earl of Arran

The new authorities must be accountable locally but with a proper balance between the local and national interests which the parks combine. It is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authority and Secretary of State members will be maintained so that two-thirds of the total will be appointed by the local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. The provisions of the Bill in this respect do no more than replicate the existing legislation.

Lord Norrie

In commenting on Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for raising these matters. The subject of membership was well debated on Second Reading and, as I made clear then, the Bill is based for the most part on the existing legislation and consolidates and rationalises best practice. The wording of line 11 of Schedule 1 replicates the formula that is laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which has applied to all national parks over the years. That formula, which is consistent with the recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel, has been widely supported during my consultations.

My Private Member's Bill does not have the effect of changing existing legislation on this matter. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to accept Amendment No. 4 and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will withdraw it on the understanding that the existing formula works and that the Minister has made clear his intention to apply the formula as now.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Derwent for tabling his amendment. It complements rather than changes the 1949 formula. When the original wording of national park membership was drafted back in 1949 there was none of the current concern about quangos. By making it clear in the Bill that there will be a majority of local authority members, I feel that any current concerns that these national park authorities may be quangos will be laid to rest. As I made clear on Second Reading, the new authorities lie clearly within the local government sector. In accepting the amendment, I hope to send a clear signal of reassurance.

12.30 p.m.

Lord Elton

I apologise for returning to the point that I raised earlier. It remains the fact, as far as I can see that on the face of the Bill—I am happy to be corrected—there is no requirement that there should be a majority of local authority members. My noble friend rests his proposal to leave things as they are on the basis that they have worked well since 1949; but society has changed, and so has its view of the countryside. We have already heard of one reputable public body that thinks that agricultural activity should cease in national parks which were created by 2,000 years of agriculture.

There is a genuine change of opinion in this country. A large number of people now believe that the countryside, as a whole, belongs to the people: that people, in the majority, live in urban areas, and that the countryside exists as an amenity for them. I live in an urban area. 1 like to think of the countryside as an amenity for my use, but I recognise that it is an amenity which exists only because of those who live in the countryside, use it and make their living from it.

If there is a prospect that, at some time, there may be circumstances in which the political opinion of the Government might be that the countryside as a whole belongs to the majority of people who do not live in it, it is necessary to put into the statute a protection against that development so that the decision to change policy could be carried out only by an overt political act; that is, a primary piece of legislation to change what we are now putting into the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not regard this as a probing amendment ad infinitum. I hope that at some stage your Lordships will take a decision on it, even if it is not at this stage.

The Earl of Swinton

I find myself very much in sympathy with this argument. It seems to me strange, when the Bill is brought in to reform the way our national parks are run and to implement the recommendations of the Edwards's panel, to say, "Oh well, this was in the previous Act, and therefore it must stand for eternity". What on earth is the point of trying to change an Act if we say, "You have got to leave it in, because that is what was in the last one"?

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported either my amendment or that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I did not say that the amendment was a probing amendment, because it is not a probing amendment. I have to say, as I said, as it were, informally to the Council for National Parks, that this is a matter of great concern to a number of my colleagues in another place, especially those who live in and represent Welsh constituencies.

I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to what I am saying, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has pointed out, it would be extremely regrettable were the Bill to be held up in another place. This is an amendment of considerable importance, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, pointed out, I cannot for the life of me think why, just because something occurs in a 1949 Act, we should automatically accept it as being proper for a Bill in 1994. That does not seem to me to make any logical sense at all. If the Minister gives me the assurance that he will look at the matter closely and come back with something similar on Report, I should be prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Lord Norrie

I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 5 on the face of the Bill. That is quite satisfactory.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept either my Amendment No. 4 or Amendment No. 5.

The Earl of Arran

Just before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I may say that we can accept Amendment No. 5, and we are prepared to look again at Amendment No. 4 before Report.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 5: Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("be") to ("is") and insert ("less than the number of local authority members so specified but shall be such that the number of local authority members").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No 6: Page 14, line 17, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").

The noble Lord said: We come now to local authority members and their method of appointment or election. Again, I understand that the expression "appointment" is used in the 1949 Act. This is a probing amendment. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, can explain why the word "appointment" is used rather than "election", because it would seem that "election" is the better word.

I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which follow the same point and which, indeed, are consequential. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

The Government do not prescribe the way in which local authorities appoint their members to other bodies. That should include the appointment of local authority members to the national park authorities. The term "appoint" is drawn from the existing Lake District and Peak Park orders and is consistent with other local authority legislation. In any event, all questions which come before a local authority must be decided by a simple majority of those present and voting. That would include the appointment of members to a national park authority.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising this point. The term "appointment" is drawn from the existing Lake District and Peak Park orders and is consistent with other local authority legislation. The rule is: councils appoint; people elect. Local authority members have elections to appoint members to public bodies such as national park authorities on behalf of their authorities. A resolution is passed at a full meeting of the county council, and there is an opportunity for council members to vote against a proposed member, if they so wish. So "appoint" is what is meant.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord for saying more or less the same thing. I shall not pursue this point at this stage. I shall read carefully what has been said and consult some of my colleagues to see what will happen on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox)

I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 11.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 10: Page 14, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to take up much time on this important Bill, but I must take this opportunity to point out the grave defects of a growing habit of limiting the powers of councils for what appear to the limiters to be the best possible motives.

The party of which I am a member feels passionately about the need to give local government the maximum powers possible. Although we should be happier if local councils were elected fairly and that a vote of 47 per cent. in Richmond did not result in our party having 93 per cent. of the seats, nevertheless we accept that local councils should exercise as many devolved powers as possible, however elected.

I am not saying that in this respect I differ from the proposer of the Bill. The amendment would give councillors, and therefore local electors, more power and enable them to do their job more effectively. Plainly, the ability to nominate whom they like to represent them on these bodies is an additional power. It enables them to do their job more efficiently because they can choose the person best able to do the job.

Perhaps I may spell out more clearly the process which is gone through when representatives are chosen by councils. I know that a number of Members are more expert than I am on this matter. I mentioned the process in some of the discussions which led up to Second Reading. I was accused by one Peer, whom I greatly respect, of cynicism in the reasoning behind the amendment. There is no cynicism in reciting the facts. Local councils allocate jobs among their members. They have to; there are too many important jobs to be done to rely on volunteers. The process is carried out essentially through party mechanisms, and there is nothing to regret in that. A local council without party mechanisms is run by its officers, which is no form of democracy.

In well run, civilised, democratic councils each group has a fair crack of the whip. But in some councils that is not so and power is monopolised by the ruling party. In both cases, however, bodies such as the national parks board may come off badly.

The job of representing the council on a national parks board is important. Everyone in this Chamber is agreed on that. However, it is not in the slightest degree cynical to suggest that, in terms of political power, as seen at council level, it is not high ranking. The top jobs in allocation go to the high-spending committees. They are not those which give only one vote on a rather diffuse body.

It may be the case—and I am sure that it sometimes is—that the job of representation on a national parks board is given to a member of the dominant party, thus giving him the necessary political clout. The person to whom the job goes is among the most able and interested in national parks. However, much more often, the job goes to a minority party, thus carrying no clout when matters come to the crunch, to someone whose burden is being eased because of age, or to someone who is being introduced to council work. In the first case the person is being given something to interest him or her and in the second case, something to learn on. That is not cynical; it is what happens. To deny that the system works that way, and that given the important work of local authorities it is right to work that way, is to fly in the face of evidence and common sense.

It is argued that my amendment is non-democratic. I do not believe for one second that that holds water. The council will be quick to control any representative who does not represent what it, and therefore by definition its electorate, want. That is the purpose of having local government representatives on the boards.

We have already examined the possibility of having members limited to those who live in the parks. I have considerable sympathy with that. One of the troubles with that suggestion is that such people will lack political clout and will not necessarily carry their councils with them, which will cause immense trouble. My amendment would make it possible to have people who live in the parks, even where the representative of the dominant group on the council is not there represented.

Though well meaning, the arrangement in the Bill represents the worst of all possible worlds. It takes the widely held but, I believe, arrogant view that the powers of the council should be limited. Presumably that is because it cannot be trusted to use them properly. It is ineffectual because it will not necessarily produce the best member with the most interest in the national parks and the best possible capability for representing them. I beg to move.

12.45 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, we must have spoken to different people because I understand that the political issues to which he referred arise only rarely on national parks bodies. On the whole, party politics are left out. I discount that part of his argument, therefore, and return to what is in the Bill.

The power to precept on local authorities makes it essential that the parks authority members should understand the workings and the strains on local authority finances. I suspect that that is not possible in the noble Lord's scheme. It is best achieved by a duplication of membership; representatives should be members of the local authorities as well as members of the local parks.

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the proposal in the Bill received strong support from the local authorities, which were all consulted, and from many other organisations which would not wish us to depart from this provision. That would be dangerous and we might lose a good deal of support in so doing. I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.

Lord Finsberg

In one of his earlier incarnations the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, lived in my former constituency and the London Borough of Camden, of which I had the honour to be the only Conservative leader. The noble Lord is not being accurate in what he says. The council had a firm view, which was shared by the Labour Party when it took over. I am talking about the principle, and not the point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. We on the council used to say, "Here is the size of the political groups. We will allocate X number to the majority party and X number to the minority party". Appointments were shared out and therefore, had there been a national park there or a consultative committee for Hampstead Heath, it could well have gone to the minority party. There would have been no question of political clout. Once a council had appointed its representative, during my 25 years service I never found anyone repudiating what that representative had said or done on the committee to which he or she was appointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was correct in saying that the amendment would remove an important item from the Bill and I believe that it is misconceived.

Earl Peel

I agree with my noble friend that the amendment is dangerous. I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because it is clear that we want the most capable people to sit on the national park authorities. But life is not like that and we have discussed at length the need for local representation. No doubt the amendment would detract from that amendment.

The noble Lord mentioned two qualifications for suitable members: that they should be "able" and "interested". Unfortunately, as regards the word "able", we do not have the power to control that in many people who represent any form of government in this country. However, I believe that the requirement to be "interested" will exist. No one will stand for a local authority within the national park unless he or she has a genuine interest in the area and in the people who live there. At the end of the day, it is quite conceivable that the member representing that particular ward in the national park will be approached to sit on the authority and will say, "I do not particularly wish to do so". In that case, somebody else may take his place. I am worried about the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Derwent

I also have some doubts about this amendment but I use it to probe the thinking of my noble friend Lord Norrie and the Minister as to how it is intended to achieve democratic accountability.

My understanding of democracy is that if I do not like what the local council does I can vote against it at the next election. The problem is that the odds are on the fact that no elected member will represent the part of the national park in which I live.

Therefore, that reduces the public feeling of accountability because the Bill refers only to the principal councils; that is, there is no reference at all to parish councils. I understand that it is impossible for every parish council to be represented on the national park authorities. I have been told that it is the intention of the Minister—and no doubt he will confirm this or otherwise—to make sure that parish councils, which are at the grass roots of these matters, will be consulted. However, I have not been told how binding that guidance will be. Guidance may have quasi statutory strength, which can give rise to a judicial review if it is ignored, or it may be a chatty letter saying, "I hope that you will consult the parishes".

Certainly in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park, which is the only one to which I can speak through personal knowledge, there is a general feeling that although there is long-standing guidance that the park should take note of the views of the parishes. in practice it does not. Sometimes letters are not even answered or, if they are, they are often answered on a pro-forma basis. It is important that from the beginning people should feel not that some county councillor from 100 miles away, who may or may not have authority or may or may not be politically inclined, is the only person to whom they have redress. He may not even have been to that area of the country. I should be obliged if the Minister could give some guidance on that matter.

Lord Crickhowell

I too am extremely doubtful about the amendment. I look back to my experience in my old constituency in Pembrokeshire, which formed part of the very large county of Dyfed. Relationships have never been particularly good between the different parts of that new, large, artificially-created county. Under the noble Lord's proposal it may be that the dominant political party would choose someone from, for example, Llanelli, to sit on the national park committee for the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

It seems to me highly desirable that whoever sits on the committee for that national park should come from the county of Pembrokeshire, even if he does not live within the park itself; and in that case he may well not do because the park forms a very narrow strip around the county. I can think of nothing more likely to lead to hostility by the electorate than if it was thought that planning decisions and matters affecting it were being taken by people who came from 50, 60 or 70 miles away. That point has already been made by my noble friend.

Whatever the general merits of the noble Lord's proposition, I believe that it would be extremely undesirable to open up the possibility that the local authority members sitting on the national park committees did not represent the interests of the people who live in or very close to the park itself.

The Earl of Arran

I have listened carefully to the many points raised on this amendment. We strongly believe that local accountability is best served by the Bill's provision that local authority members of the new authorities must themselves be elected members of their appointing authorities. We really cannot see that the interests of the people who live and work in the parks will be better served by any alternative.

Lord Norrie

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Derwent that I would support the creation of a parish council forum in each of the parks.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his observations. In preparing the Bill we have carried out consultation with a wide range of interested parties, including the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the Farmers' Union of Wales. There has been warm support for the proposed increase in local responsiveness and accountability.

The provision in the Bill that the members of the national park authorities should be elected members of their appointed councils has found widespread favour and is generally considered to be an advantage of the Bill. The opportunity remains for the Secretary of State to nominate candidates who are particularly valuable and who have relevant skills and expertise in that sphere.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I am grateful to Members of the Committee for paying the attention that they have to the amendment. I thought that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about knowledge of finance and so on was extremely worthwhile; and I had not yet reached that.

I thought that many of the other points made did not tackle the problem. The Government merely said, "We think it is better because we think it is better". The suggestion that party politics does not enter at all into the matter seems to ignore the very real difference in philosophies which there are between the parties in their approach to matters, even those which have general consensus.

I believe that it is important to have someone who represents the electors in the sense that he represents what the electors have elected for their area. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, seemed to be talking about local authorities within the parks whereas for some of the time we are dealing with authorities which straddle the boundaries of the parks. That is a different matter altogether.

We have already been talking about the special interest groups. There will be a growing clash in this country between those who represent environmental interests and those who represent ecological interests. They are not the same. Very often it is generally and wrongly considered that they are the same. When moving towards a sustainable society there will be times when the needs of that sustainable society will have to take preference over what we should like to see in our environment.

Perhaps I may give the Committee an example, although I hope it will not arise in the national parks. We may need wind farms because we shall need renewable energy in the country as a whole. However, wind farms can be a frightful eyesore and we should not want them to appear in a national park. Debates on such issues will arise frequently in the next 10 or 20 years. We should recognise that and realise that it is extremely important for local authority representatives to represent the whole of their area.

I sympathise with the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, but I should point out to him that if my amendment were accepted it would then be possible to incorporate another amendment to provide that the people appointed should live in the park. That would have none of the disadvantages of appointing an elected member who may be of a minority party. That would make it possible to ensure that one of the members lived in the park and—I pick up another argument that was made—lived in the right part of the park. However, I see that I shall get nowhere with the amendment at this stage and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]

1 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 13: Page 15, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert: ("(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint members of the National Park authority from a list drawn up by the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Commission for Wales, according to whether the relevant Park is in England or in Wales. (1A) In drawing up the list under sub-paragraph (1) above the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Commission for Wales shall have regard to the interests of the local area.").

The noble Lord said: We have already discussed the issue involved here, but I wish to raise one further point. I should like to persuade the noble Earl that we need more clarification as regards the way the Secretary of State appoints members of a national park authority. If the noble Earl will take on board what I have said, I am prepared to leave the matter at present because I believe that we may return to the issue at a later stage. If the noble Earl has anything further to say about the interests of the local area, other than what he said earlier, I shall be glad to hear it.I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the views that we hold on this issue. We want to encourage the widest range of organisations to put forward names and we shall continue to seek the views of the countryside agencies before offers of appointment are made. I should add that the terms under which the Secretary of State will appoint his members will include regulatory provisions similar to those which will govern local authority members. For example, if a member appointed by the Secretary of State regularly fails to attend meetings or if he becomes an employee of a national park authority, the Secretary of State may wish to consider his continued membership of the authority in those circumstances.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Earl. As I said, I suspect that we may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I shall read carefully what the noble Earl said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 15: Page 15, line 27, leave out ("appoint") and insert ("elect").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it may he for the convenience of Members of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. I must apologise for the late tabling of Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 which, as Members of the Committee will see, have been starred. That was simply because I had missed certain consequential amendments which would be necessary if Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 were accepted.

Under the amendments, we are dealing with the method by which a national park authority appoints a chairman and a deputy chairman. My view, as expressed in the amendments, is that the proper procedure is that the chairman and deputy chairman of a national park authority should be elected by the members. It is not the same issue as the one we discussed earlier about appointing versus electing local authority appointees; it is a question of the national park authority itself appointing a chairman and deputy chairman. I believe that the proper way to do so is by a straightforward election within the authority. I beg to move.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for tabling the amendments. Election is the intention, and I accept the clarification.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his remarks.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 16: Page 15, line 30 leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18: Page 15, line 31, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected"). Page 15, line 32, leave out ("re-appointment") and insert ("re-election").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 19: Page 17, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

The noble Lord said: The point about the amendment is simply that here we have a Private Member's Bill incurring public expenditure. In fact, the Bill will need a privilege amendment from this Chamber stating that it involves a charge on public funds because of the payment to the members. When it goes to another place, the privilege amendment is removed and it has to have a Speaker's certificate as a money Bill.

There has been far too much abuse of the Private Member's Bill procedure of having to secure a privilege amendment in this Chamber and a Speaker's certificate in another place. It was not until 1958, on a small Bill which allowed the farmer's own labour to count for grant when improvements were being carried out, that we started using Private Member's Bills to incur government expenditure. I believe that we should look most carefully at that point and state clearly that, except in very exceptional circumstances, it is unacceptable to use a Private Member's Bill to incur public expenditure. Any government wanting to save money may well like to adopt that principle. I beg to move.

Lord Norrie

My noble friend Lord Kimball appears to be firing a warning shot across the bows as regards procedures. I have been advised that the inclusion of the provision does not take the Bill outside the competence of this Chamber. Moreover, it certainly does not affect the Secretary of State's criteria for appointment.

During my extensive consultations on the Bill, it has been greeted as an advantage by a range of interests too wide to mention that the Secretary of State appointees will receive attendance allowance on a common basis with local authority members. That is recognised as providing further encouragement for high calibre candidates and for more young working people to offer to serve on the national park authorities. I should perhaps make clear that the sum involved is tiny and also remind Members of the Committee that the annual expenditure is approved by the Government. I trust that my noble friend Lord Kimball does not seek to remove that widely supported benefit from the Bill.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I have one simple question for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. Is it intended that the Secretary of State appointees should be paid by the national park authority which, in turn, will receive its funds through a levy from the local authorities and that, therefore, no expenditure of public money will be involved? If that is the case, I am a little worried about the revenue support grant which, after all, goes to local authorities to support their expenditure.

Lord Norrie

Yes. I can confirm that the payment will be met by the national park authorities.

Earl Peel

I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Kimball. However, if we are to have Secretary of State elected members on the authorities, it is only right that they should have the same advantages and be treated in the same way as elected members. I should add that, as an appointed member to the council of English Nature, I receive remuneration for my participation for which I am extremely grateful. Therefore, I would not wish to see anyone appointed to a national park committee not receive the same benefits.

I have one further point to make which relates to a provision in the Bill which I very much welcome. It is the fact that non-elected members on national park authorities will now have the opportunity to be voted within the committee as either chairman or deputy chairman. I believe that to be an important point. I know that I have said a great deal about local representation but, once you have a committee, it is important that you have the best member to chair it. I believe that that goes some way towards addressing the points that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made earlier about the calibre of people on a national park committee. I sympathise with my noble friend, but I rather disagree with him on this point.

Lord Kimball

In view of the discussion that we have had on the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 20: Page 17, line 50, at end insert: ("( ) Any committee or sub-committee shall as far as is reasonably possible reflect the balance of the membership of the authority between the members appointed by the local authorities and the members appointed by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: We have spent much time today discussing the importance of balance on the authorities. But Members of the Committee will be aware that a great deal of the work of national park authorities is carried out by committees. It seems to me equally important that we should secure a balance on those committees.

We have also spent a great deal of time emphasising the important point that many people should come from the locality. I happen to be a strong advocate of that view. However, it is equally important that the wider national interests represented by the Secretary of State appointments should also be represented effectively on sub-committees, and especially planning committees.

There are many noble Lords in this place who know what actually goes on in the real world. I suspect that there are others besides myself who could point to examples of cases where, for example, the members of a small planning sub-committee have gathered to decide whether or not a new bungalow should be erected in a particular place and where, strange to relate, all the members are local authority representatives, perhaps chums, working together. One wants to make certain not only that undesirable things do not happen but that they are seen not to happen, and also that the system is seen to be fair.

In my view, it is important that on any sub-committee there should be appropriate representation of the Secretary of State's appointees as well as the local authority appointees. My amendment works both ways. I seek to ensure that on all committees and sub-committees there is an appropriate balance and that both the local interest and the wider interest are properly represented. It seems to me that that is a necessary safeguard to write into the Bill. I beg to move.

Earl Peel

I should very much like to support my noble friend's amendment. As he rightly said, this is another way of ensuring proper local representation. These committees and sub-committees are very important. They often deal with what one might describe as the mundane part of life—the issues which really affect local people and the way they conduct their lives. In order for those committees to be effective they have to include people who have great knowledge and understanding of the area concerned. My noble friend is absolutely right in this. I support him wholeheartedly.

The Earl of Arran

We do not prescribe the composition of local authority committees and sub-committees. Nevertheless, we appreciate the need to reflect both national and local interests in all aspects of the authorities' work. Therefore, we intend to advise them that the composition of their committees and sub-committees should reflect overall a balance between local authorities and Secretary of State members of the authority itself.

Lord Derwent

Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether that advice will be binding on them or it is just a pious hope.

The Earl of Arran

I made clear that it will not be binding. It is our intention to advise authorities that that should be the case.

Lord Norrie

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for raising this point. It seems sensible that the balance of local authority members and Secretary of State appointees that pertains on the full authority should be reflected in these committees and sub-committees. Therefore, it would be helpful if that clarification appeared in the government circular. That being so, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Crickhowell

I am grateful for anything that appears in the government circular. However, government circulars are not legislation. I cannot see why we cannot have a clause of this kind in the Bill. It does not seem to me to cause any problem. It is an important safeguard.

A great deal of the work of national park authorities is carried out by committees. If everything that has been said earlier in these debates is valid, then it would apply equally well to these committees.

I am very reluctant to withdraw the amendment. There will, however, be an opportunity at another time. Unless a convincing reason can be given for not having such a provision, and none has been given, I shall press the amendment.

1.14 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Kenyon, L.
Attlee, E.	Kimball, L. [Teller.]
Barber of Tewkesbury, L	Long, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Lytton, E.
Carter, L.	Marlesford, L.
Carver, L.	Mishcon, L.
Chorley, L.	Peel, E.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Craigavon, V.	Slim, V.
Crickhowell, L. [Teller.]	Stallard, L.
Denham, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Derwent, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Elton, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Halsbury, E.	Swinton, E.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Goschen, V.
Addison, V. [Teller.]	Howie of Troon, L.
Annaly, L.	Merrivale, L.
Arran, E.	Mersey, V.
Astor of Hever, L.	Mountevans, L.
Balfour, E.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Norrie, L. [Teller.]
Blyth, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Seear, B.
Courtown, E.	St. Davids, V.
Crathorne, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Effingham, E.	Trumpington, B.
Flather, B.	Ullswater, V.
Foot, L.	Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

1.22. p.m.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Supplemental and incidental powers of authorities]:

[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 23: Page 33, line 30, at end insert: ("The Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12) In section 34 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (compulsory purchase of land in England and Wales), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (5A) This section shall not apply to land which is within a National Park.".").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I hope that I shall be told that the provision is not necessary. Section 34 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 allows the operator compulsorily to purchase land in England and Wales for the purposes of his operations. That seems to be undesirable in a national park. I do not want national parks covered in telegraph poles. I hope very much that either the provision is covered in the existing legislation or that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will accept my amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

The Telecommunications Act 1984 makes provision for the compulsory purchase of land, though the circumstances for which that has been used are extremely rare. Such powers can be exercised only with the consent of the Director General of Telecommunications and where authorised by the Secretary of State. In considering whether or not to authorise the use of the powers, the Secretary of State would give proper weight to all relevant factors, including any statutory designation applying to the area in which the compulsory purchase would take place.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is the response I wanted: that the Secretary of State would take into account the fact that they were national parks and subject to a slightly different regime from the normal procedures for compulsory purchase of land in England and Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Remaining schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.