HL Deb 11 July 1995 vol 565 cc1579-86

203A That this House do disagree to Commons Amendment No. 203 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

Schedule 7, page 149, line 44, at end insert: ("to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of National Parks.").

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I disagree with Commons Amendments Nos. 203 to 209 and I believe that my Amendment No. 203A in lieu would be totally consistent with the Edwards Report and ensure that the Secretary of State appoints members to the national parks authorities in order to represent the national interest. I think the Government got it right the first time, as the Bill closely reflected the report's recommendations. The authorities which run national parks must reflect the broad range of interests in the parks themselves. The Edwards Report recommended that the membership of the park authorities should be split three ways. One-third should represent national interests, one-third the park in its regional context, and one-third local interests. The beauty of this formula is that it achieves a balance.

Local interests are extremely important and I fully appreciate that. In the words of the Government, they are "living and working landscapes", and the people who live in the parks should, quite rightly, have an important say in how they will be run. The Edwards structure also reflects the fact that the parks are of national significance in both environmental terms and for the opportunities that they afford for outdoor recreation. They are national assets, part of the "critical natural capital" of England and Wales. They must therefore be managed in this broader context in order to ensure that they remain a resource for the whole country.

The new proposals for membership of the English park authorities upset this balance. A new category of membership is created—parish representatives—at the expense of both members representing the national interest and those appointed by local authorities. Parish members will be expected to represent all parishes that fall within the park boundaries. In the Peak District there are over 120 parish councils. I remain to be convinced that four or five parish council members, appointed by the Secretary of State, will be able adequately to represent the interests of all those parishes. In fact I suspect that the proposals may lead to new problems, particularly in trying to meet the aspirations of those parishes which do not have members sitting on the new authorities.

I am particularly worried about the whittling away of the proportion of members representing the national interest on the parks. My amendment would make it clear beyond doubt that the Secretary of State should appoint members in order to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of national parks. This is an extremely important safeguard.

The Edwards panel examined the membership arrangements for the new authorities in detail. It examined the idea of appointing parish representatives to park authorities and rejected this. The panel concluded that the best way to ensure that local interests were taken into account by the authorities was through increasing the proportion of district council representatives. As originally drafted, the Bill did this by increasing district council membership from one-seventh to one-third, and requiring that wherever possible local authority members should represent wards within the park. Furthermore, the Bill already requires park authorities formally to liaise with the parish councils in their areas. This will best be done through the parish fora. I believe it is the best way of ensuring that national park authorities are in touch with the views of the local community.

I had hoped that the Government would have been able to stick to the formula recommended by Edwards. That formula was carefully debated in the context of my Private Member's Bill, whose provisions were in turn reflected in the drafting of this Bill. I am therefore most disappointed that the Government have brought forward changes which could diminish the national and regional interest in the parks and which appear to undermine the role of the district councils. I hope that, when responding to my amendments, my noble friend the Minister will, even if he cannot accept them, be able to offer some reassurance on the following points. First, will he assure the House that when any appointments are made by the Secretary of State to a national park authority, the individuals appointed will be carefully selected in order to reflect the best possible mix of interests relevant to a national park?

Secondly, will he confirm that the "non-parish" Secretary of State appointees will be chosen specifically to represent the national interest in the statutory purposes of the national parks, and that they will have the relevant expertise? Thirdly, will he undertake to ensure that all appointees will be fully informed as to the purposes for which the parks were originally designated? I beg to move.

Moved, that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203 but do propose Amendment No. 203A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Norrie.)

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Nome, and I wish to add one or two of my own. I understand that these changes were made quite suddenly and with little consultation. Among the few people who were consulted, there was considerable opposition to the Government's proposals.

What worries me most is that there seems to be no limit to the length of time a parish representative appointed by the Secretary of State may serve. It is considered by one or two of those who know about these matters that the Secretary of State may find that he cannot end that appointment, so that the authority will become a quango, but a quango without an end because the Secretary of State cannot end what he has begun. It would be helpful if the Minister could at least clarify that point. At present the Secretary of State's appointees representing the national interest must serve a minimum of one year and a maximum of three. It seems unreasonable to replace them with open-ended appointments.

The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, explained the main anxiety concerning losing sight of the national interest. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that that has not been lost sight of in all the pressure that has been put on the Government to represent local interests perhaps beyond what is reasonable in the context of the national parks.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, the Edwards formula was arrived at after a great deal of consultation. It is well known. It was agreed by all the organisations with an interest in the national parks. It strikes a balance between three different but complementary interests—national, regional and local—and it underlines the national importance of the parks. The new proposals do not. They provide a formula which appears to have been cobbled together at very short notice. It is difficult to understand, and it is questionable whether it will achieve what the Government intend.

The proposals have been opposed totally by organisations with an interest in the parks, with the exception of the parish councils which benefit directly, and even some of those have reservations about them.

This is a retrograde step on the part of the Government. It is certainly not an improvement. I hope that at this late stage at the very least the noble Earl will be able to answer satisfactorily the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government responded to general disquiet about the lack of a local democratic base in national parks. As someone who has business interests as a landowner and employer in a national park, I feel that acutely. There are important reasons why that issue needed to be addressed which were perhaps not so apparent at the time of the Edwards Report. Increasingly, we are moving towards all-purpose national park authorities. They are taking on board planning powers. As they take on those planning powers they acquire an enormously important role which is crucial to the economic well-being and the lives of those who live and work in national parks.

An example was quoted to me by a neighbouring landowner of mine in Exmoor some time ago in relation to the problems resulting from the breaching of the shingle beach at Porlock Bay. The nearest member of the national park authority had to come from Bridgwater to attend a meeting. That was the only person who was available. That simply will not do. It is not acceptable that on matters which affect national parks—which admittedly affect the national interest—the legitimate aspirations of those who live and work and have an investment in the long-term future of national parks (and also have to take responsibility for that investment) should be represented only indirectly. One hopes that as a result of the Bill the situation will improve, but appointees from local authorities are not directly responsible to an electorate with an interest in the national park.

The problem was brought into sharper focus by a recent experience of mine. I referred earlier today to having been involved in the Exmoor National Park local plan inquiry. The Exmoor National Park authority made it clear to me that it was not the organisation responsible for economic development. It was also not the housing authority. When I looked at the draft local plan for the West Somerset district, part of which is also in the Exmoor National Park, I found that the area covered by that document excluded all of the part of the district within the national park boundary. In other words, there is a policy void. There is one local authority in the national park which says that it is not its business to do various things—and I accept that up to a point—and another authority says that the area is not within the footprint of its local plan.

There are serious problems which need to be addressed. They cannot be addressed simply by having appointees from outside who can allow the policy void to pass from one authority to the other. It is very important that parish councils, which are probably the closest to people in the sparsely populated rural areas, have a role to play. The response which the Government have sought to put in place here is right and proper. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on that point.

According to the responses that I saw to the consultation document, views were sought only from county and district authorities and none was sought from anyone else. That is regrettable.

I support the Commons amendment. I believe that giving parishes a say in the manner proposed is extremely helpful.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and my noble friend Lady Nicol. It seems to me that the representation which was proposed in the Bill was very fair. District councils should be able to represent the views of local people. There must be a district councillor who represents the area. The unfairness of what is proposed is manifest in the representations that we have received.

I should like to ask the Minister why this change was made at this very late stage. I cannot understand why it should have been because the matter was agreed at earlier stages of the Bill. It has been widely discussed. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to have happened. I hope that we can have a clear explanation.

Lord Wise

My Lords, I too share the concern of my noble friend Lord Norrie regarding the change in the membership arrangements. I am not at all certain that the change in the membership arrangements of the authorities is the best way to increase local representation on the park authorities. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that it is important that the parish councils are consulted, but the Bill already provides for greater parish representation as it requires formal mechanisms in each park for consulting every parish council. That is vitally important.

In addition, there is a danger that in the race to increase local representation the Government may have neglected to put on record the importance of the other categories of membership. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could assure the House that the national parks are still considered to be of national and regional importance and that the arrangements for appointing members to represent the national interest will reflect that importance. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I find the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, opposes very surprising. We discussed in great detail the membership of park authorities when the Bill was before your Lordships and before it went to another place. We now find that another place has produced an amendment which does not apply to Welsh national parks. In Wales we do not have parish councils because the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1921 and parish councils became community councils. Therefore the provision applies only to England.

As regards the Government's proposals, there is a clear difference between what is happening in England and what is happening in Wales. In Wales we shall have the Bill exactly as drafted before it went to another place. The English are being asked to accept parish councillors.

No other planning authority that I can think of has representation from parish councils—neither county councils nor district councils. So far as I can understand, this is the first time in the history of planning legislation in England that there will be appointments by the Secretary of State on the basis that someone is a member of a parish council.

First, if noble Lords will be good enough to consider Amendment No. 205, they might have great difficulty in understanding it. Amendment No. 205 states: A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority unless he is (a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park; or (b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish", and so on. The amendment defines what a chairman is and what happens if a chairman gives up his authority as a chairman of a parish council during a period of office when he is appointed to an English national park authority.

It is a most obscure piece of drafting. I am sure that the noble Earl knows better than I do how parish councils work in England. I understand that the reason for the provision is for local people to be on national park authorities. How anyone can rely on any of this provision for a proper representation defies me.

Secondly, district councils which will be represented on national park authorities in Wales and England are comprised of people who are on parish councils. Therefore anyone who is on a parish council and a district council may well have dual authority. That seems to me to be very odd.

Thirdly, what about the interests of other people who should be represented? Millions of people who live in urban areas like to go to national parks. These are national parks. The regional context of the park is important, as is the national interest. Why does the Secretary of State—the reference is to the Secretary of State for the Environment, not to the Secretary of State for Wales—select someone who just happens to be on a parish council to serve on a national park authority which is a national asset and is defined as such?

Until the Government can give us better justification for what they propose I am afraid that I have to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.

Lord Walpole

My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may make one point. I differ from my noble friend Lord Lytton, and I think that it is probably because of our experiences. The Minister will know the Broads Authority as well as I do. There does not appear to be a problem of consultation. So far as I am aware no parish councillor other than one who happens to serve on a district council has ever served on the Broads Authority. I have always believed that the Broads Authority was a shining example of how a national park authority should be run.

Because consultation regarding the Broads Authority in the past has been good, and that in Exmoor has been bad, I believe that some bad legislation is being brought in.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Wise that national parks have both a national and regional interest and membership should reflect that. What I find difficult to understand is the great feeling that parish councillors should not be part of that involvement.

I was glad when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, disagreed with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie. I felt that he and I were on the same track because I disagree with it too. I believe that my noble friend's concern was that our amendments to the membership of the new national park authorities will weaken the role of those members who are appointed by the Secretary of State to represent the wider national interest in the park. I can understand the concern of my noble friend Lord Norrie. Bringing the wider national viewpoint into the deliberations of the new authorities remains a vital element in the continued care and protection of the parks. However, I do not think that the revised membership which we now propose will weaken that.

It is no surprise that the way in which local people influence the management of national parks should have taken up a large proportion of the time we spent discussing Part III of the Bill. We have always emphasised the importance of giving local people the opportunity to make their views known and to have a real input in park affairs. They are national parks and I cannot understand the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asking, "Why should these people in the locality be taken as more representative than everyone else when it comes to national parks?"

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. The local people—a rather dismissive term—have a perfect right to elect their representatives on district councils which, in the original Edwards formula, are part of a national park authority. But it is not a question of parish councils.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord states that it is not a question of parish councils; I suggest that it is. We suggest that parish councils should have an involvement in the matter. We believe that those aims are best and most practically achieved by the proposals which are given effect to by Amendments Nos. 203 to 209 which my noble friend Lord Norrie does not care for. I believe that these amendments will enable a proper balance to be achieved between the local authorities with the wider national interest, and the particular concerns of those who actually live and work in the parks.

In making his appointments, the Secretary of State will continue to select individuals for their personal qualities and experience and not as representatives of specific groups or organisations. While he expects his members to have regard to the interests of all who are concerned with a specific park, his primary concern is that they should bring to the authorities' deliberations the wider national viewpoint. Candidates already come from a wide range of backgrounds and interests. They are made up of farmers, business people, conservationists and representatives of a wide variety of leisure activities as well as those with a more general interest in the countryside and national parks in particular.

The Secretaries of State will continue to be advised on those national appointments by the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales which provide an independent input to the selection process and whose advice has always been valuable. We also make clear that parish members are to be appointed to represent the wider park view and not just the interests of their own parish. I do not think that these proposals reduce the importance of local authority members on the new authorities. I can assure your Lordships that these amendments do not change the principles enshrined in the Bill either that every principal council with land in the parks will be entitled to have at least one member on the new authorities, or that they will continue to have a majority of the membership.

I do not think that the role of the Secretary of State's "own" appointees will be diluted. My noble friend Lord Norrie was concerned that familiarity with the purposes of the national parks and the interests of those whom they represent might not be adequate. We would encourage the countryside agencies, in consultation with the national park authorities, to ensure that all new members are familiar with the workings of the national parks and their purposes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned that there was no limit to the number of parish member appointments. Amendment No. 205 limits the term of parish member appointments to the term of their appointment as parish councillors.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was worried that the consultation exercise was restricted to local authorities. The exercise followed the normal procedure for such exercises. There was no hesitation in the willingness of other bodies to respond. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why the amendments had been produced so late. The issue of local representation has been raised at every stage of the Bill. It was the intention, which was announced at Second Reading in another place, to introduce amendments and the arguments were introduced at the first opportunity after the consultation exercise was completed.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was concerned about the Welsh national park authorities. Because of commitments which have already been made in respect of the membership of the national park boards being established under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the circular letters which had already been issued for consultations about establishing Welsh national park authorities, the Secretary of State for Wales proposes to leave unchanged the provisions for membership of the national park authorities as they apply to Wales.

It is no surprise that the way in which local people influence the management of national parks should have taken up a large proportion of the time which has been spent in discussing Part III of the Bill. We have always emphasised the importance of giving local people the opportunity to make their views known and to have a real input into park affairs. I believe that that is best done by the amendments which the Commons has agreed to, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with them.

9 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he has not answered my question. There were months and months of consultation after the Edwards Report and the membership was not questioned until, as the noble Earl said, it was mentioned at Second Reading in another place. It seems to me that we need an explanation of why there should have been such a big change at this late moment.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I do not think that it was a late moment. Obviously one has consultations, views fluctuate, thoughts are exchanged and eventually one reaches a conclusion. When that happens at Second Reading, I do not believe that it is the latest stage. It happened after due consideration.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, there is a tendency to think that because Edwards said it, it is written in stone. There are many other points of view besides those of Professor Edwards, worthy though his may be. The whole point of this debate is to bring up sensible alternatives. He was a single issue man and this debate has broadened the discussion. As a result, the law will be much better.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply. I hope that he agrees that this debate has at least been useful to remind ourselves of the three components of the national park authorities' membership. I shall study his reply tomorrow. However, I wonder whether he could clarify one more point. Will the draft guidance covering membership arrangements be produced? Will there be an opportunity to comment on the arrangements before the draft is finalised? I shall wait for the reply, if the Minister is in a position to answer, before saying what I shall do.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend need not necessarily wait for my reply. I am always in a position to be able to answer. It is merely a question of whether a reply will be more accurate with further time for consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady David, does not seem to like to give that. I believe that the answer is in the affirmative.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 203A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 203, by leave, withdrawn.