AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 203 (Hansard, 11 July 1995)

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 203B which is grouped with my Amendments Nos. 203C, 204B and 205B to 205K. The main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 205B; the others are consequential.
1587 In moving the amendment, I ask your Lordships to consider the question of democracy. The proposal for the election of parish councillors—that is elections by the electorate from among parish councillors—is not the first choice of myself or these Benches for the appropriate way to appoint or constitute the national park authorities. The amendment is an attempt to inject an element of democracy rather than extending "quangodom" and failing notably to enhance accountability.
The parish councillors will be appointed, as the Government propose, as other members of quangos, even though no doubt they will have their own priorities. The Government's proposals do not improve democratic accountability to any significant extent. The number of elected members—the number of members who can serve with a mandate because they have been elected by the local community—is cut; and the parish councillors will owe their places to the Secretary of State. I accept that this would not be the first choice of approach, but at this late stage my amendment attempts at least to include an element of democracy. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I can understand the noble Baroness's desire to introduce an element of democracy into all this. I am surprised that she did not try to import a bit of proportional representation, too, while she was about it.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I sometimes recognise defeat before it comes and hits me in the face.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, in that case, there is not much point in my answering the noble Baroness's amendment. However, it would be discourteous of me not to do so. I understand her desire to try to introduce some form of democracy. She wants to introduce a requirement that parishes wholly or partly within the parks should form one voting body for the purposes of electing parish members to the new authorities.
In arriving at our own proposals in Amendments Nos. 203 to 209, we considered the option that parish members for each national park authority should be identified through some form of electoral process rather than be appointed by the Secretary of State. I can understand the noble Baroness's view. We are together in that. However, in the end we felt that it would be impossible to impose on parishes the requirement to hold elections in order to identify the parish members in the absence of any existing mechanisms that could be adapted for the purpose.
We are aware that some parks have parish fora which might be responsible for running elections in their parks. In other parks, however, there may be no agreed organisation which could undertake the task of running an election; nor might the parishes agree on the process to be adopted or on when elections should be held. We therefore concluded that amending the Bill to require parish members to be elected could not be done without also drawing up a complete new set of provisions governing the conduct of those elections. We came to the conclusion that to try to amend the Bill at this stage 1588 to make such a provision would have been a very complex task. Instead, we opted for the simpler, more practical, route of appointment by the Secretary of State. We have made it perfectly clear, however, that we should be more than content for parishes in each park to decide collectively the nominations to be put before my right honourable friend.
Nor will the Secretary of State have discretion over the terms of their appointments. Amendment No. 205 provides for parish members to hold office from the time of their appointment until they cease to be members of their parish councils. If they are re-elected to their parish councils, they will also be eligible for reappointment to the national park authorities, provided their names are again put before the Secretary of State.
I understand the intention that underlies the noble Baroness's amendment, but I do not believe that at this stage in the Bill's progress it would be suitable. As I have tried to explain, we have done the best we can without proposing a whole new set of regulations to say how elections should be conducted. We decided to use a system that will make sure that parish councillors are appointed but will ensure that people in the parishes have the right and the duty to put before the Secretary of State those whom they believe will be most suitable for appointment.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wish that I had proposed election by proportional representation, by single transferable vote. It would have answered most of the points that the Minister used to defend the Government's failure to bite the bullet—a bullet that they seem to accept as a real one—and to incorporate a provision for election. I am surprised. It has not seemed to me that on other occasions it has been beyond the wit of the Government to impose the sort of arrangements that would be necessary to provide for such an election.
My amendment would have met a point that was made in the previous debate by providing a period of years during which the elected councillors might serve. It is very unhealthy for democracy to allow the position to arise whereby an individual can continue to hold an appointed office for years and years. I have no doubt that many parish councillors do hold their offices for many years. If that is allowed to happen, one gets sucked into the system. Periodically putting oneself up for re-election and having one's position validated is, frankly, a very good thing indeed. However, sadly, at this point in the Bill I fear that we shall make no further progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.