HL Deb 16 November 2000 vol 619 cc500-8

(" .—(1) A conservation board shall consist of not more than 24 members of whom—

  1. (a) not less than three-quarters shall be appointed by local authorities and parish councils in the proportion of two members from the local authorities for every one member from the parish councils; and
  2. (b) the balance of not more than one-quarter shall be appointed by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the conservation board.

(2) In the event of a failure by local authorities and parish councils to agree appointments under subsection (1)(a) above, the matter should be referred to the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) for arbitration and decision.

(3) A conservation board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an advisory council, and if such a council is formed, shall appoint members to it who shall be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the conservation board.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the composition of conservation boards. I believe that on this occasion I must have got it right because my noble friend Lord Peel has added his name to my amendment. That is bound to mean that it will now enjoy wholesale acceptance from all sides of the House, including the Government Front Bench.

The purpose of my amendment is to suggest that a conservation board should not consist of more than 24 members, of whom not less than three-quarters—that is, a maximum of 18—would be appointed by local authorities and parish councils, thus in the proportion of two members from local authorities to every one member from parish councils. The balance, comprising not more than one-quarter—that is, a maximum of six—would be appointed by the Secretary of State in respect of England or the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Wales.

The point about the size is extremely relevant. I am well aware that, for example, the Council of the University of Sussex, on which I happen to serve and which is the governing body of the University of Sussex, is under pressure from the Higher Education Funding Council. The council is thus in the process of reducing its numbers. I believe that many other universities are in exactly the same position. It has been suggested that for a university to function properly, the executive body of its council should not comprise more than around 25 members.

I believe that exactly the same principle could apply to the new conservation boards, as and when they are established. The conservation board which I now chair has a membership of 36. If the same composition of membership were to continue at the same time as we absorb the East Hampshire joint advisory committee and become, in due course, the South Downs national park, I am told that the board membership would comprise a figure in the mid-forties. For a board to function properly, it should be kept as small as is practicable. I suggest that a maximum of 24 would be about as small as is practicable.

When he replies, the Minister may well say that this should be dealt with in the order establishing a particular conservation board rather than be added to the primary legislation. I think that is wrong, because if it is put into primary legislation it will remove the temptation that will certainly exist, as individual conservation boards are created, to allow them to be formed at a size that will prove unmanageable in practice. However, it will be politically expedient at the time of the creation of the board. That is because it is a great deal easier to say "yes" to increasing numbers when a board is becoming formed than it is to say "no". For example, a local authority or county council may wish to put up three members rather than one. It is easier to give in to such requests. For that reason, I believe that to include a definition of maximum size in primary legislation—a size that would be as small as is practicable—makes good sense.

The division between local authority and parish council members is a matter that has concerned many people, not least when the national parks came into being. I have therefore suggested that, when taking my maximum figure of 24, there would be 18 members, of whom 12 would come from the local authorities, six from the parish councils and the remaining six appointed by the Secretary of State to represent those organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to conservation boards. At that point, the Secretary of State could bring in representatives from national bodies such as the NFU, the CLA, the Ramblers' Association and others.

In subsection (3) I have added a provision that there should be an advisory council if a conservation board decides that that would be appropriate. I believe that that is the correct way in which to involve representatives of local organisations who are concerned with the objectives of the conservation board. I would much rather see them involved at the level of advisory council, which might meet two or three times a year, instead of in the composition of the board itself, for the reasons I have outlined. I have tried in this amendment to arrive at a compromise figure which balances the different factors and pressures. It is on that basis that I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, perhaps it may help the House if, as I did earlier, I say a few words about the government amendments and then, with the leave of the House—without curtailing debate—come back and talk to the other amendments.

Perhaps I may first tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a little story. In the 1960s, I was a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, which had something like 100 members. It needed 100 members because the grand boardroom in New River Head had 100 seats, and it would have been awful if there were not 100 members. The majority Labour group used to meet at 1.30; the board would meet at 2.30. On the rising of the board, the water examination committee would meet in the Oak room. On the rising of the water examination committee, tea was served in the Oak room. Tea was never served later than 2.45. That was an efficient way to run a board.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, perhaps I may cap the Minister's story. I have a meeting of my conservation board in nine-and-a-quarter hours' time in Lewes, Sussex. I suspect that all 36 members will be there waiting for me in order to find out how I got on tonight.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I shall speak for a shorter time than the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

As regards Amendments Nos. 239 to 243, I explained in Committee that the Government's proposals for the membership are for at least 40 per cent—it could be more—to come from local authorities; for, in England, at least 20 per cent—again it could be more—to be parish members; and for whatever proportion is left to be appointed by the Secretary of State in order to represent all the other interests that needed to be represented, such as conservation specialists, land managers and people who use their AONB for recreational purposes.

But there were concerns expressed that the Secretary of State would be allowed to appoint up to 60 per cent of the members, and that was seen to be too great a proportion. Amendments Nos. 239 to 243 now provide that in respect of conservation boards in England, the parish members would be appointed by the parishes themselves rather than by the Secretary of State. We will provide for this by specifying in individual establishment orders how the parishes will go about making these appointments. We will consult before an establishment order is drafted with the relevant county associations of local councils—again I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils—and the affected parishes themselves as to what the order would say.

That means in England that the Secretary of State will be able to appoint an absolute maximum of 40 per cent of the members, with the majority being democratically appointed locally. It is thoroughly appropriate that the Secretary of State should appoint some members to reflect the national interest in the AONB and the central government funding which will be provided.

In Wales, if conservation boards are introduced—it will be a matter for the National Assembly to decide—the Assembly will decide in practice how to distribute the membership interest beyond the basic requirement for at least 40 per cent to come from the local authorities.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, my Amendment No. 238C only makes sense now that the Minister has explained Amendments Nos. 239 to 243. I am extremely grateful to him for what he said. Under the original draft of the Bill before us in Committee, the fact that parish council members could be appointed by the Secretary of State caused concern because we felt that it gave the Secretary of State too great a power of appointment. That is now removed. It is a very welcome concession and I am grateful to the Government for it.

Amendment No. 238C, which is grouped with these amendments, concerns those members that the Secretary of State can still appoint. It requires the Secretary of State to make those appointments from a list of nominees obtained from local conservation bodies and other relevant organisations. The Secretary of State is bound to do that because there is no point in appointing anyone other than local people to these local bodies.

Again, I should have thought that this was another of those irresistible amendments which the Minister ought at the very least to consider seriously. I do not expect an answer from him now. However, I should have thought that he could accept those words and find the situation satisfactory from the point of view of the conservation boards in the future. I ask the Minister to consider Amendment No. 238C very seriously indeed.

1.15 a.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, we on these Benches feel that the government move to allow parishes to appoint their own members is very positive. It will send out a good message to parish councils about government trust in their abilities.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond very briefly. Now I have said that! I hate people saying "very briefly". They never mean it—and I do not mean it.

Let me deal first with the amendment moved by die noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is similar to the one he proposed in Committee and I have already spoken to that. I do not think that it is an improvement on I he Government's proposals. I understand the desire to keep the number of members down, but we do not see a need to tie our hands in advance.

Under the noble Lord's proposal there would be a likely maximum of 12 local authority members, which would not allow every local authority to have even one representative in bigger AONBs such as the Chilterns or the Cotswolds where there are some 15 local authorities. I believe that this would be an obstacle to getting local authorities to participate in conservation boards. The noble Lord seems to envisage that local authorities and parish councils will come together by some mechanism to agree on the distribution of their membership. I think that our proposal to have parish councils make their own choice is better.

Amendment No. 238C would require the Secretary of State's members of conservation boards to be appointed, from a list of nominees obtained from local conservation bodies and other relevant organisations". That is more restrictive than our proposal. The Secretary of State will, of course, expect to make hi s appointments taking into account the nominations coming from local conservative bodies as well as from other organisations. The process will be based on the Nolan principles for public appointments—appointments on merit following the principles of independent scrutiny, equal opportunities, openness and transparency. But it would be a shame for this body, but not for any other comparable bodies, to have a restriction on who could nominate prospective candidates for membership. No restriction is imposed on the membership of national park authorities. Members of such authorities were not, of course, appointed according to the Nolan procedures. But if we now have those procedures, surely we do not need to have restricted nominating bodies.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, in the light of the government amendments, which I find satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 13 [Areas of outstanding natural beauty: conservation boards]:

[Amendment No. 238C not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 239 to 243: Page 138, line 2, at end insert (", and (c) in the case of an English conservation board, such number of parish members as may be so specified."). Page 138, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (2). Page 139, line 2, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 3 and insert (", in accordance with the provisions of the relevant order, by—

  1. (a) the parish councils for parishes the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty, and
  2. (b) the parish meetings of any of those parishes which do not have separate parish councils.").
Page 139, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (7). Page 140, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (6).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 80 [General purposes and powers]:

[Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 not moved.]

Clause 81 [Orders establishing conservation boards]: [Amendment No. 246 not moved.]

Clause 82 [Management plans]:

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 247: Page 57, line 15, after ("prepare") insert (", consult locally on").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and speak at some considerable length on Amendments Nos. 247 to 249.

Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 are self-explanatory. Amendment No. 247 provides that conservation boards should publish plans, but that they should consult locally on them. As for Amendment No. 248, we believe that management plans should be reviewed within 12 months. This should be a priority, as boards may wish to change their initial plans. The provision in the amendment would add to their flexibility.

Amendment No. 249 provides that the conservation board may review and adopt any plan prepared in the period before the board existed or in the subsequent two years. Under Clause 82(5)(a), the plan could have been prepared by a single authority, which need not cover the whole AONB. In fact, one could assume that it would not cover the whole. If it did, there would be no need for a conservation board. In such a circumstance there should be a statutory duty on the board to consult other local authorities wholly or partly covered by the AONB.

Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 249A, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. This requires a published response to every management plan within six months. That seems to me to be an extremely sensible proposition and one that I support. I beg to move.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for what he said in support of my amendment. Quite simply, the point of my amendment is to ensure that, once management plans have been sent to the Minister and public bodies, a reply is received. Under Clause 83(2), the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may receive a copy of a management plan, but there is no requirement upon them to reply. So what is likely to happen? What will the Secretary of State do with the plan? Will he put it in a drawer, will he bin it or does he reply to it? The fact is that far too infrequently does the Secretary of State reply. Indeed, I receive comments on this from many people working for national parks. It is a matter of vexation to them and could be so for conservation boards in the future. After spending a great deal of time and effort on producing a management plan, nothing more is heard from the Minister or the department concerned.

The amendment is directed particularly at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At the heart of this amendment is the acceptance that national parks authorities or conservation boards which prepare management plans have no direct influence upon farming management. The main influence on agricultural land management is concentrated on the activities of MAFF and the Forestry Commission. These government departments and agencies are in charge of delivering all the Government's intervention systems which influence agriculture. However—and this is the crux of the matter—there is no obligation, apart from the general duties clause, for government departments or their agents to take action in the delivery of management plan objectives.

My amendment would not tie other government departments to take particular action. All it would do is require them to say, "We agree with this; we are getting on with it", or, "We don't agree with this, and these are the reasons why". This is a sensible amendment that I very much hope Ministers will be able to adopt. When replying to a similar amendment that I tabled in Committee, the Minister was rather off hand. I think that that is a mistake. What I am suggesting here allows room for disagreement. It would not tie the Minister's hand and oblige him to agree to do things that he does not wish to do. However, it would require him to say something in reply. I very much hope that the amendment will receive support from all sides of the House and, indeed, from the Government Front Bench.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment No. 249A. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there is not much point in producing a plan if the Government make no response whatever to it. Moreover, in terms of plans there are many others to which the Government do respond in one way or another; for example, local transport plans, local development plans and community strategies. Surely this plan will fit in with that pattern of response.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 247 and 249 appear to have as their aim to express in the legislation the need to consult locally on the preparation or review of management plans. It is the Government's firm view that there should be widespread local consultation when management plans are prepared or reviewed.

The position is that the Countryside Agency has begun work on guidance on the preparation of management plans, in full co-operation with those who look after AONBs, and that guidance will undoubtedly indicate a wide-ranging local consultation similar to the wide-ranging local consultation when national park management plans are prepared. That matter is best covered by guidance rather than by a measure on the face of the Bill.

Amendment No. 248 would require a local authority or conservation board which is intending to review and adopt a non-statutory plan prepared before the passage of the Bill to review it within 12 months. However, the amendment does not appear to be consistent with, or follow through, any change as regards the timescale which is already on the face of the Bill in Clause 82. The amendment is internally inconsistent. Local authorities will have to publish such plans within three years of commencement or designation of the AONB, whichever is the sooner, and conservation boards will have to do so within two years of the establishment of a conservation board. So it is not necessary separately to require the review to happen within 12 months. Neither does it define when the 12 months would begin. I believe that the timetable in the Bill is clear. The amendment would confuse the issue.

I was gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, say that his Amendment No. 249A constituted mainly "having a go" at MAFF rather than my department. Nevertheless I consider that it is a little misplaced. The provision he has in mind, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has in mind, relates to plans which are part of the planning system; that is, the structure plan, the development plan and the community strategies to some extent. However, the management plan is in a different category. Structure plans which are generally prepared by the local planning authority at county level are very much part of the development plan system and subject to formal response from the Secretary of State. That is the general position with regard to the development plan system.

AONB management plans are different. They are not part of the development plan system. Wherever there is a management plan there will also be a structure plan which will go through the normal process in relation to the Secretary of State. I do not see that the amendment would of itself bring about any improvement in the way in which the system of management plans operates in practice. Clearly there are occasions when the Government will wish to comment on the plan and the representatives of government will certainly want to participate in the plan, or the review of the plan, and in the work involved in delivering the plan, usually through the Countryside Agency and other bodies. This should be a continuing involvement by the Government's local agents as integral partners.

What we do not want to see is a system of formal responses from government, which appears to be the implication of the amendment. As occurs with the planning system on occasion, that risks developing into a confrontational situation in requiring the Government to draw up a list of ways in which their policies may conflict with the management plan. That would not be productive; it misunderstands the nature of the management plan system. If the plan has been prepared sympathetically with the participation of the agencies involved, there should be no such conflict. If the Secretary of State has to make a formal, statutory response, one gets into a situation approximating to the response to development plans, regional planning guidance and so forth. I do not think that that was the intention.

If it would help the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I assure him that the question of the involvement of the Government and their agencies in the system of management plans is one that we are determined to see dealt with firmly and clearly in the guidance which the Countryside Agency is in the process of producing.

The noble Lord may take comfort from government Amendment No. 234 giving government departments and others a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose for which AONBs are designated. However, I would not think that the formal response which seems to be required by the amendment is sensible. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

1.30 a.m.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those explanations. We have come a long way. Our amendments relate to consultation and planning. I think that there is a good logic here. I accept the Minister's words that consultation will now take place, not just on this issue. I am content with that. I hope that plans will be produced after that consultation. Things happen only if you make plans to ensure that they happen and then review those plans to see what corrective action is needed. I hope that a system will be built up within the conservation boards which allows for plans to be made and reviewed on a regular basis. That is the nub of the matter. The Minister knows what we are driving at. He wants what we want. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]

Lord Renton of Mount Harry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 249A: After Clause 83, insert the following new clause—