HL Deb 16 November 2000 vol 619 cc492-500

(" .—(1) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

(2) The following are relevant authorities for the purposes of this section—

  1. (a) any Minister of the Crown,
  2. (b) any public body,
  3. (c) any statutory undertaker,
  4. (d) any person holding public office.

(3) In subsection (2)— public body" includes—

  1. (a) a county council, county borough council, district council, parish council or community council;
  2. (b) a joint planning board within the meaning of section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
  3. (c) a joint committee appointed under section 102(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972;
public office" means—
  1. (a) an office under Her Majesty;
  2. (b) an office created or continued in existence by a public general Act; or
  3. (c) an office the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 234ZA and 234ZB, as amendments to Amendment No. 234, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 234 agreed to.

Clause 79 [Establishment of conservation boards]:

[Amendment No. 234A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 234B: Page 53, line 30, at end insert— ("() No order shall be made under this section in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty unless a majority of the local authorities whose areas consist of or include the whole or part of that area of outstanding natural beauty consent to the establishment of a conservation board.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 79(6) provides for local authorities in AONBs to be consulted about proposals to establish conservation boards. Local authorities in this context means a principal council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972. I understand that to mean a county council, district council or unitary authority.

As the Bill stands, there is no provision requiring any of the principal councils to agree to the establishment of a conservation board. Theoretically, therefore, the Bill could allow the Secretary of State or National Assembly of Wales to establish a board where every single authority involved was actually opposed to the idea.

Of course, I realise that it is most unlikely that the Government would establish a board in such circumstances but they could do so, and that is the point. My amendment seeks to avoid that. I have received representations from local councillors in my part of the world who are in an AONB and therefore could have a conservation board imposed upon them. Their views on this matter are very strong indeed. They believe that there should be proper local consultation.

My amendment simply seeks to require that a majority of the local authorities concerned in any area—and there could be many in some AONBs because they traverse county and district boundaries—would have to agree to the establishment of a board following consultation before the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales could proceed.

There are similar amendments to mine. One is in the names of my noble friends Lady Byford, Lord Glentoran and Lord Dixon-Smith which would require the consensus of all local authorities within the AONB, which I believe is rather an extreme way of dealing with the consultation process. Another amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, requires a broad measure of agreement. With respect to my noble friend, I regard that as perhaps being rather woolly.

My amendment would require a clear majority of authorities to be in agreement before a board could be established. That is clear and unequivocal. It avoids the possibility of one authority vetoing a proposal supported by the others. Equally, it avoids the prospect of the Government proceeding where the authorities involved are very half-hearted about the idea.

Furthermore, I was interested to see in the circular letter sent to many noble Lords by the chairman of the Countryside Agency, Mr Cameron, that, Conservation Boards will not be imposed on AONBs. We want every AONB to have the management system which best meets its local circumstances and needs". The letter goes on: But the new legislation as drafted is needed to make the Conservation Board model available", which is fine, when it makes practical sense, and where it is locally supported".

I suggest that my amendment exactly meets that criterion because it prevents conservation boards being imposed against the wishes of the majority of the local authorities within that area. I was also interested to see a letter circulated by the Local Government Association, which made the same point. It said: The establishment of the Conservation Boards must be with local and national agreement".

Again, I suggest that my amendment meets this specific proposal. So I hope that the Government will look favourably on what I may describe as the third way. I believe that it would satisfy the requirements of local authorities, that we would get a consensus view and that this whole contentious matter of conservation boards would go forward in a manner acceptable to local democracy. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has picked up much of what I would have said on Amendments Nos. 236A and 237A, which are grouped with his amendment. Those two amendments require the agreement of all authorities. The establishment of a management board for an area of outstanding natural beauty will be a serious matter. If there is any degree of opposition to the establishment of the management board, particularly from participating local authorities that must have participated in an existing joint board, it is highly unlikely that it will work well. In some ways the wording of the amendment in the name of my noble friend is more felicitous than the wording in Amendments Nos. 236A and 237A. The fact is that if there is not agreement to the establishment of such boards, the likelihood of their succeeding is pretty remote.

Bearing in mind that in the vast majority of cases the AONBs are in existence and working happily and well with joint boards running them, it would be dangerous to go from that situation to one in which there was an imposed management board with a considerable degree of dissent in the area. I do not believe that that would be advantageous for anyone concerned, either nationally or locally. I ask the Minister to consider the position seriously. He may not want to decide tonight, but if not perhaps he can come up with something better at Third Reading.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendment No. 238A. It states that, Before making an order to establish a conservation board", the Secretary of State with respect to England or the National Assembly for Wales, shall be satisfied that there is a broad measure of agreement among those consulted locally that a conservation board should be established". The history of my amendment goes back to my Private Member's Bill of a year ago, when in the course of debating it I remember my noble friend Lord Jopling pointing out that in my original Bill there was no mention of a "broad measure of agreement" to a conservation board being established. In consequence, I put it in at Committee stage. That was before the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel was tabled. He referred to my amendment as being "rather woolly". I would not agree with that description, but I am not in the business of having a competition with him on such an issue.

If the Minister were to agree to my noble friend's amendment, I would gladly withdraw mine. The point that is common between us, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, is that the conservation board should not be established unless there is a broad measure of agreement from a majority of those consulted that it should be established.

I fully agree with my noble friend that if the imposition of a conservation board were attempted by a Secretary of State against the wishes of most of those he consulted, it would be a great mistake. Clause 79 leaves open the possibility that a future Secretary of State may impose a conservation board against the wishes of the majority of local interests, including the local authorities concerned.

It is precisely to ensure that such an unlikely but none the less possible scenario does not happen that I tabled my amendment. It does not undermine the powers to create a conservation board as I am not suggesting that acceptance by all local authorities is sought. I suggest that the Minister will lose nothing by accepting either my amendment or that of my noble friend Lord Peel. In either case, reassurance would be given to the sceptics that conservation boards would not be established unless there were agreement from the majority of those consulted. That might be a good thing.

12.45 a.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, without wanting to be an adjudicator on variations on the theme, I come down strongly on the side of my noble friend Lord Peel. I believe that his amendment has the necessary strength, clarity and purpose. In my part of the world, Devon, the local councillors have expressed considerable concern that the Secretary of State has the power to impose local conservation boards against the wishes of local authorities within the AONBs. I hope that the Minister will understand the merit and good sense of my noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, we on these Benches would take a different view and would prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, which is consensual. The difficulty with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is that if there were only two local authorities, which is the case for some AONBs, it would be impossible to produce a majority if one agreed and one disagreed.

Furthermore, for the purposes of the conservation board too much emphasis is laid on the local authority and not enough on other interests. The concept that conservation boards will be over local authorities is wrong. It is a completely different relationship and in many cases they are fulfilling functions which are not among the primary purposes of the local authorities. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would fulfil the kind of agreement which should rightly be sought locally. For that reason we support it.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I prefer the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel. It is important to have conservation boards. To some extent, it is a matter of persuasion. I well remember the previous government setting up the Broads authority many years ago. I was a member of the Countryside Commission and was sent to Norfolk and parts of Suffolk to help to persuade the local authorities to agree to the proposal. However, the Government's intention was to legislate to set up a Broads authority. We succeeded in getting it set up with consent and it has been a considerable success.

The South Downs Conservation Board of my noble friend Lord Renton, is a separate animal which he inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I understand that the local authorities, which have representatives on the board, are keen on it and supportive of it. Therefore, we need more to persuade local authorities to accept the boards than at present.

There is a difficulty as to the exact wording. I would have been quite happy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel. The noble Baroness said that there might be two local authorities only one of which agreed. My understanding is that that would still pass the test according to my noble friend's amendment, because the majority must agree. There must be better consultation than is presently provided for, but it must not be such as to enable people to sabotage the setting up of the board.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, we agree with all those who have spoken about the objectives and shall try to find the right way to achieve them. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that conservation boards are good. We also agree with Ewen Cameron of the Countryside Agency and the Local Government Association that boards should not be foisted on AONBs when they are not wanted. We expect the first moves towards the creation of conservation boards to be initiated locally. Our proposals require consultation with all affected local authorities before an order is produced to establish a conservation board. We shall take into account very seriously the views of local authorities, and the Secretary of State is bound to take reasonable decisions in the light of the consultations.

Of the options that have been offered, we tend towards that of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The approach based on a broad measure of agreement proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is similar to the way that the Conservative Party used to choose its leaders. That did not work very well. We believe that the all or nothing solution of the Conservative Front Bench goes too far. One may have a perfectly successful conservation board even if one local authority chooses not to take part in it. Although the exact wording of the noble Earl's amendment may not work in the circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, his amendment based on the majority view appears to be the closest. We shall look closely at tabling an amendment at Third Reading which produces the intended effect of Amendment No. 234B.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify one important matter. I believe it is inconceivable that a conservation board can be created if one of the local authorities is so determined not to have it that it refuses to participate. Perhaps I have misunderstood the situation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I do not believe that that is so. It is unlikely that there will be an AONB which involves only two local authorities.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having taken such a rational view of this broad debate. I look forward with interest to how the Government deal with the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 235: Page 53, line 41, at end insert— ("(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply to functions of a local authority under Part II, III, VII or XIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained in Committee that it was not the intention of the Government that conservation boards should be able to be made local planning authorities. A number of noble Lords wanted that to be made clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 235 achieves that by specifically ruling out the transfer or sharing of development plan and development control functions with conservation boards. Those functions will in all cases remain with the appropriate local authorities. I shall respond to Amendment No. 235A when it has been spoken to. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 235, Amendment No. 235A: Line 3, after ("VII") insert (", IX").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 235A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 244 and 245. I welcome Amendment No. 235. We were very concerned in Committee that, as originally drafted, the Bill would permit the considerable transfer of planning powers to a conservation board. The Government's amendment answers that concern. I am grateful to the Government for the manner in which they have responded to what was said on this issue in Committee.

The Minister may think that I am a completely unreasonable person and will now start carping, but it is always as well to look with care at what has been done. Part II of the Bill deals with development plans; Part III deals with control over development; and Part VII deals with enforcement. Those are the planning powers that would cause serious concern had it been possible to transfer them to AONBs.

I find Part VIII interesting. I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that part should be barred for transfer. Part VIII is concerned with special controls. It deals specifically with trees: planting, tree preservation orders, compensation—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, Part VIII is not in the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I apologise. I have Part VIII down as included on my list.

I welcome the amendments. We have tabled other amendments in the group. One is to remove Part IX because that deals with compulsory purchase. There are two other small amendments. One deals with compulsory purchase of land. The other deals with power to borrow money. There is a feeling, at the very least, that if conservation boards have powers to purchase land, they could cause vexation and antagonism locally.

In any event, they need to raise monies if they are to purchase land. At the moment they have no certain sources of funding. They are not in the position of a local authority which has solid backing and sound financial ratings. These would be new bodies with—at best—a somewhat hesitant revenue stream, either from their participating local authority or from the Government. That would not provide a sound basis for borrowing. We have tabled two amendments to restrict both the power to borrow and the power to purchase land, which we believe are appropriate for this kind of body. Those are the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 235. They are important amendments which adjust the Bill in a small but significant way.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that as the conservation boards will be statutory consultees, and their management plans will carry weight in the development plans, members of the conservation board will have the same rules and conventions on declarations of interest applied to them as apply to other councillors in a similar position, such as parish councillors?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness is yes. We shall come on to the question of membership in the next group of amendments.

Perhaps I may respond to Amendment No. 235A first. That would rule out all applications of Part IX of the Town & Country Planning Act. Part IX covers powers to acquire land by compulsory purchase. But it also covers powers to acquire land by agreement when the land is suitable for and required to carry out development, redevelopment or improvement. That is quite a wide exclusion. I would not like to rule out all these possibilities now. I would prefer to look at the matter in the establishment order for each conservation board to see what powers actually are appropriate. To take out Part IX now would be a mistake.

Amendment No. 244 seeks to prevent a conservation board being given powers of compulsory purchase. It is not our intention that conservation boards should be given powers of compulsory purchase. We have proposed in Schedule 14 the powers we consider conservation boards may need to acquire and dispose of land, and those are powers to purchase by agreement. Even those powers are likely to be used sparingly because we do not expect conservation boards to become major landholders. National park authorities are not. I do not believe that conservation boards need to be given compulsory purchase powers.

I do not think that it would be helpful to extend in the Bill the list of functions which cannot be transferred to conservation boards. I have brought forward an amendment excluding the transfer of the main planning powers because there was clearly a measure of concern about that issue in Committee, even though I explained that we did not intend those functions to be transferred. I do not want to add to that. I should like to remind the House that the power this legislation will give to transfer functions is actually quite limited. It applies only to functions which are needed to achieve the purposes or exercise the functions of a conservation board.

I turn to Amendment No. 245. Clause 80(5) of the Bill provides that the general power of a conservation board given by Clause 80(4) to do anything calculated to facilitate or conducive or incidental to accomplishing its purposes or carrying out its functions does not of itself provide a power to raise money. Conservation boards will clearly need to raise money somehow in order to be able to discharge their functions. Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to make grants to them. The Countryside Agency will also be able to make grants, and between these two routes there is the ability to fund boards to the level affordable by central government. Conservation boards will be able to augment this income from other sources, including voluntary support from the local authorities involved in the boards. But the boards will not have levying powers. There would have to be a specific provision to do so and we have not included one in the Bill. Boards could be granted borrowing powers if that were allowed by the establishment order. There is provision, of course, for them to make charges for services. Clause 80(5)(b) is a correctly drafted provision, which incidentally is identical to Section 65(6)(b) of the Environment Act 1995 as it applies to national park authorities. To remove the words, as suggested in the amendment, might lead to doubts that conservation boards would be able to raise money at all. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that all those methods of raising funding will equally apply to AONBs which remain with a joint advisory committee? We are concerned that there should not be a two-tier system of AONBs and that those which choose not to have conservation boards will not be financially disadvantaged.

1 a.m

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, government grants and Countryside Agency grants would apply to AONBs which were not conservation boards. Voluntary grants from local authorities would still be a matter for them. But it would be possible For the boards to receive grants.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister said. He has been very helpful in his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 235A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 235, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 235 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 236 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 236A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 237 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 237A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 238 had been renumbered as Amendment No. 234A.]

Lord Renton of Mount Harry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 238A: After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—