National Parks (Hansard, 20 January 2005)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, it is for individual national parks authorities to decide how to deploy their resources in order best to deliver their statutory purposes, but Ministers have encouraged them to expand the engagement of volunteers in promoting appreciation of the national park. I am glad that the Lake District is taking action to encourage people from all walks of life to appreciate and enjoy the park. But that should be an additional effort, not at a cost to 881 current visitors. I understand that the matter will be given further consideration at a meeting on 7 February.

§ Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that all in the House would welcome more people from all communities visiting the national parks. However, is it not true that the government report of July 2002 highlighted the problem and has put pressure on national parks to review their policy? Does the Minister not agree that a cut of a popular service that costs only £32,000 out of an £8 million budget is regrettable?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, these are not matters for Ministers. It is true that the Government have encouraged national parks to give some priority to encourage people from inner cities in particular to use, covet, visit and appreciate the beautiful countryside in our national parks. That is government policy and the guidance we have given to the Lake District and other national parks. However, the items in the budget being considered for savings or reprioritisation are a matter for the Lake District National Park and other national parks. The item to which the noble Baroness alludes is among those being considered, but no decisions have been taken.

§ Lord Jopling
My Lords, the appointment of members of the national park authority is a matter for government. Is the Minister aware that there is currently one vacancy on the board; and will he ensure that before the February meeting when the matter is to be discussed and decided, that place is filled by someone who lives in the national park?
Will he also ensure that that person will do his or her best to redirect the efforts of the officers of the national park—which is where this dotty idea came from—in producing such dotty ideas, if only to arrange to answer the telephone better? This morning when I telephoned I had to listen to a recorded message for 10 minutes before I could talk to anyone.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, regrettably these days that last point is a feature of many institutions, public and private. There are procedures laid down and in train for public appointments. I am sure that the noble Lord would be one of the first to criticise if Ministers interfered with that process or proceeded to give specific directions to the appointee on how they carried out their duties.
I take issue with the noble Lord's reference to this as a "dotty idea". Does he really not think that the national parks and the Government should be encouraging people from inner cities to visit the national parks? If so, I am surprised at him. To call it a "dotty idea" completely inverts the argument.

§ Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that public authorities suffer from bad reporting and national parks are no exception? Only yesterday the North Yorkshire National Park was reported as taking a policy position on house 882 construction that turned out to be different from the spin put on it by the broadcasting media in particular. Should something not be done to encourage the national parks to ensure that they receive a fair press when they are trying to put across a policy so that they are not dismissed as dotty ideas, or in such language?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The North Yorkshire National Park is the planning authority and housing decisions are a matter for it. There is clearly an issue of affordable housing within the North Yorkshire area, as in many other parts of our rural communities. The press did not use the term "dotty idea" as it has just been referred to, but the policy was presented in an odd way that did not bear out full examination of the facts.
I regret that all of us, even government departments, are occasionally subject to such misrepresentation in the press.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks. Does the Minister agree that national parks have to deal with many tensions concerned with housing, dividing up their budgets and so on? Will he underline that those issues are matters for the national parks authorities? Regrettably, this Question is a good example of why at national level we should not meddle with such decisions, which are rightly left to the park authorities.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, precisely; I said exactly that in my first Answer. This is a matter for individual park authorities. Of course there are conflicting pressures on them and they have responsibility for considering priorities within their budgets, but it is a matter for them which they address effectively. This apparent criticism of our national parks is not at all valid. They do a fantastic job. We need to encourage more people to go into our national parks and enjoy the countryside.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Bowland and Pennine Mountain Rescue Team, which is nothing to do with the national park, had an application for a major grant refused on similar grounds to the problem referred to in the Question? If such a principle were to be applied more generally, bodies such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or possibly even St John Ambulance could be refused grants in particular circumstances because the place where they were applying for the grant was not "socially correct" or "socially appropriate".
Does the Minister agree that if that were to be the case, the disincentive to people working in voluntary organisations such as those I have mentioned would be damaging and against the national interest?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord acknowledged that this is not a matter for the national parks. I have no knowledge of the grant application to which he refers: I would probably be precluded from 883 interfering if I had. However, I doubt whether that was the only ground for deciding priorities among competing applications for government grants.
I take issue with the noble Lord for saying that there should not be some general guidance to both voluntary bodies, which depend partially on public funds, and public authorities, that some of our deprived communities should benefit more from our national assets in terms of the countryside as in other respects. To reverse the argument and call that ludicrously politically correct is a misunderstanding of the situation which would not be appreciated by people in voluntary organisations or who give a great deal of their time voluntarily and professionally to the national parks and other worthy organisations.
We need to cater for all walks of life and that includes making special efforts for those least advantaged by the present system.