§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con)I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of representation on national parks. I wish to discuss specifically the Peak District national park, which covers about 50 per cent. of my constituency. When I first entered the House of Commons, the issue of representation on the national parks was always controversial and lively. Indeed, there was a feeling that not enough local people were involved in administering national parks. I always accepted that there must be a proper balance between local and national representation, because the Peak District is a national park with a huge number of visitors.
Against that background, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on 4 July 1989, which would have greatly increased the number of local representatives on the national park. I was pleased to receive cross-party support for the measure; in fact, many distinguished hon. Members supported the Bill, not least the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who is now the Chairman of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee. The Bill also received support from my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). From the Liberal Democrats, I was supported by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). That showed that at that time there was considerable concern about the way that the governance of the national parks was being distributed.
In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, was very aware of those comments. In the Environment Act 1995 he did a great deal to address the balance of local representation on the national parks by including in that representation a proportion of parish representatives. It is worth noting that now throughout the major national parks there are 37 parish representatives out of a total of 183 members of the national parks. They have contributed valuably to the way in which the parks are administered and controlled.
I say to the Minister in all seriousness that from my point of view the parish representatives have managed to let people feel that there is an elected element in the national parks. A number of people argue that we should have a fully elected national park body. I have never been convinced by that argument because, as I said at the beginning of my comments, there are wider issues to consider in the way in which the national parks are managed and organised. Since the franchise was widened, I have been aware of fewer complaints about the way in which the national parks operate. Although at the time a number of people criticised the involvement of parish councillors; with the national parks, it has been valuable for the functioning of the national parks.
As any Member of Parliament knows, we have no authority over planning committees or national parks. Sometimes—no doubt like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am grateful that we have no power over planning committees. Sometimes I think that I could do a better job than the planning committees, but perhaps we all 243WH feel that. The only real way for a Member of Parliament to get involved is to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to call in a planning application once a determination has been made.
I recently wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter of Stanton Lees and Endcliffe quarry, asking him to call that application in. It is slightly different with quarry applications because they are deemed to be quarries and therefore there is deemed to be permission. That is a controversial issue, which I shall not press the Minister on today because whether it should be called in does not fall directly within his remit. On Stanton Lees and Endcliffe, we have now had eco-warriors camping, squatting and living for the past four years. The people in surrounding villages want a determination and they feel that the situation has been going on for far too long. There are certain timetables in tile offing. This is a controversial matter. The Minister will be aware of that from wider experience. It is causing a great deal of concern in that area of the national parks.
There are 11 national parks in England and Wales. They are the most outstanding naturally beautiful parts of our country; that is how they were designated when first set up under the Bill that had its Second Reading in the House in March 1949. The Peak District national park was one of the first to be set up. Things have obviously moved on since then. The area covered by the Peak District is huge. The Environment Act 1995 established the park authorities as autonomous and understood that local people should have a say about their area and the planning decisions that affected them. That is where I want greater local representation.
However, the Secretary of State announced some time ago that there would be a review of the English national parks. Recommendation 22 of the Government's report, published in July 2002, suggested a cap on membership of 20 to 25, with three fifths being local and two fifths national. I think that the Minister has decided that, in the main, there should be a cap of 22 to 25 members. That may be right for other national parks, but I am not here to talk about them. I am here to say that that would be the wrong size for the Peak District national park.
Currently, the Peak District has 38 members, and I can accept the argument that that is a very large committee and that the number should be reduced. I have no argument with the Government when they say that they want to reduce the numbers that make up the national park. At the moment, 20 members represent the county, district, city or borough councils. All 12 local authorities have at least one representative. Derbyshire, as a county, has 31,250 residents, but Derbyshire Dales, the district that covers the vast part of my constituency, has a population of 24,711.
If we went down to 26 members, my concern would be that Derbyshire Dales district council would have only one representative on the national park. That is why I should like the Government to announce a membership of 30. That would enable Derbyshire Dales to have two representatives on the national park, which is important for local accountability. I want to discuss that later. Currently, the Secretary of State Erectly appoints 18 members: 10 to bring other matters, such as national interests, into the management of the park, and eight to represent parish councils. 244WH I believe that the national park is unique. I am always careful when I use that expression because I am always told off when I do so, but the park is so different from all the other national parks. It is the second most populous national park, with a population of more than 38,000. Only the Lake District national park has a larger population, of more than 42,000.
No other national park covers the area of so many local authorities or has so much local authority involvement as the Peak District. It covers part of six counties and 12 local authorities, including Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire county councils and Sheffield city council. Then there are the districts or metropolitan areas: Barnsley, High Peak, Kirklees, Macclesfield and Oldham borough councils, and Derbyshire Dales, North East Derbyshire and Staffordshire Moorlands district councils. The Lake District national park covers only four councils, so there is a great divergence with the Peak District national park. The Peak District is within an hour's drive of 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population—and some weekends, it feels like they are all going there.
I should like to see better local representation being maintained. One danger of moving to a smaller number of people on the national park would be less good local representation. As I mentioned, there are controversial planning applications to be dealt with. I have addressed the ones relating to quarrying, which are constant; they are always very controversial. I mentioned Stanton Lees and Endcliffe, and not so long ago there was the question of the future of Longstone Edge, which was also very controversial. The decisions that are taken by the Peak District national park authority have considerable effects on the local environment, road traffic and the very nature of the area.
As I said, I fully accept that 38 members may be considered too many, and that a reduction from the current size could well help to improve the efficiency of decision making, and that that is reasonable; but the number should not be less than 30. Even the Peak District national park authority has said,
our membership cannot be less than 30 without having a severe and unreasonable impact on the representation of people who live within the National Park".If one looks at the populations of the various districts inside the national park, it soon becomes obvious why Derbyshire Dales should have more representatives than the other authorities. Barnsley has 68 people living inside the national park; Oldham has 93; North East Derbyshire has 147; Kirklees has 202; Sheffield has 965; Macclesfield has 1,268; Staffordshire Moorlands has 3,875; and High Peak has 6,501. In Derbyshire Dales, however, the population living inside the national park is 24,711. To put it another way, 65 per cent. of the people living in the national park are in the area of Derbyshire Dales. That is one of the reasons why I would say to the Minister that taking the figure below 30, which would cut Derbyshire Dales representation down to one, is not acceptable. I urge the Minister not to take us back to a situation in which the whole question of the representation of the national park becomes an issue. That is not in the national park's interest, and is certainly not in the Government's interest. However, a worry has been going around that that could happen. As quickly as possible, we need to bring things to a conclusion so that people accept that there is greater representation.245WH If the Minister accepts the number of 30, it is also the case that the parish council members, who are appointed by the Secretary of State but elected by the parish councils, will go from eight to six. That reduction is acceptable and would be understood. If the number went down to 26, we would be almost halving the parish council representation and that would be a disastrous decision.
This is not a huge issue, but it is important. The Peak District national park is important to the millions who visit it—I say millions because we get more than 20 million visitors each year. It is described as the lungs of the United Kingdom. People from Sheffield, Manchester, the west midlands, Nottingham and other large conurbations literally flood into the national park on weekends and bank holidays, and for their holidays. Maintaining the beauty of the area and ensuring that the planning authority has proper representation is therefore an important issue.
The Minister has earned the reputation within the national parks as somebody who cares about them. He has given a lot of time in his ministerial job to their development. I know that he recently visited the Youth Hostels Association in Matlock, which is outside, but close to the national park, and he no doubt visited parts of the Peak district; in fact, I think that he visited the Peak district one afternoon when I could not be there. I hope that he puts this matter to rest so that the questions that have been surrounding the issue of membership of the national park since the review was published on 2 July can be answered. People will then know where they stand.
§ 4:14pm
§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality(Alun Michael)I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and giving me a pleasant opportunity to deal with one of the most interesting and varied topics of my portfolio. As I respond to the debate, I am conscious that I do so not only under your watchful eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but under that of the chair of the Peak District national park authority, Mr. Tony Hams.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised this issue with me before, and I am grateful for his courtesy in spelling out his concerns in advance of the debate. The issue has also been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt), by the leader of Derbyshire county council and, on behalf of the Derbyshire Dales district council, John Williams. I have also taken the opportunity to discuss the issue with the chair of the national park authority and, more generally, with members of the national park authority at the beginning of October. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that I spent some time in the Peak District national park looking at the authority's work, meeting its members and its chief executive, Jim Dixon, who was previously an excellent member of the team within the Department 246WH for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, and who has put his skills to good use in the service of the national park authority. He has a considerably more attractive office with a more attractive view as an officer of the national park authority than when he was part of DEFRA's team in London.
It is a particular privilege to have national parks in my portfolio. It builds on an earlier privilege because I grew up on the edge of the Snowdonia national park. I have appreciated in recent months the opportunity to make some comparison of the work of the different national park authorities and the incredible treasure that we have in the immense range of landscape, flora and fauna in the English national parks. It is a collection of landscapes that together form an immensely important national asset. Representation on national parks has been a sensitive issue the hon. Gentleman said, and I am glad that he referred to his earlier contributions to debate on the issue. I am particularly glad that he agrees with the idea of reducing numbers and I concur that we should not go too far: we must obtain the right balance in the end.
On 4 July 1989, the hon. Gentleman sought to strengthen local representation—as he said, the 1996 legislation subsequently dealt with that. However, it is worth reminding the House of objections to his views at that time. I see from the record that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that the hon. Gentleman
presented the Bill because of his experiences with the Peak park joint planning board",and went on to say that his views wereover the topbecausethat provision is merely part of the hon. Gentleman's general vendetta against Derbyshire county council."—[Official Report, 4 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 157.]Obviously, these are historic documents which reflect contemporary disagreements, but I am happy to confirm that the idea of reducing numbers is not part of a vendetta against anybody. It is part of a purpose to make the national park authorities more efficient and effective, without losing proper representation of different interests.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI do not want to spend too much time on the ten-minute Bill that I promoted in 1989, but I am sure that the Minister will realise that I had the House's permission to bring in the Bill, and obtained some very attractive sponsors, as I said earlier-not least Dale Campbell-Savours, who is no longer in the House, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the current Chairman of the Select Committee. The "mere vendetta" was shared by others as well.
§ Alun MichaelI am glad to hear the case for the defence.
I should like to explain the background to the recommendations that I am making. My conclusion, on reading the recommendations of the national parks review, was that we should reduce the membership of national park authorities to 22, where possible, or 26. In 247WH view of the particular circumstances in the Peak District national park, where there is a large number of local authorities—and where representation is therefore a rather more complex issue than it is for the other national parks in England—and also in view of the opinions expressed by hon. Members of all parties and the chairman of the national park authority, I have concluded that 30 is the number to which we should move.
It is not just a question of my making that decision. I remind hon. Members of the process for altering the membership of a park authority, which is set out in statute in schedule 7 of the Environment Act 1995. The legislation has several important requirements. In summary, the size of the park authority can be altered only by statutory instrument. The statutory instrument changes the overall size; it does not alter the balance of membership in terms of the number of local authority and Secretary of State appointments or, within the Secretary of State element, the number of members that she appoints directly and the number that are nominated by the parish councils.
A consequence of that balance of elements in the membership is that only certain sizes are possible. That reduces the options available to us to 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and so on. Also, any statutory instrument must be preceded by consultation with the principal councils—the counties, the districts and the unitaries—that have land in the park. No principal council can be excluded from membership of the park authority, except at its own request, so there is a good deal of protection for the representatives involved.
We have not started the process, but I am now prepared to do so. Clearly, those who disagree with the proposal will have the opportunity to object in the consultation, which will last for 12 weeks. Then there will be the opportunity to pray against the statutory instrument, should any hon. Members feel that that is necessary. I hope that it is not, as a result of the degree of consensus that is built up, and the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman reflected, there is a wish for a sensible outcome leading to an authority that is smaller, but not too small, and so can balance different interests.
The effect of my proposal to reduce the Peak District national park authority to 30 members would be to ensure that it continues to have more members than any other park authority in Great Britain. It also means that the authority will continue to offer at least one seat to each of the principal local authorities with land in the park, but will be better able to conduct its business effectively in accordance with its modernisation agenda. I would underline that the Peak District national park authority, like other national park authorities, is seeking to modernise, and to streamline the way in which it undertakes its work. That will give the members more scope to maximise their contribution.
§ Mr. McLoughlinFirst, I should like to thank the Minister for giving us a final answer on that point, and for ending the uncertainty. Will he be a bit more specific about the timetable? He says that consultation will last for 12 weeks. If a statutory instrument is laid before the 248WH House and is not prayed against, and therefore comes into effect, when would he expect the new authority to take shape? When does he expect the implementation date to be? The parish representatives are usually elected for four years.
§ Alun MichaelI take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. My approach is that the proposal should use the "least pain" method. We will set down the time scale, which will enable people to fulfil their terms of office. That means that it will take a bit longer to get to the end result, but it also means that people will not be ejected and that if any are able to serve part of a term, they will know from the beginning the period for which they will be involved. I undertake to spell that out in putting forward a proposal for the consultation, which will take place in a 12-week period before the statutory instrument is laid. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns; he makes a perfectly fair point.
The current thinking is that the Peak District national park should be reduced to 30 seats, that Dartmoor, Exmoor, Lake District, North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales should be reduced to 22 seats, that Northumberland should remain at 22, and that the broads authority, whose legislation is different, should reduce to 21. The legislation on the broads authority addresses the planning requirements differently, so it is possible for that authority to deal with its local authority representation without encountering the complications that arise for the Peak District authority.
The Peak District national park covers more local authorities than any other park—12 as opposed to four or five authorities in the other cases. It also has an unevenly distributed population. The most populous three districts account for 92 per cent. of the resident population—Derbyshire Dales alone accounts for 65 per cent.—while at the other end of the spectrum, three districts each have less than I per cent. of the population. Having said that, those districts have a considerable interest in the national park and its success, so I do not want to suggest that they have only 1 per cent. of interest because they have only 1 per cent. of its resident population.
The park also stretches into four separate government regions. Although this is riot directly relevant to the debate, there is a lead region, and I am pleased that, for example, in our work with regional development agencies, the importance of landscape to the economy as well as communities that live in the national park has been recognised, as well as the main focus of national park responsibilities to protect the landscape and consider recreational opportunities. It is a large park in all senses of the word, and it has a particular place in the history of the development of national parks.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the national park authority should not be composed only of people who are resident in the park. The parks are national assets and, as the regional dimension becomes more important, one issue will have to be addressed, as they will remain a national asset while also being considerably important to their region or, in the case of the Peak District national park, most of the surrounding regions.
249WH When it comes to planning, everyone thinks that he or she can do better than the local planning authority. I had the privilege of chairing the planning committee of Cardiff city council for a time, and it was borne in on me that the world is populated by two groups of people. There are those who think that the planning committee should not have agreed something that it did and therefore think its members are irresponsible and mad, and there are others who think that it should have allowed something and that its members are therefore unduly restrictive. There is little ground in between.
In general, planning authorities do a good job, and the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to sensitive issues with Lees Cross and Endcliffe quarries, which are matters for consideration. I have been briefed by the Peak District national park authority, and he is right to say that it is for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to decide whether any issue should be called in. However, the authority seems to be taking a careful and responsible approach to the difficult issues that have to be resolved. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has 250WH constituency concerns—that is always the case—but I would not want anything to be construed as a criticism of how national park authorities deal with their planning responsibilities
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate, as it has given me the opportunity to confirm my views and proposals about the future membership of the Peak District national park authority. In view of the representations and the discussions that I have had with the hon. Gentleman, some of my hon. Friends and the national park authority members, I hope that my proposal will find favour with all. I hope also that we can continue with the constructive support of the national park authority and in agreement about the immense value of the contribution that the Peak District national park, as a historically important member of the family of national parks in England and more widely in the United Kingdom, will continue to play. It is a pleasure to have been able to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman's concerns
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.