Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Perhaps I may just entreat my noble friend not to be quite as absolute as he sounded in his rejection of these amendments, and to go away and ponder some of the merit which they represent. In my view it would be good if he could come back with a constructive proposal on Report to meet some of the anxieties. I put it to my noble friend that what my noble friend Lord Dubs and I suggest in our amendment is a win-win situation because it retains flexibility for the future, which we are the first to agree is vital, but it also protects the national interests of national park authorities. I put it to my noble friend that there is not really room for complacency on this. It is not true to suggest that there is never a tension between the national interest and local interests. It is therefore, it seems to me, very important that, because of the national character of the parks, national representation is a guaranteed element within whatever equation is reached. My noble friend referred, I think, to the recent review of the Welsh national parks and the English national parks. It is interesting that the review of the Welsh national parks made no recommendation to change the mix of two-thirds local and one-third national, while the English review recommended more of a swing towards increasing national membership, with three-fifths local and two-fifths national appointees. It is presently of course a quarter for the latter. I hope that my noble friend, with his usual consideration, will feel able to go away and think more about this and perhaps come back to us with a more positive response at Report stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 307A not moved.] Clause 57 agreed to. Clause 58 [Expenditure by National Parks authorities]: On Question, Whether Clause 58 stand part of the Bill?