Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, that was most helpful and I shall continue. The main difference between Amendment No. 135, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the similar amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that the former is restricted to English national parks. The Welsh factor has been removed. We have just been listening to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, on that. The Welsh factor having been separated, two issues remain: first, the 25 per cent minimum rule for national representation, and, secondly, whether the Government should consult more widely before making appointments. I shall take the second point first. The Minister said in Committee that the Government already do what the amendment seeks and therefore no change to the legislation is needed. However, one can equally argue that in that case the Government can hardly object to enshrining good practice in the Bill. I shall leave it at that. The noble Lord made much the same point about the 25 per cent rule: that current practice is for about 25 per cent of national park members to be national appointees. He went on to argue, quite reasonably, that the needs of parks are likely to vary from park to park and that reflecting those variations is best left to secondary legislation. I am sure that we all agree on that, but that is not the main point. It is only part of the point. The point of principle is that there must be a floor, a minimum. We must have regard to the future. Ministers change, attitudes change, and governments change. To the saying,"““Put not your trust in princes””," the late Hugh Dalton added,"““still less in Ministers of the Crown””." For that reason, we need to specify a basic rule in the legislation. It may be that 25 per cent is not the right figure, but it is essential that there should be a national representation in each English national park and it must be more than mere tokenism. The essence of national parks is that they are national, and their being reflects national considerations. Is it not rather strange that we specify precisely the relationship between local authority and parish members on one hand and the ““other members””—that the former should exceed the latter—but we give no guidance, such as a floor, on the number of other members, the national appointees?