Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, we missed the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. We were sorry that he was ill and not with us in Committee. We recognise his wide knowledge and concern. I endorse the fact that he is widely respected in Wales. Clause 59 improves the arrangements for appointing members to national park authorities in England and Wales. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it is intended to make the system more efficient, more flexible and more responsive to local needs. Three general principles are raised by Amendments Nos. 134A and 135. The first, raised by Amendment No. 134A, is that national park authorities in Wales—and only Wales—should include members who are directly elected to the authority. The second principle is that the primary legislation should specify that the other members whom the Secretary of State or the Welsh Minister appoints should always make up at least 25 per cent of an authority. The third principle, which is raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is that before laying an order to establish the membership of an authority, the Government should consult not just the local authorities affected but also all relevant authorities and interested bodies. First, the issue of directly electing members to the Welsh national parks authorities was debated when the existing legislation was being enacted, and was reconsidered in the recent English and Welsh reviews of national parks authorities. The concept has never commanded general support. The duality of NDPB and local authority involvement in national parks reflects their dual responsibilities: they serve the country as a whole, because national parks are national assets, and they have a direct responsibility to those who live in the parks. The current arrangements reflect the unique role of national parks very well. The review of the Welsh national parks authorities found no consensus on the issues raised by the amendment. I do not propose to comment on whether the policy decisions were rightly taken, tempting though that is, particularly following the remarks made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. I am pleased that he is happy, although I note that he has some mild reservations about certain aspects of his own personal experience. I must, however, frown slightly at the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, who I think said, ““We could push this through here in advance of the Welsh Assembly consulting the people of Wales””. However technically correct the noble Lord is about that, that is not how we have approached devolution in Wales. The noble Lord knows very well that we seek the views of the Welsh Assembly and would not want to ride roughshod over its process. He appears to have some very valid points, so I suggest that he directs them to the National Assembly and not to the Westminster Parliament as a means of seeking to influence what is rightly the Welsh Assembly review. Secondly, on the 25 per cent rule, the other members of national parks authorities, who are appointed by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Minister, are often referred to as national members—the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, among others, mentioned this. We take the view that this is not a question of the 25 per cent figure itself, which, as it so happens, is consistent with current practice. We do not believe that it is sensible for any level to be set in primary legislation; decisions are best left to secondary legislation, where they can be taken on a case-by-case basis and can reflect the context in which particular authorities are working at the time. We do not see any value in replacing one rigid formula with another; flexibility is needed. For that same reason, Amendment No. 134B, which proposes that Clause 59 be withdrawn, cannot be supported. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, indicated that he had some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I assure him that the 25 per cent figure has been fairly constant. I hope that he will agree on reflection that it would be extremely useful to keep the flexibility in this clause. Finally, the third general principle is about consultation before introducing secondary legislation. Although the existing statutory requirement is to consult only the local authorities, it is already Defra practice to include other consultees who may have an interest. We believe that only the minimum level of consultation should be specified in legislation—that is, with the local authorities. Who else to consult is best considered using discretion according to the needs at the time. This would avoid a disproportionate level of consultation by list. We believe that Clause 59 improves the arrangements for appointing members of national parks authorities and will make the system more effective and more responsive, particularly to local needs. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.