|
Column Number: 3
Sixth Standing Committee on
Delegated Legislation
Thursday 1 July 2004
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
Draft Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Establishment of Conservation Board) Order 2004
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Establishment of Conservation Board) Order 2004.
Today is the fruition of several years of hard work by the existing management of the Chilterns AONB, its constituent local authorities, the Countryside Agency and my officials. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides for the Secretary of State to establish a conservation board by order for any area of outstanding natural beauty where the constituent local authorities ask him or her to do so. Following a review of its management structures, the Chilterns AONB is one of the first to take this route. It is expected that setting up a conservation board will increase management efficiency, raise the profile of the AONB and help it attract more funding for project work.
The order deals with the establishment, composition and administration of the board as well as its powers and functions. I shall attempt to highlight those parts of the order that are of most interest to hon. Members. The board will consist of members appointed by local authorities, parishes and the Secretary of State. The membership ratios are set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and require at least 40 per cent. of board members to be appointed by constituent local authorities and at least 20 per cent. by constituent parishes. The size of the board has been largely dictated by the desire of each local authority to be represented. It is intended that the board will establish an executive committee to reduce any possibility of unwieldiness.
Because of the requirements of the 2000 Act, only the selection process for the parish council members is included in the order at schedule 2. This process has been the result of lengthy consultation. Once this order has come into force we will prepare a further order establishing a specific code of conduct for board members. In the interim, the more general provisions of part III of the Local Government Act 2000 will apply. Membership of the board is unpaid. However, reasonable allowances are payable and the board will set those once it is established.
Schedule 3 to the order sets out the procedure and timings of meetings and I draw the Committee's attention to the requirement that the first meeting of the board must be held within 80 days of the
Column Number: 4
establishment date. It is intended that the board will hold its first meeting before the operative date of 1 February 2005. That will provide an opportunity for members to get to know each other and to elect a chair and vice-chair and, if they wish, determine the membership of any sub-committees before taking on the functions listed at paragraph 25 of the order from their constituent local authorities.
The 2000 Act enables the Secretary of State to transfer any local authority functions relating to the area of the AONB to the board or to provide that those functions should be exercisable concurrently by the board and the constituent local authorities. In the case of this order, the local authorities wish to have the powers exercised concurrently. A protocol is being drawn up between local authorities and the existing management team which will clearly specify in what circumstances each party will be responsible for which functions. Although not part of the order, that should provide clarity for the public and prevent confusion over responsibility.
It is not envisaged that the board will exercise all of the functions listed in the order regularly, but their availability will help the board fulfil its statutory purposes. The functions will include such actions as the prevention of damage to the area, signposting of footpaths and bridle ways and the protection of ancient monuments. Existing local staff engaged on AONB work will transfer to the new board on the establishment day. A list of staff to transfer to the board will be compiled by my officials with the help of the current employing authority. The list will be definitive for determining transfers.
We believe that Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) rules will apply, and it is the transferring authorities' intention to apply them, which means that the staff transferring to the board will enjoy continuity of employment and the same contract of employment. The terms of schedule 4 to the order provide a safeguard should that fail to be the case.
Financial arrangements are not specified in the order; they will continue largely as at present, with funding supplied by the Countryside Agency, subject, of course, to any future announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the light of Lord Haskin's recommendations following his review of the delivery of rural services. The only difference is that because the board will be unable to recover VAT payments, the agency has agreed to increase its contribution to the AONB core costs to help to offset the increased costs of VAT to the local authorities.
The board will have the power to borrow money without authority from the Secretary of State, pending receipt of expected revenue. It can also borrow money for any purpose relevant to its functions or the prudent management of its financial affairs with the Secretary of State's approval.
In my Department's view, the order complies with the European convention on human rights. The establishment of a conservation board is the desired way forward for the Chilterns AONB. There is eagerness that the order should be progressed and the
Column Number: 5
Committee's acceptance of it will firmly endorse support for protected landscapes, which are comparable in quality with those of the national parks.
2.36 pm
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I imagine that you hoped that you would be here for an hour and a half and be back in time to see what is left of Wimbledon, but if my understanding of the procedure is correct, we will be here for three hours. Sadly, that may interfere with your watching the tennis. We will try not to be unduly otiose.
I apologise to the Committee for not having the advantage of a raft of expert civil servants to draft two speeches for me, one on the Chilterns and the other on the Cotswolds. I had presumed that one speech would do, so if there is some similiarity in what I say on the second order, I hope that the Committee will forgive me for the duplication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right in thinking that there are differences between the Chilterns and the Cotswolds, therefore it is sensible to discuss them separately. I was disappointed by the Minister's introductory remarks, as he did not enter into the substance of why it is proposed to change the running of the AONB, which has operated extremely well for many years, to the new board structure.
Many people strongly believe that what is proposed is an extremely good thing, which will bring great advantages and benefits to the AONB, but the Minister's expert reading out of the explanatory notes did not necessarily convey the passion that is felt in both areas about why the statutory instrument should be approved. Perhaps when the Minister is winding up the debate, he will give us a glimpse into his great depth of feeling about why the boards should be established.
All the respondents to the Minister's consultation on the statutory instruments agreed on one thing: the Chilterns and the Cotswolds are two of the most outstanding landscapes in England and it is right that the Government, whatever their political persuasion, should do what they can to preserve them. All intelligent observers would say that the AONBs have done a wonderful job over the years and that the work in the Cotswolds and the Chilterns has been enormously successful. It is right that this small island nation with constraints on space should do what it can to preserve that wonderful landscape. At first, people said, ''That's absolutely marvellous. Aren't the AONBs great?'' But I detect some questioning why the establishment of the boards in the format suggested by the Minister will be better. I suggest that the nature of our debate should not be whether the AONBs are a good thing and whether the Chilterns are beautiful—of course they are—but about the means by which they are managed. That should be the principle behind our discussion. Will the new boards add value? Will they do something that the current AONBs do not?
I consulted widely in the Conservative party, which represents large parts of the Cotswolds and the Chilterns, locally and nationally. Therefore, it was
Column Number: 6
right that I should consult colleagues in both places. In that context, my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) are deeply sorry that they cannot be here today. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham would like it to be known that were she not serving on the Committee of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, she would have been here. My hon. Friends have asked me to say that they are very strong supporters of the establishment of the boards.
According to the explanatory memorandum, 14 of the 15 local authorities in the Chilterns have given their approval for the establishment of the board and the 15th has agreed with some reservations. Broadly speaking, all the local authorities have agreed. The same applies in the Cotswolds: 13 of the 17 local authorities have agreed and the remaining four have given their consent with some reservations.
Those bald and relatively supportive figures should not disguise the fact that some of my Conservative colleagues in the Chilterns and the Cotswolds have a number of questions to ask about how the boards will operate. I hope that the Minister will understand that it is sensible to raise those questions and to pry into the substance behind the orders. Will they make the areas of outstanding natural beauty better or are they bossy, bureaucratic, interventionist and entirely unnecessary? The latter is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, as he will no doubt express it later.
The same argument could apply to the Chilterns. A dry-as-dust Thatcherite could say, ''It is a quango. We are setting up a useless organisation. Loads of people will be on the boards. It will cost lots of money. There will be loads of meetings and annual conferences in Bournemouth. They will have committees and structures. Minutes will be sent backwards and forwards. There will be thousands of people with clipboards. The beautiful countryside of the Chilterns will not be one jot or iota better.'' That is the risk.
The problem with the Labour Government is that they love organisations, bodies, structures, committees, people reporting to each other, annual conferences and all , but that does not substantially improve things. We must examine how the boards will make our countryside safer—how will they make the Chilterns a better place? I have a number of questions for the Minister and I hope that he will listen to them seriously and in the knowledge that my colleagues from the Chilterns strongly support the board. I am not asking the questions in an aggressive or negative way, but it is important to tease out the thinking behind the orders.
If it is to be argued that huge advantages will be gained from the board, the Minister should tell us what they are. I shall start with the positive bit. If the board will give the Chilterns greater muscle to oppose unwanted development, which is one of the principles of the AONB, will he tell my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and a number of other Bedfordshire MPs how it will prevent
Column Number: 7
the unwelcome proposals in the Milton Keynes-South Midlands community development plan? Under that plan the Deputy Prime Minister proposes to build an enormous number—I think the figure is 55,000—of unwanted houses in the middle of the AONB. If the board will prevent unwanted development in the AONB, will he tell us whether he will make representations to the Deputy Prime Minister to say that those 55,000 houses are unwelcome and that the board will take extra steps to prevent their construction?
Leaving huge developments aside, why did the Deputy Prime Minister agree to the building of 595 houses in my constituency on the Peel circus to Pockeridge lane site in Corsham? That is smack in the middle of the Cotswolds, which is an AONB. Will the AONB board have significantly greater muscle in stopping unwanted developments? Will the Deputy Prime Minister's ambition to concrete over the south-east of England be stopped by the establishment of the board or will it make no difference?
People are also advancing questions about simplification. They are saying that the new arrangements will bring about a reduction in bureaucracy, intervention, paperwork and meetings. If that is the case, we would like to know how. That is a laudable and sensible aim, so we would like the Minister to list a few committees, meetings, events and structures that will be removed as a result of the establishment of the board. We would applaud that.
It is also said that the establishment of the board might help with the marketing of the Chilterns. If the Minister argues that the board will assist in the marketing of the Chilterns as tourist areas, perhaps he could tell us in straightforward terms and bearing in mind that we are not discussing the chamber of commerce, why from an environmental standpoint—from the standpoint of protecting those landscapes—we would want to attract as many people as possible. From the point of view of the tourist authority, that is obviously sensible, but this board will not replace the tourist authority. Do we want to attract as many tourists as possible to the Chilterns? Is that one of the aims of establishing the board and, if so, is it sensible from an environmental standpoint? Do we want to make the Chilterns—or the Cotswolds—into a honeypot attraction for tens of thousands of tourists from across England? If so, what steps will the new board take to protect the countryside from the tens of millions of unwanted feet that will then trudge through that beautiful landscape?
I should make it plain that I am a great advocate of bringing people into the countryside—I am not saying that we do not want tourists. However, the purpose of the AONB board is not to attract tourists; that is the purpose of the tourist board or the business associations. The purpose of the AONB is to protect the landscape. In summary, I should like to know whether the purpose of establishing the board is to
Column Number: 8
attract more tourists into the area and, if so, what the new board will do to protect the landscape that the old AONB did not do.
The Minister said that the establishment of the board will improve funding—that more money will come into the AONB as a result of its establishment. I am sure that no one on the Committee or in the Chilterns would object to that. The area is the jewel in the landscape crown of England, so the more money that we can attract from any bodies of any kind, the better. That is a laudable aim. However, I should like the Minister to clarify several points. Is this new money, extra money that is not currently there and if so, where will it come from? Is it merely money that is being siphoned off from other AONBs elsewhere in England that are not becoming boards or is it new money from the Government? Does the Minister see something in the Haskins report that might lead to extra money going into the AONBs as a result of the boards being established?
Even if the Minister comes up with large sources of new money for the board as a result of the order that we are considering this afternoon, he must tell us why it should be that the boards, in their new structure, are able to attract that money in a way that the AONBs under the old structure did not. What is it about the change in the structure from the AONB management organisation into the board that makes it attractive to new money? In summary, where is the new money coming from and why will the boards be more successful in attracting it than the areas were in the old days?
Incidentally, it was interesting to hear the Minister mention VAT. Whereas at present the AONBs can reclaim VAT, I understood when the boards were first proposed that that would no longer be possible and their costs would therefore increase by 17.5 per cent. I have a written response from one of the Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying that negotiations with the Treasury were taking place and that it was hoped that the same VAT status for the AONB boards could be achieved—in other words, that they would be able to reclaim the VAT.
I understood from a half-heard comment made by the Minister in his introductory remarks that his negotiations with the Treasury had been unsuccessful, that the excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer had once again won the battle with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that the AONB boards will not be able to reclaim VAT. I understand, although I would like clarification of the matter, that AONB funding will be increased to take account of the fact that they can no longer claim relief from VAT. If that is the case, we must know whether that applies not only to this year and the level of VAT turnover during the last 12 months, but that for all foreseeable future circumstances—however big the turnover of the AONB boards may become—they will always be protected from that failure to attract relief from VAT. If, as we all hope, they are successful, presumably the turnover of the AONB boards will increase, their failure to reclaim VAT will increase, and
Column Number: 9
the Government subsidy necessary to compensate for that failure to reclaim VAT must simultaneously increase over the years to come. We must ensure that there is protection in place, and if we cannot persuade the Treasury to agree to the new boards having the same VAT status as previously existed, we need at least some guarantee that that will be safeguarded in future as well as today.
Incidentally, the same applies to funding in general. The establishment of the new boards will lead to something like a 20 per cent. increase in running costs. I do not necessarily object to that. Perhaps higher-paid chief executives are to be found or other expenses might be entailed. However, will the Minister please assure us that the 20 per cent. extra costing—roughly £80,000 a year for the Chilterns—will be met in full by grant in aid from the Countryside Agency and that, no matter what might happen to that agency under the forthcoming Haskins report, money will come through one agency or another from Her Majesty's Government?
We all know that a statement is expected—I hope that it will be an oral statement to the House of Commons—from the Secretary of State about the Haskins report. When that happens, we need to know not only that this money will still come through to the new AONB and that the grants will increase by enough to cover the failure to collect the VAT at 17.5 per cent., but equally that the 20 per cent. extra costs that the boards will incur will be covered by the Government. We should not want to discover, having set the boards up, that the Government grant in aid was insufficient for the extra costs to be properly funded. That would, of course, be unattractive in the extreme.
The Minister should explain the benefits in greater detail and with greater passion than he has. If it ain't broke, don't mend it, but as the Government are mending it, we need to know what is wrong with it and what is going to be better. Only the Minister can tell us that.
On the other side of the coin, a number of risks are associated with these two orders and the Minister must seek to allay natural and reasonable concerns about the risks associated with them. It has been said, for example, that the boards are a sort of national park Trojan horse and that some time later, the Cotswolds and Chilterns will be turned into national parks, as we heard on Monday morning on the ''Today'' programme when the Minister, who is unfortunately unable to be here, announced the creation of the national park of the New Forest. The people of the New Forest were informed on Monday morning that it had become a new national park—not in the House of Commons, nor in a statement, but on the ''Today'' programme. The people of the Chilterns are keen to ensure that that does not happen in future.
| 
