| Draft Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Establishment of Conservation Board) Order 2004
|
|
The Chairman: It is entirely up to the Minister; he is allowed to move the second order formally. As the hon. Gentleman realises, the original idea was to debate the two orders together. In view of the objections to separating the orders, the Minister was allowed to make a formal speech on the first order that contained much of what affects the second order. He is Column Number: 17 therefore entitled to move the second order formally. However, we will now embark on a full debate on the Cotswolds order. Hon. Members can make whatever contributions they wish and the Minister will respond.
3.17 pmMr. Gray: I am disappointed that, having discussed the Chilterns in some detail, the Minister has chosen to say nothing about the Cotswolds. After all, the Cotswolds area is the largest AONB in Britain and is different to the Chilterns in many respects. People in the number of Labour constituencies in the Cotswolds will have noticed that the Minister has chosen to say nothing to try to justify his reason for bringing in a board. Incidentally, before I move off the subject of justification, the Minister will recall—perhaps he should check Hansard—that when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was debated in this very Room, because of the entirely unfair and disgraceful knives and time limits that the Labour Whips imposed, there was no discussion of AONBs. They were chopped and the Bill was railroaded through the House of Commons. I am surprised that the Minister did not realise that. He said that to find out why the boards have been brought forward, we should read the report of the debates in which they were discussed in full at the time of the original Bill. He was completely wrong; they were not discussed in any shape, size or form. The Labour Government chose to railroad the Bill through the House of Commons, much to my annoyance—I was sitting on the Committee and was ready to make a particularly fetching speech on AONBs, but I was prevented from doing so by the Labour Whips. It is right that the Minister should come to this Committee, since he refused to do so in 2000. Mr. Bradshaw: I was not there. Mr. Gray: The Minister is right; he was not there. Other Ministers were sitting where he is now. If he saying that had he been here he would have had that discussion, he is being critical of his colleagues. They chose to apply a guillotine but the Minister is now saying he thinks that that was wrong and that, had he been here, he would have had a discussion about it. It is reasonable for us to have a full discussion of the principle behind the AONB boards because the Labour Government did not allow us to do so in 2000. Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab): If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the issue, why did he admit earlier that he did not see the need for two debates because he had prepared only one speech? Mr. Gray: My point was not about whether there should be two debates, and I was ready to discuss the principle of the two orders together, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold understandably wanted a separate discussion on the Cotswolds. I felt it was unnecessary to discuss them separately, but it is disappointing that, after the Minister chose to speak about the Chilterns, he did not even try to refer to the special circumstances of the Cotswolds.
Column Number: 18 In all events, my point was not about whether there should be two debates but about the Minister's statement that there was no need to justify the principle behind the boards because it had been carefully explained in the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Minister is wrong, as it was not discussed in Committee. It should have been, but it was not, which is why I believe it is reasonable for us to discuss it today.Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The situation was worse than my hon. Friend describes. I was one of the usual channels in that Committee, which sat for six weeks, and it was not until the final week that we saw the substantive amendments on the AONBs. By that time, there was no opportunity to discuss them in Committee, so the only substantive discussion on those provisions was in the other place. Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That often happens with big, complicated Bills that are rushed through this place. It should not happen, but thank goodness we have the other place, which brings some wisdom to bear on what would otherwise be pretty poor legislation. None the less, we support the principle behind the establishment of the boards. I have several questions relating to my earlier question—I will not weary the Committee by repeating it—and some specific questions about the Cotswolds. On the benefits of the boards, the Minister said in our debate on the Chilterns that there would be no greater presumption that the AONB boards could object to any planning developments. He made it plain that no planning controls have been removed from local authorities and given to AONBs, and nor would any be given to the new boards. If that is the case, will the Minister revisit my original question: what is the purpose of the new boards? Some people have said that they will ensure that the areas remain beautiful and that houses are not built on them. We want to preserve the green belt and AONBs and prevent the Deputy Prime Minister from building all over them, but the Minister has made it clear that the new boards will not have that function. Again, we must ask why that should be. We talked about simplification, but the Minister did not answer the points in his response. Some 15 per cent. of the Cotswolds is in my constituency, and I need to know what things that currently happen in my constituency as a result of the AONB will stop happening. If there is to be a simplification and removal of bureaucracy, will the Minister list what will be removed? The funding issue is important. The Minister said that funding had recently increased from 50 to 75 per cent. of the total, and as a result of the failure to win the battle about VAT with the Treasury it will now increase to 80 per cent. Rather than seeing it in percentage terms, which are meaningless, I would prefer to know the figures. Precisely how much is currently spent on the AONBs, and how much will that increase in pound terms? What will the extra cost Column Number: 19 be of the inability to collect the VAT, and to what degree does the 5 per cent. extra funding compensate the AONBs?The letter from which I quoted earlier makes it clear that although there may be an increase of 20 per cent., the establishment of the boards will cost approximately £80,000 per AONB. Will the Countryside Agency or its successor compensate the Cotswolds AONB board to the tune of £80,000? That leaves to one side the question of VAT, but the same letter says that, based on current expenditure levels, the loss of VAT recoverability will cost £25,000 per AONB. That is £105,000 extra as a result of the establishment of the boards—£210,000 across the two boards. I would like to know that the Minister has full authority from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to guarantee that that £210,000 extra will be spent from today, when we establish the two boards. I am sure that that is correct, but we need an assurance that it is definitely the case. The Minister reassured me to a degree on the national park issue, for which I am grateful. There would be downsides to that. It is probably worth placing it on the record that the people we represent in the Cotswolds would potentially be rather concerned if there were subsequent moves towards national park status. I hope that, if that were ever contemplated, there would at the very least be a massive consultation procedure, following which I am confident we would conclude that such a proposal was not welcome. It is worth putting a marker down in this little-followed Committee that we would be unlikely to want to allow the Cotswolds to move towards national park status. Leaving those concerns to one side and speaking as a constituency MP and for Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter, I have no strong objection to the Cotswolds measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold—who I hope will catch your eye in a moment, Mr. Illsley—does not agree with me on this matter, which is perfectly reasonable. It is not a matter of party policy or official disagreements between Government and Opposition; it is a matter for individual consideration. There are a number of worries about the establishment of the boards. The Minister allayed some, although not all, of them quite successfully, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend what his constituents are worried about with regard to the establishment of the boards.
3.26 pmMr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I hope that I will not need to delay the Committee unduly, but I have a very strong constituency interest in the order. Of course, the word ''conservation'' sounds benign to most people, so until they started to discuss and delve into the detail of the order they would think that the order was a good thing. However, as I shall demonstrate, it is far from that.
Column Number: 20 As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire made clear from the Conservative Front Bench, the order to set up the Cotswolds conservation board is rooted in section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill for six weeks, and we recall that these amendments were not tabled by the Government until the last week of consideration in Committee, in typically chaotic fashion. We had no opportunity, because of the timetable for the Committee, to discuss the amendments and they were discussed only in another place. Had we had a chance to discuss them, we may well have proposed changes to them before they went to the other place.As the Member of Parliament for Cotswold, I have a self-explanatory interest in the order and the establishment of the conservation board. I strongly oppose the board and believe that, in that opposition, I am reflecting the views of my constituents. The board is a bureaucratic nonsense for which there is no demand and no need. Cotswold district council already administers 80 per cent. of the area covered by the AONB, which, together with the Cotswolds AONB partnership, set up under the Local Government Act 1972, functions extremely well. There is no problem that needs the solution of the creation of the board. The fact that the order runs to a massive 34 pages is a sure sign that the institution it heralds is not likely to be streamlined, hyper-efficient or free of red tape. Power should be devolved to the lowest possible democratic institution, which is the parish council, when it is capable of taking on the function, or the district council, when it is a case of a larger function. They are the proper democratically elected bodies to take on the functions. The proposal certainly cannot be justified, on the basis that it is completely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' money. In common with most of the actions of this Government, it represents a diminution in the power of local democracy in favour of a largely unaccountable body. The order is centralising. It increases the powers of the Secretary of State at the expense of local authorities. In paragraph 4(2), the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint 15 members of the conservation board, so 15 of the 40 members of the board—some 38 per cent.—are appointed centrally. The Secretary of State does not have to give any reason for the people she appoints, although the Minister here today, in a written answer on 27 October, assured us that the Secretary of State's appointments would result from ''fair and open competition'' and would be advertised. That is a welcome use of the Nolan rules. Talking of advertising, can the Minister explain why he has already advertised for some members of the board? If he would be kind enough to listen to what I have to say, he will be able to answer the question. He is listening out of his other ear, he tells me; I thank him. As I understand it from my local contacts, some members of the board have already been advertised for, which seems to be ultra vires in discussing this statutory instrument because there was no surety that it would be passed this afternoon. Why have steps Column Number: 21 already been taken to set up the board? Despite the Government's protestation that having 38 per cent. of the board appointed by the Secretary of State is to ensure
The order represents a shift of power away from local democracy. As the explanatory notes explain, paragraph 25 in part III of the order provides for certain countryside functions of local authorities,
With that request, I refer the Minister to clause 48(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which says that the Secretary of State may
As I have explained, 15 members of the board are appointed by the Secretary of State, but 17 are local authority and parish council members. That is where the order is particularly unfair to my constituents. The Minister shakes his head, but he should listen to what I am about to say. He says that he has consulted for four and a half years, and he has had substantial representations from me, both in written questions and in letters. Given that Cotswold district council currently covers 80 per cent. of the Cotswold AONB, the 17 local authority members will get one seat—just one of those 17 local authority appointees. In all eight of the parish council areas, there are Cotswold district council parish councillors, yet only two of those eight areas will be guaranteed for Cotswold parish councils. In other words, the large majority of my parish councils may be disfranchised. Is that local democracy? It certainly is not. It is taking power away from the local people. The Secretary of State must explain carefully why that is happening. Column Number: 22 Not only does the order describe an overlapping of duties between local authorities and the board, which is bound to cause confusion and the blurring of lines of accountability and responsibility, but it is difficult to escape the fact that it diminishes the power of local government. From single-handedly and efficiently handling a whole swath of issues for many years, local government is being asked to hand over control to a body stuffed with central Government appointees. That is a backward step for local democracy, which those of us who strongly believe in genuine devolution to the lowest possible level, cannot possibly support. I now move on to the some of the functions covered by the conservation board. The order covers a huge range of functions, but is extremely bureaucratic. It deals with the election of board members, their pensions, the way in which they are to be supervised, and the way in which committees are to be organised, in a level of detail that I have rarely seen in a statutory instrument in the House, during the 12 years I have been an MP. Therefore, anyone who says that the board will not be bureaucratic is in for a big surprise. Of course, all that bureaucracy will cost a great deal of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. We already know that the likely running cost—the estimated initial running cost—will be £80,000 a year. However, that may be an underestimate because, if we take the example of the Greater London authority, the eventual running costs proved to be five times the initial estimate. From the explanatory notes, we know that it will cost £100,000 to set up each conservation board. I ask the Minister how many hospital places or home helps could be provided, or how many children could be helped with the extra £200,000, when this particular board will achieve so little?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 1 July 2004 |
