| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did not choose to wind up the debate for the Opposition, given its narrow nature. Will the guidance given to Departments be made available to Members, so that we can judge whether we think it right?
Mr. Woolas:
I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the shadow Leader of the House, and I appreciate what he says about not winding up the debate. On the guidance—about which the hon. Member for New Forest, West also asked—the Chief Secretary is very sympathetic to the point that is being made. He intends to write to the Chairmen of the Select Committees to clarify the guidance in each
12 May 2004 : Column 439
departmental area. That will be done forthwith. I hope that that deals with the questions asked at this stage of the debate.
Mr. Leigh: The Minister mentioned the excellent memorandum and referred to the table on page 51. I see from the section on the historical background on page 52 that
"the systematic use of legislative appropriate dates from the Glorious Revolution."
If we are to have historical references, could they avoid value judgments?
Mr. Woolas: Some in the House would argue that all historical references are value judgments. What is important is that supply measures are the property of the House and not the other place. I am sure that every hon. Member would agree with that and long may it be so.
In conclusion, once again the Government have listened to the advice of Select Committees. We are grateful to them; that is what they are there for. Once again the Government have provided time on the Floor of the House to debate these important issues, and I hope that that will be noted. What we are proposing is a modest and sensible change to our supply procedure. Several Committees have endorsed both motions on the Order Paper and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
QUESTIONS ON VOTING OF ESTIMATES, &C.
Ordered,
That the following be substituted for Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.):
Questions on voting of estimates, &c.
'55.—
(1) On any day to which the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order apply the Speaker shall at the moment of interruption put the questions on—
(a) any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services;
(b) any motion authorising amounts and limits on appropriations in aid, set out in outstanding estimates.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 6th February, if any of the following total amounts have been put down for consideration:
(a) votes on account for the coming financial year;
(b) supplementary and new estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least fourteen days previously.
(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 18th March, if any of the following numbers or total amounts have been put down for consideration:
(a) votes relating to numbers for defence services;
(b) supplementary and new estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least fourteen days previously;
(c) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the amounts and modifications to limits on appropriations in aid necessary being authorised by excess vote.
(4) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 5th August in respect of any motion authorising amounts, and limits on appropriations in aid, set out in outstanding estimates.
(5) At least two days' notice shall be given of the motions which are to be put down for consideration under paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order.
(6)
The provisions of this order shall not apply to any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates for war expenditure.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr George Osborne be discharged from the Committee on Public Accounts and that Mr David Curry be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]
12 May 2004 : Column 439
12 May 2004 : Column 441
Exmoor National Park
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
5.47 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con): I am delighted to see the Minister in his place and to know that a west country Member will reply to this debate on Exmoor. I know that he has bicycled over most of the west country, so I am delighted to see him here.
I regard myself as an extremely fortunate man. Every morning in my Bridgwater constituency, I wake up, pull open the curtains and gaze towards one of the most beautiful places on earth—Exmoor. I am delighted to have a chance to talk about it this evening. Exmoor national park is 50 years old this year, during which time it has positively bloomed.
Members perhaps spend too much time looking back, but if I may indulge the House I propose to provide a potted history of the national park. Seventy years ago, one could hardly wander across Exmoor. Most of the land was privately owned and most of the owners preferred to keep it that way. By 1930—even then—there was growing political pressure to open up the countryside. New organisations well known to us, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Youth Hostels Association, were flexing their then not inconsiderable muscles. America had already created its own famous national parks. Yogi Bear was already loose in Yellowstone park, so surely it was time for Britain to do the same.
In 1931, a Government inquiry recommended a brave new national authority. Eureka—what a splendid idea, and what a crying shame that it took another 23 years to create Exmoor national park. The snail's pace of British democracy is a maddening mystery to us all but, half a century later, there is a great deal to celebrate.
So, I give three big cheers for the rangers and the expert staff who make Exmoor's conservation their life, and their way of life. I give two medium cheers for the 26 members of the national park authority—someone has to do the job, and it does not make them rich. I also give a muted cheer for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although I suspect that the Minister was hoping for more. However, there are no cheers at all for some of the crass decision making that mars the good name of what I believe to be the best place on the planet.
I have no desire to scare the House, but there is said to be a huge, horrible and hairy creature stalking Exmoor. The beast was always thought to be a myth, dreamed up to tell to tourists, but I am not quite so sure now. I think I have seen the beast in action, and I am afraid it is the beast of bureaucracy—a ghastly manifestation of officialdom gone mad.
If the House will indulge me, I should like to tell a real story of the moor and its wildlife, and of what happens when the beast appears. In this, I am indebted to a journalist called Annalisa Yard. She dug out the story, and her editor at the West Somerset Free Press had what some would say was the courage to print it. It is a story about peaceful creatures and the wild beast of bureaucracy.
12 May 2004 : Column 442
On Exmoor, we have all sorts of creatures—badgers, foxes, the famed red deer, Jacob sheep, alpacas, and Simmental cattle; one can even find the odd llama. There is a family of meerkats, a couple of kookaburras and an equally exotic mara. Not all can claim to be indigenous to Exmoor—it is not their natural breeding ground or habitat, but what the heck? They are not doing anyone any harm, and they should not attract the attention of the Exmoor bureaucrats, but some of them have.
This is the sort of silly issue that gives the Exmoor national park authority a bad name. The real beast of Exmoor is not a figment of the imagination, or an overweight wild cat—it is the legally empowered bunch of officials with the right to make rules. Those rules would have had the Porlock kookaburras packed off in crates and shipped off the moor for ever, all because they have been designated "non-native".
I live on the fringe of the moor, but I was born in Scotland; presumably, that makes me non-native too. I shall not even ask where the Minister was born. The sort of language being used is normally associated with radical extremists. One does not expect to hear it from the lips of people whose sole reason for existence, according to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, is to
"conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their area."
Fortunately, the bureaucratic beast of Exmoor did not get away with it this time, and thanks has to go again to the West Somerset Free Press. Officialdom and its beastly rulebook said, "Kick the kookaburras out!" Exmoor authority members, however, voted for common sense. I wish them more power to their elbow—but how much more power?
One of the features of every national park, Exmoor included, is that it runs its own planning system. That makes sense in theory. If one wants to preserve the culture of an area, one has to set rigid regulations and leave it to officials, by delegated power, to give the final yea or nay.
However, officials are only as good as the rules they enforce, and that leads to a number of questions. First, what exactly is the kookaburra rule? Secondly, who approved it? Thirdly, how do we stop this nonsense in future?
I shall try to give some answers. Let me quote the rule itself:
"The Kookaburra is not indigenous to Exmoor and does not therefore contribute to the understanding or enjoyment of Exmoor".
That is a matter of loose interpretation, not of hard fact. The rule forms part of the national parks development plan, so at some stage it must have come before members of the authority. Why did they not notice it?
How do we stop such nonsense in future? This is where the debate starts. The national park has many of the powers of a local authority and a fair chunk of public money. Exmoor national park does a sterling job and valuable work, very economically. Its annual budget is some £3.5 million, and tourism is booming. It deserves a pat on the back. Its members are dedicated and its aims are high. All that is good.
12 May 2004 : Column 443
The national park's budgets have been cut, however, as the Minister knows. However, one cannot take the national park authority before the ombudsman in a claim of maladministration—I do not propose that in this case—and, like local councillors, its members are not legally liable for things that go wrong. National park authorities answer first to DEFRA and second to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, although, given his identity, it may be hard for them to understand the question. After 50 years, perhaps it is time for a little straightforward accountability.
Exmoor national park authority has 19 members who are drawn from parish, district and county councils—local people who know Exmoor like the back of their hands, and I can vouch for that. The Secretary of State, however, directly appoints seven others, and they are not locals at all. There is a bloke from Warwickshire and a lady from Wiltshire. I do not expect that they pop into Exmoor national park very often. The Government want to increase the number of such appointees from seven to 10, but surely it is time to insist that Government appointees are local people too.
Exmoor national park is a wonderful institution that has done a brilliant job over 50 glorious years. It has not done many things wrong, but in the light of some of the beastly bureaucracy it is a wonder that it has managed that.
5.57 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |