David Lepper

Labour Party | Brighton Pavilion

National Parks

National Parks

Date: 7th November 2000

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on having secured this important debate. Its importance for those of us who do not yet have national parks in our areas is shown by the fact that four Members who represent Sussex constituencies covering different parts of the South Downs are hoping to take part in the debate--although I suspect that we have different views about the national park.

I welcome the decision by the Minister and his Government colleagues to listen and respond to the campaign that has taken place over several years to secure a national park for the South Downs, which, in 1947, was one of the areas suggested by the Hobhouse report for the first tranche of national parks and was the only area not included in the family of national parks that was created in 1949.

The history of the campaign predates that. In 1934, there was pressure for what we would now call a national park to be established for the South Downs by the landowners and the majority of the local authorities in the area, with one exception--Brighton borough council--which effectively prevented matters from going further. That was a twist of history, because Brighton and Hove council is the only local authority in the area that took the trouble to consult local residents on whether they wished to have a national park. The residents voted in favour of the proposal, which Brighton and Hove council is supporting in the face of opposition from other parts of the region.

In many other local authorities, the decision to support the proposed national park was taken by council officers and rubber-stamped by a small committee of councillors. Indeed, in every case where a local authority held a public meeting concerning the proposed national park, the majority of those in attendance supported the proposal.

Why should the South Downs become a national park? There can be no doubt that the landscape is unique and needs protection. From Winchester to Eastbourne, the landscape is subject to all kinds of pressures, and needs the protection that only national park status can provide. The area is popular with visitors, and much more needs to be done to create a balance between the needs of conservation and recreation and of those who work there. Some 32 million people a year currently visit the South Downs and I believe a National Park Authority will provide better management of recreation for the South Downs.

Those who oppose a national park for the South Downs have built up certain myths about the way in which national parks are run. One such myth concerns local involvement in a national parks authority. It is suggested that such an authority is a form of quango that is run from Whitehall, but nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) expressed his support for the inclusion of parish council representatives as a move towards greater democracy in the management of national park authorities. Fifty per cent. plus one of the membership of such an authority consists of local, county and district councillors, and 25 per cent. minus one consists of parish council representatives. It is true that the remaining 25 per cent. are appointed, but as I understand it the chairman--or woman--of a national park authority is appointed by the authority itself, rather than Whitehall. Therefore, there is a degree of real local representation in national park authorities.

Another myth is that there will be a move away from local councils' involvement in the planning process. All who care about national parks regard the ability to form a strategic plan, through which the various conflicting interests of district councils and planning authorities are resolved, as one of their strengths. As I understand it, the situation that existed in the national parks until the 1995 Act was that the majority of planning decisions were devolved back to the individual local authorities. Following the 1995 legislation, the majority of local authorities decided to move in the opposite direction and to give greater decision making powers over strategic planning to the national park authority for their area. On both those counts, therefore, the opponents of a national park for the South Downs are creating myths that cannot be sustained by fact.

My final point is about funding. We have heard about the Government's contribution to funding, and I share the concerns that have been expressed about the need for that to be increased. However, it is often overlooked, especially in the important area of conservation, that a national park has access to lottery funding--or the ability to apply for it--and funding from the European Union, whereas bodies such as the South Downs Conservation Board do not. On the South Downs, therefore, conservation work would be enhanced by the possibility of attracting additional funding, not only from central Government but from sources from which the South Downs Conservation Board is currently denied funds.

I pay tribute to the South Downs Conservation Board for the work that it has done in the years since it was set up. It has done a lot, but its powers are limited, especially in relation to planning. It can be listened to, but it has no remit for decision making in terms of planning. A national park authority would have such a remit. That is why the campaign for a national park for the south downs is supported not only by my area's council, but by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the Ramblers' Association, the wildlife trusts, the Youth Hostel Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Society of Sussex Downsmen, the Sussex Archaeological Society, the Sussex Wildlife Trust, and a host of other local and national organisations. I am glad that the Government have listened to those people.