---

Broads Authority Bill

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the competent, able and persuasive way in which she has introduced the debate. As she says, the Broads mean a great deal to people in Norfolk and Suffolk, and of course are of national and international significance. Parliament, in another place and in this House, has recognised that significance by the care and attention that has been paid on the Floor of both Chambers and by Select Committee scrutiny in both Houses to the detail of the Bill. Useful and helpful changes have been made during that scrutiny and the Broads Authority has worked hard to take account of the objections and concerns that have been raised during the Bill’s legislative journey. However, from the beginning of the journey, real anxiety has been expressed, not least in another place, where the Bill was twice blocked by objections about the democratic deficit built into its governance arrangements. This has not been put right in the Bill before us today and, while I would not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, I should like again to rehearse those anxieties in the hope that the Minister may be able to give some comfort, in particular to the 93 parish councils, parts of whose territories in Norfolk and Suffolk are touched by the Broads Authority. I declare an interest as President of the Norfolk Association of Local Councils. Part of the Broads Authority’s argument against, for example, directly elected parish council representatives, or a statutory parish council presence of some sort on the authority, has been that it is somehow impractical to arrange for the representation of 93 councils. Of course, if one took that argument to its logical conclusion, it would preclude parliamentary representation of the UK’s 60 million citizens, which we would not wish to pursue. The simple fact that no fewer than 93 parish councils are affected by the jurisdiction of the Broads Authority makes it more, not less, important somehow to arrange that their voice be meaningfully heard. The Select Committee in your Lordships’ House considered this point, because one group of petitioners was the National Association of Local Councils. Although others will speak with more authority on this than me, the committee decided that that it was beyond the scope of this Bill for such representation to be required. It was also mindful of the fact that the Government were, while it was deliberating, consulting on whether there should be directly elected local government representation on English national parks authorities. In that way, the democratic deficit on the Broads Authority might have been rectified. I was under the impression that the Government had now decided that there should not be directly elected local government representation on national parks authorities in England, which I hope the Minister will be able to clear up. But one is driven to wonder whether, if the Select Committee of this House had known that that was to be the outcome of the separate consultation, it would have taken a different view with regard to the Broads Authority. But we are where we are; that is, at the final stage of the passage of this Bill. I take this last opportunity to remind the Minister of his own Government’s commitment, repeated again with great force yesterday in the Prime Minister’s Statement, to re-engage with the people. He said: ""Democratic reform … must principally be led by our engagement with the public. It cannot be top-down … The public want to be, and should be, part of the solution, so we must build a process that engages citizens themselves".—[Official Report, 10/6/09; col. 641.]" That is quite so. That principle should most certainly be applied to the way in which the Broads Authority is run. The membership of the Broads Authority has been set at 21. When the chief executive of the Broads Authority was asked in the Select Committee why this figure had been chosen, he said—and I quote from memory—that it was "a nice number". Well, it is; we all wish that it applied to us, no doubt. But will the Minister explain to the House why 21 is that chosen number? Why is it not 23 or 25 as in the guidelines for national parks set out by the Secretary of State? Why should district and county councils be given representation and not the lowest tier of local government? Are there any national parks authorities that have parish council representation? And why, given the emphasis that the Government rightly place on the importance of democratic accountability, reaffirmed, as I said, just yesterday by the Prime Minister, should places be given to interest groups at the expense of the communities affected at grass-roots level by decisions taken by the authority, decisions which cannot be challenged because the authority’s very constitution means that it is not accountable? I have put these points to the Broads Authority. The chief executive, Dr Packman, explained in a letter—the noble Baroness has confirmed it today—that there are two parish councillors, one from Norfolk and one from Suffolk, on the Broads Forum, a body that he described as having no powers. The views of the forum on various issues are reported to the authority, but given that there are 25 members with a wide variety of interests, I think that at this stage—I shall come to the noble Baroness’s suggestions at the end of my speech—we can assume that the forum and the way that it works at the moment do not represent any kind of democratic process and accountability which we in this House would recognise. The concern felt by the town and parish councils is particularly keen when it comes to planning decisions. In April this year, a planning decision taken by the Broads Authority was, according to the local press, referred to the Standards Board on the grounds that relevant parish councils had not been notified in accordance with the required procedure and that authority members had not declared relevant interests before participating in the planning decision. A letter I received from a local resident, Mr Gary Simons, on 21 April, on the issue states that, ""the bigger question is whether the Broads Authority is fit for its planning functions. A quorum of four of the planning Committee’s thirteen members suffices, and all four might be Secretary of State nominees with no electoral mandate or accountability to local people. That with poorly understood and disregarded standards gives no assurance of due process or right outcomes"." I accept that at this stage of the Bill’s journey it may not be possible to do much to make the Broads Authority more accountable in the sense that all of us would recognise. Nor would I want the points I have made to detract from the excellent work that has been put into improving the Bill or from the good work of the Broads Authority itself. However, I would be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Would there be anything to prevent the Broads Authority increasing parish council representation from two to four? If that made the parish councils the biggest block on the Broads Forum, would that mean that it was possible for an elected parish councillor to become the chairman of the Broads Forum? I expect that the Minister will be able to comment on that point, but it would be helpful if he felt able to be positive today. I should like to emphasise to the Minister that I recognise that the Bill is not the vehicle with which to change the Broads Authority constitution. In any case, it may have to change if there is local government reorganisation later on this year. However, we do not know whether there will be such reorganisation or not. It seems to me that there is no reason to delay considering and putting into practice the ideas suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. If that were the case, the Bill, while it cannot be the vehicle with which to change the Broads Authority constitution, it could be the vehicle through which a more accountable management might be achieved.