Proceeding contribution from Lord Glenarthur (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 11 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Broads Authority Bill.
Broads Authority Bill
My Lords, I cannot follow my noble friend in his eloquence about the view from anywhere from the Norfolk Broads. As I live in Aberdeenshire, it is far too far away to see. However, I have visited them in the past—and I reflected that when I spoke at Second Reading. Like my noble friend, I can be fairly brief. I acknowledge the degree of movement and the degree of scrutiny that the movement came from during the Committee on this Bill. It reflected a number of the concerns registered at Second Reading; the Committee process was very thorough and fully debated, and I am grateful to those who played such a full part in it. One or two issues still remain, which have been touched on this afternoon. The first, as my noble friend Lady Shephard said, is that there remains a very large number of people closely associated with the broads, in Norfolk, Suffolk and no doubt elsewhere, who continue to believe in more democracy in national park authority bodies or, indeed, the Broads Authority body. We cannot escape the fact that, whatever its title, there is a very close similarity between this Bill and legislation on the national parks. In all but name, you could say that the broads will become a national park. I am given to understand that a similar majority is wary of giving further powers to the Broads Authority. The fact is that the Broads Society has made the position of certain objectors plain; there are many in favour of more elected members. Whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, says about the Broads Forum, which I shall certainly read and try to digest, I am not sure that it goes far enough fully to address the democratic deficit. That was very much the burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lady Shephard. This is at a time when the Government are expected shortly to report on further democratisation of the national park authority boards. Those who promote the Bill cannot really hide behind the fact that, technically, the Broads will not become a national park. Yet it will in almost every sense—and may not be subject to any changes that might derive from any review of democracy in the national parks authorities. One could well say, at least, that the Bill is premature, however long it has taken to get to this stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to say when that report on the national parks authorities’ democratisation is to be published. Or, indeed, is one tempted to believe from the process of the Bill that what is to be decided is already pre-ordained and understood by those who promote it? The other matter I must return to is that of safety. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to that just now and I, indeed, raised a number of such concerns at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made a number of points about it to me then, suggesting that there had been "two deaths", for example, "in 2006", and that he could have read out a list of, ""near misses for drowning and other injuries".—[Official Report, 8/10/08; col. 311.]" He sent me a great deal of information about that, but I have read the Broads Authority’s report from its own website, dated 28 May, headed: ""Broads Authority’s safety record praised"." It goes on to say: ""For the second year running there were no boat related deaths … There were only four boat fires, half that of the previous year, and a fifth of the number in 2006. One of the four was caused by arson, and only one of the boats had a Boat Safety Certificate"." I cannot understand why the noble Baroness so clearly says that this cannot be dealt with by by-laws. The report continues: ""Last year six out of 11 injuries needing hospital treatment on the Broads were caused"" by people when "embarking or disembarking", and goes on to talk about various other elements in a new safety campaign called look before you leap. Do we really need further legislation to enforce common sense? We may do, but we may also have concerns about health and safety legislation. It seems to me that the Broads Authority is achieving what it needs to without the need for reinforcing it with legislation for common sense. Even if the sponsors of the Bill are well meaning—and I have every reason to believe that they are—I have great concerns that it is unnecessary. The Broads Authority works as it is; the facts about safety, which I quoted, show that it is already addressing the issues that the Bill is now trying to enforce. At the least, it should wait until the Government’s view on democracy in national parks is published and debated. Frankly, I deplore the need for further legislation at this stage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 711 c825-7
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Boats Leisure Licensing Inland waterways Local government Membership Parish and town councils Norfolk Safety Suffolk Water sports Broads Authority Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
- Legislation
- Broads Authority Bill 2006-07 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:01:12 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_566143
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_566143
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_566143