Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 March 2010. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010.


Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010

My Lords, these regulations end free access to two great Royal Parks. They symbolise all that is wrong with the hole in the heart where new Labour’s sense of tradition and fairness should be found. They are proposed by Mrs Hodge, whose base is on the other side of London in Barking. There are two visitors’ car parks in Barking Park and I am told that there is no parking charge. Mrs Hodge spoke last weekend about the need to hear and respond to local people’s concerns. What a pity that she was speaking only about Barking. Why will her Government not listen to local concerns when they come from Twickenham, Putney, Richmond and Kingston? I hope that the House will reach a common resolve tonight to ask the Government to withdraw these regulations but, first, I shall speak briefly to the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. This asks your Lordships—the unelected House—to reject a statutory instrument for only the fourth time in their history. The Liberal Democrat website rants about "betrayal" if your Lordships do not take this extreme step. Mr Cable, a local Member of Parliament—he must have escaped from the green room at BBC’s "Newsnight"—says that it will be "silly politics" if we do not veto the elected House’s regulations tonight. Mrs Kramer says that she is "utterly shocked" at the idea that your Lordships should not throw out secondary legislation. "Silly", "shock", "betrayal"—the Liberal Democrats never knowingly underegg a pudding; they protest far too much. Insults have never won arguments in your Lordships’ House. I do not remember Mr Asquith or Mr Lloyd George saying that it would be betrayal or silly politics for this House not to veto a money-raising order from another place. In 1908, long before the People’s Budget, Mr Asquith told cheering Liberal MPs: ""I invite the Liberal Party tonight to treat the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics—because in the long run it overshadows and absorbs every other"." No doubt Mr Cable would have been tut-tutting behind Mr Asquith’s back, rather as he does now behind Mr Clegg. However, I think this House should ask the Government to think again. That is why I have tabled a second Motion tonight, which I ask my noble friends to support. There are some good things in the regulations. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we have no wish to deprive children of the pleasure of sailing boats on the model pond in Bushy Park—children doing so is actually rather a charming thought—we have no wish to stop private-hire vehicles driving in Richmond Park; and we have no wish to stop a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit in Greenwich Park. All those things would be killed by the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. We ask the Government to re-lay the statutory instrument without charges on access to Bushy and Richmond parks. My party has always opposed such charges, unlike the Liberal Democrat Richmond Council, which astonishingly wrote to the parks agency offering to send officers to help to design the charges. In consultation, 84 per cent of local people were against charges. Only a fatally arrogant Government would ignore such a majority. Ministers have two arguments: first, the Royal Parks Agency needs cash to do up its car parks and roads; and secondly, west London people are rich and can afford to pay. Neither stands up. Few things exemplify waste more than the slow urbanisation of our great London parks. Richmond and Bushy parks are beautiful because they are open and wild. Who wants tarmacked car parks, uniformed traffic wardens, bright spotlights and surveillance cameras? If we are looking for spending cuts, surely this is where to begin. On the upkeep of roads, why place a burden on local people who love the parks? If you really want someone to pay, why not the commuters, as the noble Baroness has suggested, who stream across the park daily without ever stopping? A simple toll could be operated with a sticker, from which the residents of neighbouring boroughs could be exempt. Such charges would raise just £345,000. A good proportion of that could be raised by voluntary contributions. If money must be found, let us have a more imaginative policy than dumping railway station-style car parks in our parks. The second argument is that people can afford it. Middle England has heard plenty of that kind of argument in the past 13 years. Look where it has got us: we are taxed to the gills and £187,000 million a year deeper in debt. Mrs Hodge says that 88 per cent of car park users are ABC1. What kind of argument is that? A bad tax is no better because those who pay it work hard. Look at the facts: 50 per cent of visitors driving into Richmond Park stay for one to two hours; 66 per cent come at least once a week; and a quarter—dog walkers, nature lovers, people who just like open space—come almost every day. Under these proposals they would pay over £450 a year. An analysis by my honourable friend Justine Greening MP suggests that two-thirds of park visitors would pay more than £100 a year. The average cost would be £213. One of the last free pleasures would suddenly cost a great deal. "Find out what they are doing and tax it", I am afraid, will be Gordon Brown's sad epitaph. This pointless measure is also an affront to an old, hard-fought-for privilege of the many, not the few. The Minister lists walking as his recreation. I wonder whether, as a walker, the Minister has the independence of mind to set aside his brief and say, "Yes, we will think again". We have only eight more weeks of this Government, so there is nothing to lose and a lot of personal respect to win. Bushy Park is 10 times the size of the Vatican City state and Richmond Park is five times the size of Monaco. If you are old, frail or ill or a woman with a child in a buggy there are parts of the park to which you cannot have access without a car. Such people should not be denied free access. Free access was won in the 18th century by two people, John Lewis and Timothy Bennet, who would once have been the heroes of Labour but whose legacy new Labour wants to set aside. John Lewis, already referred to by the noble Baroness, was a local resident who, in 1758, won a case against a Richmond Park ranger who tried to keep him out. The court ordered entry to the park to be free for all people. The judge said of the entrance: ""I desire, Mr Lewis, that you would see it so constructed that not only children and old men, but old women too"," may enter. How sad that 250 years later a Labour Government should again raise barriers against children, old men and old women who enjoy the heart of the park free of charge. Timothy Bennet was described by Gentlemen's Magazine as, ""the honest presbyterian cobler of Hampton Court, who obtained a free passage thro' Bushey park which had many years been with-held from the people"." When asked why, he ventured to say that ordinary people should have free access to Bushy Park. Bennet said: ""I am unwilling to leave the world a worse place than I found it"." Free access was duly restored. Now, 250 years later, a Labour Government should not be trying to deny free access again. I urge the Minister, as a walker, to honour the memory of two simple men who fought for the right of free access for many in the 18th century—to withdraw this statutory instrument and to think again. If he does not, I urge noble Lords to pass our Motion tonight. In so doing, I say bluntly to the management of the Royal Parks Agency, whom I trust read our debates, that—in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, says—if a Conservative Government are elected on 6 May these regulations will be rescinded and charges annulled. It would lie heavy on public officials who rush to spend money on the say-so of a dying Government before the people’s verdict is heard and the new House of Commons has a chance to pass judgment on the regulations. The Minister should make himself popular with walkers in these great parks and stay the Government’s hand. The parks agency would be well advised to stay its own hand before incurring costs and inflicting hurt on the many thousands who wish to enjoy the rights of free access, which were won by John Lewis and Timothy Bennet long ago. Tonight, as Timothy Bennet said, let us show ourselves unwilling to leave the world a worse place than we find it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c304-7 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Bus services Fees and charges Greater London Fines Parking Parks Road traffic Taxis Speed limits Royal parks Richmond Park Bushy Park
Legislation
Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk