National Parks

Debate between Simon Hart and Sarah Wollaston

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

I entirely agree. A lot of this is about streamlining the processes; but I know that the national parks want to support affordable housing. Within the national park the average house price is in excess of £270,000. That is nine times the median income, and 16 times the lower quartile income, so we do need development.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I have some experience of this scenario in the Snowdonia national park. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the buildings she refers to are unsuitable for agriculture these days, and if we just leave them, they will deteriorate over time and will not be of any attraction to tourists either?

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend adds to the point that we are not asking for no development across our national parks, but rather for discretion on a case-by-case basis. Absolutely, they must support farmers. We want farmers to have the ability to diversify, but we do not want a wholesale shift towards development, with farmers losing agriculture and moving entirely towards running holiday businesses and letting properties. It is a matter of degree. Yes, I would like to join him in encouraging national parks to support development, but to do so in a sustainable way that recognises the importance of keeping agriculture and sustaining our most precious and fragile ecosystems across the country for all our national parks. That applies not only to national parks, but to areas of outstanding natural beauty—

Parliamentary Reform

Debate between Simon Hart and Sarah Wollaston

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I join the many speakers who have congratulated the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. Having read her paper, I thought that I would come here struggling to agree with any of it, but I stand here convinced by much of what has been said, and that has shaped what I am about to say.

I want to home in on two distinctions. There is a developing theme here about what we do as opposed to how we do it, and that is reflected in the other distinction, which is between public attitude to what we do and public interest in how we do it. Those two things can get confused, and sometimes the political and public reaction to circumstances further blurs the issue.

I shall dwell, to begin with, on what we do. What lies at the heart of this is something that other speakers have mentioned: credibility—our credibility, Parliament’s credibility and Members’ credibility in the eyes of the wider public, which goes back a lot further, I suggest, than The Daily Telegraph expenses scandal last year. Looking back—some would argue over generations—there has been a gradual decay in the wider public’s confidence and trust in the parliamentary system and, indeed, in parliamentarians. However, that cannot necessarily be pinned—as some people have suggested—on the style in which we do things in this House. I suggest that it is more often than not all about what we do, and about whether what we do is relevant to voters—rather than to MPs—and relevant in the 21st century rather than in any other context. Perhaps the political reaction, by all parties, to one or two of the dramas of the past few months—namely, expenses—simply serves to illustrate that.

As a mere candidate, I read about how the parties reacted to the expenses scandal and was depressed by the fact that we seem to get obsessed with the cost of politics rather than its value, with thinking that the cure to all this is simply to introduce a new system, to start talking about Lords reform or about new voting mechanisms. I am not absolutely sure whether that was a mistake, or simply an attempt to distract people from what was going on, but with such measures, for example voting reform—enthusiastically supported by some but not by others—AV referendums or, as in my case, the referendum on further powers for the Welsh Assembly, the public reaction is pretty lukewarm at best, whichever side of the fence people sit on. They are shaking their heads and thinking, “This is not what we were concerned about. We were concerned about something much more fundamental—relevance, rather than self-indulgent activity by politicians.”

If there was a refrain on the part of voters during the election campaign, I would suggest—although I might be alone in this—that it was far more often about good government than cheap government, and that lies at the heart of this distinction. Good government is relevant government—relevant to voters rather than to MPs. We have been, and continue to be, punished for what is occasionally portrayed as self-indulgent activity. We are punished in two ways: either by a really angry reaction, which is manifest in several ways on a day-to-day basis; or, worse still, by people saying, “A plague on all your houses. We are simply turning our backs on the parliamentary system and on politicians, because we don’t think you represent our interests any more.” That reduced confidence in our systems is a much more serious problem perhaps, than some of the issues about the way in which we do things.

I argue, therefore, that how we do things is less important than what we do, but that does not mean that that is not important at all. When I stood up, I mentioned to the hon. Lady—may I call you Caroline, perhaps, after today?—that I sympathise with the suggestion of amendment explanations. It is a great idea. When we put forward amendments from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, they came with a paragraph that explained to people on that very Committee what we were seeking to achieve. That was a great move.

The point about pre-legislative scrutiny is crucial. We had an argument with the Executive at the beginning of this Session because we had not had sufficient time to afford pre-legislative scrutiny to one or two of the constitutional reform Bills, and the Government’s response was, “We can’t give the 12-week minimum pre-legislative scrutiny all the time because we’d never get anything done.” I do not buy that—nor, I suspect, do many other people—because all that happens is that we do nothing for 12 weeks, and we have seen with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that what the Government gained in the first 12 weeks by not affording pre-legislative scrutiny has caught up with them now in the form of the blockage in the House of Lords. I therefore accept, although I did not think that I would, the points being made. Committee stage, which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) mentioned in an e-mail earlier today, provides a bit of certainty and additional scrutiny, and we should recommend it.

I have two further points, which, one might argue, are even less important than the ones I have made so far: language and tradition. In my distant outpost in west Wales, of all the complaints that I might have received about parliamentarians and Parliament in general, tradition and language have not been mentioned often, if at all. In fact, I think that we have to tread carefully when it comes to destroying, or dismantling, some of the theatre of this building and the system that we use. I disagree with the notion that standing in a Lobby for 15 minutes every so often is time entirely wasted or that tradition is always to be interpreted as a dirty word, and I urge a bit of caution. Of course modernisation is the direction of travel that we should be going in, but let us take it at a steady pace, because it does not lie at the heart of the problems that we seriously need to address.

I say all that after an informative visit to the Scottish Parliament with our Select Committee only last week. I also have a little experience—I would not put it any stronger than that—of how business is conducted in the Welsh Assembly. I attended, with other hon. Members, First Minister’s questions in the Scottish Parliament and, with no disrespect to our hosts, it was arguably a rather soulless affair. There was lots of button pressing and lots of individual desks and laptops with people situated behind them. There was no interaction, theatre or energy. Even though the contributions were powerful and relevant, there was not the degree of theatre that I think, up until this Wednesday at least, we enjoy here.

[Dr Wollaston]

Would my hon. Friend accept the word “pantomime” instead of “theatre”?

[Simon Hart]

On the basis that the First Minister was sitting at the front and everybody was behind him, I suppose that there was a connection with that word. However, I felt that this week’s Prime Minister’s questions was a bit like going to the Oval to watch the cricket, only to find that it had been rained off and having to sit under an umbrella waiting for something to happen.