Your
comments please : <national_parks_reforms@hotmail.com>
SUE
ESSEX in December 2002 , ( the then
Environment Minister now the Minister for Local Government and Public Services
), claimed in response to a speech by
Peter Law AM that the National
Parks Authorities were not QUANGO s :
Sue Essex’s reply to Peter Law’s speech (below) seems to
be attempting to split hairs without taking
note of the Oxford dictionary’s definition of what the above acronym stands for :-
“ quasi
autonomous non-governmental (or rarely) national government
organisation”. - Then
of course “quasi” means almost but not really or approximate…etc. So to be
almost or approximately a “quango”
is as good as being a “ quango
”. Why split hairs about it ?
However, the real issue about “quangos” is their lack
of democracy and accountability. Many of the Parks’ roles are simply not
accountable to their unitary authorities ,
or democratically so to
their residents , and
equally they are not accountable in many ways to their governments or
Assembly. If the Parks are not examples of “quangos” can Sue Essex or
someone tell us what
is ? Admittedly they are local authorities , but unlike Scotland not
one member of the Parks in Wales or England is directly elected. Contrary to what Sue Essex claims
all members are in fact nominated
and 33% of them are appointed by their Assembly or Government.
Furthermore, the remaining proportion of 66% of nominated
county councillors are now
prevented through the parks codes of practice / protocols from
being able to represent those who live within their wards ? This has all happened and been condoned
under this government.
Could
it get any worse for those who live and work in the Parks?
NPR October 2004
In context to the
Assembly plenary session 3/12/2002: Review of the National Parks in Wales.
? Sue
Essex AM :
“ I must correct this misconception ( that the Parks) are
quangos. They have a percentage of members nominated by me, or by the previous
Secretary of State. Therefore, a
nomination element has existed since the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which reflects the element of national
policy within the parks. It is wrong to think that they are “quangos” ; in
terms of their responsibilities - or parts of their responsibilities- they are
local authorities”
? Peter
Law AM : “I
welcome your initiative, Minister. If we must continue with these infernal
quangos, will you review their administrative competence ? Will we democratise
them in the future ? My experience of the Brecon Beacons National
Park is that it is unprofessional and that many of its sections are lazy in
their approach. It is interesting to hear the number of times that this particular
park has been mentioned by Members.
I have been concerned about the negativity of
the Brecon Beacons National Park and the indifference it has shown to my
constituents. It s an administrative shambles, peppered with incompetence; for
example , minutes are virtually made up
as it goes along; communities in my constituency have been attributed to
the wrong county; and its corporate governance is a figment of the imagination.
The national park is anonymous in Blaenau Gwent. The Park see us as a means to
an end.
Are you prepared to consider requests from
counties to be descheduled from the parks, and allow planning and conservation
matters normally dealt with by national parks to be decided by democratically-elected councillors,
rather than a quango ”.
Peter Law AM.
National Assembly Sept 22nd 2004
“there is a band of incompetence
running through the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority that has created a
culture of arrogance and disdain”.