Malvern Hills Bill [HL]

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for their more detailed and comprehensive look at this Bill. Several years ago, when I was working for the Local Government Association with councillors in Malvern Hills, I came to enjoy being in the town. I found a super B&B on the main road and particularly enjoyed the backdrop of the wonderful Malvern Hills. However, I also heard of issues and concerns—even back then—with the Malvern Hills Trust, as it likes to be known. When I saw this Bill coming forward, therefore, my interest was piqued. It did not take very long research to see that the changes in the Bill were meeting considerable opposition—and I emphasise “considerable”.

As a former elected mayor, I am no stranger to some vocal members of the public opposing any modernisation within any organisation, however they are constituted, and, indeed, being resistant to any change whatever—do not get me started on development. However, the opposition to this Bill is something of a completely different order. As a member of our office staff said to me yesterday, “I have close friends in Malvern. They said the whole town is talking about it” and the evidence confirms that they are, so the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, should be assured that they are having the debate, but it is mainly in acrimonious public meetings.

That the House has received more than 50 individual, highly articulate, well-intentioned petitions, including petitions from the local county, district and parish councils, from former chairs of the Malvern Hills Conservatives and even from a group of current trustees is a red flag. Raising substantive concerns in respect of this Bill, they surely tell a tale in themselves. I think the House has received more petitions in respect of this Bill than it has received in total for the past 10 years for all Private Bills. That their concerns appear to be completely ignored begs the question as to the motives behind these changes. What will the Bill change? What powers is it granting that are causing such a furore of public opinion?

I do not doubt that the trust could and should be improved, which is why I am not opposing this Bill but think that it must and should be improved. However, I do believe that the trust’s PR has been dire, or we would not be in the situation that we are in now. The noble Lord said how wonderfully things have been managed and how good things are, but “Oh, but we have to change”. I would argue that the trust has not made the case for change to the general public. That is in how it has conducted its affairs and its consultation, which needs to be looked at.

It is clear that the promoters, as well as consolidating the existing five Acts, wish to be granted substantial additional powers while being governed by a much smaller and— as outlined well by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee—less democratic board. For example, if one of the six elected people stands down, the other six can appoint a person in their stead, so it is easier to be taken over by a single-issue pressure group. The evidence suggests that little, if any, thought has been given by the promoters to the substantive concerns raised by the levy-paying public in Malvern who fund this—and I am going to use the words—public body. I commend the work of the Malvern Environment Protection Group in bringing these issues to the attention of the public.

There is even a dispute as to the constitutional nature of the trust. Several noble Lords have referred to it as a charity, yet we hear that as recently as last month it was deemed by a KC to be a public body, and that is usually defined by the amount of taxation that it gets as part of its revenue—which, again, was well expressed by the noble Earl. This must be clarified, because noble Lords will be very aware that there are significant legal differences as to whether you are a public body or a charity in what you can do, what you cannot do and to whom you are accountable. This lack of clarity is making members of the public nervous and, whether rightly or wrongly, question the motives and intentions of the trustees.

This has, understandably, set hares running, and, it might seem, with good reason, because something starts to smell not quite right. As mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, its former chair could not find out how much a senior official of her trust was being paid. We all know that if you are the chair of any board, you are responsible, so to not be able to have that information tells you that something is a bit rotten in the state of Denmark. These anxieties and fears were further fuelled when, at recent meetings to discuss this Bill and the financial arrangements regarding it, eight trustees were, in effect, gagged from speaking or voting. Moreover, in successive board meetings, the level of transparency and accountability would appear to have fallen significantly below what would be expected of any public body or, indeed, any well-run charity. In such circumstances, I am quite shocked that they are pushing ahead regardless. Surely, with this level of concern and with so many unanswered questions—including from some of their own trustees—they should think again.

Yes, I too am deeply concerned about the governance arrangements. These proposals remove 140 years of accountability to local councils and the public, which should not be cast off lightly. I sense the public feel that they have not been given good reasons for this change. “Everything’s going wonderfully; everything’s terrific; it’s all managed well, but we need to modernise and move forward”. What does that actually mean?

If power could pass to a small group of people to take over and run the trust, there is a fear that corruption will increase and of course that changes will be made to alter the nature of and access to the hills—and also that it could make significant amounts of money. The Bill erodes the rights of taxpaying residents to question and challenge this new body on how that money is spent: a right they have enjoyed for 140 years. Retaining or clarifying its status as a public body is vital to ensure that the organisation remains subject to a judicial review and the ability to be subject to freedom of information.

In summary, therefore, I welcome the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and to a large extent those from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. However, I think the issue about access, the one line in her proposal, should be left to trustees and not be down to us to dictate. I feel that we need to consider the arrangements concerning the appointment of board members and the scope of the levy-paying area. I also urge noble Lords to carefully consider the application for a general power.

What might be of interest to your Lordships—and please indulge me on this; it is probably because I am married to a historian—is that, when the Act was discussed by noble Lords in 1993, Baroness Macleod of Borve said:

“It would empower the conservators to change the face of Malvern forever”.


Lord Hampton added that the conservators were

“seeking powers well beyond those needed to carry out their prime functions”.

Lord Moran commented that there was

“no explanation of why the conservators thought that they required these comparatively sweeping powers”.—[Official Report, 8/3/93; cols. 870-76.]

These objections seem to me to be still valid because they have not been answered, because of the lack of good engagement and good consultation.

Finally, I urge the promoters of this Bill to very carefully consider the costs they are incurring. There was yet another acrimonious meeting, where questions went unanswered about the amounts of money. That too is not good. If you are funded mainly by taxpayers, they want to know what you are spending their money on and how much this is all going to cost. There are estimates that the true final cost could be well over £1 million, compared with an annual income of £1.4 million. Had the conservators actively engaged with those who articulated their concerns, I believe they would have saved themselves a great deal of time, effort and expense.

There is still an opportunity to do this now. It should never have been necessary for five trustees to have to petition this House, with the consequence that they and others appear currently arbitrarily suspended from matters relating to that Bill. I believe that the committee will have its work cut out, but, having been on a Private Bill Committee, I have no doubt that it will do it and do it well and that the suggestions for its work from the noble Baroness and others are going in the right direction.

I really feel that the conservators should answer the questions raised and conduct themselves in a more open and transparent manner than it would appear is happening at the moment. Then we can come to an amicable situation where we can satisfy most of the people. One of the things I have learned over the years in politics is that you can never please all of the people all of the time. I used to settle for pleasing some of the people some of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, may I say how delighted I am by the tone and content of every speech made in this debate, particularly that of my noble friend the Minister? She answered a number of the issues raised by others as the debate has gone on, which I therefore do not need to repeat now. What I would like to do, though, is first to endorse what my friend Lord Murphy said about the international status of the Malvern Hills—the fact that it is wider than Malvern, wider than Worcestershire, wider than the West Midlands. They are an international icon, and it is the determination of everybody concerned with the trust in future to make sure that that goes on.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about his ancestor—his father, I assume—and the dire predictions he uttered in 1993. It is interesting that the hills have not been ruined over the last 32 years: there is no McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken there. The hills are in as good a condition today as back in 1993, and the Bill today is to modernise the governance and levy-paying arrangements and to ensure consultation with local residents. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. She is a great critic, I think, of the trust and of the consultation, but it is fair to say that the trust went to great lengths—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am a critic not of how the trust has managed the hills’ affairs—the general management —but of how it has managed the Bill process. I hope that that came across to everyone. I would not dream of commenting on that; I am not in a position to do so.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification, but she is presumably aware that 15,000 leaflets were distributed to households in the area. Posters were put up, businesses and cafes were leafleted, there were advertisements in the local press and on social media, and there were drop-in sessions. With an issue like this, you cannot please all the people all the time—which is, I think, almost exactly the words she finished her speech with—but I am certainly satisfied that it has done the best it could. I am certain that the points that have been made in the debate tonight will be taken on board by the Select Committee, which will look at the petitions and consider all the other points that have been made today.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, whose contribution I am delighted to pay tribute to—his interest in the formulation of the Bill deserves the highest praise—expressed concern about the possible dominance of single-issue candidates such as those, perhaps, who oppose further housing in their area. I imagine that the committee will consider this in detail, but there are one or two points that can be made in response. First, this could happen where there is a single electoral area, as proposed in the Bill, or, as now, where candidates are elected by individual parishes or wards. It is also worth bearing in mind that the exercise of democracy and the election of trustees has not been entirely without problems. One example is that under the present arrangements, most seats go uncontested: eight of 11 seats were uncontested at the last election. If interest in the election can be enhanced by the creation of a smaller board of trustees, then that change is worth while.

I do not intend to answer the question, “public body or charity?” The Select Committee will want to look at that, but it seems to me that it does not have the dire consequences that some people think.

As for the levy, which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentions in his instruction, it is important to remember that the trust is under a constraint which means it cannot incur expenditure on promoting provisions in the Bill which are materially different from the existing levy legislation. The Bill brings together the existing levy arrangements into one clause with modern drafting and preserves the status quo.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, briefly turned to the Dartmoor judgment, the question of open access and the freedoms which visitors on Dartmoor have. The trust has been studying the judgment and it will obviously take account of any elements that have implications in the drafting of the Bill; and it is something I imagine the Select Committee will want to hear about. However, the existing Malvern Hills legislation and the by-laws make provision to prevent camping on the hills, so I cannot see the Malvern Hills being turned into a giant campsite as a result of the Dartmoor judgment.

I hope that either the Minister or I have been able to address most of the points that are of importance to noble Lords. The promoters of the Bill have, as I mentioned earlier, continued to work hard to conserve the natural beauty of the hills, and I am delighted that so many of your Lordships have referred to their natural beauty. But the time has undoubtedly come to modernise the way the trust is constituted and to update and consolidate its powers.

Alluding to my predecessor in moving a private Bill on the Malvern Hills, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I hope that your Lordships will see that as a matter of principle, it is wholly reasonable to try to bring the legislation up to date, subject, of course, to getting it right. As a number of noble Lords have said, that is the point of a Select Committee procedure. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will give this Bill a Second Reading and establish the Select Committee. I beg to move.