Andrew Vine: The people of our national parks need to be heard

Visitors who flock in for lunch, or a home-made cake at the pretty little teashop see what appears to be a rural idyll, perhaps even thinking wistfully of how wonderful it would be to live here, out in the country away from the rat-race and queuing traffic of the cities.

But pockets of worrying rural deprivation lurk not far from too many of the main streets, where life can be anything but idyllic for people whose daily routine is a struggle to make ends meet. It’s a more elusive sort of poverty than is apparent in our towns and cities, where run-down areas, boarded-up shops and rows of shabby houses shout out the need for help. But in the countryside, it may be tucked away out of sight, with isolation only aggravating the difficulties.

And that’s why the people of some of Yorkshire’s most beloved landscapes are likely to be paying close attention to a debate in the Commons over the next day or two.

It will be about the future of our national parks, and whether those who live and work in them have a direct say in how they are run for the first time.

If the proposal, announced in the Queen’s Speech, goes ahead, it will have a profound impact on the Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors and Peak District.

We need to be fiercely protective of our national parks. The majestic and often rugged beauty of these landscapes is deceptively fragile and needs to be managed with the utmost care.

And so do their economic fortunes. To the visitors who come to picnic and walk, they are nature’s playgrounds. But to their residents and businesspeople, they are homes and workplaces, and the beauty disguises some thorny problems.

Young people on low wages who cannot afford to live there, for one. Poor internet access that makes doing business difficult, for another. Lack of public transport, for a third.

This is why the Government’s proposals are to be welcomed, even though the existing park authorities have sounded a note of caution. That is entirely understandable. Inevitably, there is an implied criticism in the coalition’s belief that the way national parks are run needs a shake-up.

The park authorities have done an excellent job in managing the Dales, Moors and Peaks for a very long time, handling problems sensibly and sensitively, safeguarding the landscapes whilst recognising that the communities within them need to be able to earn a living. Whether or not changes are made, those who have run our parks deserve praise and gratitude.

There is, nevertheless, something in what the Government says is a “democratic deficit”. Granting the right to residents of the parks to vote for the first time on some of the authority members who make such important decisions about their management is hardly radical.

Why should it be that the residents of a Dales village are denied the right to vote on those who bear that responsibility?

Their counterparts in the nearest urban area have the right to select the councillors who determine what happens to the environment around them.

Also allowing parish councils broader scope to nominate representatives for the park authorities makes sense, introducing the freedom to draw on local knowledge and expertise.

This Government has made much of its commitment to local accountability, and handing greater power to the people of the national parks is likely to produce perhaps the most potent example of that localism at work.

The people of the Dales, Moors and Peaks are passionate about where they live. It’s a safe bet that if direct elections to the park authorities are held, the turnout in the market towns and villages will put that seen in local elections in urban areas to shame. They also know better than anyone the problems of rural deprivation, because their families, neighbours and workmates are its victims.

Giving those people a greater say on what needs to be done to tackle this issue has to be a positive step.

The Government could, and should, have taken a further step in ensuring the parks and their people are safeguarded and prosper.

It should have given them a powerful advocate at the heart of Whitehall – a “tsar” if you like – to highlight the challenges they face, to champion their case for getting the economic help they need, and to ensure the difficulties of communities that can seem very remote from the Westminster village are recognised and understood.

An alliance between such a champion and the people who know the Dales, Moors and Peaks better than anyone would be formidable, and quite possibly point the way towards trying to make life for everyone in the parks’ communities as picture-perfect as the visitors think it is.