Second Reading of the Malvern Hills Private Bill took place on 4th June 2025

Read what Baroness Thornhill had to say about the Bill……

Note too that she commended the work of the Malvern Environment Protection Group in highlighting the many issues of concern within the Bill

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.