Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right, and I have yet to find an example of any member of a non-departmental public body who feels constrained in any way whatever in criticising the Government when they feel strongly about an issue, whether or not their posts are paid and pensionable. However, I shall read carefully what has been said. Of course, there are separate arrangements to provide pensions for the staff of an NDPB. Amendment No. 43 would prevent the Secretary of State from appointing Natural England’s chief executive. It is normal practice, when a new body is set up, for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive, who will also be designated as the accounting officer. In this way, a chief executive designate can be appointed in advance of the body having legal status to ensure the smooth running of the body once established. A considerable amount of preparatory activity is required ahead of Royal Assent to ensure that Natural England will be fit for purpose and able to deliver the planned efficiency savings from day one. This preparatory work is likely to have a significant impact on achieving important strategic outcomes. In practice, what we have done is to appoint a chair designate of Natural England—Sir Martin Doughty, who was appointed in November—who in turn sat on the selection panel which selected a chief executive designate, Dr Helen Phillips, who was appointed earlier this month and takes up formal duties next month. As I said, the appointment process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. An assessor approves the advertisement, sits on the interview panel and issues a certificate of compliance. The Government follow all the codes of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Secretary of State is the legal body that appoints chairs—some legal body must make appointments. The noble Baroness gave me a very complicated mental arithmetic sum, to do with what would happen if a number of people were appointed at certain ages and left at other ages. Well, in my education, I was never brought up on mental arithmetic. I promise to read what she said and to see whether I can get the answer, although, knowing the noble Baroness, I do not think that she would have posed the question if it did not give the answer that she wanted. Amendment No. 44 would remove the provisions enabling Natural England to employ staff, which would, of course, make it well nigh impossible for it to fulfil its role effectively. I am now aware from the debate that the reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, tabled the amendment was to raise this useful debate about staffing issues. As the Committee may know, existing staff of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and Defra’s own Rural Development Service will be hoping to transfer to Natural England this October. Amendment No. 49 would effectively remove one of the standard empowering provisions for NDPBs. This provision allows Natural England to pay pensions to its staff as required by the Secretary of State. I know that the noble Baroness will be pleased to note that the Cabinet Office requires ministerial governance of pensions and it will be a condition of entry for the Civil Service pension scheme. Amendment No. 31 would delete a provision that allows the Secretary of State to remove a member from the board if, as the noble Baroness said, they had their estate sequestrated. This does not apply in Wales, where people are already covered. I do not know whether it applies to somebody who comes from the Bahamas, but I will look into that. It may be that an individual who sought membership had been resident or had conducted business in Scotland and had the appropriate experience—as we know from this House—to bring valuable knowledge and expertise. The Bill merely rectifies an anomaly. Amendment No. 53 removes a provision which requires Natural England to pay any additional contributions that may be required to the pensions fund as a result of changes to which the Superannuation Act 1972 applies, such as changes in pay or grading structure. This, along with the matter with which Amendment No. 49 deals, is a fundamental requirement of membership of the Civil Service pension scheme. There is nothing more to it than that. I hope that that answers the concerns of the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 98 would prevent the Secretary of State from authorising an investigator or team of investigators to undertake an audit-type review of decisions or actions taken by Natural England. This is a power of last resort and I am not aware of any case where it has had to be used. However, it is an essential safeguard of the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for the activities of Natural England. I hope that I have covered the points. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, tempted me into the field of Treasury decisions and the National Lottery. I am sure that he speaks in error, although I am quite sure that he speaks with strong personal conviction in the points that he makes. As I said to Members of the Committee—I am sure that they will be able to tell this, if not so far, then as we go further through the Bill—the many noble Lords with experience on NDPBs demonstrate that independence not only of thought but of action and speech goes along with the public duty. It is my belief that the public duty is not hampered by providing enough income to enable us to employ all those who could make a contribution and to choose from them the very best.