Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

It is with some excitement that we move to Chapter 2. I am sure the Minister will agree that we have long awaited this moment. Chapter 2 deals with the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities. The purpose of my opposing clause stand part is to explore in greater depth than we were able to at Second Reading the need for the Commission for Rural Communities and to enable some debate about that need. I still contend that when the Government initially thought of the Bill in response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the intention was not to create another layer of quangos. The Minister replied to that point at Second Reading. Indeed, other noble Lords spoke and expressed the very evident need for rural areas to have somebody to represent them. I absolutely would not disagree with that. Last Thursday we had a very interesting debate about the needs of rural areas to which the Minister gave a full reply. However, I question whether we need yet another quango to represent those areas. I remind the Committee that in England there are nearly 5,000 locally appointed bodies and 50,000 appointees, which is approximately three times the number of elected local councillors. The Committee will recollect that I am quite exercised about the fact that there are democratically elected local councillors, MPs who represent rural areas—in most cases, very ably—and an entire democratic layer of people who should be representing the needs of those areas. The purpose of the Commission for Rural Communities, as set out in Clause 18(1)(a), is to raise,"““awareness among relevant persons and the public of rural needs””." But I would point out that, first, we have elected people who can do that and, secondly, when Defra was set up from a reborn MAFF, if you like, the very change of name to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested that it would be the champion of rural affairs and the body that undertook rural-proofing, and so on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, mentioned in his report that he imagined that Defra would undertake rural-proofing. The Government may be taking an easy way out by creating an independent body. If rural-proofing does not work, they can say, ““The body was not really doing its work””. If it does, they can say, ““How well we have done in creating a body that does that work so well””. Either way, the Government win, but democracy loses out. The Minister will no doubt say that there is provision here for checking the performance of the other bodies that are supposed to be delivering rural regeneration, and so on. There are already plenty of bodies checking performance. There is the Audit Commission, which audits all sorts of things. We even have the Performance and Innovation Unit, which from time to time produces excellent reports on a number of subjects. There is no reason that it could not report on that every so often. This is yet another body that duplicates some work already being done. The Bill is more retrospective than most, in that the Commission for Rural Communities already exists. It is sending out communications—indeed, its chairman has been round to lobby me on why it should exist—but we have not yet passed the Bill. I do not speak against Dr Burgess, who is doing a tremendous job already lobbying for rural areas, but it is curious to have something in existence that has not yet been agreed through the democratic process. When the matter was discussed in another place, that argument was strongly advanced by the Select Committee. The government side did not take that view, but we enjoyed the support of the Conservatives. Mr James Paice said:"““We share the view that the CRC is a wholly unnecessary body that will almost certainly be ineffective in achieving the Government’s objectives””—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col.  97.]" That puts it as concisely as I can.