Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

This is an interesting debate on the amendments in the group led by the clause stand part debate. I added my name to Amendments Nos. 225, 242, 247 and 255, so it will be helpful if we can deal with all the matters attached to the concept of the CRC. This chapter is of course about the functions of the CRC. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, do we need it at all? I was struck just recently by an excellent briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which I am sure other noble Lords received, which set out a whole range of policy recommendations. I shall quote one or two of them:"““Rural areas should be assessed on their own terms and public investment/funding allocation should make due allowance for rural sparcity. The countryside is a different place to the towns, and it should not be assumed that what is a suitable type and level of investment for the towns is also right for rural areas. SSA spending in rural areas must be raised to the national average. There should be no competition between rural and urban areas for funding—both urban and rural areas need adequate funding, not one at the expense of the other””." As I say, there are a large number of policy recommendations on those lines. I just wonder who, in the absence of the CRC, will be making the case across government for the arguments which we all understand and that have been put so well by the Countryside Alliance. It is unrealistic to expect the local authorities or the other organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned to be able to do this. She also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I remind the House that I quoted at Second Reading what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the EFRA Select Committee at col. 51 on 9 November 2004, as it is worth remembering:"““I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary””." The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, clearly accepted the concept of the CRC, so to quote in aid of the argument on the other side is perhaps a shade misleading. The noble Baroness also mentioned Mr James Paice, who said:"““There is obviously going to be a Commission for Rural Communities””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col. 117.]" So it seems that the Official Opposition accept the idea. I mentioned the Standing Committee, and I could not help noticing in the debate on the CRC that Mr Colin Breed, who I believe is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, spoke extremely strongly in the morning against the concept of the CRC. Sadly, he was not present in the afternoon when the vote was taken on the clause stand part; he had an important constituency engagement, apparently. Perhaps I may repeat the questions I put at Second Reading. Who will do the rural-proofing and rural advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister, and provide the information now provided by the Countryside Agency and its successor body? I asked those questions deliberately, but they were not answered by the noble Baroness when she wound up the debate for her party or by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. For those who oppose the concept of the CRC, it would be helpful if they could state clearly and in terms who is to do the rural-proofing and advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister—a factor mentioned in later amendments—and provide the excellent information now available from the agencies? The idea that local authorities can do this is, let us say, to have a romantic view of the role of those bodies. Who in a local authority has a direct line to the Prime Minister? Has the LGA been asked? Moreover, which of the 20 organisations that have briefed us on the Bill actually supports abandoning the concept of the CRC? So far as I am aware, every body supports the proposals in the Bill. What message will those parties which support the abolition of the CRC send to the rural community if the CRC is successfully removed by this Committee? The noble Baroness mentioned Defra. Who is to rural-proof Defra? She looks surprised but, much as I hate to say it, if she has any idea of what happens in government she will know of the interdepartmental horse-trading that goes on when policy is being described. You need someone with a direct line to the Prime Minister who is able to go over the head of departments and say, ““This is the line that must be followed””. That was done extremely ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, during his chairmanship of the Countryside Agency. I understand that the Question of whether a clause stand part of the Bill provides an opportunity for us to have a general debate. I am sure we can then take a general decision on Report. But the arguments for the abolition of the CRC will have to be put much more strongly and cogently than has been the case so far.