Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Because we are working slightly in reverse and some of us have not had a chance to move our amendments yet, it may be as well to reflect a little on some of the contributions that have been made and how I see them applying to our amendments, but I will speak directly to my amendments as well. In speaking to her opposition to the Question whether the clause should stand part, the noble Baroness rightly said that in Committee in another place my two colleagues voted with the Liberal Democrats against the setting up of the Commission for Rural Communities. I think that they were extremely concerned about whether the commission would be yet another high-level talking shop. From some of the comments that have been expressed this afternoon, I suspect that, if we are honest, that is a view we all share, and I should like to come back to it. I declare my interests, which are totally opposite to those of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I call myself a country lass. I live in the village in which I was born—sadly, in some ways it has become a big village. It does not really matter where we come from; we are all keenly aware of the needs of rural communities. I also remind noble Lords of my family farming interest in Suffolk and of my association with the RSIN, the RABI, the RASE, the Addington Fund and, not proudly but certainly not least, my work and involvement with the Church. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter rightly touched on the role that Churches have to play in our communities. When going round rural areas one notices enormous changes, such as the loss of shops, pubs and post offices, but the one thing that tends still to be there—fortunately—is the church of whatever denomination. That is enormously important. At Second Reading, as noble Lords will remember if they look back at col. 402, I said:"““We have steadily questioned the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities, not that we do not believe or know that there is a need for a rural advocate, because indeed there is, but because . . . this is yet another high-level body responsible for talking””.—[Official Report, 7/11/05; col. 402.]." Since then we have had a chance to talk to many Peers and people outside, and we wish to support the establishment of the Commission for Rural Communities. But, in doing so, we want to make sure that it is much stronger than the Government had in mind in the first place. While some noble Lords will be pleased to hear me say that, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it as a watchdog. When will it bark and when will it bite? We need both to go with it. We have reached an important part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rightly raised the interesting concept of the Government’s reaction to the need for having better affordable housing in country areas; they did not use the present system that they could have used, but set up a special commission to look at affordable housing. Once the body exists, will that be the end of extra bodies being set up to do the work that this new body should do if it works in the way that we anticipate? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained clearly his commitment to the rural commission and how he was a former rural advocate—a distinguished one, if I may say so. Even he would admit that there were things that he wanted to achieve that he could not achieve. The reports from various departments on rural-proofing, in particular, show that the levels achieved were not satisfactory. The question for the new commission is how to improve things. The figures are there to see. The Minister is new to his role in Defra, but that department’s record is nothing to be proud of either, which is worrying. I am pleased to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and to ask how to strengthen the Bill, not just to ensure that the door of No. 10 is open or that people will nod and say, ““We hear you””. We realise that there is a problem in the countryside and that in many cases it is a hidden problem. There is affluence—I do not mean that in an over-the-top sense, but there is some wealth in the countryside. There is no doubt about that, but, sadly, at the other end, there is extreme poverty, which is often hidden. That is made all the more difficult because people are remote and have no one to turn to. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that we should name and shame, and yes we should. But what more can the commission do? I think that it should be able to do more. I am sorry that I was unable to be here to take part in the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton yesterday, when he rightly raised the issue of the future and the pressure on farming and farming communities. Natural England will have the responsibility for making these payments, but will the Commission for Rural Communities have an overriding role in trying to get that body to better understand and carry more clout about how some of those payments may be made in future? I can see the two bodies not necessarily rowing in the same way. That is an important issue. My noble friend Lord Renton said that there was extreme pressure on farmers and the farming community. He is quite right. I foresee this going on probably for three or four years. Interestingly, the ARC-Addington Fund has had more applications within the first few months of this year than since the foot and mouth outbreak. There is a real concern out there. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned the role of the Churches. I was delighted to see yesterday that the Synod was 100 per cent behind the role that rural churches can play and which some of them have already adopted—some have small post offices in them. There are real ways in which churches could be used more fully. I am delighted to support that. My real role, however, is to speak to my amendments. In responding to the amendments of others, I hope that I will not have to do it again except to hear what the Minister has to say. On Amendment No. 245, the inclusion in the Bill of the words ““social and economic”” implies that other words are excluded. The word ““economic”” covers issues such as rural post offices and the threat to end the Post Office card accounts system—which is due to happen in 2008 and could well make greater difficulties for people living in rural areas—agricultural diversification, tourism and other ways in which people living in rural areas earn their living. Does it cover things like the cost of obtaining an identity card, which cannot then be used—with pensions, for example—as all communications have to be over the phone because there is often no transport available to the post office? There are many questions over the words ““social and economic””. My understanding is that ““social”” is also slightly difficult to define in this context. Will it cover, for example, the provision of schooling? There is, for instance, an assumption that, for too many school places, rural children will be required to travel many miles through rural villages to go into the towns. Would it not be sensible, and maybe less costly, to think of bussing some of those town children out to village schools, to ensure that village schools are able to continue? Will the rural commission’s voice be heard in that discussion? How about healthcare? Will the rural commission influence the organisation of prescription renewal services, which are causing considerable difficulties in some areas? Will the rural commission have a voice in representing constituents who find that the shake-up of the PCTs condemns them to attending outpatient departments in hospitals to which there are no direct transport links? Is it the Government’s intention that the rural commission be heard in all these circumstances? The removal of the ““social and economic”” qualification makes sense and would obviate the possibility of lengthy squabbles over what is, and is not, included in the definition. Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250 and 253 address the same issue: questioning the Government on the purposes of the CRC. The first description of the CRC’s general purpose, Clause 18(1), states that it will have a statutory duty to meet,"““rural needs in ways that contribute to sustainable development””." It goes on, and ““rural needs”” comes up again and again; it seems to be the main defining motivation for the CRC. But how will those rural needs be defined? If the only definition of ““rural needs”” is the description in Clause 18(3)—"““the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas””—" I wonder if that is sufficient. We can clearly see from this that the CRC is meant to be a body that will, in some ways, be complementary to Natural England, which will have regard to the environment—that was touched on earlier. For now, the definition of ““persons in rural areas”” leaves me—and I suggest others—somewhat flummoxed. There are people who live full time in rural areas, such as farmers, gamekeepers, foresters, agricultural labourers, people who keep pubs, and shopkeepers. The list goes on and it is extensive and varied. However, there is a strong distinction between people who live in rural areas and people who visit rural areas. While I would in no way wish to discourage visitors to rural areas—because, very often, rural areas are totally dependent on visitors to survive—we wonder whether the intention in the Bill, as it is laid, is to refer to people who are in rural areas rather than to people who are living and working in them. Amendment No. 253 does not touch on the matter of definitions specifically, but it asks a question that my honourable friends in another place raised: how critical will the CRC be of itself when it puts together a report about the way in which policies are adopted? It is all very well for it to state that it is meeting certain aspects of the policy, but there is no obligation on it to report the extent of success or failure. I am not suggesting that the CRC should continually be looking over its shoulder, but it should be very critical of its brief and how it achieves it. Amendment No. 251 is a probing amendment. Clause 22 allows the Commission for Rural Communities to charge for its services and Clause 21 specifies that it may publish and supply information. However, Clause 19 concerns aspects of the CRC’s duties that many of us consider to be the only plausible reason for its existence. It must be a champion for the countryside. It must spend time, effort and money working with organisations that exist to protect, preserve and present the value of the countryside, the landscape and the rural way of life. Above all, it must represent rural values to government; it must inform and help decision-makers with the steps to be taken to ensure the continuation of those values. To do that, we believe that the Commission for Rural Communities has to have open access to decision-makers and opinion-formers. It is our belief that it will not achieve that if it is constrained to charge for services, as is suggested in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am not surprised that so many noble Lords want to speak in this debate because, if we want the Commission for Rural Communities to fulfil an important role, we must get it right.