Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. This has been as good a debate as one could have expected on this subject, which is at the heart of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. Whatever view noble Lords took on the issue, we are all extremely grateful for what they have had to say. There have been intelligent and sensible arguments from noble Lords who know what they are talking about. I am delighted that the preponderance of views was in favour of the establishment of the CRC. That is the Government’s policy and we want to see it happen. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for putting her party’s views on this issue. She may think that I am about to criticise her party for having changed its mind, but that is the very last thing that I am going to do. Her party has come to a sensible view after much reflection and thought. Indeed, I take her point about wanting a stronger CRC. I thank her for her support for the CRC. I was particularly struck, as I think we all were, by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. He spoke with great knowledge and experience. Indeed, I may accuse him of having had a trial run yesterday at the Synod. I do not know whether the response he gets today will be better or worse than the one he get in Church House yesterday, but I thank him very much for what he had to say. His diocese is of course very rural in many parts. I shall be as brief as I can. I am very grateful—I think I owe some thanks to my noble friend Carter for this—that all noble Lords have agreed to this vast grouping, as opposed to having a debate just on Clause 17 and then debates on a whole series of individual amendments. I think we have saved the Committee some time. Before I start, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because without her opposition to clause stand part, we would not have had the debate in this way. Clause 17 establishes the Commission for Rural Communities as an independent non-departmental public body. Its general purposes and functions are set out in subsequent clauses. We have amendments to those clauses. The body’s statutory status will enable it to perform its role independently and impartially. The clause also introduces Schedule 2, which sets out the constitution of the CRC, including provisions about its status, its membership, its chief executive and other employees, pay and pensions, procedure and accounts and annual reports. Indeed, the group of amendments dealing with some of those issues immediately follows this debate. Noble Lords will have noticed that these arrangements are almost identical to those for Natural England, which are set out in Schedule 1. We believe that the CRC will be a strong, independent, rural advocate, adviser and watchdog to help ensure that the Government’s policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. It will pay special attention to tackling social disadvantage, of which we have heard much from all sides this afternoon, and to rural areas which experience economic underperformance. It will not be the Countryside Agency by another name; far from it. The CRC will be a much smaller body and, crucially, without delivery functions. It will focus exclusively on issues affecting rural communities, rather than on the broad landscape, conservation and community remit of the Countryside Agency. Of course rural-proofing will be at the heart of the CRC’s role and will help Defra and government generally to ensure that all government polices are rural-proofed. The process by which the potential impact of policy and decision making on rural areas is evaluated taking the needs of those who live and work in the countryside into account is not a bad definition of rural-proofing. The purpose is to make sure that the needs of rural areas are not sidelined in the thickets of Whitehall, and, indeed, that they are reflected at the heart of all policy making. The CRC will also promote rural-proofing across the wider public sector—for example, in the RDAs and in local government. It will report annually to the Secretary of State on how the policies of government departments and government offices of the regions have been rural-proofed. So, in that way alone, the CRC will play a vital role in ensuring that other bodies’ policies truly address the needs of rural communities. Arguments on the other side suggest that the CRC’s powers and responsibilities should belong to local authorities. Indubitably, local authorities play a vital role in rural service provision. We have sought to enhance that—for example, by setting up rural delivery pathfinders in each region, led by local authorities, to focus on innovative ways of delivering services. But the CRC, in acting as an advocate for rural communities, will seek to establish a national position that, frankly, would by definition be beyond that of any individual local authority, however outstanding. The CRC, unlike local authorities, will have a single-minded focus on and expertise in rural matters. Unlike local authorities, the CRC will not be encumbered or distracted by delivery roles, which is part of the role of the local authority, which means that it will be free to provide a powerful and impartial challenge to central, regional and local government. The arguments against local authorities trying to do what the CRC will do are, I hope, clear, but, notwithstanding that, the CRC will need to keep in close touch with local government and vice versa. There are those who would argue that the Government are ignoring the report of my noble friend Lord Haskins through the fact of setting up the CRC. In his November 2003 report on rural delivery, he recommended that the functions of the Countryside Agency should be transferred to appropriate specialist organisations. We claim that we have acted on that. We have passed policy development and lead responsibility for rural-proofing to Defra. We have passed the resources formerly devoted to the Countryside Agency for social and economic programmes to the regional development agencies. I listened with interest to the warning from the right reverend Prelate about that. We have given government offices for the regions the lead in supporting the rural voluntary and community sector. We are passing the Countryside Agency’s environmental, landscape, access and recreational programmes to the new integrated agency, which is Natural England. In other words, all the Countryside Agency’s functions are being transferred, just as my noble friend recommended. In meeting those recommendations, however, we have recognised the need for a much smaller body to advise on issues of policy as it affects rural people. To cite the Secretary of State’s response to the Haskins report:"““There will be a continued need for a much smaller organisation, with a new, well focused role providing independent policy advice to Government from a national perspective on issues affecting people in rural communities, and analysing and reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government’s rural policies. We also need to build on experience so far on rural proofing and embedding rural objectives in all relevant aspects of government policy””." Those words explain the basic thinking behind the need for that organisation. I bring the point about the Haskins review to a close by reminding the Committee of the quotation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carter when Lord Haskins spoke to the EFRA Committee on 9 November 2004. The revised Countryside Agency is, of course, the CRC, which is that same smaller, more focused body referred to by the Secretary of State in her response, which I just cited. Establishing the CRC to take and build on the agency’s advisory, advocacy and watchdog functions is a positive measure that will address the needs of rural communities and people who live and work in them. However, we were rightly reminded that it is easy to praise the idea of the CRC; the real test is how effective it is. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, was important in that regard. He accused me of occasionally making silk out of sows ears.