Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall speak to all the amendments in the group in the order in which they appear on the Groupings List. Amendment No. 226 proposes that the CRC chairman should be elected by its board. I believe that all members of the CRC board should be chosen for their particular skills, whether they are academic researchers, farmers or people who own rural businesses, people with experience of rural deprivation, those with experience of young or old people living in rural areas and so on. The chairman is chosen because of his or her broad knowledge and experience and the ability to chair. In the light of our recent debate, he or she must have the confidence of the Secretary of State and, indeed, the backing of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I believe that the chair ought to be appointed rather than chosen by the board. As regards Amendments Nos. 227 and 229, I totally agree that all members of the commission must be chosen following an open process and interview. Amendment No. 228 proposes that all regional rural forum chairmen should automatically be members of the commission. On reflection, I do not think that is the right way forward. The process of becoming a regional rural forum chair is pretty random. Sometimes it can be short term. I know of two cases of people taking on that position just for a year because no one else could be found. That would not be satisfactory. In many cases it is a Buggins’ turn process. Someone may even be on a regional rural forum because no one else from an organisation volunteered. In such circumstances it would not be a case of an open process and interview. That is not the right way forward. The other argument against such a process is that it may result in gaps in expertise on the CRC board or an unnecessary doubling up of expertise because it would be rather a random process. After all, regional rural forum chairs do get their say currently in the National Rural Affairs Forum. Representing the delegated interests of your regional rural forum is a slightly different job from the free thinking, politically aware skills that will be required for the CRC. There is a much better way of maintaining a small and effective CRC board; that is, by ensuring that a proper process of selection takes place which also takes provenance into account. My experience of the Countryside Agency was that it made certain that there was someone from every region, or someone who could at least represent the interests of that region, on its board. You can represent provenance as well as skills and expertise. As I say, it has been done before. As regards Amendment No. 230, the chairman ought to be involved in the selection process of other board members. He or she has to meld that board into an effective force and knows best both the skills and weaknesses of existing members and hence knows what the gaps are. I suspect that the Secretary of State can insist on having his way in the matter but to my mind the chairman must have a fairly big say. I once came up against a Minister’s wishes in that regard and I am glad to say that I won. As I say, it is important that the chair has a fairly big say in choosing the other board members. I do not understand the desire to remove paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2, which concerns members having relevant experience or skills. As regards Amendment No. 231, I am all in favour of not having too big a board but it seems sensible to leave provision in the Bill to change the numbers on the board without necessarily having primary legislation. However, I am not too fussed about that. Amendment No. 231A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers to,"““the desirability of appointing at least one person who has . . . experience of . . . the rural affairs of local authorities””." I totally support the thinking behind that amendment. It is certainly desirable as the CRC will have to have a very good understanding of the way in which local authorities work and how to influence them. As was mentioned earlier, the CRC will also have to have a good working relationship with the rural commission of the LGA. It will have to have a very good understanding of the RDAs, academic research into social issues, rural deprivation, rural businesses, which obviously includes land management, and perhaps a good understanding of effective lobbying in Whitehall, which will probably be an important role, and perhaps even, in this day of spin, marketing skills—you never know. The needs of the board will inevitably undergo a change in emphasis as time goes on. While I totally agree that the local authority angle is a crucial need that must be filled, I am not certain that I would want to give it a priori attention by making it the only provision mentioned in the Bill with regard to appointments to the commission. However, as I say, I am sympathetic to the amendment. Amendment No. 232 addresses the question of the Secretary of State appointing a deputy chair. Perhaps such a small body does not need a deputy chair. That would involve extra funding so perhaps the Secretary of State should make that decision. Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 propose that the CRC and not the Secretary of State should remove board members. There is something to be said for the decision to remove a board member being at one remove from the CRC. I believe that a nettle is more likely to be gripped that way. In those circumstances the chief executive officer would obviously have to consult with Defra and would have to ensure that all the relevant processes were correctly followed. However, I believe that the process becomes slightly less personal if the ultimate decision in such a matter is taken by the Secretary of State. In my view that could be a good thing.