Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I understand the nature of this probing amendment. Clause 24(2) gives the Secretary of State power to fund the CRC and to place conditions on such funding. The conditions can include a requirement for the commission to agree a management statement and financial memorandum between itself and the department. This is normal practice to ensure accountability and propriety, and how things currently work for the Countryside Agency. But because the CRC will not be a delivery body, unlike Natural England, it will be a strong independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog, ensuring that the Government’s policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. That is one reason why the Bill does not require a guidance clause. The second reason is that the CRC is an advisory, as opposed to a delivery, NDPB. In its challenge function, it has to be reliant on its impartiality and independence from government in order to carry out its remit. I should have thought that the noble Duke would be pleased that its independence is being strengthened by the fact that it does not have to have guidance in the clause—unlike Natural England, which, as he rightly pointed out, has a guidance clause. If the Secretary of State were able to issue the body with guidance beyond the sort envisaged by Clause 24(2), or the new clause proposed in the amendment, this could give be perceived as jeopardising the CRC’s independence. If it is not thought to be as independent as it possibly can be, it is more likely to fail than succeed, to judge from what noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have said.