---

Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the noble Lord is still standing, will he take away small, medium-sized and local abattoirs as a classic example of the kind of sustainable development that is needed and which regional development agencies should jolly well be getting on with?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will take that away.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. If it seemed to go a little wide of my amendment, perhaps I can assure the Minister that the subject would have come up at length anyway. I was intending to mention it under my next amendment and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was planning to do the same under his amendment. I am sure the time we spend on it now will be regained in future amendments.

I associate myself with the comments about the seriousness of the issue. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is very experienced
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1309
 
in these matters, how we might influence a matter that seems difficult to influence. But as far as this amendment is concerned, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am somewhat reassured.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I have tabled a topical Question on this subject which we may get next week.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [Commission for Rural Communities]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 100:

Leave out Clause 17.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the thorny issue—for me— of the Commission for Rural Communities. In Committee I proposed that we could try restructuring the Commission for Rural Communities. I ran two arguments in parallel—that we should restructure it, or not have it. I listened carefully to the comments in Committee and I have now come down firmly in favour of the presumption that we should not have the Commission for Rural Communities.

Our Benches would be the first to say that rural areas need a strong voice as they are always in danger of being seen as expensive by government. They are seen as expensive to service, peripheral, and a problem. I would not accuse Defra of holding that view because it champions rural areas, but every other department tends to see rural areas as a problem. If those areas are to get a fair deal, then Defra needs to be known as a department for bright and ambitious civil servants, and MPs elected to rural constituencies need to have their voices heard. They and the parliamentary mechanism, such as the EFRA Select Committee, need to be a first port of call when a rural issue comes to the fore. With such in mind, our Benches are viewing how a democracy should work and whether a Commission for Rural Communities would further that sort of aim. The rural advocate and his Commission for Rural Communities—if they are assiduous, bright and energetic, and that is not an aspersion on the individuals taking over the roles because I believe that they are all of those—will inevitably lead a lot of the rural agenda and become the focus for comment on rural issues. I believe that that will diminish the role of those with a democratic mandate.

I accept that there is a case for rural-proofing and we have just had a brilliant example of why. I was going to use the example in this amendment but now I do not need to—so I am glad for the time saved. But what has the Commission for Rural Communities been saying about the rural housing issue? I have not seen anything that is public and I would be interested to know whether the rural advocate has met with ODPM and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1310
 
matter. What rural-proofing has taken place and what comments have been made, for example about the proposal by the Department for Work and Pensions to end card accounts in post offices? Those are two enormous issues that will affect rural areas and which have emerged in the past couple of months. I have seen no comment from the Commission for Rural Communities on those. I accept that the commission does not exist yet, except in shadow form, but either it will have to take on this role or, if not, it is hard to see how it can be effective in relation to rural-proofing. Regarding the other issues, I am concerned that the focus is being shifted away from those with a democratic mandate.

I have a couple of further points. It seems that Defra is moving a little in the opposite direction to other departments because, in terms of quango creation, the government website states that NHS Estates, for example, was wound up as an executive agency; core functions were brought within the department and local functions were transferred to local NHS bodies. Regarding the Ministry of Defence, there is a long list of agencies that have been abolished. I wonder if Defra is alone in not following through opportunities to abolish quangos. I am sure that the Minister can tell me which quangos Defra intends to get rid of.

I have pondered long and hard over this issue and I have had some impressive representations, including one from Professor Michael Winter who chairs the South West Rural Affairs Forum. He made several useful points as to why he did not feel that the restructuring that I proposed would work. He said that rural affairs forum chairs were different animals than those who would sit on the Commission for Rural Communities and that sometimes there might be a conflict; although he, I believe, does both jobs.

This is all or nothing. We are not going to see a restructuring of the Government's proposals for the Commission for Rural Communities; so we will either go for a quango or we will not. We on these Benches believe that the right place for a voice for rural communities lies with elected members, whether they are locally or nationally elected; and it is with that in mind that I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this matter in Committee and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that the strength of the argument was powerfully on the side of retaining the Commission for Rural Communities. I thought that at the end of that debate that the noble Baroness had agreed that that was the way that the argument had gone—obviously she has changed her mind since. I had hoped that this was a probing amendment—as is mine, which proposes to leave out Clause 85. I have no intention of pressing that amendment, which aims only to obtain some assurances from the Minister on the record regarding the work of the levy boards.

We had a powerful argument in Committee and there is no need to repeat that now. As I pointed out then and at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, eventually came round and is now in favour of the Commission for Rural Communities.
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1311
 
I repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading and I still have not had an answer: which of the 20 organisations that have lobbied us support the noble Baroness's proposal not to establish the commission? All the evidence that we have received is that not a single body supports it—perhaps with the exception of the Countryside Alliance. Certainly the NFU, the CLA and all the other organisations are strongly in favour of the commission.

9.15 pm

Lord Cameron of Dillington : My Lords, I will not repeat all the arguments I made both at Second Reading and in Committee. There is no doubt that Defra cannot do the job of the CRC. It cannot criticise its own government or be independent. Neither can local authorities do it; this is a national role which cannot possibly be done by local authorities. I happen to know that the Countryside Agency is doing a lot of work behind the scenes on housing and card accounts, which is how I come to know that the ODPM is aware of the mess over housing. Very often the work of the Countryside Agency—and, in the future, the CRC—will be done behind the scenes. I know from my own experience that sometimes you have to stamp your foot and make a bit of a public scene about it, but very often you are better off trying to achieve your aims quietly, by talking to the relevant people. I will say no more, but obviously I oppose this amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the House knows, Clause 17 establishes the Commission for Rural Communities as an independent non-departmental public body, with constitutional functions as set out in subsequent clauses and Schedule 2. Statutory status will enable it to perform its role independently and impartially.

There was an excellent debate in Committee on 8 February. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accepted with striking good grace that she had lost—to use, I think, her phrase—this particular argument, and that the CRC would be established by the Bill. The noble Baroness did not for a moment suggest that she had changed her own mind, so there is nothing inconsistent in what she says tonight. Indeed, I can imagine her considering whether there was any prospect of amending the Bill so that its constitution and structure were different, or of not having it at all. The noble Baroness said:

"It will be tremendous if the CRC does all the things we mentioned".—[Official Report, 8/2/06; col. 694.]

That is the point I wish to make. I want to do my best to reassure the noble Baroness that I am fully confident that the CRC will go a long way towards doing those things.

We know that the CRC will be a strong independent rural advocate, advisor and watchdog, helping to ensure that the Government's policies make a difference to people in rural areas. We believe that we are seeing evidence of that already. For example, its staff engaged with the rural public at a recent series of well attended regional seminars to find out more about people's priorities for rural housing needs. Its very
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1312
 
recent report, Using the Additional Revenue from Reducing Council Tax Discount on Second Homes—which must have been one of the longest titles of any report there has ever been—was heralded as "hard-hitting" in a high profile press article on 8 March. The CRC is already engaging with its stakeholders, and is recognised as doing so. We know that it will pay special attention to tackling social disadvantage, and to rural areas experiencing economic underperformance.

We know that it will have rural-proofing at the heart of its role, ensuring that government policies are rural-proofed. In its role as an advocate for rural communities, it will bring a uniquely national perspective and, we believe, a single-minded focus on rural matters, which no other body could provide. That is why we argue that the country's hundreds of democratically elected local authorities could not perform this national role in the same way as the CRC. All this was said in Committee; we still maintain it.

I want to offer one piece of reassurance to the noble Baroness, about the CRC's accountability, once it has been established as an independent non-departmental public body. The CRC, as all NDPBs, will operate within a formal framework of governance, overseen by the Secretary of State, with the support of Defra officials. Its relationship with the department—its paymaster—will be set out in broad terms in a partnership agreement, and its day to day functions will be supported by a corporate plan, management statement and financial memorandum. Its senior staff will meet regularly with Ministers and Defra's Permanent Secretary to ensure that everything is running smoothly. It will publish its annual reports and accounts, laying them before both the Secretary of State and the general public and, in doing so, it will be transparent and open to scrutiny. In other words, it will enjoy a position of independence and impartiality, which are both crucial, and that will allow it to make a difference to rural communities.

The Bill, when it comes into force, will establish the CRC as a new, strong NDPB with advisory, advocate and watchdog functions. This very positive measure will address the needs of rural communities and the people who live and work in them.

The noble Baroness asked what the CRC has said about the Affordable Rural Housing Commission and whether the rural advocate has met the housing commissioner. The Commission for Rural Communities contributed written evidence as part of the call for evidence from the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. Representatives from the CRC are invited to a meeting of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission on 19 January to discuss that evidence. The rural advocate has been in contact with the commissioner, Elinor Goodman, and has also visited each of the English regions and talked to rural people to find out what they think the affordable rural housing needs are. There is no doubt that affordable rural housing will remain a priority for the CRC and the rural advocate. There is obviously a difference of
 
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1313
 
view in this House, and it has been fairly expressed both in Committee and tonight. We believe that Clause 17 should be allowed to stand.

---