| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have to say that I feel even less reassured now. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the behind-the-scenes work and the necessity to stamp your feet and make a fuss behind the scenes to bring about change underlines my argument about why we need to reinforce democracy and have those sorts of discussions in public.
The Minister answered some of my queries and was therefore helpful. Nevertheless, if the Affordable Rural Housing Commission comes along and has meetings in your area and then the Commission for Rural Communities, which is also very concerned about rural housing, comes along and does the same, people in that area will be entitled to ask what all these different commissions are and how they relate to each other.
Therefore, I am sorry to say that, in one way, the contributions this evening have underlined my arguments. I assure your Lordships that if the hour were not so late, I would have tested the opinion of the House on this matter, but I recognise that this is not the moment to do so. I shall not return to this issue because I recognise that these Benches have lost this argument for now. In conclusion, I extend my personal best wishes to the staff and the commissioners who are to take on this task, even though, in legislative terms, I wish that they were not going to exist. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Commission for Rural Communities]:
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 101:
"(3A) In making appointments to the Commission, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing at least one person who has experience of, and has shown some capacity in, the affairs of local authorities in promoting and meeting rural needs.
(3B) In making an appointment under sub-paragraph (3A), the Secretary of State shall have regard to any views expressed by persons appearing to him to represent local authorities."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who, unfortunately, could not be with us at this stage of the Bill. Proposed new subsection (3A) in the amendment would require the commission to bear in mind local authorities in promoting and meeting rural needs. That nearly overlaps with what is to follow shortly.
Proposed subsection (3B) states:
"In making an appointment under sub-paragraph (3A), the Secretary of State shall have regard to any views expressed by persons appearing to him to represent local authorities".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 101 revisits an issue that we discussed
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1314
in Committee—the desirability or otherwise of the Secretary of State to make sure that at least one member of the CRC's board has experience of, and capacity in, the affairs of local authorities.
We have given the matter some consideration since Committee, and reflected on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Lord Brooke, among others. We reached the same conclusion as before that it would be restrictive to accept the wording of the amendment, as having written local authority expertise into the Bill's composition, we would need to consider adding similar criteria, covering all the CRCs and any other stakeholders to ensure that their interests were similarly represented on the CRC's board.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in Committee, we agreed that the local authority angle was an important one that could be covered by the range of expertise on the board of members. We are convinced that the right way in which to achieve that is via the Secretary of State's responsibility for ensuring a fit between prospective board members' expertise and personal skills and those required by the CRC.
Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2 on page 52 of the Bill and the code of practice laid down by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments already make provisions for that. Therefore, the Bill does not need to be more specific than that. While appreciating the motives behind the amendment, we maintain that it is unnecessary and invite the noble Baroness who spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to withdraw the amendment for those reasons.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and response to my noble friend's amendment. Obviously I am not in a position to make any other observations, except to say that he will be able to read them in Hansard. I felt that it was worth moving the amendment at this stage, because Third Reading is too late to seek the sort of clarification that he wanted. I am sure that my noble friend will read the Official Report with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Commission's general purpose]:
Lord Cameron of Dillington moved Amendment No. 102:
"( ) rural proofing across government and more widely,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, forgive me for returning at this stage to the issue of rural proofing but, as we have already seen tonight, it is a very important issue. I believe that the CRC is seriously weakened by not having these words in its primary purposes. I might add that the Countryside Agency attaches a great deal of importance to rural proofing and is sympathetic to what I am trying to achieve through these amendments. It, too, feels that it would be helpful to strengthen the role of the CRC in this respect.
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1315
In terms of having the potential to raise the quality of life in the countryside, I believe that rural proofing is one of the best introductions to government by government, for a very long time. That is because it covers every aspect of 21st-century living and government's role therein. If carried out properly by the departments and the agencies, but enforced by the CRC, it can improve the delivery of health, law and order, educational services, transport, all the way through to advice on business, jobs, and so on. But it does need to be enforced, and it is vital that the CRC has the authority to do just that. It needs to be able to point the finger to name and shame, and it needs the authority of Parliament to do so.
I have no doubt that the CRC already sees rural proofing as one of its major roles. Within the general purposes as currently spelt out in the Bill it would do its best to play a major role. But I want all departments and all government agencies to know that the powers of the CRC to demand—a key word—high standards of rural proofing come directly from Parliament. I want it to be able to say, "We, the CRC, have a statutory duty to demand rural proofing throughout your work. However awkward it might be for you, you cannot just tell us to go away and leave you in peace. We have a duty authorised by Parliament to be here".
The Minister said in reply to me in Committee that he thought that the amendments were unnecessary as rural proofing was already at the heart of the CRC's role and work. I would hope that he would have no real concerns about spelling it out on the face of the Bill to strengthen the CRC's hand. As I say, there is broad support within the Countryside Agency for my amendment.
9.30 pm
With my limited knowledge of the inside dealings of these matters, I believe there was a thought at some early stage of the dismemberment of the Countryside Agency that overseeing rural proofing could be left to Defra and one of its Ministers. At any rate, there was a view that that option should be kept open possibly to allow it to happen in the future. I do not believe that view has much support any longer, but it may account for the reluctance, at least in the past, to permit these vital words to slip into the Bill. As I think I have previously explained, it would be entirely unsuitable for one department, Defra, to be looking into the affairs of another. It is important that the job of overseeing rural proofing is carried out by an independent agency, and preferably one which has the authority of Parliament, not just of Defra, to do so. It is of course equally important that someone keeps rural proofing within Defra up to the mark.
I do not intend to highlight again the myriad examples of the need for rural proofing—we have heard a very good one tonight. We all know they exist, and will continue to exist, across all departments and government agencies. But I would like to repeat what I said last time about sharing some of the misgivings of other noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—about the practical effectiveness of the
15 Mar 2006 : Column 1316
CRC as a body which can research and report but which—I put it this way—will need a lot of political skill to make a difference on the ground. I think it is possible.
However, effective rural proofing will make a difference on the ground to rural England and the people who live there, across every aspect of their lives. I, therefore, believe that it is important that the CRC is charged by Parliament to monitor rural proofing across government and I ask your Lordships to support these amendments. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |