Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, for my sins I have been the chairman of one non-departmental public body, the deputy-chairman of a second and the chief executive officer of a third. I should like to pursue a point that has been raised by many noble Lords, including, notably, my noble friend Lord Brooke, on independence—in particular, for Natural England with its 2,300 employees. Indeed, we have had another assurance from the Minister that it will be powerful and independent. I would like to look at that proposition from the point of view of the staff. What do they see as they read the Bill? The staff will first see that it is a wholly grant-aided body. The Secretary of State can fix the grant as she thinks fit. Of course, the staff will be aware that behind the Secretary of State lies the Treasury. There is an annual round and they will remember that he who pays the piper tends to call the tune. Secondly, they will look at the provisions for the appointment of the board. The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman, may appoint a deputy chairman and will appoint the other six to 13 members of the board. Currently, there is no term of appointment in the Bill and those members may or may not be reappointed. Of course, the Secretary of State is also taking a power to change the number of the members of the board, which could be useful in troublesome times. The staff will see that not only the board but also they—the staff—will have their pay—their remuneration—determined by the Secretary of State. It will not be a matter of proposals being put forward, as has often been the case with NDPBs, for approval by the Secretary of State, but straight determination. I am not concerned today to argue that all of those arrangements are bad or, indeed, good, but simply to try to throw light on the proposition that this body is independent and powerful. The staff will also see that there are the usual powers for the Secretary of State to make orders by statutory instrument, which are of course subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as powers to give approvals and take initiatives. But Clause 15 goes on to state that the Secretary of State has a duty to give Natural England ““guidance”” on its functions, and that the body must pay attention to such guidance. There is to be consultation, but the staff may ask, ““Where is the leverage when the consultation takes place? Are we really independent?””. I suppose that independence does have to mean being independent of Defra, otherwise I can attach no meaning to the description. Finally, in the following clause, the Secretary of State is to take powers to give ““directions””, both general and specific. Those are very wide-ranging powers. Perhaps other noble Lords will guide me on this, but from my past experience of a non-departmental public body, I do not know of an instance where the Secretary of State has taken such potentially wide powers. The Government may respond by saying, ““Yes, we have the powers because we had to make a lot of decisions. This is a complicated measure and we did not have time to work everything out. We will not use these powers unless we really have to.””. That does not offer much comfort because once the powers are in the Act, they will become the law and they can be used. Of course it may well be that the Government always intended that this body should not be independent. The staff would be right to conclude that it was a controlled subsidiary of Defra and, under these powers, could be very tightly controlled. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Selborne suggested in his remarks that it might become only a talking shop. Looking at it from the point of view of the staff, it might be a very sensible conclusion for them to reach. They can then think whatever they want to think and they can give advice in whatever way they want to do so, but given these arrangements I think they would be cautious about how far they could go when talking to officials from Defra. If, on the other hand, the Government really do intend this body to be independent, the Bill is going to need substantial amendment. At present there seems to be no middle way, unless of course we were to follow the prescription of Humpty Dumpty. Noble Lords will recall that Humpty Dumpty had a conversation with Alice:"““‘I don’t know what you mean by ““glory””’. Alice said.""Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously, ‘Of course you don’t, till I tell you. I meant that there’s a nice, knock-down argument for you!’""‘But ““glory”” doesn’t mean a nice, knock-down argument’, Alice objected.""‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less . . . The question is, which is to be the master—that’s all’””." I hope that Her Majesty’s Government have more time to read the Oxford English Dictionary and less time to read Lewis Carroll.