Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as chairman of the Forestry Commission, which is not a non-departmental public body but is a government department. It is not quite the same, but there are similarities. I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the group of amendments in the way that she did. These issues do need raising, they do need examining, and they do need measuring up against the corporate private sector as well. She has done us all a great favour by tabling the amendments. If it were to happen as it appears in the schedule I would agree with her, but as I understand it that is not how it will operate. I speak as someone who was involved in the Nolan-type process in the early years of this Government. The whole House is keen that we get the widest group of people on this body that we possibly can. I assume that the Government would follow the normal practice. The positions would be publicly advertised; a shortlist would be drawn up by civil servants or public servants; and those interviewed would have to appear before an appointment board. That appointment board at a senior level would be composed of the chairman, the chief executive/director general and probably an independent civil servant. In the Forestry Commission, we always insist that there is also someone from the Civil Service Commissioners there, who is completely independent, to ensure that there is absolute independence at that stage. Once the interviews have taken place and an appointment is recommended, the key issue is who makes the appointment. Is it the Secretary of State or is it the chairman? I favour the Secretary of State, if we follow that process, for this simple reason. It seems to me that the role of the members of the boards is to act almost as a non-executive would on a public/private board. Therefore, the job of that individual is, on the one hand, to aid and assist members of staff of that organisation, but equally to challenge those executive members of staff. It may well mean challenging the chairman. I feel that you are more likely to get that independence, which is vital, if the final appointment is made by the Secretary of State, on the recommendation and the advice of an appointment panel, than if the appointment was made, even after that, by the chairman of the organisation. I argue from the point of independence, which we all want, that it is better to leave it with the Secretary of State. However, we certainly need reassurances that it would not be an appointment by the Secretary of State per se; it would be after a due process along the lines of what is now normal process. We may need to have that in the Bill; I do not know. We need to get that agreement. If that turns out to be the case, I disagree with the noble Baroness and we should allow the Secretary of State to carry on with the appointments following the normal process.