Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 226:"Page 48, line 12, leave out ““appointed by the Secretary of State”” and insert ““elected by Commission members””" The noble Baroness said: We now move to the make-up of the Commission for Rural Communities. The aim of this group of amendments, of which mine are Amendments Nos. 226, 228, 231, 233 and 234, is to explore whether the Commission for Rural Communities should be an organisation that grows from the bottom up or one that is imposed from the top down. At the moment, each region has a rural affairs forum. Each forum is formed from the many bodies that send representatives to it, and I have no doubt that those representatives are elected. Some time ago, the Government themselves looked at the role of the regional rural affairs forums and concluded that,"““we believe a stronger relationship is needed with each region individually, if Ministers are to understand the differences as well as similarities across rural England. The Government will therefore build even closer links between the Regional Rural Affairs Forums and Ministers from relevant departments, with quarterly meetings with the Chairs of the Forums–including meeting in the regions””." How often do those meetings happen and are they productive? Each regional rural affairs forum has a chair, and, assuming that the Government’s wish has come true, they meet with Ministers. Those chairs must be well in touch with their regions and with what is happening in central government. I therefore submit that the chairs of those forums are particularly well placed to be the regional representatives on the Commission for Rural Communities. Why do we need another parallel body given that the Commission for Rural Communities intends to draw each of its members from each of the regions, so that they are represented? That seems a high degree of duplication. If the chairs of the regional rural forums were members of the Commission for Rural Communities, it would give a feed up from the bottom to the national body. It would also give much more coherence to the Government’s wish for Ministers to meet those representing the regions and to have rural proofing carried out. Given the job descriptions of CRC members, it would not be unduly onerous for one person to fulfil the role of both the regional rural forum chair and a commission member, as so much of the work would involve looking at the same issues. The other amendments in this group envisage that it should be for commission members to choose their chair from among their number. That would enhance the independence of the commission, bearing in mind all the eloquent speeches made in favour of the fact that this person would have a direct line to the Prime Minister, would be very influential with Ministers, and so on. At the same time, there is a slight paradox in that they are appointed essentially by a Minister—even given the Nolan rules. That is a secondary point. The real point is that I should like the CRC, if we are to have it, to grow up from the grass roots through the regions into a national body and not one imposed from the top that then effectively floats around the regions, largely duplicating what the rural affairs forums already do regionally. I would be very interested to know what other Members of the Committee feel on this issue. I beg to move.