Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall come to Amendment No. 232 later if the noble Duke will be patient. With regard to Amendment No. 231, although the proposed size of the CRC board is appropriate for the commission’s functions and size in the foreseeable future, it would seem sensible to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to adjust the number of board members at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to that. Requiring the use of a statutory instrument for such a change will mean that it will be made only where it is essential for the CRC to continue effectively to fulfil its role. I turn to Amendment No. 231 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and Amendment No. 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. For the board to be fully effective, it may be useful to appoint a deputy chairman to share the leadership responsibilities. I suggest that, because of the Secretary of State’s accountability for the CRC, she should be involved in appointing someone who has the required skills. There are no plans to do so at present and it is a discretionary power. I turn to Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. On the basis that the Secretary of State has approved the CRC board appointments, I would argue that it is only right that the Secretary of State should also have the powers to accept resignations from members and be able to remove members who are unable or unfit to carry out their duties, thus helping to ensure that the board continues to function effectively. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, also spoke to Amendments Nos. 264 and 265, so I assume that he is grouping them with these amendments. They relate to the appointment of members to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and are designed to require the Secretary of State to select the chairman and independent members of the joint committee following an open and fair competition regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The noble Duke recognised that Schedule 4 does not specify the procedures which the Secretary of State should employ when appointing the chairman and independent members. That is because—I can give him this assurance—Ministers are already required to follow the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments when making appointments to non-departmental public bodies. The joint committee is covered by the code, and that will not change when it is reconstituted. Amendment No. 266 is designed to impose specific terms on appointments to the joint committee and to impose a maximum of 10 years for any appointee. Schedule 4 does not specify the lengths of appointments. However, the joint committee is covered by the code issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that will not change when it is reconstituted. I am assuming that the intention is to ensure a phased turnover of appointments. I can see how that might work in theory were we setting up a new committee from scratch, but the JNCC will be reconstituted and some existing appointments will carry over. Following best practice, in the past appointments have been made so that they do not all come to an end at the same time but, however well we plan these things, premature resignations can frustrate our intentions. That is a good reason in itself to retain a greater degree of flexibility. It also covers those who are appointed from the UK conservation agencies and could conceivably impinge on appointments to those bodies. I understand the intention behind the last amendment and support the underlying principle, but it is at odds with the code because an appointee who has served two full terms or 10 years is eligible to apply for appointment through open competition and he can be appointed again if selected on merit through that competitive process. I hope that that is helpful. I was not expecting to speak to those amendments at this point. If I find that I have omitted anything that I should have included, I will of course write to the noble Duke and clarify it. For all the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will feel confident about withdrawing her amendment and that the other amendments spoken to will not be moved.