Public Bodies Bill [HL]

This amendment would leave out the Commission for Rural Communities from the list of organisations in Schedule 1. This amendment, like the previous one, is a probing amendment to ask questions of the Government and, one hopes, to get the Government to set out clearly on the record how they see the CRC’s functions being carried out in future, which of those functions will be carried out in future, and which are to be abandoned. The Commission for Rural Communities was created by Section 17 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which many noble Lords, and perhaps refugees from the House of Commons as well, will remember took up a considerable amount of discussion at the time. The Commission for Rural Communities, which was created by primary legislation, was therefore thoroughly discussed and thrashed out in your Lordships' House. The Commission for Rural Communities sets out its purpose and functions as follows. It is a statutory body, "““funded by government to help ensure that policies, programmes and decisions take proper account of the circumstances of rural communities. We have a particular focus on disadvantaged people and areas suffering from economic under-performance””." In essence, it has, "““three key functions: Advocate: acting as a voice for rural people, businesses and communities; Expert adviser: giving evidence-based, objective advice to government and others; and Independent watchdog: monitoring and reporting on the delivery of policies nationally, regionally and locally””." That is a summary of what it does. The commission's work since it was set up has been widely praised. Much of it consists of research, and the work of the chairman, Dr Stuart Burgess, as advocate for rural areas—particularly disadvantaged rural areas—has been notable. On 29 June 2010, Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State, announced that the CRC will be abolished and partly replaced with a strengthened rural communities policy unit within Defra. This amendment, like the previous one, goes to the heart of the way in which the new Government intend to carry out many of the functions that are currently carried out by autonomous bodies. In her statement on 29 June, Caroline Spelman said: "““With an urgent need to drive down debt and reduce Government spending we will have to make some tough decisions””." Secondly, she said: "““We are committed to improving the quality of life for those living in rural areas and we will put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of Government””." Thirdly, she said: "““Focusing rural policy making within the department will give rural communities and interest groups a direct link to central policymakers and a stronger champion for rural issues at the heart of Government””." I think that that is what, a few years ago, used to be called rural proofing—the attempt to make sure that government policies across the patch were all checked for their effect in rural areas. So there are really two main reasons for this policy, and they are both clearly set out in the statement—the first is to save money, and the other it is to have a more effective service. The underlying promise is that it will not prejudice government actions for rural areas. Those are the issues that we need to probe, and the first is cost. There are some questions that I should like to ask the Minister. What is the transitional cost? The Government briefing suggests that it is £2.5 million. Can he tell us what makes up that figure? What is the extra cost of taking on this work within Defra, and therefore what is the net saving? The suggestion, again from the government briefing, is that the existing cost of the CRC is £5.8 million;, that there will be a saving of £4.5 million once the transitional costs have been paid; and that the spend within Defra will therefore be only £1.3 million compared with £5.8 million at the moment. I can believe that efficiencies might be gained by doing this within Defra, and that it might be possible to do it more cheaply; but, nevertheless, that difference is so great—£5.8 million to £1.3 million—that one has to ask what things are being done at the moment that will not be done in the future. Can the Minister tell us something about the transitional period? My understanding is that the intention is that the CRC should cease on 31 March 2011, but there may be transitional things to be done after that. How will that be managed? How many staff does the CRC have at the moment? How many have transferred into Defra, and are any more expected to do so? What will be the size of the new unit within Defra which will carry out the work that the CRC has been carrying out? The second broad area of questions has to be about the effectiveness of the new system. The proposal is to strengthen the rural team in Defra, to improve existing policy work, and to carry out the following functions. The first is to support Ministers, who will have much more direct accountability in future for the rural work. The second is to act as a centre of rural expertise. The third is to champion, "““rural needs and issues across government departments and other bodies””;" and the fourth is to work, "““with the civic sector to promote rural solutions at the local level””." The last one is a quote and I do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Minister can tell me. The Secretary of State also said: "““Ministers will lead rural policy from within my Department … The Government believe policy advice should be carried out by Departments, not arm's-length bodies””.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/10; col. 36WS.]" That is okay as far as it goes, but there are questions to be asked. The Campaign to Protect Rural England suggests that the advice to Ministers should be, "““robust, independent and evidence-based policy advocacy””." That is what the CRC has been doing. For example, its report on uplands, published in June, called High Ground, High Potential—A Future for England’s Upland Communities, was a model of its kind. It was well researched, evidence-based and put forward a series of proposals on behalf of the rural areas of England that are most disadvantaged. It is difficult to see how a unit within Defra could do that with the style and commitment that was evident in that report. Perhaps more important is the annual State of the Countryside report that—again according to the CPRE— provides a key yardstick of the social, economic and environmental trends in rural England. The report for 2010 is divided into three main sections. One is on living in the countryside and population services; one is on the economy of rural England; and one is on land and environment, including farming. This is a substantial, evidential report that is published and available to everybody. Will that report be produced in future by Defra with the same thoroughness and evidential base? I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that that will be the case. In summary, I will ask first about the strength of research in the new unit. What resources will be given to it? Will the research be on a par with that which now takes place in the arm’s-length body? How will the system work of having a rural champion in the department? At the moment the Rural Affairs Minister is Richard Benyon, who is energetic, keen and capable. However, the problem with Ministers is that they come and go. Who knows whether a future Minister will take on this work with the same enthusiasm? Will a Minister who is not a Secretary of State but is more junior have the clout across government to do the advocacy, the work and the rural proofing that is required? How transparent will the new processes be? Government departments are notoriously secretive. Advice to Ministers is supposed to be confidential, as we heard earlier. When my younger daughter got a temporary job in the Government Office for the North West, she said: ““I’ve got to sign this thing called the Official Secrets Act. Is that all right, Dad?””. I said: ““You’d better do it if your job depends on it””. When junior staff such as her have to sign the Official Secrets Act, the prospect of transparency and openness of the kind that one gets with an arm's-length body seems remote. Will the policy advice that Ministers get be genuinely independent and evidence-based? How will ministerial accountability to Parliament differ from how it is now? We know that the system exists, but we also know that it is imperfect. This is a typical example of a body that was set up by a substantial piece of primary legislation. The proposal is to create a system whereby it can and will be abolished by ministerial order. If the Bill goes through in its present form, this is the best opportunity that we will have before the order is made to scrutinise the proposal. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide a great deal of the information that I am asking for today. If he cannot answer all the questions this evening, I hope that he will be able to answer them between now and Report, whenever that may be. My final question is the one that I started with. Is this just about doing the same thing in a different, perhaps better, way: and will the Minister tell us which of the existing functions of the Commission for Rural Communities will not be performed in future? That is the crunch point. I beg to move.