I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 6, line 32, at end insert—

‘(2A)At least 30 days before giving any directions under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—

(a)his intention to give directions,

(b)a draft of the directions, and

(c)his reasons for giving the directions.’.

This is the last amendment on Natural England, although we could have a stand part debate on the subject, if you were to grant it, Ms Anderson. The Committee will remember that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the concerns and contradiction to do with the independence of Natural England—with some justification, I think; there was some sympathy with his point, at least from the Liberals. The argument, as the Government and Ministers have repeated several times today, is that they are creating an independent body; and yet, ultimately, clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to give general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions. That is a highly interventionist possibility.

The Minister may well start by reassuring me that the provisions are no different to lots of other bits of legislation on similar bodies, but even if that is so, that is not a very satisfactory situation. I do not see how there can be complete independence while the Secretary of State, according to law, can give general or specific directions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall says that the two are mutually exclusive, and I entirely agree; it simply does not seem to fit. Just because something has been in other legislation, it does not automatically make it right. I believe that the Government should address the matter now.

As with previous amendments, I could simply oppose clause 16; there would be a lot of merit in doing so. I do not wish to put words in their mouths, but it is conceivable that the Liberal Democrats might wish to oppose the clause; I do not know. However, I am   realistic enough to know that if I did oppose it, I would lose. That is the nature of these things. Therefore I have put forward an amendment that at least creates some sort of accountability and public discussion before the Secretary of State can use these very interventionist and draconian powers. I am sure that the Minister will wish to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State would use them only in exceptional circumstances. Subsection (3) clearly states:

“The Secretary of State must publish any directions given under this section”,

but the next subsection says:

“The power to give directions under this section includes power to vary or revoke the directions.”

To me, the whole thing smacks of the possibility of a Secretary of State getting extremely involved in how Natural England exercises its functions.

I am proposing that, before the Secretary of State issues those directions, they should be published in advance and reasons for them should be given. In amendment No. 50, I suggest that 30 days before directions are actually given,

“the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report containing—

(a) his intention to give directions,

(b) a draft of the directions, and

(c) his reasons for giving the directions.”

That would not stop the Secretary of State giving those directions, but it would at least give Parliament the opportunity to consider whether the Secretary of State was being sensible in issuing directions.

As I mentioned when speaking to earlier amendments, the Select Committee spent a lot of time on the issue of independence, with a lot of justification. I could detain the Committee by reading out some of the things that the Select Committee said, but I will not do that. The hon. Member for Sherwood is nodding again to affirm that the general thrust of what I am saying is correct. The issue of independence is crucial and is clearly at odds with the idea of giving directions.

In many ways, the amendment describes itself. It is straightforward. It is intended—to use the Prime Minister’s words in a totally different context from last week—to give time for a pause for reflection. In the Prime Minister’s response to the question how long a pause needs to be, he said that it was as long as it takes. I am suggesting a 30-day pause in this context. That is a sensible precaution to allow time for reflection on what the Secretary of State is proposing. If the Minister is determined, as I believe he is, to create an independent body with as wide powers as it is reasonable to give it, to use his words again, that independence needs to be given a bit of a shove. The power of the Secretary of State to give directions seems to counter that entirely.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not intended to remove entirely the power to give directions, but it would give the House an opportunity   to reflect on them. I hope that he will feel it is a sensible addition to the Bill and does not ultimately detract from the power of the Secretary of State.