Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2000
MR BRIAN
BENDER, MR
RICHARD CARDEN
AND MR
GEORGE TREVELYAN
Chairman
1. Gentlemen, when we started our discussions
this morning on the future of the regional service centres, we
opened the door and a clutch of ladies walked in. This afternoon
I see a clutch of gentlemen have walked in so I make my observation
apropos of absolutely nothing whatsoever, but just to pass
the time of day. Thank you for coming. Mr Bender, it is our first
chance to have a look at you and your first chance to have a look
at us in our respective capacities and you will become, I suppose,
what we will describe as one of the usual suspects as you will
be appearing before us from time to time no doubt. We hope that
the experience is a mutually constructive and agreeable one for
all of us which has usually been the case in the past. Mr Carden,
have you moved to the DTI yet or are about to move to the DTI?
(Mr Carden) I am moving in September.
2. You are moving in September to the DTI. Well
we wish you luck with that. The Department has spent most of its
life enquiring as to what it is there for; no doubt you may be
able to add a little bit of wisdom to that particular debate,
so we wish you luck with that particular worm as Enobarbus said
to Cleopatra. Mr Trevelyan, you have been in front of us fairly
often so you are no stranger to our deliberations and indeed you
were the ghost at the feast this morning when we were looking
at the future of the regional service centres, because of course
the Intervention Board is also involved in those PricewaterhouseCoopers
recommendations whilst you are not the focus of our particular
deliberations in that regard. Mr Bender, you have been appointed
at quite an important time for the Department. We are in the teeth
of a persistent agricultural crisis, which is a truism which does
not actually need explanation. We have the New Direction for Agriculture,
we have the evolution of agricultural policy into the Rural Development
Regulations so as to broadly bring a specific agricultural focus
to a wider countryside focus, we have had a series of specific
aid packages for industry, we have the slow avalanches of the
World Trade Organisation and the Enlargement gradually trickling
down the mountain, but nowhere near the fertile valleys, as it
were, just yet and of course there is the review of the Regional
Service Centres which is now pretty active and indeed part of
your negotiations with the Treasury for the Fundamental Spending
Review. So I think perhaps essentially the first question to ask
is what principles will guide you as you come into MAFF and manage
this period of change?
(Mr Bender) The principles that will guide me? Well,
thank you, Chairman and first of all MAFF is not a completely
blank sheet of paper to me. I worked alongside it from other Government
departments in the DTI, in UKRep Brussels and the Cabinet Office
for 20 years. I want to bring to MAFF my, at the moment, fairly
surface knowledge of what it does, my understanding of European
policy issues and the understanding I have built up, particularly
in the last year or two, on modernisation of government. I want
to help MAFF through the reorientation of its priorities and role
in the way you just described—the Rural Development Plan,
the Prime Minister's Action Plan for Farming, the review of its
regional role—important changes both for the internal aspects
of the Ministry and for the relations with customers, with farmers,
with taxpayers, with consumers and its role in the rural environment.
I see my role as working with Ministers to lead the Department
through that period of quite exciting change.
3. You mentioned reorientation. On a reasonable
time scale, let us say two to three years, what shape would you
hope to be presiding over, as it were, for MAFF as opposed to
the situation now? What would be a reasonable departmental geometry,
as it were, to be looking at in a couple of years' time affecting
policy change?
(Mr Bender) I do not have a fixed view at this stage
on the structure. I have a view rather more on the outward facing
nature of the Department. I see its primary role as three elements.
First of all, something to do with the provision of high quality
food that meets consumers' needs, so I see an opportunity for
the Ministry—with the Foods Standards Agency set up—to
redefine its relationship with consumers. Second, something to
do with the promotion of modern, competitive farming and fishing
industries and their part in thriving rural economies, so the
relationship with those industries and the relationship with other
Government departments and linked to that protection of the environment.
It struck me coming to the Department that perhaps more than most
other departments it cannot deliver on any of those without working
in partnership with others, with the Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions, with EU partners, with the Food Standards
Agency, with the devolved administrations, as well as with the
farming industry, food industry and so on.
4. Would you accept that sometimes those partnerships
are quite difficult to fathom from the outside? Without going
into the merits and demerits of GM, there do seem to be an enormous
number of bodies, government departments, Cabinet committees,
quangos, all with a finger in this particular pie. Do you think
there is a case occasionally, alongside all this partnership,
for rationalisations so that people can actually see where the
lines of decision lie, not least the Government itself?
(Mr Bender) Well, I will not be drawn, I am afraid,
Chairman on machinery of government issues. I would not be surprised
if, at the end of the Spending Review, we emerged with a joint
Public Service Agreement between MAFF and the DETR on rural economies.
I agreed last Friday with my DETR opposite number that in anticipation
of better and closer working, he and I should hold kind of summit
meetings with our teams periodically about joint working. I think
whether or not there are machinery of government changes partnerships
are difficult, almost by definition. I think we have to work to
improve them.
5. Obviously you mentioned Public Service Agreements,
as they depend in a sense upon the ability to measure outputs,
because that is one of the great fetishes of modern government,
how do you suggest we assess how well you have done when you are
here 12 months hence?
(Mr Bender) Do you mean me, B Bender, or me MAFF?
6. Well, you being spokesman for MAFF?
(Mr Bender) All Permanent Secretaries are required
to produce personal objectives. Last year for the first time those
objectives were shown to the Prime Minister and he commented on
them. I will be held by how I deliver against my personal objectives,
one of which will be whether or not the Department is performing
against its Public Service Agreement and there will be a revised
Public Service Agreement at the end of the Spending Review.
7. If you were to give us a helping hand in
setting down some benchmarks by which we might judge you, what
would you recommend that we think of in that regard?
(Mr Bender) Forgive me if I am a little vague on my
21st day in the job, Chairman, because I have not drafted by personal
objectives yet—I wanted to get a better feel for the Department—but
I think it would be some combination of the clarity of MAFF's
role because it has been, as we both said, changing, so whether
a year from now there is greater clarity about its role, how it
is working in partnership to deliver some of these difficult aims
and how the modernisation programme of the Department itself is
going in terms of both service to its customers and also its internal
performance.
8. The additional sums of money—you will
know there has been a debate about what is additional—announced
by the Minister in September and December last year and the March
package of this year, have they been incorporated into your spending
plans for the current and the next financial year?
(Mr Bender) The September package was funded essentially
from underspend in the ring fenced provision on BSE. They were
incorporated. The March package was met from the reserve, the
contingency Reserve of the Government. So they have been incorporated
into the spending plans though I think in the spirit of openness
I should say there is a little bit of unfinished business between
the Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over the
extent to which we will be enabled to use end year flexibility
from 1999/2000 and carry that forward to 2001 because of the fact
that the March package drew from the Contingency Reserve.
Chairman: Unless Mr Carden has anything to add
to that at this particular time, we may want to come back on the
little point about BSE because I am not sure that that was something
of which we were aware and it is helpful to know and we may want
to come back a little bit on the cost of the inquiry, including
the cost of manpower assigned to it. However, on the Departmental
Report, Mr Paterson.
Mr Paterson
9. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. You
said one of your personal objectives was going to be delivery.
This year's Departmental Report was actually published on Monday,
the 10th. It was not actually delivered and laid before Parliament
until Wednesday, 12 April. This is actually a breach of Parliamentary
Privilege. Why was there a delay between publication and laying
the Report before Parliament? What arrangements were made for
its distribution to Parliament and other parts of Government and
the public and also the devolved institutions?
(Mr Bender) Mr Carden may want to add something, but
I think the answer to your first question is, an honest mistake
was made in the Department as a result of some changes that were
made in the publication arrangements compared with the previous
year. We made a mistake in not knowing that it was to be laid
before Parliament as if it were a Command Paper and I think the
Minister has written apologising for that. I do not know if there
is anything Mr Carden wants to add?
(Mr Carden) If I could add just a few words, Chairman?
We took very close attention of the criticisms that this Committee
made of the previous Report and we have tried hard to respond
to those in the way we drew up the Report this year. One of the
changes we made was to publish the Report in-house. That helped
greatly in keeping down the price of which I think this Committee
was critical last year, but in the process of that and some changes
in staff we lost sight of the fact that this Report—this
is your question -should have been presented to the House and
treated as a Command Paper and tabled in the House. As soon as
the Table Office told us, two days after the publication, we responded
by tabling as many copies as we had available and topping up to
the full number the following day, but we did make a mistake and
I can assure the Committee that that mistake is seared on our
memory and those working on the Report will not make the same
mistake again.
10. Good. Well, we have had slips like this
from other Departments. Can we have an assurance to this Committee
that under your reign you will make a commitment to deliver to
Parliament first a top priority?
(Mr Bender) I nearly interjected when Mr Carden said
what he just said that it is also seared on the new Permanent
Secretary's memory.
Mr Paterson: Good.
Chairman: A lot of searing going on.
Mr Paterson
11. Well the good news was that the Report was
200 pages shorter and £29.00 cheaper than last year's. Can
you explain what has actually been cut?
(Mr Carden) Again, we paid close attention to the
criticisms that this Committee made last year. We tried hard to
present the material that has to be presented in this Report in
a shorter and snappier way, that was also easier on the eye. We
have added some photographs and pictures; that, Chairman, was
a specific suggestion I think of yours. We have broken up the
format with half columns instead of whole columns across the page,
which I think probably makes this necessarily quite dense material
easier on the reader. We have given a shorter account of what
we are doing, what we have done in the year past, what our main
objectives and achievements were against targets in the year past
and we have given a very concise account of what we see as the
challenges in the year ahead, in the hope that the new, shorter
presentation will be helpful. We may in the process have missed
out some material of interest. If so, I would accept a degree
of personal responsibility for that because I spent quite some
time in my first weeks a Acting Permanent Secretary preparing
this material for publication and that involved taking the knife
to some of the material that was put forward. But I hope that,
although selective, it is largely the material of most interest
to you and to the wider world.
12. Why did you miss out a table giving the
actual outturns against plans for 1999 to 2000?
(Mr Carden) We have given an account chapter by chapter
of how things went against plans. The chapters of material are
organised according to the Ministry's groups and I hope that we
have given an account of where we got to with plans.
13. Yes, last year you structured around MAFF's
objectives. This year it is around the various groups. Why did
you make that change?
(Mr Carden) Partly because it seemed a less abstract
way of organising the material, partly because those who deal
with the Ministry are probably familiar with the groups and the
people who lead those groups and I think another benefit from
organising the material this way is that the heads of groups,
in current jargon, felt more ownership of the material and it
came alive a bit more than the previous year when we took material,
edited it and reorganised it centrally. We are interested to know
from this Committee particularly whether the new presentation
works better than before. If not, we will go back and look again.
I do not think the format of this Report is set in stone; I think
there may be changes coming next year or the year after in any
case. The Treasury—and they exercise a general editorial
guidance across all departments over these reports—are showing
some interest in separating the material about the year past from
the material about the year ahead and it may be that instead of
one report looking backwards and forwards we have two separate
pieces next year or some time in the future.
14. Would it be possible to concentrate more
next year on your achievements against set plans by each group?
(Mr Carden) I take note of that comment, certainly,
and I am sure Mr Bender does, too.
Chairman: I think we do think it is a much better
Report than last year. I would not want you not to think that.
Obviously we have our niggles about it, some of which Mr Paterson
has just explained. Mr Drew?
Mr Drew
15. Who reads the Report?
(Mr Carden) Those who deal professionally with the
Ministry I would expect would find some interest in dipping into
it. How many people read it from cover to cover—
16. Do you do any research on that because I
think that would be quite interesting to know who goes to the
Report?
(Mr Carden) Again, we are interested in feedback.
We have with our Business Plan put out a response sheet inviting
feedback. I do not think we did that with the Departmental Report.
So we are testing a new format, testing a new way of presenting
the material. We hope it is of wider appeal; we probably should
conduct some survey of opinion.
17. I am going to show my ignorance now but
presumably this is all on the internet in this form so people
can just download whichever bit they want to?
(Mr Carden) That is, I am almost sure, on our website
as is some supplementary financial material. The Report includes
annexes including some with financial material in them in a format
prescribed by the Treasury. We have put more detailed material
programme by programme onto our website.
Chairman
18. Mr Carden, I think this question is still
to you, about Public Service Agreements. They were set as part
of the last Comprehensive Spending Review. Your Report says that
a number of the targets were deferred but the one on BSE was not
possible. How would you summarise MAFF's performance in the Review
against the objectives and that Public Service Agreement?
(Mr Carden) We have largely met the targets of the
Public Service Agreements. There are some which have now passed
with the Food Standards Agency out of MAFF's responsibility to
the Food Standards Agency, accountable now through the Department
of Health. There are one or two which I think the Committee noted
last year which we felt were hardly within our grasp to influence;
the BSE target for example where we were set an objective of reducing
the number of cases by a year in which we could not have influenced
the outcome by the time the target was set, because of the long
incubation period of BSE. That and one or two other points where
the targets were, if I could put it this way, ultra-exacting because
they required us to achieve the results to the tune of 100 percent,
for example, in numbers of farmers visited with BSE suspects or
number of farms visited with animal welfare cases to inspect.
For practical reasons you are bound to fall short of 100 percent
in reality. We are discussing points of that kind with the Treasury
with a view to having a set of targets for the next spending period
which, on the points I have mentioned, are more realistic about
what can be achieved within the spending period from the time
the target is set.
19. I think last year I commented that where
the target was precise they were unrealistic and where they were
vague they were not worth having in any case, which make me doubt
that the Public Service Agreements really no more than a lot of
blue smoke, but that is just—
(Mr Bender) May I just say that Public Service Agreements
were an invention, a creation at the end of the last Comprehensive
Spending Review and I think it is fair to say that there was a
range of qualities of them right across Government; some were
very good, some were less good and we have all learned from it
and in the current Spending Review—and I saw that from my
last job in the Cabinet Office—the Cabinet Office and Treasury
are making a determined effort to get more concise presentations
of them so they are not so long, with so many targets, and also
more outcome focused, better quality targets. In MAFF that is
what we are in discussion with the Treasury about more or less
as we speak.
|
