Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2001
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
MP, AND MR
BRIAN BENDER,
CB
20. Would it be fair to describe morale as low
in the Department currently?
(Mr Bender) No, I would not think it was fair. I think
there is a mixture of morale. I genuinely believe in a large part
of the Department there is excitement about the challenge of DEFRA.
That is point one. Point two is there are a lot of tired people
in the Department. There are hundreds and thousands working very
long hours on foot and mouth disease. Thirdly, on this pay issue—I
have used the word internally that it is a "sore" and
I would like to remove that sore. It is a formal industrial dispute
but it is also a sore and until we get it out of the way it will
be difficult to move forward. But I would not describe morale
as low in the terms you put it.
21. The perception of the formation of the Department
was that the small number of environmental specialists have been
swallowed by the larger bureacracy of MAFF, which was not regarded
terribly highly. How are you going to make sure that the environmental
agenda is not stifled by the large blanket of the MAFF culture?
(Mr Bender) The Secretary of State may have her own
comments, particularly on the environmental agenda, but from a
management point of view there is no doubt that sustainable development
is the headline aim of the Department and environmental protection—national,
urban, as well as rural—is the first of the three main planks
(not in priority order) of the Department's activity, so in terms
of what we are here for I am in no doubt. In terms of what you
describe as a bureacracy, this is not a classic merger in the
sense that the creation of DETR was where there were two head
offices put together, two finance departments, two personnel departments
and so on. We had 600 or so people in business divisions moved
into an organisation where the corporate services on 7 June were
run by MAFF people and I am doing two things to try and deal with
that. The first is to ensure that we do not have by default, that
the systems we run are MAFF systems, that on issues like business
planning, staff appraisal, and so on, we look at what the former
MAFF and former DETR were doing and try and implement the best
of those. The second is that in management terms all the corporate
services in my department are now run by people who were not in
MAFF on 7 June. My Personnel Director has come from Customs, my
Finance Director (recently appointed) has come from the former
DETR, and the management board level person came from the Crown
Prosecution Service, Mark Addison. I have tried to avoid this
looking like, feeling like or being like a takeover by MAFF in
management terms.
22. Do you not risk possibly the reverse view
which is that there was little good in MAFF and that all senior
posts have been filled by people outside of that department? I
am not pronouncing that view myself but it is one that might be
held within the department.
(Mr Bender) There is always a risk on these issues
because there are internally two sets of constituencies I have
to deal with. There are four members of the management board who
come from the former MAFF. One has been promoted since the Election,
Andy Lebrecht, who is the Director-General of Food, Farming and
Fisheries, the Legal Adviser comes from the former MAFF, the Chief
Veterinary Officer comes from the former MAFF and the Board Secretary
comes from the former MAFF. As the Committee knows, I joined the
former MAFF in June 2000. These are difficult balancing issues
and I am trying to strike a balance between ensuring it is a merger
not a takeover and not appearing to dump the good that MAFF did
in the past.
Patrick Hall
23. You said with regard to information systems
that the most cost-effective way forward was to ensure that the
majority system, if you like, the former MAFF system, took over
the other ones, the minority ones. Is that your attitude towards
pay?
(Mr Bender) Can I just respond to your first point.
I was only talking there about office systems. We are also engaged
in discussions about how to invest in new IT, for example, electronic
document and record management and new systems, for example, a
single business identifier, that sort of issue. On pay the answer
is no.
Mr Lepper
24. Can I turn to the underlying question about
the departmental restructuring. I think it is something we touched
on last time you came before the Committee and we have had an
opportunity since then to explore it a bit more with Michael Meacher
when he came to talk to us (but we were mainly concerned with
other issues then). I think I am right that this is the first
time that environmental protection has been linked in one department
with agriculture and fisheries. Could you just explain the rationale
that was behind that change?
(Margaret Beckett) To a certain extent I am seeking
to explain the rationale behind a decision that obviously I did
not take, but I believe the thinking was that if you are to have
sustainable development as a philosophy spreading throughout government,
it was essential to have a department that had that as its central
goal, and already people had been looking at the fact that MAFF
and a lot of rural affairs issues had a great deal of territory
in common and the thinking was that that made sense and then when
you looked at the wider issue, it was a radical decision but I
come more and more over time to the view that it was the right
decision, to group together the different entities that we have.
In fact, I understand that before DEFRA was created there had
already begun to be some cross-working, even slightly formal cross-working
between some of the areas in MAFF and some of the areas in what
was DETR. Of course, it is certainly the case that there are issues
like for example diffuse pollution which were very much a core
concern for both elements of what is now our department. I think
it was generally an approach of giving sustainable development
an importance as a concept that it had not previously had across
government and also seeing that these particular issues made quite
a lot of sense when put together.
25. Could I put two points to you that arise
from that. Soon after being appointed to this select committee
I was talking to a representative of one of the NGOs that is concerned
with the environment who said, "That is the select committee
that deals with the countryside, isn't it and the DTLR is the
one that deals with towns." Although perhaps crudely expressed,
in a way there is a perception that that is now the case. What
would you say to someone?
(Margaret Beckett) Yes, I accept that there will be
an immediate reaction that DEFRA is the countryside department.
That is of course not at all the case. Yes, clearly rural revival,
concerns of the countryside, concerns of the farming community
are very much part of the concern of my Department, but it is
certainly our strong view that we are the department for environmental
protection right across the board and in fact, as you may know,
next week I propose to hold a waste submit at which I suspect
a lot of focus will be on the urban rather than the rural environment,
without prejudging what those who contribute to that meeting will
say.
26. There was nevertheless a concern expressed
in their open letter to the Prime Minister by the Green Alliance
soon after the Department was set up in which they talked about
environment officials and Ministers having been marginalised and
distanced from big decisions. Presumably from what you have said,
you would not agree with that criticism?
(Margaret Beckett) No, not at all. Indeed, I am not
entirely sure—and I do not in any way speak for the Green
Alliance—that they would express those concerns in quite
the same way now.
27. You think in the intervening period since
the General Election—
(Margaret Beckett) It was the Green Alliance who sponsored
a conference at which I spoke a little while ago trying to set
out the framework and agenda for the department and I think it
was of some reassurance to them. I think what lay behind their
reference to the environment being marginalised was their anxiety—we
did touch on this the last time I was before the Committee—that
we are not in the department which takes the transport decisions
and planning decisions. I think I probably did convey to the Committee
on a previous occasion that a break does have to come somewhere
and even a department that is responsible for sustainable environment
does not wish to subsume every aspect of government policy, but
I think it is important that we have good links and relationships
and, as I say, those were the fears that lay behind some of those
early reactions, and I think there probably was a fear (going
back to an issue that Mark Todd raised) that in some way the environmental
issues would be swallowed up in MAFF. In fact I think it is already
evident that not only is that not happening but that there is
a mutual invigoration (or there will be when more of the MAFF
staff recover from the sheer exhaustion they are experiencing)
of what has been an agenda for Government and is now a focus for
our Department.
28. Michael Meacher talked to us about a detailed
concordat with the transport division in DTLR based on early exchange
of information and hopefully at an early stage of decision making.
There is that concordat in place. Could you give us practical
examples of other links between your Department and others which
might give evidence to those fears that were expressed?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not have any particular specific
concordats in quite the same way with other departments, but of
course we do have the upgraded Committee of Green Ministers which
Michael Meacher chairs. That is very much and we hope will have
an increasingly strong role as a place in which we can co-ordinate
a lot of the action taking place within government.
(Mr Bender) Could I add a supplement. There are three
areas that came to my mind as ones where we are working with other
departments. One is planning where we need to ensure that the
links that existed within DETR are maintained and strengthened
despite the separation of staff into another department. The second
is energy. We need to work with the DTI—and indeed the Performance
and Innovation Unit has been doing a report recently which should
be published fairly soon on resource productivity of which energy
is one element—and we play a co-ordinating role especially
with DTI. The third is the Johannesburg Summit next September
on sustainable development where the Secretary of State will be
working with the Department for International Development, Treasury,
DTI and others. Those are just three areas that have occurred
to me since you asked the question.
29. Thank you, they are very useful examples
I think. You mentioned the Green Ministers' Committee; how frequently
does it meet?
(Margaret Beckett) I am not entirely sure, every two
or three months I think. I do not sit on it. Michael chairs it
and Alun Michael is our Department's representative on it. I have
enough to do sorting out my own diary without scrutinising too
closely the diaries of my Ministers!
30. I would be grateful if somebody could let
me know how often in the last year they have met.
(Margaret Beckett) I will be happy to do that although
I should point out that there was a General Election in the middle
of the last year and that would have disrupted their pattern.
31. Perhaps go back over two years and also
what plans they have to meet within the next year. I assume they
meet on an ad hoc basis from time to time but if there
are regular—
(Margaret Beckett) I will also tell you what they
will be doing in future because, as I say, it has got a slightly
different status and focus now looking forward.
32. Is it likely that in the past representation
at that committee has been by officials rather than Ministers
from some departments?
(Margaret Beckett) I think it has usually been Ministers
but certainly it is the intention that it will be Ministers in
future.
33. If any information is available I would
be interested in seeing it?
(Margaret Beckett) Yes.
Mr Lepper: Thank you.
Paddy Tipping
34. There is a way in which the Rural White
Paper and the Urban White Paper are complementary—
(Margaret Beckett) Indeed they are.
35. I think of things like housing projects,
the Post Office, transport issues which affect both the rural
and the urban community fundamentally. How can you ensure that
those two very important communities are taken forward together
because the one works off the other?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not know whether Brian will
want to say a little about this in a moment, but we are in the
process of creating the rural aspect of the Department. Indeed
the new Director of Rural Affairs attended her first team meeting
yesterday and so that work is beginning to take place. Also, of
course, we shall working closely with the rural advocate and Alun
Michael, I am sure, would be more than delighted to talk to the
Committee about the plans that he has and that we have for making
sure that we rural-proof policy across government. Clearly, it
cannot be responsible for every area of policy but certainly we
are responsible for trying to make sure that rural issues are
properly taken into account and that the work of the White Paper
is taken forward. Also, of course, how we can continue to invest
in raising the standards of those different rural services is
very much part of the discussions of the further spending review
and issues of that kind. So it is a key element in the forward
planning of the Department and one where we are getting to the
stage of having some of the organisational nuts and bolts in place.
36. On the Rural White Paper a lot has happened
since it was published over a year ago now, and people tend to
have forgotten it with everything that has occurred since then.
How are you going to implement it? Are you going to get it out,
dust it off and set some timetables for action?
(Margaret Beckett) Absolutely. There is the intention
also to set up some stakeholder groups which again will provide
a forum for focus on the different issues. I do not know if there
is anything more you want to say organisationally, Brian.
(Mr Bender) There was an implementation plan which,
as you will be aware, was published in March of this year and
it is in fact regularly updated. Again I hate to sit in Committee
and promise lots of notes rather than answer questions but if
the Committee would find if useful to have a note on where we
are on implementation of the Rural White Paper, we can certainly
provide that. On organisational questions, it was clear to me
as soon as my feet hit the ground after the 8 June that, given
the title and focus of the Department, we needed to beef up the
organisation, the part of it that dealt with rural affairs, and
not simply put together the bits from the former MAFF and the
bits from the former DETR. Therefore we have a full Directorate
General headed by Anna Walker who came across from DTI and there
are three directorates in it dealing with different aspects of
land use and rural affairs including one whose title is Rural
Economies and Communities. In terms of the staff resourcing, that
work is now largely done and will be rolled forward. If the Committee
would like a note we will provide it.
(Margaret Beckett) I think that might be helpful,
Mr Curry, because we have about £1 billion of additional
public money to spend on implementing the Rural White Paper and
I have a good page and a half of measures on implementation and
I think it would be more helpful to send it to the Committee than
try and read it out.
Chairman: We would need to look at that alongside
the rural development programme to make any sense of it and then
the Committee may well want to do some investigation into that
progress and that aspect of things, but that would be for them
to decide. Mr Jack?
Mr Jack
37. Secretary of State, your Department is never
short of producing reports. I have brought a selection with me,
England's Rural Development Programme 2002-2006—
(Margaret Beckett) Is this praise or criticism, Mr
Jack?
38. It depends how you interpret objective criticism.
Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000. You might
like to tell me when the 2001 one will be produced. Then we have
had Our Countryside: The Future which colleagues
have mentioned and then we had your Annual Report 2001. We are
certainly not lacking in depth and content. All of them are committed
in some way, shape or form to programmes of change. All of them
talk about endless new strategies. Agriculture in the United
Kingdom 2000 draws our attention to the fact "this year
saw significant progress in realising the UK Government's long-term
strategy for agriculture" and it talks about an action plan
for farming. You have had a heck of a lot of goes at defining
the way forward for agriculture in the UK. In spite of the many
attempts to do that you almost seem to have thrown in the towel
by setting up this further inquiry into it. Who is going to pull
all of this work together and when do you think we are going to
crystallise out something which will be recognisable as a strategy
for farming in the United Kingdom?
(Margaret Beckett) First, Mr Jack, can I draw your
attention to one you have missed!
39. I have not got round to reading that one
yet.
(Margaret Beckett) It has only just come out but it
is one which we are particularly proud of as DEFRA. This is the
UK's Third National Communication. The Committee will know that
nations are required to make a national communication under the
United Nations' Framework Convention on climate change of progress
that is being made. We believe that this document which has just
been published we believe—and we say this with some caution
because it is awful to make boasts that turn out to be unjustified—we
have been using in Marrakech the cautious phraseology that we
believe we may be the first country in the world to produce our
Third National Communication and nobody has indicated we are not
so we think that is probably a well-founded assumption, and so
I proffer that to you for further bedtime reading. As for the
issue of the action plan for farming and so on, I would wholeheartedly
disagree that the setting up of a further inquiry means we have
thrown in the towel. In fact, I think it is really the opposite
of that. It seems to me to be a means of actually concentrating
minds. I accept the underlying point that you are making that,
yes, lots of people have been talking for a long time in different
contexts about what the future of farming might be and so on.
The tragic events of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease have
concentrated a lot of people's minds and created an atmosphere
in which many people are having to make decisions in the relatively
near future about what their own future in farming and therefore
the context of the decision they have to make. I think that has
very much accelerated people's consideration as to what are the
practical steps that might be made now as opposed to discussing
what might happen in five or ten or 15 or 20 years' time which
seems to me as being rather more of the context of the discussion
people had had. I think Ministers have been trying and indeed
officials have been trying to concentrate minds and move the agenda
forward without necessarily having an audience that really wanted
to deal with those issues at that time. I think a number of things
are now coming together. The Agenda 21 reforms are proceeding,
enlargement is bound to focus minds more within the European Union
on the issues of CAP and while, as I understand it, we do not
yet have agreement in Doha and nothing will be agreed until everything
is agreed, but it does appear that there is some acceptance in
Doha of the need to reduce subsidies for agriculture domestically
and internationally, and if there is a final agreement that the
agriculture section of it will have very much that message. I
think far from this being abandoned to the inquiry, I think the
job of the inquiry is to focus minds and come forward with some
concrete ideas and proposals for the context for the future. As
to when it is pulled together and we crystallise strategy, it
is very much my hope that we will be able to do so certainly when
the inquiry has reported and perhaps a little in advance of that,
depending on what happens, so in the New Year I hope that we will
be able to say something more concrete.
|
