Examination of Witness (Questions 20 -
39)
THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2002
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR BRIAN
BENDER AND
MR FRANCIS
MARLOW
David Taylor
20. In a particularly vivid and powerful section
of the report Dr Anderson says: "In early to mid March a
sense of panic appeared. Communications became erratic and orderly
processes started to break down. Decision making became haphazard
and messy." He seems to be almost talking about headless
livestock or headless chickens at this point, does he not? What
management training has been made available, Secretary of State,
to ensure that in any future livestock disease outbreak that these
sorts of responses and this sense of panic are less likely to
happen?
(Margaret Beckett) I hope the Committee is aware,
because Dr Anderson certainly made this plain to me and I think
he may have made it plain to you, that he is not talking about
the centre, he is not talking about senior management. What he
is talking about is what he found by talking to people very much
on the ground who found themselves in effect in some cases feeling
almost overwhelmed by the sheer scale of what they found themselves
dealing with, especially when in many places it was really quite
unfamiliar, and so in a sense I think the answer to your question
comes back to this whole issue of what the detailed contingency
plans are, of how they will be worked through, how they will be
trialled and so on. For example, I think it would be right to
say that among the weaknesses that Dr Anderson identified was
whether or not we had sufficiently good structures in place for,
say, financial controls, contract management, things of that kind.
In the detailed plans that are being worked through now there
are not only a whole range of issues identified along those lines
that have to be addressed; there is also a work stream to prepare,
for example, model contracts and so on. There are proposals for
how to train people who would be in that role. There is a scheme
for identifying the dedicated people who have agreed that these
are roles that they would undertake in a future emergency of this
kind. There is actually a raft of measures in terms of identifying
core people, the tasks that they would need and giving them a
range of administrative support and materials and so on which
simply was not there before in the same way, and then of course
all of this is part of the trialling and the testing and running
out of systems and so on.
21. We are fellow east Midlands region MPs and
there were foot and mouth outbreaks both in and close to north
west Leicestershire and I had direct contact with some of the
local offices. I have to say that this time where Dr Anderson
is commenting on performance it seemed to me to be typical of
our area as well as the general area that he is describing. Did
you have any direct contact at that stage with the regional offices
in the east Midlands, Secretary of State?
(Margaret Beckett) To the best of my recollection,
no. I was engaged in a different range of responsibilities. I
do not think I had any farms in my constituency at that time although
I now have two. No, it was not part of my responsibilities at
that time to be in touch with the regional offices in terms of
dealing with these issues.
22. A feature of the mounting crisis was changing
scientific advice at various stages. What mechanisms does DEFRA
now have in place to make sure that it is aware of the most up
to date scientific advice and that it can respond appropriately
to it?
(Margaret Beckett) I am not conscious of scientific
advice changing particularly.
(Mr Bender) What I imagine Mr Taylor is referring
to is the fact that the Chief Scientific Adviser in the centre,
Professor King, set up a science advisory group with modellers
and others who developed the contiguous cull. The direct answer
to your question is linked to what the Secretary of State said
a few minutes ago, which is that our Chief Scientific Adviser,
Professor Dalton, has set up a science advisory group which will
be a standing body to give the Department advice on its science
programme with the challenge that in the event of any crisis a
scientific advisory team would be drawn immediately from that
group with extra skills added, so we are positioning ourselves
in that way and Professor Dalton would link up as necessary with
the civil contingency arrangements at the centre of government.
23. Using imagery which is particularly appropriate
to DEFRA, Dr Anderson was concerned about the tendency across
government to work in silos and detected a weakness there when
from time to time central intervention with all its dysfunctional
elements will be called upon. Do you accept that that silo culture
did exist within DEFRA? Does it still exist? Is it being tackled
and, if so, how?
(Margaret Beckett) I suspect that the silo culture
probably exists to some extent in every department.
24. He did refer to it across government as
well, to be fair, but he noted it particularly in DEFRA.
(Mr Bender) My answer is that it certainly exists
in every department I have worked in. We are trying to tackle
it, integrating across the Department and, as with other aspects
of our change programme, I would not claim we have got it licked
yet. We are making progress on it. It involves people understanding
the links and working across them and recognising that part of
their performance relates to how they make those links rather
than looking upwards.
25. What specific actions have you taken to
tackle it?
(Mr Bender) Part of it is organisational, to make
sure that whatever hierarchy one sets up, and any large organisation
should have some structure, it is brigaded in the most sensible
way and I am looking at that once again now in the light of 17
or 18 months' experience to see if we have got the bricks in the
right places to make the right links. The second systematic approach
is to do many more things through programme management so, for
example, one of the issues referred to in the Government's response
to the inquiry is an animal health and welfare strategy. That
is being developed and will be run on programme management lines
so that, never mind the structure of the organisation, the way
in which the programme is managed will bring in the right people
and there will be accountable people within the programme. That
is the second technique and—
26. Excuse me interrupting but on that very
specific point Dr Anderson described the task of developing the
national animal health strategy as a fundamentally important one
that cannot be shirked, and he believed that it started naturally
with the Permanent Secretary and that—and this is back in
July—"the mountain still has to be climbed". Are
you in the river valleys, are you in the foothills, or are you
there with crampons and other equipment? How far are you towards
the completion of that task?
(Mr Bender) I suppose, using your series of analogies,
I would like to think we have got the crampons on but there is
still a fair way to go, and I would be wrong if I pretended that
we had got to the peak yet, but I do believe we have made a significant
start and I do believe we have a better realisation of how far
we have to go to deal with this and, as you said in asking the
question, I do not think this is unique to my Department but,
obviously, the particular challenges we are discussing today are.
Chairman
27. On the subject of science could I enter
a plea that we do have a very systematic and regular report to
Parliament on what the state of the science of vaccination is?
An enormous amount of the debate during the course of the epidemic
and since has rested on certain assumptions about the availability
of polyvalent vaccines, about the ability of tests to distinguish
between a vaccinated animal and an animal with the disease, about
the availability of field-side tests and the rapid diagnostics.
An enormous amount of policy depends on the science and if we
do not have a clear idea of where the science is taking us to,
the debate on policy takes place in the dark. I think that if
we could have, not every few weeks but at regular intervals, an
update on the science then I think that would help the evolution
of policy to proceed in a very balanced sort of way.
(Margaret Beckett) I think that is absolutely right
and I very much welcome that suggestion because one of the serious
difficulties that the Department has faced in the past and could
face again in the future is the natural optimism of the human
spirit that, "Oh, there is a report here that says that probably
we have cracked this on vaccination" and then you discover
that it has not even been peer reviewed yet and nobody has had
an opportunity to test it and so on, so I think that is a very
good suggestion, if I may say so. I certainly would very much
welcome that and I will if I may talk to Howard Dalton about how
often he thinks it is sensible to do that, how often he thinks
there will be something worth saying and how it can be done, but
I am sure he would be delighted by the idea. He is an enthusiast
for the notion of evidence based policy making and science based
policy making. I think there is nothing he would welcome more
than an opportunity to make sure that the House and through the
House the country are made aware of where things are.
Mr Drew
28. Is it possible that we can almost have a
state of play in terms of what is happening in animal disease?
Part of the problem with this—and this is obviously a criticism—is
that we are always fighting a last battle. It is the same argument
with intelligence. How much do you actually speculate as against
base it on reality? The fact is that animal disease is one of
those problems that is not going to go away and the suspicion
is that it is going to be a growing problem, hopefully not foot
and mouth but there are various different diseases out there.
I think it would be useful on the back of what the Chairman suggests
as well as looking at, if you like, an up to date investigation
of science. We actually know the context against which that science
is being asked to perform because I think that that would help
people to realise that disease is not going to go away but, more
particularly, what it is that people should be looking for, both
in terms of the Who's Who of who is actively involved in
trying to prevent it from happening but also that the general
public are made aware of what threats there are.
(Margaret Beckett) I think that is right. What I will
certainly undertake to do is to talk both to Howard Dalton and
to Jim Scudamore about what information we can provide to the
Committee. Just looking at what we do research on, we already
do research on classical swine fever, African swine fever, blue
tongue, contagious bovine pleural pneumonia, highly pathogenic
avian influenza, Newcastle disease and rabies, and I suspect that
is not all.
Chairman
29. A lot more stanzas for your little ditty,
Secretary of State, if I may say so.
(Margaret Beckett) Yes, indeed. There is a huge range
of potential risks and threats. Of course the other thing that
we are very mindful of that has come up from time to time when
we have been talking about some of these issues and contingency
planning and so on is that, for all the obvious and natural reasons
in the recent history of the Department, we tend to be focusing
on animal diseases and disease risks, but of course there are
plant diseases and disease risks as well, and that is also something
we cannot overlook. I will certainly undertake to provide the
Committee with what information we can.
Mr Jack
30. During the early stages of the outbreak
the ability for DEFRA to look as if it was in charge was undermined
by the intervention of the Prime Minister who seemed to be the
only one to get the necessary degree of cross-government co-operation
under way. That is confirmed on page 68 of Dr Anderson's report.
Do you, Secretary of State, now feel in terms of the lessons you
are learning that if there were to be a future major outbreak
of an animal disease or some other contingency DEFRA would be
able to be seen to be in charge and be able to achieve the necessary
degree of cross-government co-ordination with other departments
where necessary rather than have the position of the Department
undermined by yet another Number 10 intervention?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not accept that the position
of the Department is undermined. I think in fact the position
of the Department was reinforced and strengthened by the assistance
and support that the Prime Minister gave from the very earliest
days and I think the Committee and others would have been rightly
critical of him if he had been indifferent to the difficulties
that were being faced rather than being supportive and helpful.
Having said that, I do think that the whole of the Government
is now much more aware of the potential and implications of this
kind of crisis, has much more recent experience of working together,
and of course one of the consequences of all of this, which was
the setting up of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and the
general contingency planning and cross-government work that is
going on irrespective of issues that relate just to DEFRA, is
something that should very much strengthen the Government's response
in any crisis of that scale, whether it is a DEFRA crisis or somebody
else's. I think in that sense, yes, we are, and hopefully will
remain because we have put different systems in place, much better
able to respond and deal with those issues more speedily than
we did in the past because people recognise their shared responsibility
and the shared role they can play in helping to resolve difficulties.
Mr Lepper
31. I am interested in what you have just said,
Secretary of State, about people realising their shared role and
responsibilities. I find it always somewhat difficult to gauge
how much weight one can put on the staff magazine of any organisation,
but I believe that Landscape, DEFRA's staff magazine, invited
its readers, the staff of the Department, in July this year to
express their views on DEFRA one year on. One of the early responses
that the magazine published in September said, "Plus "a
change, plus c'est la même chose". Beckett comes to
mind but a different Beckett, I think, in this case. "Poor
pay,", the letter went on, "low morale, Permanent Secretary
being hauled over the coals by the Select Committee, bad press
... don't you just get that warm, inner glow to know you work
for Defra". I think Landscape was going to publish
the final verdict this month—I am not aware that that has
been published yet but in the light of what you have said about
the importance of all members of the Department, not just in the
situation of emergencies such as that we are really here to discuss
this afternoon but throughout the year and particularly in a merged
department—on being aware of their role within the organisation.
Do you feel that the views—and they may be selective—that
Landscape have published do reflect a certain strain of
thought within DEFRA among its staff?
(Margaret Beckett) It is bound to. It is interesting
that the first reference is to poor pay because, while I accept
that the position that we inherited was that the pay within the
former MAFF was at one end almost of a Whitehall spectrum and
the pay of former members of DETR was at the other end, and while
I would not in any way claim that everything has been resolved,
a huge amount has been done to resolve that difficulty, so I suspect
that there may have been a particular reason behind that categorisation.
I would say two things. First of all, yes, I hope it comes out
from what Brian and I have been saying that we have no illusions
whatever about the scale of the task that lay before us when we
began to try and set up DEFRA and that still remains before us.
The only other thing I would say, and obviously I do not know
who the person is who made those observations, is that I hope
that whoever they are they recognise that there is shared responsibility
for turning this round. It is not only senior management. All
of them are totally on board for making DEFRA a department that
you are proud to belong to and proud to be known to be associated
with, but it is the whole Department at every level that has a
responsibility for us becoming that kind of organisation.
(Mr Bender) We did something a little more scientific
than random letters to Landscape.
32. I did preface my question by saying that
I am never sure how much weight you can give to these things.
(Mr Bender) It is a view and I am sure, as the Secretary
of State said, it is a view that is shared by others in the Department.
We also conducted over the summer the first department-wide staff
survey and it had a very high response rate which need not in
itself mean much but it was 74 per cent. As it happens about three-quarters
of the staff said they were satisfied with their current job,
a fifth said they were dissatisfied. The level saying they were
very satisfied was 13 per cent, which was higher than the level
in the former MAFF, which had been eight per cent, but lower than
the level in the former DETR. There are a whole lot of other bits
of data in the staff survey that we need to work through and follow
up. It does provide another benchmark for measuring progress on
these issues as we are trying to move forward.
33. I am grateful for that information. I think
it is important, as you say, that we balance one view with another.
Can I just ask about one particular aspect of the staffing? Secretary
of State, we have talked about pay and the differentials between
the former MAFF and the former DETR staff who came over. I think
it is true that in the Government response to this Committee's
report on DEFRA's annual report the Government pointed out that
there is something like a 20 per cent turnover still in junior
grades in the Department. If that is still the case I wonder if
you could tell us what is being done to address that because quite
clearly it does not help that sense of cohesion that you have
suggested is so important, Secretary of State, if there is that
turnover in the lower grades.
(Mr Bender) The data I have got with me today relates
to grades from the most junior up to and including grade seven,
so it may not be comparable with the data that you are reading
from, but for the year ending at the end of October this year
that turnover was a little over 7 per cent, 7.3 per cent, and
that compares with an average turnover for the public sector as
a whole of twice that. These things are patchy, they vary geographically,
they will vary by grade, but I do not regard that as an alarming
figure, nor am I complacent about it, and of course, some degree
of turnover is something one would want to have.
34. Was it seen as a particular problem in staffing,
the turnover in junior grades? You are suggesting that that is
being addressed.
(Mr Bender) The figure has been coming down. There
is no doubt that, in some of the pressures that people were facing
through foot and mouth and immediately afterwards, and around
the time the Department was forming, it was an issue that concerned
us.
Mrs Shephard
35. A lot has been made, and I think many of
us have sympathy with that, of the problems of a merged department.
We have had evidence from a number of NGOs which have expressed
their disappointment about DEFRA's grasp of environmental matters.
Lord Whitty in his evidence to us said that DEFRA is not a ministry
for farmers, but in speaking of rural affairs he said that the
rural affairs dimension lacks direct budget and direct levers.
We obviously understand that because we have taken evidence from
the Countryside Agency as well. Was this why, Secretary of State,
you asked Lord Haskins to review DEFRA's countryside delivery
arrangements and structures? Have we seen the terms of reference
of this review or is it very informal, and shall we see the results?
(Margaret Beckett) I sincerely hope and anticipate
that you will see the results, yes. I honestly do not know the
answer to the question about the terms of reference but maybe
somebody will tell me in a moment. To a degree perhaps. What primarily
lay behind our decision was that we wanted somebody from outside
the Department to look at how we handled things in this area and
Chris Haskins seemed to be a suitably challenging person, was
as much as anything because we did not really have a base line
in any respect almost from which to start and we do have a range
of different agencies with a range of different tasks and so I
think it was in part that and also, as you quite rightly say,
the fact that much of what we must seek to deliver for rural communities
is not directly within our remit in terms of its budget responsibility
or the lever, so I think it was part of the picture. I do not
think it was the main issue that led to it.
(Mr Bender) I think the main driver was that by creating
a department that brought together the functions of the former
DETR and the former MAFF, we brought together a number of different
bodies that were responsible out there in rural areas for delivering
the Department's policies and services to rural businesses and
farmers. It became evident to us fairly early on that the picture
was pretty confusing to some of the people who were receiving
those services as to who was responsible for what, so in the earlier
months of this year when we were discussing this we thought it
was right to have a systematic look at this, at how our policies
and services were being delivered to farmers and other rural businesses,
a sort of business process examination: is this smart, is it efficient,
does it make sense to the people who are receiving them? As to
the question on terms of reference, I saw Lord Haskins yesterday
to give him a precise draft, so we have not quite finalised the
terms of reference. I hope we will do so very soon and, subject
to the Secretary of State's view, I see no difficulty in the Committee
seeing those when they are finalised.
36. The delivery of services in areas which
are controlled by DEFRA is one thing but clearly policies which
affect people who live in rural areas which are delivered or overseen
by other departments is another thing. One of the tools that was
meant to deliver an oversight of the second category of services
was to be rural proofing of which I believe the judge was to be
the Countryside Agency. Can we hear a little bit about the progress
of the Countryside Agency in that respect? Can we hear if there
is any confusion about the respective roles of DEFRA and the Countryside
Agency and can I also ask how accountable is the Countryside Agency
and how directly accountable? We have them here but I am afraid
we do not get them in Parliament.
(Mr Bender) The role of the Countryside Agency on
rural proofing is to monitor and report on it. Ewen Cameron, who
is Chair of the Countryside Agency, attends the Cabinet Committee
that the Secretary of State chairs on these issues, so they are,
as you say, the judge on it. The role of the Department is to
advise other government departments on how to do it better, how
to look for rural solutions in their policies and then work with
the Countryside Agency on taking action where there may be a failure.
The Countryside Agency gets its funding from DEFRA but as a non-departmental
public body it has its own board chaired by Ewen Cameron, so in
that respect it is like other NDPBs.
37. But is that really satisfactory? The raison
d'être of the RA in the DEFRA type of rural affairs
is that there should be a co-ordinated look across the board.
I of course understand that this is very difficult but, for example,
how frequently does this Cabinet Committee meet? Does it equip
DEFRA with any levers? How difficult is it to talk to the DTI
and say, "Look, rural post offices", or the DES, "Look,
rural schools"? I imagine it is difficult and I just wonder
whether the split in responsibility between the Countryside Agency,
which cannot be questioned in Parliament, and the ministerial
responsibility makes things more difficult.
(Margaret Beckett) That is exactly the kind of thing
that Chris Haskins may have things to contribute about. You asked
how often the committee meets, I think from memory it is about
once every six weeks, something like that, I would not want to
be hard and fast about it. A programme of discussion with different
colleagues has been drawn up. Actually, on the whole I think we
do not find it difficult to talk to colleagues in other departments,
whether it is the DTI or elsewhere. If I can be completely honest,
I think it is something that just might be a little more difficult
later on.
38. I think that might be right.
(Margaret Beckett) It is in the early stages and people
say "Oh, yes, rural proofing", but as time goes on my
slight anxiety is that we are seen as somebody who is always nagging
about that and that is when it gets more difficult. I think there
is a lot of understanding and goodwill of the fact that we have
this general commitment to rural areas, and I think people understand
the importance of it. There is an acceptance that it is the Countryside
Agency's job to do rural proofing and in that sense there is not
all that much confusion between our roles. I think Brian has dealt
with the issue of accountability to some extent but these are
issues that we are looking at.
Chairman
39. Could I just press you on this Haskins thing
because it does seem to me, Secretary of State, that this is an
illustration of how things can become terribly confused. About
four weeks ago we heard that Haskins had apparently been brought
in to do some wholly unspecified job in the department. I then
asked three ministers in your department I happened to bump into
if they could tell me what it was all about and they said they
had not got the faintest idea. I then met with the Permanent Secretary
at the pig breakfast, we were sitting at the same table, and I
said "What is it all about?" and he gave me a reasonably
satisfactory answer of what it was all about. He told me that
the business process examination had been thought of some time
ago but the terms of reference still have not been agreed. Let
me put it this way, it sounds like you come to me and say "Gosh,
we need to get a bit of sorting out in this department" and
I say "Well, you know, my uncle Chris is recently retired,
he is at a bit of a loose end and I am sure he would be happy
to give you a couple of mornings a week, it would keep him busy".
It does have that feel about it. Why were we not told what was
envisaged, this was the terms of the reference and this was the
timescale, then we would all have been very confident? It has
been terribly muddled, I have to say.
(Margaret Beckett) No, I do not think so. Basically
what happened was some indication of our intentions leaked out
at what was really quite an early stage. As far as Brian and I
are concerned, we had this discussion and it has been a source
of continuing concern to us, as I know it has to the Committee,
as to what ought to be the shape and structure of how we do these
things in the future. We discussed it and we agreed that there
was considerable merit in having someone from outside and then
you want somebody who will be challenging and not somebody who
will be fobbed off with "It is okay to do it this way"
and then you start casting around in your mind for those who might
fit the bill and those who might be available, etc. I think it
is just one of those things. If nothing had emerged in the public
domain until we were completely ready to make a nice clean announcement
then no doubt you and I would not be having this conversation.
|
