Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
17 DECEMBER 2003
LORD HASKINS
AND MARCUS
NISBET
Q20 Paddy Tipping: I get the impression
that somebody is trying to delay this and put a spanner in the
work. Is that right?
Lord Haskins: One has one's suspicions
sometimes.
Q21 Paddy Tipping: Are yours the
same as mine?
Lord Haskins: No, not quite. I
think mine are the other way round. I have been surprised by how
constructive and supportive senior officials in Defra have been
of this, they are ready for this change, they recognise these
changes have to take place, and, of course, the Treasury is very
keen on them.
Q22 Mrs Shephard: Lord Haskins, you
say that 350 organisations, authorities and groups contributed
to the Review. How many of those were elected bodies?
Lord Haskins: Of those, 173 were
local authorities. I do not know how many of those contributed,
but quite a lot of them did, a lot of democratically-elected NGOs,
of course.
Q23 Mrs Shephard: An elected NGO?
What was that?
Lord Haskins: The member-based
NGOs.
Q24 Mrs Shephard: You mean appointees
from councils on NGOs, do you?
Lord Haskins: Yes.
Q25 Mrs Shephard: That is not elected
NGOs?
Lord Haskins: No. The only elected
agencies that I would have consulted with would have been the
local authorities.
Q26 Mrs Shephard: How much weight
did you give to the local authorities' views, because I want now
just to move on to the content of your conclusion?
Lord Haskins: Substantial. I spent
a lot of time looking at the way local authorities are dealing
with the rural agenda, and, as you would expect, I saw a lot of
variation between the good and the bad. I saw three excellent
examples of local authorities tackling the rural agenda, Kent
was a particular example, my own county, East Yorkshire, had a
strong agenda, and we learned a lot. I got a lot of support from
the Local Government Association, who are very interested, as
you know, in improving the overall performance of local authorities.
Yes, it was a key part of the process, and I am very impressed
by the fact that local authorities, more than anybody I spoke
to, knew what the lie of the land was at local level. They are
the ones who understand more than anybody else what the issues
are at local level.
Q27 Mrs Shephard: Is it not surprising,
therefore, that in your conclusions you give quite a lot of weight
to regional organisations, which, of course, at this stage, are
not elected and some may never be, and not that much weight to
the ability of local authorities, which are elected and therefore
accountable, and therefore transparent, to do some of the delivery?
Lord Haskins: If you read that
then it is a mistake, because, in delivery terms, actually I put
the local authorities ahead of the Regional Development Agencies.
I see the Regional Development Agencies as a sort of wholesaler,
working as a link between central government policy and developing
policy at a regional level, with the delivery, essentially, being
around local authorities. I think that is the only way it will
work.
Q28 Mrs Shephard: Do you not think
that, in fact, one could abolish a large number of these organisations,
NGOs and all the rest of it, and actually give it back to people
who were elected to do the job?
Lord Haskins: That is your view.
It would not be for me to recommend eliminating a lot of these
NGOs. They are there and they are very active and they are very
positive, some of them are very well funded.
Q29 Mrs Shephard: They are not elected?
Lord Haskins: No, they have membership
and can claim authenticity. The RSPB has got around five million
members. They have strong credentials. I think all pressure groups
have got to demonstrate their authenticity, and Governments spend
a lot of time talking to these unelected representatives. They
are there and they play a part certainly in the rural debate,
a big part.
Q30 Mrs Shephard: Would you say that
something like the RSPB therefore was accountable to an electorate?
Lord Haskins: No, I would not.
It is accountable to its members.
Q31 Mr Mitchell: Do you think it
might have been better if the business case and the supporting
plan had been published in the report, or published subsequently
by Defra? After all, it is going to be contentious. Would it not
be better if the case were there in view?
Lord Haskins: I do not think there
is any hold-up on this, frankly, and I am sure you could have
a copy of it. It is quite a long report anyway and I put the bones
of the business case in it. The case is backed up by evidence,
which is available. The Report is quite boring reading but if
you added another hundred pages to it, life gets very hard. We
tried to start off, I think, with 120 pages and ended up with
180.
Q32 Mr Mitchell: I want to follow
up your answer to the Chair. Are you telling us that Treasury
have worked on and accepted this plan and case?
Lord Haskins: Yes, they have.
Obviously, much more work needs to be done. We could not go and
count heads in various agencies as to how many people they would
transfer, how many people would lose their job, how many people
were going to retire. All that work is being done now. It is very
sensitive stuff. We had to start somewhere.
Q33 Mr Drew: At the same time as
Defra obviously is having to look at its own internal workings,
supposedly it is getting on with the implications of the Curry
Report[3]How
would you see your report in relation to that? Which do you think
the Department will prioritise, or are they mutually inclusive?
Lord Haskins: The question you
asked me about both Curry and the reform of the CAP, how Defra
can carry out these big projects, and they are big projects, on
top of these proposals. My answer is, frankly, if you do not implement
big chunks of my proposals you will not be able to deliver Curry
and you will not be able to deliver CAP reform. For example, on
both Curry and CAP reform, my report recommends ways of dealing
with the relevant agri-environmental schemes in future through
the new integrated agency. The reason I was asked to do this report
was because people recognised that there was a difficult situation
already existing in the Department, but an even more difficult
situation if the Department did not change its ways and get itself
organised for what is a massive change in policy taking place
over the next four or five years.
Q34 Mr Drew: On the basis of what
you have just said, do you see any indication, and obviously it
is very early days because we are just talking in outline at the
moment, that Defra will change, in order to do the things that
you want to see happen? Inasmuch as, the Curry Report, which is
supposedly already underway, it is very easy for officials to
say "That's our priority, we know what we've got to do. We've
got a devil of a job to keep to the sorts of targets and the rural
development reviews, and all the rest of it, and this is just
something which will be layered on top of that. We'll do that
in due course, and, yes, we'll try to pretend we'll meet the main
points of your report." Do you see that as a possible threat?
Lord Haskins: No, I do not, actually.
I do not know how many people there are at Defra working on this
report, substantial numbers; at one time there were 14 groups
looking at different aspects of it. I think they recognise that,
in order to deliver Curry and in order to deliver CAP reform,
they have got to deal with the problems which are highlighted
in this report.
Q35 Mr Wiggin: I wonder if we can
talk about the separation of policy-making from delivery. Is not
the reality that Defra's situation is that the policy-making part
is done in Brussels and the role of Defra has become one where
the delivery of policy is decided elsewhere? How does that fit
with your analysis?
Lord Haskins: I would not agree
with you. Most of the policies are agreed in Brussels but Defra
has got a critical role in that process. This is a particularly
difficult Department in that respect. Eighty per cent of Defra's
policy on the environment is EU-based, and 80% of the agricultural
stuff is EU-based. That to me is a much more challenging policy
issue than when you are managing national policy on a purely national
basis. There is a need to clear the decks to make sure that Defra
policy-makers are dealing with those complicated issues on a European
level, and are not getting too tied up with the delivery side.
Q36 Mr Wiggin: Sometimes they have
to take DTI people with them, on environmental issues particularly.
Does that bother you?
Lord Haskins: No, it does not.
Obviously, this is one of the fundamental difficulties of Whitehall,
the silo approach that is there. Departments do not talk to each
other, the environmental agenda, as you say, crosses other departments,
and it is difficult, but it is nothing new in government. It has
to be tackled.
Q37 Mr Wiggin: The Secretary of State,
when she was reacting to your initial response, said: "it
is clear that policy advice can be particularly valuable when
it comes from those involved in delivery. I attach huge importance
to independent advice from my Department's agencies and partners.
I do not intend to lose that advice." To what extent does
the Secretary of State's initial response indicate that you have
lost the argument about separating policy-making from delivery
functions?
Lord Haskins: Any organisation
knows that you have the two aspects. You have got the policy-making,
which is actually the easy side of it, the delivery of policy
is the hard side. Any intelligent policy-maker has got to listen
very, very closely to the people who are delivering on their behalf,
and the independent advice which Mrs Beckett is talking about
will still come from English Nature, will still come from local
authorities, will still come from those people engaged in delivery.
My criticism is that, at the moment, when it is all in a big heap,
the policy people prevail over the delivery people, so the delivery
people do not get a proper hearing. Now if you separate them,
policy-makers will have no alternative except to consult properly.
Q38 Mr Wiggin: Do you think a more
modern approach to policy-making would be more iterative and complex
and policy would evolve continuously, perhaps thanks to the input
of the deliverers rather than the policy-makers in their ivory
towers? Is it going to be a policy which evolves, thanks to the
feedback from the delivery people, rather than directives from
people on policy-making?
Lord Haskins: Parliament is elected
to make policy. At the end of the day, ministers make policy.
Ministers then consult, through their officials, with the people
on whom this policy has a bearing, first of all, but also they
consult with the people who have got the responsibility for delivering
that policy, and that is the gap which I think is missing in Whitehall,
not just in Defra but right across Whitehall. Too often policy-makers
prevail over the delivery side and do not take account of the
very real delivery issues, and this is a central point in the
report.
Q39 Mr Breed: Just turning now to
the remarks on the overcentralisation and the streamlining, and
everything like that. In your report, I think you have echoed
some of the thoughts that the Committee actually had indicated
in its review of Defra policy and operations. In your report,
you are suggesting that the Countryside Agency ought to be dissolved
and its functions moved out, and the Secretary of State has declined
to agree with that?
Lord Haskins: She has agreed,
for the most part.
3 Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food,
Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future, January 2002. Back
| 
