2 Core tasks
6. Following a resolution of the House of May 2002,[2]
the Liaison Committee has determined that select committees should
be expected to perform a number of 'core tasks'. These are to
carry out inquiries into (a) Government policy proposals, (b)
areas seen to require examination because of deficiencies, (c)
departmental actions, (d) associated public bodies (of the Department),
(e) major appointments, and (f) implementation of legislation
and major policy initiatives. The Liaison Committee also proposed
that details be given of the examination of any draft legislation,
expenditure and performance against Public Service Agreement targets.
Table 3: Liaison Committee criteria relevant
to 2003 inquiries

7. An analysis of our performance of these core tasks
is set out in Table 3 above. In the remainder of this section
of our Annual Report we provide a commentary on our core activities.
Further analysis of our work is contained in an Annex to this
report, which sets out selected recommendations of previous reports,
together with the Government response and an update on further
developments.[3]
Identification of inquiries
Government and European Commission policy proposals
8. As in 2002, Defra did not publish any White or
Green Papers. It did, however, publish important consultation
and strategy papers. A particular example was the consultation
on animal welfare begun in January 2003 by the publication of
an animal health and welfare strategy,[4]
and continued by the publication of an outline strategy in July
2003.[5] These two documents
will underpin the final strategy expected in March 2004. Our inquiry
into Vets and Veterinary Services focused on aspects of
the strategy, and persuaded the Government to establish a working
party with the veterinary profession to consider our report.[6]
9. Another example of our examination of domestic
policy proposals was our decision to take evidence from Lord Haskins
about his Rural Delivery Review. We took evidence from
him first in June, prior to the delivery of his report to Ministers,
and subsequently in December. It was crucial that we should have
done so, as the Review will strongly influence the way in which
the Government's rural, agricultural and agri-environmental policies
are delivered. For that reason, we will undoubtedly return to
the subject of the Review, and the Government's response to it,
during 2004.
10. We also looked into policy proposals from the
European Commission, particularly those which stem from the Mid-Term
Review of the Common Agricultural Policy. Our report was published
at the beginning of 2003, following evidence taken during 2002.
In it we critically assessed the initial proposals made by the
Commission, and also the way in which the proposals had subsequently
been amended. We maintained our scrutiny of this area when in
July we were able to take evidence from the Secretary of State
shortly after final agreement on CAP reform had been reached.
11. Implementing the reforms of the CAP will
pose challenges for the United Kingdom. In the New Year we will
inquire into Implementation of CAP Reform in the United Kingdom.
Enlargement of the European Union will affect European agricultural
markets, and establishing the reformed CAP will be challenging
for the new European Union states. Thus in the New Year
Table 4: Reports looking primarily at Government and European
Union policy proposals
Report | Principal findings
|
Mid-Term Review of the CAP |
- welcomed and supported proposals made for reform, though concluded that they should go further
- regretted that proposals for reforms in certain sectors (ie. dairy) had not been made
- urged the Government to press for further change
|
Vets and Veterinary Services |
- concluded that there was shortage of large animal vets
- noted that the shortage would affect the delivery of Government animal health and welfare strategies
- recommended that the Government take a range of steps to seek an increase in large animal vet numbers
|
Areas seen by the Committee as requiring examination because
of deficiencies
12. One of the principal aims of select committees is to identify
deficiencies in the actions of Government Departments or Agencies,
and to propose remedies. Such was the main objective of our inquiries
into the Water Framework Directive, the Rural Payments
Agency, Gangmasters, and the Conduct of the GM Public
Debate. In addition, much of the evidence we received in our
inquiry into certain European Environmental Directives
(which we will complete in 2004) related to deficiencies in the
negotiation and subsequent implementation of European legislation,
especially that relating to waste.
Table 5: Reports looking primarily at
deficiencies in the work of Defra and its agencies
Report | Principal findings
|
Water Framework Directive |
- noted and re-stated the significance of the Directive
- observed that the Government did not seem to regard the matter as urgent
- made specific recommendations relating to scientific research and administrative structures
- urged the Government to adopt a more positive approach
- highlighted the cost implications of the Directive
|
Rural Payments Agency |
- commented on delays in making subsidy payments, particularly to cattle farmers
- urged Defra to keep a watchful eye on the development of a major new IT system under the Agency's Change Programme; and recommended that the Agency keep the Committee informed about the Programme
|
Gangmasters |
- expressed disappointment about the poor quality of Government data on the activities of gangmasters
- concluded that the Government was not doing enough to deal with problems caused by some gangmasters and exploitation of their workforce
- observed that the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers contributed to the problem
- strongly recommended that the Government do more
|
Conduct of the GM Public Debate |
- concluded that although the Debate had been a good idea, in the end it had been an opportunity missed
- said that fault for deficiencies in the Debate rested with Government decisions about its timing resources
- asked what lessons the Government had learnt
|
Departmental actions
13. The distinction between inquiries which examined deficiencies
in Departmental activities, and inquiries which looked at Departmental
actions is not always clear. For example, although our inquiry
into the Water Framework Directive focussed on deficiencies
in the Government's actions, it also, necessarily, recorded the
progress which had been made. We have decided that our
inquiries into Badgers and Bovine TB, Poultry Farming
in the United Kingdom, and Biofuels primarily looked
at 'Departmental actions', analysing what policies Defra had developed
in relation to each subject area, and how it had pursued them.
Our inquiries into the Delivery of Education in Rural Areas
and into Rural Broadband were similar: both looked at the
ways in which Defra had developed a role as a Department for Rural
Affairs.
Table 6: Reports looking primarily at
Departmental actions
Report | Principal findings
|
Badgers and Bovine TB |
- recorded progress made with the badger culling trials
- proposed a range of measures to enhance and improve the trials
|
Poultry Farming in the UK |
- concluded that higher costs due to regulatory standards and increasing international competition threaten the viability of the poultry sector in the UK
- urged the Government to ensure a 'level playing field', requiring imports to meet the same standards as exist in the European Union
- made other recommendations intended to provide greater certainty to the industry
|
Biofuels |
- noted the role that might be played by biofuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and in supporting certain farming sectors
- concluded that the Government was confused about what it hoped to achieve from a biofuels policy
- asked the Government to clarify its objectives
|
Delivery of Education in Rural Areas |
- investigated the role played by Defra in bringing together Government Departments and Agencies to deliver educational services in rural communities
- expressed disappointment that it had not established itself as the 'lead body', co-ordinating policy delivery
- concluded that Defra could not yet be regarded as a Department for Rural Affairs
|
Rural Broadband |
- noted Government support for access to broadband
- regretted the 'digital divide' between urban and rural communities in the availability of broadband
- recommended that the Government commit itself to making broadband available to all parts of the country as soon as possible
|
Associated public bodies
14. In our last Annual Report we recorded that there are more
than seventy public bodies associated with Defra,[7]
and made clear our commitment to examine their work. This year
we completed three inquiries into such bodies, looking at aspects
of the work and management of the Rural Payments Agency
(an Executive Agency), Horticulture Research International
(a non-Departmental Public Body) and New Covent Garden Market
(a public corporation). In addition, our inquiry into the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act 2000 dealt with the work of the Countryside
Agency in implementing the Act, and our report into Water Pricing
focussed on the activities of the Office of Water Services. We
remain committed to examining each year the work of public bodies
associated with Defra.
Table 7: Reports looking primarily at
the work of associated public bodies
Report | Principal findings
|
Horticulture Research International |
- noted developments since the Committee's last report
- urged the Government to conclude negotiations over the future of HRI as soon as possible
|
New Covent Garden Market |
- noted developments since the Committee's last report
- urged the Government to get a grip of decision-making over the Market's future, and to reach conclusions as soon as possible
|
Water Pricing |
- noted progress so far in Ofwat's Periodic Review
- made a number of comments (for example about vulnerable water users) intended to influence ministerial decisions in relation to the Review
|
Major appointments
15. Defra failed to respond to our recommendation last year that
the Committee should receive advanced notice of major appointments
in case it wanted to talk to such appointees. We note that a number
of vacancies have arisen, including for Chief Veterinary Officer
(filled on 24 November 2003),[8]
Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the Royal Botanic Gardens
in Kew (filled on 8 October 2003),[9]
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
(filled on 10 September 2003),[10]
Deputy Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (filled on
17 July 2003),[11] Chairman
of the Agricultural Wages Board (filled on 1 April 2003),[12]
and Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Air Quality (filled on 12
February 2003).[13] Once
again this year we have not been specifically informed by Defra
in advance (or, indeed, afterwards) of any of these appointments
to posts in non-departmental public bodies or elsewhere. We recommend,
as we did last year, that the Department put in place procedures
to inform us in advance of all major appointments pending and/or
made, in line with the recommendation of the Liaison Committee.
Implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives
16. Three of our inquiries specifically addressed issues of policy
implementation and the effect of legislation. The inquiry into
the Water Framework Directive addressed the ways in which
the Directive was being implemented in this country. Our review
of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 allowed us
to assess progress made since the Act had been passed. And our
inquiry into certain Environmental Directives, which will
be completed in 2004, looked at how the End-of-Life Vehicles and
Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directives are
being implemented in the United Kingdom.
Table 8: Report looking primarily at the
implementation of legislation
Report | Principal findings
|
Countryside and Rights of Way Act |
- noted developments since the Act was passed
- made a number of recommendations to enhance the arrangements made to allow access under the Act
|
Draft Legislation
17. In the Queen's Speech in November 2002 three pieces of primary
legislation within the remit of Defra were announced: the Water
Bill, the Wastes and Emissions Trading Bill, and the Hunting Bill.
We regret that the Government did not invite us to undertake
pre-legislative scrutiny of any of these Bills; nor did it make
time available to do so. That said, our predecessor Environment,
Transport and Regional Affairs Committee looked at a draft Water
Bill in 2001,[14] and
our inquiry this year into the Water Framework Directive was pertinent.[15]
18. We were, however, able to take evidence about
secondary legislation which would allow the European Union Animal
By-Products Regulation to be enforced in this country.[16]
The Regulation had been adopted on 3 October 2002, and came into
force on 1 May 2003: the domestic instrument had been delayed
following the agreement of new implementing and transitional powers.
We took evidence from a Defra Minister just prior to the laying
of the domestic regulations, in effect conducting scrutiny of
the proposed legislation in draft.
Expenditure
19. To an extent all of our inquiries deal with expenditure
by Defra and by its associated public bodies. For example, our
report into the Rural Payments Agency noted that in the
Spending Review 2000 a ring-fenced fund of £130 million had
been provided to resource a 'change programme' at the Agency.
We discussed the cost savings that the programme was expected
to bring.[17] Our inquiry
into New Covent Garden Market concluded that it was funding
issues related to a proposed refurbishment of the market which
were driving decisions about the ownership of the market.[18]
The report into Rural Broadband discussed the use made
of Government monies made available in the UK Broadband Fund.[19]
20. Two of our inquiries, however, centred on expenditure.
As usual we undertook an inquiry into Defra's Departmental
Annual Report 2003, taking evidence from the Permanent Secretary
as Defra's accounting officer. In general, the Department's
account of its expenditure was much improved compared to 2002.
Nevertheless, we noted in our report that there are ways in which
transparency might be further improved, such as by giving a commentary
of performance against objectives, and by setting out the key
financial data relating to each Departmental objective.
21. As well as considering the Annual Report we have
monitored the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates published
throughout the year. In 2003 we wrote to Defra about both its
Winter and Spring Supplementary Estimates, as well as about a
proposal to change the way in which its 2004-05 Estimate will
be presented. We will continue to pay close attention to the
ways in which Defra spends money, and how it accounts for its
expenditure.
Table 9: Departmental Annual Report
Report | Principal findings
|
Departmental Annual Report 2003 |
- commented on the way in which the Department reports its achievements against its expenditure
- recommended certain changes to Defra's administration
- made observations about the usefulness of Defra's PSAs, and its performance against them
|
22. Defra's Agencies and other associated public
bodies spend considerable sums on their own account. For example,
the Countryside Agency has a budget of £108 million.[20]
Thus it is important that we take time to oversee the ways in
which non-departmental public bodies account for their spending.
In 2003 we took evidence about the annual report of the Office
of Water Services (Ofwat): much of the session was devoted to
the way in which it spent its resources.[21]
Evidence from Ministers
23. Defra Ministers have been regular witnesses during
2003: in all, they appeared on eighteen occasions; Ministers from
other Departments appeared on three occasions. We are grateful
to Ministers for attending our meetings so often. We trust that
our good relationship with them will continue during 2004.
Public Service Agreements
24. Several of our inquiries examined aspects of
the work of the Department which related to its Public Service
Agreement (PSA) targets, even though performance against the PSA
might not have been at the centre of the inquiry. These were
Table 10: Relationship between our inquiries
and Departmental PSA targets
Inquiry | PSA target
|
Mid-Term Review of the CAP
Reform of the CAP
| Target 8 (SR 2000); target 5 (SR 2002) [22]
|
Water Framework Directive | Target 15 (CSR 1998) [23]
|
Countryside and Rights of Way Act | Target 14 (SR 2000); target 3 (SR 2002) [24]
|
Rural Payments Agency | Target 10 (SR 2002) [25]
|
Badgers and Bovine TB
Vets and Veterinary Services
| Target 6 (CSR 1998) [26]
|
Future of Waste Management | Target 3 (SR 2000); target 6 (SR 2002) [27]
|
Poultry Farming in the UK | Target 12 (SR 2000); target 9 (SR 2002) [28]
|
25. One further inquiry dealt at length with the
PSA targets adopted by the Department, and its performance against
them: our examination of the Departmental Annual Report.
Our report set out useful information, provided by Defra, about
the ways in which its PSA targets have developed over time, from
the Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998 through to the Spending
Review 2002.[29] It also
looked at one particular PSA target, that relating to fuel poverty,
which we said was flawed.[30]
However, our principal concerns were more generally about the
form of PSA targets and the way in which performance against them
was reported.
- we criticised Defra because
many of its PSA targets were aspirational and performance against
them unmeasurable. For example, in the 2000 Spending Review Defra
was set a target of reducing the cost of the Common Agricultural
Policy to consumers and taxpayers.[31]
This is a worthy aim, but hardly a useful PSA target, since (a)
delivering it is not solely in Defra's gift, and (b) it would
have been successfully 'met' if the cost of the CAP fell by either
a pound or a billion pounds. Moreover, the lack of ambition often
shown in PSA targets is reflected by the fact that the changed
target under the 2002 Spending Review 'coincidentally' resembles
the reforms by then proposed;
- although we agreed that Defra should reduce the
number of its PSA targets (as it did from 14 to ten between the
Spending Reviews in 2000 and 2002), we argued that the Department's
annual report should nevertheless include commentary about its
performance against internal objectives in those areas for which
there were no PSA targets;[32]and
- we recommended that the Departmental annual report
should give more details about how under-performance would be
corrected, and about accountability in cases where PSA targets
are shared with other Government Departments.[33]
26. Assessment of Defra's performance against
its Public Service Agreement targets is a significant part of
our work in holding the Department to account. We reiterate the
view expressed in past Annual Reports that analysis of performance
against PSA targets should be a major part of each annual Departmental
Report. We trust that Defra will continue to strive to improve
the way it reports its performance against such targets - and
in those areas not covered by specific PSA targets.
2 See Votes and Proceedings, 14 May 2002 Back
3
This can be compared against Annex A of our Annual Report 2002,
HC (2002-03) 269, p.13 Back
4
Defra (2003) Preparing an animal health and welfare strategy
for Great Britain, www.defra.gov.uk Back
5
Defra (2003) Outline of an animal health and welfare strategy
for Great Britain, www.defre.gov.uk Back
6
Outline of an animal health and welfare strategy, p.24 Back
7
For a complete list, please see www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/agencies.asp Back
8
Defra press notice 494/03, 24 November 2003 Back
9
Defra press notice 413/03, 8 October 2003 Back
10
Defra press notice 368/03, 10 September 2003 Back
11
Defra press notice 296/03, 17 July 2003 Back
12
Defra press notice 122/03, 1 April 2003 Back
13
Defra press notice 51/03, 12 February 2003 Back
14
HC (2000-01) 145-I Back
15
HC (2002-03) 130-I Back
16
Minutes of evidence for 14 May 2003, HC (2002-03) 707 Back
17
HC (2002-03) 382, paras.4 ff Back
18
HC (2002-03) 901, para.8 Back
19
HC (2002-03) 587, p.5 Back
20
Defra (2003) Rural Delivery Review, Lord Christopher Haskins,
11 November 2003, p.21 Back
21
Evidence taken on 11 June 2003, HC (2002-03) 785, see Q14 ff Back
22
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.73 Back
23
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.59 Back
24
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.79 Back
25
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.75 Back
26
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.56 Back
27
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.64 Back
28
Defra (2003) Departmental Report 2003, p.78 Back
29
The Departmental Annual Report 2003, HC (2002-03) 832,
Ev 3 Back
30
HC (2002-03) 832, para.17 Back
31
PSA target 8 under Spending Review 2000 Back
32
HC (2002-03) 832, para.18 Back
33
HC (2002-03) 832, paras.19 and 20 Back
|