Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Second Report


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
ReportPrincipal 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
ReportPrincipal 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
ReportPrincipal 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
ReportPrincipal 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
ReportPrincipal 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
ReportPrincipal 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
InquiryPSA target
Mid-Term Review of the CAP

Reform of the CAP

Target 8 (SR 2000); target 5 (SR 2002) [22]
Water Framework DirectiveTarget 15 (CSR 1998) [23]
Countryside and Rights of Way ActTarget 14 (SR 2000); target 3 (SR 2002) [24]
Rural Payments AgencyTarget 10 (SR 2002) [25]
Badgers and Bovine TB

Vets and Veterinary Services

Target 6 (CSR 1998) [26]
Future of Waste ManagementTarget 3 (SR 2000); target 6 (SR 2002) [27]
Poultry Farming in the UKTarget 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 21 January 2004