13 Conclusions and recommendations
Reactions to the Rural Strategy
1. When
embarking on a programme of change, it is important not to discard
elements of a system that are serving a useful purpose, without
first ensuring the replacement structures will represent an improvement
to the current situation. The Government has to demonstrate adequately
how its proposals will add significant value to the processes
of rural delivery. In its response to our report, Defra should
spell out in detail how the benefits of the proposed changes for
the recipients of the services will outweigh the potential disruption
which such changes inevitably cause. (Paragraph 18)
The Forestry Commission
2. We
recognise the complexity of addressing the future status of the
Forestry Commission, since its operations cover Scotland and Wales,
as well as England. However, it seems anomalous that the delivery
functions of the Forestry Commission are not to be included in
the remit of the Integrated Agency. If the territorial problem
cannot be resolved easily, we recommend the closest possible working
between the two organisations, including, where appropriate, shared
targets. We welcome the fact that the draft Natural Environment
and Rural Communities Bill envisages this kind of relationship.
(Paragraph 27)
The new Integrated Agency
3. We
welcome Ministers' confirmation of the independent status of the
Integrated Agency as a non-departmental public body, as in order
for it to be successful, it is important that it has a strong
independent voice and credibility among its stakeholders. The
independence of the new Agency must be clearly enshrined in its
establishing legislation. (Paragraph 43)
4. We agree with the
Government that it should be possible to realise some efficiency
savings when setting up the new Integrated Agency, as overheads
from the different elements that make it up can be streamlined.
However, the new Integrated Agency must have sufficient resources
to carry out the tasks it has been set, and should not be expected
to deliver the level of programmes it has inherited on a reduced
programme budget. The Government should also publish a detailed
breakdown of how it proposes to use the Integrated Agency's establishment
budget, taking into account its requirement to slim down Defra's
workforce and simultaneously fund the birth of the new Agency
and associated developments. (Paragraph 45)
The successor to the Countryside Agency
5. We
welcome the fact that the Countryside Agency is not to be abolished.
There is a continuing need for an expert policy adviser and rural
watchdog. This important role must be recognised by the Government
and its activities funded accordingly. It is vital that the expertise
developed by the Agency is not lost during the restructuring process.
We expect the new Commission for Rural Communities to have sufficient
resources, influence and independence to act as an effective champion
of rural issues across the whole of Government. The CRC should
seek to ensure the 'rural proofing' of all levels of Government
which are engaged in rural delivery and highlight cases of both
poor as well as good practice. (Paragraph 59)
6. The role of Rural
Advocate is a vital one and we welcome the commitment that the
Chairman of the CRC will be the Rural Advocate. To be effective,
the Rural Advocate needs proper back-up, and we would be very
concerned at any suggestion that the role should be detached from
the CRC. (Paragraph 60)
Role of RDAs, Government Offices and local authorities
7. We
welcome the Government's desire to move away from centralised
target-setting for those delivering services at the regional and
local level. However, the Government's approach to devolving rural
delivery will only work if there is real empowerment at the local
level and this must be reflected in the way the priorities for
local spending are determined: they should arise from local needs,
locally understood. Actual responsibility must be handed down
to regional and local government and agencies, away from the constraints
of central government. Defra must make clear, in detail, exactly
what it expects local government's role to be in the new architecture
for delivering rural services. (Paragraph 67)
8. The Regional Development
Agencies will have a major role to play in the new arrangements
for the delivery of rural economic policy, but to perform this
role successfully they will need to work in partnership with other
bodies, including local government. We welcome the RDAs' commitment
to doing so. We anticipate that, initially, the abilities of RDAs
to embrace the changes and cope with their new responsibilities
will vary across the country, but some variation in performance
is only to be expected when setting people free from the centralised
straitjacket. We saw a very good Regional Development Agency in
operation, on our trip to the East of England, and it is important
that the RDAs in the other regions are brought up to a similarly
high standard as quickly as possible. They are receiving additional
resources for their new rural-focused tasks, and they should be
expected to use this new funding effectively. (Paragraph 71)
9. With so many players
involved in the delivery of the new arrangements, some form of
mechanism needs to be established so that all their efforts can
be properly coordinated. It is not obvious to us where the Government
Offices for the Regions fit into the new arrangements. However,
we note proposals from Defra and others that the Government Offices
should play some kind of coordinating role, through the Regional
Delivery Frameworks. We are attracted in principle to this approach,
but would wish to be reassured that the Government Offices have
the capacity, and the environmental credentials, to perform such
a role effectively. We request that, in its response to our report,
Defra explain in more detail how it sees the role of the Government
Offices in coordinating the work of key players. (Paragraph 74)
10. The Rural Strategy
appears to provide only a modest role for local authorities. However,
the thrust of the Strategy and the draft Natural Environment and
Rural Communities Bill is that different local contexts will mean
that different local bodies will be appropriate for delivering
services. We welcome the Minister's confirmation that local authorities
are included among the bodies to which functions may be delegated
under the draft Bill. We believe that in many cases local authorities
will be the best local delivery agents, and that the responsibilities
of local authorities, including parish councils, should be increased
where they are able to prove their capabilities. It is crucial
that the outcome of the rural pathfinder exercises is available
as soon as possible to contribute to the establishment of their
enhanced role. (Paragraph 82)
11. We welcome the
Government's intention of promoting the regeneration of rural
areas, but note that this may in some cases generate tensions
with the way the planning system operates. We recommend that,
in its response to our report, Defra sets out how it envisages
the new arrangements for rural delivery will dovetail with the
planning system. We further recommend that Defra consider reviewing,
in conjunction with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the
way the planning system currently operates in rural England. (Paragraph
83)
Streamlining of funding streams
12. We
welcome, in principle, the proposal to reduce the number of funding
streams, and to establish three major funding programmes, as this
should aid administration. However, the real test will be whether
the process of application and qualifying for funding is simplified
for the eventual recipient. We remain to be convinced by Defra's
claim to be streamlining over one hundred rural funding schemes.
The three major funding programmes with which Defra proposes to
replace them may still involve many specific funding schemes.
We recommend that, in its response to our Report, Defra sets out
in detail precisely how many new funding streams—as opposed
to programmes—will be established under the new arrangements.
In reducing the number of streams it will be necessary to avoid
a 'beauty contest' where schemes are retained as a result of political
sensitivities, rather than on more objective criteria. (Paragraph
89)
IT strategy
13. We
have seen examples in the past of Defra IT schemes having problems,
the latest manifestation of which is the delayed timetable for
farmers to receive their first single farm payments. Given the
rapid pace of change in setting up the new arrangements, care
must be taken to ensure that IT systems, which are vital in delivering
funding and services to those who need them, are in place in time
for the establishment of the new agencies. In its response to
this Report, Defra should set out the timetable for making necessary
changes to IT systems, with the dates by which key milestones
have to be achieved. Defra should also publish on its departmental
website a quarterly update on its progress towards achieving its
IT milestones. In addition, the Department should consider appointing
to its Board a non-executive member who has significant senior
management experience of successfully introducing major IT change
programmes in an organisation of an equivalent size to Defra.
(Paragraph 94)
Costs of making the changes
14. As
Lord Haskins indicated, the existing duplication within the delivery
structure must be reduced. We broadly support the Government's
restructuring proposals in so far as they are designed to eliminate
duplication of activity and generate efficiency savings by the
agencies. But the rationalisation process should not be a cover
for the cutting of actual budgets required for new and existing
bodies to fulfil their tasks. (Paragraph 101)
15. It is important
to emphasize that the predicted efficiency savings must be realised,
and progress towards meeting them should be monitored closely,
as it will be by this Committee. To assist in this process, the
Department's Annual Report should contain a detailed analysis
of, and report on, progress towards achieving its cost savings
targets. It has been difficult at this stage for us to reach a
judgement on whether the costs involved in the proposed reorganisation
are justified. This is only partly because of the complexity in
clarifying the figures for the expected costs and savings, although
we welcome the additional detailed analysis Defra has provided.
Secondly, and more importantly, the financial balance sheet does
not take account of costs, in the wider sense, to the organisations
involved in the change process. It is inevitable that staff are
distracted by process issues during this kind of transition, and
administrative upheaval can lead to substantive work being neglected.
We hope that the final outcomes of these reforms will outweigh
the disruption caused in planning and implementing them. The best
judges of this will be the recipients of rural services themselves.
(Paragraph 102)
Timing issues
16. We
sympathise with the Government's desire to implement the Rural
Strategy in time for the start of the new EU Rural Development
Programme in January 2007. Given this target, we were disappointed
that the Government took so long to publish its Rural Strategy
once Lord Haskins had produced his Rural Delivery Review. We are
not persuaded by Defra's arguments as to why it took eight months
to publish the Strategy. The delay has reduced the amount of time
for consultation and agreement on the mechanics of implementation,
and for getting the new administrative building blocks in place.
However, now the reform process is so well advanced, the primary
legislation needed to implement so much of it must not be unnecessarily
delayed. (Paragraph 107)
General conclusion on the Strategy
17. In
this report we have sought to analyse the main elements of the
Government's Rural Strategy. However, the real measure of whether
the reforms underlying the Rural Strategy and the draft Bill are
working will be their impact on the environment and local rural
communities, and those who are responsible for their services.
In many parts of the country, as we saw in the East of England,
people on the ground are getting on with the job of rural delivery
and are achieving a great deal to improve the quality of rural
life and to protect and enhance the natural environment. Central
Government's activities should show the same level of commitment
as that of the people at the cutting edge. The Government, and
Defra in particular, must not let them down. (Paragraph 109)
The draft Natural Environment and Rural Delivery
Bill
The Integrated Agency
18. We
agree that conflicts between the purposes of the Integrated Agency
listed in Clause 2(2) of the draft Bill should be rare, and that
good management and cooperation between parties should allow them
to be overcome. But we recommend that provision be made in the
Bill for the 'Sandford principle' to apply in those exceptional
circumstances where there is an irreconcilable conflict, to make
clear that the aim of conserving and enhancing the natural environment
takes precedence over other purposes. (Paragraph 121)
19. Defra argues,
in respect of the reference to landscape in Clause 2(2)(b), that
the Integrated Agency's general purpose in Clause 2(1) of ensuring
that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed
implicitly includes protecting the landscape. But the inclusion
of the phrase "protecting biodiversity" in Clause 2(2)(a)
could be seen as leaving landscape in an inferior position, as
it is not explicitly "protected". We therefore recommend
that, for the avoidance of doubt, Clause 2(2)(b) be amended to
include reference to the "protection" of the English
landscape. (Paragraph 123)
20. We note Defra's
argument that the Integrated Agency should have an 'enabling'
purpose, but believe this could still be secured while ensuring
that the IA does not run the risk of having to promote recreation
of a kind that is contrary to the principles of sustainability.
We therefore recommend that Clause (2)(2)(d) of the Bill be amended
so that the relevant purpose would read: "promoting access
to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging quiet open-air
recreation. (Paragraph 126)
21. We agree with
Defra that the Integrated Agency is an environmental body. But
part of its remit is to deliver socio-economic benefits through
the discharging of its environmental role. We therefore recommend
that Clause 2(2)(e) be amended so that the IA's purposes include
"promoting, and contributing in other ways to, social and
economic well-being through management of the natural environment".
Any potential conflict between this purpose and the wider role
of the Agency as a champion of the natural environment could be
resolved through the application of the 'Sandford principle' recommended
above. (Paragraph 129)
22. We note Defra's
argument that the Integrated Agency cannot be expected to integrate
sustainable development considerations on matters outside its
remit. But it does not follow from this that the IA has no role
at all in promoting sustainable development. We therefore recommend
that Clause 2(1) of the draft Bill be amended so that the general
purpose of the IA includes "to promote sustainable development",
rather than simply "contributing" to it through its
work. (Paragraph 132)
23. We are unclear
why Defra believes that requiring the Integrated Agency to take
appropriate account of actual or possible environmental changes
would stop the IA having a unified purpose, or why such wording
is so important for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee while
being unnecessary for the IA. We agree with English Nature that
it is odd, at the least, to drop such wording from the draft Bill,
and, in the absence of any very strong arguments from Defra to
remove it, recommend that it be included, as parallel wording
was in the 1990 Environmental Protection Act in respect of English
Nature. (Paragraph 135)
24. We have already
noted the importance of the relationship between the new arrangements
for rural delivery and the planning system. One way of helping
ensure this relationship works effectively would be to create
a statutory link between the functions of the Integrated Agency
and the regional planning bodies. We therefore recommend that
the advisory powers of the IA, set out in clause 10, be extended
to include a duty to contribute to Regional Spatial Strategies.
We note the suggestion in evidence that the Integrated Agency
be given a statutory right to be heard at the Examination in Public
for any Regional Spatial Strategy. Section 8(2) of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "No person has
a right to be heard at an examination in public." We are
not convinced that it would be appropriate to make an exception
solely for the Integrated Agency. (Paragraph 137)
25. Earlier in our
report we noted how important it was that the new Integrated Agency
be a truly independent body. That independence must be explicitly
enshrined in statute. We are concerned that the Bill as currently
drafted gives the impression that the IA would have less independence
from Ministers than either English Nature or the Environment Agency.
This is unacceptable. We welcome Defra's statement that the IA
would not be bound to follow guidance from the Secretary of State,
but believe this should be spelt out on the face of the Bill,
by making clear that the IA should only "have regard to"
such guidance. This would increase public confidence in the new
Agency. For the same reason, we also recommend that the Bill be
amended to make clear that guidance relates to objectives which
the Secretary of State considers it appropriate for the Agency
to pursue; and that guidance would be issued only after consultation
with the Agency. We also recommend that Defra explain why the
limits on Ministerial directions to English Nature have not been
replicated in the draft Bill in respect of the IA. (Paragraph
142)
26. We were unconvinced
by Defra's arguments in favour of the Secretary of State's wide-ranging
power to appoint members of the Integrated Agency, contained in
the draft Bill. Ministers have nothing to fear and much to gain
from an independent and independently-minded Agency, and the public
are more likely to accept that the IA is such a body if the provisions
in the Bill relating to its membership make clear the limits to
the Secretary of State's powers. We therefore recommend that the
provisions of Schedule 1 to the draft Bill, relating to membership
of the Integrated Agency, be amended as follows:
- A minimum and maximum number
of members should be specified, as is the case with the Environment
Agency
- The Secretary of State should have regard to
the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of,
and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions
of the Agency
- It should be clear on the face of the Bill that
the chairman of the Agency, as well as the Secretary of State,
has power to appoint some members. (Paragraph0.?)
THE COMMISSION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES
27. We
are not convinced that it is necessary to lay down in statute
that the Commission for Rural Communities should play a special
role in respect of particular groups of rural people. The focus
of the CRC's work will change over time to reflect the changing
priorities of rural England, and the draft Bill should give it
that degree of flexibility. We therefore recommend that the definition
of "rural needs" in Clause 18(2) be amended to read:
"the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas
in England". If the Secretary of State wishes to direct the
work of the CRC to focus on specific groups within the rural population,
such as those suffering from social disadvantage, we believe it
should be possible for her to do so, either through the provisions
relating to directions contained in Clause 25, or through a new
power to give guidance, as in the case of the Integrated Agency.
(Paragraph 149)
28. We have already
noted that the Commission for Rural Communities needs to be able
to seek the "rural proofing" of all levels of Government.
In the context of the draft Bill, we believe this function could
be strengthened by amending Clause 19 as follows:
- Clause 19(b) should include
a provision allowing the CRC to require a "relevant person"
to confirm whether its advice has been rejected.
- Clause 19(c) should include a requirement on
the CRC to report publicly on the outcome of its monitoring of
the extent to which policies are meeting rural needs (Paragraph
154)
29. In
order to ensure the independence of the Commission for Rural Communities
is properly entrenched in the draft Bill, and is made evident
to those whom it will serve, we believe that the Secretary of
State's powers to appoint its members needs to be limited. We
therefore recommend that the draft Bill be amended to make similar
provision for appointments to the CRC as we have recommended in
respect of the Integrated Agency. We accept that it is standard
practice for Ministers to take powers in legislation to issue
directions to public bodies, and that this does not necessarily
affect the ability of such bodies to act independently. But we
note that in some circumstances the remit of directions from the
Secretary of State is limited in statute, as in the case of English
Nature. We therefore recommend that Defra consider ways in which
the power of direction relating to the CRC contained in the draft
Bill could be made less all-encompassing, in order to make clear
the CRC's independence from Ministers. (Paragraph 156)
30. We support the
draft Bill's aim of allowing greater flexibility in the delivery
of rural services, and removing obstacles to the creation of lead
local delivery agents. But on the basis of the evidence we have
received, from the Minister and others, we require more clarity
about precisely what is envisaged before we can agree to the provisions
relating to agreements with designated and non-designated bodies.
We are concerned about the apparent contradiction between the
Minister's oral evidence, which gave the impression that the power
of delegation related to public bodies, and Defra's written evidence,
which refers to private sector bodies. This confusion only serves
to justify the anxieties expressed to us about the possible range
of organisations which could be given responsibility for discharging
the functions of Defra, and bodies within the Defra family. Given
that the draft Bill proposes that such delegations of functions
shall take place with no automatic scrutiny by Parliament, it
is especially important that the Government make clear its intentions.
(Paragraph 166)
31. We recommend that,
in its response to our Report, Defra makes a clearer statement
about how each of the provisions in Clauses 41 to 43 will operate
in practice, including further concrete examples; and about the
role to be played by non-public bodies, and how such bodies will
be held accountable for their discharge of their functions. (Paragraph
167)
The levy boards
32. We
are content in principle with the proposal in Chapter 2 of Part
3 the draft Bill that Ministers be given power to amend primary
legislation relating to the levy bodies by way of secondary legislation.
We note that it is not unprecedented for Ministers to take power
to create new public bodies by secondary legislation. However,
the present proposals could involve the wholesale abolition of
existing bodies, some with a long history and all of them of great
importance to those who pay the compulsory levies that fund them.
For this reason, we believe that an additional degree of Parliamentary
scrutiny of orders made under this Chapter would be appropriate.
We recommend that, in its response to our Report, Ministers give
an undertaking to publish any orders made under this chapter in
draft for 'pre-legislative scrutiny' by this Committee, and to
allow adequate time for the Committee to carry out such scrutiny
if it chooses to do so. (Paragraph 172)
33. We welcome the
assurances from the Minister that there will be full consultation
concerning the forthcoming review of the levy boards, but, given
the potentially wide-ranging changes that might emerge from the
review, we recommend that a requirement to consult be included
on the face of the Bill. (Paragraph 173)
34. We have some sympathy
with the points made to us about the definition of agriculture
contained in Clause 50(4), and welcome Defra's readiness to consider
this issue. But we recommend that any redrafting of the definition
builds on the existing wording, and does not discard any of its
elements. (Paragraph 176)
Order-making powers: general
35. We
are content with the order-making power in Clause 11 (3), and
welcome Defra's assurance that orders made under it would include
safeguards to ensure any charging regimes were fair, proportionate
and would only cover the costs of administration. But given that
such orders concern the charging of fees, we believe that a greater
degree of Parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. We therefore
recommend that such orders be subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure. (Paragraph 179)
36. We are content
with the order-making power in Clause 41(4) and the use of the
negative resolution procedure, given the Minister's assurance
that it does not allow for the abolition of any of the bodies
concerned. (Paragraph 181)
37. We are content
with the order-making power in Clause 44(4)(c), and welcome Defra's
assurance that orders made under it would include appropriate
safeguards. But given that such orders concern the charging of
fees, we believe that a greater degree of Parliamentary scrutiny
is appropriate. We therefore recommend that such orders be subject
to the affirmative resolution procedure. (Paragraph 183)
38. We are content
that the order-making power in Clause 67 is reasonable, and that
the use of the affirmative resolution procedure to amend primary
legislation, and the negative resolution procedure to amend secondary
legislation, is appropriate. (Paragraph 185)
The Regulatory Impact Assessment
39. We
recommend that in presenting the final RIA the Government provides,
for those measures within the Bill for which it is possible, comparable
estimates of the costs and benefits associated with the various
options presented. Failure to do so would render the RIA little
more than a cost/benefit analysis of the Government's favoured
options. (Paragraph 189)
40. We recommend that
the final RIA contains the level of detail provided to us by the
Department in response to our written questions. That is, it should
contain a breakdown of estimated costs and savings with details
of the assumptions used. Where there is uncertainty, figures should
be presented as ranges. (Paragraph 193)
| 
