Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers' Union (Appendix 19)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  In response to the two questions posed by the Committee, we consider first that the provisions of the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill ("the NERC Bill") in general conform with the institutional arrangements proposed in the Government's Rural Strategy. On the second question regarding the provisions of the draft Bill, the NFU believes that some important amendments will need to be made to allow the Government to implement its proposals in an effective way, most notably in connection with the statutory purposes, role and approach of the Integrated Agency (the "IA"). The most important issues regarding the IA are concerned with the need for it to have a wider role as chief adviser to the government machine on matters within its remit, and for it to have a specific duty for the promotion of socio-economic well-being as an integrated part of its overall objective of delivering sustainable development.

  In principle the NFU welcomes the Bill's provisions to allow for the overhaul and modernisation of the agricultural and horticultural levy bodies. Because it will be vital for proposed changes to carry strong support from levy-payers, a statutory guarantee of consultation in advance is needed. Some procedural and technical issues arise from these provisions that need to be addressed.

INTRODUCTION

  1.  On behalf of the farming community in England and Wales whom we represent, the NFU welcomes this opportunity to submit evidence to the HoC Efra Committee in connection with its brief inquiry into the draft Bill published recently by Defra. The NFU submitted evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the Rural Delivery Strategy in September 2004, followed by supplementary evidence at the Committee's request focusing on the IA in December. This evidence concentrates on the draft Bill itself and the documents that accompany it.

THE INTEGRATED AGENCY

  2.  In summary the NFU has welcomed the creation of an IA to streamline the functions of the present component agencies, with a view to a better-focused source of land management advice for government and its agencies as well as primary customers like farmers and other land managers. We agree with Part One of the policy statement that, in the context of the Sustainable Strategy for Farming and Food, "CAP reform is an opportunity for farmers to reconnect with the rest of the rural community, with their customers, and with the rest of the food chain" (para 1).

  3.  We welcome the statement in para 6 concerning the interconnectivity of objectives, that "economic prosperity has an essential role in achieving both social and environmental benefits". However para 5 refers to this as driving "everything Defra does". Although Defra will be the IA's sponsoring department, the nature of its work surely has implications for other government departments beyond Defra and we believe this should be built into the IA's statutory framework.

  4.  Clause 2 of the draft Bill proposes that the IA should have a general function of ensuring that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations. As drafted this general focus focuses solely on the delivery of conservation; it is silent on the IA's importance as an advisor, and it should refer to a socio-economic purpose. If the IA is indeed to be the "very powerful and independent organisation" aspired to in the policy statement, then the NERC Bill should make it much clearer that the Agency will be the chief adviser to the government on policy for the natural environment and that ministers must have due regard to its advice. Without such a provision there would seem to be no hindrance to the centre of gravity of policy-making for environmental issues remaining within Defra despite the leading expertise reposing in the IA.

  5.  Subsection (2) of clause 5 sets out a list of what purposes are included in the IA's remit. There is a reference to the IA "contributing" to social and economic well-being of the natural environment. However in many cases the delivery of the IA's environmental purposes will greatly depend on a high degree of socio-economic well-being. Accordingly it is essential in our view that the IA should have a duty concerned with the promotion of socio-economic well-being, rather than the much more optional phraseology of just "contributing" to it. This sort of issue has been debated in connection with environmental legislation in the past, and it has been argued that giving an environmental body such a duty would clash with the functions of other bodies which are also concerned with socio-economic well-being (for example local authorities, and regional development agencies). We do not accept that proposition, on the contrary the IA should act in a complementary way as a partner with other public bodies. This approach is endorsed by the policy statement's references to partnership between the agencies assisted by the Regional Rural Delivery Frameworks (para 7-10).

  6.  There is another practical reason for the IA having a clear duty concerned with socio-economic well-being, and that is the way in which it will be perceived by its customers and by the public. In the past the farming community has been frustrated by the single dimension approach invariably adopted by the environmental agencies, for example on the protection of SSSIs, without wider regard to other relevant land management considerations. The IA provides the opportunity to achieve the more holistic and rounded approach which can truly achieve sustainable development rather than isolated land management activity. But to succeed the IA must earn the respect and trust of its customers without whom it cannot achieve success. We agree with the objective of making the Agency "more than the sum of its parts" but it will not be able to do this if it is perceived merely as a collection of former agencies brought together under a new logo, but which has not jettisoned the cultural and historic baggage of its predecessors. Demonstrating that it is genuinely interested in, and cares for, its customers and what they can do to help the IA achieve its purposes is an ethos and reputation that must be secured.

  7.  Confidence in the new Agency could be built by the early production by it of a strategy which would initially be a statement of intent about how the IA intends to approach its wide-ranging remit, which would in time become a delivery programme which could be regularly updated. This would be a more useful tool for stakeholders and the public in assessing the IA's progress and forward direction than the standard requirement on public bodies to produce an annual report. A broad requirement to proceed in this way on the face of the Bill would be welcome.

  8.  Turning to other provisions concerning the IA in the NERC Bill, we welcome the provisions concerning research, financial assistance by the Agency, management agreements, and experimental schemes. On the latter the IA should have a duty to publish the outcome of experiments even, or perhaps particularly where, they are judged to have not been successful. Clause 10 contains a useful provision whereby a public authority (defined to include ministers) which has sought the IA's advice must inform the Agency whether the advice has been rejected and if so why. Consideration needs to be given to the risk there may be that some authorities (for example statutory undertakers) may choose not to seek the Agency's advice because they fear opprobrium for subsequently rejecting it.

THE COMMISSION FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

  9.  The general purpose of the proposed Commission for Rural Communities ("CRC") is defined in clause 18 as promoting awareness amongst ministers, public bodies and the public of the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas, and of ways of meeting them. For far too long in the past too much policy-making by government has been conducted with a strong bias towards persons in urban areas, to the neglect of the sometimes different requirements of rural communities. It is therefore welcome in principle that there will in effect be a statutory basis for the role of Rural Advocate who can make representations to ministers and public authorities.

  10.  However the emphasis in the clause on the needs of those suffering from social disadvantage and economic under-performance risks the CRC neglecting the needs of rural areas which do not in its judgment conform with this statutory steer. The Bill should make it clearer that whilst the CRC would be concerned with those special rural areas its activities would not be exclusively confined to them. The policy statement refers to the CRC providing "a strong and independent voice for rural people, communities, and businesses" yet it is quite unclear by what mechanism the CRC will gather the views of this constituency and seek to represent them (especially where, as is likely, there are differences of view about what rural areas need). We hope that the Committee will press Defra on this issue; some amendment may be required to the Bill in the light of the debate we believe should take place on this issue.

  11.  The policy statement speaks of the CRC being "an authoritative new national rural advisor, advocate, and watchdog". However it must be observed that the watchdog appears to be as near toothless as can be. The work done by the present Countryside Agency on for example the annual state of the countryside reports has been valuable and should be continued by the CRC. But there is a clear risk of the new body being sidelined into policy oblivion if its only means of influencing ministers and public authorities is by offering advice which can be ignored with impunity. At the least the CRC should enjoy a similar provision to clause 10 for the IA whereby the rejection of its advice would be a transparent matter of public record.

FLEXIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

  12.  In principle the provisions in Part 3 Chapter 1 of the Bill whereby ministers can enter agreements with bodies to perform eligible functions of the Minister could deliver a welcome means of flexibility on operational functions and delivery of services which cannot be done under the present law. However these clauses will need close scrutiny. Clause 46 provides for a designated body to be treated as having the power to carry out the function asked of it by the minister "if doing so is compatible with the purposes" for which the body was established. In the case of bodies with clear and limited remits this may not pose a problem, but how would the judgment on compatibility be made in less clear cases, and (short of expensive judicial review) what remedy is available to anyone who objects to the agreement the minister is entering with a body?

  13.  Clause 42 permits the Secretary of State to enter agreements for "non-designated bodies" to perform eligible Defra functions. Clarification is needed on whether such bodies could include non-statutory private bodies. There appears to be no safeguard against potential abuse of these procedures as ministers would have a wide discretion to in effect hand important functions hitherto conducted by government departments to bodies to perform for periods of up to 20 years (clause 45). Moreover under clause 46 the body authorised to perform the function may devolve the function further down to a committee, member, or employee of the body. How is this process to be held accountable, both politically to Parliament, and financially where significant sums of public money are involved, to taxpayers? We hope that the Committee will examine carefully whether these provisions can be considered to be satisfactory as drafted.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL LEVY BODIES

  14.  The NFU welcomes the confirmation in Part Two of the policy statement that the policy objective of the five main statutory agriculture and horticulture levy bodies (marketing and promotion, R & D, sector improvement activities etc) remains the same (para 38). We agree that the agricultural and food industries are operating in rapidly changing conditions, and that it is therefore right in principle to review the levy bodies and their operations and to put in place a mechanism for adjusting their legislative foundations. If managed appropriately this process does hold out the policy statement's promise of significantly benefiting the industries' performance economically, socially and environmentally (para 41).

  15.  It is premature to assess the impact on the food chain of the current CAP reform. We can however be confident that the de-coupling of support from production will lead to a more market-oriented farming industry which over a period of some time will be likely to have far-reaching implications for the structure and operation of agriculture and its partners in the rest of the chain. Farming businesses will need to become ever more competitive at the same time as they will be expected to achieve this in a sustainable manner, and to deliver the accompanying public goods, for example on environment and management of the countryside and animal welfare. The role of the levy boards will be important in supporting agriculture and horticulture to make these changes through rationalised approaches to their work, improved co-ordination of research and promotion, etc.

  16.  The timetable for the Committee's inquiry precludes the detailed technical examination of the draft Bill's Part 3 Chapter 2 provisions which we will wish to undertake before the Bill proper is considered by Parliament in the normal way. Subject to the crucial issue of consultation on which we comment below, however, in general we are content with the statutory purposes of the boards concerning increased efficiency and productivity, improved marketing, the development of services the industries could provide to the community (clause 50), and with the "section 49 order" procedures for establishing boards and the flexible arrangements for assigning functions to them, including re-casting existing arrangements by changes to present legislation as needed.

  17.  Because these bodies are funded by industry levies it is vital that the levy-payers are fully consulted on changes in present arrangements and we would advocate the introduction of a specific duty on "the appropriate authority" who would initiate section 49 orders to conduct comprehensive consultation with levy-payers and other stakeholders before proceeding with proposals. Ministers and industry leaders will need to take care that proposed changes enjoy a high level of support from producers in the sectors concerned before proceeding with them, as significant opposition to changes would clearly be unhelpful to achieving their objectives. Although it is right that the Bill provides for section 49 orders to be presented to Parliament in draft for approval by the affirmative procedure, because such orders will impose compulsory levies we would welcome more detailed scrutiny of them by, for example the HoC Efra Committee, before they proceeded than is possible under the "accept or reject" nature of scrutiny of statutory instruments by Parliament.

  18.  Clause 58 defines "the appropriate authority" to mean the Secretary of State in England who would need the approval of the National Assembly for Wales, for example, in the case of bodies which have (or are proposed to have) cross-border functions between the two countries. We will be giving careful consideration to any implications these provisions might have for farmers in the component parts of the UK.

  19.  Finally clause 50 contains a definition of agriculture for the purposes of this part of the Bill. The definition appears to be the "standard inclusive" one that has been used in agricultural legislation dating back to at least the 1940s. Agriculture has however moved on from its traditional roots in many ways, and the advent of non-food crops for the growing of biomass, pharmaceutical products and, through technological innovation, potentially a wide range of other products that at one time might have seemed very unlikely, begs the question of whether the existing statutory definition of agriculture is adequate for the task. We would recommend that the Committee invite Defra to consult its legal advisers carefully on this issue.

National Farmers' Union

February 2005





 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 4 April 2005