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
|