Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-439)
1 MARCH 2005
DR STUART
BURGESS, MS
TRACEY SLAVEN
AND MR
BRIAN WILSON
Q420 Mr Jack: I would like to carry on
and probe a little more about this rural proofing because in the
way that Chapter 2 in the Bill is written the Commission is there
but it does not seem to be plugged into anything. It exists and
then it does certain things. It can issue a document, it gets
its overall instructions and cash from the Secretary of State
and apart from that you can do whatever you want to do and yet
you say in paragraph 15 of your evidence the draft Bill makes
no provision to embed rural proofing in statute. Let me ask you
a simple question: should it be embedded in statute, yes or no?
Dr Burgess: I think ideally it
should be but I understand that there are particular reasons why
it may not be possible to go through every government department.
So to answer your question, yes, we would like it and that was
our original concern and our original submission, but, having
said that, we have got the assurance, the next best thing, that
it will be carried on and taken very seriously.
Q421 Mr Jack: Am I not right in saying
that your predecessor had direct access to the Prime Minister
and was not your predecessor involved in some Cabinet sub-committee
dealing with rural matters?
Dr Burgess: You are absolutely
right and I have exactly the same access and the sitting on of
the same committee.
Q422 Mr Jack: And yet with that access
to the Prime Minister and on the committee you defer to Defra
by saying "whilst it is for Defra to take a lead across government
in promoting rural proofing". Surely the Commission should
be the pre-eminent body promoting this and not Defra because your
interpretation and thoughts may be, shall we say, nearer to the
ground than the Secretary of State's and you may want to say things
which are in contravention to the Secretary of State? Why do you
suddenly defer to her in this sentence?
Dr Burgess: I think it is important
to realise that part of the work of the new Commission is around
the watchdog role so we shall have that watchdog role and I think
that this is all part and parcel of what we are talking about.
Q423 Mr Jack: With respect, in paragraph
18 of the Bill it says the Commission's general purpose is "to
promote". "Promote" is a positive action; not a
watchdog action.
Dr Burgess: I think, with respect,
that the two are not necessarily separated. They can actually
be seen to be one and the same thing.
Mr Wilson: From our point of view
the important thing is to have a separation of duties. As far
as we are concerned I think it is for policy makers and policy
deliverers in departments and elsewhere to undertake the rural
proofing and then for Defra to take the lead within government
in setting the policy direction on rural proofing. How we see
the Commission for Rural Communities working is standing back
from that, being independent and, yes, certainly saying where
we think there could be improvements to rural proofing, where
we think that policy direction could be enhanced, but having that
degree of independence and being able to stand back and monitor
and report on.
Q424 Mr Jack: Who is good at rural proofing
at the moment? Give me a couple of departments that are good at
rural proofing.
Mr Wilson: I think it would be
fair to say that the Department for Education and Skills have
come out at the top of our list rather frequently.
Q425 Mr Jack: Who is at the bottom then?
Mr Wilson: I am not sure we have
a bottom of the list. We have certainly mentioned a few departments
over the years. Two years ago, from memory, we mentioned the Home
Office as being rather weak at rural proofing. They have improved
since. Last year, I am trying to remember back, I think we may
have mentioned the Department for Health in reports as being rather
weaker.
Q426 Mr Jack: Alright, you have cited
those two departments. Give us a flavour as to how you think the
new Commission will set about improving rural proofing and, secondly,
do you think there ought to be a statutory obligation where in
the regulatory impact assessments the departments produce they
should have a clear paragraph that whenever they introduce a measure
or a Bill that it should state how the rural proofing has been
conducted?
Mr Wilson: Certainly rural proofing
has now been built into the regulatory impact assessments. That
is something that we worked on with the Cabinet Office and with
departments to achieve in the last few months. I think that is
quite a big step forward. It does put it automatically on the
list of things that people who are using regulatory impact assessments
will come across and have to address. I think that is quite an
important step forward.
Q427 Mr Jack: But the question I asked
is you have got a clean sheet of paper, you are a new body and
in terms of bringing all the seconds as opposed to the top up
to standard, what approach do you think the new Commission will
evolve and develop to improve the quality of rural proofing by
departments?
Mr Wilson: I suppose it is a mixture
of sticks and carrots, if one wants to characterise it that way.
We have certainly been keen to work with departments to provide
them with advice on rural solutions and rural proofing and I think
we have done that quite successfully with departments. Clearly
if that does not work then it is our role to stand up and say
so.
Q428 Mr Jack: Now with the permission
of the Chairman I would like—and I hope he does not mind—to
ask you a little bit about your membership because Schedule 2
of the Bill deals with the membership, and all the appointments
to the Commission are made either by or to be approved by the
Secretary of State. Are you entirely happy that you cannot get
one or two people of your own nomination to be part of the Commission
without having the imprint of the Secretary of State on the aforementioned
persons?
Dr Burgess: Can I just have a
clarification. Presumably you mean any future board, do you?
Q429 Mr Jack: Yes.
Dr Burgess: Indeed. Can I just
answer and Brian may want to come in in a few moments. We are
actually in the process of having interviewed people for the board
in the future. I am very much part of that panel and although
the recommendation does go to the Secretary of State, my understanding
is, although that is not written down, that the Secretary of State
and myself will finally make the decision of who goes on the board.
Q430 Mr Jack: But sometimes there are
people who have interesting, challenging and strong views and
they are not always the flavour of the month with the government
of day and sometimes if a body like this is to really motor you
need the odd maverick on the board who can chivvy things along.
I can just see a Secretary of State going for the easy life saying,
"Stuart, this person is not really quite my cup of tea,"
and you being the kind of nice person you clearly are might just
possibly defer to the Secretary of State. I just wonder in terms
of stamping independence on this Commission if there should not
be one or two posts which were independent, in other words where
you and your existing board could appoint people who may be very
distinctive in their views but who may not be the Secretary of
State's favourite person?
Dr Burgess: I would always like
the power to be able to choose particular people myself but this
is not, as I understand it, how it is set up.
Q431 Mr Jack: No, no but I am asking,
this is your chance, you see, to tell us because we can write
what we like. If you think it would be nice to have that power,
even though it is not currently available to you, do tell us because
we can write it down in our report.
Dr Burgess: I would certainly
like the power but, on the other hand, I too am accountable to
somebody otherwise I could fill the board with my particular choice
of people. So we have to bear that one in mind. Can I assure you
that at the moment in the process we are going through we have
in a group of recommendations to the Secretary of State particularly
chosen people who have an independent streak about them who will
bring some grit to the board, and I will do my utmost and my very
best to make sure that we have one or two of those people on the
board because I agree with you that a board in its diversity should
have one or two people who are going to challenge and challenge
quite fundamentally.
Q432 Chairman: It is interesting that
we have talked almost exclusively about the Commission. There
is a view abroad—and I do not know whether there is any
substance to it—that the Integrated Agency really is English
Nature in disguise and the other bits are a bolt-on. Would you
like to comment on that?
Dr Burgess: I will do and then
I will, if I may, pass over to Tracey. That is certainly what
I have heard but on the other hand there is also a great commitment.
I am part of a chairs' group with the chair of English Nature,
Martin Doughty, and now the new chair of RDS and it also has on
it the chairs of the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency,
and the chairs' group are really setting out the stall and there
is an IA steering group that Tracey may wish to refer to in a
few moments. When you are bringing any organisations together
there is always the temptation to think that a larger organisation
is going to take over smaller organisations but I think the great
challenge about the Integrated Agency is to see how we can crack
through that and to say in the end what we want this new organisation
to be, whatever it may be called, is more than the sum of all
its parts, as it were, to bring something which is very powerful
together. So on the one hand I understand exactly what you are
saying because I picked that up myself but I think we are now
moving into a very different kind of atmosphere where people are
really having some vision about what could possibly happen for
the sake of rural people and I think there is a greater commitment
on everybody's behalf now to really make it work.
Ms Slaven: I would like to say
that within the purpose of the Integrated Agency as defined in
the draft Bill I am very pleased that we have not got `English
Nature-plus' because it is very clearly a much broader organisation
and indeed with the Integrated Agency Steering Group which brings
together the non-executive board members and council members and
RDS non-execs together.
Q433 Chairman: Tell us a bit more about
that.
Ms Slaven: That grouping is essentially
four or five representatives from each of the boards, the RDS
representatives obviously being very new but which are clearly
playing a strong part in that already. That grouping comes together
and meets between every three or four weeks and is focused on
providing the strategic direction and on developing the vision
for the Integrated Agency and on providing the "shove"
factor, if you like, to get officers working much more closely
together and at unpicking some of the cultural barriers so where
we might have difficulty as officers overcoming some of our organisational
boundaries, that can provide the impetus to say, "No, you
are a confederation from April and you are heading in this direction."
That is really becoming very effective as it is coming forward.
Q434 Chairman: What is the timescale
on all this?
Ms Slaven: The timescale is that
we start working as a confederation from the beginning of April
which will be an evolving process where we bring together the
quick wins initially, which are things like the Aggregates Levy
schemes, where instead of having two points of entry we only have
one, to make things a lot more simple, but also about looking
at how we streamline it in the future really addressing issues
around how conservation, recreation and biodiversity are dealt
with as a single issue so that we do not have competing policies.
It is about the best solution for that particular part of the
environment and raising our sights from site specific to the landscape
level to make a difference that the public can appreciate and
is one of the drivers that we see there.
Q435 Chairman: The finishing line is
1 April 2007?
Ms Slaven: We are working on 1
January.
Dr Burgess: Yes, 1 January, it
is hoped.
Q436 Chairman: And this all requires
primary legislation?
Ms Slaven: A lot of it requires
primary legislation including the establishment of a single Integrated
Agency. What we are doing from 1 April are those things which
we can facilitate without legislation so where there are statutory
powers rather than duties we can bring those together a lot faster.
Q437 Chairman: And if you do not get
primary legislation the whole thing slips back?
Ms Slaven: I think we are finding
that there are benefits from those things that we can do in advance
of legislation that we would want to continue anyway.
Q438 Chairman: So what are the costs
of change? There are always costs to change. Your staff are being
moved around, some are moving out, the Chief Executive has gone.
Just tell me about the dysfunctionalities of change?
Ms Slaven: Change is not necessarily
dysfunctional, there are lots of positives around change. In terms
of the Landscape, Access and Recreation side of the Countryside
Agency, we have been focusing very much on how we work with the
Confederation. There has been relatively little change to my staffing
structure because we will still be operating at a regional level
during the Confederation phase. Where there has been change has
been in terms of getting individuals to rethink the way in which
we work. That takes time and it is difficult to do but it is much
more about management than about expenditure, if you like. Where
we are going to have to make expenditure and investment is in
relation to the rationalisation of things like estates and IT
as we get to the point of the Integrated Agency, not hugely in
the Confederation but when we get to the new Agency. At that point,
the investment would be in order to make our operation more efficient
and to move some of those resources into the front line.
Q439 Chairman: Will the new Agency own
the new premises because at one stage there was some talk that
Defra might own them and you might sub-let them? This does not
sound like an independent agency to me.
Ms Slaven: We have very few offices
that we own at the moment. The question around estates was about
who was the leaseholder. As it stands there are a number of options
that we can take forward in terms of who is the primary leaseholder
and where we take leases under heads of agreement, indeed we could
have an agreement with the Home Office and other departments.
It is about establishing that the Integrated Agency's estate strategy
is driven by its business needs and its connectivity with customers
rather than about who holds a particular lease.
| 
