Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-559)
2 MARCH 2005
LORD WHITTY,
MISS OONA
MUIRHEAD AND
MR BRIAN
HARDING
Q540 Mr Jack: There must
have been a piece of policy advice that crossed your desk that
said "the Minister may care to note that the following circumstances
might occur in the future where the Secretary of State would want
to pass on her powers to a non-designated body" and I would
be surprised if it did not give you some examples of what we are
talking about. Could you perhaps give us a specific example of
the kind of delegation of powers in the way that this clause allows
you to do?
Lord Whitty: My
colleague Oona Muirhead has just identified one, a transfer of
a function to an RDA which is sponsored by a different Secretary
of State.
Q541 Mr Jack: Give us
a for instance. What kind of function might an RDA be tasked to
do?
Miss Muirhead:
The RDAs are being tasked to carry out socio-economic regeneration.
Q542 Mr Jack: They are,
but that is now.
Miss Muirhead:
From April, yes.
Q543 Mr Jack: You want
to put something in this Bill, a power which does not exist at
the moment, and you must have had a pretty good idea of a for
instance as to why you wanted it so could you give us an example?
Miss Muirhead:
We were doing a bit of horizon scanning actually.
Q544 Mr Jack: What did
you see on the horizon that made you write this clause?
Miss Muirhead:
Sometimes it is a bit difficult to see beyond the horizon.
Q545 Mr Jack: Was it Three
Wise Men bearing gifts or something? You do not take powers in
a Bill unless you want to use them.
Miss Muirhead:
Sorry, if I may just elaborate on the example which Lord Whitty
mentioned earlier which is that of grants for land conservation
and management, ie to do with land that either does or does not
have trees on it and, as you know, some grants at the moment are
delivered by the Forestry Commission and some are delivered by
the RDS. In future we wanted to ensure that we could maximise
the effectiveness of delivery. In various parts of the country
perhaps the Forestry Commission might conclude that it was more
effective in terms of the environment and the customer for the
Integrated Agency to carry out some of its functions in that particular
part of the country, or indeed vice versa. The Environment Agency
and the Integrated Agency (at the moment English Nature and RDS—I
am getting ahead of myself in terms of these organisations) are
carrying out work in support of the Water Framework Directive
in relation to catchment area pilots. These are only pilots and
we wanted to ensure the flexibility for that kind of delegation.
It is not a transfer of functions. It is not a wholesale "I
am never going to do this again, this is now for you to do from
now on." This is just a delegation for a specific time period
by mutual consent where it makes sense in terms of effectiveness
of delivery and outcomes.
Q546 Mr Jack: It is not
a mechanism to sub-contract wholesale activities that are currently
done in-house by Defra to outside bodies who could be tasked statutorily
to carry out certain functions that might have been done by Defra
internally, is it?
Lord Whitty: Part
of the whole pattern post the Haskins Report is to move delivery
outside of the core department of Defra so some of the activities
we are talking about, by definition, were previously done by Defra.
For example, the Defra core department includes the RDS and it
includes certain inspectorates. Moving those out of Defra would
be very much in line with the Haskins Report and the Rural Strategy.
If you mean are we sub-contracting them to the private sector,
then, no, we are either creating or using public bodies to carry
out tasks that were previously done by the central department
or transferring them temporarily, delegating them in the strict
sense of the word, from one existing public body to another, by
consent.
Q547 Chairman: Let's park
this one here because we have heard some evidence about it and
the Bill team have been very helpful and worked closely with us.
Perhaps you could give us a quick note about precisely what this
means and if it is possible to give us some hypothetical for instances
that would be useful. I am keen to move on to another bigger issue
which is about the independence of both the Integrated Agency
and the Commission, and again it just seemed to us from some of
the evidence we have heard that the Secretary of State has got
a lot of power. The Secretary of State appoints the members for
both these bodies. English Nature, for example, told us that the
way that their membership is appointed at the moment is more prescribed
and leads to a balance. Can you take us through the thinking on
the membership of the Integrated Agency?
Lord Whitty: The
Integrated Agency is in the same category as the Environment Agency
and other bodies to which the Secretary of State makes appointments,
as it does in relation to English Nature. That does not mean that
they are not independent bodies advising Defra and other parts
of government on the areas in which they operate. So I think the
issue of who appoints and the issue of independence need to be
separated out here because this is, in essence, no different from
the predecessor organisations. Indeed, RDS employees were direct
employees of the Secretary of State previously and then we moved
out to an arms' length organisation so there would be more independence
in that sense. The board would be more independent from the Secretary
of State than is the case now.
Q548 Chairman: My impression,
Larry, is that English Nature, for example, has a maximum number
of members and a minimum number of members and there are some
comments about the way that the membership should be built up
for English Nature. None of that is envisaged for the Integrated
Agency. It has led to suggestions—and I would not put it
higher than that—that that compromises its independence
a little bit.
Lord Whitty: The
current position on English Nature is that the numbers are prescribed
but the make-up is not prescribed in legislation. Indeed, if we
were to prescribe it in legislation we could find ourselves in
a bit of a straitjacket. For example, probably 10 years ago you
would not have wanted somebody who is an expert or experienced
in the climate change area whereas now we would, and one can envisage
similar changes in the balance of the board that one might want
in the future. There are precedents for both having a maximum
or a minimum number and a range and having no number prescribed,
so we have a knock-on for a range in this case but there are arguments
both ways and no doubt this will also emerge during your process.
Miss Muirhead:
I think it would be fair to say we do not feel strongly about
the question of prescribing members. It was again a question of
maintaining flexibility for the future and following the Countryside
Agency example.
Q549 Chairman: The other
issue around this is around the guidance that the Secretary of
State can issue to the Integrated Agency. What kind of things
have you got in mind with that guidance? What would the Secretary
of State be prescribing, as it were?
Lord Whitty: This
is no requirement to prescribe; it is a facility to prescribe,
and the guidance would be fairly broad as to what would be the
broad remit and the broad priorities of the organisation. It is
a similar power in relation to the Environment Agency. It is not
a binding power. The Agency needs to take that guidance into account.
It is parallel to the Environment Agency structure.
Miss Muirhead:
Certainly as far as the Environment Agency is concerned I believe
that they found the provision of guidance by the Secretary of
State on sustainable development and their role in sustainable
development extremely helpful. It is something that perhaps they
do not sleep with it under their pillows but Barbara Young said
she looks at it relatively regularly to get a steer for their
role, and there may be others circumstances in which the individuals
might find it helpful to have a steer from the Secretary of State.
It is very much to be "taken into account".
Q550 Chairman: But the
intention of the Bill is that both the Integrated Agency and the
Commission are to be independent, robust watchdogs, which get
on with their own things but without government interference.
Lord Whitty: Well,
they are delivery agents for broad Government policy but in terms
of individual decisions, yes—I am talking about the Integrated
Agency—it is not a body which in detail would be interfered
with by the Secretary of State. However, we would need to have
regular contact and regular assessment of what the role and priorities
were, some of which may be reflected in guidance and some of which
would be more informally done.
Q551 Chairman: Michael
will come in in a minute but let's remember that English Nature
were critical of the approach to GM. Suppose we are three years
ahead and the GM issue was still alive and the new Integrated
Agency, the delivery agency as you put it, was saying, "Hang
on a minute, we are not entirely happy with this," what is
the constitutional arrangement then?
Lord Whitty: The
Integrated Agency, should it so wish, would be in the same position
as English Nature. It would have to offer its advice in relation
to its own remit which I guess would be on biodiversity in this
respect. Neither the Integrated Agency nor English Nature are
or will be the delivery body for any future decisions on GM. That
is an entirely different process.
Q552 Mr Jack: But when
we listened to our previous set of witnesses Graham Wynne from
the RSPB hoped that the Integrated Agency would be a powerful
defender and advocate for the countryside and for biodiversity,
sustainability and all of those factors. Could you envisage the
Secretary of State writing something by way of guidance which
said "but I do not mind if occasionally you feel very strongly
and you want to write to me fundamentally disagreeing with any
view that I might have"?
Lord Whitty: I
do not think the Secretary of State needs to do that. It is within
its powers so to do.
Q553 Mr Jack: You just
indicated that you thought this body was a delivery agency, in
other words it was an agent of government to do things on behalf
of government. To a certain extent that is true in terms of some
of the statutory activities but it also stands in the role of
informed commentator and I think that there is a concern from
the evidence that we have had that this guidance could constrict
an element of independent analysis and thinking. Could you give
us an assurance that that is not what we are trying to do?
Lord Whitty: That
is not the intention. Clearly the Integrated Agency is specifically
an advisory body in certain respects inheriting it from English
Nature and to some extent from the Countryside Agency, for example
in relation to certain planning decisions. It is a more informal
advisory agency on areas within its remit but it is also a delivery
body and an enforcement body and a management body in certain
respects.
Chairman: Let's just take
stock for a minute. We are going to go and vote and come back
in 10 minutes. I know you have got other appointments.
The Committee suspended from 4.40 pm to
4.53 pm for a division in the House
Q554 Chairman: We can
start again and Oona you wanted to put in a postscript to an earlier
answer.
Miss Muirhead:
I wanted to apologise for having misled you on the delegated powers
where I drew attention to 41(6), I think, and suggested that that
meant that there would be a resolution for a delegation of powers.
Actually that refers to the adding or removing bodies from the
list in Schedule 5 and it is not intended that the delegation
would be subject to resolution.
Q555 Chairman: Okay, but
it takes us back to the point that I was raising with Larry that
there will be certain colleagues in your House who will have anxieties
about this and will feel that they will want to be consulted in
some way.
Lord Whitty: Yes.
We have to deal with the anxieties in my House. It is also true
that there is a degree of frustration that where there is a reasonable
consensus about organisational change it ought to established
that it takes so long to do it, and I think there is a balance
to be struck here and the balance is that any use of that power
has to be by agreement of the organisations concerned, whereas
obviously anything done by force majeur is an entirely
different matter.
Q556 Chairman: We want
to come on to some of the budget and timetable issues in a minute
but before we do that can I ask you about the Commission. In the
past the chair of the Countryside Agency has also been the rural
advocate. The Bill is silent on this point but I got the impression—maybe
wrongly—that that was going to remain the case.
Lord Whitty: The
title "rural advocate" is not a statutory title as at
present. The Prime Minister designated Lord Cameron as the rural
advocate and has so designated Dr Stuart Burgess. There is not
much of an argument for saying that this should be a statutory
provision. It could be that some future Prime Minister might want
to deal with it separately but it would be the intention, as has
been indicated, that the chair under the present Prime Minister
would be so designated, but we did not particularly want to tie
the hands of everybody.
Q557 Chairman: Okay. And
the Commission will have a wide-ranging view across government
and be able to comment on things outside the Defra remit as is
the case now?
Lord Whitty: Absolutely,
yes.
Q558 Chairman: Right,
nothing has changed in that respect?
Lord Whitty: Nothing
has changed in that respect. Clearly, a lot of things have changed
between the Countryside Agency and the new Commission. The new
Commission will not be an executive delivery agent in that sense
but have only an advisory role, and the ability to comment and
monitor policies of all government departments and indeed regional
bodies remains and is explicit in this case. I think there is
a focus on disadvantage in their role which was clearly not there
before but it does not preclude them from commenting more widely.
Q559 Chairman: Before
we move on to the budget issues can we talk a little bit about
social and economic schemes and the RDAs. Some of the work that
the Countryside Agency has done has been with parish councils
with very small communities. I think there is a feeling out there,
as it were, that the RDAs are just too big organisations to take
into account the smaller communities, things like Vital Villages
for example and Village Plans which the Countryside Agency has
experimented with and has been prepared to take risk with. Are
you confident that the RDAs are going to pursue that work?
Lord Whitty: They
will pursue similar work. It is part of our passing of the remit
to the RDAs. Of course, much of what the Countryside Agency did
was, as you explicitly said, experimental to see whether they
took off and the original intention was that some of them might
run for a limited period of time, others would be taken up by
other bodies at local and regional level, so the RDAs would not
be doing precisely what the Countryside Agency did, although they
will fulfil the commitments of the Countryside Agency in respect
of the schemes they are taking over responsibility for, but they
will also develop, hopefully, other schemes, small scale and larger
scale, which meet the criteria of the rural dimension of their
work.
| 
