House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs First Report

2 Core tasks

10. Following a resolution of the House made on 14 May 2002, the Liaison Committee established a set of common objectives or 'core tasks' for select committees. Committees are invited to review how they have met these objectives in their annual reports.

11. Accordingly we set out to show how our work in 2005-06 relates to: Government policy proposals, areas seen by the Committee as requiring examination because of deficiencies, departmental actions, associated public bodies, major appointments, and implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives; examination of any draft legislation; examination of expenditure; and examination of Public Service Agreements.

12. Committees are also invited to report on ministers' appearances before them, and on how they have assisted the House in debate and decision. Table 3 summarises our work in relation to the 'core tasks'. This is followed by a more detailed commentary.

Table 3: Liaison Committee 'core tasks' relevant to 2005-06 inquiries

	Government policy proposals	Examination of deficiencies	Departmental actions	Associated public bodies	Major appointments	Implementation of legislation and major policy issues	Draft legislation	Expenditure	Evidence from Minister	Public Service Agreements
Work of Defra 2005	v	v	v			v		v	v	v
Reform of the EU Sugar Regime	v		v			v	(v)		v	(v)
Avian Influenza		(v)	v	v		v			v	(v)
The Animal Welfare Bill	v						(v)		v	(v)
Defra's Departmental Annual Report 2005	v	v	v	v	(v)	v		v		v
Rural Payments Agency	v	v	v	v	v	v		v	v	v
Bovine TB: badger culling	v	v	v	(v)				(v)		(v)
The Environment Agency		(v)	v	v		v		v	v	v
Work of Defra 2006	v	v	v			v		v	v	v
Climate change: the role of bioenergy	v	v	v			v		v	v	(v)
Defra's Departmental Report 2006 and Defra's budget	v	v	v	v		v		v		v
The UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy"	v	(v)	v			v		v	v	v
Climate change: the "citizen's agenda"	v		v	(v)		v				v

v = the work of the Committee on this inquiry fulfils the criterion

(v) = the work of the Committee on this inquiry is relevant to the criterion

Subjects in the shaded area relate to inquiries on which the Committee has not yet reported. In addition the Committee plans to report again on the Rural Payments Agency.

Inquiries into:

GOVERNMENT POLICY PROPOSALS

13. We scrutinise Defra's policy proposals in a variety of ways: in conducting related inquiries (such as our suite of inquiries into climate change, which take into account the strategy set out in Climate Change: the UK Programme 2006),[7] in responding rapidly to developments (such as the launch of a consultation on controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England: badger culling, on which we took evidence in February 2006, and on which we make further comment below,[8] and in holding evidence sessions with the Secretary of State on the Work of Defra and the Permanent Secretary on Defra's Departmental Annual Reports.

14. Much of Defra's work—and therefore our work—is generated by the UK's membership of the EU. In seeking to exert influence on Defra's policy we are very much aware of the European dimension. Following up the work of our predecessor Committee on the subject, our inquiry into the Reform of the EU Sugar Regime was carefully planned and swiftly carried out to ensure that we were able to inform the UK's negotiating position ahead of the key European Council meeting where agreement on a sugar reform package was secured.[9] The Government response to our Report noted that the overall framework of the agreed package was very much in line with the Committee's recommendations.[10]

15. In December 2005, HM Treasury and Defra launched their joint paper, "A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy". The paper intended to stimulate debate by describing where the UK Government was aiming to be, in terms of European agricultural policy reform, in 10 to 15 years' time. We decided to examine the Government's proposals, in order to explore the "Vision" in detail and to test the validity of the assumptions underlying its conclusions. We will publish a report on this subject shortly.

Table 4: Reports on Government and European Union policy proposals

Report

Principal findings

Reform of the EU Sugar Regime

-urged the Government to support the Commission's stance on price cuts

-concluded that direct payments to sugar beet growers should be fully decoupled from production

-called for recognition of the UK's sugar industry in any compensation package, and for equitable terms of competition between the cane and beet sectors in the UK

-urged the Government to support the maximum possible increase in the level of assistance for the African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar-supplying countries

AREAS SEEN BY THE COMMITTEE AS REQUIRING EXAMINATION BECAUSE OF DEFICIENCIES

16. Identifying deficiencies in the actions of Government departments or agencies has been the main objective of our work on the Rural Payments Agency. In 2005 we appointed rapporteurs to follow up the work of our predecessor Committee, which had commented on delays in making subsidy payments, particularly to cattle farmers, and urged Defra to keep a watchful eye on the development of a new IT system under the Agency's Change Programme. On the recommendation of the rapporteurs we held an evidence session in January, after which we produced an interim report.[11] We subsequently extended our inquiry and appointed a sub-committee to take further evidence. We will publish a report on this subject shortly. We comment on this inquiry in more detail below.[12]

17. When Defra issued a consultation paper on badger culling in December 2005, the Committee decided to hold a short inquiry which would focus on the key questions Ministers needed to address in reaching conclusions on the issues set out in the consultation paper. The evidence we received identified a number of concerns about the consultation process and whilst we did not undertake a full-scale inquiry into the proposals, we presented a summary of these concerns with the evidence we took as our contribution to the consultation.[13]

18. Following concerns raised in our evidence session on Defra's Departmental Report 2006 and subsequent developments in relation to the budgets of agencies and other public bodies sponsored by Defra, we decided to extend our inquiry and take further written and oral evidence on Defra's management of its finances. We comment on this inquiry in more detail below.[14]

Table 5: Reports on deficiencies in the work of Defra and its agencies

Report

Principal findings

Rural Payments Agency: interim report

-concluded that neither Defra nor the RPA gave sufficient consideration to the administrative complexity of the chosen payment model for implementing the Single Farm Payment

-registered alarm about the scale of the cost overrun on the revenue of the RPA's IT contract with Accenture and more generally about the IT problems encountered by the RPA

-criticised the Government's failure—close to the proposed date for making payments, and nearly a year after that date was announced by the RPA—to give a definitive statement about when full payments would be made, or whether farmers would instead initially receive partial payments

Bovine TB: badger culling

-highlighted key concerns raised in evidence: lack of pre-consultation soundings of scientists or other interested parties, insufficient recognition of the "edge effect" (increase in incidence of bovine TB immediately outside an area subject to culling), lack of consideration of the 'human dimension', lack of capacity to carry out the culling options set out, and insufficient recognition of measures other than culling

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS

19. The Committee has taken evidence on specific departmental actions during the course of 2005-06, as part of ongoing inquiries and in connection with important developments. One such development was the rapid spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1. In a "one-off" session we took evidence from Ben Bradshaw MP, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (now Minister of State) for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Ms Glenys Stacey, Chief Executive, State Veterinary Service, and Dr Debby Reynolds, Chief Veterinary Officer.[15]

20. We examined actions taken by Defra and the State Veterinary Service in relation to matters such as contingency planning for an outbreak of H5N1 in the UK, quarantine and trade arrangements for exotic wild birds, wild bird surveillance, and requirements for poultry keepers and the poultry industry. We comment on our subsequent work on avian influenza below.[16]

21. Our inquiry into climate change: the role of bioenergy included an analysis of the policies Defra had developed on bioenergy, and how it had pursued them. We concluded that if its actions in this area were to be indicative of its commitment to the domestic climate change agenda, the Government needed to renew and redouble its efforts to exploit the potential of bioenergy.[17]

Table 6: Inquiries into Departmental Actions

Report

Principal findings

Climate change: the role of bioenergy

Government response to the Committee's Report[18]

-concluded that the Government is not making the most of bioenergy as a means of reducing carbon emissions and recommended an increased focus on renewable heat

-recommended that departments work much more closely together to develop a more streamlined and coherent strategy

-urged the Government to examine the barriers to further progress on 'second generation' biofuels

-recommended changes to the terms of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation to encourage investment in advanced bioenergy technology

-the Committee commented that the Government's response to the Report did not show evidence of any heightened ambition, or increased drive for coherent action across Government on bioenergy policy

Avian influenza

—

THE WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC BODIES

22. Defra's 'delivery landscape' accommodates executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, public corporations and a range of other organisations, including regional and local authority representative bodies.[19] In 2005-06 we heard evidence from the State Veterinary Service,[20] the Rural Payments Agency,[21] English Nature (now part of Natural England), and Natural England.[22]

23. Following up a series of inquiries by our predecessor Committees, we also fulfilled our commitment to examine the work of Defra's agencies and associated public bodies by undertaking an inquiry into the Environment Agency. Ten years after its establishment, we set out to review the Agency's effectiveness and funding, and its relationships with Defra and other key bodies.

Table 7: Reports on the work of bodies associated with Defra

Report

Principal findings

The Rural Payments Agency: interim report

See Table 5

The Environment Agency

-noted concerns that the Agency was experiencing difficulties managing its wide range of responsibilities

-called on Defra to examine whether the Agency was adequately equipped for the cross-cutting environmental challenges facing it

-noted the strong case for placing more of the burden of enforcement costs on to fines, rather than charges

-registered concern that the Agency was finding it difficult to recruit specialist staff

-welcomed increases in funding for flood defence work; called for further increases

-recommended that Defra provide Natural England with clear guidance on using agri-environment funding in order to avoid tension in the relationship between the Agency and Natural England.

MAJOR APPOINTMENTS

24. Our predecessor Committee recommended that the Department put in place procedures to inform it in advance of all major appointments pending and/or made. In 2005-06 major appointments have coincided with relevant Committee inquiries. The House was informed of the appointment of an acting Chief Executive of the Rural Payments Agency in March 2006; we took evidence from Mark Addison shortly after he retired from this role, in June 2006, and from his successor, Tony Cooper, on 27 November 2006.

25. Defra's new Permanent Secretary, Helen Ghosh, gave evidence to the Committee in connection with its inquiry into Defra's Departmental Annual Report 2005, in November 2005, a few days after taking up her post, and again on 4 December 2006, on Defra's budget.[23] Soon after Natural England was established, we took evidence from its Chief Executive, Dr Helen Phillips, in connection with the Committee's inquiry into the UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy".

IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION AND MAJOR POLICY INITIATIVES

26. In 2005-06 we have scrutinised the implementation of legislation as part of our wider inquiry and other work. In monitoring developments in relation to avian influenza we gathered information on how EU legislation is transposed and implemented by the UK Government.

27. Our inquiries into the Environment Agency and the UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy" gave us the opportunity to consider how one aspect of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act—the creation of Natural England—has been implemented. Our inquiry into the Rural Payments Agency has also focussed heavily on how the Single Payment Scheme had been implemented in England. We note that these are examples of "post-legislative scrutiny", an area in which Parliament is often said to be deficient.

28. In connection with our inquiry into climate change: the "citizen's agenda" we are considering evidence on the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 and will monitor the implementation of the Act. We will examine the major policy initiatives which we expect to follow the publication of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change as a key part of our work on climate change, particularly in relation to our planned inquiry into international climate policy post-2012.

Examination of draft legislation

29. In 2004 our predecessor Committee undertook detailed scrutiny of the Government's draft Animal Welfare Bill. We announced a short inquiry to follow up the work of our predecessor Committee in October 2005. The evidence we received confirmed that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny had helped to produce a better-drafted bill.[24]

30. We have made it known to Defra, and we reiterate it here, that we welcome the opportunity to consider legislation in draft. We had hoped to be able to scrutinise a draft Marine Bill in the 2005-06 session. Whilst no mention of the Bill was made in the Queen's Speech we place on record our wish to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill if it is published in draft. We also await details of the process that will lead to the introduction of a Climate Change Bill and we have informed Defra of our wish to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Climate Change Bill. Our predecessor Committee played a crucial role in driving the Government to be more rigorous both in terms of its policy development and its drafting of legislation on animal welfare. The benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny in this case were evident, and the Government should make it possible for legislation on climate change to be improved in the same way.

Examination of expenditure

31. The Committee undertakes an annual scrutiny exercise in relation to Defra expenditure through a series of inquiries into Defra's Departmental Reports. In conducting the most recent inquiry of the series, into the 2006 Report, we heard evidence of a substantial change to Defra's budget for 2006-07; Defra subsequently provided more information to the House in the form of Written Answers.[25] In order to establish the reasons for the reduction, and to assess its effects on the services and projects run by Defra and its associated bodies, we extended our inquiry to seek further written and oral evidence. Helen Ghosh, Permanent Secretary, and Ian Grattidge, Director of Finance, Planning and Resources at Defra, gave evidence on 4 December 2006.

32. In attempting to evaluate the statements made by Defra in which ministers or officials have attributed the budget cuts to changes in Treasury procedures, our inquiry has implications for departments across government. We asked the Treasury to assist us with our inquiry, by providing written evidence and by briefing us on an informal basis. We were annoyed and disappointed that our invitations were declined, particularly in light of the emphasis placed by the Leader of the House in the last Parliament on "the presumption that the provision of information will be agreed to, including the presumption of co-operation on joined-up inquiries".[26]

Evidence from ministers

33. In 2005-06 the Committee heard evidence from ministers on seven occasions. We note that in the most recent Cabinet reshuffle, Defra lost all but one of the Ministerial team appointed after the 2005 General Election.

34. We place on record our gratitude to the Secretary of State for taking up the invitation extended to his predecessor to appear before us.

Public Service Agreements

35. Several of our inquiries examined aspects of the work of the Department which related to its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets, although performance against the PSA might not have been the focus of the inquiry. These are set out in Table 8.

Table 8: Relationship between our inquiries and Departmental PSA targets

Inquiry	PSA target[27]
Defra's Departmental Report 2005	Target 2 (SR 2002/2004);Target 3 (SR 2004) ; Target 4 (SR 2004)
Reform of the EU Sugar Regime	Target 5 (SR 2002/2004)
Animal Welfare Bill	Target 9 (SR 2004)
Avian influenza	Target 9 (SR 2004)
Rural Payments Agency	Target 3 (SR 2004) ; Target 5 (SR 2004))
Bovine TB: badger culling	Target 9 (SR 2004)
Climate change: the role of bioenergy	Target 1 (SR 2004); Target 2 (SR 2004)
The UK Government's "Vision for the CAP"	Target 5 (SR 2002/2004); Target 3 (SR 2004)
Climate change: the "citizen's agenda"	Target 1 (SR 2004); Target 2 (SR 2004); Target 7 (SR 2004)

36. In our report on Defra's Departmental Annual Report 2005, we reported on Defra's performance in achieving some of its Public Service Agreement targets. In particular, we registered our disappointment that Defra had not been able to assess progress against its PSA target relating to rural affairs (which went 'live' on 1 April 2003), and recommended that the Department begin working towards a more appropriate PSA target ahead of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review.[28]

37. In giving evidence to the Committee on Defra's Departmental Report 2006, the Permanent Secretary to Defra told us that the Department had "a slightly strange set of PSAs" and that in preparing for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending review, it would:

"want undoubtedly to focus more on outcomes and think more effectively about how we engage broader government in our objectives and work coherently to UK Government objectives across the whole piece".[29]

38. We welcome the Permanent Secretary's invitation to the Committee to work with Defra on its PSA targets and look forward to receiving from Defra the draft PSAs it is discussing with the Treasury.[30]

Assisting the House

39. On 6 June 2005, the Order Paper drew attention to our predecessor Committee's report on the Government's Rural Strategy and the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill (and the Government's response to our report), as being relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill. On 7 December 2005, the Order Paper drew attention to our predecessor Committee's report on the future for UK fishing and the Government's response, as being relevant to an adjournment debate on fisheries.

40. On 10 January 2006, the Order Paper drew attention to our report on the Animal Welfare Bill as being relevant to the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

7 Climate Change: the UK Programme 2006, Cm 6764 Back

8 Controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England: badger culling-a consultation document issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, December 2005; see paragraph 17. Back

9 Second Report, Session 2005-06, Reform of the EU Sugar Regime, HC 585 Back

10 Fourth Special Report, Session 2005-06, Reform of the EU Sugar Regime: Government Response to the Committee's Second Report, HC 927, p 1 Back

11 Fifth Report, Session 2005-06, Rural Payments Agency: interim report, HC 840 Back

12 See paragraph 56. Back

13 Sixth Report, Session 2005-06, Bovine TB: badger culling, HC 905 Back

14 See paragraphs 31 and 32. Back

15 Oral evidence taken before the Committee on 15 November 2005, HC (2005-06) 682-i Back