The work of the Committee in 2007-08 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

2  Core tasks

9.  Since 2002 the Liaison Committee has set common objectives or "core tasks" for select committees. Committees are asked to review how they have met these objectives in their annual reports. Committees are also invited to report on ministers' appearances before them, and on how they have assisted the House in debate and decision.

10.  Table 3 summarises our work in relation to the core tasks. This is followed by a more detailed commentary. In most cases pieces of work by the Committee will fulfil more than one of the core tasks, so we discuss them in the section to which they are most directly relevant.Table 2: Liaison Committee "core tasks" relevant to 2007-08 inquiries

	Government and EU policy proposals	Examination of emerging policies and of deficiencies	Draft bills*	Decisions and documents from Defra	Expenditure of Defra and associated bodies	Public Service Agreements	Work of Defra's associated public bodies	Major appointments*	Implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives	Informing debates in the House	Evidence from Ministers
Avian influenza/Notifiable animal diseases		x		x	(x)	(x)	(x)		(x)
Defra priorities		x			x	x	(x)		(x)
The UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy": Government response to the Committee's Fourth Report, Session 2006-07	x	x		x	x	x
Climate change: the "citizen's agenda": Government response to the Committee's Eighth Report, Session 2006-07	x	x		x	x	x	x		x
Badgers and Cattle TB: Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB	x	x		x	x	x	(x)			x	x
Flooding		x		x	x		x		x	x	x
Climate change: the "citizen's agenda" and the Bali Summit	x	x		x	(x)	x	x		x		x
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966	x	x		x	(x)						x
Committee on Climate Change		x		(x)	(x)	(x)		x	x
Implementation of the Nitrates Directive	x	x		x					x	x	x
British Waterways: follow up		x		x	x		x				x
Draft Marine Bill: coastal access provisions	x	x	x	x	(x)		x		x		x
The potential of England's rural economy		x		x	x	x	x		x		x
Energy efficiency and fuel poverty[2]	x	x		x	x	x	x		x		x
Defra science				x	x		x	x
Food	x	x		x	x		(x)
Waste Strategy for England 2007	x	x		x	x		x		x		x
English pig industry	x										x
Defra Annual Report 2008		(x)		x	x	x	x
Biodiversity		x			x		x		x

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

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

* = only applicable for Draft Marine Bill, Committee on Climate Change and Defra science

Subjects in the shaded area relate to inquiries on which the Committee has not yet reported.

Government and EU policy proposals

11.  A large part of Defra's work is affected by EU-derived policies. In particular, in this Session we examined the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, a piece of EU legislation dating back many years but on which the UK was facing legal proceedings by the Commission for non-implementation. We concluded that although the Directive was flawed and over-prescriptive, Defra had no option but to implement it more fully in England. Our recommendations were aimed at making the impact of implementation as small as possible on the farming industry, and removing measures which were not required by the Directive and which would have damaging effects on farmers and the environment.

Examination of emerging policies and deficiencies

THE VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT 1966

12.  In framing our inquiries the Committee listens carefully to the views of interested parties. Our short inquiry into the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 was a response to concerns from the profession that the Act was not fit for purpose. Our inquiry was intended to discover whether there was a need to replace the Act, what Defra's plans for updating the Act were, and what the views were of the veterinary profession and others who work with animals. We found not only that the veterinary profession had not come to a settled view on what changes it wanted, but also that Defra was no longer able to proceed with a new Act before 2011 owing to reprioritisation by ministers of the Department's budget. This surprising revelation by the minister at our final evidence session led us to recommend that the veterinary profession work to produce a settled common view of what legislative changes it wanted over the coming three years. Our inquiry has led to a vigorous debate within the profession about its future.

BADGERS AND CATTLE TB

13.  We concluded our study of the work of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on cattle TB and on what policy the Government should subsequently follow. Much discussion focused on the issue of the merits or otherwise of culling badgers to help control the disease. Although this was something on which Members had different initial views based on their constituency and personal experience, we agreed a unanimous report that did not duck the difficult issues.

14.  The Government had told us that it was very keen to hear the Committee's view before announcing its own policy for controlling the disease. However it took four months following our Report to announce the policy, and when it emerged we were disappointed with its contents. The policy appeared not to recognise the seriousness of the disease, and we felt that the Government was pinning its hope of a solution predominantly on vaccines to the exclusion of anything else. Furthermore, the precise nature of the assessment Defra had made of proposals from farmers for a badger cull was unclear. We issued a further Report articulating our concerns, and said that we would want to take more evidence from the Secretary of State.

15.  Defra gave us a further response. It contained much information that could have usefully appeared in its original document. We heard evidence from the Secretary of State in November on both responses. We will publish the Government response to the Committee's Tenth Report in a Special Report together with the transcript of the evidence session with the Secretary of State in November.

FLOODING

16.  The serious floods that affected parts of the country in the summer of 2007 led us to examine the complex arrangements that govern flood management. This was a substantial undertaking, and we also needed to ensure that our work did not clash with that of Sir Michael Pitt, who had been asked by the Government to review the lessons to be learned from the floods. We did not attempt to duplicate Sir Michael's work. Our recommendations focused on the roles that the Environment Agency and local authorities should have, and the need for Defra to have a costed, detailed plan to implement Pitt and for progress with this to be monitored, preferably by an independent figure. We were pleased that the Pitt review included a request that this Committee continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of the review's recommendations.

Draft Bills

17.  The Government announced in July 2007 that the proposals for a Marine Bill were being considered for publication in draft and that this could be expected in early 2008. We agreed to examine the draft bill when it appeared. In early 2008 there were suggestions that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be set up to examine the draft bill, as had happened in 2007 with the Draft Climate Change Bill. When the Bill was published in April it became clear that a Joint Committee would be set up. In order to avoid duplicating its work, we decided to examine a discrete part of the draft Bill, a part which was not in the White Paper consulted on in 2007: the coastal access provisions. Although the Joint Committee took some evidence on these provisions, it concentrated on the rest of the proposals. We took four sessions of oral evidence and visited the Essex coast to see for ourselves the sort of issues that the proposals raised and published our Report on 22 July. The Government replied to our and the Joint Committee's reports in a Command Paper in October, adopting a number of our recommendations. However the Government rejected our main recommendations that landowners should have a right of appeal to a third party over the alignment of coastal access, and that Natural England should have the power to offer compensation when necessary to achieve the required fair balance between the rights of landowners and of access.

18.  We said in our Report that we were dissatisfied about the uncertainty that surrounds the process of pre-legislative scrutiny that was exemplified by this case. Given the amount of time and effort that goes into the drafting of bills, we were surprised at the vague and uncommunicative way in which the Government deals with the House in preparing for such scrutiny, especially as pre-legislative scrutiny is one of the principal reasons for publishing a draft bill. In principle, we believe such pre-legislative scrutiny should be a function of the departmental select committee responsible for the Department sponsoring the draft bill. If that committee is unable or unwilling to perform the task, then a joint committee could be necessary. We concluded that when the Government is preparing draft bills in the future, it should inform the Liaison Committee which should recommend, in consultation with the relevant departmental select committee, how pre-legislative scrutiny should be conducted.

Decisions and documents from Defra

19.  A number of serious animal diseases broke out in 2007: foot and mouth disease (from premises licensed by Defra); bluetongue; and avian influenza (twice). Members of the Committee met the then Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer of Defra for a briefing on avian influenza, and also Sir Iain Anderson, who investigated the handling of the Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in 2007.

Expenditure of Defra and associated public bodies

20.  We have continued to monitor the budgeting, expenditure and performance of Defra at regular intervals through the Session. We took evidence at short notice from the Permanent Secretary in November 2007 in order to hear about the likely impact of the emerging budget settlement for Defra under the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), and to assess the Department's progress with its efficiency savings. We took further evidence from the Permanent Secretary in April 2008 on the outcome of the CSR and how Defra was adjusting its work to fit the new priorities set by ministers. We heard evidence from the Permanent Secretary once again in November 2008 on the Department's Annual Report, and questioned her also on the implications for Defra of the recent machinery of government changes involving the creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We also took the opportunity to raise that matter when we took evidence from the Secretary of State on 5 November 2008.

21.  A small group of Members of the Committee has sought to familiarise ourselves better with the mechanics of the Department's budgeting process, and to assist us we informally met the Permanent Secretary, the Finance Director and other Board Members at Defra in advance of our evidence session in April. This was a very helpful occasion, and we thank the officials concerned for their openness with us. The Chairman is also a member of the Liaison Committee's Working Group on Financial Scrutiny, which is working to improve the transparency of Government accounting and financial procedures and enhance the ability of select committees to scrutinise Government finances.

Public Service Agreements

22.  We examined both the Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State on their existing and new PSA targets in oral evidence, and took written evidence from the Department. Our inquiry into the potential of England's rural economy focused on the Departmental Strategic Objective that replaces the former PSA target on enhancing opportunity in rural England. Our re-opened inquiry into fuel poverty and energy efficiency will scrutinise Defra's performance against a former PSA target to reduce fuel poverty.

Work of Defra's associated public bodies

23.  Last year we found that relations between British Waterways (BW) and Defra had been tense. The responsible minister had criticised BW in public on a number of grounds, and it appeared that BW and the Department were not communicating clearly enough. We called for a fresh start under the new minister. We looked at British Waterways again this year, and were pleased to find that, partly because of our previous Report, the relationship between BW and Defra was much clearer and more positive than it had been, and that both understood the respective responsibilities of the other.

24.  Our inquiry into flooding has involved us examining the role of, and taking evidence from, the Environment Agency. We took evidence from the Agency on the Waste Strategy. We heard from Natural England (NE) on flooding at our meeting in Lincoln. We also held an informal briefing with NE to discuss progress against its biodiversity targets. Our review of the potential of the rural economy has involved us meeting the Rural Advocate and the Commission for Rural Communities on several occasions.

Major appointments

25.  In March we heard oral evidence on from the new Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, on his priorities. This was the first occasion on which he had been questioned in detail in public about his views and his Committee's future work.

Implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives

26.  Our work on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive has been noted above (paragraph 11).

Informing debates in the House

27.  On 9 June 2008 our Report from the previous year on the draft Climate Change Bill was "tagged" on the Order Paper as relevant to the Second Reading debate on the Climate Change Bill [Lords].

28.  Three of our Reports in particular—Badgers and Cattle TB: the final report of the ISG, Flooding, and the Implementation of the Nitrates Directive—have been referred to on several occasions in debates in the House and in Westminster Hall.

Evidence from Ministers

29.  We took evidence in February from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on climate change and the outcome of the Bali summit, and in November 2008 on Defra's response to our work on Badgers and cattle TB. We also heard evidence from other Defra ministers in connection with our inquiries into Flooding (Mr Phil Woolas MP), the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Lord Rooker), Implementation of the Nitrates Directive (Mr Phil Woolas MP), Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the ISG (Lord Rooker), British Waterways, the Potential of England's Rural Economy, and the Draft Marine Bill (all Jonathan Shaw MP), and the English Pig Industry and the Waste Strategy for England (both Rt Hon Jane Kennedy MP).

---

2   This inquiry was discontinued in October 2008 after responsibility for this subject passed from Defra to the new Department of Energy and Climate Change, but reopened after the decision of the House to delay the appointment of the Committee until after 1 January 2009. Back

---

Prepared 15 January 2009