Public Bodies (Abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities) Order 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Benyon, Richard (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Binley, Mr Brian (Northampton South) (Con)
† Burrowes, Mr David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
† Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD)
Gapes, Mike (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
† Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con)
† Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab)
† Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab)
† Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
† McGovern, Jim (Dundee West) (Lab)
† Milton, Anne (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Parish, Neil (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
† Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)
Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
† Sturdy, Julian (York Outer) (Con)
Lydia Menzies, Jessica Montgomery, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 18 September 2012
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities) Order 2012
9.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities) Order 2012.
Good morning, Mr Brady. Thank you for overseeing our proceedings this morning. I welcome the opportunity to introduce the draft order and to elaborate on the issues described in the accompanying explanatory document. I thank Dr Stuart Burgess and his team of commissioners for their commitment to the well-being of rural communities. I thank them too for the constructive way in which they have continued to work in liaison with the rural communities policy unit at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I really appreciate the help and guidance given by Dr Burgess and his team throughout recent years. His commitment to rural Britain is second to none. He is hugely admired throughout the House and by the many bodies concerned about the future of rural Britain.
The order will be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. It reflects one of the outcomes of the Government’s programme of reform for public bodies. It will abolish the Commission for Rural Communities and finalise the consolidation of the rural policy functions within DEFRA. The rationale for the reform was articulated during the passage of the Public Bodies Act under which we sought powers to abolish the CRC. We consulted widely, as required under the Act, on both the new rural policy functions within DEFRA and the abolition of the CRC.
Of the 41 responses received, 12 individuals and organisations supported abolition; 12 respondents were opposed to it, and 17 did not expressly support or oppose abolition. We firmly believe the reform to be necessary. Placing rural interests at the heart of government, led and championed by DEFRA Ministers, will allow us to shape and influence policy throughout Whitehall at an early stage. The abolition of the CRC is not a decision that the Government have taken simply to reduce costs or attention on rural issues. It is a decision that will remove duplication, improve effectiveness and enable resources to be more effectively deployed.
Financial savings of more than £17 million will be made as a result of the reform during the comprehensive spending review period. From the Prime Minister down, the Government have strong rural credentials. We have clear and bold ambitions for our rural areas. Abolition of the CRC paves the way for DEFRA Ministers to
bring forward new, more effective approaches to ensure that rural needs and opportunities are properly understood before decisions are made.On 1 April 2011, the rural communities policy unit—a centre of rural expertise—was created within DEFRA. The RCPU is designed to engage more effectively and at an early stage in the development of policy throughout the Government. Members of the Committee will be aware that, last week, the Government launched their rural statement, which sets out a positive new agenda for rural England—a contract with rural areas so that they can hold us to account on our promise to grow the rural economy and support thriving rural communities.
The rural statement underlines our commitment to rural England. It reflects our vision for successful rural businesses and thriving rural communities, and is based on three key priorities. On economic growth, we want rural businesses to make a substantial contribution to the national economy and national growth. On rural engagement, we want to engage directly with rural communities so that they know the Government are on their side. On the quality of life, we want rural people to have fair access to public services and to be engaged actively in shaping the places in which they live.
DEFRA Ministers are taking proactive steps to ensure that two-way communication with rural stakeholders and communities is established. That is crucial to developing better rural proofing and delivering more effective outcomes on behalf of rural areas. For example, DEFRA Ministers have established the new rural and farming networks to give rural stakeholders a voice straight through to Whitehall on behalf of their localities. Similarly, the Department regularly engages with the Rural Coalition, ensuring that advice from experienced practitioners is fed in, through dialogue, at appropriate points of policy development and implementation. The Government are taking proactive steps to deliver independent scrutiny of rural proofing. This autumn, DEFRA will publish new rural-proofing guidelines, offering advice, guidance and support to policy officials across central Government and also to other areas of government around the country.
Throughout the debate surrounding the abolition of the CRC, concerns have been raised about the loss of independent advice and challenge. That is why we have set out our plans to
“commission an external review of the impact of the new Rural Proofing package, to be undertaken in the summer of 2013.”
Importantly, DEFRA Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for how they fulfil their role as rural champions. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into rural communities is focusing on the role of the RCPU, rural grants and funding, and the rural proofing of Government policy. I welcome the attention that the inquiry is placing on both the role of the RCPU and our efforts to ensure that all Departments give adequate attention to rural proofing their policy and decision making.
This is a good reform that heralds a new and exciting era for our rural communities. I firmly believe that our case is strong and that the order, with the new arrangements that it brings in, will deliver better outcomes for rural communities. To that end, I commend the order to the Committee.
10.1 am
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship on this glorious morning, Mr Brady.
I congratulate the Minister on being in his place. I say that quite genuinely: he is now the most long-standing and experienced Minister in the Department. I suggest that he applies straight away for a pay rise—I mention that to him on the quiet. I, too, want to thank Stuart Burgess, and I echo the Minister’s comments. I was in the Minister’s post for some time, and my discussions with Stuart Burgess, when he was the Rural Advocate, were always convivial but very frank. He was challenging to the Government. His and his fellow commissioners’ reports often stated things that the Government did not want to hear, but those things were real truths about rural communities and the rural economy and about the challenges and opportunities that they faced. It is no surprise that, in the consultation, many people clearly expressed their sentiment that such an independent voice will be missed. I want to return to that in a moment.
In discussing another public bodies order from DEFRA, of which there have been quite a few, it is worth noting that the vast majority of such discussions have by and large been consensual to date, with some focus only on the edges. I should be frank with the Minister and say that I will not oppose the order outright—I reserve my right to change my mind as the debate goes on—but I want him directly to answer several important questions. They largely concern accountability, which will not surprise him, because that was the major focus of many respondents to the consultation.
I note from the impact assessment, which Members have in front of them, that, in line with the consultation, the Government considered two options. The first was to do nothing:
“Leave the Commission for Rural Communities as it is. This approach would cost an estimated £600k pa. and maintains the potential for confusion around roles of the CRC and Defra amongst both external stakeholders and Government departments.”
“This approach removes the CRC and ensures Defra’s Ministerial team champion rural issues across government.”
I hate to hark back to the 1990s, but I wonder why a third way was not considered, which could have been to streamline the CRC. The Minister now intends to abolish it, so pulling back the costs and ensuring that DEFRA takes a responsible attitude to what it has been charged to do across Government, which is finding cost savings—the Minister has made it clear that the order is not a cost-saving exercise—but also maintaining that independent, impartial and challenging voice for rural communities. As I will discuss in a moment, it is not simply me or the Campaign to Protect Rural England saying that: coalition Back Benchers have also made their views very clear, both in the consultation and in Parliament. Even if they support the idea of saving costs and so on, what they worry about within these proposals is the loss of that independent voice.
I heard the Minister’s introductory remarks and have read the documents, but I say quite honestly to him that, as someone who was charged with rural proofing across Government and being the champion of the rural voice in Government, I could not have done the
heavy lifting on my own, not without an assertive, powerful, dominant voice that was outside Government and was saying the same things. I am seriously worried that, having lost that voice, the Minister may in fact find it more difficult to counter the deficiencies in rural proofing, which is the intention behind the proposal. There undoubtedly are deficiencies: we had successes in rural proofing, but it did not happen systemically, day by day, across every Whitehall Department. The Minister’s job may actually be more difficult now, without that independent external back-up saying, “The Minister is darn right, in our view, that those transport policies have not been thought out properly,” or, “Those housing policies have not been properly rural proofed,” and so on. The Minister may find himself in the invidious position of being, as I was, one Minister in the DEFRA ranks, with the back-up only of his new unit. That unit might contain the most expert people in the world, but ultimately it is a unit of expert civil servants. I have a high regard for the people who work both in the commission and in DEFRA’s rural units, but they do not bend the ear of a Secretary of State or bend the ear at No. 10 in the same way as when we have a commissioner, who is an independent advocate, stepping outside the political ranks and saying, “This is how it is, here is the reality; for goodness’ sake, Government, listen.”The Government argue that the changes in front of us will allow DEFRA Ministers to be held accountable by Parliament for the exercise of rural policy functions. However, as Lord Knight illustrated in the other place, it is worth looking at how Parliament has been treated by DEFRA, in recent months and in the past couple of years. Here in Parliament, we have been rocked by successive protests that have prioritised direct action over parliamentary pressure. The proposals to sell off the nation’s forests were met with widespread protest, forcing the Government to back down. The same occurred over national nature reserves and changes to reduce environmental protection in planning law. There was and is confusion over a ban on wild animals in circuses. Ministers’ wires were crossed over the possibility that an adjudicator would be created to oversee a voluntary code for the dairy supply chain. Over Easter, DEFRA suggested allowing the shooting of buzzards, a policy that was then dropped in a now quite predictable volte-face. Despite our protestations, the Government continue to pursue, one after another, policies that are ultimately dumped in the face of public opinion. As Lord Knight put it, much more eloquently, in the other place:
“it was clear that Ministers were more accountable to 38 Degrees, the National Trust and Farmers for Action than to this Parliament”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 2012; Vol. 739, c. GC240.]
I would argue that those U-turns signify a lack of long-term strategic thinking within DEFRA. Yet while that dearth of clear, unambivalent leadership prevails, rural England is increasingly feeling the bite of policies and cuts from Government Departments. For example, it emerged in July that the rate of young people not in education, employment or training is rising faster in rural areas than in urban ones, and that rural councils, which tend to have older and, of course, less deprived populations, receive lower grant allocations, spend less on social care, charge more for home care and allocate lower personal budgets than local authorities that serve younger, more urban and more deprived populations. Recent research finds that social tenants in rural areas
will be more likely than those in urban areas to have to move house as a consequence of reductions in housing benefit, yet there are fewer smaller dwellings for them to move into in rural constituencies—we know that. Those findings did not come from a think-tank, but were published in the July newsletter from the Commission for Rural Communities.I am sure the commission’s independent reports often made uncomfortable reading—they often did for me when I was in the Minister’s position—not only for DEFRA, but across Whitehall. That is the issue: rural proofing across Whitehall Departments. The independence of these reports from Government increases accountability, and the reports are more powerful as a result. In the current inhospitable economic climate, it is more important than ever that the voices of rural communities are not lost; in fact, they need to be louder. Yet by burying the CRC without any plan to ensure that its function as an advocate and independent voice remains, that is the threat.
It is critical that someone outside Government has the role of looking at rural policy and assessing the decisions taken by all Departments. That is why we ask, not—in obstruction to the Minister—for the expensive retention of the CRC, but for the retention of an independent rural champion that will promote the needs of rural communities that are some of the most deprived in England—even if that is hidden below the surface. Yet, under these proposals, the “independent voice” will be provided by the Minister. Will the Minister therefore explain why we cannot have an independent rural voice that tells us—by appointment, with the authority of the Prime Minister—what is really happening in rural communities without fear of, or favour from, the Government?
The Minister outlined that the Government, by this change to the rural policy function, are set to save around £17 million over the comprehensive spending review period. I would hate to think that, despite the Minister’s assurances, the change is cost-driven, but whether or not that is the case, it is worth noting that the CRC cost around £600,000 in the last financial year. Does the Minister agree, and have some sympathy with the argument, that it would be worth diverting some of the remaining cost of the rural policy function to support the continuation of a rural policy advisor who is independent of Government? Well over half of the respondents to the Government's consultation on the abolition of the CRC argued that, after 100 years of the CRC and its predecessors, losing this independent voice would be a retrograde step. Many of those same respondents argue that it is crucial to retain scrutiny of rural issues that is independent of Government. That point has been made repeatedly in debates in the other place and in the Commons; in February last year, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee expressed concern in its “Farming in the Uplands” report that rural policy would be negatively affected.
Concerns over the abolition of the CRC and the loss of an independent voice have been expressed outside this place, not least by coalition MPs who represent rural constituencies, and in the scribbles of journalists who are normally esteemed by the Government for their insight. I will mention one, as then he might
mention me in his scribbles: the inestimable Geoffrey Lean, Esquire, of The Daily Telegraph—my mother would be very proud if I featured in The Daily Telegraph. Organisations such as the Chief Economic Development Officers Society and the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport have also made their concerns clear.There is an alternative. Some, such the CPRE, have mooted—if the Government were open to the possibility—a leaner, meaner organisation that would still guarantee an independent voice for the countryside. That alternative has been debated in both Houses, and is characterised by these features: a prominent, vocal and independent spokesperson for rural communities who would spend time understanding, examining and articulating their needs, challenges and aspirations and the impact of Government policies on those communities. That person would have a small—I emphasise, small—team, which would evaluate policy across Government, effectively rural proofing what the Minister is trying to do, and a minimal budget, reflecting the drive across Government to reduce costs. Most importantly, we would retain a rural champion, independent of Government, in a strategic, non-partisan body, working with organisations and politicians of all colours, on all sides and none.
As a bare minimum, the Government must explain how abolishing the CRC and replacing it with an internal rural communities unit, directly answerable to a Minister—currently a Conservative or Liberal Democrat, but in future some other political master—will retain that essential independence. Ministers may be clever, witty, cunning, able, competent or otherwise, but by the very nature of their political calling, political appointment and ultimate disappointment on being dispatched from office, they are not by any stretch of the imagination capable of being described as independent. The Minister may, therefore, have his work cut out in explaining how he will be, despite his abilities, that redoubtable, fearless and independent champion for rural communities, but I look forward to his response.
10.15 am
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I apologise, Mr Brady, for being a minute late. I speak as the longest serving current member of the Select Committee, having joined in 2005 after the general election. Both Stuart Burgess and the CRC staff generally have done a huge amount of work, from which members of the Select Committee have benefited very much. Stuart challenged us to take up the issues that he set before us. On one inquiry, I remember staff from the commission coming with us on a visit to rural north Yorkshire to look at some of the issues that the various Government agencies and the communities themselves were facing. We took evidence in a rural setting up there from local people, which was very valuable to us, and an exercise I hope we will repeat. It was useful to have staff from the commission there.
The hon. Member for Ogmore, for whom I have a great deal of respect, pointed out the uncomfortable nature of being a Minister in the Department and having someone external make statements, perhaps about where the Government are missing a trick. I was a Member of the Opposition during the last Parliament, and there were certainly many areas in which the previous Government could have done a lot more for rural
communities. I say genuinely that I do not think that there was a problem with what the hon. Gentleman was doing; the problem was getting that message across to other Ministers and their Departments. If I look at the funding formulae that affect health, social services, local government services for sparse, rural populations, transport, and, in particular, schools, I see that there are a number of areas in which other Departments did not respond to that agenda.The hon. Member for Ogmore painted a picture of an independent voice, which is external to Government, makes life very difficult for Ministers in DEFRA, at times prods the Select Committee into action and informs its work and is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Ministers across Government. I have to say I do not see that. I have not seen other Departments responding to all the great work that Stuart and the commission have done. There is perhaps also an issue that, because the commission speaks only to Ministers in DEFRA, its relationship with Government begins and ends there.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s fault-finding. The commission’s relationship with Government was not consistent; the policy was not emphatically driven across Whitehall Departments. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks.
I will give one good example. I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but one of his colleagues brought forward the rural housing strategy in response to factors that had been highlighted by the commission, among others. No. 10, hearing the commission’s voice and that of the then Secretary of State, who reiterated its view, then said, “You go ahead and produce that strategy for us.”
Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think he is referring to the report that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor wrote, which the Government picked up in a few areas. I am disappointed that the previous Government and current Government have not addressed or picked up on some of its recommendations on second homes and planning. But there we go; we continue to fight on that issue.
As the hon. Gentleman said, what probably swung that report was the Secretary of State taking it to the Prime Minister and saying, “Look, we need to do some work on this.” Whether that voice is external or internal to Government, ultimately it is the ability of the Ministers in DEFRA to go to their colleagues across Government and put forward the case for rural communities that makes the biggest difference. One characterisation is that it would be more powerful for that voice to be external, making reports to Government and making life difficult for Ministers. Another may be that that information is more powerful if it comes from Ministers within the Government, and that, as the elected representatives serving rural communities across the country, they are able to be the strongest voice in Government making life difficult for their colleagues.
We are in a period of coalition Government, where some of the debates between the parties in Government, and also, from time to time, between Departments, pop from the private into the public arena. That also happened from time to time under the previous Government, in that coalition between the two figures who were at the
top of the Labour party. That shows that when Ministers feel very strongly about something—that a colleague is not picking up on an issue that they have set before them—they will use every means available to make the case for fundamental change, and other Ministers will often respond to that.I rose to pay tribute to the work that Stuart Burgess and the staff of the commission have done over the years. The Government have rightly embarked on a programme to cut the number of organisations external to Government that are spending public money at a time of huge spending pressure. Ever since I became involved in politics we have talked about quangos—in the ’90s they were a massive issue, and people asked, “Will Government ever do anything about quangos?” This Government has actually started to do something.
The crucial questions remain. Will these issues be explored and researched thoroughly, and the facts put before Ministers? I think that they will, and that they are being looked at and put before Ministers at DEFRA. The question then is whether DEFRA Ministers have enough clout to drag their other colleagues, or rather, to persuade their other colleagues, who are, of course, hungry to respond to the challenge of getting rural issues a fair hearing across Government.
We are seeing progress on that already—for example, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I very much welcomed some action, finally, to deal with very high water bills in the south-west. When he was a Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore put in train some analysis of that problem, but I welcome the fact that this Government have actually done something about it. That is an example of DEFRA Ministers going to the Treasury and saying, “This is a problem that really needs to be resolved,” and the money has been found to do it. I am confident that the Government will continue to do that.
Members of the Select Committee, on which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I serve, take very seriously our role holding the Government to account and pulling them up where we think they are not fulfilling their duties to the utmost. I am sure that we will continue to do that, and that many of the organisations external to Government mentioned by the hon. Member for Ogmore will continue to be strong voices, holding us to account on behalf of the voluntary sector.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I very much welcome the role of the EFRA Committee in scrutinising the new mechanism, and the Minister also referred to the importance of that Committee. Perhaps it is unfair to ask, but, on the basis that it has been operating in shadow form, and the CRC has been streamlined back, does the hon. Member for North Cornwall have any idea of when the Select Committee might give its first marks out of 10 to the new mechanism to indicate whether it has led to an improvement? Would that perhaps be within the next year?
Dan Rogerson: Madam Chairman, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), is not present, so far be it from me to jump up and talk about the likely programme of the Committee. That is a matter for the Committee as a whole, and I am sure that our Chairman
would take me to task if I were to try to establish a programme here independently. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point; the role of the Select Committee has expanded, and we will take that seriously, as we always have. There is huge potential to make the new system work well.I wanted to put on the record my, and, if I could be so bold as to speak on behalf of the Select Committee, our appreciation of the work that the CRC and the Rural Advocate have done in the years that they have been around. As a member of that Committee, I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that rural communities, which have not had a fair deal in previous years, will get one under this Government.
10.24 am
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): I am confused, Mr Brady. You will know that I am confused on many occasions. On this occasion I would like the Minister to shed some light on my confusion. As a Conservative, I have always been very wary of centralising Governments placing power in fewer rather than more hands. I find that the spreading of power leads to less corruption than the concentration of power, so I am not sure why the Government want to do, in a minor way, what they are doing today.
I am a substitute in this Committee. I have come to it late at the behest of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who is unable to be in his place today. He has expressed concerns that I feel duty-bound to raise. I have already mentioned the concentration of power. I understand the need to cut Government costs, but we are talking about £600,000 per annum. There is no understanding of the extra cost that the Department must bear if the commission’s good work is to continue.
What are the additional costs to the Department? If the order is a cosmetic operation that adds another tick to the list of quangos that have gone—without really assessing the work of that quango and the work that the Department will have to undertake to replace that work, as well as the cost of replacing that work—it is one of those involvements of Government that I and I am sure the Minister himself despises. Does the Minister feel that the commission did good work? Did the role of the commission have import in the affairs of Government from a more independent standpoint than Government are able to bring?
I live in a rural area and I am told that the commission was a useful adjunct to the voice of rural affairs. It did good work, so I want confirmation from the Minister that the reason for this change is because the work will be done more efficiently. However, I am fearful of Government office and bureaucrats, especially the bureaucrats who make up our civil service. I am an entrepreneur and I have yet to see any spark of entrepreneurialism within the wide ranges of our civil service. If that is the case, I wonder where the spark will come from when we are talking about rural affairs. It is vital that our rural areas play a part in the growth agenda. It is vital that small businesses, which are particularly attuned and capable of playing a more important role in rural areas, receive support. Will such thinking come from the Department?
Before we vote on the matter, I want the Minister to reassure me that the measure is not a cosmetic exercise, which I fear it is. I want him to be honest with me about how the Department will do the work that the commission did. How much will that work cost, or is he getting rid of this quango because it is a useless body that simply provides jobs for the boys and spends unnecessary money? If he can come up with answers to those questions, I will feel less confused. I will feel that I have done my job for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, and I will be able to report back to him that all is well, in the capable hands of a capable Minister.
10.30 am
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): I was not going to speak this morning, but I have been encouraged to do so by some of the comments made, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. In particular, to argue that civil servants do not know what they are talking about is very unfair. To argue that a rural commission understands more than the Department and its civil servants is also rather strange. The Conservative party and the coalition Government are keen to reduce the number of quangos and public expenditure, and to deliver.
Mr Binley: May I clear my hon. Friend’s mind? I am not arguing a particular point; I am seeking answers from the Minister. That seems a fair and proper way for a scrutiny body to proceed.
Neil Parish: I am certain the Minister can answer for himself, and that he will do so in a minute. It is not for me to answer on his behalf. I came to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs later than the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I think there was a good report, and now we need action. It is much better either to save or spend the money saved from abolishing the CRC to deliver something for agriculture, such as broadband in rural areas and things that will bring about growth in the countryside.
I am confident that, in the two and a half years I have been in this place, we have had a great team of Ministers at DEFRA. They have changed recently and the Minister here today is the sole survivor. Not only has he done a good job, but so did the previous team, and I am certain the new team will too. We have to ensure it is not a case of talk, talk, talk. The rural economy cannot be talked up; something is needed to bring about those changes, be it through planning law, measures that bring about business change, or diversification as well as agriculture.
I am looking to a bright future. While we may have trouble with milk prices at the moment, the future for food security and production is bright in this country. I look forward to the Government producing policies to stimulate agriculture and the rural economy, not holding it back.
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable in these fields, for which I have a great deal of respect. Does he notice the strange conundrum concerning the debate we had the other day on introducing a new quango—the Groceries Code Adjudicator—to give a voice to the dairy industry, ensuring parity,
fairness and so on, and today’s debate about the abolition of a quango? Independence seems to be right in some areas but not in others.Neil Parish: It shows that the Government are thinking about what we need regarding these bodies. Do not forget that the CRC could come forward with all sorts of ideas but had no powers to do anything about them. With the Groceries Code Adjudicator we are hoping for some teeth, and that it can take action in the market when there are abuses. We are talking about two completely different bodies, if I may be so bold to the shadow Minister.
I still maintain that we can drive forward a good agricultural rural policy, and I have every faith in the Department. I echo the words of the hon. Member for North Cornwall: we on the Select Committee will ensure that we hold DEFRA and Ministers to account on this matter. We have a coalition Government who are well connected to the rural community and I look forward to a bright future.
10.34 am
Richard Benyon: We have had an interesting debate and I will do my best to answer the points that have been made. I am sure hon. Members will hold me up if I do not. I thank the hon. Members for Ogmore and for North Cornwall and others who paid tribute to the commitment of the CRC and its leadership under Stuart Burgess.
The hon. Member for Ogmore raised an important point about accountability, which I too touched on in my opening remarks. There are some clear points that need to be made. If it were a simple binary question about having an independent body outside Government advising, cajoling and beating doors down or not—when we say “not” we mean having a policy advice desert or vacuum—I would agree with him, but we very much do not have that situation. We have the third way to which he referred. Yes, policy is closer to us in DEFRA, because we as a team of Ministers mind passionately about rural policy. We want to have it close to us, we want to drive an agenda, and we want to ensure that we are bringing change forward. That requires close work with policy makers and officials, and we are driving that agenda with a real understanding, I hope, of what goes on in rural communities and the pressures they face. If we did that to the exclusion of independent voices, I would agree that we had a problem, but we do not do that. The carpets in our offices are worn threadbare by endless streams of people, who are welcome to visit us. When we get out of Whitehall, which we try to do as regularly as possible, we meet a variety of organisations.
We have set up the new rural and farming networks—17 self-determined local groups across England established to identify and feed back on local issues. They have the telephone numbers of our private offices. They can ring straight through and say, “We have a problem with this Government policy and how it is working in this part of the country”, or, “We have an emerging problem that we want the Minister to be aware of.” When we go to those areas, we meet those groups and they are becoming successful ways of connecting. They are not a bit of box ticking or an attempt to get local press coverage; they are a vital link. In fact, the hon. Member for Ogmore
will be aware in Wales of a very good result of devolution, which is that rural stakeholders feel that they can pick up the phone and call Ministers directly. That is true in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. It is more difficult in England, because we have 85% of the population. We require a different and more nuanced regional approach—not one that sits around civic or Euro-regional boundaries, but more focused boundaries, reflecting the economic, social and environmental concerns that farmers and landowners are managing.Huw Irranca-Davies: May I put on record that I very much welcome the farming network? It is a very good way to engage with the farming community, but part of accountability is transparency. Can the Minister tell me which of the discussions, deliberations and challenges to Ministers from the farming networks and the mechanisms being set up for accountability will be published in a timely fashion? Through that we will know where there are differences between the voice of rural communities and the Minister, or in this case between his own rural unit and the Minister, and whether they are saying, “This is not working.”
Richard Benyon: A very good process is currently being put under way by the Select Committee, which is looking precisely at that issue. The Commission for Rural Communities produced reports, many of them very good, over past years. Some were listened to and some were not. People can hold up those that were not listened to and blame the then Government if they feel that that is where the problem lies, but the position is much more nuanced. There is no shortage of people who want to hold Government to account.
The new RCPU key stakeholders are the rural community action network—I have already spoken about the rural farming network—and the Rural Coalition, which includes Action with Communities in Rural England, Action for Market Towns, the Arthur Rank Centre, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Country Land and Business Association, the county councils network, the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Farmers Union, the National Housing Federation, the Plunkett Foundation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Rural Services Network and the Town and Country Planning Association. That coalition of organisations is beating down the door of Government and making sure, under the excellent leadership of Lord Robin Teverson, that their case is heard. The hon. Gentleman will ask, “How will we know that you have listened to them?” but he knows that there are plenty of ways to hold Ministers to account, not least in this place, and I hope that I can explain how we will do that.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me try to help the Minister. For the benefit of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will the minutes of the meetings—I do not mean confidential meetings—giving details of the deliberations, agreements and disagreements be made available in a timely fashion so that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and, de facto, Parliament can do a real job of scrutiny? That would provide reassurance.
Richard Benyon: There is absolutely no ruling from DEFRA or DEFRA Ministers to, for example, the rural and farming networks that they cannot make public their representations to Ministers. That said, I leave it up to them; if they want to bend a Minister’s ear in private there are occasions when they should be allowed to do so. It is their decision.
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a very helpful response. I make this plea on behalf of the Opposition. We agreed when we were in government to make available in live time the minutes of such meetings because of the importance of having them in the public and parliamentary domains. It would be inordinately helpful to the Select Committee and to Parliament if the Minister were not to force the various panels and networks to make available the minutes of their meetings, but to make it clear that he would prefer them to do so except in confidential areas. It would help parliamentary accountability inordinately.
Richard Benyon: I cannot think of a conversation that I have had with a rural and farming network that I believe to have been private or secret. I leave it up to the networks, however, to say, “We are not making this a public point, but we think that there is a problem,” because the matters that they raise may be commercially sensitive. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position and I support it, but we need to leave it up to the networks to govern the degree of frankness with which they discuss matters with Ministers. Most of the matters that I have discussed with them have been pretty widely trailed in the pages of The Daily Telegraph or in local papers as policy debates go on, but particular local issues sometimes require a more nuanced approach.
There is no shortage of independent voices advising the Government on rural Britain—I have listed some of the organisations with which we are dealing—and there is plenty of opportunity to hold Ministers to account. We need to understand what rural proofing is. I was involved with it at local level long before I came to the House, and I found it a pretty unsatisfactory experience. I felt that it was a box-ticking exercise that came down from Olympus to us mere mortals who were rural practitioners, and I do not believe it made a jot of difference to people living in rural west Berkshire. I imagine it was the same everywhere.
I want rural proofing to work, and this is how I think it should work. Bills should not get anywhere near First Reading until they have been properly scrutinised from a rural perspective, and policy should not be allowed to get beyond the first stages without being properly scrutinised for rural proofing. That means that it is not sufficient for some little corner of DEFRA to be in charge of rural proofing; an approach across Government is required. I have spent quite a lot of time in the offices of other Ministers talking about the matter; Ministers across the coalition have grasped it and consider it to be important. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was the recipient of one of those visits, when we talked about health outcomes. The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly asked about health matters, which offer a prime example of where rural proofing matters. In one constituency I visited questions about stroke therapies and post-stroke treatment were raised. A practitioner can get round about half a dozen stroke victims in a
town but to do so in a rural area would probably take a day and a half, so in order to get more outcomes practitioners concentrate on stroke victims in towns rather than those in rural communities. It is so simple and obvious. So what will happen? The new duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to make sure that health trusts deal with health inequalities will make an enormous difference. The rural communities policy unit is providing health trusts with guidance on how to exercise a proper rural dimension in their policy making.Dan Rogerson: The Minister provides an excellent example of the sorts of challenge that service providers in rural areas face. One of the things his specialist rural team could do is to look at best practice where someone seems to have cracked it in one part of the country. It will not be instantly applicable in other parts of the country because of local differences but there may be lessons that can be learned. When other Departments are a little slow because, as the Minister says, a smaller proportion of the total population they are looking after is affected, his officials can offer examples of best practice.
Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have an aversion to jargon and government speak. and one of the words I am trying not to use at the moment is “toolkit”. Everybody applies toolkits to everything. But until someone comes up with a better word, we are providing a toolkit to these organisations to make sure that they can deliver Government policy in a cross-cutting and stakeholder-friendly kind of way. That is enough jargon for today.
The point the hon. Gentleman raised about education is absolutely vital. The Government really want to tackle the funding issue. It is more expensive to educate children in a rural area. If it were just a conversation between DEFRA and the Department for Education it would fail. It has to be a discussion with the Department for Transport too because we have to get children in rural communities from their homes to their schools and then we have to train them for jobs later. That requires a degree of lateral thinking from which schemes like Wheels 2 Work emerge. There is a constantly moving web of interactivity across government to make sure that people are not left behind and that we really make a difference.
The hon. Member for Ogmore asked who will champion rural Britain. Rural Britain will be heard through enormous numbers of organisations with very powerful lobbying. If I as a Minister chose to close my door to them and not to take any notice of them, it would be an issue. That is where Parliament comes in. Parliament can and must hold me and my successors to account. I speak with a degree of concern—I hate the overuse of the word “passion”—for rural communities. I live in one and represent a large rural area. That is my agenda. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Other Ministers will come and go and Parliament will have to hold them to account.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not doubt the Minister’s passion or his willingness to be accountable to Parliament, but we need to get into some of the detail of what we will hold him to account for. If I am right that the rural commission policy unit that he is steering will take
leadership directly from him and that the focus of its work will be decided by him and his colleagues within Parliament—and that that is within his gift—will it be focusing on a work stream that looks at the impact on disadvantaged people, and at economic performance or underperformance, in rural communities? I ask that specifically because an organisation that the Minister laudably cited as one of the stakeholders—there, I used the word—was the Arthur Rank Centre, which specifically said that the loss of statistical evidence provided by the CRC, and of“the CRC’s emphasis on disadvantaged people and economic under-performance, particularly in the current economic climate, would be unfortunate, undermining and untimely.”
Is such a work stream being followed, in the gift of the Minister?
Richard Benyon: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a clear assurance that the statistical analysis that the CRC carried out is still available. There is a range of statistics on the rural economy, rural social trends, rural unemployment and various other matters, which will still be available through the RCPU. Having received inspiration, I can share with the hon. Gentleman the news that the “Statistical Digest of Rural England”, the “Statistical Digest of the English Uplands”, the “Quarterly Rural Economic Bulletin” and statistical feature reports will all still be available, so the Arthur Rank Centre can relax on that front.
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s view of the Government, but perhaps he has a jaundiced view of the way Ministers operate. We operate in a team—not just within Departments, but across Departments. The atmosphere is completely unlike “The Thick of It”, amusing though that is, in that I can have civilised conversations with not just my coalition colleagues, but those in other ministerial posts, with whom we might disagree from time to time and whose priorities we may not share.
The point is that rurality exacerbates the problems of people who are unemployed, on a low income, mentally ill or elderly. The Department’s responsibilities mean that we must focus like a laser beam on ensuring that we assist agencies and all levels of government to understand the problems that rurality brings. However, there is a parallel point, which was brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South. We must recognise that the rural economy, if unleashed, can play an enormous part in the regeneration of the national economy. That is why the roll-out of broadband to rural communities is vital to unlock the entrepreneurial abilities of people who, because of where they live, cannot currently start a business.
Last week I was in Ludgershall in Wiltshire, where there is an enormous untapped resource among the wider military family, the spouses of serving soldiers and those leaving the armed forces. With the rural growth network that we are setting up there, they will have the means and support to set up a business in a rural community and to make it fly. That shows the importance of the unit and what we in DEFRA are trying to drive.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I had not intended to intervene again, but the Minister tempted me with his mention of broadband. In his role as rural champion, what credence does he give to the powerful voice of farmers who are saying that the focus on high-speed broadband, at the expense of achieving broadband universality, is to the detriment of them and their businesses—through completing Rural Payments Agency forms and so on? Will he argue their case that the focus on high-speed broadband is disadvantaging the rapid roll-out of universal broadband?
Richard Benyon: I want to get high-speed broadband to the 20% of people in this country who live in rural and remote areas, so that has to be our priority. We know that the hard to reach will not get high-speed broadband, but we want to make sure that they have the basic applied quantitative amount. The point is that we have to get it and move as fast as we can.
The process is difficult. We have removed planning barriers and we are tackling state aid difficulties. I hope that announcements in the next few weeks will show that many of the communities represented by members of the Committee will soon experience a massive difference. Every aspect of life will be affected. The elderly will be able to shop from home and children will be able to learn from home. Farmers will be able to send their data to the Rural Payments Agency without having to go down to the pub with a memory stick. The way in which the rural economy operates will be transformed.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South that this is not a knee-jerk decision—we have thought about the proposal for a long time. We looked carefully at all the arm’s length bodies for which DEFRA is responsible and examined how we could ensure that their functions, when we think they are good, are improved. An organisation promoting rural policy that is remote of the Government is not the best way of speeding up policy and providing the support to the entrepreneurs that he rightly represents. There is a cost-benefit aspect of the proposal, but that is not the deciding factor. We want rural policies that make a difference to those whom we represent, and we must ensure that they feel part of the process. We believe in the concept—whether this is “one nation” or the collective view—that everybody should have a fair crack of the whip. The proposal is about ensuring that we get policy that is effective and that drives us forward.
I hope that hon. Members feel that I have covered their points adequately. I commend the order to the Committee.
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities) Order 2012.