House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
The Outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review
Oral and written evidence
16 November 2010 and 30 March 2011
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 November 2010
HC 611-i–ii Published on 10 July 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.50
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies.
Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Conservative, Hastings and Rye)
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Middlesborough South and East Cleveland) and Cathy Jamieson (Labour/Co-operative, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) were also members of the Committee during this Parliament
Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Richard Cooke (Clerk), Lucy Petrie (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee Specialist—Environment), Phil Jones (Committee Specialist—Agriculture), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Gabrielle Hill (Committee Assistant), Julie Evans (Committee Support Assistant), and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Hannah Pearce on 020 7219 8430.
List of witnesses
Tuesday 16 November 2010 Page
Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB, Permanent Secretary, Defra and Peter Unwin, Director General, Environment and Rural Group, Defra Ev 1
Wednesday 30 March 2010
Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Bronwyn Hill, Permanent Secretary, Defra and Peter Unwin, Director General, Environmental and Rural Group, Defra Ev 44
List of written evidence
1 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Ev 24 2 Supplementary Defra Ev 25 3 Defra answers to written questions posed by EFRA Committee Ev 62
cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Tuesday 16 November 2010
Members present: Miss Anne McIntosh (Chair)
Thomas Docherty Neil Parish Richard Drax Dan Rogerson George Eustice Amber Rudd ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon. Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB, Permanent Secretary, and Peter Unwin, Director General, Environment and Rural Group, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Secretary of State good morning. Thank Departments, there are six of us that are within 6% of you very much for joining us, you’re most welcome. settlement, and we are very similar in many ways. This is the evidence session on the outcome of the There were other things we sought to secure as part Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). For the of our early settlement—a reward for good behaviour record, would you like to introduce those you’ve if you like. Unusually, perhaps, the Treasury agreed brought with you this morning? to our request that we might be able to keep the Mrs Spelman: Yes, could I start by just apologising proceeds from sales of our assets, and perhaps even for being a few minutes late. more beneficially, 120% of the sales of those assets, Chair: I absolutely understand. which can be used by Defra for other capital projects. Mrs Spelman: Cabinet overran and I’ve come as The Treasury also agreed to help us with some of our quickly as I could. I think the Committee’s already redundancy costs. These additional things were part met the Permanent Secretary Helen Ghosh, but of what we regard as a reasonable settlement. perhaps not or perhaps previously, and Peter Unwin is one of our Director Generals. Q3 Chair: We know much more now about the Chair: Thank you. We quite understand, and we’re nature of the Comprehensive Spending Review results most grateful to you for coming. We understand that for the Department. What we don’t know at this stage the Cabinet ran on, so we kept your place warm for is what the impact will be in terms of local authority you. resources. Of course the two main risks for which Mrs Spelman: Thank you. your Department is responsible, that of flood risk, to which you’ve referred, and that of animal health, both Q2 Chair: Could I just start off with a couple of rely heavily on substantial local authority general questions? The settlement with your involvement. How concerned are you that, when it Department, Secretary of State, was one of the earliest comes to the local authority Comprehensive Spending and as a result, obviously you were first off the Review, they will actually have the resources both to ground. Do you regret, in a way, settling so early and commit to the flood risk management schemes, to the perhaps taking a bigger reduction than other maintenance of flood defences, and also to the front Departments or than you might have done if there had line if there ever was another animal health outbreak been a longer, more protracted negotiating process? such as BSE or foot and mouth? Mrs Spelman: No, not at all. We set out to try and Mrs Spelman: Well, we all work very closely with settle early because we took the view that, as a the Department for Communities and Local relatively small Department, to have been dragged Government. I work and have a good working before the Star Chamber for a reduction of between relationship with the Secretary of State in that 25% and 40% might have placed us in a very Department. In fact, both our Departments were vulnerable position. We felt there were a number of amongst the early settlers, which point will not be lost things we wanted to obtain as part of our settlement on the Select Committee, so the Select Committee with the Treasury, which we were more likely to might imagine that we spoke a great deal about the achieve if we were in the vanguard of early settlers. interrelationship that we have. We certainly strongly Specifically, we set out to try to protect capital recognise the importance of not placing unfunded expenditure, and I think I’ve mentioned to the Select burdens upon local government and we have allocated Committee before that it’s apparent that we have a to local government within our own budget, better than average settlement for capital. That was financially, recognition that it isn’t reasonable to ask particularly important to us in order to protect flood local authorities to do things without resourcing them defence capital. As part of the give and take it meant correctly. Specifically in relation to floods, we we had to take quite a tough settlement on resources, maintain our contribution to them. This is important but I think when Select Committee members actually in respect of the Flood and Water Management Act of look at where we’re placed amongst the unprotected course, because it’s recognised that there are lead local cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin authorities with responsibilities under that legislation. Q5 Dan Rogerson: To pick up on the Chair’s point In respect of animal health, again we work closely about maintenance, I am wondering about big society with local government. I’m sure we’ll come on to a issues. Obviously there are limits, and in some more extensive discussion about animal health departments it’s easier than in others to engage with budgets in general, but the risk based management voluntary organisations Looking at people such as the approach gives us that assurance that, working British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, who do together with local government, we can be resilient in maintenance work, there seems to be a body of people the face of any outbreak of animal or plant disease. I there who are quite keen to get out—I’ve seen them don’t know whether either of you would like to add doing some habitat work—but maybe that’s the sort something about local government? of stuff they could look at doing as well. Is that Dame Helen Ghosh: We will be able to test the something the Department would consider through the response of all sorts of local partners through the Environment Agency? various emergency exercises we carry out. As Mrs Spelman: Certainly. I think the Select Committee members of the Committee will probably be aware, very recently saw Mr Benyon talking at length about we have just done such a large-scale exercise on foot this subject. I think that the big society approach to and mouth disease, called Silver Birch. We will be improving resilience, in civil society, is an obvious way forward. Could I make it perfectly clear, that is working with all sorts of partners, including local in addition to the funds that we have protected and government, to discuss the lessons from that. allocated? It’s additionality. I think that Mr Benyon Similarly, we’re doing a major emergency testing spoke at length about ways in which communities exercise in the spring next year on large-scale might be successful in bringing forward projects that flooding, which I think is actually kicking off with the otherwise might, because of their lower return on Secretary of State tomorrow. Both of those kinds of investment, have got pushed to the back of the queue. exercises enable us to gauge the stresses and Absolutely, we do see great potential in engaging the challenges of all our local partners, including local communities that seek to protect themselves sooner authorities. and more effectively in finding additional ways to Peter Unwin: On floods, as the Secretary of State has achieve that. But I do stress it’s additionality and not said, local authorities as you know will be taking on a substitute for. extra responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act. We’ve given them £21 million for Q6 Amber Rudd: Secretary of State, next year and £36 million for subsequent years to notwithstanding your strategy for early settlement, the cover that. In addition, the figures included in the Department did in fact get the second largest budget memo that we sent to you on the spending review on cut in percentage terms. Do you think that was a expenditure on floods don’t include contributions by satisfactory outcome for the Department, given that local authorities. They, like other public sector bodies, you have some of the UK’s most important risks to will need to make tough choices about priorities, but handle? the past has shown that those particularly affected will Mrs Spelman: Well, I’ll just come back to my point see floods as a high priority, and we hope that they that, as a new team of Ministers in conjunction with continue to be able to contribute to it. the senior civil servants in the Department, we thought long and hard about how to approach this spending Q4 Chair: We’ll be coming on to floods later, but review. To give credit to the civil servants, they had you’re not intending to restore the balance more in anticipated that whoever formed the next Government favour of maintaining water courses rather than capital would have to find savings of the order of at least expenditure—from your answer, Secretary of State, 25%. So the way we approached these negotiations the focus will be on the capital projects. with the Treasury was to try and put together a Mrs Spelman: Over the period of the spending review package for them which for us prioritised the things we will be spending £2.1 billion in total on floods. we considered most important, consistent with the Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. structural reform plan, now the business plan. So the resources went hand in hand with the priorities that Mrs Spelman: Almost exactly 50:50 capital and the new Government had set for the Department maintenance, so I think that probably answers the without compromising the risks that the Department question, that we regard them as equally important. has to deal with. Very important, as part of our negotiations with the Indeed, the Whitehall-wide understanding of the Treasury, was to make sure that we retained as much emergency services role that Defra has was of of the capital as possible. I think it’s important to just assistance to us in securing one of the best capital stress to the Committee that this was a bidding settlements. So the two things have to be set alongside process, we inherited a situation where the previous each other, and in considering the savings we would Government had agreed to reduce capital by 50%. It need to make on resources, this was done very was decided, as part of the spending review process, carefully, with the knowledge and understanding that that all the Departments would then have to compete senior civil servants had of the way the Department with their bids for the residual capital. We were very runs and how it can be run efficiently and effectively, successful in securing a very good outcome from that to make sure that we have not exposed the Department process because there is a very good return on to undue risk. investment when public money is spent defending Dame Helen Ghosh: As the Secretary of State has peoples’ homes. already said, if you look at the distribution of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin reductions on resource spending, actually we are very money that came through in the spending review, from much in a group with others and there’s very little to international climate change finance, £100 million choose between us. You have to look at the stories of was given to me to put on the table at negotiations in individual Departments. As the Secretary of State has Nagoya. Why is this important? Because the loss of said, actually our settlement of only minus 34% is a the rainforests actually does have an impact on us, in pretty good settlement on capital. Those who did well the sense of its impact on climate change or loss of generally did very well for very specific projects. So genetic resources, and ultimately the fact that if people if you look at the DECC capital, for example—Energy can’t afford to live in the countries that they’re in they and Climate Change—that went up for two reasons: will tend to seek safe harbour elsewhere. So there are nuclear decommissioning and carbon capture and very strong reasons for Defra to be fully supportive of storage. Transport got money for High Speed 2. The that decision to protect spending in the Department Cabinet Office shot up because it has to provide for International Development. money for the referendums next spring on voting. So Chair: We’ll come back to flooding, but I don’t know behind every Department there’s actually a pretty that that would wash necessarily with the people of good story. Two other points: the 33% cut on our Cumbria who had the devastating floods in November admin spend part of resource is of course exactly the last year. same as every other Department, in fact a few Departments are even more. I want to emphasise the Q8 Amber Rudd: I just want to follow up, if I may? point that we knew, when we advised the Secretary of When you were here in September, Secretary of State, State and agreed with the Secretary of State at what you said that you thought it was very important that level we might settle, what we were going to do with you maintain the resilience of the Department the money. We had a plan, so we knew, for example, following the CSR. that we would be able to protect HLS and ELS, indeed Mrs Spelman: Yes, absolutely. expand HLS. If you look at the key areas of our spend, Amber Rudd: Do you feel that that has been we knew how we could live within that budget, and achieved? that was the basis on which we worked with Ministers Mrs Spelman: Yes I do. Obviously, as the emergency to decide when to settle. It was absolutely not an service of the Government, it’s very important that I un-thought out process. do retain that. I just have one comment, Chair, if you Mrs Spelman: I’d just also like to add, perhaps stating would indulge me for a second. Again, there isn’t any the obvious to Select Committee members but worth suggestion that our support for public money to be reinforcing, that obviously I’m part of Cabinet spent protecting rainforests in very poor countries is Government, and a decision was taken collectively by at the expense of people at home. I did explain, the the Cabinet about which Departments to protect and money did not come from Defra’s budget, it came which Departments would be unprotected. I was part from the Department for International Development, of making that decision. As the Chief Secretary to the generously given to me to put on the table. So, to Treasury pointed out, we decided to lift some reassure your own constituents and others who may Departments out of the spending review process to be watching this interview, I’d like to make it protect them completely, for perfectly understandable reasons: the Department of Health, because the ageing perfectly clear. The flood defence capital, and our population means that unless one continues to increase objective in maintaining our flood defences, is entirely funding to health it ends up being a real-terms cut, within the Defra budget, and none of that budget had and International Development because, as I’m sure gone to, in this instance, the Nagoya negotiations; it hon. Members will understand, Haiti reminds us that was entirely from a different Department’s source. at any time we may face disaster in a very poor country and we will be called upon for funds. From Q9 Amber Rudd: The Department might suddenly that moment, the fact that there were protected be extremely tested. What are you doing to work out Departments meant that unprotected Departments the ability of the Department to cope with multiple were bound to receive an above average reduction. I floods or multiple animal disease—something very mean, this is one of the consequences of a collective dramatic happening at the same time? decision making process. Mrs Spelman: Well one of the things that’s impressed me in the six months of my sojourn at the Department Q7 Chair: But we’re not placing a higher priority on is its willingness to constantly test and re-test itself foreign disasters than home disasters are we? against the risks that present themselves. Last week Mrs Spelman: Not at all, no. I think it’s very we had an exercise simulating an animal disease important for the record to remind everyone present outbreak, from which even seasoned campaigners that we’re talking about orders of magnitude here. I involved in the exercise said further lessons were think sometimes in relation to overseas aid it is learnt. The new Ministers of course were involved in forgotten that the objective of the Government is to that simulated exercise to deal with such a disaster, so reach the UN guideline of 0.7%, less than 1%, of that we should come up to speed very quickly on how GNP. In fact, we spend more on ice cream in this the process operates. I think what’s very clear is that country than we do on overseas aid, so I think it’s the successive experiences that the Department has important to get that in balance. Where Defra has a had of different emergencies have all helped to build particular interest in this, which I can give tangible a more robust model for dealing with these expression to, is that obviously the action that we take emergencies, and the new Ministerial team has been abroad can have important benefits at home. Of the integrated into that. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 4 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Q10 Amber Rudd: Right. So was there an ongoing Q11 Chair: Just following on from Amber’s line of assessment during the CSR period, conducted by questioning, the Prime Minister has described the Defra, to see how it would cope with different Department as the “fourth emergency service”. I think eventualities? Amber was asking, without putting words into her Mrs Spelman: The Department has an internal mouth, what would happen if there was a double process of undertaking assessments. Obviously we whammy, both a flood and an animal health incident have a Government-wide role in terms of rural in a particular rural area? Has your assessment shown proofing, ultimately the impact of the spending that rural areas perhaps got the rawest deal and, if that review, but we needed to know what every is the case, what are you going to do to address that? Department’s savings were before we could undertake Dame Helen Ghosh: Of course we have done the that exercise. Internally, the Department undertakes analysis, as indeed has also been driven through, in these assessments against policy decisions and particular by Oliver Letwin at the Cabinet Office, spending decisions that we make, and informs the about the impact on rural areas of the spending review Ministers of these contingencies. I’m sure that Helen overall. If you come to the question of emergency would like to come in on that. response, of course in 2007 we had exactly the Dame Helen Ghosh: When you look particularly at situation you describe: we had multiple animal disease the issues about our resilience to emergencies, I’ll ask outbreaks and we had major flooding. Now on the Peter to just comment on the way the Environment whole it was the case that the two emergency Agency has been thinking about this through the responses moved more or less in parallel. Peter was spending review. If you look at animal health certainly at the helm when it came to the flooding emergencies, we’ve been working for some time, incidents and I was probably focusing more on animal really since 2007, on what kinds of structured diseases,. There isn’t a very clear overlap between the response we need in our Animal Health Agency and demands on local partners and the Department of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, learning the flooding, as there is with animal diseases, because lessons of 2007, in terms of large scale response. they tend to be slightly different specialist functions. We’ve been working for the last three years on how I think it’s the case that the greatest challenge would we would cope if foot and mouth broke out all across be a multiple animal disease outbreak, or large-scale the country. Therefore we have already been doing flooding, rather than, as the 2007 experience showed our planning and our assessments about what kind of us, we can’t cope with the two things happening at level of spending, in terms of admin spend in the the same time. I don’t know if that was your agencies, we would not wish to fall below. experience, Peter? Similarly, when we thought of the animal health Peter Unwin: That’s true, we learn a lot from each budget, which we’ll probably discuss again later, we other but we run two different systems because they’re have worked very closely with our vets on what is a two different sorts of responses that we have to make safe level of surveillance to be financing. That is to those outcomes. Obviously there could be particular focusing on risk, not including any kind of strains on Ministers and the top of the office, but the gold-plating, but it assures us that we are dealing both machines within the Environment Agency in the case with diseases that we know about and with diseases of floods, and Animal Health in the case of an animal that are new to the country, so that is absolutely being disease, would run broadly independently. built in. In terms of emergency response and the Mrs Spelman: I wonder if I could just come in on Environment Agency, I think it’s true to say that this, because I think the logic of your line of inquiry where the Agency’s proposing to take its savings is is the simple equation that savings in money mean mainly in the parts of the organisation that are not compromising a capacity to deal with a disaster. One about emergency response. other important undertaking we secured from the Peter Unwin: Yes, the Secretary of State referred to Treasury, again I think as part of being co-operative an exercise last week called Silver Birch. and reaching an early settlement, was the undertaking Amber Rudd: Interesting. that we could come to them for the resources required Peter Unwin: That was looking at an animal health to deal with a major disaster. The contingency within disease outbreak. We have a similar exercise next Defra’s budget in any event, based on historic spring called Watermark, which will be looking at a disasters, is overshadowed by the scale of what is major flooding incident—on the recommendation of required from the public purse in the event of a major Sir Michael Pitt, which we’ll be carrying out. We will national disaster. That undertaking was given by the be launching that process later this week. When we Chief Secretary, and interestingly enough by his look at our own resilience on floods in particular, predecessor, when we were looking at the savings that obviously the Environment Agency is a very were necessary to make in the first year, the present important part of that, and as the Permanent Secretary financial year. There’s an understanding on the part of said, they have protected absolutely within their the Treasury that where there is a really major disaster, budget their ability to respond to floods. With all the or multiple disasters, we have proper recourse to improvements they’ve made in recent years in national reserves in those circumstances. Perhaps that forecasting, again as a result of the Pitt Review, they would give the Committee some reassurance that it’s will be protecting completely their ability to respond not resource constrained in the event of the scenario to an incident and their ability to maintain assets. So that the hon. Lady is outlining. those have all been protected within their budget reductions. Q12 Amber Rudd: Right. It’s very interesting Amber Rudd: Okay, thank you very much. hearing about the simulations, but would you consider cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin at some stage perhaps running Watermark and Silver Over and above that, when the structural reform plan Birch at the same time, in order to see what the became a business plan, we were already publicly outcome would be and what the financial demands committed to some start and finish times, so that the might be in those circumstances? impact indicators were drawn from the structural Mrs Spelman: Well of course I’m bound to say yes reform plan. We couldn’t change that position, and to that. The nature of the type of emergencies that again we chose measurable indicators by which we Defra has to deal with is actually extremely varied, can hold ourselves, or we can be held, to account. and although my sojourn has been brief I have been Again, the time scales of these were drawn from the impressed by the willingness and readiness of the staff structural reform plan, so it all followed in a sequence to constantly test and re-test themselves and related of deliverability, and we hope our assessments have agencies against different scenarios in order to been correct. I’d like to point out that sometimes continuously learn and improve the model that has starting and completing activities are dependent upon been developed from the past. I’m sure on a other Departments, not just our own. In relation to subsequent occasion we could have a combined event. the impact indicators that have been chosen for our I can assure the hon. Lady that, when the list of at Department, if I was to take one of these, say least 12 possible disasters was shown to Ministers household recycling rates, we monitor them extremely there were a few sleepless nights. We feel better for closely, as the previous Government did, but the having taken part in a simulation, and I’m sure we will important thing for us is to continue the trend of take part in every subsequent simulation including the increased recycling rates. possibility of a multiple disaster scenario. Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. Dame Helen Ghosh: It is just as likely that the Mrs Spelman: That is something that quite multiple disasters are ones that don’t involve Defra. realistically we would expect to do on a quarterly We might have one of these disasters but at the same basis, and to keep a very close eye on, because it’s time you might have an emergency that’s normally inextricably linked with the whole question of how dealt with by another Department, and the Civil much waste goes to landfill and trying to reduce that Contingencies Secretariat and, at a ministerial level, amount. Again, that is a tough indicator for us, but the National Security Council, take these issues incredibly important to the industry concerned. extremely seriously. On the back of the latest security Freeing herds from TB infection is a tough challenge assessment that was published earlier this year, they for us, and we’ve set ourselves a tough challenge of are considering precisely that kind of issue: how you monitoring that extremely closely, and that will be would deal with multiple versions of those broader important whatever the outcome of the consultation national security challenges, one of which, one of the on bovine TB. So the origin of these indicators is top four, is of course flooding . drawn from the structural reform plan. Dame Helen Ghosh: The process run by the Cabinet Q13 Neil Parish: Good morning, Minister. Your Office limited us, we were under a numerical limit on business plan sets out the input and impact indicators how many we could include, and we’ve chosen things you’ll be measured against. How did you choose these that, as the Secretary of State said, we thought were indicators from a long list of data collected by the the best measure we could find of the key features of Department? And will the Department spend less our priorities, and things we collected anyway. So, all money on monitoring its performance under this these things are things that we, in some sense, do review as compared with previously? already. So we won’t, as we did under the previous Mrs Spelman: Well, the business plan evolved by an PSA set, spend two years trying to work out what the act of co-operation, with the new Ministers coming proper measure of one of our PSA indicators was in, reflecting the coalition agreement, which in itself before we could start discussing it with the changed the business plan evolved by my Committee. So, this is data to which we already have predecessors. I wasn’t shadowing the Defra brief at access. Of course it’s a very different sort of regime the time. So the structural reform plan, which became in terms of not setting out a measure of success; this the business plan, is something that in an iterative is part of the transparency agenda of the Government. process the Ministers and senior civil servants worked Part of the transparency is indeed that we are currently up together to reflect the priorities in the coalition consulting on these indicators, so if the Committee, agreement. As part of that, at a very early stage, we and indeed any member of the public, has comments had to give careful consideration to when we could on those, please let us have them. The pressure for start the work that we had publicly committed improvement comes from transparency and the public, ourselves to undertake and when we were likely, and obviously Members of Parliament, and we are not realistically, to be able to complete that. So our setting a target for improvement ourselves—which is structural reform plan, right from the beginning, set a very different kind of world for us to be in. up a realistic work programme. For example, it contained the view that one needed to stagger the Q14 Neil Parish: With these indicators you want to introduction of White Papers in order for the workload prove that you are the greenest Government ever. One to be manageable for the Department. So the Natural of the indicators is the number of households where Environment White Paper discussion precedes the there is risk of damage from flooding. Now sometimes Water White Paper and so on. So the start and finish we need the rivers dredged and we actually need to times of these activities were determined in get drainage moving, and that may not always seem conjunction with the staff that will help us complete so green, but in the end we actually want to save those them. houses from flooding. So, do you see a problem there? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 6 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Also, when it comes to the environmental impacts of demonstration that it’s possible to both achieve or farming, I would suggest to you that, taking food even exceed the desired outcome and make efficiency production, sometimes it can actually be a positive savings. I think it’s right to take some time on the benefit to agriculture, especially where you’ve got a admin savings, for which, as the Permanent Secretary lot of grassland. Are these indicators going to take all said, 33% is the requirement across Government. these things into consideration, because I just don’t Obviously we will endeavour to take these savings want it concentrating on one aspect? from the back office rather than the front line. In terms Mrs Spelman: It sounds like the hon. Gentleman will of head count, which is an important element of this, have some very helpful points to make on our we’ve shared with the Select Committee the consultation, and he begins with this today. In terms anticipated numbers of people we will need to let go. of being the greenest Government ever, remember that There are a couple of things I would like to say on is right across all Government departments, and these that. One is that the Department, quite prudently, froze impact indicators are the ones which apply to Defra. vacancies from before the time of the change of Government, anticipating that whoever formed the Every department has a set of impact indicators. These next Government would have to make savings of this are the indicators that we’ve chosen, that will drive us order, so we won’t have to make as many people forward. They aren’t easy to obtain, we haven’t set redundant as would have been the case if the ourselves token indicators or targets, and the fact that Department had not taken such a prudent view. it’s so transparent means that you and the public can The figures that we have given to the Select challenge us if you feel that the indicators we’ve Committee of an anticipated reduction in staffing chosen are, in some way, too easy for us to reach. I levels of between 5,000 and 8,000 people actually certainly don’t think these are, and I take on board reflects less than 33%; the figures are between 16% completely what the hon. Gentleman has said about and 26%. Some of the savings on administration, quite the positive and negative environmental impacts of clearly, are not all in staffing numbers. There are other farming. I share his view entirely that the production ways in which we have managed to make savings, of food sustainably can be entirely beneficial to the in terms of procurement and IT, and they are part of environment, which is why our number one priority achieving our 33% outcome. So it is a mix of for the Department is to support the food and farming measures, but I think the prudent strategy the industry in sustainable food production, precisely Department has taken with regard to human resources because we believe that is possible. Inevitably, a set has proved to be helpful at a time when obviously we of impact indicators are a distillation of the huge range don’t want to let more people go than we have to. of activity that the Department undertakes. We’ve Dame Helen Ghosh: Absolutely. As the Secretary of chosen them because they are quite precise and State says, our strategy is, and will continue to be, to measurable, and we will have data on which to be make the savings we can on IT, on estates, to get out able to assess whether we are heading in the right of leases when we can get out of leases, to reduce our direction: whether the trend is in the direction we wish back office costs, to join in inter-departmental to go. The consultation process is precisely there to procurement and so on. Again, as we explained to the ameliorate these indicators and to give the public the Committee, in terms of downsizing across the whole opportunity to do that. network—and the figures the Secretary of State Dame Helen Ghosh: Of course lying below them will quoted apply to all 30,000 including our NDPBs—we be a whole series of other indicators, so if you take will all be aiming to do as much as we can through the households protected from flooding, that will just natural wastage and voluntary redundancies and take be one of the Environment Agency’s indicators. Peter the savings as far as we possibly can to protect jobs. and his team will agree with the Environment Agency I think the crucial thing within the Department, and the rest of the suite, which again will be published. the mantra we have used, is to make sure that the staff That will undoubtedly pick up some of the within the core Department are focusing on the things environmental issues you raise. that only Government can do. Where do we really add value, where do we facilitate things like the actions of civil society? Going back to our earlier discussion, Q15 Neil Parish: Right, okay, thank you Secretary of what are the things that only Government can do in State. I’ll move on to the next question. You alluded to terms of emergency response and protection? Then we it earlier on in your statement when you were talking assign our remaining staff, and there will still be 70% about how Defra had to make cost savings back in to 75% as many of us as there were before, within 2007. Does that mean the Department is now so lean our very flexible project and programme systems, to that it will struggle to find further administrative absolutely key activities. So that’s the planning work budget savings? we’re doing at the moment. Mrs Spelman: No, I don’t accept that. There is an Mrs Spelman: I think it’s really important as a new interesting thing about the in-year savings that we’ve Minister in the Department to stress that Defra has made, and a clear demonstration of this is the adopted a flexible model of staffing in a way that is Environment Agency, because we shared the savings innovative, that makes it easier for people to move in pro rata this year across the Defra network. Despite a different jobs within the Department. Undoubtedly it’s 5.5% reduction in its resources, the Environment good for their career development, but it means that Agency has managed to more than exceed its target in the actual redundancy impact can be cushioned by terms of the protection of homes. I think that’s a clear having a flexible approach to staffing. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Peter Unwin: One difference between now and the We have that assurance from the Treasury and it is reductions you referred to in 2007 is that on this very valuable to us. occasion we’re looking at them much more across the network as a whole, both the back office costs and Q17 Thomas Docherty: What is the value of the the frontline costs. In 2007, the process was to give a property portfolio owned by Defra? reduction figure to the Environment Agency, Natural Mrs Spelman: Well I know that we anticipate England, Animal Health, and they’d all get on with it recovering between £30 million and £40 million from individually. We’re now looking, for example, at IT, the rationalisation of the Defra estate, that’s the figure where we spend £400 million across the network, with that we have budgeted for. The total value of our 900 people involved in IT. We must be able to do estate, I’m afraid I don’t— that more efficiently. We have 270 offices across the Dame Helen Ghosh: Well we don’t of course own the network, about 85% of them within 20 kilometres of freehold for much of our estate. The majority— another office, so again we could organise our estate more efficiently. So in back office costs we really Q18 Chair: Covent Garden? think that by operating as one network we can make Dame Helen Ghosh: Sorry, Covent Garden is private; much bigger savings. That will also apply to front line it is not a Defra owned element of the estate, it’s costs when it comes to issues like joint inspections owned by the Covent Garden Market Authority. It is and that sort of thing. one of the elements in the £100 million estimate. Chair: I think the Minister told us that— Q16 Neil Parish: Yes, I think perhaps a certain Mrs Spelman: It’s in there. amount of simplifying the Single Farm Payment could Dame Helen Ghosh: The £100 million that we might perhaps reduce a lot of cost there, and we could stop expect to get from assets includes, obviously, forestry introducing more and more maps all the time; they’re estate, as the Secretary of State described. not only complicated for the Department but Mrs Spelman: The rationalisation complicated for the farmers. My final point on this Dame Helen Ghosh: The rationalisation of the estate, one is that you’ve announced that you intend to make and some element possibly from Covent Garden Market Authority. I thought you meant the properties savings relating to property, and there’s talk of what that we occupy as a Department and as NDPBs; I you can sell in the way of forest and other property. thought that was your question. What agreement have you reached with the Treasury over whether Defra keeps the money or whether it Q19 Chair: I think it would be helpful, just for the goes back into the Treasury’s coffers? record, that we had— Mrs Spelman: A very important feature of our Mrs Spelman: The freehold book value of the settlement with the Treasury, which I tried to property is £160 million, so it does— emphasise right at the beginning, was that as an early Thomas Docherty: £160 million? settler and as a securer of significant capital funding from the bidding process, the Treasury agreed to us Q20 Chair: Of what you own? £160 million of what retaining entirely the proceeds from sales of our you own? That’s including the forestry? assets. That was not just for 100%, but if we managed Dame Helen Ghosh: Sorry, this is getting very to sell those assets at a higher level than we originally confused. budgeted for, we may keep up to 120% of those assets. Now, we’ve put a figure into our budget of Q21 Thomas Docherty: I have a list here from the £100 million. That is largely made up of the planned National Audit Office of properties. sequential sales of the forestry estate, which have Dame Helen Ghosh: Those are properties we occupy gone on since, as far as I can tell, the beginning of as a Department. time, including in each of the years of the last Thomas Docherty: No, own. Government. The projected figure contained within Dame Helen Ghosh: Properties we occupy. our budget continues that trend. It is not exclusively Thomas Docherty: No, own. forestry—we have other assets, property assets, which Dame Helen Ghosh: Some of them may be leased. as a result of the savings that we’re making we may Thomas Docherty: We’ve got two lists. be able to relinquish. As with all these things, and Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes, fine. learning very much from the warnings of the Father Thomas Docherty: We’ve got a list of owned. of the House about being careful when to sell these Mrs Spelman: 185 properties are leased. assets, we will of course look for the right time and Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes the right way to do that, in order to maximise the Mrs Spelman: 114 are freehold, with a book value of return. In fact we’re incentivised to do that by the fact £160 million. We had a target of £30 million to the Treasury has agreed we can keep 120% of the £40 million of gross annual savings by the end of the proceeds. There are very strict rules within spending review. Those are the figures that we have Government, and obviously they apply to the put into our calculation. Is that the figure you wanted? Department, that the sales of assets, the capital, can Thomas Docherty: Yes. only be used for capital. I’m sure the Chair would be Dame Helen Ghosh: But that is not the same figure interested to know, because of her interest in flooding, as the value of the forestry estate, of Covent Garden that it would be perfectly possible for us to use the Market Authority or other things which are, as it were, proceeds from sales of these assets towards increasing within our orbit but not property we occupy. the capital available for flood defences, for example. Thomas Docherty: Yes, that was it. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 8 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Dame Helen Ghosh: That was the clarification I was back to 2000, 406 hectares, 2001, 97 hectares, the trying to make. reason for these differences is to do with market conditions; last year 1,100 hectares. The yield from Q22 Chair: Just a moment, if you don’t own the that is what we are hoping to recover, and we are Forestry Commission how will you make savings allowed to keep by the Treasury, as long as we by— redeploy it for other capital projects. It will depend on Mrs Spelman: We do. market conditions as it always has done, this is not a Neil Parish: They own it but we don’t have the value new practice. of it. Chair: Right, I think it would just be helpful to know Q27 George Eustice: I think it’s quite an interesting what we’re talking about. part of your agreement with the Treasury. I wanted to Dame Helen Ghosh: Sorry, the Government owns it ask about the valuations you’re basing these and the Forestry Commission is a non-ministerial calculations on: are they a bid valuation that’s Government Department within our parliamentary outdated or are they open market accurate vote. So the Government indeed owns the public valuations—or as accurate as you think they can be? forest estate. It’s a different kind of ownership, not so Peter Unwin: They’re open market valuations, but the much a different kind of legal ownership but it’s a Government will be consulting on the whole process different category of ownership from properties that of forest sales in due course. Obviously the price will we own in a freehold sense. depend on what conditions are put on the sales when they take place. So some sales will undoubtedly have Q23 Thomas Docherty: Right so there’s a portfolio conditions on them to protect public benefits, that you own, a portfolio that you lease, and then environmental benefits, access, other things like that, separately there’s the forestry. and as a result the book value will be less than if it Mrs Spelman: Yes. was a pure open market value. The receipts assumed Dame Helen Ghosh: And the Covent Garden Market within the £100 million total, of which forestry is the Authority and all those things, yes. biggest element but by no means the only element, are a very small amount of the overall forest estate. The Q24 Thomas Docherty: Right, well that’s absolutely overall forest estate is going to be worth something fine. You’ve estimated you hold £100 million in total; between £600 million to £800 million. has that money been spent, effectively, or is it going George Eustice: Right. to be bonus money if it comes in? Mrs Spelman: No, it’s not been spent, because Q28 Chair: What sort of price did we get last year? obviously it depends on market conditions. We have Mrs Spelman: It was £13.5 million for 1,100 hectares to be extremely careful about these sales, in order to sold. I think again it’s very important to make a optimise the recovery; it has not been spent. distinction; the consultation document will come out shortly, but I think it’s very important for the sake of Q25 Thomas Docherty: Okay, so if you get it, it will public understanding that there’s a distinction between be a bonus. commercial forestry and what I would call heritage Dame Helen Ghosh: If we get it, it will be a bonus, forestry. So to suggest or raise any speculation that as you say. As the Secretary of State said, it’s capital we’re just about to build a golf course all over the and we could put it towards— New Forest is ludicrous, quite frankly. That is heritage Neil Parish: To stop flooding. estate; commercial estates are what we all know of as Mrs Spelman: Absolutely. plantations, largely, of timber. Sequentially over time, Dame Helen Ghosh: We could put it towards any including by the previous Government, this has been appropriate, good value capital spend. sold to realise that asset. So there is a distinction. We actually think, because the coalition Government is Q26 Chair: Just to be clear, some of this is already committed to big society and an increasing role of being used for flood defences. I gather—it was on the civil society, that this is actually the right time to BBC News—the pilot project in my area is currently consult on the possibility of giving the community being part-funded by the Forestry Commission, so that’s closest to the forest and the woodland the we’ve just got to be a little bit careful that we don’t— opportunity to take ownership. I would contend that Mrs Spelman: Is this Pickering? the community that lives closest to the forest is the Chair: Yes. one most likely to protect it. We will be consulting on Mrs Spelman: Do you want to have a word about all the options in relation to the public estate but in that? the context that only 18% of woodland and forest in Chair: Well we’re coming on to that so we’ll just stay England is in public ownership. with this question. Amber Rudd: I just wanted to ask, if I may, on this Mrs Spelman: Well I think once again there’s been a 120%, I haven’t quite understood. Does that mean that lot of media speculation about forestry, and I think where the asset sale realises the book value, or value there are a couple of really important points to at which the Department is holding it, the Department emphasise. We’ve had to do quite a bit of myth gets to hold on to the 20% of the additional profit? busting in this area. Only 18% of forest and woodland Mrs Spelman: Up to 20%. Of course it depends on in England is publicly owned, so we are talking about the market conditions. If in a particular year the value quite a small percentage. Historically, year on year of timber was so high that we realised more than Defra has disposed of hectares of forestry. Just going 120%, I think the Treasury made it clear it would want cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin to come into discussion with us at that point, much more cheaply. Then when it came to the understandably. complex cases, people on borders with uplands and Amber Rudd: Thank you very much. lowlands and so on, then you could probably deal with Dame Helen Ghosh: It will be looking at the total that through spreadsheet kinds of approaches. Since figure. there are only just over 100,000 customers for this Mrs Spelman: Yes. service we think we can procure an IT system much Dame Helen Ghosh: Up to £100 million, we’re more cheaply than the old one. It puts a premium on assuming; if it were £120 million we could keep the point Mr Parish raised earlier: the simpler we can £120 million. have the next CAP system the better, and I know that’s Amber Rudd: Oh, I see. something high on the Secretary of State’s priorities. Dame Helen Ghosh: But we couldn’t keep Mrs Spelman: Absolutely. £121 million. It won’t be looked at in batches. Dame Helen Ghosh: We’ve got all sorts of ways in Peter Unwin: Once we’ve made over £120 million which we can keep the cost down. we’d have to discuss it with the Treasury. They may, depending on the circumstances and what we were Q30 Thomas Docherty: You said you had a budget going to spend it on, agree we could spend it. But for it. How much have you allocated, Secretary of they would reserve the right to use it for other things State, and what was the previous cost? if that was what they thought was right. Mrs Spelman: I’ll just have a look. Dame Helen Ghosh: I’m not aware that we have put Q29 Neil Parish: It’s not about individual assets? a specific figure in place. Dame Helen Ghosh: No, it’s because they’re trying Peter Unwin: Can I just make a clarification on the to control spending, therefore they have given us figure we referred to a few minutes ago on overall £100 million, and that is what they have put in their asset sales? The amount we budgeted for is calculations about reducing the deficit. If we spend £83 million, and 120% of that is £100 million, so another £20 million, that’s okay, but if would spend £100 million is the sum that we can spend before we’d another £21 million then we’d have to have the have to go back to the Treasury and have negotiation discussion Peter describes. as to whether we could spend more than that. Mrs Spelman: I haven’t been in Government long enough to know for sure, but I believe that it hasn’t Q31 Chair: You reached that figure on the basis of historically always been the case that the Treasury has sales that have taken place over the last two or three allowed departments to keep the sales of their assets. years, so it’s a fairly accurate figure? Again, I commend the package that we secured with the Treasury, which contained this element that is very Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. valuable to us. Peter Unwin: Well it’s a projection of the continuation Amber Rudd: It’s a positive incentive. of sales over the past years and an assumption of some Thomas Docherty: I have a quick question on capital sales of estates and other issues. The biggest part of spend. Obviously there’ll be a need for the Rural the £83 million would be forestry sales. Payment Agency to have an IT system post-2013 Mrs Spelman: We have to make contingency for IT CAP. renewal, but it is in the context of the timescale of the Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. CAP reform negotiations. Thomas Docherty: That probably affects a fairly Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. large chunk of money; it’s a big ticket item. Given the Mrs Spelman: This is actually very tricky because the last five years, it’s probably important to get these new financial perspective is from 2013. Obviously in things right. Can you clarify where that money’s going terms of prudence with public resources, what one to come from in the budget? Or would that be an doesn’t want to do is to over-commit to renewing a additional sum that would be required? system that may then result in having to be completely Mrs Spelman: No, it’s budgeted for. replaced should CAP be calculated on a different basis Dame Helen Ghosh: It’s budgeted for. We are after 2013. So 2013 is the anticipated date when CAP assuming that it will come out of the capital settlement reform negotiations might conclude by, as far as that we’ve got, but of course there are a variety of anybody can be sure of that date, so we have to make ways in which you could procure it. We initiated a contingency. In the interim I just want to stress that review into the RPA; indeed we’re working through the coalition Government has come into an inherited this now with what used to be called the Office of situation, and the Minister of State has personally Government Commerce, the Francis Maude-led committed himself to getting this system working. Efficiency and Reform Group. One might want to Slowly but surely the RPA is getting to grips with the procure a new IT system as part of a larger package problems that it had. The running costs of the Agency of provision of services as a whole. So my have in fact gone down. There’s a balance here to be procurement team is currently looking at the various had in the good operation of the Rural Payments options for direct procurement, for procurement in Agency; if through the speed of trying to make the partnership with someone who can also deliver the calculations there is a greater degree of inaccuracy services. We would also expect it to be substantially then the actual amount of progress made is less expensive than the previous very bespoke, very undermined by that. So the Minister of State is trying complex IT system. For example, an IT system that very hard to work through the practical problems that could cope with the 80% of absolutely straight the RPA faces with the existing IT system, and to put forward, bog-standard applications could be built right the problems that present right now that have cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 10 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin gone wrong. We don’t know, yet, what form the CAP agency by agency, NDPB by NDPB. Peter obviously reform will take. would know more about the Environment Agency and Chair: Can we come back to that. Natural England. We have been, within the Department, talking to staff about reductions of those Q32 Thomas Docherty: That’s a very long answer kinds of levels for about the last six months, and to “How much have you budgeted for and how much talking to them about our general approach, which as did it cost previously?” I said was to look for back office savings first and Dame Helen Ghosh: Well the figure for how much it then a voluntary departure system, while at the same cost previously is a combination of the original time, as the Secretary of State said, making sure we procurement and then the amount we’ve had to spend manage our staff overall, in such a way that we’re not every year since. I’m trying to remember but I’ll come faced with a sudden falling off a cliff. The NDPBs back to you with an accurate figure. My recollection have been doing this particularly successfully. Yes, we is that it’s £80 million to £100 million. We haven’t have carried out— budgeted a specific figure yet. Chair: I’m so sorry, we’re not going to get through Thomas Docherty: Right. the whole procedure this morning unless we shorten Dame Helen Ghosh: That is because we are going the answers. through this very outline procurement. As the Dame Helen Ghosh: I’m sorry, I’ll just answer the Secretary of State said, we won’t know the details of question: yes, we’ve done a staff survey along with the CAP reform until much closer to the date, but all the rest of the Civil Service and the results will we can work with partners to say, “Assuming it looks come out just after Christmas. approximately like this, with some elements of area-based payments or some special treatment, or Q35 Thomas Docherty: My understanding, whatever it might be, tell us how you might build an according to the Law Society Gazette, is that you’re IT system.” taking a 40% reduction in the number of lawyers in Chair: We’ll come back to that. Can we move on? your Department. Is that correct? Dame Helen Ghosh: I think that is a version of the Q33 Thomas Docherty: You mentioned before you guidelines we’ve given to what you might call back were looking at between 5,000 and 8,000 job cuts, I office activity, so that would be HR, finance, IT, think that was the figure that you shared with us. estates people and lawyers, where we would look for That’s about 20%, about a fifth of the total of Defra. slightly higher reductions in order to protect what one Mrs Spelman: I calculated it this morning. The range might call the policy-making front line. The legal is 16% to 26%: 26% at the top end, 16% at the lower profession is of course somewhere that’s between end. It’s a percentage of the 30,000 across the those two, as sort of semi-policy makers. It may well network. So it’s below the 33%. be that it doesn’t end up being a 40% reduction. Peter Unwin: These are numbers that we have asked Q34 Thomas Docherty: Okay, sure. So two quick people to exemplify. questions. Number one is, whilst you’re making the Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. reductions how do you intend to maintain your Peter Unwin: No decisions on those have been taken. delivery network and your policy formulation skills within the Department? Secondly, in terms of the Q36 Thomas Docherty: Secretary of State, if we process, how are you informing your staff about the assume that figure is broadly accurate, it’s probably job reductions? Have you conducted a staff survey fair to say that as you reduce your spending on, this year? effectively, implementation of EU directives— Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. Mrs Spelman: I didn’t say we’d do that. Why would Mrs Spelman: Would you like to answer those? we do that? That’s front line and we’re faced with Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes I’ll answer all of those in infraction costs. One of the things that’s very clear is order. How are we protecting delivery and policy that all Government departments that are unprotected skills? As I think the Secretary of State indicated, in are facing a 25 to 40% reduction, and across administrative cost reduction, broadly speaking we’re Whitehall a 33% reduction. You can’t just salami slice assuming the same sort of level of reduction across a tiny bit; it actually requires re-engineering of the piece. We can come back to the detail of that in processes. This can be a very positive thing within a relation to specific agencies. In the case of the department, providing one approaches the staff in a Environment Agency and some elements of Natural constructive way, taking their suggestions for how we England, for example, the costs of staff do not count might do things more efficiently. I mentioned earlier within the admin budget because they are identified that Defra has this particular approach that I as frontline staff. So people, particularly working on commended to the Committee, the flexible staff maintenance and building frontline flood defences, are resourcing approach, which means that people aren’t not covered by the admin budget. They’re covered by tied to static directorates and fixed units. We will the other efficiencies that the Environment Agency explore with the staff how to achieve this level of staff needs to find but not by the overall 33% figure. Going savings whilst ensuring that their careers are back to my point about deciding where we should put interesting, their jobs are satisfying, and the front line our staff within the core Department, what we are is not compromised. doing is working with each of our agencies, and Mr Docherty, you were particularly concerned about within the core Department. We’re working with each policy, so can I just mention that in the reform of of them to agree a sensible level of admin spend, our arm’s-length bodies, we have actually taken policy cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin makers, from within those bodies, back in to the core time to a hands-on role with the Rural Payments Department? So actually we have increasing strength Agency to try and ensure that the historic problems in policy making within the Department. that it has faced are addressed. I think that the trends are in the right direction in terms of reducing cost Q37 Thomas Docherty: So you aren’t spending a of each transaction and reducing numbers of delayed penny less on things like water quality, or anything payments, but there is definitely still room for else that the EU directives are on? You’re saying that improvement. That is why Mr Paice has specifically all those areas of spend are unaffected? taken on that role. Within the departmental structure Peter Unwin: Would it help if I said a bit about— there is management board at which we review the Dame Helen Ghosh: No, we’re not saying that we financial regularity of authorities that are part of the will spend— Defra family. I’ve only attended one or two of these management boards in my six months but I think that Q38 Chair: How have you got to a situation where regular meetings are important for holding ourselves you have so many lawyers and so many press officers and our arm’s length bodies, those that remain and are in one Department? being reformed, to account. We are accountable as a Mrs Spelman: Well, with respect to the Chair, I have Department to make sure that there is continuous been there six months. improvement. Dame Helen Ghosh: Can I say, I think there was a Q39 Chair: I’m not blaming you. I’m just asking critical report on the Department’s finances in 2006, how we got to this situation. Is that common among four years ago. Since then we have completely other departments? changed our operating model, changed our finance Mrs Spelman: I think that is a question that should staff. We’re now regarded as a very, very high have been put to the last Government, with the performing Department, in terms of our financial greatest respect. I think that you are speaking to me management, by the Treasury. They explicitly praised about the Comprehensive Spending Review. In us for our professionalism on the efficiency conjunction with the civil servants, we are taking a programmes that we had to develop before this last strategic and rational approach to reduction in election. They’re coming to us to look at how we do administration, trying as far as possible to protect the our portfolio and spending investment decisions, front line, which very much does include ensuring that because they think our model is a good one. One of the United Kingdom is compliant with European the reasons they were prepared to settle with us early directives and always mindful of the risks of was because they know we are in charge of our disallowance and infraction. money, we know what we spend it on and when we Dame Helen Ghosh: We are a Department that does say we’ll do something, we do it. I think if you had a great deal of legal activity, we do bills, we do the Treasury team sitting in front of you, they would litigation, we do all the European work you describe. say we have transformed our financial management I do not believe we are disproportionately staffed with from where it was four years ago. Part of the early lawyers. Indeed, we have been reducing our numbers settlement and the reasonable settlement we got is a of lawyers very substantially. reward for that. Thomas Docherty: I didn’t say you were. Mrs Spelman: I can concur with that. The Chief Dame Helen Ghosh: The Chair implied that we have Secretary to the Treasury made it quite clear to us, more lawyers than a department of our scale, with our when we met with them and settled with them in kind of activity, would have. I don’t believe that’s September, that they regard Defra as one of the leaner, true. Equally, I’d be very happy to give the Committee better run Departments from a financial perspective. I the number of press officers. Again, our press office accept the RPA has particular issues but as I say, we is pretty tightly staffed with specialists on particular haven’t ignored those. We’ve put a Minister, at his subject desks, but again I don’t think it is own volition, on the case. disproportionate compared with other Government departments, but we could give the benchmarks. Q41 Neil Parish: On the complexity of the single Mrs Spelman: We could, yes, absolutely. farm payment, Mrs Beckett brought in such a complex Peter Unwin: I know we’re pretty short of time but I system that in the end it cost £1,700 to administer a could give you some of the examples of how we’re payment in England, and £250 to £300 in Scotland. making cuts in the delivery. What can the Department and we in Government do Chair: I think we’ll come to that in more detail, but about it to sort this out, because it’s crazy? if we could move on to Richard Drax. Dame Helen Ghosh: Short of reversing that original decision, which we did indeed consider with the Q40 Richard Drax: Secretary of State, in the past Secretary of State at the time—actually it would have Defra’s network has been criticised for its financial cost us more money to revert, let alone going back to management, not least for its role in the Rural Europe to get the decision—we concluded that we Payments Agency. Bearing in mind the scale of your should press on and make that process as efficient as cuts how are you going to improve the financial it possibly could be. We’ve now got to the stage, of management within Defra and its agencies? course, where most of the complexity is unwound. Mrs Spelman: Well as I mentioned earlier I think the The historic element is very insignificant in the Rural Payments Agency is one that is deserving of payment. particular attention. That is why a Government Chair: We’re coming on to the CAP, if we could Minister has decided to allocate some of his precious move on to evidence-based policy. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 12 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Dame Helen Ghosh: Okay, so at the moment it’s not sure that all Member States pay attention to the need as complicated as it was in 2006. to deal with environmental pollution correctly. As regards the Commission for Rural Communities, that Q42 Neil Parish: So the cost is dropping? was the example I had in my mind when I answered Dame Helen Ghosh: The cost is dropping. a question from Mr Docherty. I said that with arm’s- Mrs Spelman: 10% each year. length bodies that we have abolished or reformed, that Dame Helen Ghosh: It’s down to about £1,000 a case had policy making within them, in many cases we now. Of course the Scottish and Welsh have not been have taken the policy making capacity back in house, without problems. and the Commission for Rural Communities is a very Chair: Could we come on to the CAP later, if we good example of that. We work very hard with their could stay with evidence-based policy? staff who are based in Cheltenham to try and ascertain where they might like to transfer to within the core Q43 Richard Drax: Can I move on to the role of Department, but to retain their policy making capacity. science in your Department, Secretary of State, and That is not least because we are the Government’s the establishing of committees of experts. There’s rural champion, and we want to make absolutely sure some concern they may dilute the independence of that we have that capacity and we have brought it Defra. Just quoting from Sir John Lawton, chairman back within the Department. of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Richard Drax: Thank you. He said, “I really, really worry about where Government is going to get awkward but constructive Q46 Neil Parish: On waste, is there an innate tension advice”. Do you think that policy units within Defra in the business plan between a desire to achieve will be able to provide this awkward advice, and what national goals on waste whilst at the same time changes in policy or structure are needed to devolving power to local communities, including encourage this? councils and businesses? Also, how do you work with Mrs Spelman: As part of the preparation of our the Communities Department to deliver policy? Comprehensive Spending Review submission to the Mrs Spelman: I think I mentioned earlier that we Treasury, the chief scientific advisor within the work very closely with the Department for Department was at pains to stress one point: it’s Communities and Local Government. In some ways, important that in any reductions we secure we have Mr Parish, it’s an advantage to have shadowed that to make sure that our evidence base is robust and is brief for many years before entering Government. Our strategically distributed in line with the evidence intention, absolutely, is to work with local authorities priorities. We were careful to protect the evidence very effectively. I think the most recent set of budget to make sure that we do have that resilience. municipal waste statistics are a source of That is something Ministers attach importance to, you encouragement, because what they basically show is will rarely find a Minister not using the phrase that all the trends are moving in the right direction. The we want evidence-led, science-based policy. You can’t volume of waste is decreasing, the amount going to have that without the evidence base, so we have landfill is decreasing and the amount being recycled protected the evidence base. It has taken some cost is increasing. Now obviously one of our indicators is reduction but in a way in which the chief scientific to make absolutely sure that those trajectories remain adviser assures us will not compromise our ability to on course and we will review them constantly to make deal with disasters and emergencies as we face them sure that they are. Within our budget there is provision and to evolve policy in a sound way. for local authorities, for resources to help them with waste collection and special grants to help them find Q44 Richard Drax: On that point, are you intending ways to address particular waste issues. I’m sure that to continue Defra’s Evidence Investment Strategy the Committee will recall that recently we had to 2010–2013? make a series of quite difficult decisions in the context Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. of the spending review about which PFI projects to Mrs Spelman: Absolutely. give the green light to, and which we felt that we could not. Again, it’s not a guarantee that the 11 out Q45 Richard Drax: How will you ensure that the of 18 projects that were given the green light will scientific knowledge and expertise held within necessarily proceed, because those local authorities organisations such as the Royal Commission on have to find the resources to match in order to make Environmental Pollution and the Commission for the project proceed. Conversely, some that we didn’t Rural Communities, which are going, won’t be lost? give the green light to for central support will proceed Mrs Spelman: Two things. One is the Royal anyway because the local authorities have decided that Commission on Environmental Pollution? they have the resources necessary to go ahead with Richard Drax: Yes. the project. We remain committed to helping local Mrs Spelman: We took a view with that organisation, authorities in dealing with waste. which was created I think three decades ago. That was created at a time when these concerns about Q47 Neil Parish: Waste to power and biodigestion is environmental pollution were relatively novel, since not always met by local people with great glee. How when concern about environmental pollution is is the Department going to help to promote these, completely mainstream to what the Department does, because they’re both very useful sources of power? since when a number of directives have been Mrs Spelman: Indeed, yes absolutely. Lord Henley, introduced at a European level that make absolutely who regards himself as a waste aficionado in the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Department, is an enthusiast for both methods of previous Government to 50% savings in capital, so waste disposal. We are working with local authorities we inherited a situation already where the previous looking at the opportunity afforded by anaerobic Secretary of State could not have maintained the rate digestion. The key with that is the constant feed stock, of expenditure on flood defences that that Government so institutions like prisons and hospitals that have 24/ originally set out. They simply could not have 7 discards of organic waste are ideally suited to that afforded it. Our budget for floods is at least £2.1 method of disposal. It’s not ideal for institutions that billion over the spending review period, and I will have a broken supply, because the bugs need to eat invite Peter in a minute to explain the significance of constantly. the words “at least”. This actually represents 8% less On waste to energy, I think it’s a local decision. There spend by Defra over the previous four years, because are some parts of the country that have embraced with the average of the previous four years was enthusiasm the waste to energy model, and other parts £590 million a year, so it’s actually 8% less. The that are not comfortable with that model. The new second point the Chair made about— coalition Government has made it perfectly clear that Chair: Can I ask a specific question, if I may? we want to devolve more power, that we believe localism is the right approach to take, and one would Mrs Spelman: Yes. expect to see diverse outcomes. I don’t know whether Peter would like to add anything on our relationship Q51 Chair: Will the funding provided to the with local government; that’s what I think Mr Parish Environment Agency, under the period of the review, was interested in. be sufficient to enable new flood defence projects to be built? Q48 Neil Parish: Yes, communities. Mrs Spelman: Those that are contracted for will Peter Unwin: Well, as the Secretary of State has said, proceed. local authorities will make their own decisions, and what we can do is help them with information. It goes Q52 Chair: So you’re not going to review the points back to the point raised on evidence just now, putting system that we inherited from the last Government? out information on energy from waste and that sort of There won’t be a fairer distribution of spending in thing to allay some of the public fears. In some cases rural areas as opposed to urban areas? that works, and in some it doesn’t, but we can put that information out and help them. Peter Unwin: Yes, the Ministers will be reviewing the Neil Parish: Okay, thank you. allocation methodology for floods. As the Secretary of State has said, all schemes that are currently Q49 Chair: In terms of actual quantified savings, contracted and under construction will continue Defra has set out over the period of the spending unabated. As it’s possible to bring in new schemes, review only £372 million. So there’s a large gap. the criteria governing those schemes will be Mrs Spelman: No, in our note to the Committee I considered by Ministers and set. think we’ve made it clear how the savings break down. Q53 Chair: Are you able to put a figure on how Dame Helen Ghosh: £661 million. many homes at significant risk of flooding will remain Mrs Spelman: £661 million. I’m reading from the unprotected at the end of the review period? note given to the Committee: programme savings of Mrs Spelman: We’d prefer to put a figure on the £330 million, capital savings of £157 million, number of homes that we will protect by the end of administration savings of £174 million. So I think we the period, which is 145,000. That is the number of have set out in our memo to the Committee how the additional homes we’ve committed ourselves to total amount is broken down. protecting within the spending review period. I would Dame Helen Ghosh: The difference between that like to give Mr Unwin the opportunity to explain why figure and that figure. the £2.1 billion is at least £2.1 billion—the significance of “at least”. Q50 Chair: You said in an earlier answer, Secretary Chair: Okay, if you could do it briefly. of State, that the Department will spend £2.1 billion Peter Unwin: The £2.1 billion is what we would pay on flood and coastal defences over the period of the through the Environment Agency; in addition to that review. This is actually 20% less, £516 million less, there will be local authority expenditure, which we than would otherwise have been spent on Environment Agency work for the 2010–11 period. touched on earlier in the session. At the moment Just to clarify, you said in a press release that the they’re spending about £100 million a year, and money that you’re saving, the efficiency savings on obviously they’ll be taking decisions on priorities, but flood and coastal defence capital expenditure, will be as I said, in the past they have given a high priority reinvested. You appear to have contradicted this in to floods. In addition, we’ve spoken about the capital subsequent reports. Is that something you’d wish to receipts that we hope to get, and we haven’t allocated clarify? those yet. If we were to reinvest those, floods would Mrs Spelman: No, I think we’re getting confused obviously be a high priority for Ministers to consider here. First of all could I just remind everyone here of in deciding what capital expenditure to use them for. the context? If Hilary Benn had been sitting before Mrs Spelman: Absolutely. the Committee today he would have had to deal with Peter Unwin: So that’s why we talk about “at least” the fact that Alistair Darling had committed the £2.1 billion. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 14 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Q54 Chair: What if there is a threat to the Mrs Spelman: Well, quite simply because the people £100 million local authority expenditure under their who enjoy access and benefit from nearby woodland comprehensive spending review? and forestry are the people who most want to protect Peter Unwin: It’s not included in the figures we’ve that ongoing access. I’d suggest that the people who quoted, so anything at all that local authorities spend live near the Sherwood Forest or the New Forest, or will be on top of the £2.1 billion. other heritage forests, will have a particular interest in keeping them just as they are today for the sake of Q55 Chair: I’m just curious about the levies that the their children and their grandchildren. The challenge last Government talked about, which in opposition I for us is to look at bringing the reality of community think the present Government were not so keen on ownership closer to sometimes quite small but are now proceeding with. Who will actually pay communities. One wouldn’t expect a small village, these levies? necessarily, to have the resource to secure the Mrs Spelman: Could I please just stop the Chair ownership of heritage forestry, if it was on a very large there, because once again we know from the forestry scale. We need to work through, in our forest episode that a comment like that can give rise to front consultation document, how to help civil society page headlines in national newspapers. So, could I secure ownership of forestry that it desires to do. I make it perfectly clear that in due course we will come think that is entirely consistent with the coalition forward with a consultation document looking at how agreement’s approach to the big society benefits of additional resources can be brought to address the involving people in the protection of the environment question of how we improve the resilience of where they live. communities to flooding? The consultation document will set out a number of ways in which this is possible. Q58 Richard Drax: Which is all well meaning, but It is, for example, sometimes in the interests of water how are they going to manage it as well as the companies to be involved in the provision of flood Forestry Commission do now? In the sense that defences, because it prevents the contamination of they’ve got their own lives to lead, they’re all busy their water supplies by inundations of sea water, and people and suddenly they’ve got a great lump of they have an interest in bringing additional capacity forestry to maintain, which takes a lot of work. to this question. In due course, as Mr Benyon Mrs Spelman: I imagine they would contract to do outlined, we will be looking at additional ways to help that. improve the resilience of communities. In essence, what we’re proposing there is a piece of good news, Q59 Chair: These local people, who are they and which is that a project that might have gone to the where will they get the money from? back of the queue because the return on investment Peter Unwin: We’ve had expressions of interest from was poor—and that was the original criteria for environmental bodies, for example the Woodlands granting support from the state—may be brought Trust and others who’d be interested in taking some forward by a combination of state and other resources. sites on, on behalf of a local community. A local organisation could take it on with the community. Q56 Chair: Those houses, other than the 145,000 Mrs Spelman: When I was before the Environmental that you hope to help, if they’re in the future deemed Audit Select Committee last week this question came to be uninsurable, do you intend to intervene? up in relation to the Sherwood Forest. This very point Mrs Spelman: Well, we have an ongoing dialogue was made by a Member, who I imagine didn’t live with the insurers. The Association of British Insurers very far from the Sherwood Forest, that it is so expressed themselves to be pleased that we had important to local communities, often to the small managed to defend as much of the capital of the mining communities that live in close proximity to Department as we did, not least because most of it is the Sherwood Forest, that we would need to make it flood defence capital. We will be working with the possible for parcels of it to be made available to the Association of British Insurers as their statement of communities that had an interest in seeking principles come up for renewal in 2013 to look at ownership. This will be elaborated in a consultation ways to make sure as far as possible there is no reason document on forestry, where we’re looking at a why anybody should not be able to insure their number of options. It is that important distinction property. The proposals will in due course be made between heritage and commercial forestry, that it’s public. The consultation on additional flood resource important to remember is at the heart of all of this. initiatives are likely to increase the ability of homeowners to insure themselves at reasonable cost. Q60 Richard Drax: What assessment have you Chair: I’m sure we’ll revisit these issues. If I could made of the reduction in price that Forestry turn to Richard Drax? Commission forest will attract compared with private forest? Q57 Richard Drax: Yes, on to forestry if I may, Peter Unwin: We haven’t as yet because we haven’t Secretary of State? You are committed to selling off consulted on the way that they will be sold, which parts of the Forestry Commission’s estate, and we obviously will have an impact on the price. The know that. In oral questions you said one advantage receipts we’re talking about in this consultation are of that would be that “community and civil society quite a long way into the future, so they’re not the are most likely to give it”—that’s the forest—“the best figures for which we need to put figures into public protection”. What evidence is there for that statement? spending assumptions at this stage. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Mrs Spelman: Historically, this is very important; I Mrs Spelman: We should not have to, no. was trying to illustrate earlier that it’s not new for the Forestry Commission to dispose of portions of its Q67 Chair: So this is our one and only chance? estate year on year on year. The price does vary; Mrs Spelman: The disposal of the public forest estate timber is a commodity and the volume of sales and is possible under existing legislation— the price recovered fluctuates from year to year. I tried Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. to give a contrasting example of that: last year when Mrs Spelman: As the Permanent Secretary made the Forestry Commission disposed of 1,100 hectares clear; the Bill provides a cautionary provision for use of forest, it planned to recover £13.5 million from in future years, should it be required. We shouldn’t that. By comparison, in 2002, only 690 hectares were need to come back for any other legislation, no. sold. That’s approximately half what was sold last year, but it yielded only £5 million. So, it’s difficult Q68 Chair: Is it altering the status of the Forestry to project anticipated sales precisely over a five-year Commission as well? period. Because we’re budgeting on this question we Mrs Spelman: The statutory duties of the Forestry have looked at a planned disposal of 15% of the Commission go beyond just sequentially selling off estate, yielding a spread of, year on year, £13 million, the estate. It has a regulatory function, it has functions £18 million, £20.5 million and £23 million net to oversee access and other benefits, which will receipts from sales. So we have a projected sale of continue and will be enabled to continue. assets but it will depend on the market. Q69 Richard Drax: We’re hoping to take the lead in Q61 Richard Drax: Historically I think delivering the Nagoya commitments on biodiversity. Government-owned Forestry Commission land goes What new approaches will the Natural Environment at a much cheaper price, that is the point. We touched White Paper contain to ensure the UK meets these on this, but just to confirm, the proceeds of this will targets? go to your Department? I think you already Mrs Spelman: Well, I think that question is somewhat mentioned that. outwith the comprehensive spending review, with Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. great respect. Obviously the Natural Environment Mrs Spelman: Absolutely. White Paper is a discussion paper about natural resources in the round; it has not been launched in Q62 Richard Drax: Good. Can I just confirm that connection with the comprehensive spending review. this Forestry Commission consultation is running at I would point out that the Comprehensive Spending the same time as the House’s consideration of the Review decision specifically ensured that both forms legislation that would enable this all to go ahead—is of environmental stewardship should be maintained. that correct? In fact, higher level stewardship, which gives the Dame Helen Ghosh: Public bodies, yes, absolutely. greater environmental benefits, should be increased by 80%, we anticipate. So within the spending review Q63 Chair: Hang on a minute, because Richard’s there are important measures which underpin the point is that the Public Bodies Bill, which gives the objective of the Natural Environment White Paper, legal basis, is going through the House of Lords at the which will be to place increasing importance and moment and is not due to reach the Commons. value upon our natural resources. I think that because Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes. it’s a discussion paper and the White Paper itself hasn’t yet been published, I would suggest we come Q64 Chair: So your consultation is actually going on back to that with this Committee in due course. As I before we’ve got the legal basis for the sale. say, there are important biodiversity dimensions to the Dame Helen Ghosh: Indeed, but as the Secretary of Comprehensive Spending Review both at home and State said, in the early years of the figures that she abroad, but the environmental stewardship schemes quoted then actually it’s a level of sales that can go were something which as Ministers we attached great on under existing powers and rules. You only need the importance to the maintenance of. Indeed I think it’s additional powers that are in the Public Bodies Bill, right to pay tribute to the work undertaken by a as I understand it, for the later years when you want number of NGOs. to go beyond the kinds of levels of sales that we do Chair: Could we have slightly shorter answers? now. So in fact the Public Bodies Bill should be an Mrs Spelman: I’d just like to mention that the NGOs, Act well before you are making sales towards the of which the Select Committee will be well aware, latter end of the SR period. I believe that’s correct. attach great importance to the maintenance of stewardship schemes as well. Q65 Chair: That’s a once-and-for-all legislative permit, that you will never again as a Department Q70 Richard Drax: On that particular point, have to come back for future sales of forestry or such? actually, how do you respond to concerns from NGOs Peter Unwin: That is the intention. that it is not practical to rely on NGOs and charities Mrs Spelman: The Public Bodies Bill is an enabling to deliver the UK compliance with targets? Bill on the reform of a wide range of arm’s-length Mrs Spelman: Well we’re not necessarily relying on bodies. the NGOs to do that, so that’s perhaps a misunderstanding of the role that we anticipate. As Q66 Chair: So you will never, ever again have to part of civil society in this country, and particularly come and ask permission? this Department, it has the incredible blessing of a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 16 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin number of very large, very well organised, highly were beginning to pay only 2%, which is the standard respected, internationally renowned NGOs. Many of level of fine that you’d expect to pay, which we had these have expressed to us an interest in becoming paid with the old schemes. We will shortly be having more involved in protecting the biodiversity of our informal negotiations on the fines to pay for ’07, ’08 country and see an opportunity to be more engaged in and ’09. The provision we made in our accounts last partnership with the state in terms of protecting and year was for a level of about 2%. That’s the basis on enhancing that biodiversity. I think Mr Unwin which we’ve had the discussion about 90, 90, 90 in mentioned the role of the Woodland Trust, for the three years of the SR. The fact that we are now example, who have expressed an interest in protecting paying even closer attention to accuracy as well as and enhancing the biodiversity of our forests. The speed should mean that we do manage to keep our RSPB attaches a great importance to the increase in disallowance within those levels. We’ve also got higher level stewardship schemes, and I would expect flexibility from the Treasury to move the money to continue to be very involved in that. However, it between years if there’s any lumpy spend, which is doesn’t mean that we place all reliance on the third what we’ve done historically. We hope, at that level sector. of disallowance, we should be okay.
Q71 Richard Drax: Local people, what about them? Q74 Amber Rudd: Notwithstanding all those efforts, More powers for them, and if so, what powers? if there were a situation where it went up by 5%, how Mrs Spelman: Engagement. would you fund it? Dame Helen Ghosh: It’s something we’d talk to the Q72 Richard Drax: Green open space, for example? Treasury about. Mrs Spelman: We must remember local people are Mrs Spelman: Again, I stress the importance of being often members of the Woodland Trust or the RSPB. an early settler in our package with the Treasury. It For example, the kind of role that I imagine that a gave us an opportunity to share with the Treasury the local person might play in the kind of new world I’m unusual characteristics of our Department’s risks and describing, the big society, comes from visiting a farm liabilities, of which disallowance is one, because 80% close to my constituency where the farmer there has of the business Defra does is covered by Europe. That a higher level stewardship scheme and has gone to is a point accepted by the Treasury: we do face great lengths to try and attract skylarks to nest. He disallowance risks and infraction costs. said to me it was most important to know whether it’s Dame Helen Ghosh: Mr Parish will be well aware of succeeded; was there an outcome for the investment this, but I think one of the main things the of public resources in achieving this? It was two Commission is interested in is are you making an members of the local RSPB who put in the time to effort and are you conscious of the risks. I think that come in and see whether actually the skylarks had was why our ’06 figure was lower than our ’05 figure. successfully nested and fledged from those sites. That Although in some senses the more work you do, the to me is partnership working, it doesn’t mean that we more you tend to unearth in terms of historic data that completely rely on local people and the third sector you might have stopped and corrected earlier, the fact to deliver on important requirements that we’ve set is that you can say to the Commission we’re getting a ourselves. We just see a great opportunity to work in grip on the facts. The Court of Auditors is very partnership with them. interested in a level of control, what they hate is a sense that it’s all out of control and nobody knows Q73 Amber Rudd: You have allocated £90 million what’s going on. So the work that Jim Paice, the per year over the spending review period for supervisory board and the RPA are doing is absolutely disallowance. vital to that. Mrs Spelman: Yes. Amber Rudd: Are you confident that the RPA is now Q75 Neil Parish: £160 million was paid in 2009 for sufficiently resourced to make sure that is going to the mistakes that the previous Government made in be sufficient? having this complex system. How much more money Mrs Spelman: Would you like to answer, Helen? is left there for us to pick up from this payment, from Dame Helen Ghosh: I’m happy to answer that. The not being able to get payments out to farmers on time Secretary of State has described both the historic and the penalties imposed upon us by the improvements that we have been making in the Commission? performance of the RPA, but in particular the role that Dame Helen Ghosh: Well, we made provision in our Jim Paice is taking now. He is very much picking up accounts last year, which is not the same as real the outcome of the review that we commissioned a money, it’s still this peculiar thing called near-cash, of year ago. That review said that now the time has come about £170 million. we’ll increase the speed of payment to farmers, but Neil Parish: Right. there’s still a lot of dirty data in the system and we Dame Helen Ghosh: That was for ’07, ’08 and ’09, need to rebalance between speed of payment to some of which wasn’t SPS, as you’ll be aware it was farmers, keeping that as a priority, against the cost to other kinds of schemes. taxpayers. The main cost to taxpayers, as the Secretary of State said, the admin costs of the RPA Q76 Neil Parish: Quite a lot of it was, most of it have gone done, but have been, historically, was? disallowance. So we have effectively already paid our Dame Helen Ghosh: A substantial amount of it was. disallowance for the ’05 and ’06 years. By 2006 we So you could say, if there is a figure it’s somewhere cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin around £171 million. Again one needs to do the Q80 Chair: Can I ask, is there a correlation between negotiation with the Court of Auditors and the the number of lawyers in the Department and the Commission, so that’s our best guess at what that likelihood of infraction proceedings. figure might be. That is provision, money for which Dame Helen Ghosh: I’ll turn to Peter as our expert, we have provided in our budget this year. If by any but no. chance it was higher than that clearly we might have Chair: I know Mr Docherty was keen to pursue this to have some negotiation with the Treasury as the point. Secretary of State describes. Dame Helen Ghosh: Infraction, as you will be aware, comes back to demonstrating as a Department that Q77 Neil Parish: I’m sorry to keep on about this, but you’re taking initiative. this is the legacy of the last Government, especially of Mrs Beckett’s complicated system, which we’re all Q81 Chair: In the Water Framework Directive, I still having to pay for. think, we’re one of a number who are facing Mrs Spelman: Mr Parish, it’s Mr Paice who’s picked infraction proceedings, so we’re not alone. up the poisoned chalice and we have to wish him well. Dame Helen Ghosh: No, again, Peter will be an Neil Parish: I do, I wish him very well. expert on this, but fundamentally infraction comes Mrs Spelman: Hindsight’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it? about when the Commission believes that you are not This, it seems to me, is a problem across Government; making an effort to achieve the outcome. So, for all too often people get carried away with designing a example, the UK was slow on implementing the tailor made IT system to suit a problem where in fact Nitrates Directive; it has caught up with itself on the an off-the-shelf system will deal with the vast majority Urban Wastewater Directive. It’s less lawyers than it of cases, then the resources can be put to the is policy makers who are the people who can anomalies. Of course we can all see that with determine the future of infractions. We have never yet, wonderful clarity now but we are where we are and as the UK, paid one. Peter wants to say more on the we have to work through what we’ve got. risks, which are mainly on his side. Peter Unwin: The Urban Wastewater Treatment Q78 Amber Rudd: The CAP offers very little Directive I think might be the one you have in mind, opportunity for individual countries to reduce their where we’re in infraction proceedings at the moment, expenditure. Do you see yourselves working with as are a number of other member states. Lawyers play other countries into 2013 to try and persuade them to a part in that, but as Helen has said; it’s the policy do so? officials who do a lot of negotiation with Brussels on Mrs Spelman: General CAP expenditure? this. Amber Rudd: Yes. Mrs Spelman: Well, two things I think are very clear. Q82 Chair: Bearing in mind that you want to As part of the earlier stages of CAP reform, there is a simplify and cut red tape for farmers and food consensus among Ministers that we need to simplify producers, have you calculated what the cost to the the CAP. This would, without doubt, be agreed to Department would be of doing so? instantly, and in fact we have begun, it might have Mrs Spelman: Well this is very much the work of struck the other agricultural Ministers as a bit of the red tape taskforce and presumably the cumulative rocket science to do what we’ve actually chosen to do benefits of the over 350 submissions that the red tape here as the incoming Government. This is to set up a taskforce have received. red tape taskforce to ask the farmers who have to work with the regulation how we could reduce the burden Q83 Chair: Are they the ones reporting in spring? of regulation without compromising the objective for Mrs Spelman: Yes. Once Mr MacDonald has been which it was set up. When I suggested that at a through all the submissions he’s received, to see European Council meeting there was almost an intake which stand up and which are workable proposals, he of breath that this was a remarkable thing to think of will be able to quantify the potential savings that doing but others suggested they might do the same. would bring. As I used the earlier example, I think we Already Mr MacDonald, who’s taken on the role of can all see that there is tremendous room to make chairing the red tape taskforce, has had hundreds of savings through cutting out the duplication, which is suggestions for how this might be achieved. In terms a very strong feature of administering the regulatory of saving some of the costs of administering the CAP framework. it is actually through the joined up working of the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA Q84 Chair: I’m sure just one inspection and less that we can achieve some of these savings, because mapping would do that. very often all three agencies will visit the farm in Mrs Spelman: Absolutely, and we take that on board rapid succession. completely. It may be perfectly possible, through the simplification of inspections, to make really quite Q85 Chair: Take that as a representation? significant savings, even before we reform the Dame Helen Ghosh: Some element of our present CAP. disallowance has been slowness with re-mapping, so Amber Rudd: Excellent, thank you. that was an EU requirement we had to comply with. Mrs Spelman: I think there’s a very interesting Q79 Chair: So there’ll be no more gold plating? philosophical point. At my first meeting with the Mrs Spelman: I sincerely hope not. Commissioners I raised the issue of the Air Quality cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 18 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Directive with Commissioner Potonik, because specifically to look at all the public sector property in there’s a Directive where 26 out of 27 member states regions. I happen to know about the South East are not able to comply. I think the Commission are because I’m working with the group of teams there, actually quite receptive to the problems of succeeding and they’re looking at all the property and, if a local directives, which have considerable costs attached to authority has some empty space, how all other bits of their implementation, at a time when the whole of Government could move in. That’s something we’re Europe is facing austerity. looking at.
Q86 Chair: Could I just ask, you have a number of Q89 Dan Rogerson: I know there has been an issue regional offices, and York and Yorkshire are in the past where different parts have different obviously beneficiaries— national leasing agreements with different companies Mrs Spelman: Yes. and therefore can’t get out of them and move on to Chair: Are you minded to review these, and are you that. worried that it’ll be more difficult for farmers and the Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes, exactly. It’s very public to have access? I’ll let the Secretary of State complicated but we’re trying to work through it. answer. Mrs Spelman: I commend the Select Committee Q90 Dan Rogerson: Turning now to the question of because they’re on to the kind of savings that we are bovine TB, the Government has announced that it’s looking at. Again, when you think about the Defra going to look at a whole range of solutions to do with network of organisations, a number of them have this problem, including culling, which is something regional offices. I think it is perfectly possible to make that the previous Government decided not to do, or savings by having joined-up provision out of one of ruled out. In terms of allocating funds to bring this in, their regional offices. So we retain the access point what allocations has the Department made, looking for the farmers, which is incredibly important, and I at how this policy might be introduced, following on take that on board entirely, but we make savings to the from consultations? Environment Agency or Natural England, or indeed to Mrs Spelman: It’s very important to make the ourselves, if we merge our functions out of one overarching point that we remain committed to location. maintaining the ability to respond to animal disease Peter Unwin: Natural England are actually closing and emerging threats, and to take a risk-based down their regional structure but having a direct line approach to that. There are some savings that could be from national to local, so the farmer will still have the made in animal health, because some diseases, which local advice, which is the point of contact for the we’ve been surveying very closely, have diminished farmer, but savings will be made by taking the in their significance, like TSEs (Transmissible regional tier out of the equation. spongiform encephalopathies). Specifically on bovine TB, this is clearly a disease of epidemic proportions Q87 Chair: Will a lot be achieved with a telephone that needs to be dealt with, and we have a consultation call? Can a lot be achieved by remote means? under way at the moment for the ways in which we Mrs Spelman: I’m sure it can, and increasingly might well do that. This is something that we need to farmers are encouraged or almost expected to provide look at in partnership with the industry in any event. their interaction online. A very important part of the On many occasions I meet with farmers who suggest spending review was a decision by DCMS to improve to me ways of reducing some of the cost of dealing rural broadband provision, so in fact farmers can with bovine TB to themselves and to us, but without access that. There was one other point I meant to compromising the quality of the surveillance that we mention. There’s another area of simplification or provide. I can illustrate that for you: some farmers cutting out duplication, which I think could make a who are at low risk and whose surveillance is once in significant saving. Agencies like the Environment every four years tell me that they’re concerned that Agency and Natural England are both statutory they’re not frequently checked enough and they feel consultees in the planning process. They both have to at risk as a result of that. In other cases, there are make statutory provision, and there are ways in which examples of where the surveillance process could be these agencies can actually work together to provide coincided with other visits. There are a number of the statutory provision required without duplicating it. ways in which we can look specifically look at bovine I know local government would welcome that kind of TB, but it’s incredibly important that we don’t simplification: a saving to them and a saving to us. compromise our ability to tackle this disease, which has cost so many animal lives. Q88 Dan Rogerson: On this issue of, particularly, Dame Helen Ghosh: On the specific issue that you leased property, trying to co-locate services, would the raise, about paying for the cull, if Ministers were to Department encourage its agencies and indeed its own decide to license culls, as the consultation paper sections to look at co-location with other parts of the makes absolutely clear, there’s a very good public sector, whether that be other Government cost-benefit analysis, and there is not an argument for Departments or indeed local government and so on? the Government paying for the cull to be carried out. Dame Helen Ghosh: The answer is yes. We’re So, were a cull to be carried out, the costs would be looking at our own estate, to see when our leases borne by the industry. It does factor in that there might come up and take advantage of them, and the be potential costs around some policing, but Efficiency and Reform Group in the Cabinet Office, essentially it would be paid for by the industry, and under Francis Maude, has got a programme that is the basis on which we’re consulting. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Q91 Dan Rogerson: Have you made an estimate of that flow from there. We haven’t pre-empted the the costs to farmers of engaging in culling activity outcome of her work. when compared with the costs that they currently have with regard to dealing with a herd breakdown? In Q95 Dan Rogerson: The other thing that the terms of farmers taking decisions about what activity Permanent Secretary referred to, as did the Secretary they want to pursue, it’s appreciated that the cost of of State, briefly, in her introductory remarks, was the culling might be high to them if the support isn’t policing issue. It was identified that that might have a there, but it may actually cost them more to do that cost in the short term. Which Department would fund than not. that, and would money travel across Departments to Dame Helen Ghosh: My recollection—but it’s in the do that, or is this something that would be borne by consultation paper—is that the calculation is of the your colleagues in the Home Office? cost of a cull carried out by the Government or the Mrs Spelman: Well, as far as I’m aware the Home public sector against the economic benefits in terms Office doesn’t bill other Departments for the policing of compensation saved and the economic value of the costs of any eventuality in relation to that. We have industry: that way around. I think it would be for the an estimate figure, but it’s very difficult. This is very industry to decide whether it was worth it to them. much in the speculative realms of whether there Overall we haven’t made any assumption about a would be public disorder. It’s very difficult to estimate change to the amount of money we spend on TB in what costs would be incurred at all, but I think it is the SR period, because that would be anticipating any borne by the Home Office. outcome of the consultation and of the work of the TB Eradication Group. Q96 Dan Rogerson: The Home Office is aware, Mrs Spelman: I have some figures, if that would help, when talking presumably to rural authorities in Mr Rogerson. It is difficult, but bovine TB is costing particular, that that may well be a cost in the police the taxpayer around £63 million, of which £26 million settlement? was spent on compensation for slaughtered cattle. Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes, and of course ACPO are Under the proposed approach in our consultation among the groups to whom Ministers have spoken, in document, the cost to Government, based on an the course of putting together the consultation estimate of the licence applications in the first year, proposals. would be £2.1 million over 10 years. It’s a very Mrs Spelman: I was very impressed with the way in difficult calculation to make, and one of the reasons which ACPO participated in the Silver Birch we’re consulting on it is the question of the cost. emergency exercise. We do work very well with the Home Office in terms of any requirement to keep Q92 Dan Rogerson: Sure. So you have a target for public order, in relation to disease outbreaks, or where you would hope that introducing culling would dealing with plant and animal disease—we regularly bring down that level of cost to the Treasury in terms work with them. of compensation? Mrs Spelman: The main objective of consulting on Q97 Chair: Is the higher level stewardship scheme this is to reduce the epidemiology, both in the badger new money? If it’s not new money, where has it come population and in the cattle population. Obviously from? Has entry to it been suspended for a period of that’s the main objective. There is a cost dimension to time, and restricted only to successful applicants? this, and if we’re successful in eradicating the disease Mrs Spelman: Just a couple of things on this, and I then it costs the taxpayer less and it costs the farmers think Peter could elaborate on this more. Quite simply, less, and fewer lives are lost. The purpose of the the savings of approximately £66 million that we consultation is to weigh up the options and all the anticipate making as part of the maintenance of this factors as part of that decision very carefully. regime have to do with the exchange rate, the relative strength and weakness of sterling in relation to the Q93 Dan Rogerson: In terms of budgeting, which euro, and the rate at which we match fund the monies we’re talking about at the moment, are you factoring that come from Europe to support this scheme. in a model in terms of how compensation would go Notwithstanding making savings of £66 million, we down? are able to maintain the programme, and indeed we Dame Helen Ghosh: No. hope to increase higher level stewardship by 80%, whilst maintaining the entry level stewardship Q94 Dan Rogerson: So if it does that’s a bonus? scheme, because both are important, and both have Dame Helen Ghosh: We’ve made no assumption. important roles to play. That is a bonus. We have not assumed any change, at this stage, to the amount of money we’re spending on Q98 Chair: Has there been a temporary suspension? TB because it would anticipate the outcome of the Mrs Spelman: The temporary suspension arose after consultations. awaiting the decision on the recalibration of the Mrs Spelman: On all questions of cost sharing Stewardship scheme, arising from the spending generally with the agriculture industry, we await the review. My understanding is that Natural England outcome of the Rosemary Radcliffe report, which is have now ended that period of suspension. It was to due to be published on 13 December. We haven’t pre- do with the fact that we wanted to increase by 80% empted the outcome of that very substantial piece of the higher level stewardship scheme. So it required a work, which will inform the decisions and policies recalibration of the two in order to reflect the spending cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 20 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin review decisions. Mr Unwin can fill you in on the could be cut out, so more of Natural England’s detail of how Natural England approached that. resources can be focused on its core objectives, one Peter Unwin: First of all, as the Secretary of State has of which is oversight of these Stewardship schemes. said, the way the money has been found is through Peter Unwin: I can give you some examples of that. better use of the European money, taking advantage They’ve reduced their offices from 60 to 30 and they of the change in the exchange rate and our ability to are hoping to go down to 20. They have reduced their change co-financing rates. core services by about 34% and their reducing their external affairs because of the point the Secretary of Q99 Chair: So if the euro recovered? It’s highly State made earlier about stopping their policy work unlikely, but you’d have to review this again. and their lobbying activity and they’ve reduced that Peter Unwin: The assumption for the euro that we’re by 48%. So that’s where they’re concentrating their using going forward over the next three years is 80p savings to protect the front line. to the euro, which I think you’ll find is a fairly conservative estimate against that of most of the banks Q102 Chair: Just one final question on the RDPE— that forecast over that period. Obviously it’s not we’ve had a huge number of representations about impossible that it would go over it, but it’s not what what’s going to happen. Who is the delivery arm we expect. That has enabled more money to come in, going to be between the Regional Development and the temporary suspension has now been lifted. Agencies being phased out and the Local Enterprise The reason was that in the previous unfunded Partnerships coming in? schemes, just to take you through the history of RDPE Peter Unwin: The delivery bodies will remain as they a little bit, there was significant underspend in the are: Natural England at the moment deliver most of early part of the seven-year programme. On the the agri-environment schemes, Forestry Commission assumption that underspend would be made up in later deliver some of them through the Woodland Grants years there was a proposed increase in HLS. That Scheme. The RDAs are responsible for the assumption was never realistic, frankly, in the context socio-economic schemes. With the abolition of the of the spending review. The increase that we’ve RDAs, our intention will be to move that work back managed to have of 80% is a very significant increase, into the Department at some point. but not as big as might have been assumed under that. For that reason, Natural England had to have a period Q103 Chair: So it’ll be centralised? of reprioritising schemes, and now they will be able Peter Unwin: Well, how to do it is still to be decided, to let the key schemes go ahead this year. Some but the Department will take that over as the RDAs farmers will still need to wait until next year but all are run down. That will be done in a way that will be able to go ahead in due course. shouldn’t affect the delivery to farmers. Mrs Spelman: Chair, for the benefit of this Select Committee we issued a press release this morning. Q104 George Eustice: Just on that point, I think you Obviously farmers need to know that the temporary said last year that you had an open mind on the idea suspension has been ended because they all need to of Local Enterprise Partnerships, Secretary of State? know where they are. We issued that at 9.30 this You’ve clearly ruled that out in the short term, but is morning, so it’s perfectly clear to those who need to it something that, longer term, might still be possible? work with the stewardship schemes that the hiatus has Mrs Spelman: In the medium term. Absolutely, whilst come to an end, and what the reasons for it were. the Local Enterprise Partnership map is evolving and local authorities are deciding which Local Enterprise Q100 Chair: Now, the Minister of State’s concern Partnership they want to be a part of, it’s not possible about the low level of monitoring of improvements, to place that responsibility with them. Once the Local has that been addressed? Is it being addressed? Enterprise Partnership map is consolidated, we will Mrs Spelman: This is, I think, a very good example know where we are with those organisations. They are of the partnerships that I was talking about earlier on. an obvious vehicle of local delivery. In terms of entry level stewardship, we would like to Dame Helen Ghosh: Yes, in particular the leader see increased environmental benefits, and this is an programme, but they would need to be at such a stage area where organisations like the Wildlife Trust, the where we could persuade the Commission that they RSPB and others of our NGOs can really help us were appropriately managed organisations to deliver, make sure that for public investment in stewardship and competent in terms of delivery. That’s obviously we get the best possible return. I think that is an a key barrier as far as we’re concerned. example of the big society at work. Mrs Spelman: That is a very important point actually, if I could just underline that. In a conversation I had Q101 Chair: Are you concerned about, with the cuts with Commissioner Ciolos¸ in the margins of an to Natural England, being able to deliver the HLS informal Agricultural Council meeting in the summer, scheme? he impressed upon me the importance the Mrs Spelman: No. Natural England are confident of Commission attaches to ensuring that public resources their ability to deliver this scheme. The cuts at Natural are properly applied to the purpose for which they England, as with a lot of our arm’s-length bodies, will were intended, and properly controlled and audited. principally fall on their back office. We’ve identified After all, quite a significant part of this is European together, as a Committee and panellists, obvious money. So we hold responsibility for assuring the examples of the way in which duplication between the Commission on that point and that is why we have to Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA be absolutely sure about the delivery vehicle. In the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin short term, if it’s in-house, we take responsibility for local authority budgets will be under pressure, we that ourselves. have been working very closely in the course of the spending review with CLG colleagues to talk about Q105 George Eustice: Beyond that, in Cornwall for the kinds of services we wish to see continuing in instance, they’ve obviously had a lot of experience of terms of local authority activity and inspection, managing European programmes already so they’re particularly around welfare. I think we are confident keen to take it on. that they are sufficiently funded and will give Dame Helen Ghosh: Objective One, yes. sufficient priority to the things that the public care about. I don’t think we have a concern in that area, Q106 George Eustice: Finally, the other thing on this but we recognise that all local authorities will be RDPE point. What a lot of farmers complain about, challenged. and people involved in administering these grants, is Mrs Spelman: We continue to fund local authorities that Defra have added a lot of additional conditions as a prime enforcement agency, but as I said, we’re that tend to drive grant applications down a specific reviewing the way we approach all our animal health course, towards particularly environmental schemes, on a risk-based basis. I think that is without when at a European level it’s more about business compromising our own resilience. development. Have you got any plans to review how that guidance works? Mrs Spelman: Well I’m never happy to hear that Q110 Neil Parish: A Government-commissioned anything is being gold-plated or in any way made review last year praised the Animal Welfare Council, more onerous than it needs to be. I’m not aware of not least for providing exceptional value for money. specific examples because I’m relatively new in the How will being a committee of experts enhance the post but if the hon. Gentleman would like to furnish council’s work? me with examples of where, in his view, locally Defra Mrs Spelman: FWAG do you mean? has been in some way obstructive or overly dirigiste Dame Helen Ghosh: Do you mean the Farming with it, then I will be happy to look into it. Animal Welfare Council? Neil Parish: Yes. Q107 Neil Parish: The cost of these schemes has Mrs Spelman: To demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman also been criticised as being very high. Are you just how much we value the work of FWAG— looking into that? Dame Helen Ghosh: No, FWAG is different; FWAG Mrs Spelman: Well, obviously there’s a drive on is the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. efficiency saving across the board, including in Mrs Spelman: Right. Natural England, so I think as part of our overall objective in the Comprehensive Spending Review to Dame Helen Ghosh: FAWC is the activity that is reduce administrative costs, we would look to achieve carried out on the farm; I think ADAS plays a part in that as part of the stewardship scheme. that. There will be some reductions in the budget that we put into that, but not—we hope—beyond a level Q108 George Eustice: I want to move on to issues that is appropriate, because obviously the British around animal welfare. The cuts DCLG are taking public care very deeply about the welfare of animals may have an impact on all the trading standards on farms. We absolutely understand that, and I know services which obviously have a very important role Mr Paice has reiterated the Ministers’ commitment to locally in monitoring farms, abattoirs and markets. the welfare of farm animals in a letter to the papers Have you got any concerns over where that might today. We are absolutely aware of that and we would cause a problem? not let our support for that drop below an acceptable Mrs Spelman: No, I’m not concerned over that. The level. important thing is that we have to remain committed to maintaining our ability to respond to animal Q111 Neil Parish: I think it’s about this committee disease. We are going to make some savings in this of experts and improving the independence and area by taking a new risk-based approach to impartiality of the council. How do you intend surveillance. There are a number of diseases, for delivering that? example, that are part of our surveillance programme, Mrs Spelman: Are we talking about FAWC now? the incidence of which is now so reduced that it is not necessary to continue to put input at the same level. Neil Parish: Yes. TSE is a good example of that. So we are reviewing Dame Helen Ghosh: We would be happy to write on a risk-based basis how we approach disease specifically about that. I think in general terms, as the surveillance, but we are certainly not going to Secretary of State said, a number of our Scientific compromise our ability to deal with any outbreak. Advisory Committees have moved from NDPB status to being specialist adviser committees. We wouldn’t Q109 Neil Parish: How will Defra fulfil its have done it if we thought that that was going to, in responsibilities in relation to animal health and any way, mitigate their independence or the challenge welfare, given that resources for local trading that they give us. We like the challenge of a scientific standards services are dependent on local authority and evidence base, it’s what underlies all of Ministers’ budgets for Communities and Local Government? decisions, and the move away from NDPBs to some Dame Helen Ghosh: The answer is essentially the other advisory status is not any kind of signal on lack same as the one we gave earlier. We do recognise that of independence. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Ev 22 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Mrs Spelman: Just to underline that point about Q118 Chair: Secretary of State, have you considered science-led, evidence-based policy, a number of the ways of obtaining income for the Department by decisions, particularly that the Minister of State has charging commercial organisations for access to the made, have been on the advice of FAWC. He has used website? this scientific base on which to make his decisions, Mrs Spelman: Personally, I’m not aware of that, but and he’s put a stiff defence of approaching policy as we are just about to appoint a new director of Ministers with that sound scientific base, in response communications and I think, as a ministerial team— to quite inflammatory and unfounded accusations in national newspapers about our whole approach to Q119 Chair: Is this a new appointment, I thought we animal welfare. were freezing vacancies? Neil Parish: I welcome that. Thank you. Mrs Spelman: It is a vacancy, but I’m sure that the Chair would realise that a director of communications Q112 Chair: You have a huge amount of information within the organisation is something we cannot do on the web already. Are you looking at ways of without. Our director of communications went to the putting more information there? Will it be cost- Foreign Office and we do need a director of effective? communications. The ministerial team feels that we Mrs Spelman: The Chair gives me a wonderful need a fresh approach to communications, and the opportunity to draw Committee members’ attention to myth-busting part of the website is part of our something which we regard as very good value for influence on this. I haven’t looked at charging for it, money. Following on from the last question, where and I think the most important thing is to review the we’ve noticed in our short time that on a number of efficacy of the existing communication vehicles. The occasions real fears and concerns have been raised way in which people receive their information about about possible sales of forests, possible sales in all our activities varies, but we’ve got a significant National Parks and most recently on animal welfare, increase in the number of hits to that website since we all of which were unfounded suggestions. Select put the myth-busting feature on it. Committee members will now find there is a clear site on our website for myth-busting, which just sets out Q120 Chair: Page 19 of the business plan says, “We very clearly: the myth, the truth. We feel that is an will publish online full information on all new Defra important part of our role, to take responsibility so projects over £500”. that myths don’t gain credence. We all know, as Dame Helen Ghosh: I’m sorry; I thought we were professional politicians, that any subsequent rebuttal talking about contracts. Sorry, I’m being extremely cannot put right the damage done by the screaming dim here. I can’t see it. I’m looking at page 19 of headlines that occurred before. what we published. Q113 Chair: Could we bust one myth? Your original website said that every contract over £500 would Q121 Chair: That was the original version of the appear on the website. Your current website doesn’t document, which seems to have fallen off. refer to this. Dame Helen Ghosh: I think CLG did that, and the Dame Helen Ghosh: I think we should come back version we published, the final version most recently with details, I don’t think we ever promised that for said, “We’re going to publish online details of every every contract of over £500. item of expenditure over £25,000”, which I think will start next week. “New tender documents for contracts Q114 Chair: It’s in the business plan published on 8 over £10,000”, and we’ve already published names, November. I haven’t got chapter and verse, but that’s job titles and annual pay rates for SCS. our source. Dame Helen Ghosh: Sorry, I handed over my Q122 Chair: So it’s not £500? business plan. Dame Helen Ghosh: Not £500, it’s £10,000 for new tender documents and £25,000 for every item of Q115 Chair: It’s not a trick question, we just expenditure. Different Departments are doing different wondered whether— things, and I know CLG has gone down to, I think, Dame Helen Ghosh: We are publishing a large £500. amount of data, including from next week everything we spend over £250,000. Q123 Chair: That’s very helpful. Can I thank you very much indeed for your patience? Just one more Q116 Chair: This was £500. request: you did undertake to provide a valuation of Dame Helen Ghosh: I’m not conscious that we have the current estate for the Committee’s purposes. That ever promised that, and I will be stunned if I am would be most helpful. corrected by the Chair of the Committee that it is Mrs Spelman: That was the £160 million. every contract over £500, because that would be an Dame Helen Ghosh: To Mr Rogerson. extraordinary number of contracts. Q124 Chair: For the purposes of today, we’ve been Q117 Chair: It would be very transparent. provided with a document, and we don’t understand Dame Helen Ghosh: While I’m looking for that, do the anagrams. It would be quite nice to have a ask another question. valuation of each property. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:28] Job: 009356 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o001_kathy_EFRA 16 11 10 (Corrected transcript).xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23
16 November 2010 Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, Dame Helen Ghosh DCB and Peter Unwin
Dame Helen Ghosh: Assuming that we have a Chair: I’ll leave that one with you, Permanent valuation of each property, which I imagine our Secretary. Can I thank you very much indeed for your estates— patience, for being with us this morning. Secretary of State, Permanent Secretary, Director General, and to Q125 Chair: You must have, otherwise you wouldn’t the Committee and the staff as well, and the official be able to put the information on it for sales purposes. recorder, thank you very much indeed. Dame Helen Ghosh: To add up the total, indeed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 24 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (CSR 01)
Impact of the Spending Review on Defra
Defra has an agreed Spending Review settlement for the period 2011–15 which equates to an overall cut of 30% to the Department’s budget.
This equates to: — a 29% cut in our Resource budget; — a 34% cut in our Capital budget; and — a 33% cut in our Admin budget, which covers some pay costs (not all, the majority of ALB staff costs are programme) and non-pay costs such as HR, IT and Estates.
Headline numbers Base End Change Percentage £m 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 By 2014–15 Real Cash
Total Del 2,904 2,583 2,481 2,334 2,243 (661) (30%) (23%) of which Capital DEL 568 373 381 379 411 (157) (34%) (28%) + Resource DEL 2,335 2,210 2,100 1,955 1,832 (503) (29%) (22%) of which Programme 1,683 1,609 1,545 1,440 1,354 (330) (27%) (20%) + Administration 652 601 555 515 478 (174) (33%) (27%)
Admin
Defra has agreed to find £174 million in admin savings by 2014–15. As part of these savings, we will need to reduce the number of staff by 5,000 to 8,000 from a total of about 30,000, including NDPBs. While some of these staff reductions will count as programme savings, the majority will sit within the admin budget.
Additional measures to reach the £174 million figure include cutting on Estates and IT spend across the Defra Network, consolidating back-office costs wherever possible and reducing overheads.
Defra’s flexible model of staffing and programme and project approach has stood the department in good stead to be able to effect savings. We plan to further embed the Renew process for Defra, continuing the provision of new, more efficient ways of working.
Programme
Defra has agreed to find £330 million in programme savings by 2014–15. Though we are still working through the details of how this reduction will be managed, certain things are clear.
Defra’s contribution to the RDPE budget is likely to be about £67 million lower by 2015. However this reduction will be offset by EU funding meaning that the money distributed to recipients (mainly farmers) will be maintained over the SR period. Within this, spend on Higher Level Stewardship, which delivers the biggest benefits for biodiversity and the natural environment, will increase by over 80% by 2013–14 compared with the current year. We will also work with Natural England and farmers to make all parts of the Environmental Stewardship scheme more effective and target it better.
WRAP, Environment Agency and Natural England together are likely to be asked to make combined savings of around £90 million by scaling back the scope of their work to high-priority activities.
The budgets for animal health will be trimmed by about £50—55 million and those for marine and waterways by about £30 million. This will be done by reducing the scope of their work in non-essential areas, consolidation and greater efficiency.
Defra will reduce its number of quangos by over 50% by 2015. Furthermore, all bodies within the Defra Network, including Core Defra, will be expected to work more efficiently and focus on high-priority activities only. Together this contributes about another £90—95 million in savings by 2015. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25
Capital Defra has agreed to find £157 million in capital savings by 2014–15. The majority of Defra’s capital budget will be spent on floods. This remains a very high priority for the department, which will manage its programme and capital budgets to ensure that Defra makes at least £2.1 billion available for flood and coastal erosion risk management over the next four years. On a yearly average spend over the next four years, this will amount to around 8% less than the equivalent average yearly spend over the last four years. The Environment Agency will make efficiency savings of 15% in flood procurement. This will contribute to increased protection from flooding for 145,000 homes by 2015. The Agency will also protect front-line services like flood forecasting and warning and incident response, and the maintenance of existing flood defences. Capital funding has been secured for the Millennium Seed Bank, which is vital investment in a unique global resource that supports genetic resource conservation. The rest of the capital budget is still to be allocated across the department, and prioritisation is underway. Defra will not be able to fund all of its planned capital projects, but still has a great deal of money to spend on priority areas.
Specific Funds £100 million has been identified for the International Climate Fund and £65m for the Regional Growth Fund, while the disallowance1 risk has been allocated an annual budget of £90 million.
Final Allocations We are still working towards exact allocations, which will be loaded onto the COINS system in January and published by HMT.
Summary This is a reasonable settlement, allowing us to balance the need for Defra to play its part in tackling the economic deficit against our commitment to protect frontline services, preserve the effectiveness of the Department’s key priority programmes and handle emergencies effectively. It will also enable us to realise our longer-term ambitions, e.g. protecting the value of the natural environment and making a contribution to economic growth. It will enable us to be an effective partner both in Europe, and in the international arena, to secure our objectives, and work towards meeting our international obligations in a way that minimises the burden placed on citizens and businesses. Ultimately it will enable us to create a fairer, stronger, more prosperous society by 2015. November 2011
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (CSR 01A) I have received your letter of 7 December with follow up questions to the recent oral evidence session on the outcome of the Spending Review. Responses to the questions are attached and I hope you will find them helpful. I would also like to take this opportunity to let you know that today (20 December) we have written to all of our Arm’s Length Bodies with their allocations for 2011–12 and indicative allocations for the subsequent years of the spending review period. We have also placed detail of these allocations on the Defra website. I have emphasised to the ALBs how impressed all of the Ministerial team have been with the professionalism they demonstrate and the scale and scope of the services they deliver on behalf of the Department. However, I note that we accept that the next few years will not be easy and that we will be reliant upon the ALBs to continue to seek to innovate and improve what they do and how they do it against a backdrop of extremely difficult financial circumstances. Joint working across our network and with partner organisations will be crucial to ensuring that we can deliver Defra’s objectives successfully and live within our financial means. 1 Making CAP payments to recipients is delegated by the European Commission to Member States, who are reimbursed from the EU CAP budget. Disallowance (ie a reduction of that reimbursement to a Member State) is incurred when the Commission determines that a Member State’s administration of EU funds has been deficient in some way, eg late payments, inadequate checks of claims. The size of the disallowance is determined by the nature and gravity of the deficiency and should be calculated accordingly; in practice, however, the Commission often applies a flat-rate disallowance (eg 2%, 5%, 10% or 25% of the fund for the scheme in question). Given the complexity of the underlying CAP regulations and the length of time it takes for audit findings to be cleared, it has proved necessary for the Member States to make provision against disallowance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 26 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
We are determined that all ALBs have a clear purpose and role, that government only does what only government can do, and that where there is a need for an arm’s length body that it operates as effectively and efficiently as possible. I have also reminded ALBs of the the Coalition Government attaches to the concept of Big Society and that we will look to see how examples of best practice they are able to pioneer can be readily applied across the Defra network and wider government. 18 December 2010
Response to Follow Up Questions from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Evidence Session on the Outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review The Committee have asked for responses to a number of points. These are set out below.
1. Please could we have a note setting out the properties currently occupied by Defra and its arm’s length bodies. It would be helpful if this could include the address of each building. Please include a valuation for buildings which the Department owns and the annual rent paid by the Department for buildings which it leases. The data set attached includes the list of properties occupied by Defra and its principal property holding Arm’s Length Bodies. The Committee asked about values of the properties. The data provided is actually for book values. In the majority of cases (especially for offices) book value is very close to market value (though of course market value changes continually). For specialist sites such as laboratories the market value is extremely hard to calculate and differs from the value of the property to the business, and there is probably no unique definition (eg it would depend on use and ownership). If specialised properties are sold we would expect to realise significantly less than book value (which reflects past investment for bespoke laboratory use) in many cases. We also have a few sites with negative values: eg contaminated properties such as Foot and Mouth Disease Burial sites—in these cases the onerous nature of the property interest would require a financial incentive from the seller to achieve disposal in the open market. Figures for rent are for net rent paid excluding VAT; and this list is current as at 16 December 2010 and includes properties in the process of disposal. The following table outlines the summary position. More detail is included on the attached Excel spreadsheet. Property Type Rent Total Holding Cost* Book Value
Office £37,739,824 £86,407,177 £66,607,000 Specialist (labs) £572,221 £25,780,761 £313,643,035 Operational £660,474 £2,981,664 −£1,322,000 Agricultural Land £10,239 £289,250 £34,479,000 Non-Agricultural Land £6,132 £1,743,891 −£8,640,000 Residential £0 £11,287 £2,672,600
Total £38,988,890 £117,214,030 £407,439,635 * Total holding cost is rent and all other property costs such as utilities, rates and FM.
2. Please could you clarify whether the £30–40 million savings from rationalising the estate fall in the £100 million revenue from asset savings that you referred to during the session (later corrected to £83 million)? The savings are not included in the £83m revenue from asset sales.
3. Please could you confirm whether the Environment Agency’s 15% efficiency savings in flood procurement (referred to in Defra’s memo to the Committee) will be reinvested into flood defences? Yes, they will.
4. When will the Environment Agency’s budget for the next four years be confirmed? All Defra Arm’s Length Bodies allocations have been announced today (20 December) and the Secretary of State has written on this to the Select Committee in the accompanying letter.
5. During the evidence session Peter Unwin offered to provide examples of where the Department is making cuts in delivery (Q 39). Please could you provide the Committee with these examples. The Committee are referred to the information on the Arm’s Length Bodies publication published today (20 December). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27
6. How many Defra employees work in the Department’s Press Office? It would be helpful if this could be benchmarked against other government departments.
As at 15/12/10, the equivalent of 17.9 Defra employees were working in the Department’s press office. The figure is not a whole number due to part-time working patterns. We do not have the figures for other Departments to enable us to benchmark this figure.
7. I enclose a copy of Defra’s Business Plan published on 8 November. Page 19 of the document refers to a commitment to publish details of every contract awarded with a value of over £500. This commitment is missing from the most recent version of the Business Plan on the Defra website. Please could you explain why this commitment has been removed?
This was covered at the oral session, questions 113–118.
8. Can you confirm whether Defra undertook a rural impact assessment as part of its preparation for the CSR?
Defra is the rural champion within Government, but it is the responsibility of every Government department to ensure that the needs and interests of rural people, businesses and communities are considered and addressed in their policies, programmes and spending decisions. Defra has not carried out a formal impact assessment of the possible rural effects of the CSR across Government, which are, in any case still being worked through. It did, however, provide advice to Her Majesty’s Treasury to help it identify potential adverse rural impacts of spending decisions during Spending Review, and Defra officials are continuing to work with departments as they develop their policies and make their detailed spending decisions following the CSR announcement. In relation to Defra’s own policies and spending review decisions the Department is using existing statistical and spatial information to examine policy areas and identify if there are any geographic regions or communities where people may be disproportionately affected by proposed savings areas. — What advice did Defra provide to other Government departments on “rural proofing” as part of the CSR?
Defra’s Rural Statistics Unit produced a one page summary entitled “Carrying out rural-urban distributional analysis of spending decisions” which was circulated to all Government departments in late August 2010 via the Government Economic Service, Government Statistical Service, Government Operational Research Service and Government Social Research networks. The document provides examples of where “rural proofing” should be used to ensure that measures to cut spending do not have disproportionate impacts in rural areas. For practical help it included a link to the Commission for Rural Communities’ Rural Proofing Toolkit and a list of the type of questions that need to be asked when “rural proofing”. Information on carrying out rural proofing, prepared by Defra, is also included in the Impact Assessment guidance published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The Rural Statistics Unit also produced and circulated a technical guide to applying the official Rural-Urban Definition to data and provided more specific advice to those Government Departments that contacted them directly during the CSR period to request more information. Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit has been working with several departments in the period since the Spending Review announcement to explore the rural implications of policy proposals and to encourage them to ensure that rural needs and interests are fully and overtly addressed. — Please could you provide the Committee with copies of any rural impact assessment undertaken by the Government as part of the CSR.
As noted, Defra did not carry out a formal assessment of the rural impacts of the Government’s Spending Review package, although it did, of course, consider the rural impact of changes to its own policies in areas such as fishing, animal health and agricultural payments. This detailed analysis is ongoing, and will be taken into account in making final budget allocation decisions. — If any rural impact assessment does indicate a disproportionate effect on rural communities, what action is Defra intending to take?
It is a long-standing requirement that all Government departments should rural proof their own policies during the design, development and implementation stages to ensure that the needs and interest of the 20% of the population that lives in the 86% of England that is considered to be rural are fairly addressed. Where concerns over the rural impact of a particular policy or spending decision arise, Defra officials will work with those from the relevant lead policy department to explore these concerns and, if appropriate, assist them in identifying options for improvement. Should it prove impossible to resolve this matter at official level, Defra’s Ministerial Team, which has extremely strong rural credentials, is available to pursue these concerns at Ministerial level. Ultimately, however, it remains the responsibility of Ministers in the lead policy department to decide on the final shape and content of their policies and programmes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 28 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
9. The first impact indicator on the Defra Business Plan is “Positive and negative environmental impacts of farming”. Please could you explain how you are measuring that indicator, whether that data is already collected by Defra, and an estimate of the cost of collecting that data. The “positive and negative environmental impacts of farming” indicator seeks to measure the full range of environmental impacts of farming. It is presented as two indices, one covering the positive environmental impacts of farming (eg biodiversity, landscape) and the other the negative impacts or damages (eg greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution). Existing data from environmental monitoring and published National Statistics are used to track trends in the different elements on these indices. These different elements are then weighted together to form an overall index using the estimates of the monetary values of each element taken from the existing Environmental Accounts for Agriculture published by Defra. No data is collected specifically for the purposes of this indicator. It uses existing information which is compiled for other purposes (eg UK greenhouse gas inventory, implementation of water framework directive) and is therefore constructed at negligible marginal cost.
10. How is Defra monitoring the value for money of agri-environment schemes, given the low level of monitoring (as mentioned by the Minister for Agriculture on Farming Today on 5 November). The evaluation of value for money of agri-environment schemes draws on four distinct areas of evidence: basic scheme statistics (area and costs), agreement level data (includes baseline assessments and the “indicators of success” which are built into each Higher Level Stewardship agreement); an externally-contracted programme of monitoring and evaluation; and in-house valuation work carried out by Natural England and by Defra economists. This evidence is gathered in accordance with normal good practice guidelines, and includes a comprehensive programme of independent scientific studies which typically involve field surveys to assess delivery across the schemes’ objectives on representative sample of agreements, or which focus on specific outcomes such as farmland birds. This work is additional to the programme of evaluation which is required by the EU, under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Pillar 2 of the CAP: this evaluation work covers agri-environment schemes as well as all other aspects of Pillar 2. It is also additional to the compliance monitoring and inspection which is carried out by the Rural Payments Agency each year on a random sample of agreements to check compliance with the schemes’ requirements. All of the monitoring evidence is assessed by Defra and Natural England teams responsible for agri- environment policy and delivery. This evidence is then used to inform the development of future agri- environment policy, as well as to promote continued improvements in the way in which the schemes are delivered, to help optimise the overall value for money of our agri-environment schemes. A recent study by the University of Newcastle and FERA, which looked only at the biodiversity, landscape and climate change benefits of the current agri-environment schemes in England, established a cost/benefit ration of 1:2. Agri-environment schemes also deliver other public benefits which were not assessed by this study, including for the protection of natural resources such as water and soil, protection and enhancement of the historic environment, access to the countryside, flood management and the conservation of genetic resources. Previous evaluation studies produced a wide range of cost/benefit rations (1:-1 to 1:81), although these studies tended to concentrate on well-known and recognised specific sites, rather than look at the scheme as a whole as in the Newcastle and FERA work. A comprehensive summary of the results of our monitoring and evaluation work can be found in Agri- environment schemes in England 2009. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/AE-schemes09_tcm6–14969.pdf
11. Please could you provide a list of annual forestry sales for the last ten years (the hectarage and price). Please see table at Annex A.
12. How do you expect the reconstitution of the Farm and Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) as a committee of experts to enhance the Council’s work? In particular, how will you maintain the independence and impartiality of the FAWC? The proposed changes to Defra’s arms length bodies that have been announced are designed to streamline the landscape while increasing transparency, accountability and effectiveness. Reconstituting the Farm Animal Welfare Council as an expert committee will ensure the work of the committee is more closely aligned with development of Defra and Devolved Administration policies on animal welfare. Improving animal welfare is a key component of the Coalition Government Structural Reform Plan, as well as being a Defra Business Plan commitment, and the new Farm Animal Welfare Committee will play an important role in helping deliver this objective. Expert Committees are non-statutory advisory committees, whose purpose is to provide independent scientific or technical advice to Ministers and Departments on specific policy areas. They are integral to the Department and do not have a separate legal identify. Appointments are made administratively, in accordance with OCPA Code of Practice, although the appointments themselves are not OCPA regulated. Members of expert committees will be experts in their field and will be expected to provide independent impartial advice cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29
to Ministers, the Department and Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. We will be considering details terms of reference, methods of working for the new Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the relationship between the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the new England Partnership Board for Animal Health and Welfare announced on 13 December, in discussion with the current chairman, over the next few weeks.
Annex A FORESTRY COMMISSION ENGLAND SALES FIGURES Financial year Receipts from sale of Properties* Area (Ha) of sale of Properties**
2000–01 £2,232,000 202.42 2001–02 £5,537,000 464.11 2002–03 £2,754,000 581.92 2003–04 £1,532,000 662.65 2004–05 £5,863,000 368.97 2005–06 £2,123,000 780.21 2006–07 £5,686,000 1,049.68 2007–08 £6,093,000 1,023.84 2008–09 £3,391,000 407.12 2009–10 £7,734,000 1,174.89 * Figures from FEE annual accounts (includes woodland, buildings and development land) ** Figures from Deeds Management System (includes woodland, buildings and development land) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 30 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Propertynumber Site Name54616263 Thirsk- Sowerby-67 Buffer Depot Rhydymwyn- Mold68 — PSA Perth-Almondbank Supply Depot72 Perth-Almondbank76 Truro—Workshop Polwhele79 Newlyn-North Pier80 Lowestoft -Fish81 Lab Store Alnwick- Workshop82 Shrewsbury- VIC83 Rhydmwyn Sutton Bonnington-84 VIC- Preston- VIC85 Barton Hall Weymouth Sowerby -The86 Nothe Bristol VIC-87 Langford House Nympsfield Address Badger94 Research Unit Mold Exeter- Staplake95 Mount Truro VIC-96 Polwhele Polwhele VLA Weybridge—Farms101 Lowestoft Fish Thirsk102 Lab-Complex Lowestoft- North103 Quay (Land Lowestoft- at Portakabin, Lowest108 Thirsk Fish docks Town VIC Dock ets) Penzance West House113 Whitehaven Radiobiological Lab Cumbria114 Penrith- Merrythought Truro Veterinary Centre122 Brixham- Flintshire New Fish Quay-Temp129 Whitby-The office Custom House131 Amble- Warkworth Harbour- Commissioners133 Nottingham- Offices North Yorkshire Newlyn Perth138 Worcester- Perth141 Bristol- Government Buildings-147 Dorchester- Lowestoft County New CH7 Haw Plumpton153 Polwhele Taunton- Quantock YO7 House155 Truro- Cornwall Pydar House Alnwick158 Lewes- Sutton Medwyn Bonnington House Lowestoft161 Reading- Stroud Preston Government Buildings Shrewsbury Bristol Winchester-Cromwell House Cornwall -£5,000,000 Weymouth Bury St Addlestone Edmunds- Penrith Government Perthshire Chelmsford- Postcode Buildings Truro Suffolk Nottinghamshire Government Buildings £275,000 Perthshire TR4 Exeter Whitehaven Amble Book Lowestoft Value Westbury on Trym Lowestoft Northumberland LE12 Suffolk Shropshire TR18 Brixham Lancashire Gloucestershire Dorset PH1 Bristol Surrey Somerset PH1 NE66 NR33 Thirsk Cumbria £270,000 Cumbria Cornwall GL10 Suffolk Whitby SY1 Devon Northumberland Suffolk NR32 PR3 £2,000,000 £0 BS40 Devon DT4 £400,000 KT15 £0 NE65 Avon CA11 CA28 TR4 £0 £0 £3,665,000 North Bury Yorkshire Taunton St Edmunds NR33 Nottingham £5,020,000 Reading NR32 EX6 £167,831,314 £0 North Yorkshire £11,180,000 Worcester £905,000 Chelmsford Winchester Lewes £0 Truro YO7 TQ5 Dorchester Suffolk £10,000 £690,000 BS10 YO21 £4,526,721 £0 £0 £5,105,000 Nottinghamshire Somerset Berkshire £3,580,000 Essex Worcestershire £0 Hampshire NG8 Dorset £2,500,000 East IP33 Sussex Cornwall £0 WR5 £0 TA1 RG1 SO23 CM1 BN7 £1,550,000 DT1 TR1 £5,800,000 £0 £3,200,000 £2,500,000 £0 £3,500,000 £380,000 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31 Yorkshire Propertynumber Site Name166167168175 Kings Lynn-Vancouver House Kirton -Middlecott House177 Lincoln-Ceres House182 Beverley-Crosskill House185186 Carlisle- Edenbridge House189 Leeds- Government Buildgs193 Northallerton- Alverton Court195 Penrith- Agricola House196 Skipton Foundry House197 London- Whitehall—Building206 London- Eastbury House215 London Nobel House216 London- Ergon Address House227 Fleetwood- Wyre Dock230 Poole- Inspectors Beverley Office- Ferry231 Stroud- Terminal Aston Down237 Newlyn Lawnswood239 Trowbridge- Longacre House247 Leyton- Allen House Town251 Winchester- VIC- King Itchen Lynn Abbas Westminster262 Tunbridge Wells- Merevale Beverley House264 Lowestoft- Baltic Chambers Leeds268 Cambridge Kirton, Boston Lambeth272 Hartlepool- Northgate274 Scarborough- West Pier Lincoln London278 Rhydymwyn Westminster Carlisle Westminster279 Newcastle Upon Norfolk Tyne Northallerton Longbenton281 Launceston Vic County Lincolnshire282 Bury East St Riding Edmunds of Vic287 Newlyn London Tidal Observatory Penrith296 York London CSL West Sand Yorkshire Hutton Skipton London302 Sheerness Poole Anchor House305 Bridlington Lincolnshire North PE20 Greater Yorkshire HU17 London Sutton PE30 Bonington Cumbria Vic Quality Efford Control Farm Longbenton Postcode LS16 Cottages Efford National Fruit Collection -Brogdale Fleetwood DL6 SW1A Book Greater Value London LN2 Cumbria Trowbridge £1,945,000 Greater London West Greater Stroud Yorkshire London Tunbridge Winchester Wells Newcastle CA3 Dorset SE1 £0 £8,200,000 £0 London SW1P Lowestoft BD23 SW1P Lancashire £0 £1,034,000 CA11 Newlyn Kent Wiltshire £0 £2,900,000 Hampshire Hartlepool Tyne & Scarborough BH15 Wear Gloucestershire FY7 Cambridge Suffolk Greater £260,000 London £0 £0 BA14 Newlyn £0 £0 GL6 Sutton Mold SO21 bonnington NE12 Bury TN1 Cornwall St Edmunds North Durham York Yorkshire Sheerness E10 Launceston Faversham £0 Lymington Nottinghamshire Cambridgeshire NR32 £245,000 Suffolk £3,350,000 £3,165,000 YO11 £0 £675,000 TR18 Cornwall Bridlington LE12 CB3 TS24 Flintshire Cornwall Kent £0 Kent Hampshire North Yorkshire £0 IP33 £100,000 £0 TR18 £0 North Yorkshire £980,000 YO41 CH7 PL15 £0 SO41 £0 ME12 ME13 £3,510,000 YO16 £103,380,000 £60,000 £0 £122,600 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 32 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Crewe Cheshire CW1 £3,100,000 [Land] Propertynumber Site Name308309311311 Arthur Rickwood Farm312 Samsons Cottage Boxworth316 Drayton Farm-Feed Evaluation unit Drayton Farm317 Lamb Field,341 Slade Meadow—Rosemaund Farm—Preston Wynne409504 Land at Terrington505 Drayton— 8 Dwellings508 West Wickham Summit House515 Hastings Rock516 Stratford on Avon- Luddington517 Chorley VIC520 Dover Eastern Address Docks521 York Foss House522 Bakewell-Lumford Mill524 Plymouth Fisheries Office528 Poole Fisheries Office Preston Wynne529 North Shields- Neville House530 Ipswich St. Clare House Town532 Headcorn- Greyfriars Headcorn Ponds Stratford533 Northampton upon Beaumont Avon House534 Carlisle Hadrian Boxworth House539 Coventry Ely Herefordshire Copthall House543 Carmarthen VIC- Warwickshire545 Aberystwyth VIC547 Reigate Liberty House551 Cardiff- Llanishen HR1554 Caernarfon- North Penralt County555 Llandrindod CV37 Stratford Wells upon West Cambridgeshire Wickham Avon Stratford556 Exeter Upon Clyst Avon House Mansfield Stratford557 Portsmouth upon Continental Avon Ferry Terrington St Port560 Hereford Clement Porta Whitestone Cabin Cambridgeshire Warwickshire562 Grimsby CB23 Estuary Warwickshire House Workington Norfolk Warwickshire Kent £281,500 Coquelles Channel Postcode Tunnel Terminal Hastings Crewe CB6 £0 Dover CV37 Bakewell CV37 Book Nottinghamshire Plymouth Value Ipswich £1,450,000 North York CV37 Shields Chorley Poole Northampton PE34 NG20 Headcorn £3,868,000 £30,318,500 BR4 £4,110,000 East Sussex £1,100,000 Derbyshire Carlisle Tyne Kent & Cornwall Coventry Wear Suffolk Withington Portsmouth Northamptonshire Lancashire £11,000 North Yorkshire Kent Carmarthen TN34 Dorset Reigate £0 Aberystworth NE30 Caernarfon NN1 DE45 PL4 £0 Cardiff Hereford YO1 W.Midlands Hampshire IP1 CT16 Cumbria PR7 Llandrindod Coquelles Wells Exeter Carmarthenshire Dyfed Grimsby BH15 TN27 Gwynedd £0 Surrey CV1 Powys £0 PO2 £0 £0 SA31 Herefordshire CA1 South Glamorgan £0 £0 Workington France £0 £0 £0 LL55 SY23 Devon CF14 North HR1 Lincolnshire £2,060,000 RH2 £0 LD1 £0 DN31 £0 Cumbria £0 £0 £820,000 EX5 £0 £0 £0 £0 CA14 £0 £0 £0 £2,100,000 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33 Propertynumber Site Name563564566567 Felixstowe Trelawny House568 London Ponton569 Penicuik Bush570 Chichester City Business Centre573 Portsmouth St Georges Business577 Leicester Centre Saffron House-578 Workington Coniston Buildings584 Ashford Epps Building589 Heathrow Animal Reception590 Stevenage Richmond Hse594 Taunton-Riverside Chambers595 Gloucester-598 Harwich-Hamilton House599 Penryn-The Seaways- Address601 Plymouth-Millbay Docks602 Carlisle-Watchtree—FMD site603 Durham-Tow Law-Fmd Site-604 Harrison, Syke Head—Boreholes (5) Wigston613 Whitton, Crewgarth—Boreholes (4)614 Broomhead, Bishop Auckland—Boreholes (5) Town617 Lletycoed, Berriew—Borehole622 Tiverton-Ash Moor- Felixtowe Fmd Portsmouth Site624 Morpeth- Widdrington colliery—FMD site-Borehole626 Pershore-Throckmorton-Airfield-Fmd Chichester Site631 Gloucester-Barnwood Park- Leicester634 London Millbank- Allerdale Workington Hethersgill639 Stafford-Beacon House London640 Whitehaven-Fish Hall Bishop Auckland Penicuik641 Bristol- Hampshire Temple Suffolk Quay County House642 Newcastle-Upon-Tyne- London Quadrant House the West643 Reading- Ashford Quadrant Sussex Kings Taunton House Durham655 Reading- Stevenage Carlisle Carlisle Leceistershire658 Reading—North Cumbria Gate Meeth House660 Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Lancaster House PO1 Harwich Bishop Carmarthen- Auckland Ty Merlin-Parc Greater Morpeth Pensarn London Shoreham-Pilots PO19 IP11 Watch Postcode House Midlothian Barnwood Plymouth Cawood- LE18 Penryn Stockbridge Penrith Tech. Centre Middlesex Gloucester Book Kent Value Herefordshire Somerset SW8 CA14 Durham Durham Pershore Cumbria Tiverton Cumbria Berriew EH26 Gloucester Essex Newcastle £815,000 Northumberland £0 SG1 TW6 Cornwall £0 £0 TA1 Cornwall Gloucestershire Carlisle DL13 DL14 TN23 CA6 CA5 Worcestershire £0 Devon £0 Powys Gloucestershire GL10 Tyne & Stafford CO12 Wear Bristol PL1 £0 London Newcastle Whitehaven TR10 -£810,000 CA10 £0 -£6,040,000 £0 GL4 Carmarthen Reading £0 Reading NE15 £0 £0 £0 SY21 Cawood, Selby Shoreham £0 Staffordshire Cumbria £0 Tyne £0 & Greater Avon Wear -£2,150,000 London £0 Reading Carmarthenshire £0 £0 North Yorkshire Berkshire £0 Berkshire ST18 SW1P £0 NE4 £300,000 SA31 East Sussex CA28 £0 YO8 BS1 Berkshire RG1 RG1 BN41 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 RG1 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 34 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Propertynumber Site Name663665667669 Cambridge- Eastbrook House672 Newmarket- The Oaks674 Dover- Waterloo675 Newcastle- Upon-Tyne- The Waterfront678 Long Hanborough- Blenheim Office685 Scarborough- Pk West Pier687 Banbury—The Old Academy689 Norwich-Dragonfly House690 Building B30/3 Channel Tunnel693 Hounslow-Vista Terminal Business Centre696 Carlisle- Escott Business Par700 Scarborough- New Chase Business701 Stoneleigh Ctre Park- Old Childrens702 Stafford- Farm Building Address703 Bakewell-Phase ll Offices, Deepdale Exning710 Peterborough-Ham Business Lane Park House711 Colchester-Harbour House715 Cheltenham-John Dower House717 Manchester-Bridgewater House725 Wye-Coldharbour Farm Town730 Kendal-Juniper Newcastle House- Cambridge733 Lewes-Phoenix House Long Newmarket Hanborough734 Sheffield-East737 Lockerbie- Birkshaw-Fmd site739 Cambridge-City House- Coquelles741 Devizes-Prince Maurice Court-743 Oxfordshire Leeds-The Embankment- Banbury744 Peterborough-Harvester Dover Tyne & Cambridgeshire Bakewell Wear Scarborough748 York-Genesis 1 Suffolk Scarborough Hounslow Norwich County749 Newcastle-The Quadrant750 Portland- Maritime Stoneleigh House752 Newcastle-Upon-Tyne-Waterfront OX29 Carlisle CB2 France755 Penzance-Boswednan Wye NE15756 Blackpool-Calder Crt North Guildford- Yorkshire Victoria Oxfordshire House- North Yorkshire CB8 Peterborough Derbyshire London- Gatwick Postcode Middlesex Kent Airport Birmingham, Norfolk Victoria Square Government Cheltenham Offices Warwickshire Colchester stafford YO11 Manchester Book Value YO11 £6,000 Cumbria £0 OX16 Wye DE45 £0 Cambridgeshire TW4 CV8 NR3 Kendal CT16 Gloucestershire Lockerbie £0 Lewes Lancashire Essex PE2 Devizes CA2 Staffordshire £0 Cambridge £0 GL50 £0 Sheffield Leeds £0 Kent Peterborough £0 Newcastle Birmingham £0 M1 6 ST18 Dumfries £0 Cumbria Newcastle £0 £0 CO2 Portland £2,100,000 East Sussex Wiltshire Cambridgeshire York £0 £0 Penzance Cambridgeshire South Yorkshire Guildford West Midlands Blackpool TN25 Tyne West & Yorkshire CB2 Wear Gatwick LA9 BN7 Tyne & £0 Wear £0 PE1 SN10 S1 2 Dorset B2 £0 LS1 NE15 North Cornwall Yorkshire Surrey NE15 Lancashire Surrey £0 £0 £0 YO10 £0 DT5 £0 £0 £0 £0 TR20 FY4 £0 £0 GU1 £0 £0 RH6 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35 Leeds West Yorkshire LS1 £0 Propertynumber Site Name757758759760 London, 11 Belgrave Road761 North Shields,762 Swansea, Enterprise Business Park764 London, The Sanctuary765 Ashford, International House766 London, Manning House,767 Western International Market-768 Renslade House769 Manchester Airport770 Alnwick, Lion House771 Shrewsbury, Sikta House774 Norwich, Station Court775 Tilbury, Custom house777 Hounslow,Vista Business Address Centre781 Telford, Land Registry HouseFC091218 Peterborough, Yorkshire andFC091219 Leeds The Humber Nwe Conservancy Regional OfficeFC091104 London, Office Hecules House South Victoria EastFC091075 England District North Depot WestFC091086 England Depot 113—Forest Linmere District House TownFC091217 Office Grizedale East MidlandsFC083482 Swansea Regional Office Northants District LondonFC091215 Office North WestFC091105 England Regional South Depot East LinmereFC091103 England House London Forest Hethersett West District Midlands AshfordFC091101 Office Forest District/Regional West Depot DELAMERE Midlands LondonFC091115 Forest District DELAMERE Uxbridge Forest Office OfFC091076 North Dean Shields District East CRANBROOK Depot EnglandFC091216 Postern Regional Hill Office Lodge North County Swansea EastFC091089 England Regional East Office Anglia GreaterFC091082 Forest London NORTHWICH WHITCLIFFE Norwich York District Bellingham Office ForestFC091114 NORTHWICH District Ashford Office Peninsula ForestFC091088 Greater District Greater Shrewsbury EXETER Manchester- Office London Hounslow Sherwood Alnwick Kent and TyneFC091047 Lincs & Forest Wear Forest District Middlesex SW1V Of Greater Office Dean London LUDLOW District FINESHADE CANNOCK Office Telford SA7 Tilbury Postcode CHESHIRE Lancashire SW1 CHESHIRE AMBLESIDE Book SW1 Norfolk NE30 ROTHBURY Value Shropshire CORBY East North Sussex UB3 Yorkshire Middlesex Devon London RUGELEY EDWINSTOWE Northumberland COCKERMOUTH TN23 CW8 Farnham Peterborough MARKET M90 Marlborough CW8 RASEN £0 KENNFORD MORPETH Shropshire YO19 Kent CUMBRIA MANSFIELD NE66 £0 CUMBRIA SY2 NR9 TN17 £0 TW4 £0 £0 EX4 Cambridgeshire Exeter £96,000 Wiltshire £139,000 Greater London £0 Surrey TF3 LA22 Brandon £0 Northumberland £1,600,000 NOTTS £17,000 Brandon CA13 £0 HEXHAM SY8 RM18 £91,000 SE1 NE65 £0 £0 SN8 £0 £107,000 Coleford LN8 GU10 Devon £0 NG21 £66,000 WS15 NN17 Suffolk Northumberland Suffolk £184,000 £0 £241,000 £0 £198,000 NE48 £0 £0 £118,000 £140,000 £508,000 £189,000 £127,000 Gloucestershire EX6 IP27 IP27 GL16 £430,000 £476,000 £198,000 £399,000 £769,000 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 36 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Propertynumber Site NameFC091109 New ForestFC090004 District Office, Research The Office,FC091214 Queens Alice House Holt Management TrainingFC091002 Centre Westonbirt National498061 Arboreta553121 Mgiu Outstation642300 South West779606 Regional Office Nym Forest816210 District Office National OfficeAN00027 Sub Office England HORNING NationalAN00028 STW Office KINGSAN00034 LYNN OFFICE ALFRICAN00041 SQUARE BEDFORDAN00061 DEPOT HEACHAMAN00088 STW BLACKAN00255 SLUICE DEPOT CHELMSFORDAN00273 OFFICE Lyndhurst Address EGMEREAN00282 DEPOT BENFLEETAN00286 DEPOT MAMHEAD LEEWICKAN00290 DEPOT HAVENAN00319 BANK DEPOT SOUTHMINSTERAN00323 DEPOT KEYNSHAM FELSTEADAN00332 DEPOT HUDDS TownAN00586 MILL Hampshire Farnham DEPOT Coleford EXETER SPALDINGAN00657 OFFICE Tetbury REVESBYAN00663 DEPOT SHORT BristolAN00740 FERRY DEPOT Woodston SOUTHAN00817 FERRIBY DEPOT MAGDALENAN00835 DEPOT SO43 SWINESHEAD King'sAN00857 DEPOT Lynn PICKERING DRAGONFLYAN01010 HOUSE York Devon Surrey GUY GloucestershireAN01040 GIBSON HALL County Wighton KETTERINGAN01042 DEPOT Gloucestershire Bristol Peterborough Irby ELYAN01044 OFFICE Street Leewick Kings Depot Lynn ELY £1,622,000 AN01113 DEPOT Hunstanton Avon Horning GL16 HADDISCOEAN01148 DEPOT North COSTESSEY Yorkshire GL8AN01318 FISH FARM Bedford Boston WIXOE PUMPING STATION St Chelmsford EX6 GU10 Osyth Egmere Cambridgeshire Postcode Short Boston South Ferry Ferriby YO18 North Yorkshire Norfolk Avon £200,000 Norfolk Book Value Magdelen Benfleet BS31 Swineshead PE2 Southminster Norfolk £25,000 £6,245,000 YO30 Barton upon Humber Essex West Lindsey Bedfordshire Manby Lincolnshire Felstead Essex Stamford Norfolk £0 PE30 Lincolnshire Boston Lincolnshire Kings Spalding PE31 Lynn New £0 England Essex BS16 Revesby NR12 Essex MK42 Ely PE21 £0 Lincolnshire £0 CM2 £0 Louth PE21 DN18 Norwich Halstead NR23 CO16 Lincolnshire Essex Norfolk Lincolnshire Kettering Lincolnshire LN3 £0 CM0 £0 Lincolnshire £0 SS7 Costessey £0 £0 Ely Gt PE9 Yarmouth £0 PE11 Norfolk Essex PE20 £0 Ely Lincolnshire £0 £0 CM6 PE34 £0 £0 PE22 Northants £0 £0 Norfolk Norfolk LN11 £0 NR3 £0 Cambridgeshire CO9 NN15 £0 £0 £0 £0 Cambridgeshire £0 NR31 CBY NR6 CB7 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37 Propertynumber Site NameAN01489 CHIGBOROUGHAN02465 BLOCK FACTORY AQUAAN02468 HOUSE KINGFISHERAN02469 HOUSE BRAMPTONAN02471 OFFICE ICENIAN02489 HOUSE SAXMUNDHAMAN02492 RIVERSAN02500 HOUSE KELVEDON MABLETHORPEAN02721 DEPOT Heybridge HOWARDAN02933 HOUSE NENEAN02940 HOUSE WATERSIDE HOUSEMD00007 RIVERSMEET HOUSEMD00068 BROOKE HOUSEMD00183 LEATHERN BOTTLEMD00211 DEPOT Maldon GLOUCESTER DEPOTMD00297 CALVERTON FISHMD00418 Orton FARM Goldhay Address ROTHLEY OFFICESMD00433 & Brampton Kelvedon DEPOT GAINSBOROUGH OFFICEMD00441 DIRTNESS PUMPINGMD00564 STATION BULL HASSOCKSMD00598 PUMPING Peterborough ST OWSTON FERRYMD00606 DEPOT GREYFRIARS BUSMD00712 Essex PK NOTTINGHAM Town LABORATORYMD00780 Huntingdon Colchester DRAYCOTT DEPOTMD01047 Cam ASKHAM ROADMD01052 DEPOT MANSFIELD DEPOTMD01058 Cambridgeshire WEST STOCKWITHMD01456 Peterborough PUMPING ST HAFREN HOUSEMD01491 Crowle RUSHMOOR DEPOTMD01542 Mablethorpe CM9 Cambridgeshire SENTINEL PE2 HOUSEMD01638 Saxmundham Essex Ipswich SAPPHIRE EASTMD01646 County OLTON COURT DursleyMD01705 LEA Bedford MARSTONMD01729 Cambridgeshire DEPOT PE28 Lincoln UTTOXETER DEPOT TewkesburyMD01746 FORGE Scunthorpe LANEMD01783 DEPOT Kettering Lincolnshire GRAYLING HOUSE SuffolkMD02014 Rothley Calverton MANCE PE2 Gloucester Warwick HOUSE Draycott CO5 £0 Suffolk Gainsborough Postcode Doncaster £0 Gloucestershire Gloucestershire LN12 Bedfordshire Book Value Nottingham South Lincolnshire Humberside £0 Owston Ferry Shelton Northamptonshire IP17 GL11 Gloucestershire Derby Nottinghamshire Lincolnshire GL20 Leicestershire Stafford Warwickshire DN17 Doncaster IP3 Lea MK42 Marston South NN15 £0 Yorkshire £0 Bassetlaw LN2 NG14 GL2 Nottinghamshire South Yorkshire LE7 Mansfield £0 CV34 DN21 Shrewsbury DN9 Alfreton Sutton Coldfield NG2 £0 Telford DN9 Staffordshire Nottinghamshire £0 Derbyshire £0 £0 Fradley £0 Nottinghamshire £0 £0 Solihull £0 West DN10 £0 Midlands Nottinghamshire Shropshire Alfreton £0 Uttoxeter Olton ST16 NG22 £0 £0 West £0 Bromwich DE72 £0 NG18 B76 Shropshire £0 £0 SY3 Staffordshire Kidderminster West Midlands West Midlands £0 Derbyshire Staffordshire £0 £0 West TF6 Midlands £0 WS13 B71 Worcestershire B91 £0 £0 ST14 DE55 B92 £0 DY11 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 38 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Yorkshire Yorkshire Propertynumber Site NameMD02060 ATCHAM DEPOTMD02316 TRENTSIDE OFFICESMD02330 EIGN DEPOTNE20000 RIVERSNE20001 HOUSE LEEDS PHOENIXNE20002 HOUSE TYNESIDENE20003 HOUSE COVERDALENE20004 HOUSE SPITFIRENE20005 HOUSE SWANNE20007 HOUSE TEESDALENE20008 HOUSE TEMPLEBOROUGHNE20010 STOCKDALENE20012 HOUSE LEEDSNE20013 LABORATORY (OLYMPIA HOUSE) PICKERINGNE20014 DEPOT West THORNE BridgfordNE20017 DEPOT Atcham TICKTON DEPOT Address & WORKSHOPNE20018 WOOLERNE20019 DEPOT Nottingham SCARCROFTNE20021 DEPOT Global Avenue KIELDERNE20022 Clifton FISH Moor HATCHERY RICCALLNE20024 DEPOT LEEDSNE20025 Shrewsbury Town CROOKNE20026 DEPOT Leeds QUADRANTNE20041 TWO Templeborough Thornaby Tickton BRIGHOUSE YorkNE20042 DEPOT Nottinghamshire Leeds MARLEYNE20043 DEPOT ALBION MILLS LeedsNE20044 Rotherham Shropshire Hereford NG2 CRAMLINGTONNW00036 DEPOT Newcastle ABBEYTOWN DEPOTNW00308 MIRWELL Stockton-on-Tees DEPOTNW00330 Beverley County FINE JANENW00334 York DEPOT West Scarcroft Yorkshire PENDLEBURY DEPOTNW00340 Darlington BEDFORD North DEPOTNW00522 SY4 Yorkshire & PUMP. West Leeds GREAT ST. Yorkshire HANGING SouthNW00524 BRIDGE Cleveland Yorkshire BRIDGE Riccall West ENDNW00733 Herefordshire Yorkshire DEPOT LS11 Tyne DAVENHAM & DEPOT Wear Pickering £0 YO30 Postcode Leeds LS1 S60 East Riding Thorne of LS12 County Kielder Durham HR1 Beeston Book TS17 North Value Yorkshire NE4 Wooler Willerby Abbeytown York £0 West Yorkshire HU17 DL1 North YO30 Yorkshire £0 Trafford Sutton Manor Croston £0 Formby West LS6 Leeds Yorkshire South £0 Yorkshire Sheffield Wigton £0 Crook Brighouse Northumberland YO18 £0 Hull Levens £0 £0 Davenham St Northumberland Keighley £0 Helens Cramlington LS14 DN8 North Sale Yorkshire NE48 £0 Leyland Ormskirk £0 Leigh £0 NE71 West Yorkshire YO19 South Yorkshire Northwich West Cumbria Kendal Yorkshire £0 County £0 Northumberland Durham Lancashire West East Yorkshire Riding of HD6 S9 4 £0 LS12 £0 Lancashire Lancashire NE23 £0 DL15 Cheshire Lancashire BD21 £0 CA7 HU10 Cheshire WA9 £0 Cumbria L39 PR26 M33 WN7 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 CW9 £0 LA8 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39 Propertynumber Site NameNW00748 WINSFORD DEPOTNW00783 HOYLE STREETNW00851 DEPOT LUTRA HOUSENW00903 BAREPOT DEPOTNW00914 RICHARD FAIRCLOUGHNW00920 HOUSE LEYLAND FISHNW00933 FARM SEASCALE DEPOTNW00937 GHYLL MOUNTNW00956 APPLETON HOUSENW00961 KINGSTOWN DEPOTNW00967 WALTON SUMMITNW01143 DEPOT ULLSWATER ROADNW01228 DEPOT CROSSENS DEPOTNW01273 & Latchford PS GARSTANG DEPOTNW02020 CHORLEY DEPOTSN00030 EASTSN00067 STREAM Address TIMBER STORE FORDSN00173 DEPOT SEAFORDSN00193 Walton Barepot STORAGE Summit DEPOT SHOREHAMSN00207 DEPOT Warrington CHICHESTERSN00211 OFFICE PEVENSEYSN00288 OFFICE Bamber JURYSSN00325 Bridge Preston GAP Birchwood Town RYESN00374 (SCOTS Warrington FLOAT) OFFICE HARBOURSN00507 Winsford MASTERS OFFICE Workington SOUTHEASESN00509 Crossens STORAGE NORMAN'S DEPOT BAY Cheshire Preston WILLOPSN00516 DEPOT ALLINGTONSN00517 LOCK Garstang HOUSE Leyland ALLINGTONSN00548 Warrington DEPOT PEVENSEY YALDINGSN00655 DEPOT TONBRIDGE CheshireSN00665 Seascale Lancashire OFFICE ROMSEYSN00723 Cumbria Southport OFFICE Cheshire County Penrith STAUNTONSN00765 WA4 ROAD Penrith Carlisle COMPOUND SHOREHAM BY OVING PLUMSN00819 SEA FORD PUDDING COMPOUND Preston CAMBER Lancashire DENTONSN00833 SHOREHAM WHARF BEDDINGHAM EAST DEPOT Cheshire SUSSEX PLUCKSSN00992 GUTTER DEPOT Lancashire PR5 WATERLOOVILLESN01000 OFFICE WA5 ISLE OF CA14 WIGHT LEWES CW7 Cumbria SEAFORD OFFICE ALLINGTON BN24 Lancashire Chorley Postcode CAMBER CHICHESTER PR5 RYE WEST Cumbria SUSSEX Cumbria LITTLEHAMPTON Cumbria £0 Book WA3 Value PR26 Allington Lancashire MAIDSTONE RYE BIRCHINGTON LEIGH BN43 WEST YALDING SUSSEX PR9 CA20 PEVENSEY EAST RYE £0 WEST SUSSEX £0 SUSSEX EAST SUSSEX ROMSEY £0 CA11 MARGATE £0 Lancashire CA3 £0 PLUCKS CA11 GUTTER PR3 BN18 Maidstone KENT PO20 BN25 £0 EAST SUSSEX MAIDSTONE CANTERBURY BN8 £0 £0 SEVENOAKS EAST HAVANT DYMCHURCH SUSSEX SOUTHAMPTON EAST £0 PR6 SUSSEX TN31 £0 KENT £0 EAST SUSSEX KENT BN24 KENT Kent £0 ME16 £0 GRAVESEND £0 HAMPSHIRE KENT £0 KENT TN31 £0 Waterlooville £0 £0 TN31 HAMPSHIRE £0 NEWPORT CT7 SO51 KENT £0 £0 CT3 ME18 PO9 Hampshire ME16 TN11 £0 TN29 £0 £0 Isle of £0 Wight DA12 PO7 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 PO30 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 40 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence GOVT BLDGS : BURGHILL ROAD Westbury on Trym Bristol Avon BS10 £0 K1&2 Propertynumber Site NameSN01001SN01002 GUILDBOURNE HOUSESN01145 ALDINGTON COMPOUNDSN01146 RIVERS HOUSE CANTERBURYSN01149 PORTFIELD DEPOTSN01158 GUILDBOURNE CENTRE FIRST FLOORSN01159 PENNINGTON COMPOUNDSN01182 CAMBRAY FARMSN01345 ROBINS WHARF DEPOTSN01457 TIMSBURY PUMPING STATIONSN01491 ORCHARD HOUSE COLVEDENESW00038 COURT EASTMILLSSW00045 DEPOT LITTLESW00054 CANFORD Aldington DEPOT RIVERSSW00062 HOUSE BLANDFORD BISHOPSSW00099 DOWN DEPOT RIVERSSW00239 HOUSE TWERTON Address SIRSW00287 JOHN MOORE HOUSE PENNYGILLAMSW00314 DEPOT TOLGUS AshfordSW00936 DEPOT CLYST HONITONSW00943 DEPOT Worthing ALVERDISCOTT DEPOTSW00979 Canterbury WILLOWSW01037 FARM TRANSFER Worthing STATION ST TownSW01065 GEORGES DEPOT BRADNEYSW02147 Colden DEPOT Common CLEWERSW02427 PUMPING STATION CHIPPENHAMSW02455 Lymington SUB AREA OFFICE Kent TWERTON WADEBRIDGE DEPOTSW02519 Chichester Timsbury Winchester MANLEY WestSW02692 HOUSE Sussex Kent Stathe EXMINSTERSW02695 HOUSE Gravesham West RIO SussexSW02722 HOUSE RIVERS SittingbourneSW02802 HOUSE BRIDGWATER County BLOC BATHSW02803 Hampshire MILLBANKSW02826 BN11 BLANDFORD TOWER WIMBORNE West Malling LOUDSSW02867 MILL West Hampshire Sussex DEPOT TN25 Hampshire Clewer STARCROSS FORDINGBRIDGE BN11SW03051 LABORATORY UNIT BridgwaterSW03173 D CT2 Kent WORLE SALISBURY CROWN CLOSE Kent BATH: PHOENIX HOUSE BODMIN SO41 HAMPSHIRE DORSET Postcode PO20 DORSET LAUNCESTON Kent SO21 SOMERSET SO31 Book EXETER Value £0 Wedmore BIDEFORD WILTSHIRE EXMINSTER WESTON-SUPER-MARE Somerset SP6 £0 £0 REDRUTH AVON CHIPPENHAM DA11 CORNWALL DT11 ME9 BA2 CORNWALL £0 STARCROSS BH21 EXETER £0 SP1 ME19 BRIDGWATER £0 £0 DEVON DEVON PRIORSWOOD PL15 WILTSHIRE £0 TA7 Somerset WADEBRIDGE PL31 EXETER BRIDGWATER CORNWALL BS22 £0 TAUNTON EXETER £0 SOMERSET £0 £0 SN14 £0 CORNWALL £0 DEVON TR15 SOMERSET EX5 EX39 BS28 £0 £0 London Bristol DORCHESTER DEVON £0 TA7 £0 £0 PL27 BATH SOMERSET £0 TA6 DEVON EX6 DORSET £0 £0 £0 EX6 TA2 £0 £0 Avon EX2 £0 £0 Somerset DT1 £0 £0 £0 £0 BS32 BA2 SW1P £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41 Propertynumber Site NameSW03247 WARMLEY DEPOTSW03334 BLANDFORDSW03465 DEPOT BERKELEYSW03466 STORAGE SITE HEATHFIELD DEPOTTH00066 APOLLOTH00094 COURT SONNINGTH00182 STW STANSTEADTH00191 DEPOT BUNTINGFORDTH00222 STW MANORTH00246 FARM FYFIELDSTH00256 DEPOT SOUTHTH00363 HOLMWOOD DEPOT STONETHORPETH00497 FARM EDMONTONTH00522 INCINERATOR Clapton WOOLWICHTH00591 NAZEINGTH00685 COMPOUND RIVERSTH00686 HOUSE Address CROSSNESS Heathfield CHESHAMTH00687 STW FARMOORTH00688 RESERVOIR FOBNEYTH00689 OFFICES BROADMEADSTH00691 PUMPING Berkeley STN FISHERIESTH00693 STORE Sonning FARNHAMTH00694 COMPOUND STW Newton Abbot Town FETCHAMTH00696 PUMPING STATION HARTLEYTH00697 WINTNEY WARMLEY BLANDFORD STW RIVERSIDETH00698 STW COMPOUND WHEATHAMPSTEADTH00700 STW Abbey Wood KINGSTH00709 MEADOW Nazeing HOUSE Gloucestershire EAST ReadingTH00712 Devon HYDE STW LECHLADETH00715 COMPOUND Hatfield DORSET Stanstead LADYMEADTH00717 OFFICES Woolwich Gloucestershire Buntingford S Holmwood ESHERTH00720 London COMPOUND GL13 County WALTHAMTH00740 CROSS Edmonton AMWELLTH00741 END DEPOT Fyfield Broxbourne PS Aylesbury BARROWELL AbingdonTH00780 BS30 GREEN DEPOT HANWELLTH00806 Pangbourne DEPOT TQ12 DT11 Berkshire FORDMILLTH00918 London DEPOT Surrey Hertfordshire CRANFORD Hertfordshire Hertfordshire BRIDGE DEPOT Postcode Ware London Farmoor London £0 Hertfordshire Reading Book Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Value Farnham SG9 Chesham RG4 CM24 Leatherhead AL10 Essex £0 Reading East Hyde £0 RH5 £0 London HP17 Rainham Hook EN10 SE2 Cheshunt OX13 St N18 Albans Oxfordshire Cranford Hertfordshire Reading Surrey Berkshire Luton Surrey Buckinghamshire Hanwell CM5 £0 Catford Lechlade £0 £0 £0 Berkshire SE18 Essex Waltham HP5 Guildford OX2 Cross SG12 £0 £0 £0 Hampshire London Hounslow Hertfordshire Esher RG8 Ware £0 KT22 £0 London Berkshire GU9 RG2 London Bedfordshire Hertfordshire Gloucestershire £0 AL4 RG27 RM13 £0 Surrey Middlesex £0 £0 £0 GL7 London RG1 EN8 LU1 Surrey £0 Hertfordshire £0 London London £0 £0 TW5 GU1 £0 £0 £0 SG12 N21 KT10 £0 W7 3 £0 £0 £0 SE6 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:30] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Ev 42 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence £0 Propertynumber Site NameTH01038 BARTONTH01223 COURT HOMETH01383 FARM FLOOD DEFENCE ASHRIDGETH01418 TREATMENT WORKS GATEHAMPTONTH01819 DEPOT SPATH01959 MEADOW BEVERLEYTH02022 WAY DEPOT THAMESMEADTH02675 SWIFTTH02744 HOUSE SUNBURYTH02840 OFFICE BLDG REDTH02840 KITE HOUSE REDTH02841 KITE HOUSE CAVERSHAMTH02842 LOCK MAIDENHEADTH02853 NAVIGATION OFF SUNBURYTH02866 DEPOT SHEPPERTONTH02902 NAVIGATION OFF Kintbury Goring THAMESTH02927 BARRIER Address OSNEYTH02931 YARD Raynes RUSHEYTH02982 Park LOCK COMPOUND EASTBURYTH02989 HOUSE RIVERSTH02991 HOUSE CROSSNESS Abingdon Wokingham ANNEXE SUNBURYTH02993 WORKSHOP BLDG NO2 HungerfordTH02994 DISTRICT NAVIGATION OFF Didcot Town London BARRIERTH02995 VISITOR CENTRE Frimley COMPLEX THAMESTH02996 BARRIER SCHOOL BLDG THAMESTH02997 BARRIER Caversham HERRINGHAM RD THAMESTH03425 BARRIER MAIN Abbey WORKSHOP Wood IVYTH03426 Berkshire FARM Oxfordshire NEWMANSTH03434 SLUICES COMPOUND Berkshire FLOODTH03435 FORECASTING CENTRE 110WL00008 Sunbury-on-Thames East BUCKINGHAM Camberley Molesey PALACE Maidenhead ROAD CILFYNYDD Reading London OxfordshireWL00014 DEPOT London London County PLASWL00036 YR AFON MONMOUTH Shepperton OX15 RG40WL00070 OFFICE Middlesex FROBISHERWL00101 Wallingford ROAD DEPOT RG17 UNITWL00138 18 POLOGROUNDS THREEWL00162 COCKS RG8 Surrey DEPOT CYNRIG Berkshire HATCHERY Surrey SW20 Sunbury-on-Thames Faringdon Postcode Berkshire London TW16 London London London Middlesex Reading Sunbury-on-Thames Oxfordshire Book London Middlesex Value £0 £0 London London London Oxford SL6 £0 KT8 Middlesex GU16 Cilfynydd Murcott RG1 Oxfordshire £0 TW17 OX10 Waltham £0 Abbey SE2 SE28 Pontypool London TW16 London £0 London London St Berkshire Mellons London TW16 London London SN7 Abercynrig Pontypridd London Oxfordshire Essex Kidlington £0 £0 Cwmbran £0 Cardiff £0 SE7 £0 RG1 £0 SE7 Newport £0 £0 £0 Monmouth London Brecon OX2 SE1 SE7 SE7 SE1 Rhondda-Cynon-Taf £0 Oxfordshire EN9 Brecon £0 CF37 Torfaen Cardiff Gwent SW1W Monmouthshire £0 £0 OX5 £0 Powys £0 £0 EC1R £0 £0 £0 NP25 Powys NP4 £0 £0 CF3 NP19 £0 LD3 £0 £0 LD3 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-05-2011 11:31] Job: 009356 Unit: PG02
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43 Propertynumber Site NameWL00193 LLYS AFONWL00203 LAMPETERWL00213 OFFICE PLASWL00221 GWENDRAETH CROSSHANDS LLANELLIWL00234 LABORATORY COYCHURCHWL00264 DEPOT TAN LANWL00267 DEPOT MAERDYWL00271 HATCHERY YNYSWL00272 LAS DEPOT BODFFORDDWL00281 DEPOT PONT CrosshandsWL00296 Y GARTH DEPOT FINGERPOSTWL00308 COTTAGE RHUDDLANWL00325 OFFICE STWL00358 DAVID'S HOUSE TREMWL00449 TREWERYN PORTHMADOG DEPOTWL00482 Llanelli WILLOWBROOKWL00537 DRIVE DEPOT Address MERLINSWL00561 BRIDGE DEPOT LLWYN BRAINWL00583 BUCKLEYWL00598 OFFICE Maerdy UNITSWL00605 7&8 GRANADA PARK MAESWL00610 NEWYDD MAWDDACH HATCHERYWL00633 UNIT HoltWL0575 6, Town LLANDARCY Carmarthenshire BUSINESS PARK TY CAMBRIA Llanelli St Mellons Lampeter Corwen SA14 Haverfordwest Coychurch Llanrwst Cardiff Wrexham Ynys Mon Borth Tywyn County Carmarthenshire Ceredigion Pembrokeshire Bridgend Clwyd Rhuddlan £0 SA15 Newtown Porthmadog SA61 Bala Haverfordwest Clwyd Conwy SA48 Isle Llandarcy Cardiff Postcode of Anglesey Crickhowell Gwynedd CF35 Ceredigion Book LL21 Value Denbighshire Dolgellau Buckley Bangor LL77 Gwynedd Pembrokeshire Powys £0 LL26 LL13 £0 Neath CF3 Neath Powys SY24 LL36 Port £0 Talbot Gwynedd LL18 SA61 £0 LL49 SA10 Gwynnedd Cardiff £0 Flintshire SY16 Gwynedd £0 LL23 NP8 £0 £0 Neath Port Talbot £0 £0 £0 LL40 £0 £0 CH7 LL57 SA10 £0 £0 Cardiff £0 £0 £0 £0 CF24 £0 £0 £0 £0 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 44 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Members present: Miss Anne McIntosh (Chair)
Tom Blenkinsop Mrs Mary Glindon Thomas Docherty Neil Parish Richard Drax Dan Rogerson George Eustice Amber Rudd ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Bronwyn Hill, Permanent Secretary, Defra, and Peter Unwin, Director General, Environmental and Rural Group, Defra, gave evidence.
Q126 Chair: Good afternoon, Secretary of State. Q129 Chair: Secretary of State, could you just Welcome. We are very grateful for your being here to explain the Government’s thinking behind the Public discuss the Comprehensive Spending Review. For the Bodies Bill commencing in the Lords, rather than the record would you like to introduce your team? Commons? Caroline Spelman: Yes, very much, thank you. Good Caroline Spelman: Forgive me, but it is, after all, afternoon everybody. It is a very special occasion to sponsored by the Cabinet Office and not by Defra. be before you. I would very much like to introduce There are many arm’s length bodies in the Public the new Permanent Secretary, Bronwyn Hill. This is Bodies Bill that pertain to Defra. We had the not quite the finish of her third day. This is Peter unenviable record of having the largest number of Unwin, who is well known to you. It is right to record arm’s length bodies, at 92, which we have reduced to in front of the Select Committee that Peter did a 39. This does not mean that I had special dispensation sterling job as acting Permanent Secretary through to choose at which end the legislation started. That our interregnum. was presumably the matter of a conversation between the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House or Q127 Chair: I am sure the Committee would want the Leader of both Houses, as a matter of fact. I do to record our thanks to Peter for keeping the ship in not have a particular view; it is a fact, it is a given. good shape. Bronwyn, may we congratulate you on your appointment and you are most welcome here Q130 Chair: We will come on to consider some of today. Secretary of State, given the fact that it was a the bodies in a moment, but with hindsight would it very challenging settlement, are you concerned about have possibly been better to have established the legal the rate of inflation eating away at your resources over basis in a statute before you proceeded as a the coming year? Government Department to abolish individual bodies? Caroline Spelman: Obviously, that is a cross- Caroline Spelman: Again, you are asking me to take Government problem that is not confined to my a view about a decision that was not within my gift. I Department. All our calculations as part of the do not think it is helpful for me to opine about the Spending Review are spread over a four- to five-year worthiness or otherwise of a decision made by the period, during which time—as the Chancellor said Cabinet Office. The fact is, as far as Defra was during the Budget—we would assume that inflation concerned, our diligence was all around the question would return to the target level that he has ascertained of applying the three tests to the 92 arm’s length would support all these calculations, but that is bodies that we had about their technical function, and obviously not an issue confined to this Department. whether in fact the state needed to continue performing the role that they were undertaking— Q128 Richard Drax: Good afternoon. In your whether it was necessary for the state to continue in Department, are you going to achieve this year’s £162 that role. When we applied the tests given to us by million savings target? the Prime Minister, we drew up our lists of arm’s Caroline Spelman: Yes, we are on target this year and length bodies on the basis of those to keep; those to on budget, I am very pleased to say. I must commend reform; those to abolish. As for which of the two the Department for all the preparatory work that it has Houses the piece of enabling legislation was undertaken. If you are in the back of your mind introduced in, as I say, this was not a Defra decision. worried about the decision to suspend the forestry sales, I should make it perfectly clear that they were Q131 Neil Parish: Internal Drainage Boards. This is, not allocated. In any event, we had anticipated an again, the Public Bodies Bill. What changes are you outturn as part of the four- to five-year period. We expecting in the Internal Drainage Boards? await, of course, the outcome of the independent panel Caroline Spelman: We have to be careful with the in terms of finding ways to provide better protection interpretation of those schedules. The Public Bodies for access and other public benefits. If they are Bill was designed to create a vehicle for Ministers to successful in doing that, they will presumably make changes if they needed to. I do not think we recommend that we resume on a better, more should automatically assume that it meant that we are protected basis. going to make changes. My own view of the Internal cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Drainage Boards, since I have been in post and been of the country, may not be right for another part of the to see their operation, is that I think they do an country. Since we believe very strongly in localism, admirable job. I have seen the Internal Drainage working together with the Environment Agency, we Boards at work in Lincolnshire, where they face a can optimise their operations. What we have is the substantial threat of a breach of sea defences and have power in law to do so, or providing the Bill passes very good ideas about how we might make ourselves through this House we would have. more resilient. This was part of our exercise, Watermark, the other week. The point of the Public Q134 Mrs Glindon: Have you worked out how Bodies Bill provision was, if it were thought desirable many local offices of your delivery bodies will close? to change the structures, to merge some of them, to How will you protect delivery as a result of these create efficiencies, or something that we obviously closures? would not do without consulting them, then the Caroline Spelman: I cannot give you a precise vehicle is there. number for how many of the offices of all our 39 remaining arm’s length bodies would close, because Q132 Neil Parish: You have brought me on to my they are still exploring how to rationalise these parts next question very neatly, because I would suggest— of the public estate. What is quite encouraging is that having a lot of experience of one in Somerset—that a number of the arm’s length bodies are looking to these Drainage Boards have got far too large; far too make savings through merging their back offices; so, bureaucratic; they cost an awful lot to administer; and not in any way compromising the delivery, as you nobody quite knows what they are doing. When you quite correctly draw attention to, but actually finding had a lot of local farmers and people who actually ways to live together under the same roof. This is knew where the problems were making the decisions, certainly true of Natural England and the Environment it was much better. What I would suggest to you is Agency, our two largest agencies. A lot of our that perhaps there is an argument in looking at some customers, those who are served by those agencies, of these; they have grown so big and so cumbersome complain about duplication between them. One of the to administer, and they are not properly actually advantages and the enhancements in delivery is to get fulfilling the role. This would very much fit into our some streamlining; by the fact they work together, localism agenda. they become more aware of where they are Caroline Spelman: The very essence of the point I duplicating visits. This has brought the double benefit was making earlier is that the Public Bodies Bill is of saving us the overhead of duplicated premises in a piece of enabling legislation. It would allow us to close proximity, but also improving the method of streamline in the way you have just described; it working between them. allows us to strengthen the governance systems of those Internal Drainage Boards, if we have concerns Q135 Mrs Glindon: Do you think that it may affect that the governance is not strong enough. It gives the some of the local projects that Natural England has Internal Drainage Boards a duty of sustainable been involved in, perhaps in some of the more urban development, which, as you know, we are very keen areas—things that they have done that perhaps are not to mainstream at the heart of Government. My rural-based, where they have actually been engaging experience versus your experience of Internal people in more urban areas in some of the projects— Drainage Boards shows us the overarching point, would that be lost? which is there is no one-size-fits-all—they vary. That Caroline Spelman: I have no reason to believe that it is true of a lot of the patchwork of our arm’s length would be. We have been very careful with programme bodies. The Public Bodies Bill gives Ministers the expenditure to look very closely at how the things we powers to make changes, if we deem them necessary promised to do will be delivered. That is a separate and if we are advised by those who regulate the question from where their staff are co-located, where, activities that they undertake that it is necessary, but as I say, you may actually get an enhancement. we would not do that without consultation. In terms of rural provision, for example, we are expecting to increase by 83% Higher Level Q133 Neil Parish: Okay, that is fine, but what I Stewardship schemes, notwithstanding the austerity of would suggest to you is they have been driven the times. Natural England’s involvement in all that together; they have been made into very large has to support, obviously, the increase in the organisations; and my experience has been that they expansion in the number of more demanding have cost a great deal more to administer, so you do environmental stewardship schemes, which are not have as much money to spend on drainage and typically in the most rural areas. I do not think the environmental works. Is it possible that the simple extrapolation from the number of offices Department will look at that? impacting the delivery negatively needs to be made. I Caroline Spelman: Of course, we are very happy to do not know whether Peter would like to comment look at that, and certainly your suggestion would lead on that. you towards a disaggregation. Back to the original Peter Unwin: Yes, as the Secretary of State said, a lot point, the Public Bodies Bill allows Ministers to make of these offices are very close together. From memory, these changes. I would like in the balance to record we have 270 offices across the whole Defra network, that I have seen what I think is a good Internal and about 85% of those are within 20km of another Drainage Board, which rather commended the benefit office. There is quite a bit of scope to rationalise and of working together with some rather smaller ones in save money via merging offices without greatly losing this part of Lincolnshire. But what works in one part our ability to work in localities. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 46 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Q136 Mrs Glindon: Can I just finally ask: how much Caroline Spelman: In addition to that, we have—I will closing the offices save? think this is very important for British Waterways as Caroline Spelman: We have an estimate. well—given an undertaking of an income stream to Bronwyn Hill: It is a very extensive network, as Peter the new charity out beyond the period of the Spending has said. In fact I believe there are 614 different Review, so they have a guaranteed income stream properties. Some of them are obviously laboratories, with which to commence their new life as a charitable operational, as well as office buildings. At the trust. I was very encouraged to speak to the Chairman moment, the broad-brush estimate over the four-year of British Waterways yesterday about this, and it is period is to reduce the year-on-year running costs by interesting how that, together with the announcements £57.3 million, so about 33%—that is significant. It is in the Budget that the Chancellor made regarding worth pausing because I think the strategy is right, inheritance tax—that someone could leave 10% of because what we are trying to do is to say that it is their estate to a charity—has already brought inquiries much better to make the savings by reducing the cost to British Waterways from people who would like to of running buildings, than it is to reduce the number leave some of their estate to the new charity when it of people working in those buildings, because it is is set up. We are all feeling encouraged about the start the people who deliver the services. To answer your in life that British Waterways Trust, or whatever it is question, we are being careful to look at opportunities ultimately called—that is part of the consultation— to save money on running buildings in order to will have. preserve the number of frontline staff who can deliver local services. Q139 Dan Rogerson: One of the things the Caroline Spelman: If I could add to that, because I consultation mentions is issues around the freight think that is important, we do of course regularly meet responsibilities that are there for British Waterways. with the trade unions. A meeting took place yesterday, Caroline Spelman: The navigations. as part of a sequence of meetings that I have had Dan Rogerson: Yes, absolutely, and therefore there regularly with them, where I reiterated that strategy: are implications, potentially, for cost, possibly, in to try to reduce the size of the estate, rather than terms of anybody who uses that for freight, and the reducing the number of jobs. One of the reasons why responsibilities that have been with the current setup the quite wide spectrum of staff that we may have to for several decades. Should any commercial operators reduce by, from 5,000 to 8,000, is such a broad sweep be worried about the changes and be on the lookout is because what we have not yet got is clearly the for what might happen to their businesses? figure that we will recover from the rationalisation of Caroline Spelman: As I say, we launched the the public estate. consultation today, and there are a lot of questions in the consultation, including around the issue of the Q137 Tom Blenkinsop: What discussions have you navigations. We have made a decision to stagger some of these changes in order to ensure that for had with the National Audit Office about the transfer commercial operators there is plenty of time to of assets to a charity? prepare. Hopefully, that is one of the things that will Caroline Spelman: A conversation took place with address any concerns that they have. I do not know the Treasury over the transfer of assets, because whether you would like to add anything there, Peter? typically in a dissolution of a public body the assets Peter Unwin: Perhaps you could just explain what would not naturally return to the sponsoring concerns you have in particular in terms of what they Department, though I am sure every Secretary of State might do. would wish them to do so. In the case of British Waterways, for example, the proposal to mutualise Q140 Dan Rogerson: Obviously, there are, I British Waterways, so it moves from being one of our suppose, sensitivities around what will need to be arm’s length bodies to being a charitable trust, means done commercially to make things pay and to carry its entire assets transfer with the mutualisation, with out the work. In the spirit of other organisations, if the agreement of the Treasury. That is an incredibly there are certain areas that could be seen to be a important dowry, if I may say so, for this proposal to source of cash, they could be mined more heavily than mutualise British Waterways, which I know has others, if you see what I am saying. Are there any support on all sides of the House. I am pleased to dangers in the way that is going? The Government, report that Mr Benyon is today launching the formal at the moment, presumably, through the subsidy, is consultation on the British Waterways mutualisation, effectively helping that activity to take place, and as I say, including the transfer of all the assets. there could be an escalation in cost if that cost is then completely passed on to the operators. Q138 Tom Blenkinsop: How will the assets be Peter Unwin: As the Secretary of State has said, the transferred? What estimate would you have of the subsidy will, in effect, continue. British Waterways value to the taxpayer of those assets? has been given a settlement until the end of the Caroline Spelman: Do we have any details? Spending Review, 2014–15, and then, very unusually, Peter Unwin: From memory, I think the value of the a guarantee that beyond that they will have a assets is about £500 million. That was a year or two minimum level up until 2022–23 of the same level, I ago, so it may be slightly up or down, but that will be think—£39 million a year—that they will be getting an endowment to the charity to enable it to fund a lot in the final year of this Spending Review. In addition, of the maintenance it will need to do on the canal they will have the assets, which they will be able to network. use to cross-subsidise the operations of the canal cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin system; they will be using the income from the assets demonstrated the ability of the Department to to cross-subsidise that. Their intention is, and one of produce, consult and execute something by which the reasons they are very keen to go down this route, both parties within the Coalition set great store. that they will be able to raise charitable money on top Of course, I cannot talk about the last year without of this in the same way as the National Trust and other touching on our experiences in relation to forestry, similar bodies. In that sense, the income should be which were very difficult. I am sure, Mr Blenkinsop, secure. Obviously, in the consultation period no doubt you saw what I did in the House of Commons, which we will get comments on income going into future was to come and make a clear statement, taking full years, but with those three elements of income—the responsibility for that, and any future plans in relation continuing subsidy, income from property, and any to forestry will now be the subject of the independent charitable money they can raise—they should be able panel. I am very pleased to report that we seem to to have the same level of support that they have at have had no negative representations with regard to the moment. that since its establishment. Ministers will wait with keen anticipation for what the members of the panel Q141 Dan Rogerson: Without having to shunt costs have to say to us with regard to forestry in England, on to one particular area of activity. Finally, if I may, because it goes wider than the original consultation. how do we ensure that they do not become a property My observation generally, as a new Secretary of State, management organisation; that they maintain the if I may say so—and spare the blushes a little of the focus on access and the activities that we all like to civil servants—is that the Ministers have been see? pleasantly surprised by how smoothly we have been Caroline Spelman: To some extent, they are a assisted and how professionally the Civil Service has property management organisation now. supported us as new Ministers in helping us to Dan Rogerson: Absolutely. develop a business plan, and a budget to go with that Caroline Spelman: I mean, they have an asset business plan, to achieve an early settlement, which portfolio. I am not sure how many honourable brought us our strategic objective of protecting as Members have the canal network going through their much flood capital as possible. All of that has resulted constituency, but I certainly do. I have the Grand in a very good working relationship with civil Union canal, with a significant number of locks, some servants, and hopefully with the new ones who have of them in a poor state of repair. One of the big just joined us. opportunities that arises from the mutualisation is the For me the crowning achievement of the last 10 chance to overhaul the infrastructure. This is a lot months, something that I shall look back on with great easier to do with the transfer of all the assets because, pride and pleasure, was the achievement of a obviously, it is endowing the new charity with a very multilateral agreement on biodiversity at Nagoya. I significant asset base, against which it can achieve would be the first to say, once again, that the civil better financial management and better terms and servants within the Department did most of the heavy conditions in order to effect repairs. In the intervening lifting, and Ministers arriving at the latter stages of an period, they are, of course, prioritising essential international negotiation often get the credit, but it is repairs, as I can bear testament to because the not achieved without very significant preparatory Kenilworth Road Bridge is being repaired as we work. In the context of other multilateral agreements speak, but there is a very large amount of the canal that have not made good progress, within Defra, we and waterway network that does require significant can be proud that we have achieved that. new investment. The combination of the guaranteed income stream from Government until 2022–23, plus Q143 Tom Blenkinsop: You told us before, and I the transfer of all the assets, I think gives the new quote, “We have chosen them because they are quite mutual trust the best possible start in life. But there is precise and measurable, and we will have data on a consultation document; the whole point of which to be able to assess whether we are heading in consultation is to engage as widely as possible with the right direction, whether the trend is in the direction stakeholders about all aspects of their concerns about we wish to go.” How do you and your ministerial this transition, and it allows us to absorb all of those colleagues assess performance? suggestions in the final outcome. Caroline Spelman: The lead indicators have only just Peter Unwin: There will be a charity, the purpose of started to be assessed now. You were asking my which is to maintain and enhance the waterway reflections on the first 10 months. The lead indicators network, so no doubt the trustees of the charity will were not applied in May last year. So, the lead be keeping the focus on that as their main purpose. indicators followed on from an agreed business plan, which was first of all elaborated and then successfully Q142 Tom Blenkinsop: After almost a year in post, approved by the Cabinet Office, and then, as part of how would you rate your performance against your that process, it is the Cabinet Office that holds us to departmental indicators? account, but the business plan itself, with its timings Caroline Spelman: We are not quite a year into post. for start and finish, is reviewed regularly by the In terms of lead indicators, the fact that we are on Cabinet Office. As a matter of fact, we had one of our target on our budget is one of our key indicators; the business plan reviews this week. That is a regular fact that we have proceeded with the rationalisation of occurrence. the arm’s length body structure, I think, reasonably smoothly; our progress towards our publication of our Q144 Tom Blenkinsop: How often do you get that Uplands Policy, as identified in our business plan, has data? Is there a timeframe to get that data? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 48 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Caroline Spelman: They are roughly quarterly. Q147 Chair: I am so sorry; I did not wish to go into Peter Unwin: There is a set of lead indicators, and the merits. The Committee wants to know about the this applies to all Government Departments. With our impact of these delays on the budget. We have been business plans we have published a set of lead led to believe that such delays can have an impact on indicators, 11 in total, and those, in common with all the budget. other Departments, will start being measured from Caroline Spelman: I do not think they are likely to next month, in effect—April 2011. have an impact, because in a lot of cases when there is a commencement there is an element of Q145 Tom Blenkinsop: That is fed back into expenditure, so it is cost that you tend to save, rather departmental performance? than accrue cost. Possibly, the only exception to that Caroline Spelman: Of course, yes. would be our decision to suspend planned sales of forests, which we made because we felt that the Q146 Chair: Could I just, Secretary of State, return protection was inadequate for access and other public to the question of inflation. If you look at next year, benefits. This is obviously a loss of planned income, 2012–13, in cash terms your budget is £2.5 million, but not of allocated income. We were very careful, in whatever. If you take inflation into account, there is relation to the proposed forestry sales, because it was a dramatic drop in 2012–13; an even bigger drop in dependent upon market conditions, not to allocate the 2013–14; and a bigger drop again in 2014–15. My income stream from those sales. We could at this stage first question is, how do you plan to address this, so reasonably assume that when the panel has considered that you can meet all the targets and indicators to how to make access and other public benefits better which you have made reference? Turning to your protected, then those planned sales would be in a departmental business plan, what are the implications position to resume within the period of the Spending going to be of missed deadlines? The fact is that the Review, so that the eventual outcome would not be Department missed one deadline in October on Green significantly different. Government; two deadlines in December; one Peter Unwin: A lot of these issues will not have a big deadline in January; and one deadline in February. impact on expenditure anyway. You gave the example The Natural Environment White Paper is slipping of the Natural Environment White Paper, which is probably from April to May. We would like to be clear being delayed in large part because the original as to what the implications of such delays will be for deadline was in the purdah period, when we would your budget? not have been able to publish it. Even so, if it were to Caroline Spelman: There are two separate things. It slip a month or so, there is a team doing it, but the is important to stress to the Committee that the major team will need to implement it once it has gone item of expenditure in the Defra budget is staff costs. through. So the same sort of expenditure will be Because there is a pay freeze across the Civil Service, happening whether it is published in April, May or it is one way in which we are best protected against June. inflationary pressures. That will be true for other Caroline Spelman: The National Ecosystem Departments in Government whose major item of Assessment relates to that as well, because it goes expenditure, in fact, is staff pay. together with the Natural Environment White Paper. The second thing is with regard to the business plans. Obviously purdah is certainly one factor, but the There is a system of flagging progress or otherwise devolved administrations partly help to finance the within business plans that works across Government. National Ecosystem Assessment, which is a very There may be perfectly legitimate reasons why important scientific work. We will have to wait for the particular start and finish dates have to change. new Governments in each of the devolved Obviously, as regards the forestry consultation, we Administrations to form. It is possible they may be made a decision to stop the consultation, and that has coalitions, so we have factored into our considerations an effect. We are now going to give time for a panel how long it might take the new Ministers to be in post to deliberate and make recommendations to us as and for us to brief them, before involving them in the Ministers, so of course, that is going to affect the launch of that document. We are talking about six decision process. weeks of purdah slippage plus election—I do not As regards the business plan outline proposal for a know—reconfiguration, shall we call it? decision on bovine TB to be made in February, in light of the Welsh Assembly’s experience, where they Q148 Neil Parish: Reducing costs by £174 million were judicially reviewed because they were found to in Defra is never going to be easy. You have have made an error in the process, I am sure the announced that it could mean between 5,000 and Committee would want the Department to be very 8,000 job losses. Also, there is the most recent survey careful indeed about the process it pursued in relation of staff within Defra and within Animal Health, where to making a decision about bovine TB. I made it very only 29% were satisfied with the process in Defra and clear at the NFU AGM in February that we are not in only 20% in Animal Health. My question is how are a position yet to make a decision on bovine TB. I you addressing the fact that staff generally do not think you will be able to appreciate that, when the seem to like how the changes are being managed? I Cabinet Office is reviewing start times of particular know it is not easy. policies or decisions that we have to make, they would Caroline Spelman: I suspect across Government that first of all want to be satisfied as to the reason for nobody likes the uncertainty that comes with a 33% taking some more time. In this case we await the legal administration cut across all government departments, opinion, and we cannot make a decision without it. protected or unprotected, quite honestly. At the very cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin least, it brings uncertainty. Certainly, as someone who positive response there and only 20% in Animal feels responsible for the staff that we have, and, as Health. Secretary of State, you covered it in Animal you can see, admires what they do, I am doing Health, because you say it was the merger, but that is everything in my power, and so are other ministers, to very, very low. try and be helpful in this regard. Caroline Spelman: DFID of course is a protected What I would pray in aid as evidence that we are Department—lucky them. We would all like to be in approaching the process in a considered and that position, but we cannot be. You can understand compassionate manner is that our appeals for why morale is good in such Departments, but that was voluntary redundancies have yielded a higher figure a collective decision by Government, and one that I than we were expecting of members of staff who do not in any way regret. What I think is significant, choose, at this point, to go, on the terms and now, where we are in the cycle, not quite a year in, conditions being offered across the Civil Service. Of is—is that a vote? Quickly. course, this is helpful with regard to the balance that When we first arrived, there was concern amongst the we have to find, because then fewer compulsory staff that, because of the recruitment freeze, there was redundancies, about which people are less likely to be no movement and lots of these very able people were content, will be necessary. asking, “How will I get promotion? How will I get In respect of Animal Health and Veterinary preferment if there is this freeze?” One of the Laboratories Agency, a compound factor there is the consequences of the scale of the reduction that we merger of two bodies. It is understandable that for have to make is that the managers strategically need staff in those two facilities there is an extra layer of to remodel or recast some of what we do, because we uncertainty around that. I have been to visit one of are going to stop doing certain things. That will, in the the two premises, the Animal Health laboratories at fullness of time, now with the Permanent Secretary’s Worcester, and the Chief Executive there, Catherine involvement probably this summer, lead to Brown, assured me that they are working incredibly opportunities for the staff for promotion. hard to try and accommodate employees’ wishes in Chair: Secretary of State, if we could pause there for the matter, and to be considerate in relation to their the vote. We will return in 15 minutes if there is one responsibilities and their own job opportunities. I do vote. not know whether you would like to add to that. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. Bronwyn Hill: It is probably worth saying that I was On resuming— recently in the Department for Transport, and I think their staff survey results were broadly the same in Q150 Chair: We move on to forestry, if we may. I terms of the impact the uncertainties obviously had on would just like to ask at the outset, Secretary of State, people, and the surveys were done in October. What about the basis of the Department’s cost-benefit is important is that the leadership of the Department analysis and how you reached the figures. I would like now helps to move to reduce that uncertainty, so to try to reconcile two statements that you made very running the voluntary exit scheme, getting the close together. On 3 February this year, you said the outcomes from that, and factoring that into our plans “planned sales are expected to raise £100 million over for the next two years is a very important early the Spending Review period. That would be part of priority for both me and the senior management team. Defra’s overall provision within that period.” Then, What our staff are saying to us is, “Communicate on 17 February, you said: “Any revenue from the regularly with us. Make sure that any processes that planned sale of 50% of the land was a bonus. Now you use to reduce numbers further are fair and that those sales have been suspended, our transparent, and that you keep talking to us.” That is Department’s spending plans are not affected.” something that we committed to do with the staff. Caroline Spelman: It is revenue that we anticipated Peter Unwin: What I would say about the survey from the sales, but by bonus I meant in terms of not results is that, as you say, we went down slightly. Our allocated. That is the distinction. We had not allocated overall staff engagement index, which is the headline the £100 million to planned expenditure. Perhaps I did figure from the survey, went down from about 54% to not express it all that well, but that is the distinction. 53%. The 1% drop is actually less than the average We anticipated over the period between now and drop across the Civil Service, because the whole Civil 2014–15, on the basis of the scheduled planned sales, Service saw a drop. The main reason for the drop— an income of approximately £100 million. You can and this was common across all the Departments and never be sure; it is the timber market, it is affected was not surprising in the circumstances—was by world prices, it goes up, it goes down. It was our increasing concern about pay and career prospects in anticipated revenue of £100 million, but we had not the current climate. Against that, we had quite a allocated it and that is the distinction. significant rise in our scores for leadership and change management within the Department. We faced a lot of Q151 Chair: I would just like to pursue that. I would the issues that the rest of Whitehall did, but on those just like to go through the figures for some of the cost- issues of leadership and change management we benefit methodology in annex 7. Under the actually improved from previous surveys. community woodlands and the heritage woodlands— Caroline Spelman: I have not got that document. Q149 Neil Parish: The only thing I would say, with the figures I have in front of me, is that DFID Q152 Chair: I am not going to take you through the probably has not had to make as many cuts or there figures. The figures are a matter of record. Looking at has not been much of a reduction, but there is a 41% the figures, the taxpayer was going to be out of pocket cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 50 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin or the Department was going to be out of pocket, so I Q154 Chair: Community woodlands, heritage am not quite sure how— woodlands: are these common concepts or were they Caroline Spelman: I am sorry, but what do you mean created for the purposes of the consultation? by out of pocket? Caroline Spelman: They were created for the purposes of the consultation because it was the best Q153 Chair: The cost of sale was going to cost more way to help the public understand the different types than the money you were going to receive. The cost of forest. Clearly, the public reaction to our proposals to the Government, if I just give you one example, of showed that lots of members of the public do not community woodlands, was £5.1 million; the benefits understand how little of the woodland cover in were only perceived to be £2.7 million. Then, England is in public ownership. They have not obviously, there are costs related to professional land realised that it has dwindled to 18% of forest and agent fees. It was just trying to talk you through the woodland cover in this country; most members of the thinking. I know it is a matter of history now, but just public thought the figure was much, much higher. so that we can understand. They also had not appreciated in some cases that the Caroline Spelman: We have not got this document in state was running a commercial forestry operation. front of us right now, I have to tell you, but Peter will So, one of the things that the consultation did reveal try to speak to that question. is that there are different types of forest, for which Peter Unwin: I will do my best, from what I can recall different outcomes may be the right answer. I simply of the figures, and I presume you are talking about thought it was right, Governments of different the impact assessment that went with the consultation persuasions over the last 30 years having sold off the paper. The issue here was that the figures in the impact public forest state without much consultation, to give assessment looked at the cost of running the forestry the public the chance to be consulted about the future estate at the moment. It then made an assumption that, of the public forest estate. But that is history now, and if those duties were transferred through leases to the panel will take these questions forward. commercial companies in some cases, or through transfers to charities in others, a similar number of Q155 Tom Blenkinsop: Did Defra seek advice from people might be involved in doing that, and therefore the Forestry Commission prior to the announcement the costs would be fairly similar. Of course, you then of the consultation on the sale of public forests? add into that the cost of sale and that leads to the Caroline Spelman: Of course. result that you are talking about. What the impact assessment was not able to reflect, Q156 Tom Blenkinsop: Have you copies of that and this is part of an issue about the way we do impact advice? assessments in general across Whitehall, is the Caroline Spelman: The Forestry Commission wrote benefits that the Government believed would come the consultation document. from having some of the commercial forests run on a leasehold basis by commercial companies or some of Q157 Tom Blenkinsop: The advice that they gave the heritage forests run by charitable trusts. They saw you, have you copies of that advice that we could see wider advantages in there, which, because it was not as well? possible to monetise them precisely, do not appear in Caroline Spelman: I do not know what form the the crude impact assessment figure. That was at the advice took. They drafted the consultation. That was nub of the issue you were raising. essentially their work. We do not have forestry policy Caroline Spelman: Obviously, the consultation has people within the core Department. We rely on the been abandoned. This is now a question for the Forestry Commission, largely. independent panel. They will look at a number of things in relation to the operation of the Forestry Q158 Tom Blenkinsop: So, there was no Commission. That is in their terms of reference. We interlocution, no phone calls, no e-mails, suggestions? had anticipated, in terms of asset disposal of the Peter Unwin: planned 15% of the public forestry estate—this was If I can just say, policy advice to nothing to do with the forestry consultation on the Ministers—this is a convention under all wider public forest estate—that the Forestry Governments—is confidential to Ministers. That is Commission’s costs would be approximately 25% of reflected in the Freedom of Information Act. the anticipated income stream. That is in the planned sales. Q159 Tom Blenkinsop: So there is advice, but it is The point is that the panel will look at both. It will be confidential and we cannot see it? able to look at the operation of the Forestry Peter Unwin: The Forestry Commission are the Commission; its commercial operation, the turnover departmental advisers to Ministers on forests, and they of which is £54 million; and its profits of £0.7 million, provided advice throughout the process. and look at the ratio there. It can explore more widely the questions that we wanted to look at in the Q160 Tom Blenkinsop: So, there is advice, but it is consultation, and beyond that, because the panel has confidential and we cannot see it, is that right? the remit to look at forestry policy in England in Peter Unwin: It is policy advice to Ministers and as general. All of these things will be considered as part such— of their work. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of their research because they will make Q161 Tom Blenkinsop: So, there is policy advice, recommendations to Ministers. but we cannot see it. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Caroline Spelman: Mr Blenkinsop, I have regular Q167 Chair: With the greatest of respect, it would phone calls with the Chairman of the Forestry just help our thinking to know what the advice was Commission; she has my telephone number, I have and what the timeline was. It goes back to whether it hers. I do not necessarily make a note of everything would have been better to have had the legal base in that we say to each other when we speak to each other. the Public Bodies Bill, as to whether there should be You would expect the Secretary of State to have a these decisions on the Forestry Commission, on working relationship with most of the—I speak to the British Waterways, on IDBs, before a consultation president of the NFU; I speak to the president of the was launched. CLA. I do not spend all my time annotating. Caroline Spelman: We are conflating two things. Remember that the Public Bodies Bill emanates from Q162 Tom Blenkinsop: I know and that is what I a different Department from my own. It enabled was getting to, but that is not the same as the writing Ministers in all Departments to abolish, amend or of a consultation paper, which you earlier said was leave the arm’s length bodies that are under their the advice. wing. That was on a cross-Government basis. Caroline Spelman: No, I did not say it was the advice. No, no—I did not say it was the advice. I pointed out Q168 Chair: Effectively, that was setting up the legal that the Forestry Commission prepared the base. So, in a way, you are proceeding without the consultation paper. So in terms of a public document legal base by launching the consultation, which is that shows the iterative process between Ministers and what I was asking earlier? an arm’s length body in drawing up a policy, I just Caroline Spelman: Okay, but we did not necessarily wanted to make the point the Forestry Commission need the changes in the Public Bodies Bill. The Public was commissioned. Forest Estate has been sold off by successive Governments under the Forestry Act 1967 over the last 30 years, as I have said. We take the view as Q163 Chair: I am not quite sure that is the question Ministers that the protection for access and other being asked. The question that is being asked is: did public benefits should be improved, and it may be that you seek the advice of the Forestry Commission as to the independent panel advise us that Forestry Act whether there should be a sale, not as to whether there should be amended to reflect that. should be a consultation? Bronwyn Hill: To try to answer Miss McIntosh’s Caroline Spelman: Yes, of course we did. question, as you know, a large number of bodies are covered by the Public Bodies Bill, and quite a number Q164 Chair: Are we able to see that advice? of Departments are actually consulting on what is Caroline Spelman: No, apparently, if it is a going to happen to those bodies in parallel to the convention across Government. There is not any legislation going through. Clearly, this is all subject to telephone call advice that I can give you. From the the House’s approval, ultimately, but I do not think moment we became Ministers, we had stakeholder there is anything unusual in the consultation meetings with all the arm’s length bodies, at which happening at the time the Bill is going through. In a we sought their advice on the plans that we had within sense, it is a consultation on the detail that would our business plans and our plans for arm’s length follow, subject to the Bill being approved. bodies. We have regular meetings with our stakeholders, both together as groups and separately, Q169 Chair: Is there any particular reason why there continuously of course, through the last 10 months, was not a question in the consultation paper on during which we seek advice and we exchange our maintaining the status quo? thoughts on that advice. Caroline Spelman: Obviously, it was an open consultation. It gave the opportunity for— Q165 Chair: The Woodland Trust and the National Trust, would they have been included? Q170 Chair: Is there one obvious box that was not Caroline Spelman: Of course, they would. there? Caroline Spelman: Obviously, what cannot remain Q166 Chair: Actually as to whether or not a sale the same is that we had established before publication should proceed at that time, before the legal basis of that consultation that the status quo on protection was established? for access and other public benefits is inadequate, as Caroline Spelman: Of course we spoke to the proved by the fact that, when the last Government was stakeholders. We have regular meetings with selling off parts of the public forest estate, access was stakeholders. Incidentally, the stakeholders you impeded. At successive sessions of oral questions by referred to, of course, are on the independent panel, Defra Ministers across the autumn, we made it clear so they will very definitely be giving advice to that we were not satisfied that the status quo was Ministers in a formal way. adequate with respect to protection for access and Bronwyn Hill: Isn’t one of the points that the reason other public benefits. It is logical that something there the Secretary of State has set up the panel is so that at the very least would have to change, but it was a they can look at these things afresh. In a way, genuine consultation and I defy honourable Members publishing some advice that is now historic is not to say that the questions were not genuinely open. going to help contribute to that debate. We want a fresh and open debate on these issues, and that is why Q171 Tom Blenkinsop: Was that advice from the the panel has been set up to lead it. Forestry Commission? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 52 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Peter Unwin: Can I just come back to this advice, and Caroline Spelman: We were consulting to see what be absolutely clear. The Forestry Commission, as I the public wanted to do with the remainder of the said, are a Government Department. They are not, like public forest estate. Natural England or the Environment Agency, statutory bodies set up to advise Government with a degree of Q178 Thomas Docherty: You have discussed at semi-independence. They are a Government some length with my colleague the issue of whether Department reporting to Ministers in Defra as well as you sought advice or consulted prior to launching the in the devolved Administrations. consultation. Did you either seek advice or even inform the Forestry Commission before you cancelled Q172 Chair: They were quite a large feature of the the consultation? Were they notified in advance and, Public Bodies Bill. if so, by how much? Peter Unwin: They are civil servants who are Caroline Spelman: Of course we sought advice from providing advice to Ministers. The convention of all the Forestry Commission. We had regular contact with governments is that that advice is not disclosed, for them. We had regular contact at official level, and we the very good reason that, otherwise, we would not continue to have contact at an official level. have impartial and frank advice to ministers on a whole range of subjects. That was recognised by Q179 Thomas Docherty: Just so I am absolutely Parliament in the passing of the Freedom of clear, you sought advice from the Forestry Information Act. That is the reason why. We are not Commission about the cancellation of the trying to hide anything by saying we will not give you consultation? this advice. We would not disclose to you policy Caroline Spelman: There was a very long period advice that we give to the Secretary of State, as civil between the initial draft consultation document being servants, on any issue. We will provide information received by us, from the Forestry Commission, and it under the FOI or willingly to the Select Committee, being approved within Government—properly written but the convention is that policy advice is confidential, round and approved by all Cabinet Ministers. It took for the very strong reason I gave. several months, during which time we continued to have conversations with the Forestry Commission. We Q173 Tom Blenkinsop: Effectively, advice was took the decision to proceed with the consultation sought, but we cannot see it? even after quite misleading comments in the press Peter Unwin: Advice was given. Because they are about what it consisted of. Obviously, they were as civil servants who advise Ministers, as is the aware as we were about the mythology that was convention under all governments, that advice will not establishing itself about what our genuine plans were, be disclosed. especially having crafted the consultation document. So, a decision was made to proceed with the Q174 Thomas Docherty: First of all, Secretary of publication of the consultation. We then decided State, can you just clarify that you said that you did prematurely to curtail it. not need the change in the law? If I have heard you correctly, you said that you did not require the Public Q180 Thomas Docherty: Perhaps it is my thick Bodies Bill— Scottish brogue. The question I asked was did you Caroline Spelman: The basis for the sale of the public consult or inform the Forestry Commission before you forest estate that has taken place over the last 30 years cancelled the consultation? is the Forestry Act 1967. Caroline Spelman: Yes. As I said, I pick up the phone Chair: That is for the 15%. to Pam Warhurst on a regular basis.
Q175 Thomas Docherty: Yes, the 15%. For the other Q181 Thomas Docherty: So you phoned her to say, 85%, you did require a change in the law. So you “We are cancelling”? perhaps misspoke. Caroline Spelman: I spoke to Pam Warhurst. Chair: 15% is part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Q182 Thomas Docherty: Approximately how far Caroline Spelman: I understand that, but it was a ahead of you coming to the House was that phone consultation. A consultation gives rise to an outcome, call? on the basis of which Ministers make the decision as Caroline Spelman: It was not long before that. It was to whether to proceed or not. a rapid decision on our part to curtail it. It was very clear, as I said in the House, from the early responses Q176 Chair: But you did not have the legal base for that people were responding to what they read in the that, because the legal base was in the Public Bodies newspaper. They were heavily influenced by the Bill, which has still not reached the House of media interpretation of what the consultation was Commons. about, and we were not going to get a clear view of Caroline Spelman: The consultation would, I think, what we wanted, which was to ask people what they not even have been concluded by now, on its full felt about the future of the public forest estate. So, we length. made a decision prematurely to end the consultation. And I did speak to the Chairman of the Forestry Q177 Thomas Docherty: But you were consulting Commission before I made my statement to the on a basis that you did not have in law? House. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Q183 Thomas Docherty: One final question, Chair. National Trust taking over the management of some You have said “prematurely” I think three times now. work? Do you mean prematurely because the consultation Caroline Spelman: Yes. ended early or that you think it was a premature decision to cancel the consultation? Q187 George Eustice: Is it your sense that it was Caroline Spelman: I made a decision to end the actually less radical than it was portrayed? 12-week consultation prematurely because it was clear Caroline Spelman: Some people who then went on to that the public did not like what we were proposing read the document said just that. As you would expect, to do, and that has the virtue of being able to say that we had many conversations with our stakeholders we listened. about this question and they have views. Many of them are represented on the panel. They will have the Q184 George Eustice: I just wanted to build on that opportunity now, with an independent chair, to discuss point, because it is clear that the consultation was some of their own thoughts about the public forest curtailed early in the light of public opinion, which is estate and to take that forward. That is the reason why not a bad thing because democratic politics does I do not want to fetter the outcome of their respond to public opinion and that is what it is there deliberations, and we await their recommendations. I for. But to what extent do you feel that what you were do not mean this unkindly, but obviously it is a little trying to achieve was misrepresented? Could you tangential to the Spending Review focus and, had I elaborate on that? You have said a few times that the known that we would be going to focus specifically media got it wrong, but what was the, I suppose, hope more on forests, I would have come with the that might come out of this, rather than the perception consultation document and the annexes attached, and that you were firing up the chainsaw or whatever? if necessary other documentation in relation to this Caroline Spelman: The consultation before its particular question, if you wanted to pursue this. publication was characterised as a sell-off, whereas in fact what we were very keen to do was to engage Q188 George Eustice: You have mentioned the civil society. We know that the previous Government independent panel is going to cover quite a wide range looked at exactly the same opportunity. I have of areas. I know you have previously said that there produced the three documents in Parliament to is potentially a conflict of interest, with the Forestry demonstrate that a previous Government had had Commission being an operator and also a regulator. exactly the same idea that we had—not an Is that something you envisage the independent panel unreasonable suggestion. thinking about? Caroline Spelman: I am sure they should. I still take Q185 Thomas Docherty: And rejected it. the view that, since the Forestry Commission is the Caroline Spelman: Yes, well, that was their decision. largest supplier of timber to the UK market and also We felt it was reasonable to ask the public whether the regulator of that market, that at the very least they would like to see parts of the public forest estate presentationally, in this day and age, those functions transferred into the ownership and management of ought to be separated in my view, but that is my view. civil society. The difficulty was that is very different It will be up to the independent panel, as part of its from the way it was being presented publicly. What terms of reference to look at the operation of the happened was the view established itself in the public Forestry Commission, to consider that. They will mind that it was one thing and not the other. make recommendations to us as Ministers on that and, Inevitably, the difficulty is that one wants to respect I am sure, many other points. the primacy of Parliament. I could have sprung to the airwaves in October to try to negate some of the false Q189 George Eustice: Is there any sense that impression about what the policy was, but I am sure concern is felt by others in the timber industry? Are honourable Members will understand that, as part of there others who think this is maybe a problem that collective Government, one of the things you have to ought to be looked at? do is to secure collective agreement for a policy that Caroline Spelman: I think in this day and age if represents a change. That involves writing round to Ofwat were supplying honourable Members with one’s Cabinet colleagues, undertaking impact water as well as regulating the market, honourable assessments, preparing in a thoughtful and careful Members might have concerns. That is the principle way to do such a thing. It takes time to do that. Also, that I have applied to this situation, where the we all know, as honourable Members, that the Speaker regulator is at one and the same time the major is not inclined to appreciate Members of Parliament supplier. In a more transparent age, where we expect who use the media as a way of communicating policy greater accountability, I think those functions ought to first, and not in fact bringing policy first to Parliament be separated. to present it here. We made the decision to respect those conventions. It took quite a length of time. It Q190 Tom Blenkinsop: One last question: was your was the right way to do it, but by then the view of decision to pull the consultation taken before the what the policy was about had formed itself in the Prime Minister said he was not happy with the public mind. forestry policy at Prime Minister’s Question Time? Caroline Spelman: We had made a decision within Q186 George Eustice: I have heard it said that in the Department, looking at the replies that we were practice what probably would have happened is that receiving. The responses were informed by the you might have had, say, the Woodland Trust or the coverage of what the policy was not in reality. It was cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 54 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin very difficult, from the responses, to construe anything speed of payment and not sorting out the basic other than that people did not like what we were underlying problems. proposing. One of the things we have been doing this year is to Chair: Thank you. We will turn now to the Rural try to tackle those accuracy problems. That is Payments Agency. probably the reason why the March target is being missed. It is only once we sort out those historical Q191 Thomas Docherty: There are a lot of problems data problems that we will actually get to the stage facing farmers at the moment. One of the biggest where every year we will be hitting targets and single ones is the non-payment of the SPS. If I could hopefully exceeding them. This is the track that the ask you first of all, Secretary of State, during Defra Agency is going down now. questions a fortnight ago—I cannot remember which Minister it was. Q192 Thomas Docherty: Can you tell us the value Caroline Spelman: It would have been the Minister of the payments you have made by the end of March? of State. Not the percentage of number, but the value Thomas Docherty: Yes, Jim Paice. He said: “The percentage, because I am hearing stories of some of objective is to have no fines at all, rather than to the bigger farmers not getting paid at all. choose between fines. I am determined to make the Peter Unwin: The outstanding cases tend to be the payments as accurate as possible so that we can draw big and complex ones. If you are aware of the system a line under the sorry past under the previous you will know that the difficulty is that the system we Government. Equally, however, I want to keep to the operate under—and this is one of the Agency’s major payment deadline of June, and we plan to do so.” First problems—is an extremely complex one, tied not only of all, Secretary of State, what assurances can you to the area of the land, which has to be measured give the Select Committee that, as the RPA target was infinitesimally, but also to historical entitlements to missed earlier this month, you will meet the target, land. Those entitlements can be traded between farms, and if you do not, do you expect to have to pay fines? and indeed, between major farms that are buying land, Caroline Spelman: It is a perfectly fair strategy to try a lot of that trading goes on. It is those areas that tend to reduce the cost to the public purse of being fined to cause the complexity, and therefore it is the biggest for late payment or inaccurate payment. The level of cases that tend to be the hardest to sort out. public expenditure on this has been really quite shocking. We are inheriting a situation that I am sure Q193 Thomas Docherty: That is a very long answer the honourable Member will acknowledge is less than to a question I did not ask. ideal. New Ministers coming into post, of course, have Caroline Spelman: I can give you the value. A had to get to grips with the underlying cause of this. ministerial statement has been published today on the The Minister of State has approached this task with single payments system, manual payments. The enthusiasm, but it is difficult. There was a strategic Minster of State has put that down. “For the Single decision that he had to make in conjunction with the Payment System (2010) as at 24 March, the RPA have new Chief Executive of the Rural Payments Agency made payments totalling £1.49 billion to 97,255 about whether to go for speed or accuracy. Accuracy English farmers.” is the one that reduces the fines. Farmers want the confidence of knowing that the Q194 Thomas Docherty: Can I ask the Secretary of payments they are receiving are accurate, because State why the Select Committee has not got a copy of otherwise they are caught in all the problems that that statement? surround receiving an inaccurate payment, of which Caroline Spelman: I am so sorry, it is tomorrow. there is a long legacy. The Minister of State has made Apologies. I do apologise. the decision to focus on accuracy, which involves incidentally going slower and a lot of manual Q195 Thomas Docherty: No, that is fine. Secretary calculation on the more complex payments that have of State, would you authorise manual payments? to be made. That is what the automatic system finds Caroline Spelman: They have been authorised. difficult to cope with. Listening to the Chief Executive of the RPA at our supervisory board last week, I hear Q196 Thomas Docherty: For all remaining— in his voice the confidence that the external Caroline Spelman: That is how it has been done. That deadline—the June deadline by which we are judged is how the remainder has been done. by the Commission—will be reached. But obviously Chair: But not by sixth formers? with the history that this Agency has had, all of us Caroline Spelman: No, not by sixth formers. I would have learnt to be cautious. I am sure that honourable certainly like to place on the record, particularly Members would appreciate that the efforts to be because the trade union representative from the RPA accurate are designed to protect the public purse. came to my meeting of the trade unions yesterday, and Peter Unwin: It is also worth saying, possibly, one it is very interesting to hear the view from the shop of the issues is that there are conflicting objectives, floor. It has not been easy for that organisation. It has obviously, between getting the payments out to had a really, really terrible time, and morale, as you farmers quickly and sorting out the historical legacy can imagine in an organisation like that, is difficult to problems of inaccurate data. The National Audit maintain. In fact, we wanted to send a very strong Office, the Public Accounts Committee and I think signal through the new Chief Executive that we do possibly this Committee, in previous times, have recognise how hard the staff are working with the criticised the Department for focusing too much on manual payments to achieve that greater level of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin accuracy. These are the staff who have lived through Q199 Chair: Secretary of State, can I just spare a some of the most difficult experiences and criticism. thought for the morale among the farmers who have I am not in any way diminishing the difficulty for the been caught up in this? farmers, who are waiting for their payments. Caroline Spelman: Yes, I think I did say that. Obviously, there is more than one party caught up in the problems this Agency has had, but in the interests Q200 Chair: How would you balance the uptake of of getting everyone to try to work well for the right Higher Level Stewardship schemes with the cost for outcome we need to try to say things that boost their the single payment scheme and the unit cost of morale. Hopefully, the written ministerial statement delivery of Higher Level Stewardship schemes? tomorrow will provide not only the Select Committee Caroline Spelman: In the context of the Spending with that clarification but everybody who is waiting Review, which is after all why we are here, I really to hear how and when these payments will be made. would like to stress the importance of the strategic decision we made to make it possible to increase Q197 Thomas Docherty: You talk about the shop Higher Level Stewardship schemes by 83%. That does floor, but Farmers Weekly, just today, is saying that not mean that we are closing the door on entry level the Farm Crisis Network is issuing a plea for urgent schemes; you need both types of scheme. If the help. I won’t quote the whole article, which I am sure Committee has had a chance to read the Uplands is in the clippings somewhere, but they say they face Policy statement that we launched in Cumbria an unprecedented number of cases, and that the non- recently, they will have seen, in fact, that we attach payment of this round has been the straw that has great importance to those stewardship schemes as part finally broken the camel’s back. of the mix of income streams that upland farmers in Caroline Spelman: I am very sorry to hear that, and particular need in order to be able to sustain I have just said that I do have great sympathy for themselves. The uplands are a part of the country farmers anxiously waiting for those payments, but we where it is very much in the public interest to try to do have a system to deal with people who are facing increase stewardship uptake, because these are some genuine hardship. That was set up, to be fair, under of our most precious environmental areas in need of the previous Government, but it exists to try and help protection. So we balance the single farm payment people whose businesses need to remain viable system with the stewardship scheme, seeing them as through these payment difficulties. complementary, if that is what the Chair is asking.
Q198 Thomas Docherty: When you came before us Q201 Chair: I put it to you that farm incomes have last time, we had a brief discussion about the IT gone down in the uplands quite dramatically since network. At that point you had not had a chance to fix 2009 when the single farm payment was introduced a budget for the new IT network. Have you now got and the headage payments went. You will, I am sure, a budget for the new IT? have had the chance to read our uplands report as Caroline Spelman: First of all, I should say for the well. record that I am married to an employee of Accenture, Caroline Spelman: Yes. which is responsible for the original information Chair: I see we get a one-line mention, so we do look technology system. However, he does not deal with forward to your response from the Department to our IT or Government or indeed with the UK. But none report. Do you not share our concern regarding, if the less, in the interest of transparency, I should state their income has already gone down and if the take- that. I am sure the honourable Member would up of stewardship schemes is quite low, why you are understand that one of the reasons why the necessary throwing more money at stewardship schemes on investment significantly to change this system is hard that basis? to make is because the CAP reform proposals may Caroline Spelman: I would like to say there is a lot change the basis on which single farm payments are we agree with in the Select Committee’s analysis of made. So a major investment in IT will have to await what is wrong in the uplands, but we do not the confidence that we have as Ministers upon what necessarily agree with all the Committee’s basis farm payments will be made in future. From the conclusions. In particular we feel, I am afraid, we will early discussions of CAP reform, it looks like it will have to beg to differ on the headage payments— be an area-based payment, much like the one that the although this has very little to do with the Spending UK has pioneered. I think there are a lot of member Review, but more to do with uplands policy, which states looking to our experience here in the UK with we could spend more time on on another occasion if some concern as to how to avoid the kinds of honourable Members wish. It takes the policy away difficulties that were engendered by advancing on an from our declared aim of trying to help farmers area-based payment system. The difficulty they have become more market-orientated and more in a lot of cases is they are paying out to farmers competitive. On that point we would beg to differ. But who have not been farming for a very long time. The we have made it possible to prioritise upland farmers Commissioner himself attaches importance in his own for entry level stewardship schemes, because we communiqué to what he calls “active farmers”—in believe that this is a very important prioritisation of other words, those actually carrying out the farming resources. Many of the upland areas are the water today. catchment areas, ultimately for our drinking water. I Thomas Docherty: Well, if it is any consolation, none think that this approach to stewardship in the uplands of the NFU Board have been paid yet, so you might paves the way to payment for ecosystem services. I want to be sure they get paid. happen to think that is the direction of travel that is cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 56 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin likely to emerge from the greening of the CAP, Q205 Chair: So how much money will be made although it is early days—the recognition that what available for the Uplands Theme over the next two farmers do over and above producing food sustainably years of the RDPE? is to provide ecosystem services, which they presently Caroline Spelman: It depends on the uptake. do for free. I think it is significant that two water Peter Unwin: £6 million more for Uplands Entry companies in the South West and in the North West Level Stewardship (UELS) are willing to pay farmers to change the way they Chair: It’s a bottomless pit. practice their farming in the catchment areas because Caroline Spelman: £6 million more will be available it is in their interest to have clean water. for UELS. Chair: Is it? Q202 Chair: I am sure we will have plenty of Caroline Spelman: £6 million. It does say that in the opportunity to look at that in the future, but can I document. just drag you back to the question? Your performance indicators—I have just referred to them—very clearly Q206 Chair: How much is going to be made look at the uptake and the cost of processing each available to support rural tourism? I think you refer to claim. I would put it to you that tenants have lost out that in the policy review. extremely badly and I just wondered what you Caroline Spelman: Again, that will depend on uptake propose to do to rectify that. under RDPE axis— Caroline Spelman: I do not dispute that; it is Peter Unwin: It is axis three. something I agree completely with the Select Caroline Spelman: It is under axis three. Committee on and when we launched the document, I made a very strong appeal to landowners to facilitate Q207 Chair: The figures are a little bit woolly and their tenants to take advantage of the stewardship we are trying to get our heads round what the actual schemes we offer—absolutely unequivocally and for figures are. When you say, “up to £20 million” for the public record. Did you want to come in on this? one— Peter Unwin: Our figures show that the uptake in the Peter Unwin: £6 million will be available under axis uplands is fairly good. I know the Tenant Farmers two. Association disagree and we are talking to them to try to sort out which figures are right. But certainly the Q208 Chair: It says “up to £6 million”. figures we have from Natural England in terms of Caroline Spelman: It depends on uptake. uptake are good and that is why the Secretary of State Peter Unwin: It depends on uptake, yes. announced the additional money available in the Caroline Spelman: That is what I said. recent Uplands Policy statement. Peter Unwin: So the full £6 million is available if it is taken up by the upland farmers. On your tourism Q203 Chair: The Minister of State is well aware of point, the axis three money of the RDPE would be areas where the uptake is very poor and where we available for that, but again, that is locally driven, so have recommended mediation. What is the status of we make it available centrally but it will be up to your Uplands Policy Review? Is it a consultation? Are the localities to come forward with proposals to apply people invited to respond? for that. Caroline Spelman: It is our policy. Q209 Chair: But it is now centralised—they have to Q204 Chair: It is your policy or it is a policy review? apply to Defra. Policy review sounds like you are reviewing a policy. Caroline Spelman: That is because RDAs are being Caroline Spelman: The title I think does not help it, abolished. Just to explain that, it is very important but I did make very clear it is the beginning of our because the Commission made it very clear—as the policy approach to the uplands. If we were in a more transition has taken place from Regional Development advantageous position financially, we would love to Agencies to Local Economic Partnerships—that the do more. Essentially, we have identified 23 actions Commission had to be satisfied, since we are dealing that we propose could be undertaken to help upland with the disbursement of public money, that we communities; it is not just the farmers, but a very account for taxpayers’ money, whether it is European important part of that is upland farmers. But resources taxpayers’ money or our own. Therefore, the being constrained, we have found additional money disbursement has been brought back in-house, for the uplands and given priority for the uplands including, I think, some of the staff. within some of our schemes. The £20 million that we propose for community broadband, for example, is an Q210 Mrs Glindon: The Department’s recent opportunity for other communities—like the one I saw announcement about the RDPE says that the fund will in Great Asby—to make a connection to some of the be managed nationally and delivered in a way that existing broadband network so that people living in provides locally accessible support, and that the uplands disadvantaged by not having access to the administration will move away from existing regions internet will at last be able to gain access. As the as the key governance tier. Can you explain how this Select Committee knows, together with DCMS, we will work and how the essential local knowledge will have a superfast rollout—four pilots in rural areas. We be retained in the long term? are working very hard to try to find resources across Caroline Spelman: The Regional Development Government to improve the quality of life generally Agencies are being wound up, although Defra has in upland areas. contributed resources to make sure that there is a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin smooth transition; that is in our budget. So we have Peter Unwin: The funding from axes one and three not abruptly pulled the rug from under their feet, but will not be affected by the change in the RDAs. The there is a planned reduction in our budget line. Some funding will be the same; it will take fewer people to of the staff who were administering the RDPE operate it because they will be centrally located in schemes at the regional level—we are just checking one unit as opposed to spread over eight RDAs across the exact number—are coming back in-house, because the country. they have the expertise and knowledge about how to administer the RDPE budget successfully. In terms of Q213 Chair: The issue is very clearly expressed in uptake and advice to famers on how to take advantage our Farming in the Uplands report, where we say of the stewardship schemes, this is where one of our there is a lack of clarity about the current position arm’s length bodies has the expertise, in Natural and how Rural Development Programme for England England. So it is a combination of Defra at the centre funding will be provided now and in the future. We taking on the administration of RDPE with the staff have asked Defra to provide a clear and precise previously working in the Regional Development description of how funding will be provided, with or Agencies and then the advice on the ground to farmers without LEPs. The evidence we have heard from a through Natural England and their network of advisers number of those affected across the country is that all over the country. there is a great lack of clarity and they are pleading with you to say how that lack of clarity is going to Q211 Mrs Glindon: I recently had a meeting with a be— representative from Natural England in my Caroline Spelman: Obviously there is a moment of constituency of North Tyneside and I understand what transition that produces some uncertainty. It was a you said about the staff being taken up with their locally driven decision by local authorities to choose expertise, but from that meeting I do know that some who to partner with in forming their Local Economic staff will have to be lost. Will that not put a dent in Partnerships. For that reason, the uncertainty over who the local knowledge that you are referring to? would pair with whom to form partnerships led to our Caroline Spelman: Generally across Government, we decision to satisfy the Commission that we could be have enjoined all arm’s length bodies with the same confident throughout that we could account for the advice we have tried to apply ourselves, which is to public monies that led to the decision that we would protect the front line and look for savings to be made take the disbursement of RDPE back in-house as far as possible in the back offices. When I centrally. The service that Natural England provide in explained earlier that the Environment Agency and terms of advice and encouragement to farmers to get Natural England were looking to co-locate because into stewardship schemes will continue as it has they have a lot of offices and they have many in before. similar locations, this is one of the ways in which both For the interest of the Select Committee, it is perhaps organisations can benefit from back office savings, important to know that Natural England’s savings, because it is one set of rates and rent for the same which they, like all our arm’s length bodies, on a pro property and the staff are retained. So wherever rata basis are having to make, are very much directed possible, we are trying to protect the front line. The to keeping the front line—keeping the kind of advice front line would very clearly be, in the example of the of the gentleman who works in the honourable Lady’s gentleman you referred to, providing advice to constituency—by stopping activities like lobbying and farmers on the ground. policy development. That is across the board with our Peter Unwin: I do not know whether the person was arm’s length bodies; all of that is coming in-house: talking about staff from the RDAs or from Natural policy is being evolved in the Department, where I England, but about 100 staff in the RDAs are believe it should be; a smaller board of Natural transferring to the Department and there will be England; a smaller executive board of Natural savings there, because obviously bringing eight England; and more joint working with the other arm’s regions together into one unit there will bring length bodies, like I described, with the Environment economies of scale. Natural England are very Agency but not confined to the Environment Agency. conscious of the need to keep local contact and as A number of our arm’s length bodies are finding ways they move down they are ensuring that they have that. to co-locate and some of the programmes can then be But with the RDAs, one of the issues we have found refreshed and combined—things like in the past, frankly, is that some regions have Countdown 2010 and Wetland Vision coming complained, for example, when we have floods and together. So I think the arm’s length bodies have done different RDAs have taken different approaches to a good job in trying to find ways to make sure we assistance to landowners because of flooding. That has have got the front line staff on the ground encouraging caused some concern in some of the regions. One of farmers and there to advise farmers on how to take the benefits of having the scheme run nationally will advantage of the stewardship schemes. be that we have a consistent national policy, to which Peter Unwin: I should just clarify what I said about different local applicants can apply their particular the RDAs. When I said that they are coming forward local circumstances. into one organisation, I do not mean centralised in London or any one place in the country. They will still Q212 Mrs Glindon: But there will be less funding be located in the regions, often in the same towns because the RDAs are not there and the LEPs will not that the RDAs were located in, but because of the have the same level of economic support. governance system and the back office issues cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 58 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin supporting them being in one unit, we will make this, who are very keen, and also to our own producers savings that way. about how we build capacity to meet that important market. Q214 Amber Rudd: That is an interesting clarification I had not really followed. If you have a Q216 Amber Rudd: Do you have any concerns situation like we had in the South East a few years about the Localism Bill in terms of limiting the ago with bluetongue, the RDAs and the regional expansion and perhaps development plans of larger governments would deliver the support from Defra. farmers? Some local farmers, who have quite Under the current arrangements, in terms of the ambitious plans, have said to me, “How are we going changes to the RDAs, who would be delivering the to develop anything near Thanet Earth?” How are we support the farmers need locally? going to expand some of our farming in terms of the Caroline Spelman: It would come from a variety of size and technology involved, given that the Localism sources. Bill may allow people to say, “Not in my backyard”? Peter Unwin: This is a resilience question generally Caroline Spelman: I am not unduly worried about the applying to animal health and floods, for example. Localism Bill. I think the important thing it does is it The main issue there is around the change in the gives local people back control over decisions that are Government offices, where CLG, who are responsible for resilience across Government, have now made locally. Having done that brief before, I know established three national hubs that will coordinate that they felt, particularly with regional planning issues on that sort of case. For example, in the recent structures, that they were often overridden. But I think major flood exercise we had earlier this month— a couple of things are very important as part of the Exercise Watermark—that was the first test for those Localism Bill. Local people will be able to designate three hubs as to how they would operate. Also of and protect green space. Greenbelt remains protected; course, in the case of animal disease outbreaks, you that is important. It will be easier for farmers to would have the staff from Animal Health who would change the use of farm buildings. That may be an do a lot of the work with farmers and other important part of their strategy to produce more food stakeholders in terms of dealing with the outbreak. and to add more value. If I think about the Berkswell cheese producer in my constituency, which has Q215 Amber Rudd: Thank you very much. Could I succeed in getting into the export market, one of the ask about food security and food production in your things that it has needed to do is to adapt buildings business plan? It states that the aspiration is to that were previously to house animals to very high promote increased domestic food production, but there standard buildings for the production and storage of has been some criticism from the NFU about whether cheese prior to export. So I think these changes that it is high enough up on the agenda in terms of having are determined locally in relation to planning are a proper strategy about increasing food production. things that will help local enterprises, including The four sub-points that are listed underneath the aim among them the farmers who we want to be producing of promoting increased food production—about food more food sustainably. labelling, food retailers and evaluating the effectiveness of a voluntary approach—do not go into Q217 Amber Rudd: The Government’s this whole issue of promoting increased domestic food Mainstreaming Sustainable Development plan refers production. Is that still the key aspiration of the to the challenges of climate change—protecting the business plan? environment and creating a green economy—but it Caroline Spelman: Very much so. We are working does not particularly mention food or agriculture. together with the NFU, the CLA and other Caroline Spelman: Well, it is critical. Certainly I have stakeholders to give active expression to increasing made it very clear that I agree with Commissioner food production, providing that it is done sustainably. Ciolos¸ that one of the main challenges facing the CAP I think it is significant that the food and drink is how we help agriculture across Europe adapt to manufacturing sector has been one of the most climate change. This was a subject I took up with successful sectors in withstanding the downturn— vigour at the Environment Council last week. The UK indeed one of the major contributors to the 12% is providing important leadership in this area. We have increase in exports. We are very keen at Defra to see British farmers benefit from quite favourable very strong evidence base on climate change and conditions for exports and are working towards Defra is blessed in having a chief scientist who is understanding better from the companies that export internationally recognised as a leader in this area. British produce what the barriers are to doing even What we need to do is work very hard with other better than that. So we are very much focused both on member states to make sure that the new CAP producing more food at home, but also more food for genuinely rises to that challenge. I think it will express sale abroad. I personally believe very strongly that the itself most significantly in access to water. One of the British brand—Made in Britain—has a very strong things, again, that the UK is going to be providing connotation for a lot of emerging markets about some important leadership to is our approach to “Made Safely in Britain”, because we have such high resource efficiency, which was commended by the standards of food safety and animal welfare that European Environment Agency because of its countries that are concerned about food safety—China all-embracing view about the resources that we would be a good example—are very good markets for require and how we are going to protect them in the British produce. I have spoken to the retailers about face of the challenges that climate change brings. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
Q218 Mrs Glindon: The business plan targets Q220 Richard Drax: Can you give us any clue as to indicate you will be publishing Government buying what sort of ideas you would be promoting on this? standards by the end of March. Should we expect How do you see the Adjudicator having an effect at them tomorrow? all? Caroline Spelman: Shortly, I think. Forgive me, but Caroline Spelman: In two ways, I think. For a start, as new Ministers, the experience of purdah is I should make clear that BIS is the sponsoring interesting. Purdah is a staggered event, I have Department for the Grocery Adjudicator Bill; it is not discovered. Purdah starts at different times and in Defra. So we are dependent on BIS for producing this different places. So we are working through UK-wide Bill, but they are keen to do so. When I spoke to the announcements that are already caught by purdah, Secretary of State there, initially he wanted to proceed because Scottish purdah has commenced, but as quickly as possible with secondary legislation, but announcements that we make about Government in fact we were advised that primary legislation would procurement that pertain to local government, for be better because in the event of a judicial review it example, are affected by the local government purdah, is a stronger recourse. I think the Grocery Adjudicator, which does not pertain until 14 April. So there are a as originally conceived, provides the facility for range of different purdahs, which we have to take into farmers anonymously to bring evidence before the account when we make our announcement about Adjudicator of where there has been an abuse of buying standards. But it is very important to us to power in the marketplace, without running the risk of establish the principle that central Government, as a losing a valuable contract with those alleged to have most important purchaser of food, does so to British abused their power. That is one feature of what the standards. We have encouraged our farmers to Grocery Adjudicator will do. But in a way, that is produce food to these high standards because our dependent on the customers coming forward with their consumers want that. We would like the whole world evidence. We in Defra could look at the Grocery Adjudicator Bill as a way better to understand what is to be producing to these high standards. So I think it happening up and down the supply chain. I think it is is important that Government takes the lead in calling significant that we do have some retailers who are for food procured by central Government to meet vertically integrated in that supply chain and others those exacting standards. who are not. There is an interesting exercise proactively to be carried out about where the value is Q219 Richard Drax: Secretary of State, food distributed in the length of the supply chain. As I say, production is part of the next question—in particular I think it will take that and many other tools to help pig production and the added value that the farmers our livestock farmers on to a more sustainable footing. are losing out on to the retailers. What guarantees, if any, can you give that the Adjudicator will be able to Q221 Richard Drax: Does that tool include make some difference on the imbalances affecting the legislation? pig industry, where the retailers are doing very well Caroline Spelman: It is legislation. and the farmers are losing £20 a pig? Caroline Spelman: I am deeply concerned for Q222 Richard Drax: Right, but against someone like livestock farmers in general, because the rising cost Tesco, for example, where they would be forced by of their inputs is a serious challenge to their viability. legislation not to take such a large cut of the cake? The price of feed is rising as world prices of cereals Caroline Spelman: The first thing we have to do is are rising and, as I remember from my early days as get the Grocery Adjudicator Bill, which will be Sugar Beet Secretary at the NFU, when you have a produced in draft. I think this will lead to a very good problem of horn versus corn, you have a difficult debate in this House about the scope for that dilemma to resolve. The pig producers, commendably, ombudsman role. That is something that honourable manage without subsidy and pride themselves on Members and I or Ministers from BIS will be able to doing so and have actually undertaken, in this country, debate at length to make sure we have the most significant structural changes to try to cope with the effective legal instrument possible to make sure there pressures that their business faces. So I hope that the is fairness. Grocery Adjudicator Bill, which will be in the second Session of this Parliament, will give an opportunity Q223 George Eustice: Are business organisations for us to examine closely this question of how to like the NFU doing enough to play their part in this? ensure that the farmer at the farmgate gets a fair price I know farmers always complain and say, “We do not for the food that he produces and that the value that even want to report these things anonymously because he contributes to that end product is fairly reflected in we might get identified”, which seems to me quite that end price. However, we must be careful not to extraordinary. I wondered whether, if the NFU had raise expectations to the point that the Grocery some sort of index tracker done once a month of Adjudicator is seen as a silver bullet. I think it will maybe 500 suppliers and published that, it would take other things as well as the Grocery Adjudicator actually act as a catalyst to identify bad conduct across to help our livestock farmers, pig meat producers in the board in some of the weaker supermarkets. particular— Caroline Spelman: I am sure that the National Richard Drax: And milk producers. Farmers Union will read the record of this Select Caroline Spelman: Particularly dairy—have a Committee hearing and may well take the honourable stronger position. We need to look at a package of Member up on his suggestion. What I would say, as I things, of which the Grocery Adjudicator is one part. have regular meetings with the NFU—not just cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Ev 60 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin
England and Wales but Scotland and in devolved parts Q225 Amber Rudd: So there is some evidence of as well—is I think they have a number of very good local businesses and communities coming forward ideas about how to help their own industry become wanting to participate? more competitive and more market-orientated and Caroline Spelman: There certainly is. I think I can how to secure a fairer share of the value that they talk about these. There was a very expensive scheme bring to the food that we eat. One of the things I that honourable Members in Leeds very much wanted particularly commend the leadership of the NFU in to see approved. England and Wales for is in addressing the pressures Chair: It was the former Secretary of State. on the livestock industry and looking again at the Caroline Spelman: Yes, the former Secretary of State. power of producer groups coming together with the I recently convened a meeting at Defra with the bargaining power to demand of the retailers a fair former Secretary of State and Members from all sides price for what they produce. That is in line with the of the House who live in Leeds and who perfectly understand that the scheme had not been approved. It thinking at a European level to raise the threshold on is not proceeding; it was not a question of the market share that individual producer groups may cancellation. But they themselves came forward with occupy. So I think there are a number of good ideas a revised scheme with some of their own resources coming forward from the industry itself, as well as that might actually, with matching, get something our own and those of honourable Members, that we done in the Leeds area, which is at risk of flooding. can all bring to try to help livestock fare better. The stage we are at with it is that the Environment Chair: I would like to move to flooding. Could we Agency, of course, as the regulator, must look at the just possibly have shorter questions and shorter efficacy of the scheme before we can all cheer and answers to get through all of those required? say, “Eureka! We have got it”, but it is one illustration. Caroline Spelman: I am awfully sorry to say this, but Another illustration I have from Lincolnshire— I thought this meeting was scheduled until 5 o’clock. Chair: No, it is open-ended. If we could have 10 or Q226 Chair: Could you give us them in writing? I 15 more minutes. am a little concerned in this largesse that you are Caroline Spelman: I’m so sorry. I do have another throwing around, Secretary of State, of bringing all meeting, genuinely; I am not making it up. Shall we the community in, that that invitation is going to fall do it briefly? foul of the 2.5% levy above which a referendum will Chair: Quick questions and quick answers. The other be triggered in the Localism Bill. I know that you will be working very closely with the Communities and issues we can deal with in writing, but we do want to Local Government Department on this. Is there turn to flooding. anything you can share with us today to reassure us that this will not be the case? Q224 Amber Rudd: The Spending Review Caroline Spelman: There are a couple of things. If announcement said that 145,000 homes will be better the honourable Lady’s rural areas that have so far been protected. Good, but do you have plans to help the passed over regularly and always getting put to the remaining 5 million plus households who are at risk back of the bill under the old method of funding of flooding? because of the rural sparseness were given the Caroline Spelman: The projected level of homes to opportunity to come forward with a scheme, I would be protected in any year is our best estimate of how wager that the local community would be on the many we can, with the resources of the state, protect. whole more in favour of being protected than not But one of the most encouraging examples of civil being protected. servants and Ministers working together that I can think of is the new approach to flooding, called Q227 Chair: But it is Government policy that any “payment for outcomes”, which will bring additional community wanting to raise this money is going to fall foul of. The local authority would have to trigger resources to bear on how we protect more homes. It a referendum. is significant that this has received such a warm Caroline Spelman: It does not have to be local welcome from the Association of British Insurers, authority money. because for a long time they have felt that 100% state- funded flood defences actually limits the ability of Q228 Chair: Where else would it come from? those who want to better protect their communities. I Caroline Spelman: I was curtailed in explaining about know that the Chair of your Committee feels very Lincolnshire, but for example, Anglian Water can see strongly about the way in which rural areas were often that rather than spending £7 million or £8 million in neglected, because on a 100% state-funded basis, investing in protecting their own water treatment— quite often the return on investment—the number of homes protected—in rural areas placed the rural areas Q229 Chair: They would have to go through Ofwat. at a distinct disadvantage. Under “payment for Caroline Spelman: But it is perfectly possible to go outcomes”, every community has the opportunity to through Ofwat. Just let me finish the example. If the bring forward their scheme, which we can join water company was going to spend a significant resources on and make the resources stretch further. amount of money protecting its own treatment plant Our figure of 145,000 is based on the original formula from saltwater contamination but realised that the for funding flooding, but with the new approach, the local community would benefit by putting that sky is the limit. resource into a flood barrier that would not only cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:54] Job: 009356 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/009356/009356_o002_michelle_Corrected transcript EFRA 30 03 11.xml
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61
30 March 2011 Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Bronwyn Hill and Peter Unwin protect their premises but maybe 10,000 homes, then return for getting this one in and the plan is for the that is a perfect illustration of what we mean by commencement order to take effect from October. payment by outcomes. So it does not have to be local authority resources; there are other resources that may Q233 George Eustice: Are you confident that this be brought forward. Developers may, for example, will deal with the problem of people who have borne take the view that they may have an interest in coming the cost and responsibility of maintaining these forward in providing better protection to parts of the sewers? I have heard some water companies argue that community that have hitherto have been regarded as it does not remove all of the problems, because the susceptible to flooding—in providing flood defences owners will still be responsible for that bit that is on that would make the existing community and any new their land. Is that true? housing built in that community a better proposition. Peter Unwin: We are as confident as we can be before something comes in. Certainly the water companies Q230 Chair: For the first time, flood defence monies that are talking to us are very keen for this to come that pass through to the local authorities will not be forward; in fact, they have been nagging us and ring-fenced. How confident are you and what saying, “Are you coming forward in time to get this measures are you going to take to ensure that these going on 1 October?” Even those who initially were new responsibilities under the Flood and Water not overjoyed about it now see the benefit and if it is Management Act and everything that we are hoping coming in, they want it to come in and get on with local authorities will do will actually be spent on flood the job. Overall, we think it is going to give a much protection measures? more stable basis for managing private sewers than Caroline Spelman: Two things. We have, the rather haphazard one at the moment where notwithstanding the hard times, provided more individuals are responsible, often without even resources to local authorities in order better to protect knowing, for potentially large expenses on their land. their communities from flooding. It is an across-Government approach not to ring-fence monies Q234 Chair: We would be remiss if we did not say to local government. that there is real concern that there is no timescale for laying the relevant orders. You have just repeated that Q231 Chair: So there is no guarantee that the money you think the new regulations will take effect from will be spent? October. The industry is saying very clearly they need Caroline Spelman: It goes hand in hand with the to know the content of the regulations so that they can commencement orders under the Flood and Water prepare. Are you able to tell us when they are going Management Act and the guidance that we will give to be laid? to local authorities. In the past, when these local Peter Unwin: We hope they will be laid shortly. authorities have received monies for flood prevention, Again, there are issues of purdah coming up. they have often spent more than we have provided them with. This is before my time, but I think Peter Q235 Thomas Docherty: “Shortly” in Government would like to come in on this one. terms can mean any time between now and 30 Peter Unwin: In the past, certainly, local authorities October. have been allocated a certain amount of money and Peter Unwin: We are in the final stages of preparing they have exceeded that; they see it locally as a big them. priority. The other thing I would say in terms of Caroline Spelman: I have worked very hard through resources coming in from elsewhere is, in some of the the Regulatory Reform Committee to get agreement big city schemes, existing businesses will see a lot of in principle that they accept that what we are taking benefit from flood protection and may want to out is adequate to cover for the regulation coming in. contribute. And we have seen a number of schemes in So that part of the hurdle has been agreed and our places like Suffolk and East Anglia where farmers and proposed date for commencement is October. Since landowners have been keen to come in and contribute it is England, we have a window of opportunity on if they can lever in some extra Environment Agency 14 April. money. So we think many people as well as local authorities will be looking to contribute to this pot. Q236 Thomas Docherty: So before 14 April? Peter Unwin: That is what we hope. Q232 George Eustice: I want to ask you about the proposal to transfer private sewers and natural drains. Q237 Chair: Which means either tomorrow or there I know there was a consultation last October, but are only four working days that you could lay them perhaps you could just explain whether there is any before Parliament. Is my understanding correct? progress or other activity? Caroline Spelman: Before Parliament. Parliament Peter Unwin: We are hoping to bring the relevant rises next week. order forward shortly and the intention is still to bring Chair: We are very grateful to you. We have a whole this in in time to come in in October, when it is due raft of questions we would like, if we may, to submit to come in. in writing for your consideration.1 Caroline Spelman: The whole of Government is Caroline Spelman: Yes, of course. governed by the “one in, one out” rule with respect Chair: Thank you very much. to domestic legislation, but we have already had the discussion to ensure that we take something out in 1 Ev 62 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:57] Job: 009356 Unit: PG04
Ev 62 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
Written evidence
Defra answers to written questions posed by the EFRA Committee following the Evidence Session on 30 March 2011 1. How did the Department decide on the membership of the Independent Advisory Panel on Forestry Policy in England and will the panel draw on additional scientific advice when considering the biodiversity and climate change issues included in its terms of reference? The Chair and the Panel’s members were chosen so that the Panel has a broad range of experience and expertise covering the environmental, social and economic aspects of forestry. It is not a Panel of delegates from interested organisations but of individuals bringing their own knowledge and experience to the Panel’s work. The terms of reference make it clear that we expect the Panel to engage with the widest range of views and interests. It is up to the Panel to decide how to draw in any additional scientific advice, should they decide they require it.
2. Will the Government implement the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Panel in full? The Government looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Panel in April 2012. The Government will then give these recommendations full consideration.
3. Further to the questions asked during the evidence session, can you confirm that you received and considered relevant written advice from the Forestry Commission prior to the decision to consult on the sale of the Public Forest estate? Would you be prepared to share this advice with the Committee in confidence? Ministers received and considered advice from the Forestry Commission. It is longstanding Government practice to not disclose information relating to Ministerial submissions, as to do so would put at risk the public interest in the full and frank consideration of policy by Ministers.
4. How much funding will be provided to Local Authorities from (a) Defra (Area Based Grant), (b) CLG (Formula Grant), (c) the Environment Agency (Capital Grants), and (d) other sources, to spend on flood and coastal erosion management in 2011–12? How will Defra and other central Government Departments monitor how Local Authorities use this funding? (a) Lead Local Flood Authorities will receive £21 million in 2011–12 for their roles and responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This amount will increase to £36 million in 2012–13 in anticipation of the remaining provisions of the Act commencing. Area Based Grant is no longer being used. In its place, the remaining lines of grant that Government Departments have not rolled in to Formula Grant will be paid by means of Local Services Support Grant (LSSG). LSSG will be paid as unringfenced funding under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 in monthly payments at the middle of every month. The Department for Communities and Local Government and Defra have contacted local authorities informing them of the new arrangements. Individual allocations to Lead Local Flood Authorities remain the same as those announced in December 2010. Confirmation of allocations to individual authorities can be found online at http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/1112/specgrant1112/index.htm (b) Local authorities (including both Lead Local Flood Authorities and districts) will continue to receive funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management through Formula Grant arrangements. Formula Grant is unringfenced and unhypothecated, meaning that local authorities do not receive a set amount of funding for specific services. Instead, it is for each local authority to decide exactly how much it plans to spend on flooding and coastal erosion risk management, according to local circumstances, from the total £29.4 billion provided to local government as Formula Grant. (c) The provisional amount of funding as Capital Grants from the Environment Agency to Local Authorities is £26 million for 2011–12. The Agency manages a large programme across a number of risk management authorities and every scheme is subject to a number of externalities. As a result, final allocations are subject to change during the course of the financial year. (d) Defra does not routinely collect information about local authority spending from other sources, although statistical returns from local authorities indicate that about £100 million was spent in 2010–11. Under formula grant arrangements, local authorities are not required to furnish future spending plans. In addition to annual outturn returns, supplemented by data from the Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Boards, a joint panel has been established by Defra, CLG and the Local Government Association to keep the actual costs of local authorities’ new burdens under review.
5. What progress has been made on reaching agreement with the insurance industry over securing insurance cover for properties at risk of flooding after the current agreement expires in 2013? Defra is working closely with the insurance industry to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available after the agreement with the insurance industry ends in 2013. Defra hosted a Flood Summit in September 2010 to discuss flood risk management and the challenges involved in flood insurance and three working groups are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:57] Job: 009356 Unit: PG04
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63
now continuing the dialogue on flood insurance and risk reduction and putting in place a roadmap to take us beyond 2013. The working groups reported back on progress to ministers in March 2011 and will present a joined-up report to the Summit group at a follow-up meeting in July 2011. The working groups are made up of representatives from Government, the Environment Agency, the insurance industry and organisations with expertise or an interest in the issues being discussed. Working Group 1 looks at insurance models for flood risk cover, Working Group 2 focuses on data provision and transparency, and Working Group 3 examines customer experience and perspectives towards property-level resistance and resilience. The groups are chaired by officials from Defra and HM Treasury.
6. Defra stated in a written answer on 4 April that the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains should take place on 1 October 2011 with parliamentary approval of the necessary regulations in the spring. Please could you provide further details of the timetable for laying the relevant regulations before the House? I intend to lay the draft regulations for the transfer of private sewers to the water and sewerage companies before Parliament as soon as possible after the Easter recess. Subject to the approval of Parliament, this would enable the regulations to come into force on 1 July so that transfer itself can take place on 1 October. In my evidence to your Committee on 30 March, I indicated that that there would be a window for laying the regulations on 14 April. I need to correct that since, in fact, the first opportunity will be on 26 April—after the recess. Please accept my apologies.
7. What evidence base has the Department used to establish the extent to which environmental NGOs and community groups have the capacity to take on responsibilities for key natural assets such as nature reserves? Environmental NGOs and community groups already own and manage many nature reserves, including some National Nature Reserves. Ministers have decided that Defra National Nature Reserves will remain in public ownership. We are continuing to work closely with our NGOs, to tap into their expertise to make sure our National Nature Reserves are looked after in the best possible way.
8. Does the Department believe that ecosystem service models can help to ensure that the value of biodiversity to society is more effectively reflected in policies across central and local government? The discussion document for the Natural Environment White Paper asserts that understanding the value of ecosystem services, and the way that they depend on each other, makes it possible to look for new solutions to problems and to manage our environment in ways that enhance its value to society, whilst respecting its innate value. Incorporating the value of the ecosystem services that biodiversity underpins into decision-making at all levels of government is an issue currently being investigated by the National Ecosystem Assessment, whose results will be published in June. We also continue to support the TEEB project (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) which has contributed significantly to our understanding of this issue.
9. How will the Department ensure that Kew Gardens’ built estate is maintained to a level appropriate to its status as a World Heritage Site through this period of budget cuts? Defra have agreed to underwrite part of the match funding required to meet RBG, Kew’s application to the Heritage Lottery fund for £15 million for renovation and refurbishment of the Temperate House over the next eight years. Defra will underwite a figure of between £8–10 million which has been approved by HM Treasury. £300,000 will be provided for year 1 of the project. The Department is strongly committed to Kew and this offers an important demonstration of the commitment to working with Kew towards a long term and sustainable solution to preserve this iconic building, forming part of the World Heritage Site status. Defra is also providing £2 million for 2011–12 for essential maintenance of the Kew Gardens built estate.
10. Why is the Marine Management Organisation cutting gross expenditure on its primary objective—to ensure that fish and shellfish stocks are managed sustainably—by 39% in real terms between 2011–12 and 2014–15 while gross expenditure on corporate services will fall by just 4% over the same period? The planned reduction in the fisheries management budget between 2011–12 and 2014–15 is a genuine example of public sector efficiency. The MMO currently spend c£7 million per year on a maritime surface surveillance contract which expires during the period of the spending review. Collaboration and targeted deployment of resources will reduce the requirement for surface surveillance, generating annual savings of c£5 million. The MMO has already secured c£1.5 million savings per year by working collaboratively with Marine Scotland for targeted aerial surveillance in English and Welsh waters. In addition, the MMO is piloting the use of other providers of surveillance in high risk areas on a rapid response basis which will deliver better value for money. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:57] Job: 009356 Unit: PG04
Ev 64 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
The MMO is working in greater collaboration with partners. These include the 10 new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) with whom the MMO conduct joint patrol work enforcing EC and UK fisheries measures around the country. The MMO is also part of the NMIC (National Maritime Intelligence Centre) project, exchanging intelligence data with other UK agencies which will enhance the risk based, information led management of fisheries. The MMO was set up as a lean organisation, and so the opportunities to generate large scale efficiencies from corporate services have already been exploited through a shared services and business partner model with Defra. The cost of corporate services is less than 20% of annual expenditure, and MMO continually look for ways to reduce this.
11. What allocation has the department made in its budget to fund applied and translational agricultural research? The Technology Strategy Board Innovation Platform on Sustainable Agriculture and Food is the key vehicle for applied and translational research. Defra has committed funding of up to £30 million for this Innovation Platform from its budget over the next five years.
12. Does the commitment in Defra’s business plan to ensuring that “departments source food, subject to no overall increase in costs, meeting British standards of production”, refer to standards of animal welfare and environmental protection or standards relating to nutrient content or food safety? The Defra business plan commitment is to “Introduce new guidance so that Departments source food, subject to no overall increase in costs, meeting UK or equivalent standards of production (eg Red Tractor)”. The purpose of this commitment is to ensure that UK producers are able to compete fairly for public sector supply contracts, in a way that is compatible with UK and EU procurement legislation and with the overriding requirement for value for money. The issue being addressed is one of food quality and not food origin. The commitment relates to primary products which are commonly grown, reared or produced in the UK on a commercial basis ie dairy, fruit and vegetables, salads, meat and poultry. For composite products, the commitment relates to ingredients considered of primary interest to the consumer or a predominant component of the product, for example the chicken in a chicken pie or the steak and kidney in a steak and kidney pie. In drawing up their food procurement requirements, Departments may choose to specify any elements from UK standards which affect the quality of the food and include these in their contract award criteria. For example, UK welfare standards for pigs are higher than in some other EU countries and there is evidence that meat from such pigs is of improved quality. Departments are responsible for complying with UK and EU procurement legislation when selecting criteria and for determining the acceptability of evidence on compliance and equivalence. This commitment will be incorporated as an overarching requirement in the Government Buying Standards for food. In line with the business plan, guidance on the application of the commitment has been produced and published (http://sd.defra.gov.uk/advice/public/buying/products/food/).
13. How have you assessed and taken account of public opinion when formulating the Government position on a ban on cloning for food production? The Government’s position that regulation should be risk-based and proportionate, and should take account of scientific evidence. This position has been widely supported by consumers and others in a wide range of contexts. Consumers organisations were consulted about cloning by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) at a meeting on 11 August 2010. A report of this meeting is available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/gmfoods/novel/cloned/ clonemeet/. Defra officials met Which? on 8 September for a fact-finding, preliminary discussion. Defra has also had regular meetings with Compassion in World Farming. The main public concerns relate to ethics, animal welfare and food safety, as identified in qualitative research that was carried out by the Food Standards Agency in 2007–08 into UK attitudes to food from cloned animals. Compassion in World Farming is campaigning actively against cloning. There is a generally negative perception as reported to the Eurobarometer study in 2008 on Europeans’ attitudes towards animal cloning. However, retailers have reported very few specific concerns from customers and Eurobarometer reported in 2008 that over 40% of EU citizens thought that cloning could be justified under certain circumstances such as to improve disease resistance or to preserve rare breeds. The most recent Eurobarometer Survey with field work carried out in June 2010 recorded that ‘new technologies’ including cloning were raised by 2% of people in the list of unprompted concerns. This was 21st in the list of concerns. The Government is satisfied that existing welfare legislation is sufficient to deal with any welfare issues that may arise for the clone or the surrogate dam. The Food Standards Agency and the European Food Safety cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:57] Job: 009356 Unit: PG04
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65
Authority have advised that, for cattle and pigs, current evidence suggests that meat and milk from healthy clones or healthy offspring of clones is as safe as that from traditionally bred animals. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes reached the same conclusion on 25 November 2010.
14. What representations have you received from the industry with respect to the use of cloning for food production? Have UK producers indicated that they want to be able to use this technology? Industry has in general made it clear that it does not want to be denied the use of new technology that is available to its competitors. There is no UK company offering a cloning service. We are not aware of any pressure from anyone in the UK seeking to make use of cloning technology but we are aware that eight embryos of a clone were imported into the UK in 2007. Industry’s main concern last year was to be able to trace food from clones or the descendants of clones, which is not possible when these animals are not identified as such, as recognised in the Commission’s report on cloning of 19 October 2010. In response to the FSA’s recent consultation on changing its interpretation of the Novel Foods Regulation, responses from the food and farming industries were in favour of the proposed change, largely on the basis that it is consistent with the scientific evidence regarding food safety. The National Farmers Union reiterated the point about access to the same technology as non-UK competitors. The Food and Drink Federation has stated that the UK food and drink manufacturing industry has no current interest in marketing food from the offspring of clones, but they and other respondents recognised the difficulties of tracing products beyond the clones themselves.
15. Do you believe that the failure of the Novel Foods conciliation will have any wider impact on the competitiveness of UK producers? No. The failure of the EU negotiations has delayed the adoption of new procedures for novel foods in general, some of which would have the effect of streamlining the process. The existing Novel Foods Regulation is still fit for purpose and provides a familiar and well-understood mechanism for industry to bring new foods and food technologies to market. The regulation applies equally to all EU producers and similar pre-market authorisation systems apply in many other parts of the world. Under the terms of the existing regulation, food from cloned animals must be authorised before it can be sold.
16. Peter Unwin mentioned during the evidence session that Natural England disagreed with the Tenant Farmers’ Association on the number of UELS claimants. Please could you provide the following information from Natural England’s calculations: — How many farm holdings are eligible for UELS? — How many live UELS agreements are there? — How many UELS applications are currently still being processed? — What percentage of farm holdings in LFAs will still be in the Classical Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area schemes by December 2013?
In addition, please could you advise what use will be made of any leftover funds from the £6 million allocated to UELS in the event that there is not 100% take up of the scheme? — How many farm holdings are eligible for UELS? As with other strands of Environmental Stewardship, we use the area of agricultural land as a means of understanding eligibility and uptake of Uplands ELS rather than the number of holdings. Uplands farmers managing land in England’s Severely Disadvantaged Area (SDA) are eligible for Uplands ELS. In total, this accounts for around 1.29 million hectares of land. However nearly 448,607 hectares of this land is currently managed under existing Countryside Stewardship Scheme or Environmentally Sensitive Areas agreements, and will become eligible for Uplands ELS when these agreements expire between 2011–14. The Uplands Policy Review published in March 2011 set out that funding will be made available from within the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to allow all eligible farmers who wish to do so to enter Uplands ELS. — How many live UELS agreements are there? As at 12 April 2011, there were 4,312 live agreements, covering nearly 646, 400 hectares. — How many UELS applications are currently still being processed? As at 12 April 2011, 281 Uplands ELS applications were being processed (with a further 52 out to offer and 13 at pre-application stage), covering 86,862 hectares. — What percentage of farm holdings in LFAs will still be in the Classical Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area schemes by December 2013? 764 ESA agreements and 157 CSS agreements with land in the Severely Disadvantaged Area will be live at the end of December 2013, totalling nearly 104,100 hectares (8% of SDA land) — In addition, please could you advise what use will be made of any leftover funds from the £6 million allocated to UELS in the event that there is not 100% take up of the scheme? cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [09-07-2012 11:57] Job: 009356 Unit: PG04
Ev 66 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
Funding for 100% of eligible farmers to enter Uplands ELS is being made available from within the RDPE budget. If actual uptake is lower than expected, the difference will be utilised elsewhere within the budget for Agri-environment schemes.
17. What is the maximum amount that will be made available for the new RDPE Uplands theme between now and the end of 2013? Can you confirm that these funds will be in addition to the RDPE’s contribution to the Rural Community Broadband Fund? Approximately £300 million RDPE funding remains available for delivery of the socio-economic elements of the RDPE (that is, the Axis 1, 3 and 4 funding currently delivered by RDAs which will transfer to Defra later this year) until the end of the programme at the end of 2013. Of this, around £120 million has already been allocated for 2011–12 and is mostly committed to existing projects or programmes. We are already funding projects that are in the uplands, and we shall be building on this existing experience of delivering the programme in the uplands in developing the uplands theme. We are taking the work on the uplands theme forward as part of the transition from the current model of delivery by the eight RDAs towards a more nationally consistent approach. Although it is too early in that process to state precisely how much of the remaining funding will be targeted specifically at the uplands theme, the uplands will be one of the key priorities for the remainder of the programme funds. Funding for the Uplands theme will be additional to the Rural Community Broadband Fund, which will be funded from European funding available under the RDPE, matched with national funding from Broadband Delivery UK. National funding for the Uplands theme will come from Defra.
18. Of the £20 million allocated for rolling out rural broadband via the Rural Community Broadband Fund, how much has been earmarked for projects in uplands areas? We recognise how important the recently announced Rural Community Broadband Fund will be in upland areas. We are currently developing the eligibility criteria and operational and delivery arrangements for the Fund. Uplands areas will be encouraged to apply for funding, and we are aware of their particular need for broadband. Further details on how the Fund will operate will be made available later in the year.
19. Does the figure of £850 per claimant under the Single Payment Scheme include an element of the costs incurred by the RPA in dealing with the backlog of old claims and/ or any EU disallowances or fines? The RPA has already made significant reductions in its costs. PWC reported that the cost of processing a Single Payment Scheme claim reduced from £1,203 in 2007–08 to £1,034 in 2009–10. Using this model RPA is forecasting, in advance of the year end accounts audit, to achieve its 2010–11 target of reducing its SPS processing costs by 15%. This figure does include corrective action to address the legacy issues with the data but does not include disallowance, exchange rate impacts or depreciation costs. We are developing an enhanced PWC model figure, in discussions with NAO, which will be used as one of a suite of RPA performance indicators.
20. Please could you provide the Committee with information on the percentage by (a) number and (b) value of SPS claims that had not been paid by 31 March 2011? I can confirm that as of 31 March some £1.52 billion had been paid to 98,262 claimants. This left 5.68% by volume and 11.63% by value of eligible claims outstanding at that point. April 2011
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 07/2012 009356 19585
Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701
The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders: 020 7219 3890 General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk
TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 PEFC/16-33-622 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/