(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to seek fully to understand and evaluate the rationale for including the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in Schedule 1 and the reason for its conversion announced on 14 October back to an executive agency of the DWP.
Noble Lords will be aware that CMEC is a relatively new body—a crown non-departmental public body—created by primary legislation in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act just two years ago. It was then the subject of considerable debate. Accepting its demise via the process in this Bill therefore needs considerable justification.
CMEC was charged with completing the operational improvement plan and to carry out a fundamental redesign of the child maintenance system. The operational improvement plan was part of a twin-track approach to radically improve the performance of the Child Support Agency.
The CSA was established in 1993 to assess, collect and enforce child maintenance payments from non-resident parents. It was set up because the system of collecting maintenance through the courts was perceived as failing to establish fair and consistent awards which were not necessarily kept up to date or indeed enforced. Despite the best efforts of CSA staff, the complicated calculation process, IT failures and inadequate enforcement contributed to poor performance and unacceptable outcomes for children.
The CSA struggled to administer the complex rules in the child maintenance system and to handle the difficult and emotional circumstances that often surround parents when child maintenance becomes an issue. It was widely seen as a means of clawing back benefit rather than providing additional resources for children. Reforms in 2000 brought some simplification to the maintenance calculation. The introduction of a child maintenance premium where those in receipt of benefit kept some of the maintenance payments was a positive development. However, the changes still did not deliver the improvements expected. In particular, there were chronic problems with the IT and operational systems, which meant that old scheme cases could not be transferred to the new, simplified system.
Again, the result was that too many children did not receive the benefit of maintenance, which led to the approach of a three-year operational improvement plan, and the call for a longer term redesign of the child maintenance system. The latter was the subject of a report commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when he was Secretary of State at the DWP, from Sir David Henshaw. Sir David argued that the system’s failings reflected both policy and operational problems, and recommended a break with the past to create a new start for child maintenance arrangements. CMEC was to be that new start. It was established with the primary statutory objective of maximising the number of effective maintenance arrangements. This was bolstered by subsidiary objectives of encouraging and supporting voluntary maintenance arrangements and the operation of a statutory scheme.
CMEC is specifically charged with the promotion of raising awareness among parents of the importance of taking responsibility for and making arrangements for child maintenance. It also has a duty to provide information and guidance to parents for the purpose of helping to secure effective maintenance arrangements. Its role is to seek to ensure that all parents who live apart put in place effective arrangements to maintain their children, whether they do this privately, through the courts, or through the statutory service. This is much different from the old CSA, run directly by the DWP, which had only one function—the statutory maintenance service. The enhanced role with a new focus was considered at the time to be best undertaken by a new body, an NDPB, to be led by a commissioner for child maintenance. For certain very practical reasons, the NDPB was set up as a crown body. It was intended to operate at arm’s length from government and through its commissioning powers to be able to develop a high-quality and efficient service. Its board would be focused entirely on delivering a successful child maintenance system, not distracted at the top from the shared responsibilities which the very senior managers would have as an executive agency of the DWP.
The timeline for change was planned to span from the launch of CMEC in October 2008 until 2014, when the new unified child maintenance system is planned to be fully in place. Major steps have already been completed and these include the setting up of the options service, fulfilling the information and guidance obligation for all parents, the removal of the compulsion for parents with care claiming benefits to use the CSA, implementation from April 2010 of a full maintenance disregard, and the deployment of at least some the new debt and enforcement powers. However, CMEC has just completed its first full year of operation, and the forward programme still shows much to do. In fact, 2011 is the year in which the new basis of calculation is due for introduction with a gradual migration of old cases to the new system until in 2014 when there will be a closure of all existing CSA cases and a unified system in place.
CMEC's business plan for 2010-11 is clear that the current year will be a critical year for CMEC as it moves to the launch of the new system. The options service has, seemingly, made a good start. In its evidence to the DWP Select Committee, CMEC set out its focus on promoting the service to new and separating lone parents. It records how Jobcentre Plus and HMRC refer parents to the service when they claim relevant benefits and tax credits.
There can be little doubt that over the period of the operational improvement plan and since, performance of the CSA has improved despite continuing problems with the CS2 system. Currently, its performance under CMEC is the best it has ever been. The number of children benefiting from statutory maintenance has exceeded 850,000, with more than £1.14 million collected. Uncleared applications, a particular bugbear of the past, have declined by over 90 per cent to under 20,000. Telephony has improved out of all recognition. Running costs have reduced from £600 million to under £500 million a year. Nevertheless, the Select Committee report shows that more remains to be done in terms of collection of arrears and maintenance outcomes.
Unlike most of the other bodies included in this schedule, CMEC is not yet in steady state. It is part way through a programme which will finally lead to the clean break recommended by Sir David Henshaw. As the Work and Pensions Select Committee reported, it will be a challenging phase with the continuing problems with the CS2 IT programme, and the operation of three different maintenance systems through to 2014 when it was planned for there to finally be just one simplified statutory system. So in seeking to understand the decision for CMEC to become an agency of the DWP, I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions.
First, what are the type of clear policy and decision-making responsibilities which Ministers consider they are precluded from taking at present in respect of child maintenance, which drives this approach? Secondly, is there any basic change in policy for the child maintenance system? Is it still planned to proceed with the new system, starting at 2011, with the gradual migration of the old and current systems? Is it envisaged that this process will be completed before the operation becomes an executive agency? Thirdly, will the full disregard for benefits remain and will this apply also for the purposes of the universal credit? Fourthly, given that CMEC is currently a crown NDPB, what will its changed status as an agency mean for the staff? Fifthly, given that the decision has already been taken for a transfer to an executive agency, is it considered that being run by DWP will bring operational efficiencies not available to CMEC? If so, what are these, and what evidence base is available to support such a conclusion?
Sixthly, what analysis has been undertaken of the costs involved in any transfer back to the DWP, including novation of supplier contracts, changes to enforcement notifications, et cetera? Are there any VAT ramifications of a transfer, and how does this differ from transfers from non-crown NDPB's? Seventhly, on what grounds is it considered that CMEC fails all the three tests set out by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in October: does it perform a technical function; do its activities require political impartiality; and does it act independently to establish facts? Eighthly, what is the future for the options service under any changed arrangements? Is it not right that considerable effort has gone into branding this service as being at arm’s length from government? What assessment has been undertaken of how parents would react to this becoming an executive agency of the DWP? Would any different requirements apply in respect of information sharing—say, income details of non-resident parents for the DWP, in contrast to CMEC as an NDPB?
Fundamentally, on what basis can we be reassured that the switch to an executive agency will neither disrupt the vital work of getting the new maintenance system up and running as quickly as possible? Moreover, will there continue to be a clear focus on improving child maintenance outcomes as an integral part of the challenge of tackling child poverty?
Our anxiety over this issue has been heightened by the most recent briefing note from the IFS covering child and working age poverty. Clearly, progress in improving child maintenance outcomes should contribute positively to reducing child poverty and any disruption to current arrangements need to be examined from this perspective, especially given the IFS report. This analysis makes grim reading. The conclusion is that the coalition Government’s reforms have no discernable impact on absolute and relative child poverty in 2011-12, but for 2012-13, the IFS estimates that the Government's reforms will increase relative poverty for children by 100,000 and absolute poverty by 200,000. For 2013-14, it is considered that the reforms will increase relative poverty by about 200,000 children and absolute poverty by 300,000 children. So much for the claim that the Government’s reforms will not have a measurable impact on child poverty. They clearly will. What role does the Minister see, therefore, for the child maintenance system in combating child poverty, especially given the shocking figures in the IFS report? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, this seems to be a relatively short debate, which has shown evidence of the great knowledge and experience that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has in this field. There was a debate recently on the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, which informs a lot of his questions and points. However, I have not heard anything in those arguments that undermines the primary objective of the coalition Government to restore ministerial accountability for child maintenance.
The amendment would remove the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission from the list of bodies to which the Public Bodies Bill applies. The Government’s intention is to increase the accountability of Ministers for public services. This amendment would go directly against that intention.
The change of status for CMEC from a non-departmental public body to an executive agency within the DWP is driven by the coalition Government’s desire to have greater accountability for the hugely important issue of child maintenance. We feel that it is important to strengthen ministerial accountability when the Government are considering the role that the child maintenance system can play in their overall commitment to support shared parenting and promote parental responsibility.
We acknowledge that CMEC has built a stable base, following on from the success of the operational improvement plan to which the noble Lord referred. As it currently stands, however, with CMEC operating at arm’s length from the Government, the Government feel that it does not have the right level of responsibility and ministerial accountability. In order to regain that control, this change in status will make that happen. Removing the commission from Schedule 1 to the Bill would adversely impact on that intention.
There is a long and often painful history of poor performance within the child support system, as the noble Lord pointed out. A simple picture could suggest that the Child Support Agency was a failure and that only the introduction of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission turned performance around. I would like to point out that that is not entirely the case. From 2006 to 2009, the Child Support Agency’s operational improvement plan significantly improved the performance of the administration of child maintenance. That was because of the activity taken forward by the Child Support Agency, at that point an agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. Responsibility for child support functions transferred to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in November 2008, near the end of the period covered by the operational improvement plan.
Since its formation in 2008, CMEC has taken these improvements much further. It has also been given a much broader remit than the CSA ever had. Most notably, it has developed a very effective information and support service, Child Maintenance Options, which has received much praise in dealing sensitively with separating and separated parents. Indeed, the noble Lord endorsed it a few minutes ago. The Government want to maintain and build on the progress that CMEC has already delivered. In response to the noble Lord’s question, that is one of the areas where we want to see further progress.
Let me be clear: this is not about scrapping the commission, nor is it about undoing the progress that the commission has made through the hard work and dedication of its people. I can confirm, in answer to the noble Lord’s question in this area, that we are looking to see the progress made and the plans that it has. We are looking closely at our own plans for improving the position in this area.
As the noble Lord said, however, the major reforms that were set out in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 are still to come. The improvements that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has made to date have been despite the inadequacies of its IT infrastructure. The legacy of past problems still casts a long shadow over the administration of the child maintenance system.
The Government believe that it is right—indeed, essential—that Ministers are directly accountable for the significant changes that still need to happen within the child maintenance system, not least the introduction of a new scheme for calculating child maintenance and the associated new IT platform. This Government, in including CMEC in the Bill, are clear that we must avoid reintroducing the well catalogued problems of the past.
To avoid destabilising the organisation at such a critical time, the new executive agency would essentially have the structure and functions of CMEC. The key difference, and the key purpose of this reform, would be the direct accountability and governance lines to Ministers. Many of the questions that the noble Lord raised are answered in that assurance about what will be happening.
I recognise that noble Lords have a keen interest in this matter, given their involvement in the redesign of the child maintenance system in 2006. I am referring, of course, to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Kirkwood, who, alongside the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have proposed the amendment.
The independent review undertaken by Sir David Henshaw made some strong recommendations about the steps required to reform child maintenance. However, the review recognised that the issue of whether or not that should be administered in a body positioned at arm’s length from the Government was a finely balanced debate. The key argument on which the Government rest our position was the need for a clean break, as it was then called—I think that it was referred to today as some other kind of break, but anyway those are the essential grounds on which the argument was made, in response to the well publicised problems that the CSA had been enduring.
I reiterate that this reform is not about dismantling the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission in its current form. Neither is it about jeopardising the performance improvements that have been made in recent years. It is fundamentally about restoring ministerial leadership and accountability at a time when child maintenance reforms are reaching a critical stage.
I shall pick up one or two of the questions that I have not already dealt with. The implications for staff are relatively few, given the nature of the transfer. What we are trying to do in the universal credit, in terms of information, may become highly relevant here. We still need to look at that; obviously, it is at a very early stage.
We have looked at costs overall as part of SR10. We are determined that, in undertaking the transfer, we do not divert attention away from the need to get systems up and running. Clearly, this area is vital in tackling child poverty. Family breakdown is one of the main drivers of child poverty. We are determined to move forward on this and maintain targets. As the noble Lord will know, the introduction of the universal credit will have a powerful impact on child poverty. That is not yet included in the IFS calculations, although I imagine that it is working on that. We will be looking closely at other ways of ensuring that we stem the problems arising from family breakdown. Given all this, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I have no intention of pressing this amendment, as I tabled it in order to seek information. I am comforted by what he said about the progress and planned progress of the child maintenance system and that it is still the objective to try to introduce the new basis of calculation next year and the systems that will support that. I understand that it is intended that all the CSA cases will eventually migrate to the new system by 2014.
However, I am still a little mystified by this issue of ministerial accountability, as there is accountability to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I am a little curious as to what difference the measure would make for Ministers in practice, as for most, if not all, NDPBs there is a way for Ministers to engage and influence. A framework agreement defines not only the financing of NDPBs but their governance arrangements and their relationship with Ministers, so the argument that the Government are switching just to achieve that purpose is a little thin.
I wish to make it clear that I certainly do not contend that improvements came about only once CMEC came into being. Improvements were made under the operational improvement plan before CMEC came into being. I certainly assert—I think that the Minister agreed with this—that CMEC has carried that on and has made continuing progress, although matters still remain to be resolved. I am comforted by the fact that this will not be done in a way that would disrupt the progress that has been made and disrupt the introduction of the new systems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, as he may be drawing his remarks to a close, I wish to ask the Minister a question through him, so to speak. Do I understand that what the Minister is doing is maintaining the policy drive of CMEC while reinventing the structure of the old CSA? As he may know from his briefing, that structure was that there was a chief executive, who reported quarterly or at six-month intervals to the Minister, supported by an advisory board and shadowed, so to speak, by a policy directorate within the department—a grade 5 and above that a grade 3—who would, so to speak, act as the interface between the policy development and the operational work done by the CSA, headed by its chief executive. Is that the proposed structure that the Minister seeks to reinvent or has he a different version in mind? It would be helpful to know how he thinks the organisation will function at the top level and what independent advice—research advice and expertise—he can expect to draw on, which obviously CMEC has taken further and developed in a far more effective way than under the old CSA.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That is probably a belated intervention on the Minister if he wishes to answer it. One of my questions concerned what would happen to the board and whether and how it would be reconstituted.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, specifically on that question on the board, if the Minister is minded to comment further, it would be interesting to know, if the board is to continue, what sort of remuneration it would have for what purpose, if the Minister is now to be much more accountable and have that proper oversight.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Minister wants to pick up those points now, perhaps I can come back to my points later.
Lord Freud
We want to move to the new arrangements as soon as we can. The details of the arrangements for the agency will be elaborated on, but our intention is basically to leave the CMEC structure unaffected. The accountability point is much more political. I imagine that it would delight any Opposition, and slightly worry any Minister, to be directly responsible for what this very important agency does. That is the key difference. There is direct accountability for what is happening across these Dispatch Boxes and, of course, those in another place. We think that that is right, given the very many millions of parents and children affected. The figure is not quite 10 million on my count but it is getting on for that. For that reason, it is vital that there is direct political responsibility.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I wonder if I might assist the Committee. We are in Committee and we try to enable as much discussion and latitude as possible. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, may not be aware that the procedure is that, once the Minister has concluded his answer, and then the person moving the amendment seeks to sum up and decide what to do with the amendment, the Minister should not then be subject to further questioning. Naturally, the Minister has wanted to assist the Committee as much as possible but the noble Lord has trespassed a little far on our usual procedures. I invite the Minister not to comment further. However, I am sure that, like all Ministers—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, used to do when she was a Minister—he will be pleased to consider constructive discussions between now and Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for participating in the additional exchanges. However, we still need clarity over what the structure will look like in the future and what in practice enhanced ministerial responsibility and accountability will come from that. Having heard the Minister’s comments, I cannot see a great difference from current practice.
I return to the options service, which was not a responsibility of the DWP or the CSA before the creation of the commission. It has been heavily, and properly, marketed as offering support for parents and information and guidance that is independent of government. I have not heard the Minister address my next point directly, but it seems to me that we need to think through the consequences of putting at risk the status that that service has achieved, where parents with care and non-resident parents can feel that they can genuinely and confidentially engage with the service and get impartial advice. I remember that during the passage of the Bill we had interesting discussions about the obligations on that service in terms of reporting its findings if it became aware of information that was inconsistent with other information in the system on benefits and income. One of my questions is whether that will change with the service no longer being conducted by an NDPB but directly by an executive agency of the DWP. It would be good to have clarity on those sorts of issues.
We have probably had a useful starting exchange on this. We would now like to read the record and reflect. If there is an opportunity, perhaps we can get some clarity on these issues even before we reach Report stage. My colleagues and I would greatly appreciate that. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)
We come to Amendment 28. I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I expected that we were breaking for dinner. Do we not break for dinner in Committee?
Lord Greaves
No? I thought that we were. All right. It is a good job I did not go and have my dinner, isn’t it?
Amendment 28
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
This amendment would leave out the Commission for Rural Communities from the list of organisations in Schedule 1. This amendment, like the previous one, is a probing amendment to ask questions of the Government and, one hopes, to get the Government to set out clearly on the record how they see the CRC’s functions being carried out in future, which of those functions will be carried out in future, and which are to be abandoned.
The Commission for Rural Communities was created by Section 17 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which many noble Lords, and perhaps refugees from the House of Commons as well, will remember took up a considerable amount of discussion at the time. The Commission for Rural Communities, which was created by primary legislation, was therefore thoroughly discussed and thrashed out in your Lordships' House.
The Commission for Rural Communities sets out its purpose and functions as follows. It is a statutory body,
“funded by government to help ensure that policies, programmes and decisions take proper account of the circumstances of rural communities. We have a particular focus on disadvantaged people and areas suffering from economic under-performance”.
In essence, it has,
“three key functions: Advocate: acting as a voice for rural people, businesses and communities; Expert adviser: giving evidence-based, objective advice to government and others; and Independent watchdog: monitoring and reporting on the delivery of policies nationally, regionally and locally”.
That is a summary of what it does.
The commission's work since it was set up has been widely praised. Much of it consists of research, and the work of the chairman, Dr Stuart Burgess, as advocate for rural areas—particularly disadvantaged rural areas—has been notable. On 29 June 2010, Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State, announced that the CRC will be abolished and partly replaced with a strengthened rural communities policy unit within Defra.
This amendment, like the previous one, goes to the heart of the way in which the new Government intend to carry out many of the functions that are currently carried out by autonomous bodies. In her statement on 29 June, Caroline Spelman said:
“With an urgent need to drive down debt and reduce Government spending we will have to make some tough decisions”.
Secondly, she said:
“We are committed to improving the quality of life for those living in rural areas and we will put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of Government”.
Thirdly, she said:
“Focusing rural policy making within the department will give rural communities and interest groups a direct link to central policymakers and a stronger champion for rural issues at the heart of Government”.
I think that that is what, a few years ago, used to be called rural proofing—the attempt to make sure that government policies across the patch were all checked for their effect in rural areas.
So there are really two main reasons for this policy, and they are both clearly set out in the statement—the first is to save money, and the other is to have a more effective service. The underlying promise is that it will not prejudice government actions for rural areas. Those are the issues that we need to probe, and the first is cost.
There are some questions that I should like to ask the Minister. What is the transitional cost? The Government briefing suggests that it is £2.5 million. Can he tell us what makes up that figure? What is the extra cost of taking on this work within Defra, and therefore what is the net saving? The suggestion, again from the government briefing, is that the existing cost of the CRC is £5.8 million;, that there will be a saving of £4.5 million once the transitional costs have been paid; and that the spend within Defra will therefore be only £1.3 million compared with £5.8 million at the moment. I can believe that efficiencies might be gained by doing this within Defra, and that it might be possible to do it more cheaply; but, nevertheless, that difference is so great—£5.8 million to £1.3 million—that one has to ask what things are being done at the moment that will not be done in the future.
Can the Minister tell us something about the transitional period? My understanding is that the intention is that the CRC should cease on 31 March 2011, but there may be transitional things to be done after that. How will that be managed?
How many staff does the CRC have at the moment? How many have transferred into Defra, and are any more expected to do so? What will be the size of the new unit within Defra which will carry out the work that the CRC has been carrying out?
The second broad area of questions has to be about the effectiveness of the new system. The proposal is to strengthen the rural team in Defra, to improve existing policy work, and to carry out the following functions. The first is to support Ministers, who will have much more direct accountability in future for the rural work. The second is to act as a centre of rural expertise. The third is to champion,
“rural needs and issues across government departments and other bodies”;
and the fourth is to work,
“with the civic sector to promote rural solutions at the local level”.
The last one is a quote and I do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Minister can tell me.
The Secretary of State also said:
“Ministers will lead rural policy from within my Department … The Government believe policy advice should be carried out by Departments, not arm's-length bodies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/10; col. 36WS.]
That is okay as far as it goes, but there are questions to be asked. The Campaign to Protect Rural England suggests that the advice to Ministers should be,
“robust, independent and evidence-based policy advocacy”.
That is what the CRC has been doing. For example, its report on uplands, published in June, called High Ground, High Potential—A Future for England’s Upland Communities, was a model of its kind. It was well researched, evidence-based and put forward a series of proposals on behalf of the rural areas of England that are most disadvantaged. It is difficult to see how a unit within Defra could do that with the style and commitment that was evident in that report.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I was very pleased to put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he is scrutinising this Bill, and in particular the arm's-length bodies in the Defra family, as we lovingly call it. My interest in this is as the midwife of the Commission for Rural Communities. I was the Rural Affairs Minister responsible for the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, and for the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities in 2005.
For noble Lords who are not familiar with the subject, I will give a potted history. In 1999, the Countryside Agency was established out of the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission. It was ably headed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who also served as the rural advocate. Just prior to my taking over from Alun Michael as Rural Affairs Minister, Stuart Burgess was asked to take over the rural advocate’s responsibilities. At the same time, the recommendations of the review carried out in 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, were being implemented through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill that I was pleased to steward through Parliament. The Bill took English Nature, a rural development service within Defra and the Countryside Agency, and created from those three bodies Natural England. A small element around rural advocacy was retained as the Commission for Rural Communities.
After some searching around the real estate of government, it found a home in Cheltenham, which was where the Countryside Agency had been. On the longest day of 2005—23 June—we debated at length in Committee primary legislation that would create the Commission for Rural Communities. It is ironic that five years later, on the shortest day of the year, we are now debating its demise. Currently it has just over 60 staff based in Cheltenham, and a budget just shy of £6 million. As we have heard, its closure was announced in June. Looking through the local press cuttings, it is notable that the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, Martin Horwood, said back in June:
“There hasn’t been any obvious consultation and I think it leaves questions unanswered about how important independent roles are going to be fulfilled”.
I think that the Liberal Democrat Member for Cheltenham puts his finger on the need for independent advocacy and independent rural-proofing, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, echoes his questions about how those functions will now be performed if the Commission for Rural Communities is allowed to go.
When I was thinking about this debate today, I also noticed a fine article in the Daily Telegraph—not a paper that I normally peruse with great interest—of 2 July this year by Geoffrey Lean, who is easily the longest-serving environment correspondent writing in any of our national newspapers. He has been following these issues for a considerable number of years. I think it is worth quoting some of the things that he said in that article. I know that it may not be the most popular newspaper today among the government Front Benches but in an article headed “The countryside will be the poorer” Geoffrey Lean says:
“Think about poverty in Britain, and the mind jumps to grim inner-city estates. But deprivation can be just as great amid some of the loveliest landscapes. About one in five rural families live beneath the poverty line, a rate increasing three times as fast as in the cities”.
He goes on:
“The commission’s job was to tackle this. It could, perhaps, have done so more dynamically—and it could have sold itself better—but it did make a difference ... It produced regular State of the Countryside reports—the last, as it happens, comes out next week”—
this was written in July—
“keeping a focus on rural poverty. And it persuaded the last government to stump up £180 million to maintain village post offices and enable them to provide banking services, and to propose a 50p tax on all phone bills to finance rural broadband. Now, a coalition of two parties that traditionally represented the countryside is betraying it. First to go was the broadband tax, scrapped in George Osborne’s Budget. And now Ms Spelman has killed off the commission”.
He finishes:
“This will save money—but not a great deal. The £3.5 million a year won’t help much towards the £750 million reduction in the department’s budget demanded by the Chancellor, and seems outweighed by the cost to the countryside … So who will speak for the countryside? The Conservative and Lib Dem backbenches, perhaps? But many of the Tory knights of the shire have retired behind their moats, leaving the party more Bullingdon than bucolic, while their coalition partners seem cowed by power. The NFU, and the Country Land and Business Association, are effective, but represent sectional interests as, in a different way, does the Countryside Alliance. And the much diminished Campaign to Protect Rural England has disbanded its rural policy team”.
Finally, there is a quotation in the article from Tim Farron:
“’The role of somebody outside government to look at rural policy and decisions taken by all departments is very, very important’”.
I could not say that better. I apologise for reading to your Lordships from the Daily Telegraph at such length but I think that Geoffrey Lean makes a really good argument.
It is true that at times the Commission for Rural Communities has not pulled its punches—sometimes, I am afraid, at the expense of the Government of whom I was proud to be a member until May of this year. I found a cutting from the Times—this must have been before the paywall was invented because it is dated 6 June 2008—on the report by Stuart Burgess as the rural advocate. The report states bluntly:
“Rural issues are given little recognition in keynote speeches, only passing reference in policy papers, and rare places on platforms of major economic and regeneration conferences. Urban-based officials and organisations are rarely challenged to upgrade their understanding and commitment to the substantial rural part of the national economy”.
Stuart Burgess and his lean team of staff based in Cheltenham did an admirable job in holding us to account. It is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in his place as a schools Minister. Stuart would regularly come to see me, encouraging me to ensure that the rural schools group established by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, was allowed to continue and to ensure that I attended it and listened to what it had to say. He was also keen to ensure that we properly rural-proofed what we were doing in education, that the presumption in favour of keeping rural schools would be retained, and that things such as the academic broadband network that schools are able to take advantage of could be piggy-backed to help to tackle the rural broadband issues that the Commission for Rural Communities was so keen to advocate.
I have a document from the commission dated 11 May 2010 which lists some of the successes of 2009-10 alone. They relate to areas such as affordable rural housing, fuel poverty, climate change, transport, digital communications, health, post offices, financial inclusion and market towns. There is a whole list of areas where the commission has been active, has been reporting and has been challenging the Government to do their job. That should be allowed to continue. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will be assertive and perhaps even put it to a vote and challenge the government on this, if not now, then at some future point. This is a commission that the Government can and should be proud of and should allow to continue.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I shall join in briefly, even though I am far from being an expert on this commission like my noble friend Lord Greaves and, from what he has just said, the noble Lord, Lord Knight. What I do have is some 18 years’ ministerial experience, man and boy, continuously from 1979 to 1997, at every level of government, including several years as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, before becoming what was, in terms of nomenclature, rather more grand. In that, I share some experience with my noble friend on the Front Bench: we overlapped each other at the old DHSS, or was it by then the DSS? It might have had yet another title: they change more or less every week. I want to contribute a priori from that, picking up a couple of the points that have been made.
First, I just do not understand the general arguments that are being put forward for the proposition in the real world, as distinct from some hypothetical world. It is said that there should be greater direct accountability by Ministers within the department and that the department should be the champion. We all know that if the Ministry of Justice decides to abolish magistrates’ courts, another department cannot act as the champion for anything. We all know that what happens is that, by and large, these matters are settled at meetings of relatively junior Ministers, where you may or may not carry the day, but you cannot then go round outside that Cabinet committee saying, “I championed this but the rest would not agree”. You cannot say, “We lost on this, but we will now campaign to have it reversed or to make people think again”.
Equally, when I was such a junior Minister faced with those difficulties, I welcomed having an authoritative external body to which I could point as a support for what I wanted to get my colleagues to agree to. Far more convincing than saying, “My unit in the department tells me that this is what we want”, is to say, “We have this great and good body of external people who really know what they are talking about and who have done some research, and this is what they are advocating”. Some of this thinking does not connect with the real world. I would be most grateful if my noble friend would comment, if he feels able. The only other thing that I would say is that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not press his amendment, because I think we could have a much more productive argument when Ministers have had a chance to think about just what it is that they want to do.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I want to pick up some of the themes which he touched on which I thought were worthy of further reflection. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing the debate and for the manner in which he did so. It was very reasoned, trying to tease out answers. Indeed, he has probably posed most of the questions which I would pose.
I also want to take this opportunity to add my tribute to Stuart Burgess. I worked with him very closely in the days when I was chair of the Forestry Commission. We met regularly, and I found him a tower of strength. He was a most admirable individual, a very knowledgeable man and, above all, a real champion for the countryside—not for any particular vested interest in the countryside but for the people in the countryside, especially the disadvantaged. It is interesting that the report which is imminent, probably the last report from the commission, will be on that issue.
I am a little surprised that the coalition is proposing that action. I read the local papers, as does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We probably read the same local papers, after we have read the back page, where we share a common interest. I am always finding the coalition partners, whether it is in Penrith and the Border, Westmorland, or wherever, appearing to champion the rural areas and saying that the Labour politicians from the west of the county—although they represent huge rural areas—have no concern for the rural areas. That could not be further wrong.
Indeed, as we have heard, it was the Labour Government who established the Commission for Rural Communities, which I believe did a great deal of good work. The great advantage was that I frequently met Stuart Burgess on the train going on a fact-finding visit, or going to hold a public meeting, a public consultation, in some village hall on housing, broadband, or whatever. Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as a Minister I certainly found it incredibly valuable to be able to call in experts, especially people who were as independent as the chair of the Commission for Rural Communities. It was very useful for a politician to be able to call these people in aid because one of the things I found was that—this is just a fact of life in a sense—any politician has a certain struggle, not only with his opponents across the Chamber but, inevitably, with his own department. His own civil servants may have slightly different interests in certain respects than he may have. Indeed, they may be right, because they are there for the long term and most politicians are there for the shorter term.
What I found interesting, and the issue that I would pose to the Minister, is this. I cannot imagine civil servants in a unit in Defra going out into rural communities on winter or even summer evenings, going to village halls, meeting ordinary people and listening to them, bearing in mind that, because of the nature of the occupation, the overwhelming majority of those civil servants, most of the policy people and the people with the real authority are based here in south-east England in the Greater London area. I simply do not believe that they will be going out and collecting the information for themselves. I believe that if the Government really want the big society notion to work, they are really going to have to engage with people and to communicate with them. Quite honestly, I believe that members of a commission are much better at doing that than civil servants in Defra or in any other department.
That brings me to the second point that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made. It is a killing point. It is about who is the lead authority. Let us take broadband, which has been mentioned several times. Broadband in rural areas is difficult, but it can be piggybacked on the school network. In Cumbria, the Member for Penrith and The Border has led a campaign in the north of the county to try to get broadband, quite rightly, into these rural communities. Defra will actually have very little authority when the execution of this plan comes to the fore because, quite frankly, it is not Defra’s responsibility. It is another government department’s responsibility. We heard about the power of the Under-Secretary of State, but it is more than that, it is the power of the civil servants, with their pecking orders, as well. I believe that rural communities will lose out by this abolition.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Knight who made the point about listening. I hope that the Government will listen especially to people such as Geoffrey Lean, who for many years has been the finest environmental journalist in this country and for the past 40 years has been prepared to take unpopular stances against Governments of all political hues. I thought the quote that my noble friend used was most telling, and I hope the Minister will not dismiss this and will listen to some of these points of view.
Lord Grantchester
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the excellent way that he has put forward his amendment tonight. I thank my noble friend for his parental advocacy of this body. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken with great passion on this amendment, which goes to the heart of this Government’s attitude to rural livelihoods and rural communities.
The Commission for Rural Communities was set up to promote awareness of the social and economic needs of people who live and work in rural areas, and to help decision makers across and beyond government to identify how these needs can best be addressed. It has given valuable independent advice to the Government and has produced a number of excellent reports, many of which have been referred to approvingly in recent rural affairs debates in your Lordships’ House.
The arguments about the usefulness of outside, independent and impartial advice, rather than simply relying on departmental in-house sources of advice from civil servants, have been well aired in relation to a variety of bodies proposed to be scrapped in the Public Bodies Bill. In particular, the debate on the pesticides advisory committees and the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Quin, and others on 29 November, were very pertinent. The value of the report of the Commission for Rural Communities was mentioned in a debate on rural affairs initiated once again by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on 15 July. That then informed your Lordships’ later debate on the Prince’s Countryside Fund.
The CRC focuses on practical outcomes for people who live and work in our rural areas. I pay tribute to Stuart Burgess who with his team accompanied a tour on the work being done in market towns, which was a strong initiative in my local area in Cheshire. The second round of the town centre initiative fund expanded excellent help towards 15 further rural local authorities; that is, 38 per cent of recipient authorities compared to only 6 per cent in the first round of that initiative. It has been involved in collaboration and partnerships through local areas, and in working to find the most effective solutions at the least cost. It has picked up on local challenges and strengths, and has been part of local economic assessments, which have been vital to the work of regional development agencies and, through the rural development of England proposals, has worked with the development agencies, which is another body we will look at after the new year. It has become a repository of expert advice and opinion to take advice of rural needs to the heart of government.
It is clear that there has been no real consultation about the abolition of this commission, despite the assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, about consultations in an earlier debate. In answer to a Written Question, HL2837, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
“The decision to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities was made after full consideration within Defra and the usual consultation across government”.—[Official Report, 25/10/10; col. WA 224.]
No wider consultations have been undertaken.
Has the effect on rural areas really been considered? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to costs and rightly pointed out that the upfront abolition costs are in the region of £2.5 million. Unlike many of the other Defra bodies where cost savings are negligible or non-existent, this could be one where some costs may be at issue. However, one has to look at the value for money that this expenditure has produced. If the Government commission reports in the future on the kinds of subjects that have previously been considered by the CRC, there would presumably be considerable costs in undertaking them. Furthermore, independent, impartial advice is a valuable commodity.
The Defra Minister, Richard Benyon, has also said that proposed changes to Defra’s public bodies will create modest savings. The main benefits of the proposals in the Public Bodies Bill are to increase transparency and accountability in public bodies. But how can accountability be improved if existing bodies, such as those we are discussing tonight, which publish their reports and proceedings and have excellent websites, high visibility in rural areas, and make minutes of their meetings available to everyone, are abolished and replaced by Defra in-house bodies? The CRC made a difference. This simply does not make sense.
I turn now to the announcement made on 29 June by the Secretary of State. A new policy unit is to be set up within her department covering rural communities. It will work across government to ensure that rural interests are reflected in programmes. I join other noble Lords who have asked the Minister how an internal policy unit can have the profile to cut across and into other departmental activities. Can these new arrangements be effective? What evidence will he require of his department to support the Government’s contention that the work done so admirably by the Commission for Rural Communities will still be carried out as effectively in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I shall now address the amendment and put things into an appropriate perspective. I welcome the remarks of all noble Lords who have spoken about the CRC. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, described himself as the midwife of the body, but he was then described as its father by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We are getting our metaphors a bit mixed up on this occasion. However, as I said, I want to put this into perspective, so I shall start by reminding the Committee, as other noble Lords have done, that we announced our intention way back on 29 June that, subject to the passing of legislation, we would abolish the Commission for Rural Communities along with its statutory functions as just one part of the Bill before us.
I think I can speak for all my fellow Ministers and future Ministers once my time is up when I say that the decision to abolish the commission does not reflect in any way a reduction in the Government’s rural commitment. On the contrary, the Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas and intend to put the fair treatment of rural communities at the centre of government. There are already many rural organisations and commentators who will continue to hold the Government to account, as happened with the previous Government. I think that noble Lords might remember one faintly rural community, the Women’s Institute, which I seem to remember a former Prime Minister going to address but not coming away from that occasion exactly unbloodied. However, I think he enjoyed the experience.
I remind the Committee of what the name Defra stands for. It is the department responsible for the environment, food and rural affairs. It is the department that works to promote the interests of rural people within all government policies. I can speak for all my colleagues in the department—I am sure it will be true of all future Ministers and, dare I say it, those like the noble Lords, Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord Clark, who have served in similar departments in previous Governments—by saying that we will continue to push for rural affairs. Many of us have a strong rural background. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, comes from my part of the world and I was grateful for his reference to the fact that we support the same football team and read the same newspaper. We will continue, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others have done, to champion rural issues across the Government.
I must make it clear that we as a department will continue to work with a vast range of departments on issues of importance to rural people. This will include working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on broadband. It is an important issue and I am glad that noble Lords mentioned it. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to what my honourable friend in another place is doing in Penrith and the border region for north Cumberland in trying to bring the project forward. He has had long discussions with both the DCMS and my colleague, Richard Benyon, who has responsibility for these matters in Defra on that issue. We will continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government on housing and planning and with the Department for Transport on rural transport issues.
My noble friend Lord Newton kept emphasising that he was a junior Minister, but he was actually the first Secretary of State I served under in the Department of Social Security, and I hope that I learnt a great deal from him in doing so.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I am tempted to intervene. I am grateful to my noble friend because I now remember. He was War Pensions Minister, if I remember rightly, and I am willing to bet that he found the external campaigning of what was then called COBSEO—it may be called something else now—very useful in trying to get money out of me for war pensions.
Lord Henley
My noble friend touches a sore point: I remember many issues relating to war pensions and other matters that caused him and me a great many problems. I can also remember taking social security Bills through this House for my noble friend when he was the Secretary of State and that I suffered a number of defeats which ran into millions, billions and trillions of pounds and which my noble friend then had to overturn. The point I am trying to make is that what this House and another place can do is equally important. I always used to feel that any Secretary of State from another place with whom I worked needed two or three defeats in this House before they understood its importance. My noble friend learned that and we dealt with the problems.
We talk to a large number of different departments; we will continue to do so and we will continue to be the rural advocate. As part of our changes to rural policy, Defra’s rural capacity will be significantly increased to create a new rural communities policy unit. That unit will expand on the existing policy work of the department, moving to a single organisation to act as the rural champion within government—and that rural champion is Defra. This will remove duplication, improve efficiency and improve our focus on priority issues for rural communities.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Greaves asked about staffing issues and the transitional period. This is very important. I can assure my noble friend that 14 staff from the CRC have already transferred to Defra as they are connected to work which will be undertaken in the rural communities policy unit. This will assist in building upon the relationships that the commission has built up. In addition, any vacant posts in the new unit—and we expect there to be at least some—will be advertised so that commission staff without an automatic right of transfer can apply for those positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about the RDPE and whether the CRC was responsible for that network. That function has been transferred to Defra and the three CRC staff undertaking the work have been transferred; they are among the 14. I must make it clear to the noble Lord that the CRC was not responsible for the full RDPE programme, which is a wider matter.
One of the most important issues to address is costs. What we are doing is not only about saving money, but we expect significant savings to come from this action. This is important in terms of our contribution to reducing the deficit. We, as a Government, inherited a very large deficit from the party opposite when they were in government and we all have to do our bit to reduce it. Obviously there will be up-front costs as a result of the change and redundancies, and those are estimated at less than £2.5 million. These will be far outweighed by the long-term savings, estimated to be in the region of £4.5 million a year. That is a significant sum. There are very good reasons for wanting to continue to attack the deficit and we will continue to do so. However, as I have made clear to the Committee, that is not the sole reason for our doing this.
Lord Henley
I will give way to the noble Lord when I have finished that sentence. It is my right to decide when I give way. I pay tribute to the work of the Commission for Rural Communities during the past four years, but I think that its time has come.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Will the noble Lord also pay tribute to the work of the rural advocate and address the points made by all speakers in this debate about the importance of having a voice for rural England that is independent of government? Does he think that that role should continue, even if the other functions can be absorbed within his rural policy unit?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord looks for an independent rural advocate. I do not think that we will be short of any number of independent rural advocates or that they necessarily need to be government funded. He referred in terms of environmental matters to Geoffrey Lean. There are many others who will offer us advice and make their views known, as will the noble Lord himself, this House and another place. I can assure the noble Lord that we will not be short of advice. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
While I recognise the strength of what my noble friend said about the department’s commitment, is not the problem that the department is only part of government and that there can be much stronger departments—for example, the Treasury and the department for business? We have witnessed the National Grid announce a consultation on covering large parts of rural England with pylons from the North Sea. When that issue comes to be debated within government, we will hear the voices of the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but those debates will be internal. Would it not enormously strengthen my noble friend’s department to have an authoritative voice—not just local women’s institutes—from an objective body set up for the purpose of giving a view which is clearly not parti pris but is committed to the benefit of the rural areas of this country?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I appreciate that some departments are more equal than others. One of the first things that I learnt sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton was that the Treasury had a slightly greater say on these matters than other departments. Nevertheless, Defra will play its role in arguing these views in government. I do not think that the CRC would be able to stand up to the Treasury with any greater authority than, for example, my own department, but, as I said in response to earlier remarks, there are a great many other bodies outside that will also make the case for rural communities very strongly. I do not think that spending £4.5 million per year on the CRC is certain to give more prominence to the arguments of rural communities. We will do that, and do it far more cheaply than the CRC.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, before I respond to what the Minister said, I would like to thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was representing the Labour Front Bench because at least somebody apart from me was not a past or present Minister. At one stage, the debate was developing into a past and present Ministers’ club, with lots of gossip that the rest of us did not quite understand. However, I am grateful to everybody and particularly the former Ministers—midwives and everybody else—who have taken part.
I am not one of those who think that Ministers, even at a junior level, do not have any influence and cannot, with enough energy and commitment, achieve things within their departments and perhaps outside. I spent last Christmas reading Chris Mullin's diaries about his time as various kinds of junior Minister, which give a very cynical view of the person with a minor position and no power whatever. I suspect that he laid it on a little. The diaries are extremely amusing, but I think that he probably overstresses his lack of power and influence.
Having looked at it all from the outside over many years, I have seen that Ministers with energy can achieve things, but one problem that faces all Governments and all ministerial teams is that at some stage they run out of energy and new inspiration. I would not accuse the present Government of having a lack of energy or a lack of determination to do things. In fact, I think that they sometimes rush into things far too quickly, when a little more thought and careful consideration might be helpful, although I understand why they do so. However, such energy does not last. The idea that a Minister at a middle or junior level within Defra will have the presence and ability to promote causes on behalf of rural areas, particularly disadvantaged rural areas, that the CRC and its chairman have at the moment is arguable at the very least and possibly wishful thinking.
I understand that the Government have an agenda, which I share to quite a considerable degree, of looking hard at quangos, reducing their costs and doing away with them when they are not doing a useful job or where what they do can be done more efficiently or democratically. I do not disagree with that fundamental wish in any way whatever, but the quangos have to be looked at one by one.
One specific question that I asked, to which I did not get an answer, was whether the State of the countryside report, as a basic piece of essential impartial, independent research, will continue in future even if within Defra. I hope that the Minister might write to us with an answer to that.
I would also like much more information on exactly how the rural champion across government will work. One of the things that a lot of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches have learnt in the past few months is how busy Ministers are and how much of their time is taken up with activities, some of which are clearly extremely vital and some of which I wonder why they are bothering with. I wonder why they do not just say no and get on with doing something useful. It is absolutely clear that competent, keen Ministers have their time and energies fully occupied by the job that they do. Some will cynically say that such Ministers are just being run by civil servants, but I do not think that that is true of good Ministers. Nevertheless, Ministers are very busy people. To have the job of co-ordinating rural policies across government is a pretty big job. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, can tell us how he got on trying to do that kind of thing when he was recently a rural Minister.
The other fundamental question to which I do not think that I have an answer is this: what does the CRC do at present that will not be done in future? The noble Lord, Lord Knight, set out clearly what the CRC does now. What we would like to know is which of those tasks will not be done in future, by Defra or by anybody else. If £4.5 million is to be saved—as the Minister quite rightly said, that is not a small sum, even in these days—what jobs are not going to be done because that money is not being spent? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, “I think that its time has come”. It is probably inevitable that its time has come, no matter how much we debate it in Committee and at later stages, but it is important that we understand who is going to do what in future. I do not think that we understand that yet.
Some of the quangos—the arm’s-length bodies, or whatever they are called—that are being done away with in the long lists in this Bill will not be missed in future. In five or 10 years’ time, we will look back at the list and ask ourselves, “What an earth were they? What did they do?”. Such quangos will not be missed and we will wonder why we argued about them, but some of the quangos will be missed, including, I suspect, the CRC. Life goes round in circles, as we know, and some of those quangos will have to be reinvented in future. It is far better either that we get it right now and do not drive the bulldozer through those that are necessary or, if the organisational arrangements are to change, that we understand at least that robust structures will be set up that will deliver the same kind of thing.
Finally, the Minister said that he did not believe that the CRC could stand up to the Treasury better than a rural advocate within Defra. That may be true in some respects, but the real difference is that the rural advocate within Defra will operate within government and behind the closed doors of government. Some of what he is doing will come out, because we will have debates in Parliament, reports will be produced and leaks will appear in newspapers. By and large, however, that process will take place within government, whereas what the CRC and other similar bodies can do is to take it all out into the public domain so that the research is published. The proposals are public proposals and, as Members of Parliament and your Lordships' House, we can use that information to call Ministers to account, to take part in debates and to take part in legislation. It is much more difficult to prise information from within the department. That is a fundamental difference, which the Government have not got quite right in a number of these issues.
It is customary on these occasions to ask the Minister to write to us and to give us answers to the questions that have been asked that have not been answered. I hope that he will do that after this debate. I will certainly collate the questions that have been asked from all parts of the House, write them down and hope to get more thorough answers from the Government and from the civil servants in Defra and everybody else involved before we come back to Report. We may have to come back to this issue on Report, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak also to Amendments 35, 36, 38 and 48, which are grouped with this one. Amendment 29 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who apologises to the House that she cannot be present today. I declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire and I apologise to the House for it having slipped my mind to mention this interest on the previous amendment.
The public bodies within the government department of Defra are what we are discussing today. Some, as the previous amendment showed, go to the heart of the Government’s strategic vision for the countryside. I concur that we may well need to look at those issues later as this legislation goes through the House.
One could probably describe the bodies that I shall refer to in relation to this batch of amendments as not of strategic importance; this is more of a tidying-up exercise. Nevertheless, it is important to bring them to the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to try to clarify what he thinks will be the work of the department, how it will be structured and how the activities undertaken by these bodies will be done within the Government, either by independent experts or within his own department as advisory committees.
Amendment 29 concerns the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As the Minister said, it is recognised on all sides of the House that the deficit that has been created is consequential on the banking situation, and all sides of the House have proposals to tackle the deficit. We on this side were looking at that committee as a key one to tidy up and abolish in this period. It has not sat for over 10 years and, when it did so, it was largely made up of members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, which has been instrumental in providing advice to Defra and indeed does so now as part of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which has been carrying on the work of that committee to great advantage. I understand that the group is looking at draft replacement statutory instruments to be brought in on the end of tenancy valuations, concerning such erudite matters as residual manurial values—before all eyes mist over in a glaze of appreciation—and the volatility of fertiliser prices that make this job so important to the nation.
Amendment 35 is on environment protection advisory committees. On these, we understand that the aim is to establish more flexible non-statutory engagement arrangements at a more local level. The Environment Agency must be able to engage more actively locally with society, the public and business. Effective stakeholder engagement and partnerships are key to successful delivery on the ground. With these amendments, we are seeking to engage the Minister to clarify the successor arrangements that will be put in place. We understand and agree that the design of the detail of this new approach is an important next step. The Environment Agency will be working closely with the chairs and members of the current committees to develop thinking on how best to maximise future local community engagement and to ensure smooth transition with partnerships and local stakeholders. Can the Minister tell us what stage these discussions have reached and clarify that, as this Bill passes through its stages in this House and is enacted, these new arrangements will be programmed to come into being in parallel with these committees being wound up?
Amendment 36 concerns Food from Britain and is a tidying-up exercise, as the body has already been administratively wound down. However, once again, it would be instrumental and helpful to be told what headway the successor arrangements are making with the activity that was carried out by Food from Britain. Looking to my interests in the farming industry, I know that that body has been very important in the past in promoting food from Britain both within this country and overseas. It would be helpful to understand how the successor bodies are being taken forward.
Amendment 48 concerns regional and local fisheries advisory committees. Will the Minister advise the House on the successor arrangements in that regard? I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38, which concerns the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I do so in the same spirit as my noble friend on the Front Bench in that I seek to ascertain whether the Government have the right processes in place to take over any jobs that this body may have undertaken. It would be foolish of me to oppose the abolition of this committee, as we stopped it meeting under my watch as chair of the Forestry Commission. I remember it well because we reviewed all our advisory committees and considered that there was no real justification for the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. According to the Minister’s Answer to a Parliamentary Question, it has not met since September 2005 and fell into abeyance in June 2006 when the members’ terms of office expired. In the second part of the Parliamentary Question, I asked what the cost of the body was. The Minister replied that it had cost £625 since November 2005, which is about £125 a year. I suspect that it does not cost that much and that most of that money was incurred in winding up the body in the latter part of 2005 and in 2006, so in essence it is a no-cost body. That is an important point.
I spent this afternoon looking at the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill on 5 August 1919—I was able to do so in view of the delays incurred when another matter was being discussed in the House—which set up the Forestry Commission. It is interesting how much wise debate took place when the Forestry Commission was being established. One thing that was debated at great length was whether Scotland should have its own, separate Forestry Commission. That has not changed. Almost 80 years later devolution took place to a certain extent and great powers were given back to Scotland and to Wales, as well as to England, to run their part of the forestry estate. Flexibility was also built into that legislation, which was then carried forward into the subsequent Acts affecting forestry. There was no Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee; it was simply a central advisory committee. I have never been quite sure why the Government are so intent on abolishing it.
I come back to my other point about the big society, which seems to be the Government’s underlying philosophy. This committee was a radical proposal for the time, in 1919. A very radical and progressive Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George, was trying—
Lord Clark of Windermere
Perhaps the coalitions in those days were a bit more radical than the current one. But we will let that lie.
That advisory committee was a link in the new concept of state forestry—forestry belonging to the citizens—being challenged by and running side by side with the private forest interest. The Act said that between six and eight members of the advisory committee would be appointed after consultations with forest owners—who I suggest were not exactly supporters of the Labour Party or the Opposition—and that six to eight would come from the timber merchants and allied trades. It was a genuine attempt to try to draw in expertise and to be aware of the interests not so much of those who were involved in state forestry but of those who had great knowledge of the industry. It certainly served the state forest service very well, helped to build up the Forestry Commission and also helped private forestry. That is one reason why, even today, a large body in private forestry wishes to retain the state forest service. However, we will come back to that in later amendments.
I am simply suggesting that this is perhaps a little more than tokenism. Perhaps it is just tidying up—I concede that straight away—but if the committee does not cost anything, why abolish it? Interestingly, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939, when there was the threat of war and the need for timber. It was established to try to ensure that that need was met. It resonates today that the first edict that it set out, facing the demands of war—it sounds obvious now—was that one should go first for the mature timber, then for the semi-mature timber, and, lastly, for the timber which should be used only in dire emergency. It classified the various parts of the country as to where the main felling should take place. It is relevant today that the two areas that the committee singled out for more or less immediate felling, because the trees were mature, were the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. I was interested that the Business Secretary in the other place, Dr Cable, who I think has a cottage in the New Forest, said recently that the New Forest certainly would not be privatised. I know also that the Forest of Dean is of great concern to my noble friend Lady Royall. We should bear in mind that forestry is a long-term game. It is many years since the end of the war, and those trees that were replanted just after it are now coming to maturity.
I will make a further point about tokenism. When the 1919 Bill had its Second Reading in this House, much of the discussion was about devolution. The term was not used then, but that was what the discussion was about. One of my early tasks at the Forestry Commission was to devise a system of governance that allowed us to have a devolved forestry enterprise, yet at the same time keep a GB entity. We did not have a sufficient critical mass of timber in the three separate countries to sustain a viable body. We had a lot of difficulty with this until we discovered that, just as there was a central advisory committee, it was possible under the original Act to establish three national advisory committees. By reviving these committees that were there in statute, we were able to form a system of governance that has withstood almost a decade and, depending on this Bill, will probably stand the test of time for a while longer. My overall point is that if you have a system of governance with a certain amount of flexibility, it will allow you to deal with contingencies that are unexpected at the time, but which occur in long-term businesses.
I will make two or three further points. The reason why the Forestry Commission and the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee were established was that in 1919, after the war, only 4 per cent of the land in Britain was covered by trees. That figure was almost the lowest in Europe. Over the past 91 years, it has increased to 12 per cent. One may not think that is a huge rise. However, bearing in mind the long-term nature of forestry, it is true that Britain is one of the few countries in the world—if not the only country—that has reafforested. It is quite remarkable, and is recognised by bodies such as the United Nations and by countries such as China that are trying to move into the reafforestation process. Bodies such as the advisory committees have been very helpful to the Forestry Commission in developing that expertise.
My next point concerns the flip side of this, which is timber. We still use a massive amount of timber, even in this world of plastic and synthetics. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture in 1919 told noble Lords of the day in this House that Britain imported 92 per cent of the timber that it used. The situation has got better—but not a lot. We now import in the region of 85 per cent of the timber supply of this country. This is an important reason why we need advisory committees. We are trying to establish timber and wood-using industries in this country. These are often very labour-intensive. When these companies are considering establishing themselves in the UK, their first question is: can we guarantee a sufficient supply of timber? They almost always come to the Forestry Commission—often through its advisory committees—and say, “Will you guarantee us that supply of 30 or 40 per cent?”.
I cite as an example the quite large wood-using power station that was built on Teesside. People would not have gone ahead with that if there had not been a sufficient supply of timber from the state forest to guarantee a critical mass. One might ask, “Why just the state forest?”. The answer is simply that the elasticity of supply and demand very much applies. Timber prices go up and down. When they fall, any private owner thinks, “I am not going to put my timber on the market. I’ll withhold it and, when the prices rise, I’ll put it on the market then”. I accept immediately that that makes sense to the forest owner. However, it does not make sense to the timber and wood user, whether it is someone making pallets, chipboard, paper or whatever. Therefore, we need that critical supply. Is the Minister confident that without advisory committees—we should remember that this is only an advisory committee—there will be sufficient advice for government?
My final point relates to one that I made earlier and it concerns the amount of forest cover. Again, when I was at the Forestry Commission, we decided to look at carbon sequestration and the question of meeting our carbon demands. I start with a couple of statistics which I have used in this House before but which I think are worth repeating. Twenty per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are due to deafforestation, and that is equal to the total emissions from the world’s transport industries. Reafforestation is a win-win situation and, because we have reafforested our country to a certain extent and are acknowledged as having done so, we believe that we have a role to play. However, that role is effective only if we have advisory committees.
In order to challenge ourselves on that premise, we established an eminent advisory committee to look at the issue under the chairmanship of Professor Reed. The committee was composed of foresters, climatologists and scientists. We basically came up with the recommendation that a great deal of carbon capture was involved in afforestation. The committee came up with the second statistic that I shall cite to your Lordships. A 4 per cent increase in tree cover in this country would allow us to capture 10 per cent of our carbon emissions. It is something that the previous Government committed to do and I hope that this Government will pursue it. However, without advisory committees, it would not have been possible to come to that conclusion.
I simply ask the Government to bear these points in mind. Instead of abolishing the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, which I view as tokenism, why not leave it as an advisory committee and it can be used for some unforeseen contingent problem that may occur in the future?
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I defer to no one in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for his distinguished period as chairman of the Forestry Commission. He has made a very powerful case for the role that forestry plays, whether in the public or the private sector. However, the question for the Committee today is whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee will contribute to carbon sequestration and whether it will add to the contribution that forestry makes in this country. A moment’s thought suggests that a committee that has not met for quite a long time is perhaps past its sell-by date.
Having said that, I do not want to denigrate in any way the contribution that forestry makes to land management and to meeting some of our essential needs. It is very important that the forestry estate be increased. Whether the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee has a role to play, I rather doubt. Looking at this group of amendments, we recognise also that the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reminded us, has not met for over 10 years. I think that we can assume that that is a committee that has also met its sell-by date.
I speak, very briefly, to draw attention to Food From Britain. I have enormous admiration for the work of my late friend Lord Walker, who created Food From Britain when he was Minister of Agriculture at a time when he was appalled by agriculture’s inability to react to the markets. We had been used to the socialist concept of marketing boards. The farmers—I have to declare an interest, as a farmer and an apple grower—were lamentably incapable of reacting to the needs of supermarkets as those were evolving and to the demands of the market. He pointed out that, unless we had an organisation within Government—within the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then—that could relate the farmers’ priorities adequately and make farmers more aware of the realities of the market, we would lose out to our competitors. That was very successful.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady O’Cathain is not in her place because I remember vividly that she was one of the five advisers that Peter Walker—as he was then—appointed. While recognising that all good organisations have to recognise the realities of time, I would not wish this provision, which will consign Food From Britain to history, to go without record. I am personally enormously grateful for the contribution that it made.
Lord Henley
I shall respond to one particularly lengthy speech from my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, who spoke at some length, allegedly about the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, although most of his remarks related to debates that we will have later on the Forestry Commission. Those debates will, fortunately, not be tonight and I will respond to those remarks on that occasion.
With these amendments, those noble Lords who can remember their Monty Python were dealing with dead parrots. Amendment 29, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, relates to the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, which, as he said, has not met for something like 10 years. From a sedentary position I said, on two or three occasions, “19 years”. Is there any purpose in keeping such a body going? It has withered on the vine; it is a dead parrot.
Moving on to Food From Britain, as I think others have said, FFB ceased its activities in 2009 following a decision by the previous Administration to reduce its grant in aid—one of those rare occasions on which the previous Government did something to reduce expenditure. It is another dead parrot.
Coming to the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, we will address during later debates the matters relating to the Forestry Commission that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, regaled us with at some length, but he was kind enough to remind us that, under his chairmanship of the Forestry Commission, that body last met in, I think he said, September 2005. Yet again, it is another dead parrot, which I do not think it is necessary to keep going. The noble Lord said that abolishing the advisory committee is not going to save any money and he carefully quoted from, I think, my Written Answer that it had cost something like £625 in total since 2005. He reckoned, quite rightly, that most of that money was probably in the earlier years—there were very little savings. However, I do not think that we should keep bodies going merely because they are costing nothing. If they are not doing anything, why not wind them up? This is a very useful tidying-up operation.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I just want to make myself absolutely clear. The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was not set up until 1939. The original Act did not include such a body, but it did include an advisory committee that could be used for different purposes. My point is: if it is not costing any money, is it not useful to have in your armoury an advisory committee that can change its interest to face the problem that you may have to deal with? That is the thrust of what I am arguing.
Lord Henley
I see things differently from the noble Lord. If it is not doing anything, if it has not met since 2005, if it is what I have described in Monty Python terms as a dead parrot, why do we not get rid of it? We do not need to have it in our armoury. Should we need such a thing again, we can set up an appropriate panel as necessary. It is not necessary to keep it going as the noble Lord wishes.
We have dealt with quite a few dead parrots. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would accept that they are dead, dead and very dead, particularly the one that has not sat since 2005.
I now turn to the two remaining bodies: the environment protection advisory committees and the regional and local fisheries advisory committees. They are statutory committees that advise the Environment Agency. The Government's aim in proposing the abolition of those committees in Schedule 1 is not to remove that advisory function. Indeed, both committees have provided valuable advice to the agency, and it will continue to need that advice. However, having two sets of committees on a regional, statutory basis creates a degree of inflexibility and inefficiency that is now proving unduly restrictive.
Defra now wishes the Environment Agency to establish more flexible non-statutory arrangements that will enable better local engagement of all interested parties at the catchment level, including in delivery, together with a more integrated approach between environmental protection, conservation and fisheries. Such a structure will have the flexibility to evolve as needed, without the constraints of a prescriptive statutory remit at the regional level, and will better address local priorities while working with partners and communities to deliver improved local engagement. That will enable civil society to take the lead where appropriate, rather than continue the current focus on advising the Environment Agency.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that. I appreciate that those two bodies are slightly different from the earlier ones, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my basic premise that certainly three out of the five are very, very dead parrots indeed. I therefore hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for that clarification. On this side of the House, we will not be tempted to enter into his script of re-enacting Monty Python and claim that the parrot is only half dead. We will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie
Lord Borrie
My Lords, the Competition Service, to which the amendment applies, is a very small cog in the wheel of competition policy, which this Government, the previous Government and most Governments over many years have regarded as a vital part of policy for the British economy. Competition is good for the economy. I question the Government's reasoning for listing the Competition Service among the bodies that should be abolished under Schedule 1.
It was created under the Enterprise Act 2002 as an executive non-departmental public body to fund and provide support services for the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the top body in court terms, which hears appeals on matters relating to competition. The Competition Service’s work is dedicated entirely to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I do not know whether it has been officially announced, and the Minister will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Government have in mind that in future the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which will no longer have this dedicated service of the Competition Service to assist it, will be supported and serviced by the general Tribunals Service, which was not in existence in 2007, and therefore the Government could not then make it available for the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The function of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, as I have indicated, is as an appeal body from the Competition Commission, and it is obvious to everyone concerned that its independent judicial role must be backed up by an independent administrative service. That is so at present. The Competition Appeal Tribunal gets an independent service and, as I understand it, is very satisfied with the service it receives from this body that the Government wish to abolish. There is no question of this public body, the Competition Service—I revert to the discussion on the previous matter—being a dead parrot, having no function. It has an important and useful administrative function.
It should be said that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has a UK-wide jurisdiction. It covers not just England and Wales, but Scotland too. It hears appeals and judicial reviews on competition matters and other related regulated matters, and it has a High Court judge as president, so it is a high-powered, much-respected body. My understanding is that when competition judges from different parts of the world meet together, this body we have in Britain is regarded as a very efficient and effective judicial body. The small—the Minister will, no doubt, indicate how much it costs and so on—Competition Service, which supports the Competition Appeal Tribunal, is virtually part of it. In effect, the Competition Appeal Tribunal administers itself, so if it is abolished, it would be in a much weaker position and would have to go to the more general body, the Tribunals Service, where people would have to be specially trained for the relatively rare cases it received on matters of competition. It would be very different if the Competition Appeal Tribunal was dependent on the large, general Tribunal Services for its support. I think that should be a matter of concern. Any savings from the abolition of the Competition Service seem to me to be most unlikely. It may, indeed, cost more because of the training required for the staff of the general Tribunals Service in order to cope with competition cases.
Moreover—and this is a matter on which I should be grateful for an answer—I understand that the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service have UK-wide jurisdiction. I think I said that a little earlier, but what I want to say now is that the Tribunals Service, to which the Government seem to intend this body should go for administrative support, has jurisdiction in England and Wales only, and it is being considered by the Government for merger with the Courts Service, which makes a certain amount of sense. The Courts Service covers England and Wales, and the Tribunals Service is largely England and Wales, but it would not be in this particular instance. I wonder whether it is intended that if the Competition Appeal Tribunal is dealing with, say, a Scottish case, it would be administered differently from when it is dealing with an English case. Certainly, there would be expense, trouble and difficulty in training if it were otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not propose detaining us for long, because my noble friend Lord Borrie has put the kernel of the case. I just want to make a couple of points. We are told that a working group is currently examining the case for abolishing this body. Early in 2011, it will report to the Secretary of State for Justice and the Secretary of State for Business with its recommendations. No final decisions will be taken before then. Apparently, the working group consists of BIS, TS, HMT and Competition Service officials. It is examining all the relevant aspects of a possible transfer and abolition, including financial, legal, judicial and policy. It aims to produce a report for Ministers that sets out the pros and cons of such an abolition and transfer. If that consultation is taking place, it seems to us rather strange that this should appear in Schedule 1. Would it not be preferable if we awaited the outcome of the consultation process? All the other points in relation to this have been made. Given the time, I await eagerly the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his amendment because it means that we have to look carefully at what we have said and what we are doing. With his background in the Office of Fair Trading and my experience of working with him over the years, I know how valuable his opinion is in these matters. He has rightly said that the Competition Appeal Tribunal was created by the Enterprise Act 2002. It hears appeals on competition and regulated industry cases and is independent from other competition bodies, such as the OFT and the Competition Commission, because it hears appeals against their decisions. Rightly, he explained how special it is.
The Competition Service was created by the Enterprise Act to provide administrative and other support to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. It has no function other than being a service for the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Government believe that the way in which this function is being provided is not making the most effective use of resources and that there may be cost savings and increased efficiencies if the functions of the Competition Service were transferred to the Tribunals Service, to which the noble Lord referred.
The consequence of this would be transferring the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would then receive its support from the Tribunals Service. The Competition Service would then be abolished. However, no final decision has been taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, a working group has been set up to test the case for making this proposed abolition and transfer. It is a decision that we will not take lightly. The working group will report to Ministers in BIS and the Minister of Justice in early 2011. They will then decide whether to proceed with the abolition and the transfer. In carrying out this review, the Government are clear that there should be no adverse impact on the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would operate as an independent tribunal under the aegis of the Tribunals Service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, finds that reassuring.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green for speaking. He made a significant point in saying that if the Government have not yet entirely made up their mind about abolition, this body should never have been included in Schedule 1. I do not think, with respect to the noble Baroness, that she answered that satisfactorily because it could have been included in Schedule 7 if there is such a degree of uncertainty. But I add that I am delighted that there is uncertainty because it shows that the Government are willing to think again about the matter. Further, the fact that they are having discussions with Sir Gerald Barling, the president of the tribunal, is a good thing because, as I indicated earlier, the tribunal and the Competition Service are really one and the same body. I am sure that no one, neither the Government nor anyone else, would want that body to be less effective and efficient than it appears to be according to its worldwide reputation at the moment.
I am also delighted to learn from the noble Baroness that the matter of UK-wide jurisdiction is being considered by the working group. All I can say in a more general way, if I may be permitted, is that it is a great pity that working groups, whether on this particular public body or on others, were not set up before we rushed into a long list of bodies to be abolished in Schedule 1. I thank the noble Baroness and of course I shall withdraw my amendment.