Natural England

2002 Spending Review White Paper (AP02/31)

FOR DECISION

Background

1. At their meeting in July, the Board received a short information note about the Government's 2002 Spending Review (SR2002) announcement. This paper provides further detail about the extent to which the Spending Review White Paper addressed issues previously raised by the Agency; informs the Board about work now in hand to try and ensure that the rural dimension is followed through in departmental delivery plans; and recommends longer-term actions designed to make us better prepared for the next (2004) Spending Review. 

2. The Agency gave high priority to influencing SR2002. At an early stage we made written submissions to seven of the departmental reviews and four of the cross-cutting reviews that made up SR2002. We seconded a principal manager to the Treasury to rural proof SR2002. We were involved in advisory groups for some cross-cutting reviews. Near the end of the process we wrote suggesting where rural targets could most usefully be included.

3. The Government published its White Paper on SR2002 on 15 July, together with each Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for the 2003-6 period. Departments now have until October to produce draft delivery plans for the Treasury - one for each PSA, explaining how it will be delivered and with what resources. We need to maintain a close watching brief on this further stage, to ensure that rural proofing continues.

4. Although Spending Reviews cover 3 year periods, they are undertaken every two years (so there is a year of overlap between them). Furthermore, each Spending Review process takes about 10 months. This means that the next Spending Review is expected to begin as soon as September 2003. We have little time to lose, if we wish to be well prepared for the next review. In particular we need to have a more convincing evidence base.

Progress to date

How did rural issues fare under SR2002?

5. In the White Paper there is a substantive rural section in the 'Strong and Secure Communities' chapter and occasional references elsewhere. On issues like the voluntary sector, young people, business support, community enterprise, affordable housing and broadband, the rural dimension is explicitly noted. There is also good news in the DEFRA chapter, with a rural affairs PSA target for the first time and over £500m to implement the core recommendations from the Curry report.

6. However, there was not a rural box within each Departmental chapter, as we had hoped for at one stage. The rural content is also modest alongside the White Paper's frequent references to the worst (largely urban) neighbourhoods and the 28 PSA targets that apply to urban issues. Finally, DEFRA's own budget increase (at 2.7% pa) is amongst the lowest of Departments. 

7. The White Paper is a very strategic document. Much of the detailed Treasury work on rural proofing may not have featured, but is still understood to be there to be taken forward in the more detailed work that is now starting on departmental delivery plans. Most (almost 100) of the PSA targets will impact nationwide, so should bring some benefits to rural areas. We consider that around 20 of these could impact in differential ways in rural areas (ie there are rural proofing issues).

Were suggestions made by the Agency taken on board?

8. The table at Annex A shows how far our input to various Departmental and cross-cutting reviews appear to have been taken into account in the White Paper. Around a half of our suggestions can probably be said to have been wholly or partially addressed. Examples include more resources for a target for rural economies, more help for the voluntary sector, support for community enterprise and more resources for local planning authorities. A further third appear not to have been taken on board eg a target for access to justice services, the roll out of the 'Your Guide' post office pilot and a target for access to greenspace. With the remaining few, the lack of detail in the White Paper makes it almost impossible to judge, until we see what is in the departmental delivery plans. Whilst we cannot be sure, we have some confidence that our suggestions for rural targets will find resonance in Treasury's ongoing work to oversee the drafting of delivery plans. 

Next steps

Follow through in departmental delivery plans

9. Our action plan to follow through the spending review includes:

• a further Agency secondment to the Treasury (at S grade level now that the principal manager secondment has finished). Part of this person's role will be the continuing rural proofing of the implementation of SR2002;
• the Chairman has written to Paul Boateng, Financial Secretary at the Treasury, to welcome the progress made on rural proofing SR2002 and underlining the importance of rural proofing delivery plans;
• the Chairman and Chief Executive have had a positive meeting with the head of the Cabinet Office Delivery Unit, who monitors progress with PSA targets; 
• identifying the PSA targets/delivery plans which rural assurance teams will seek to influence through their contacts with departments; and
• arranging an agreed joint plan of working with DEFRA and further meetings for the Chairman (working alongside Alun Micheal) with some of the key Ministers to press home our messages on delivery.   

Proposals for future work

10. On the whole, we did reasonably well in securing some benefits for rural people and the countryside in SR2002, but the process has also identified the need for us to be even better prepared if we are to be in a stronger position to influence the next Spending Review in 2004 (and those in later years). In order to do so, we have identified the need to put in place the following actions.

11. Building the rural evidence base

12. There are also specific projects such as our work on access to the countryside for all parts of society, our urban fringe review and our rights of way development plans which will need to be strong in evidence content if they are to be persuasive.

13. evidence base about 'what works'. 

16.  Rural Assurance:  discussions by the Board on the Corporate Plan have already identified the need to strengthen our work on rural assurance in order to be able to dig deeper on some key issues and to learn both from our own experience from demonstration projects and implementation programmes but also from the experience of others. In addition, rural assurance teams will need to build even closer relationships with Departments to help influence their thinking at a much earlier stage.

Financial and manpower consequences

17. The immediate consequences can be handled within existing Agency resources. The proposed actions have broadly all been planned or are underway. The need to strengthen rural assurance work and building the evidence base are being taken forward in the context of discussions on the Corporate Plan. 

Risks and mitigation measures

18. There is some risk that the rural proofing work that preceded the publication of the Spending Review White Paper is lost as individual departments take this forward into delivery plans. It is, therefore, important for us to maintain contact with Treasury, DEFRA and other Departments on this issue. The further secondment to Treasury should help them stay on top of this. A second risk is that we will not be up to speed in time for the next Spending Review. It is important, therefore, to make rapid progress on the actions above. But we also need to be realistic about the timescales needed to plug some of the gaps in the evidence base. In some cases we may be planning for the spending review after next.

File ref: 

ANNEX A

SUMMARY OF AGENCY INPUT TO REVIEWS AGAINST THE OUTCOMES