Natural England

Minutes of the 52nd Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:   
                     
Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Tayo Adebowale
Kate Ashbrook
Sheena Asthana
Richard Burge
Jim Cox
Peter Fane
Tony Hams
Graham James
Philip Lowe
Alison McLean
Howard Petch
Mark Shucksmith
John Varley
Pam Warhurst
Michael Winter

In attendance:    

Margaret Clark, Acting Chief Executive
Tracey Slaven, Director
Brian Wilson, Acting Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support
John Mills, Director of Rural Policy, Defra
Colette Backwell, Head of Rural Services Division, Defra
Steven Jones, Defra
Jim Knight MP, Rural Affairs Minister (part)

Chairman’s Welcome 

1.   The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and, especially, Steven Jones from Defra, who was attending the Board Meeting for the first time and who would be taking
over from Jane Lutman in the Defra sponsorship team on her retirement at the end of
August.   The Chairman asked that the thanks of the Board and staff should be passed to Jane Lutman and formally recorded in the minutes.  

2.   The Chairman announced that the Countryside Agency had appointed a new Chief
Executive, Graham Garbutt, who was expected to start in September.   He was currently Regional Director of the Government Office for the West Midlands and had a broad
background in the public sector and elsewhere that was highly relevant to the Agency’s
work.   

3.   The Chairman said that at the launch of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission on the 
previous day, the Secretary of State had also announced that its chair, Elinor Goodman,
would be joining the Board when the work of the Commission was completed in March
2006.

Apologies for Absence 

4.   Apologies for absence had been received from Norman Glass.

Declaration of Interests 

5.   The Chairman asked Board Members to declare any interests that they might hold in the 
      issues or papers to be discussed.   The following interests were declared:

• Richard Burge was on contract to the World Bank in relation to carbon sinking.
  
  
• Tony Hams, as Chairman of the Peak District National Park, which was involved in a    
  Pathfinder project, in relation to paper AP05/33.

Matters Arising 

6.    Paragraph 14: Margaret Clark reported that she had not reviewed the structure of the 
Acting Chief Executive’s report on this occasion as she felt that this was something the
new Chief Executive would want to do.

7.    Paragraph 19: the joint Defra/ODPM Affordable Rural Housing Commission had been
launched by the Secretary of State, Defra, and Baroness Andrews, ODPM, the previous 
day.

8.    Paragraph 29:   discussions were continuing with Defra in relation to the £1.9 million overhang from 2004/05 and a decision was awaited.

9.    Paragraph 41c: in reply to a question on improving coastal access and wildfowling, Andrew
Wood reported that the issue would be raised in on-going discussions with Defra.  

Acting Chief Executive’s Report 

10.   Margaret Clark drew attention to paragraph 8 of the report and said that the Agency was
reviewing its emergency procedures in the light of recent events. Kate Ashbrook asked 
that the Board’s thanks should be passed on to the staff for their calmness and
behaviour on the day of the 7 July bombings in London, which had coincided with the
Board’s Europe seminar.

11.   Margaret Clark said that it had been hoped to make an oral report on the Quarter 1 
outturn at the meeting. However, it had not been possible for the Executive to examine
the figures and, so, any report would be premature. Earlier in the week the Treasury had
deferred ‘end of year flexibility’ for Departments and Defra, in turn, had asked all its
Non-Departmental Public Bodies to place a moratorium on significant new expenditure. 
A de minimis level of £100,000 had been set by Defra but the Agency would be looking
at a lower level to ensure compliance.   The Executive would be examining all of its
potential new contracts to assess the impact of delay or abandonment and would inform
the Board of the outcome.

12.   John Mills told the Board that the Defra Management Board had decided to impose the 
temporary moratorium on new discretionary spending until the end of September, when Ministers would review the decision. The decision had been taken early in the year   
before  too many commitments had been made.   Margaret Clark added that the
Agency’s £1.9-million variance had been caught up in this discussion. John Varley asked
that the Board should be informed at an early stage if radical spending decisions had to
be made. 

13.   In reply to a question from Alison McLean about whether the Commission for Rural  
Communities had any involvement with the Big Lottery Fund, since paragraph 25 of the
report only mentioned Landscape, Access and Recreation, Margaret Clark reported that 
there had been several discussions in the past with the Fund about lottery funding and 
priorities in rural areas.

14.   John Varley asked what lessons had been learned from the mixed reception for the 
Diversity Review. Pam Warhurst said that, while there would always be a ‘mischievous’
element in response to this type of report, in future more time and preparation should be
spent on communications and one-to-one briefings to prepare the ground.

15.   Stuart Burgess reported on the outcome of his meeting with the Chairman and Chief 
Executive of ACRE and said that previously there had been a breakdown in
communications.   It had been a bridge-building meeting and there would be closer 
working in future. He had agreed to have a more private meeting with the ACRE Chair.  
Brian Wilson added that the discussion had been wide-ranging, including policy on village
halls and community sector issues. There had been much common ground and a
willingness by ACRE to help the CRC get its message across, for example at the ACRE
conference, and recognition that ACRE could be a conduit to and from the grass roots.

16.   Margaret Clark introduced the paper and said that a meeting on additional funding for 
the CRC project (paragraph 4) was planned for that afternoon.

17.   The Modernising Rural Delivery Programme Management Board (paragraph 14) had rated
the overall project plan as amber because of the sheer amount of work that had to be 
completed before vesting, particularly in relation to EU money and the RDS.   There was
also a need to co-ordinate staffing and staff moves across all of the organisations, including the Regional Development Agencies.

18.   Pam Warhurst reported on the Chairs’ Group meetings that she and the Chairman had
attended. The trip to Dorset had been an effective way of gaining a better understanding
of how the five bodies (the three confederation members plus the Forestry Commission
and Environment Agency) could work more effectively together on the ground and develop
new ways of working.   Good work on sustainable farm management complemented the Environment Agency’s work on climate change, which would fit in well with Natural England
initiatives. The group was encouraged that there would be example joint projects to take
forward.   A Forestry Commission site had highlighted the interaction of tourism and
economic opportunities, but there remained a concern about tensions over the
relationship between access and environment, which may be raised in the debate on the
Bill in the House of Lords.   The Countryside Agency’s good examples of access and
nature working side-by-side should be used to allay fears.

19.   The Chairs’ meeting had an early discussion on the need to explore delegation of
functions to other bodies.   Further work was needed on the relationship and
memorandum of understanding between Natural England and the Environment Agency to
ensure that it was constructive. There had also been discussions on sustainable      development.

20.   The CRC’s visioning meeting on 6 July had been positive in setting the future tone of the Commission. The Chairman said that there was some staff disquiet about their future, 
which would become more intense, particularly in relation to the announcement of the 
new location.

21.   In a discussion about the timing of an announcement on the CRC relocation, the
Chairman told the Board that the meeting on 20 September would be used as a seminar
for a presentation by the consultants, DTZ, and full discussion of the issues.   A paper
would then be considered at the 6 October Board meeting, following which the board’s
preferred option would be sent to the Secretary of State. Philip Lowe asked whether there
could be an initial discussion at the Board seminar on 8 September to accelerate the
proceedings, but it was pointed out that this could only be about the principles and issues
as the recommendations would not be available at that time.

22.   Graham James asked who was making the decision on location and what the timing was
likely to be.   John Mills explained that the Secretary of State’s assent was required.
However, he expected that the Board would make a reasonable recommendation in
keeping with the political guidance given, which would be acceptable to the Secretary of State.

23.   In formulating the recommendation on CRC location, the options could not be precisely  costed but assumptions on costs and expenses would need to be included in the case put
forward.

24.   Tony Hams suggested that there should be a discussion at the Board’s corporate 
planning meeting in September about the need to change the CA Board’s current modus
operandi in the New Year, when Natural England’s shadow chair, chief executive and,
possibly, board would be in place. John Varley warned that the new structures being
developed should be sufficiently flexible to allow the shadow chair and chief executive to
have an input.

25.   As chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, John Varley reported that, at
the Committee’s meeting on 6 July, concerns had been raised in relation to the Annual
Report and Accounts, which contained future liabilities – including the village hall loan fund
and some historic pension liabilities – which were not transferable to Natural England or
the CRC. He was drawing the attention of the Board formally to this issue, so that Defra
would develop plans in good time.   Margaret Clark told the Board that the liabilities would
form part of the project plan of issues to be resolved that would be jointly owned with
Defra. John Mills confirmed that Defra was aware of the issue.

26.   In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board noted the contents of the report.

27.   Barbara Fletcher introduced the paper on risk management, which built on discussions at
the Board’s Risk Management seminar in May and the Audit and Risk Management
Committee’s discussion earlier in July.   Four additional risks had been added to reflect 
the discussions, covering: the CRC, corporate planning, governance and the passage of
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. The Audit and Risk Management
Committee had also suggested that there should be regular feedback from the
directorates to the Executive; a flowchart to show the links between the registers; and that there should be regular review, which also summarised the changes.

28.   John Varley said that the Board should take great interest in the risk management 
process, as it needed confidence in the process and assurance about the risk registers
which underlay the overall plan.   The Audit and Risk Management Committee had been
concerned about the increased risk associated with the MRD process. He added that the 
Board should support the Executive in the management of risk.

29.   In discussion, the following points were made:

a)      Risk 1 should not be just about branding and communications, but a broader influencing strategy needed to be developed; 

b)     On Risks 6 and 9, the Agency needed to adapt how it dealt with LAR business; 

c)      greater visibility of the Board could be a mitigation measure for improving the CRC’s credibility

d)     Board members could help to provide a challenge function on the individual directorate 
risk registers.

30.   Summing up, the Chairman said the Board approved the Business Risk Management 
Action Plan and endorsed the actions in hand.   They agreed that regular updates on the 
plan and changes to it should be included in the Chief Executive’s report to the Board.

Visit by Jim Knight MP, Rural Affairs Minister

31.   The Chairman welcomed Rural Affairs Minister, Jim Knight MP, to his first meeting with
the  Board.   He emphasised that the Board were committed and enthusiastic about
moving towards establishing Natural England and the Commission for Rural  Communities, which he hoped would be apparent.

32.   Jim Knight welcomed the opportunity to meet the Board, having met many of the
members individually, since his appointment in May, and looked forward to a positive relationship.   He had the day before launched the Affordable Rural Housing Commission 
and he was pleased that the latest State of the Countryside Report carried complementary
messages.  

33.   A note of the discussion meeting with the Minister is attached at Annex 1.  

34.   Following the Minister’s departure, Board Members welcomed his open approach and his
willingness to listen to their points of view.   They were encouraged that the Board should
be able to work closely with him without compromising their independence.   It was important that the Board also understood the Minister’s agenda and was able to provide evidence to assist and advise him, where it was available.  

35.   Summing up the discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Board had agreed that the Minster should be briefed on the work in Yorkshire and Humberside work on the Northern Way and that the suggestion for a brainstorming with the Minister around the issue of disadvantage and the CRC agenda should be followed up. 

Spending Review 2006

36.   Brian Wilson introduced the paper.   Since the paper had been written, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced that there would be a Comprehensive Spending Review starting in Autumn 2005 and the expected Spending Review would take place in 2007, a year later than previously envisaged. Further information was awaited from Defra on how the Countryside Agency and its divisions would feed into the process.

37.   Despite these changes, the actions, highlighted in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the paper, still stood ie:

• to rural-proof the spending review, and now CSR, guidance
  
  
• meetings with Ministers to feed new ideas into existing policy directions
  
  
• evaluation and comment on the outcome of the review.

38.   A further report on the Comprehensive Spending Review process would be made at the next meeting.

39.   In discussion, the following points were made:

a)    The delay in the start of the Spending Review would give the CRC an opportunity to take a more proactive approach to embedding rural proofing into the process. Defra’s advice should be sought.   The process should be one of offering solutions to departments.   There might be a case for linking individual Board Members to specific departments to help the influencing process.

b)    The longer timescale would also present an opportunity to develop ideas for new PSA targets, for example, relating to climate change. Targets, which would not require additional spending, would be attractive. For example, if there were to be a target in relation to the Barker report on housing and housing affordability, it would be useful to ask for urban and rural data to be disaggregated. 

c)      If rural proofing was to be an audit process, it was important to demonstrate the benefits of the process to individuals and departments.

d)     Clarification was needed on how PSA targets interrelated with the Spending Review.

e)     There was a danger that targets obscured what was really going on and tended to reflect the lowest common denominator, particularly in relation to health, education and social care.

f)       It would be important to find win:win solutions, which would help departments meet their targets, such as linking young people, vocational training and concessionary fares.

g)      Innovative ways of changing behaviour should be investigated, for example fiscal incentives for people to ‘do the right thing’ which could bring big benefits for low cost.

40.   John Mills said that there was no certainty that PSA targets would be reviewed, but there was a feeling that some of the targets were ‘not quite right’. He reminded the Board of Jim Knight’s advice that the language used by the CRC should chime with political language, for example, disadvantage.   A PSA target on this, part-owned by Defra, would be welcomed. The timing of the disadvantage study was good. It might be possible to draw key policy issues, which would be germane to the Comprehensive Spending Review on specific needs such as health or transport.

41.   In answer to a query as to why this paper was a Countryside Agency paper and not restricted to the CRC agenda and the links with the next item on the agenda, Margaret Clark explained that the Board had taken a decision that they should, as far as possible, continue to act corporately and look at issues across the board.   The following agenda item was specifically about Natural England and a possible bid in the Spending Review.   The paper under discussion was intended to look more broadly at key issues, for example, on the health agenda, which was relevant to both the CRC’s and LAR’s current work.   This should not conflict with the development of the Natural England agenda.   If meetings were to be held with Ministers, it would be appropriate in some cases to cover the wider agenda, rather than to attempt to have separate CRC and LAR meetings, which were unlikely to be successful. 

42.   In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board had agreed the process outlined in the paper, taking account of the changes that would take place with the introduction of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Spending Review 2006: LAR and Natural England processes

43.   Tracey Slaven introduced the paper, which sought approval for the LAR/Natural England approach to the Spending Review with a set of joined-up proposals.   Contrary to the statement in paragraph 9, the paper had not been discussed at the Natural England Project Board on 14 July, due to lack of time, and would be dealt with in correspondence.

44.   Board Members welcomed the paper as a forward-thinking approach to looking at the future and were supportive of the indicative priorities, particularly on coastal access and diversity.

45.   In discussion, the Board raised the following points:

a)      There was a danger of confusing the terms, ‘stakeholders’ and ‘partners’. 

b)     In relation to annex 2, there should be greater links between coast and marine protected areas and there was no mention of habitat restoration. 

c)      Britain did not have a good reputation for wildlife in relation to coasts.

46.   In reply to the points raised, Tracey Slaven said that there was a need to communicate both with partners and stakeholders, but there had been some difficulty with commonality of terminology amongst confederation members.   The confederation had worked hard to include habitat restoration in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, but there was a need for greater focus on the issue going forward.   The list of issues in the paper was not definitive; it had been put forward by the confederation, but needed to be developed into a deeper and broader approach to priorities.   The issue of the RAMSA convention and designation had been flagged up at a recent protected areas seminar.

47.   In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board agreed the recommendations in the paper.

Evaluation of the Social Exclusion Programme

48.   Brian Wilson introduced the paper.   The programme had developed from the 1999 Rural White Paper and extra money had been made available for research and demonstration projects.   After the first three years, the programme had been renewed for a further three years from 2002-05, focussing on community and social enterprise; young people and deprivation.   Although some projects were still on-going, the paper was an evaluation of the programme overall.

49.   Lessons learned from the work were relevant to the CRC and other organisations. It had influenced local policy and built the Countryside Agency’s credibility, for example, in relation to community finance schemes.   However, the overall conclusion was that too few of the individual projects within the programme had had a national impact and the focus had tended to be mostly on delivery rather than dissemination of the findings.

50.   In discussion, the pros and cons of how the report was published and under what banner eg as a piece of unfinished Countryside Agency/EDM business or as a CRC publication were raised.   In addition, for continuity, the first phase of the evaluation should be linked in to the final report.

51.   Summing up, the Chairman said that there was general agreement that the report should be published, but further consideration needed to be given to the communications/influencing strategy for the report and a recommendation made to the Chairman to decide on behalf of the Board. 

Pathfinders – Agency Involvement

52.   Andrew Wood introduced the paper, which followed up the Board’s visit to the Fens, where Board Members had queried the value added by Pathfinders, particularly in relation to the environmental agenda, as much of what the Board had seen was socio-economically based. The question had been whether they were an opportunity not to be passed up or a small window that would be closed soon after Natural England and the CRC were operational.

53.   Brian Wilson added that the CRC had a watchdog role on development of rural policy at a regional and sub-regional level and would pick up Pathfinder issues.

54.   In discussion, Board Members said that pilot schemes in the regions would be important in developing new ways of thinking on environmental and sustainable development frameworks. It would be interesting to hear the response of Government Offices, engaged in the programme, to the paper, suggesting how the profile of environmental issues could be championed and consistently raised across the Regional Rural Delivery Frameworks (paragraph 9). The Board would also like to know the outcome of the meeting between national environment bodies and the appropriate Pathfinder authorities (paragraph 18).

55.   In answer to a question about how Defra saw Pathfinders developing in relation to Natural England, John Mills said that the Pathfinders had arisen because, while the RDAs were strong on economic development, they were less strong on service delivery. The second important driver had been the role of local authorities.   The encouragement of community leadership was another strand of the strategy. Pathfinder councils had to look at spending priorities in Defra areas.   In total, £450 million of Defra’s budget went to ‘rural England’, but there was little breakdown of where the money went geographically, by sector, or by class or group of individuals or businesses. These details would be empowering to local councils.   ODPM had recently announced a further 60 Local Area Agreements, some rural and very rural. In practice, Pathfinder activity was likely to merge into Local Area Agreements, led by the ODPM.  

56.   Further points raised by the Board included:

d)     It was also important to look at Regional Rural Delivery Frameworks and their relation to Pathfinders in order to set Pathfinders in a wider context.

e)      An additional annex on the geography and objectives of each Pathfinder would have been helpful. While the recommendation to develop relationships with Pathfinder authorities was welcome, any intervention by the Countryside Agency or the CRC would need to be carefully thought through and sensitively handled.

57.   In conclusion, the Chairman said the Board had agreed the recommendations but with the caveats raised.

The Countryside Agency and the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact – progress report

58.   Crispin Moor introduced the paper, which outlined progress since the last paper to the Board in March.   It looked forward to the adoption of the Compact’s principles by both Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities, post-vesting.

59.   The Chairman thanked Crispin Moor for the paper, which the Board received for information.

Rural Proofing

60.   The Board took the paper on Rural Proofing in closed session.   The information contained in the paper was for future publication and, under the Freedom of Information Act section 22, could be considered in closed session.

Any other business

61.   The Chairman thanked all those who had been involved in the preparation and despatch of the papers and agenda for the meeting. 

Date of next meeting

62.   The 53rd Board Meeting would be on 6 October 2005 at John Dower House, Cheltenham.