Breadcrumbs
Minutes - The 53rd Meeting of the Countryside Agency
Present:
Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Tayo Adebowale
Kate Ashbrook
Sheena Asthana
Richard Burge
Jim Cox
Peter Fane
Norman Glass
Graham James
Philip Lowe
Alison McLean
Howard Petch
Mark Shucksmith
John Varley
Pam Warhurst
Michael Winter
In attendance:
Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Tracey Slaven, Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Brian Wilson, Director of Thematic Studies & Inquiries
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support
Jane Gawthorne, Head of Management Support Group (minute taker)
John Mills, Director of Rural Policy, Defra
Colette Backwell, Head of Rural Services Division, Defra
Chairman’s Welcome
1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive, who was attending his first Board meeting, since joining the Agency at the beginning of the week. The Chairman and the Board extended their warm thanks to Margaret Clark for all she had done during the previous nine months in her role as Acting Chief Executive. Brian Wilson was also thanked for his contribution during the last nine months as Acting CRC Director.
2. The Chairman and the Board thanked Tracey Slaven for her contribution to the Agency over the last two years, in particular her work on the Natural England project and wished her well in her new role at the Scottish Executive.
3. The Chairman also welcomed Jane Gawthorne, new Head of the Management Support Group, to her first meeting of the Board.
Apologies for absence
4. Apologies for absence had been received from Tony Hams.
Declaration of Interests
5. There were no declarations of interest in the matters or papers to be discussed by the Board.
Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2005
6. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.
Matters arising7. Pathfinders, paragraph 52. Pam Warhurst raised the issue of the concerns previously expressed about the socio-economic focus of the Pathfinder projects. On further investigation regionally, it was clear that projects bridged Natural England and CRC interests and so the previous concerns were unfounded.
Acting Chief Executive’s Report and Matters Arising
8. Margaret Clark introduced the report and highlighted that the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) division had held fringe events on rural housing at all three Party Conferences, two of which she had attended, while the Chairman had attended all three. During the Labour Party Conference, she had also spoken at an event sponsored by IPPR, which was the first time they had covered countryside issues. LAR had taken the lead in organising an exhibition stand for Natural England at the Labour Party Conference, which had been visited by a number of Ministers and dignitaries, including the Prime Minister’s wife.
9. The Board noted that the CRC had started its housing inquiry and had to date hosted two events – one in Spofforth, North Yorkshire, and the other in Keswick, Cumbria. Both events were successful in generating wide interest ranging from housing providers to local residents. Elinor Goodman, chair of the Defra/ODPM Affordable Rural Housing Commission, had attended the event in Keswick and was keen that the outputs of the CRC’s inquiry were fed into the Affordable Rural Housing Commission.
10. The Board raised concerns that there was scope for confusion between the CRC’s housing inquiry and the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. Margaret Clark explained that the Affordable Rural Housing Commission (ARHC) would be consulting housing providers and policy makers, whereas the CRC’s inquiry was aimed at getting the views of local communities, although this would not exclude providers. The Chairman reported that a good relationship had been established with Elinor Goodman and Margaret Clark added that the CRC had invited members of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission to attend future CRC housing inquiry visits. Margaret Clark also reported that a member of CRC staff has been seconded on a part-time basis to the ARHC secretariat.
11. The Chairman reported on his visits as Rural Advocate. The first had been to Cumbria in September. This had started with dinner with key local players, which had been helpful in teasing out issues, followed the next day by a breakfast meeting with local farmers, all of whom in some way had been by affected by the outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease in 2001. A meeting hosted by Voluntary Action Cumbria had highlighted the huge number of people who participated in the voluntary sector; which was followed by a visit to an affordable housing scheme. The next Rural Advocate visit was to Suffolk that evening and the following day and would focus on the theme of young people. The format for the visits was still evolving.
12. Howard Petch welcomed the introduction of the CRC’s e-newsletter in helping to raise the Commission’s profile and suggested that Board Members would be able to supplement the circulation list.
13. Board members suggested that the opportunity should be taken to discuss with representatives from the Treasury how the changes to SIPPs (self-investment personal pensions) from 1 April 2006 would impact upon housing in rural areas. The Chief Executive agreed to raise this with his contacts in the Treasury, with a view to meeting a Treasury representative. John Mills, Defra, confirmed that the Treasury had been taken aback by the criticisms of the scheme and agreed it would be a good idea to establish a dialogue with them over this issue.
14. In response to a question from Philip Lowe about following up the Minister’s invitation to discuss rural disadvantage, Margaret Clark reported that a preliminary meeting had been held with officials. Graham Garbutt added that early engagement on the city regions debate would be appropriate to rural proof the initiative.
15. Kate Ashbrook reported that the timing for public consultation on coastal access, management and biodiversity had slipped and it might no longer be a launch theme for Natural England. Andrew Wood responded that it was hoped that the direction of travel would be sufficiently clear for coast to be a theme for a vesting day launch.
16. In response to a question from Sheena Asthana, Brian Wilson reported that the agreement with SPARSE on the establishment of a Rural Services Partnership of public service providers serving rural communities would include primary care trusts and that more details would be provided to the Board.
Implementing the Rural Strategy – October AP05/36
17. Margaret Clark reported that OCPA (the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments) had agreed in principle to a transfer of relevant Board members to the CRC, although details had yet to be confirmed. It was intended that a list of recommended appointments for the CRC Board would be sent to Margaret Beckett, together with a progress report on the CRC from the Chairman. John Mills explained that appointments for both CRC and NE would have to be individually approved by the Secretary of State. Appointments to the Natural England (NE) Board would be made through open competition.
18. The Board noted that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill was due to have its Report Stage and Third Reading in the Commons on 11 October before passing on to the Lords. The Chairman, Graham Garbutt and Margaret Clark were due to meet Lord Bach in London later that day to discuss the Bill and CRC-related issues. Discussion was continuing around the need for precursor or residual bodies. A precursor body was not required for CRC, but might be required for NE. There was an outstanding issue as to whether a residual body would be needed for the Countryside Agency in order to deal with those areas of the Agency’s work that would not transfer to either CRC or NE. Tracey Slaven reported that a draft briefing paper for NE had been prepared for the Lords and would shortly be available for Board members. The key issues surrounded byways open to traffic and the Countryside Agency’s ‘Discovering Lost Ways’ project. A briefing pack would be circulated to Board members, explaining how they should engage with the Lords during the passage of the NERC Bill.
19. The Deputy Chair reported on the outcome of a recent meeting of the Natural England Steering Group (NESG) sub-group which needed to ratify the proposed four major areas of focus for NE: landscape-scale initiatives, recreation, education and the economic importance of the environment. There was general consensus that these were the right areas to pursue. NESG needed to consider how to move these four focus areas into programme areas. It was important to ensure that expertise was not lost as the culture and values were progressed. Diversity should be a theme running through all four programme areas. NESG also needed to consider targets for Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and would shortly clarify what could be achieved by vesting day.
20. Tracey Slaven reported that the Office of Government Commerce’s Gateway Review of the Natural England project had identified a number of critical areas. The first issue was that NE needed to be managed, structured and governed as a programme, with some enhancement of governance by external non-executives. The relationship between NE and MRD needed clarification and Defra were intending to appoint a Risk Manager to oversee the process for the creation of NE. The review paid tribute to the commitment of staff from all levels to the creation of NE. A total of 163 individuals had been involved from across the three organisations. The Countryside Agency’s input has been disproportionate, as it had fielded staff on a one-to-one basis, which could lead to a drain on the Agency’s ability to deliver. The Agency’s regional teams had made a significant input and, in particular, Hazel Thomas, Regional Director in Yorkshire and the Humber, should be congratulated for her outstanding contribution. The Agency was lagging behind the other organisations in implementing its change agents, although the regions were making better progress.
21. In respect of the Big Lottery Fund, their intention was to make decisions about key partners and whether or not this would include NE during January or February of next year. There had been no slippage with this timescale.
22. The Chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee reported on the previous day’s meeting and was pleased to note from the Board’s discussions that the issue of MRD-related risks, one of the issues the Committee had discussed at length, had been recognised elsewhere. Of particular concern was the capacity of the Agency to deliver and manage its way through the transition process, especially in relation to human resources. The Committee also discussed merger accounting and residual bodies. The Committee felt that there was no need at the current time to establish a residual body for the Agency but that there ought to be a contingency plan in place. The Committee had a formal concern about the impact of delays in the appointment of the Natural England Chairman and Chief Executive on progress with the establishment of NE and transition risk management.
23. The Board were concerned about the continued uncertainty over the future of the Local Heritage Initiative (LHI), particularly for its staff, and hoped that the situation could be clarified reasonably quickly. The Board had decided against early termination of the project last year, partly because it wanted to change the culture within the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) in respect of rural community projects.
24. Brian Wilson explained that the comment in the report on the disadvantage study having to ‘scale-back its ambitions’ referred to the impact of Defra’s moratorium on new contracts in excess of £100k. This would have timing implications for the back-end of the project. In respect of the housing inquiry, CRC staff had had to undertake more of the work in-house and this had created a difficult peak in workloads for the team to deal with. John Mills, Defra, indicated that the moratorium should shortly be lifted and this would be formally communicated to the Agency later in the month.
25. Board members were keen that the CRC should seek an early response from Defra to its business case requesting additional resources to enable it to prepare for vesting. Margaret Clark responded that Defra had offered £182k to fund four extra members of staff and additional set up costs. In addition, £268k was available from the BACI Fund.
26. Board members discussed strategies for raising the CRC’s profile ahead of the CRC task group meeting, where the draft communications strategy would be discussed. The Board felt strongly that the CRC needed to be more visible and should be strategic and focussed and seen to be challenging Ministers. It was suggested that publicity targets should be set for the coming months. There was a divergence of views as to whether the CRC should be seeking quick wins in response to issues in the media or a longer-term agenda-setting strategy. Margaret Clark responded that the forthcoming CRC task group meeting would hold a more detailed discussion of the communications strategy and receive details of future plans, including publication of the Rural Proofing report and a possible event in the House of Lords.
27. The following points were raised during the discussion:
a) The Commission should seek authoritatively to influence the wider agenda, in such a way that others would want to seek its views rather than simply respond to others’ agendas;
b) The role of Board members would be different in the Commission, but it was uncertain exactly how different the new role would be and how Board members would become more part of the team;
c) Board members with an interest in the CRC were keen to be more involved as representatives and spokespeople. There should be a rapid response process for calling Board members together to make quick decisions on responding to topical issues. There should be a mechanism for the Board to establish the CRC’s position or point of view across a range of issues to enable rapid responses to be made;
d) Good publicity for the CRC in the coming months would help to allay misleading impressions that had been generated by Opposition Parties. On the other hand, it might be counterproductive for the CRC to be making headlines ahead of the NERC Bill’s passage through the Lords, as the Bill was seeking to create the CRC. There could be a negative reaction if Peers felt that the due process was being circumvented;
e) It was better occasionally to say the wrong thing than to say nothing at all;
f) Possible ‘quick wins’ could be on pensions and city regions and the urban/rural agenda, but that these should be balanced by a longer term communications strategy and a comprehensive influencing strategy;
g) Issues of principle and strategy should be discussed, such as ‘what is the ground that we want to play on?’ and ‘how are we going to grab the agenda?’;
h) The size of the organisation would place limitations on the CRC, particularly at regional level, where there would be no physical presence. It was suggested that there should be a process for registering the areas in which the Commission had expertise and advice to offer, with the caveat that it would not be possible to respond to everything;
i) The Commission should focus on particular areas and speak out strongly on those issues, otherwise there was a risk that its voice would be lost.
j) There were tensions between whether the CRC should speak only when it had a body of evidence, or whether it should be ‘fleet of foot’, responding to all issues that affected rural communities and economies. It was suggested that CRC needed a Board that reflected regional views and contributed to major debates, perhaps with research studies and different types of intervention depending on the amount of evidence available;
k) The Board needed to keep its nerve, if the CRC was to become a major player;
l) The CRC needed to develop a reputation for authoritative reports backed up by a body of evidence that would stand the test of time. The Board should be wary of being compromised by pressure to make an immediate impact. However, the CRC was more than just a research organisation; its role was also to reflect the views and needs of rural areas. It was possible to minimise knee-jerk reaction by having different types of intervention depending on the level of knowledge on each issue;
m) There was a danger in the Board becoming too involved with tactics, rather than setting strategy and policy;
n) The message had been clearly received from Defra that the CRC should be challenging and this was a crucial role.
28. The Chairman thanked Board members for their contribution to the debate and concluded that it should give strong support to the CRC task group and staff in developing the CRC’s role and communications strategy.
Financial Report AP05/37
29. Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services, introduced the report and explained that both CRC and LAR were behind profile, whereas Corporate was ahead of profile. The Agency was awaiting formal notification from Defra on the lifting of the moratorium and proposed cut in grant in aid.
30. John Varley explained that the financial reports for LAR and the CRC had been split and were in different formats; he thanked the finance team for their work to effect the split in the report formats. He was concerned that the change should not hamper the Board’s understanding of the Agency’s expenditure. Significant overspends were attributed to the central team and appropriate checks and balances should be implemented. The Board would have more meaningful information when the Quarter 2 reports were available in November.
31. Andrew Wood stated that it was usual for LAR expenditure to start the year slowly. The division was, in general, underspending, but this was in part due to the moratorium on new contracts of more than £100k. In the rest of the year LAR would spend above profile and, in spite of disruption by the Natural England populating process, would deliver its key objectives as set out in the Corporate Plan. The Board noted that East of England was showing a red traffic light due to staff vacancies, but was starting to catch up in the second quarter.
32. John Mills added that the Agency’s £1.9m overspend on the previous year’s budget had been absorbed by Defra and the Treasury have confirmed that that was the end of the process. He warned that any overspend in the current financial year, net of the proposed 5% cut of £3.5m, would be very difficult to absorb.
33. Margaret Clark reported that the Executive had been sympathetic to bids to increase the Corporate Division’s budgets, where it was difficult to implement savings because of it's high percentage of fixed costs, but also in the light of the need for additional support for the organisation from core services during the transition period.
34. The Chairman thanked Barbara Fletcher for the paper which the Board received for information.
Corporate Plan 2006 – Timetable and Approval AP05/38
35. Tony Dover introduced the paper. The Board agreed the proposed timetable and process for approving the 2006 Countryside Agency Corporate Plan as three separate documents but requested that there should also be a simple overview. The Board noted that there had been discussions of the draft plans in the task groups and by the Board at the September seminar. The CRC task group would work on the detail of the CRC plan, which would then come back to the Board for approval; members of the Natural England Steering Group would be involved in the NE Corporate Plan.
36. The Chairman concluded that the Board has agreed to the proposal for three separate documents with a general overview.
Annual Advice to the Secretary of State on the Level and Distribution of National Park Authority Funding for 2006/07 AP05/39
37. The Board took the paper and annexe on Annual Advice to the Secretary of State on the level and distribution of National Park Authority Funding 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.
Development of a successor England Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 AP05/40
38. The Board considered the paper on the development of a successor ERDP in closed session. The information contained in the paper was for future publication and, under the Freedom of Information Act Section 41: information provided in confidence. Freedom of Information Act Section 22: information intended for future publication.
Commission for Rural Communities Location Review AP05/4139. The Board considered a paper about the CRC’s location review 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
40. The Board were updated on one item of closed business.
Date and location of next meeting
41. The next meeting of the Countryside Agency’s Board will be held on 10 November 2005 at John Dower House, Cheltenham.
