Natural England

Minutes - The 54th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

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

In attendance:            
Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, Director
Andrew Wood, Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support 
Jane Gawthorne, Head of Management Support Group
John Mills, Director of Rural Policy, Defra                        

Chairman’s Welcome

1. The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting.

Apologies for Absence

2. Apologies for absence were received from Alison McLean and Mark Shucksmith.

Declaration of Interests

3. There were no declarations of interest in the matters or papers to be discussed by the Board.

Minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2005

4. The Board approved the minutes of the previous meeting, subject to the following changes:

4.1 Paragraph 14 – to be amended to read, ‘rural disadvantage’. 

4.2 Paragraph 19 – this was an expanded meeting of the NESG that combined executive and non-executives.

4.3 Paragraph 30 - John Varley had been speaking in his own capacity, not as Chairman of the Audit & Risk Management Committee.

Matters arising

5. There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

Chief Executive’s Report

6. Graham Garbutt introduced his first report as Chief Executive and expressed his gratitude for all the support received from Board members and colleagues who had all been very welcoming.   He had attended a full round of Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) and related meetings in order to gain an overall impression of the nature and structure of these meetings. John Mills and Ursula Brennan had asked for an overview of the process and whether there were any overlaps or duplication.   He had concluded that there were and would be discussing this with Martin Hurst. 

7. In addition he had met staff at John Dower House and visited three regions and had been impressed with the quality of staff.    Each regional visit had included a dinner hosted by the Regional Director which ‘local’ Board members had also attended, plus Government Office Regional Directors and other guests. One of the general conclusions had been the need to find a better way of balancing some of the preoccupation with inner city policies to improve representation of rural interests and to stimulate a debate about the countryside in the 21st century.  

8. Graham Garbutt reported that he had joined the Chairman at an initial meeting with the Treasury and Carol Souter of the Heritage Lottery Fund.  

9. Graham Garbutt invited Board members’ comments outside the meeting on future presentation and format of his report.  

10. Norman Glass asked when an announcement was likely to be made about the proposal for a South Downs National Park.   Andrew Wood replied that the Inspector was expected to report to the Minister before Christmas.   The timing of any subsequent Ministerial announcement would depend on the report’s content and conclusion but was not expected before the end of January. The Board would therefore have an opportunity to consider a paper setting out a range of possible outcomes at its next meeting. 

11. In commenting on the Chief Executive’s report, Pam Warhurst raised concerns in respect of paragraph 39 about the quality of applicants applying for membership of National Park Boards and their lack of understanding of the national importance of the Parks.   Tayo Adebowale replied that the application form did not encourage applicants to address that issue, neither did it help in meeting the objective of increasing diversity.   Tony Hams, as Chairman of the Peak District National Park and the Association of National Park Authorities, reported that Pam Warhurst’s experience of applicants was not typical.   In his experience the quality was much higher than in the past although the process and forms needed to catch up with the issues raised.    Peter Fane added that recent recruitment in the Broads had attracted outstanding applicants, although lack of diversity was an issue.  

12. Pam Warhurst asked whether anyone from the wider landscape team had participated in the OECD workshop in Bratislava or whether it was simply from the CRC perspective.   Margaret Clark explained that the invitation was personal to her, as chairman of the international working party on rural policy but that she had been unable to attend and so had sent a colleague to stand in for her.   The event was a conference about villages and rural communities.   There were others with a broader perspective, including Defra and the Agency’s former Chief Executive, in attendance at the conference.

13. In answer to a question from Pam Warhurst, Andrew Wood explained that work was in hand on a range of policy positions for Natural England, including food and local sourcing, climate change and sustainability.   The December LAR taskgroup meeting could consider a short list of these, prior to their consideration by the Natural England Steering Group (NESG).

14. It was confirmed, in response to a question from Philip Lowe, that the Agency had not contributed to the recent conference on Rural and Regional Development in Newcastle, hosted by the DTI.   John Mills explained that the conference was arranged under the UK Presidency of the EU. Philip Lowe was unhappy that the event had been held without any input from the Countryside Agency.

15. Michael Winter suggested that in reference to paragraph 11, the CRC would be able to learn from the research that MORI will be undertaking for the South West Government Office.   Margaret Clark agreed that this point would be taken on board.

16. In response to a question from Howard Petch on Agency input to the wider effects of avian flu, the Board agreed that the Agency had a particular role to play in representing the interests of rural communities to the government departments that were planning contingencies for an outbreak.  After a wide-ranging discussion, the Chairman agreed that the Agency should establish a small group to consider this.   John Mills replied that his group within Defra has been involved in the general contingency planning work that he would be happy to share with the Agency. 

17. Howard Petch also asked whether the Agency would respond to the Education White Paper and the Report of the Education Schools Select Committee on Education outside of the classroom and the development of a manifesto on engagement outside of the classroom. He added that Sir Don Curry was chairing the FACE (Farming and Countryside Education) Strategy Group and suggested that the Agency should be involved in this.   Peter Fane added that the CEVAS (Countryside Education Visits Accreditation Scheme) would be keen to involve someone from the Agency to represent access issues and would be pleased to have representation from NE.   Margaret Clark responded that she would shortly be meeting Sir Don Curry and would add this to their agenda for discussion.

18. Richard Burge commented that he would welcome a separate report on Stuart Burgess’ role and activities as Rural Advocate. 

19. Kate Ashbrook said that the Government’s Commons Bill was in the House of Lords and Paul Johnson from the Countryside Agency had been seconded to Defra’s bill team and was doing a useful job.   The Minister had said in debates that Natural England would champion common land.

20. In summing up the Chairman thanked Graham Garbutt for his report and agreed that starting in the New Year, the Board would receive a separate report on his activities as Rural Advocate. The Chairman further agreed that the Agency would establish a small group to consider its advice to Government on avian flu.

21. Item closed under the Freedom of Information Act Section 22: information intended for future publication: date on which paper to be published, April 2006.

Implementing the Rural Strategy AP05/43

22. Graham Garbutt introduced the report by explaining that an event had been held at Meriden the previous day to roll out to senior and middle managers details of the NE matching process for staff posts. Matching of job roles was due to take place in November and December and staff would know the outcome of the process in January. There was a Natural England Programme Board (NEPB) meeting on the following day that was due to sign off further elements of the populating process.   Discussions on pay, grading and terms and conditions would be considered by the NEPB in December but not for sign off.   The process for appointment of NE’s Chief Executive was underway and advertisements had been published for five Executive Director posts.

23. The Chairman had written to Sir Martin Doughty to congratulate him on his appointment as Chairman of Natural England.   Graham Garbutt added that Sir Martin had asked to attend a future Board meeting or dinner.   John Mills added that advertisements for NE Board members should appear before Christmas.

24. Pam Warhurst paid a tribute to the input from Tracey Slaven and Andrew Wood and others to the NE process in addition to their day jobs.    Landscape, access and recreation had been successfully embedded in Natural England but she said it was important to maintain the momentum and continue to be upbeat in identifying LAR’s role in the new organisation.   The next taskgroup meeting should discuss this issue.

25. John Varley commented that the Board needed to ensure that the Agency’s staff were fairly treated and raised the concern that there should be sufficient resources within the HR team during this important transition phase.   The Board also needed to ensure that bodies to which Agency staff would be transferring also had quality resources. He hoped that the Agency’s corporate services staff would have equal opportunity to obtain jobs as others in English Nature and the RDS.   Graham Garbutt commented that the three Chief Executives (Countryside Agency, English Nature and RDS) were keen to ensure a fair and objective process.   The matching and transfer of whole teams might fill about 50% of the new posts within Natural England.   The consultancy firm, Towers Perrin were leading the HR matching process. 

26. Margaret Clark added a point of information in respect of paragraph 3, that the CRC’s corporate service functions would be outsourced.   There had been a helpful meeting with Andrew Burchell, Defra’s Chief Operating Officer, as the CRC had been omitted from the shared services project. The outcome was that Defra would be the preferred supplier unless there were issues of cost, value for money or ability to deliver the service.

27. Philip Lowe commented that the paper focussed on organisational matters and the progress of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities Bill but not on the wider delivery of the MRD programme.    He asked that in future the report should make reference to what was happening to front line rural delivery for which the Agency should have a continuing concern.   The Chairman agreed that this should be included in future reports.   Margaret Clark reported that the CRC would shortly undertake a project to look at regional and local delivery, looking at responsibilities taken on by RDAs and Government Offices.

28. Tayo Adebowale urged that the CA’s work should not be lost as the three organisations unify as Natural England.   Pam Warhurst replied that it was an important issue to discuss with Sir Martin Doughty and the NESG.  

29. The Chairman moved the discussion on to the progress of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill and thanked Bishop Graham for his powerful speech in the House of Lords that had been positively received by the Agency’s staff.   The Chairman asked Board members to continue their discussions with Peers and ensure that Sue Bennett was able to collate responses from these meetings.   The Chairman added that he would be holding a meeting with Lord Roberts from the Liberal Democrats.

30. John Mills commented that the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken on the floor of the House of Lords, not in Grand Committee as had previously been expected.   This would elongate the timetable and might jeopardise the March target date for Royal Assent.  

31. In summing up, the Chairman noted the points in the paper and thanked everyone for their hard work.

Corporate Governance APO5/44

32. The Chairman opened the discussion by explaining that the Board had a particular interest in the development of Natural England (NE), especially since the appointment of the new NE Chairman. It was important that those Board members who were involved in the process had the appropriate delegation. 

33. Graham Garbutt introduced the paper, explaining that it included some contingencies.   In particular, the phrase ‘normal, unusual and contentious’ was standard Treasury terminology but that it was a substantial step towards delegation.   He also drew the Board’s attention to paragraph 27, recommending a further review of governance arrangements in February.

34. Tony Hams supported the paper’s recommendations. He added that the nature of the NESG meant there was a void surrounding non-executive members’ input; in this fast-moving scenario, where big decisions were being taken,   Board members   needed to be informed and able to participate in the preliminary work as much as possible.   There were some big decisions that under normal circumstances Board members might expect to have sight of the paperwork in order to comment and contribute before executive decisions were made; however in this case, the paperwork often arrived at very short notice.

35. Andrew Wood explained that over the previous couple of weeks, thought had been given to the issues where non-executive input and the taskgroup’s input would be needed, largely around strategy and future PSA targets.   He agreed that the executive had not been good at giving Board members a holistic picture of where the project had got to and hoped that this would be improved in future. He added that a staff group would be thinking about this the following day and considering LAR’s contribution to the programme up to Vesting day and invited members to indicate the areas where they would want to see non-executive involvement.

36. Pam Warhurst welcomed the paper and its recommendations.   On the issue of non-executive involvement, she said that process should be left to executives but that non-executives should be anticipating the need for   papers to NESG on, for example, landscape, recreation and education that   would address the imbalance of input.   In respect of the wording of the paper’s recommendation, she felt that items to be brought back to the Board ought to be “issues of corporate significance or issues that the Chair wants to be brought back”. 

37. Peter Fane also welcomed the paper and its recommendations. From his experience on NESG he felt that a significant proportion of the group’s time had been spent on items on which non-executives could not make a useful contribution. He agreed with Pam Warhurst’s point about the wording of the recommendation and that the key point was whether a decision would have an impact on the corporate business of the Countryside Agency.

38. Tayo Adebowale welcomed the paper but raised a number of points:

i) Paragraph 13 – when would Board members cease to be responsible for National Parks, and how would that process take place and how would National Parks be informed.  

ii) Paragraph 18 – when was OCPA expected to approve retention of the Board in its current configuration.

iii) Paragraph 24 – at what point would the Board ensure that Natural England was rural-proofed.

39. Andrew Wood replied that Board members would be responsible for their statutory duties for as long as they held them, consequently Vesting day would be the date at which they ceased. He added that National Parks were not the best example but once the corporate plan had been agreed for next year, the three bodies would be working in partnership to deliver the plan and would reach a point where they were working to deliver this for Natural England.   The question on when the Board should back out would be an interesting debate.   For instance, on National Park funding, the Secretary of State was obliged to consult the Agency.   Next year the time for consultation would be close to Vesting day; it would probably be inappropriate for the Agency to give advice at that point in time. 

40. In responding to Tayo Adebowale’s question about paragraph 18 and the retention of Board members over the next year, John Mills reminded the Board of his comments at the previous meeting about the agreement in principle to populate the CRC Board by transfer of members individually from the Agency’s Board to the CRC Board.   Each appointment would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Letters would shortly be issued to all but five members of the Board (who would be ineligible because of their length of service). The letters would ask Board members whether they wished to be considered for appointment.. Two members whose second term would expire on 31 March 2006, would be asked whether they wished to be considered for an extension of their term on the CA Board until Vesting day.  

41. Graham Garbutt said that the issue of rural-proofing Natural England had been raised elsewhere by people concerned about its lack of socio-economic overview and agreed this might need more attention. 

42. Kate Ashbrook commented that there were likely to be Board members who would not want to apply to Natural England but who would want to play a useful role in the final months of the Agency. She also queried why there was no mention in the paper about a timetable for the recommended review of taskgroup roles.    Sue Bennett replied that the paper had not sought to impose a timetable as that would be at the discretion of the taskgroups. 

43. The Chairman concluded that the Board agreed with the recommendations subject to the addition of the words ‘corporate significance’ to the first recommendation to read: “To delegate authority to the LAR taskgroup to take certain decisions in relation to Natural England but that novel, unusual or contentious issues of corporate significance should be referred to the Board.”. 

Financial Report for Quarter 2 APO5/45

44. Barbara Fletcher opened the discussion by pointing out that the paper had been prepared against the full grant-in-aid but while it was being drafted, confirmation had been received from Defra of the 5% budget cut.   During Quarter 1 the Agency had forecast an under spend but in Quarter 2 it was forecasting an over spend.   Both the LAR and CRC divisions had forecast well and together had met the £3.5m budget cut.   Collectively the Agency had an over spend in the accounts because of the over spend on corporate services.

45. John Varley congratulated the team on delivering the report and its outcomes, given the complexity of budget cuts divided into three or four different places.   He added his support for point 4 of the recommendations   – asking the Board to endorse proposals for reallocations – and encouraged the Board to agree to this. He also reminded the meeting about the earlier references to increasing resources that would further strain the corporate services budget.       

46. In response to questions from Pam Warhurst, Andrew Wood said that there had been some reprioritising of regional communications because of the need to make savings.   In respect of land management in the North West, the ‘red’ status was because they had spent nothing on land management work because it had been offered up as part of their savings.

47. In answer to a question about temporary staffing levels in corporate services Barbara Fletcher replied that there was a high proportion of temporary staff in the finance team and particular difficulties in attaining and retaining staff in the estates team.  

48. John Mills reminded the Executive that the Agency must ensure that everything could be delivered on budget in the current financial year.   The Agency’s overspend in the previous financial year had been absorbed by Defra but it was important that this did not happen again.  

49. In answer to a question from Tayo Adebowale, Andrew Wood confirmed that discovering lost ways was one of the areas where budget cut backs had been made. 

50. In summing up the Chairman noted the points made, agreed the recommendations and thanked the staff for their hard work in not very easy conditions.

The Community Renewables Initiative (CRI) AP05/46 

51. Andrew Wood introduced the paper by explaining that CRI was an initiative that had been intended to fall within the scope of EDM (Evaluation, Dissemination and Mainstreaming) for transfer to RDAs in March 2005.   Towards the end of 2004, the DTI had decided to keep CRI going within the Countryside Agency for a further year.   The DTI had only just received its report evaluating their community involvement projects and so neither DTI officers nor Ministers had properly considered it.   The CA’s preferred outcome fell between options 3 and 4. However, there was some risk to the Agency’s reputation if the initiative were shut down after a late decision from the ongoing discussions, in which case the CA could be criticised for having a part in its demise.

52. Tony Hams welcomed the report and its timing and supported the recommendations as far as they went.    For the benefit of newer Board members, he explained that CRI had been a success and there was evidence in the evaluation reports that it   had widespread support from the private sector particularly the CLA (Country Land and Business Association), which had since produced its own report on renewable energy.   Tony Hams agreed that the recommendation for option 3 was the right one.   He added that Defra had always been supportive but had not contributed much money even though it met many of their priority areas such as climate change and rural diversity. He asked Andrew Wood to ensure that the goodwill that had been built up was not lost.   He also felt that as Natural England would be preparing a policy position paper on transport and climate change, it should have a policy view on CRI.  

53. On the question of Natural England, Andrew Wood explained that one of the policy positions that would be worked up over the new few months would be on climate change and then there would be a range of subordinate policy papers.   He anticipated that Natural England would not want to run CRI but would want to have a broader role in supporting Ministers envisaged in options 3 and 4.   In relation to resources required to deliver option 3, he said that the Agency currently did not have any resources allocated to CRI next year because it was not in the Corporate Plan. Resources could be found but only at the expense of other activities.

54. In discussion, the following points were made:

i) The Board had taken their decision last year to allow time for new delivery arrangements to be put in place. Option 3 would be delaying the end.  

ii) While option 2 clearly stated that CRI was not within the remit of Natural England, this option should not be dismissed without first being discussed with partners in Natural England.  

iii) If the sustainability remit were going to be taken forward then it would be dependent on an effective working relationship between RDAs and Natural England.  

iv) The CLA had been invited to organise a conference on renewables under the EU Presidency and it was queried whether the Agency had been invited to contribute. 

v) From December 31, post-Kyoto, the issue would no longer be about renewable energy but the emission of carbon, carbon dioxide and methane gas. The pressure points would be the carbon consequences of fossil fuel use and carbon trading; water availability and the need for a global management process. In this context, the Agency should be building on the achievements of CRI rather than trying to extend it.  

vi) The private sector, notably through the CLA, had strongly supported CRI and want to help find a home and refocus it.  

vii) Option 2 would not rule out the Environment Agency and others taking on the Agency’s national management role.  

viii) To assist the celebration of the success of CRI, examples should be posted on the website.  

55. Andrew Wood replied that the options described in the report were the DTI’s options, rather than the Agency’s.   Under option 2, if the DTI did not want to continue with the scheme, then Natural England would have to be persuaded to take it on; he was not convinced that that would be achievable.   The option to continue an element of CRI could be flagged up in the Corporate Plan for discussion at the January Board meeting but if it were beyond the first six months, it would also require support from Natural England.

56. In summing up the Chairman concluded that the Agency should celebrate the success of CRI, including promoting examples, and support option 3 of the paper and ensure a ‘soft landing’ for CRI on 1 April 2006.   This could include consideration as an option in the Corporate Plan in the first six months of 2006, flexibility over the end date and inviting Natural England to take a view on future management of the initiative. 

57. Jeremy Worth, programme director for Wider Welcome, introduced the report and explained that the project was focussed on getting old rights of way on the map and claiming new use.   The two pilot counties had proved to be more complicated than anticipated. More volunteer involvement would have been welcomed.   A further paper on archive research would be presented to the Board for approval in the first part of next year.  

58. Tayo Adebowale, as lead board member, welcomed the paper and that the consultants were noting lessons learnt from the open access methodologies.   The paper assumed that the work would contribute significantly to extending public enjoyment of the countryside, but the project would not achieve that in itself and partners would need to produce evidence of this.   It did not describe how budget cuts had impacted on the project.   She added that the programme had slipped and there was a risk of further slippage.   There would need to be a better understanding of the counties to be covered before the end point could be confirmed. 

59. In discussion, the following points were made: 

i) The Agency should not underestimate demand and the effect of the project and it would be important to prioritise claims to maximise the impact of limited resources. 

ii) Local authorities should be encouraged to deliver on the most important local networks.

iv) Efforts should be made to publicise the project locally, particularly by liaising with local community landscape projects 

60. Jeremy Worth responded that the project would need more publicity when it reached the tangible stages to help establish the right claims. Support for highways authorities to pursue discussions with landowners would be important to reintroduce routes by agreement.   Budget cutbacks had resulted in slippage but had allowed additional time to get the pilot stage right.   He added that the prediction of completed counties assumed a steep learning curve; as a consequence later counties should be completed more quickly.   Programme manager Jill Hobbs added that the most important lesson from Open Access was the importance of a risk-sharing contract that would have flexibility depending on extent of the archive material discovered.

61. The Chairman thanked Jeremy Worth and his team for producing the paper.

Preparation for the European Rural Development Programme meeting with Defra on 14 November

62. John Mills confirmed that Defra were not seeking a joined-up view from the Agency, rather to draw upon the experience of Board members.   Andrew Wood added that Natural England was planning to host a larger event for Number 10 and the Treasury.   Margaret Clark confirmed that Alistair Johnson would represent the CRC at the Defra meeting.

63. The Chairman thanked Margaret Clark for information he had received on Self Investment Personal Pensions and confirmed that he did not wish to lose sight of this issue. 

64. The Board were asked to note the list of meetings for 2006, also that for the first quarter meeting venues would alternate between Cheltenham and London, starting with London in January.

65. The Board’s next meeting would be in Cheltenham on Thursday, 12 December 2005 at 9.00 am.