Natural England

Minutes of the 56th Meeting of the Countryside Agency

Present:                        
Stuart Burgess, Chairman
Tayo Adebowale
Kate Ashbrook
Richard Burge
Jim Cox
Peter Fane
Norman Glass
Tony Hams
Philip Lowe
Alison McLean
John Varley
Michael Winter


In attendance:             
Graham Garbutt, Chief Executive
Margaret Clark, CRC Director
Andrew Wood, LAR Director
Barbara Fletcher, Head of Corporate Services 
Sue Bennett, Head of Corporate Support
Jane Gawthorne, Head of Management Support Group
Trevor Cherrett, Head of Planning, Housing and Transport
Tony Dover, Head of Corporate Governance

Apologies for absence 

1.  Apologies for absence were received from: Sheena Asthana, Graham James, Howard Petch, Mark Shucksmith and Pam Warhurst.

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

i)   Kate Ashbrook declared an interest in AP06/06, as Chairman of the Council for National Parks.

ii)   Tony Hams declared an interest in AP06/06, as Chairman of the Association of National Park Authorities.

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

3.1  Paragraph 10 – amend to the confederation would be producing a paper for the next NESG sub-group.

3.2  Paragraph 15 – Alison McLean wished to make it clear that she had not been querying the RDAs’ capacity to deliver 

3.3  Paragraph 20 – amend to opening all  rights of way.

3.4  Paragraph 25 – Pam Warhurst would be co-chairing the sub-group.

4.   Graham Garbutt tabled an up-date on the various Board discussion groups, together with a final draft of the Countryside Agency’s submission to the ODPM select committee inquiry on regional government.   He explained that the next six to eight weeks would be turbulent times as individual staff received notification of the outcomes of the NE matching process. 

4.2  During the discussion about the Board’s sub-group on avian flu, Graham Garbutt reported on a meeting with David Harper, director of public health at the Department of Health, who had offered to meet the Board. It was suggested that the Agency could host a seminar involving officials from the Department of Health and Defra to encourage and facilitate broader thinking across the two departments, particularly in respect of the potential impact of a pandemic on rural communities.   It was agreed to review the suggestion following a meeting with Debby Reynolds, chief veterinary officer, on March 1.

4.4  Margaret Clark reported on the CRC’s recent contributions   to the Dti’s review of the post office network and a positive recent meeting with Dti Minister, Barry Gardiner MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Competitiveness), at which it was agreed that the CRC would:

i)    contribute to the Government’s proposed consultation paper on the future of Post Offices that would be published in May; and

ii)    host a mini inquiry to demonstrate ways in which   rural   communities could engage in decisions about how post office and related services might be delivered in future.

4.5  The Chairman confirmed, in response to a question from Kate Ashbrook, that the subject of outdoor education had been raised as an issue for future liaison between CRC and NE. 

4.6  In response to a question from Tony Hams, Andrew Wood confirmed that the Discovering Lost Ways project would transfer into Natural England and was included in the NE corporate plan.   Work had been stopped with the pilot councils while a review of methodology was undertaken but this would not affect the handover to NE. Communication with stakeholders about the current timing of the project would go ahead after the next advisory group meeting in early March.

4.7  The Chairman agreed that the Board should be provided with a breakdown of Natural England staffing and the relative proportions from the legacy bodies when the information was available.

4.8   Kate Ashbrook raised a concern about lack of communication with lead Board members on relevant issues. Of particular concern for a number of Board members was the issue of National Park funding and lack of clarity surrounding the Agency’s view on this.   Andrew Wood promised to provide briefing and background material but added that the Agency’s view might depend on the wider impact of budget cuts from Defra.

4.9 Peter Fane advised that there was unease amongst landowning interests about the coastal open access project and suggested that an early indication of the project scope and detail would help to allay these concerns. 

5. Governance until vesting

5.1  John Varley reported that the Audit & Risk Management Committee had held a useful meeting with the National Audit Office, which focussed on requirements in relation to the transition. As a result of their advice, he proposed that until vesting the Board should take a more formal interest in the Agency’s transitional activities and accounting activities and functions, particularly those that would either: cease, transfer, or revert to Defra..  

5.2  The Chairman summed up the discussion by noting that the Board had agreed to the following recommendations:

i)  a sub-group of the Board should be created;

ii)  the Chief Executive would produce a regular up-date of the Transfer and Dissolution paper, to include an overview of finances; and

iii)  the sub-group would consider the Transfer and Dissolution paper before each Board meeting.

6.  Report of the Rural Advocate

6.1  The Chairman introduced the Rural Advocate’s report and explained that there were reports to follow on his visits to Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Wight.   During the discussion, the Board suggested that:

i)  future visits should be planned well in advance and relevant lead and regional Board members should receive more notice of dates and be consulted about the programme’s content; 

ii)  future visits should be linked to study themes and contact should be maintained with people met during the visits;

iii)  further reports and action should flow from all future visits;

iv)  adequate resources should be provided within the Chairman’s office to ensure that future Rural Advocate visits were well supported; and

v)   issues raised during the visit to Richmond should be followed up with the Ministry of Defence.

6.2  In summing up, the Chairman thanked Nigel Ellway for his support in organising and reporting on visits and noted that there was genuine appreciation of the visits among the people he had met. 

7.  Implementing the Rural Strategy

7.1  Graham Garbutt introduced the report and explained that in respect of the relocation of the CRC, work had continued on three areas, narrowing the options down to specific premises within each of these.   Philip Lowe reminded the Board of the importance of pursuing the objective criteria that the Board had defined for the location of CRC’s headquarters and cautioned that there would need to be a clear understanding of the benefits and value to the CRC of co-location, as well as any potential disadvantages.  

7.2  The Board discussed progress with outsourcing the CRC’s back office services and noted that, although a final decision had yet to be taken, Defra’s shared services were likely to be the preferred option provided that the service was competitive.   John Varley expressed the wish that the Agency’s finance and other relevant corporate teams be considered for roles within Defra’s shared services, as they would not be accommodated in either NE or CRC.

7.3   In respect of the budget for Natural England, Andrew Wood explained that the anticipated grant-in-aid of £418m would probably be cut by up to £50m which would be difficult to achieve after existing commitments were taken into account.   Further that an exercise was needed to produce a robust business case for NE that not only protected the interests of the three legacy bodies but also left room for NE to fulfil the Secretary of State’s aspiration that it would be “more than the sum of its existing parts”.   

7.4   Andrew Wood gave an update on the proposed NE matching process and explained that all staff would be expecting to receive a letter on 16 February detailing their own outcome within the matching process.   In total there would be 17 generic letters, which would be personalised, and a good deal of work had been undertaken to ensure that individuals would receive the correct letter.   Details in the letters would confirm whether an individual had been directly matched to a post, multi-matched, or not matched, together with information about the next stage in the process and options for voluntary severance or retirement. Margaret Clark added that staff in CRC and LHI would also receive letters about their   position and that these would be from Graham Garbutt, rather than from NE.

7.5  In summary, the Chairman noted that the Agency was entering a difficult time, both financially and for staff personally.   He noted the Board’s comments on corporate staff and Defra’s shared services and their comments on CRC relocation.   He added that it was important that the relationship between CRC and LAR continued to be positive.

8.  Status report on the Countryside Agency’s dissolution plan AP06/02

8.1  Graham Garbutt introduced the report by explaining that the next meeting of the Board would consider a separate paper on the related issue of future options for John Dower House.   John Varley commented that the status report presented a helpful start in understanding what was required for the Agency’s transfer and dissolution process.

8.2  Norman Glass strongly supported the establishment of a small, informal group to oversee the Agency’s transfer and dissolution process and supported the view that the Audit & Risk Management Committee needed to be kept separate from the dissolution group.

8.3  Graham Garbutt confirmed that as the Agency’s Accounting Officer he was responsible for safeguarding and ensuring the transfer of the Agency’s assets.   It was unlikely that the Agency would need a residuary body but this ought to be considered at the first meeting of the group.

8.4  Andrew Wood confirmed that the Agency had repeatedly raised with Defra the future of the Village Hall Loan Fund during the EDM process but had received no response.   The default position would be that this and other residual responsibilities would transfer to Defra when the Agency was dissolved.

8.5  In summary, the Chairman confirmed that an informal transition and dissolution group would be established to consider regular updates of the report, together with relevant financial information, and would in turn update the Board on progress. Peter Fane and Philip Lowe volunteered to sit on the group.   The Chairman invited other Board members wishing to volunteer to contact Graham Garbutt.

9.  Financial report for Quarter 3 APO6/03

9.1  Barbara Fletcher introduced the financial report for Quarter 3, together with the associated traffic light report and reminded the Board that at Quarter 2, the report had been re-profiled to take into account the cut in Grant-in-Aid.   The Agency was now forecasting a £1.5m under spend on its budget and would also return its capital fund to Defra.

9.2  Barbara Fletcher explained that provision for the cost of LHI redundancies had not been made in the report but that as the decision to terminate the programme had been made, it would be prudent, with Defra’s permission, to make the financial provision for these liabilities in the current financial year.   The Executive were in support of this proposal which could be funded from the £1.5m underspend.

9.3  John Varley responded in favour of making the provision for LHI redundancies in the current financial year but asked the Executive to confirm their confidence in the forecast underspend given the pressures on delivery.   He also advised that it would be prudent for the Agency to adopt the same practice as Natural England by adopting a two-monthly financial reporting cycle for April to September 2006.

9.4  Andrew Wood confirmed the figures for LAR were robust and reliable.   Margaret Clark confirmed that the figures for CRC were based on directors’ worst-case scenarios but were the best estimate at this stage.

9.5  Norman Glass expressed concern that it might be optimistic to assume that during the last financial quarter of the year the Agency would spend one-third of its budget, particularly as that would entail spending at a level it had failed to achieve earlier in the financial year.   This would also coincide with a time when staff would be unsettled by the outcome of the NE matching process.   In response, Andrew Wood commented that earlier spending had been curtailed by Defra’s moratorium on new projects of more than £100K and that much of the spend in the last quarter was already committed. 

9.6  In summary the Chairman endorsed the report’s recommendations, the move to two-monthly reporting in April to September 2006, plus the suggestion that provision be made for funding the LHI redundancies from the Agency’s forecast £1.5m underspend.

10. Government consultation paper on planning gain supplement AP06/04

10.1  Margaret Clark introduced the paper, which set out   the proposed   response to the consultation paper from the CRC, and explained that the NE confederation would submit its own response.   The Board noted that the consultation raised a number of unanswered questions but broadly welcomed and supported the draft CRC response to the consultation.   Michael Winter suggested that it might be helpful to include some examples within the response to help illustrate and strengthen the views expressed.

10.2 After a wide-ranging discussion of issues raised in the response, the Chairman confirmed that the Board agreed the proposed response from the CRC and that there would be two responses to the consultation paper, one from the CRC and one from the NE confederation. 

11. Review of the role of the Rural Advocate programme AP06/05

11.1 Margaret Clark introduced the report and explained that the review had considered the overall thrust of the programme, including whether the Rural Advocate was meeting the right people and groups during visits, the nature of the Rural Advocate’s role and how best to involve Board members.   The review concluded that there was a need to increase resources to support the RA programme, particularly   in the planning, briefing and follow up for   visits, including holding   a short meeting after each visit to agree any action and   whether there were any matters that should be raised with Ministers. There was also a need to embed   the Rural Advocate’s work in the work of the CRC generally to improve briefing and links with other work.

11.2 During the discussion of the review, Board members commented that:

i)  as proposed, the Rural Advocate’s letter to the Prime Minister needed to be short, yet extend beyond the specific programme of visits and take the opportunity to distil key messages from the whole of CRC.   This would reinforce the dual role of Rural Advocate and CRC Chairman;

ii)  there needed to be strategic thinking around how to make best use of the Rural Advocate’s watchdog role and work with departments other than Defra; and

iii)  the Chairman and Rural Advocate role needed a back office support team to ensure greater effectiveness;

11.3  In summing up, the Chairman said the Board noted the report and the various points made during the discussion.

12.  Impact on the Countryside Agency’s designation process of the Meyrick Judgement AP06/06 CLOSED ITEM

12.1  Richard Honey QC joined the Board for the discussion and explained the implications for the Agency’s designation process as a consequence of the ‘Meyrick’ judgement.

12.2  In summing up, the Chairman agreed the recommendations in the report and Richard Honey’s advice that the Agency should seek the best possible amendments to the NERC Bill.

13.  Any other business

13.1  Migrant workers – the Chairman reported that he would be making a future visit to Lincolnshire with Jim Knight, the Minister for Rural Affairs, to consider issues surrounding migrant workers.

13.2  Board members thanked the Chairman for his hard work on the NERC Bill, particularly during its passage through the House of Lords.

14.  Date of next meeting

14.1 The next meeting of the Board will be held on Thursday, 16 March 2006 at Portland House in London.