Natural England

Minutes of the 57th 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
Mark Shucksmith
John Varley
Pam Warhurst
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
Tony Dover, Head of Corporate Governance
Ken Roy, Programme Director, Rural Analysis
Colette Backwell, Defra
Andy Clements, Executive Director of Science & Evidence-designate, Natural England

1.   The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and congratulated Tayo Adebowale on her appointment to the Board of the Forestry Commission.

2.   The Chairman reported that he would send a thank you card to Helen Ghosh, Defra Permanent Secretary, on behalf of the Board, thanking her for attending dinner the previous evening.

3.   The Chairman gave an up-date on progress with the NERC Bill’s Report Stage, which had taken place in the House of Lords the previous evening.

4.   Apologies for absence were received from Alison McLean.

Declaration of interests

5.   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 interest was declared:

i)    Philip Lowe, a member of Defra’s Science Advisory Panel, in relation to the discussion of Natural England’s corporate plan

6.   The Board approved the minutes of the previous meeting, subject to noting apologies for absence from Sheena Asthana.

6.1  The Board agreed to change paragraph 20 of the minutes of 15 December 2005 to opening all  rights of way.

7.    Graham Garbutt introduced the report and said that at his meeting with the Countryside Alliance he had been impressed by their system for obtaining rapid feedback on campaigning issues by e-mail correspondence with their members.   He added that his meeting with the National Audit Office had covered open access, his Accounting Officer role and the Agency’s dissolution process.  

8.    He also reported that within Corporate Services the Agency’s business and continuity plans had been updated and reissued.   Chris Udall had been appointed as Head of HR and would maintain an overview of the balance of HR commitments and deployment of resources between CA and NE-related work. 

9.    Various Board members raised serious concerns about the NE matching process.   In response Andrew Wood explained that the NE Programme had immediately apologised to all staff and the recent letter to staff from Giles Duncan, NE’s Interim HR Director   was about how the new matching process would proceed.   He added that the problems had arisen due to a number of factors, which included the way in which role descriptions had been written for NE versus different approaches taken by the legacy bodies for current role descriptions combined with technical difficulties with the database becoming misaligned.   In addition the strong desire to conclude the process quickly had been achieved by cutting the final loop out of the process, whereby managers would have had the opportunity to review and validate the results before the matching letters were produced. Graham Garbutt added that Martin Hurst, Transformation Director for NE, had written to every member of staff apologising for the errors in the NE matching process and that he had been impressed by both the professionalism of the CA’s staff during this time and the support given by the CA’s HR team, which had been exemplary.  

10.  Richard Burge proposed a resolution, which was unanimously agreed by the Board.   “The Board of the Countryside Agency wishes to reflect to Defra its extreme disquiet at the failure of the NE matching process.   It proposes that the Chairman and Chief Executive should ask Defra to inform them of the reasons for the mistakes and request that appropriate disciplinary and procedural reviews be implemented so that errors are not repeated when the exercise is re-run.”

11.  Graham Garbutt undertook to raise the Board’s concerns at the next meeting of the MRD Programme Board.

12.  During the discussion Board members:

i)    Raised concerns about the process for giving Board members advance notice of the Rural Advocate’s visits to regions, giving the impending visit to Cumbria as a case in point. Margaret Clark apologised for the lack of notice, explaining that this had arisen as a short notice personal invitation to Stuart Burgess, which had been fitted in around the Post Office Inquiry.  

ii)    Welcomed a number of items in the CRC’s section of the report. Namely the series of housing events and publications, which had been a very effective way of communicating.  

iii)    Asked whether the CRC would respond to Defra’s consultation on CAP and the Rural Development Programme and urged that the Board should lament the Government’s decision to allocate the minimum to the rural development element of the regulation. Margaret Clark replied that there were currently four consultations around upland hill farming all of which the CRC would respond to, focussing on the likely impact on people’s lives and livelihoods.  

iv)   Commented that following the Board’s earlier discussion on the Meyrick judgement, the revised amendments to the NERC Bill were a significant improvement and suggested that the Agency’s staff should be congratulated on their achievement.

v)    Enquired about the CRC’s plans to launch the first stage of the disadvantage study.   In response Margaret Clark agreed that this was an important piece of work for the CRC and that the plan was to launch it in the House of Commons with Ministers Jim Knight and Phil Woolas in attendance.   Mark Shucksmith and Alison McLean had been closely involved in the DVD, which would accompany the publication.  

13.   The Chairman introduced his report and noted the earlier point about lack of advance notice to Board members of the Rural Advocate’s visits to regions.   He reported that his visit to the Isle of Wight had been exceptional.

14.    In reporting on his meeting with the Chairs of the regional Rural Affairs Fora (rRAF), the Chairman said he supported the Minister’s suggestion that the CRC and rRAF Chairs establish a concordat for future working.  

15.    The Chairman explained that he hoped Board members would be able to participate in events such as the Royal Show during the year.   Further, he would be writing to the Prime Minister at the end of March or the beginning of April with a note of six key points, which he hoped to pursue via a face-to-face meeting.

16.    During the discussion Board members commented:

i)      that it would be useful to consider the involvement of Board members in external events as part of a systematic review of the role of Board members; 

ii)     that it would be helpful to have clarity about the expected role of Board members in the CRC;

iii)    on the importance of local contacts to help pinpoint realistic examples of disadvantaged people in rural areas backed up by skilled communications to ensure that accurate messages were conveyed; and

iv)    it would be helpful to have a copy of the list of members of rRAFs.

17.   During the discussion, Board members also raised questions about their terms of office, which Graham Garbutt agreed to follow up with Defra to clarify the confusion. 

18.   Graham Garbutt introduced the report by explaining that the MRD budget was one of the key issues for the MRD programme board which was due to meet the following day.   He added that the Defra Shared Services project was currently rated as high risk due to concerns about it being up and running on time.

19.  The Chairman added that the 2006/07 budget and the lack of information about the potential cuts required had been discussed the previous evening with Helen Ghosh (Permanent Secretary, Defra). He also gave an up-date on progress with the NERC Bill which should gain Royal Assent by Easter.

20.  Pam Warhurst reported that NE’s Director of Policy and Performance, David Young, had a strong background in sustainable development and energy use.   However some tensions had emerged where the new NE Executive had wished to put their stamp on the structure, which may result in the loss of some key staff.  

21.  During the discussion Board members:

i)     Asked about the CRC’s contingency plan for the use of Defra’s Shared Services to which Graham Garbutt replied that the CRC’s contingency plan for the use of Defra’s Shared Services was a deliberate decision not to use the service for the first year, whilst continuing a dialogue with Defra about its suitability and readiness. Consequently during its first year of operation the CRC would use an interim in-house solution.

ii)    Reminded the Executive of an earlier request for the Agency to continue to monitor the activities that transferred to the RDAs under the EDM and asked that this item be included in future updates on Implementing the Rural Strategy.   Margaret Clark explained that the CRC had let a contract on monitoring and benchmarking in the regions the arrangements that the RDAs and Government Offices had in place. Margaret Clark agreed to circulate details of the contract to Board members and suggested that it might be helpful to also circulate details of a paper to the MRD programme board on the Rural Funding Review, including SEFT, social and economic funding transfer to the RDAs.

iii)    Tayo Adebowale reported on a recent meeting in Newcastle with Frances Rowe about moving from piloting to mainstreaming which could be beneficial to both the CRC and NE.   Tayo added that Frances Rowe was keen to share with the Board the lessons that had been learned.

22.   Graham Garbutt introduced the paper and explained that Tony Dover, Head of Corporate Governance, would provide support for the Board’s Dissolution sub-group.   During the discussion on membership of the Dissolution sub-group, concerns were raised at the lack of confirmation from Defra about the expected extension of terms for some Board members.   Colette Backwell undertook to provide urgent clarification on these points.   The Board felt strongly that those members of the CA Board who were appointed to the NE Board should continue to serve on the CA Board until the dissolution of the CA.

23.   The Board agreed to reduce the number of meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year, whilst retaining dates for CRC taskgroup meetings, about which Margaret Clark agreed to consult taskgroup members by e-mail.   The Board agreed to hold meetings on 25 May, 6 July and 7 September.

24.    In summing up the Chairman confirmed the Board’s agreement to: establish the sub-group on Dissolution, reduce the number of Board meetings (whilst retaining CRC taskgroup meetings) and keep membership of the Board intact until Vesting.

25.   Tony Dover presented the paper to the Board and reported that good progress had been made in discussions on the transfer of responsibility to Defra for the Village Hall Loans Fund and RCC pensions.   The Executive had recently approved a new process for the letting of contracts that extend beyond the end of September and which would be assigned or novated to one of the successor bodies.   Meanwhile work continued on the transfer schedules to ensure that all assets and liabilities are recorded and transferred to the successor bodies. 

26.   The Board discussed the responsibilities of the accounting officer under merger accounting rules and noted that for the first six months of 2006/07, Graham Garbutt would be the Agency’s accounting officer, whereas, post vesting, Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England would become the accounting officer for the whole financial year, in respect of those activities of the Agency that would transfer to Natural England.   The same principles would also apply to those parts of the Agency that would transfer to the CRC, with their accounting officer being responsible,   post vesting, for the whole financial year.

27.   The Board also discussed the potential need for a residual body. It was explained that neither the Agency nor Defra anticipated there being a need for a residual body; at vesting, any unallocated assets would transfer to Defra.

28.   The Chairman thanked Tony Dover for his paper and also thanked Peter Fane, Philip Lowe and Howard Petch for volunteering to join the Board’s informal group on Dissolution.

29.   The Board approved the revised Business Plan, which had been adjusted to absorb the anticipated 7.5% budget cut, subject to Defra confirming the Grant-in-Aid allocation.


Natural England Corporate Plan AP06/10 

30.   Andy Clements, Executive Director of Science and Evidence-designate for Natural England, presented the NE Corporate Plan to the Board.   He explained that the plan integrated the work of LAR with that of English Nature and RDS for the next six months and then Natural England through to 2007/08.   The plan had not been finalised in order to create an opportunity for comment by the Boards of the three founder bodies.  

31.   Andrew Wood invited the Board to approve the proposals to:

i)     delegate authority to the Chairman to sign-off the plan, with advice from the LAR taskgroup; and

ii)     divert funds to the Community Renewables Initiative and the Walking to Heath Initiative, in order to complete the delivery of existing commitments;

32.   The Board noted that confirmation of the cut in Grant-in-Aid was still awaited from Defra. Cuts of either 5% or 7½% could be absorbed, but anything more than that would severely constrain Natural England’s ability to deliver.

33.   Andy Clements explained that the intention was to create a document that enabled Natural England to be up and running very quickly, which staff could deliver on and which stakeholders could understand.   He thanked those members of the Board who had contributed to the development of the plan through their involvement in the Natural England Steering Group (NESG) and reported that the NE Executive team had been working on sharpening up the plan’s targets and outcomes.  

34.   Pam Warhurst responded that a huge amount of work had gone into the creation of the plan and that she would feed in her detailed comments by e-mail.   She also indicated her support for moving £75,000 of funding to the Walking to Health Initiative (WHI).   In addition, Board members:

i)     commented that the cut in Grant-in-Aid would more likely be in the order of 10%;

ii)     expressed concern about the lack of clarity from the Dti about their contributory funds for the CRI;

iii)    suggested adding more emphasis to habitat shifts under climate change.   Also within that the CO² focus as methane is also an important contributory greenhouse gas;

iv)    asked for reference to be included to an international context for the delivery of mandatory obligations, such as: Agenda 21, Addis Ababa Sustainable Use Declaration, IUCN and biodiversity system banking through planning investment in biodiversity resources;

v)    requested mention of working with RDAs as part of an integrated approach to delivery within the Defra family;

vi)   commented that the plan seemed to be rather narrower than the purposes of NE, as described in the NERC Act which placed greater emphasis on sustainable development, rather than sustainable land use;

vii)   noted there was no reference to landscape enhancement;

viii)   agreed that targets needed to be tighter and ‘smarter’ and reference should be included to NE working with the CRC; and 

ix)    requested mention of championing and protecting eg in order to repeat the success of Whinash.

35.   Andy Clements thanked the Board for their comments and confirmed that sustainable development, science and enhancement would go into the document for the coming year.  

36.   In response to questions from the Board Andrew Wood explained that the proposed funding reduction was as a result of the budget position that would also entail re-phasing some activities so that they would be delayed, others would be more problematic.   Cuts had been made to activities that were discretionary and at the margins of the Agency’s focus of activity, such as the national trails programme, plus some things that the regions would like to do but which did not form part of the core programme eg Cotswold Way.   Anticipating that the cut in Grant-in-Aid would be more than 10%.   Funding for the Community Renewables Initiative from the Dti would be contingent upon match funding from Defra and with the transfer of funds it would be possible to implement an orderly closure of the CRI within three months. 

CRC Corporate Plan             AP06/11

37.   Ken Roy introduced the report and explained that owing to the different nature of the CRC, which unlike NE did not have huge delivery functions, its plan was very different from that for NE.   The CRC’s plan had been prepared on the assumption that there would be a 7.5% budget cut; it did not take account of the MRD programme costs or the cost of the CRC’s relocation.   Additional money would be provided for vesting and the preparatory work that needed to be undertaken between now and then.   Since the Board last considered the plan, the CRC’s management team had carried out a ‘reality check’.   The team now believed that it could deliver the plan’s aspirations within the assumed budget and had taken account of what would, in all likelihood, be a changing position.   However, there were still other uncertainties and greater staff upheaval than was first envisaged.

38.   John Varley voiced his support for the plan and thanked Margaret Clark and her team for producing a plan that reflected the comments made at the Board’s and task group’s earlier discussions.   He was also pleased to note that it identified the associated risks and recommended that the Board should endorse it, whilst noting concerns about the lack of clarity over the final budget position. Members of the Board also commented that:

i)    with such limited resources in the regions there would be difficulties in maintaining effective regional interaction and communication;

ii)    reference back to NE on the state of the environment report and the review of health be included;

iii)   further work needed to undertaken to improve the sharpness and relevance of what the CRC would do and what it would achieve in respect of its work on reconnecting rural communities and the land.

39.  Margaret Clark responded that she envisaged it would be one of the roles of the taskgroup to define this more clearly and added that a study was being undertaken which Richard Burge and Michael Winter were involved in.   Margaret also explained that paragraph 14 of the plan contained thoughts on contingency planning.

40.   In summary the Chairman noted that, subject to final confirmation of the budget, the Board had approved the draft corporate plan and thanked those involved for their hard work.

Report on accommodation in John Dower House AP06/12

41.  The Board considered a paper about accommodation in John Dower House in closed session.   The information contained in the paper was for future publication under the Freedom of Information Act Section 43: commercial interests.  

Relocation of the CRC AP06/13

42.  The Board considered a paper about the relocation of the CRC in closed session.   The information contained in the paper was for future publication under the Freedom of Information Act Section 22.

Any Other Business

43.   Richard Burge stated that he thought the publication on disadvantage and older people pilot study was excellent, and he had particularly liked the extensive use of personal case studies.

Date of next meeting

44.  The next meeting of the Board will be held on Thursday, 25 May at 9.00 am in the Boardroom at John Dower House, Cheltenham.