Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
MR DUDLEY
COATES, MS
JUDY ALLFREY,
MS LINDSAY
CORNISH AND
MS DIANA
KAHN
20. You would agree that perhaps the watchwords
now are flexibility and delegation?
(Ms Kahn) I think that there is certainly a great
deal of sympathy for that, in the sorts of arguments that are
being put forward by the UK in these discussions, yes.
Chairman
21. Before I hand on to Fiona Jones, I just
want to come back, perhaps on this question of the Commission
Initiative briefly. It would be helpful if you felt able in some
way to keep the Committee up to date with developments in this
area, which is clearly an important one, but you talked about
LEADER, as I expected you would, in your answer to that question;
my understanding is that at local level there is quite a lot of
support for the LEADER concept, it has proved quite popular, and
yet you seem to have reservations. I wonder if I could just flesh
you out a little bit on the Commission Initiative?
(Mr Coates) I do not think we have reservations. I
am sorry if we were predictable in our answers, Mr Chairman. Do
you want to add anything to that?
(Ms Kahn) Yes. I think it is recognised that LEADER
has been useful, but the overarching aim is to get main Structural
Funds programmes that are sufficiently flexible to enable the
sorts of projects that have been supported by LEADER to be supported
by the mainstream programmes. So, to that extent, partly because
the Community Initiatives have been administratively burdensome
and because of the stress on simplicity and reducing the number
of sources of money, there is certainly an aim to make sure that
the Structural Funds are sufficiently flexible rather than introducing
lots of Initiatives to improve them.
Chairman: That is a helpful clarification, thank
you.
Ms Jones
22. I just cannot quite resist making a comment
on that, because one of the main criticisms, I think, of Structural
Funds is that they are completely inflexible, or that is how it
would appear to me. Although the words "rural development"
are used in the title of the draft Regulation, certain features
of it appear to give priority to environmental projects. Do you
agree that the proposals emphasise environmental objectives over
rural development objectives, and if you do agree with that would
you endorse that preference?
(Mr Coates) The first part of my answer is, I think
that we ourselves are having some difficulty with the title being
"rural development", because it actually covers something
quite a lot wider than we understand by rural development, which
we tend to use for the sort of Article 31 measures type of area.
So there is a potential for confusion which we have found even
amongst ourselves, in talking about this Regulation. Secondly,
it is the case that the draft Regulation as it stands proposes
that just one element should be mandatory across all the territories
of all the Member States, and that is the agri-environment element
of the proposal. To that extent then because that is mandatory
and nothing else specifically is mandatory, you could argue, I
think, that environmental concerns are given priority. I think
the Regulation also implies, and I think we would want anyway
in implementing it here, to look for some sort of balance; now
what balance might be struck between the various strands, environmental,
development, sustainability generally, I do not think I could
foresee at this stage, because, as I have been indicating earlier,
the scope for measures would very much depend on the priorities
and finance that was actually available. But I think we would
not willingly go along with the idea that all the money should
be in, say, the environmental pot, or, for that matter, that all
of it should be in the rural development pot, that would not be
possible under the Regulation as drafted, but I think we would
be looking for a balance. Does that help?
23. How would you then target funds in relation
to actually identifying areas of need, in terms of rural development,
and then putting the funds into those areas? I guess you are saying
that some environmental projects could go hand in hand with rural
development, in terms of job creation, in rural areas, but how
would you actually channel the funds into areas of need, in relation
to rural development?
(Mr Coates) The starting-point would have to be prioritising,
of the sort, I do not mean identical to but of the sort, that
underpins the rural development areas of the RDC and the Objective
5b designated areas. One has to start from some sort of set of
criteria about which rural areas are particularly deserving and
one also has to raise questions about which range of measures,
from the very wide spectrum that are available under this draft
Regulation, and that would be one of the tasks that would have
to be done in drawing up the programmes under this Regulation.
24. I think most rural MPs would view Objective
5b as having, to a certain extent, failed, in that it was such
a broadbrush approach that it was purely on geographical areas.
We have, as David Curry said, some of the most affluent villages
in the country eligible for 5b status, because of their geographical
location, while we have really deprived rural areas who have no
Objective 5b status. So, in relation to actually targeting funds
into areas of need, that seems to have, to a certain extent, failed.
How would you see projects like this, and, as I say, you can argue
that the environmental projects could go hand in hand with rural
development, but how would you actually define a criterion as
to where that money would be channelled?
(Mr Coates) I think one would be looking for indicators
of need. If you were drawing geographical boundaries, there are
always difficult issues at the boundaries of those geographical
areas. One of the potential advantages of operating under this
Regulation is that the boundaries would be in the programmes,
rather than set in concrete in the way that 5b boundaries are
for the current period, and Objectives 1 and 2, and so on, as
well. But any boundaries that were being set under this Regulation
would be set in the programming documents and might be capable
of being a bit more flexible. But if you do want to target areas
of greater need and not the most affluent villages, you cannot
get away from some sort of set of indicators of what is determined
to be need, and those are, in practice, always difficult and there
is always a marginal case where you could argue the thing the
opposite way. As to targeting of the environmental side, currently
MAFF's agri-environment schemes are targeted, the ESAs are obviously
targeted and have hard boundaries. The Countryside Stewardship
Scheme is targeted rather more subtly by a county-level process,
of which landscapes, which wildlife interests, and so on, which
particular sorts of countryside we would like to get into that
scheme in any particular county at any particular time. Under
that particular scheme those targets can and do change from year
to year; if we are quite successful in getting a proportion of
a particular habitat in, in one year, we might well target a different
habitat in the next year. So there are a number of different ways
one could go about targeting; it might be possible to be rather
more flexible within the framework of this Regulation over time,
one might not necessarily have to set everything in concrete for
the whole of the seven years of the programme.
25. What sort of indications of rural development
need do you think could be used or developed?
(Mr Coates) I might ask Ms Kahn to have a go at that
one.
(Ms Kahn) I think this is a very difficult area, developing
indicators of rural need, because the particular problems of rural
deprivation are very often invisible, small-scale, dispersed,
and so on. The RDC is currently doing some work on trying to develop
better indicators of rural need. The Department's Index of Local
Deprivation, there is work going on to improve that so that it
better encompasses—
26. So what is that based on?
(Ms Kahn) It is based on a number of indicators, and
you are pushing me towards the limits of my knowledge on exactly
what is in the Index of Local Deprivation. It is used for the
Single Regeneration Budget and assisting in targeting funds for
that.
Ms Jones: Can I interrupt you. Do you think,
Chairman, that we perhaps could have a note on that?
Chairman
27. I think it would be very helpful.
(Ms Kahn) Yes, I can certainly offer you a note on
the Index of Local Deprivation; and it has been criticised for
being too urban-based, and work is to be done to try to improve
it.
Mr Curry
28. It is being reworked at the moment, we are
going to have sort of an ersatz copy?
(Ms Kahn) I will certainly offer you a note on that.
But this is something that work is being done on, to develop better
indicators of rural need. I think that is all I can say, to sum
up.
Ms Jones
29. To go back to the point you were making,
Mr Coates, you talked about current agri-environmental schemes,
could you comment on the relative cost-effectiveness of existing
agri-environmental and rural development measures in the UK, particularly
in terms of job creation, in terms of training, infrastructure
and rural services?
(Mr Coates) Yes. I think the first part of my answer
needs to be that the objectives of agri-environment measures are
to achieve landscape, wildlife, public access, and so on, benefits,
and, therefore, job creation, training impacts, and so on, are
spin-offs. We like to see them and we do do some monitoring of
those spin-off benefits. And we do know that some of our agri-environment
schemes do have a positive job impact. But that is not their primary
purpose. Therefore it is a bit difficult to compare, I think you
used the phrase cost-effectiveness, when they are not primarily
a job creation tool. What we would argue is, and this would apply
to the 5b work, I think to the work of the Rural Development Commission,
to our agri-environment programmes as well, that all of them have
a regular monitoring and evaluation cycle. Much of that material
has been published, some of it, for example, was looked at by
the predecessor to this Committee in the last Parliament, when
it reported on agri-environment schemes in the last session of
the last Parliament, and we have published some more since then,
particularly on some of the ESAs. So our approach would be to
monitor and evaluate all these programmes against their stated
objectives and also to look for spin-off benefits, like environmental
benefits from 5b job creation programmes and job creation benefits
from agri-environment programmes. But I do not think it is fair
to judge a programme whose objectives are agri-environmental by
its job creation, or vice versa; are you with me?
30. Yes. I suppose I would say to you, obviously,
some agri-environmental schemes would have to be always given
priority, because of the scheme itself, but what would your view
be in terms of in the future there being some preference given
to agri-environmental schemes that also fulfil the criteria of
actually creating jobs and improving the infrastructure in the
rural areas where they are based?
(Mr Coates) I think I would say that, other things
being equal, an agri-environment scheme that has a positive job
creation effect is better than one that does not. I certainly
would argue that. And one of the things I do quite like to quote
is the fact that our agri-environment schemes, although not targeted
at job creation, do have positive job creation effects. And I
would make the same point about the environmental benefits of
some of the rural development activity, under 5b. And, yes, clearly,
if you can get significant spin-off benefits in another desirable
area, other things being equal, that is a better scheme to run,
or a better programme to operate, than one which does not have
those spin-off benefits.
Mrs Organ
31. In order to implement the Regulation, we
are going to have to draw up seven-year rural development programmes,
are we not?
(Mr Coates) Yes.
32. Can I ask you, first of all, who you consider
will be drawing up these programmes?
(Ms Allfrey) Firstly, I think I should say that we
are assuming that the measures will continue, as at present, to
be run separately in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
and that is our starting-point. Within England, we would then
need to take decisions on at what level we would implement the
planning process, and at this stage we are very early in understanding
how the system is going to work and Ministers have not taken decisions
on this. There are a number of factors that are relevant. We are
still awaiting the outcome of the Government's Comprehensive Spending
Review, but the details of the proposal and the EU funding position
do not suggest that a much more extensive programme than we have
got at present is going to be available. There is also a problem
with limited time, we have only got six months from the date this
Regulation is agreed to draw up the programmes, and during that
time the Commission has first got to adopt implementing rules.
I think I must stress that final decisions have yet to be taken,
indeed, even initial decisions, but until we are in a position
where there is a lot more funding available I do not think we
would expect our coverage to extend much beyond maintaining our
existing programmes, together with a number of targeted socioeconomic
programmes, perhaps analogous to what we are doing at present,
under Objective 5b. And we have to take all these factors into
account in deciding who is the best person to operate these programmes,
but whoever does operate them will have to become a paying agency
under the EC rules, which do impose quite stringent requirements.
And we are also going to need to discuss with other Departments
how best to gel in with the arrangements for the Structural Fund
programmes, because in the new Objective 1 and 2 areas a substantial
proportion of these measures are going to be programmed through
the Structural Funds programming procedures. I realise that probably
has not answered your questions but it has perhaps highlighted
some of the issues we have been looking at.
33. That leads me to one or two others. So we
are basically saying that, due to time and funding, we are just
actually going to put these development plans together basically
on a nationwide basis?
(Ms Allfrey) Not necessarily.
34. We are not going to actually put it into,
say, regional government, or we are not going to link in with
the newly set-up RDAs?
(Mr Coates) It will clearly have to link with the
RDAs. I think the question is what form of links need to be made.
I am clear that there will be regional elements to the implementation,
and there will be some national elements to the implementation,
in terms of priorities. We have not yet addressed the question
of how that balance is to be struck and what the best mechanism
is likely to be for putting these programmes together. What Ms
Allfrey has done is indicated some of the constraints under which
we will be operating in actually doing it some time next year;
between now and then, in the light of things people are saying,
including anything the Committee wants to say, we will be giving
further thought to how best to put this Regulation into operation,
if and when it is adopted.
Mrs Organ: Who would you like to see as the
lead Department; is it going to be DETR or is it going to be MAFF?
Because there is a problem here, is there not, because MAFF is
not actually totally integrated into a sort of regional government
office structure and—
Mr Curry: It is not integrated at all.
Mrs Organ
35. No, it is not.
(Mr Coates) I am not sure that I would agree with
not integrated at all. We work quite closely with the Government
Offices for the Regions in respect of 5b. Most of the rest of
MAFF's activity in the regions does not have a direct relationship
with the work of the Government Offices, because it is basically
paying farmers the main CAP commodity supports.
36. But to do the development plan, we are talking
about a different situation?
(Mr Coates) Yes; and we have to work out how best
to do that in the light of this Regulation, and that is something
we have begun to think about in our heads but we have not begun
to talk to Ministers in any detail about, and that is something
that will have to be done over the coming months.
37. Because we are running out of time, really,
are we not?
(Mr Coates) This Regulation, if it is adopted in the
spring of next year, that is the sort of timescale we are assuming.
Work has to be done, yes, I accept that, and we envisage doing
that work, but it has not been done yet.
38. No; and it will actually come in in the
same sort of time that the regional RDAs in England are set up
and beginning to run?
(Mr Coates) Yes.
39. So there needs to be quite a lot of interface
there?
(Mr Coates) Yes.
Mrs Organ: Because we are talking about rural
development here. So, therefore, will the rural development programme
incorporate all the measures being applied in an area as part
of an integrated single plan, or will you actually ignore what
is going on with other Initiatives and just concentrate on what
you think might be eligible for Article 31?
Mr Curry: Particularly as some of the people
who now deal with the existing programmes in the Regional Offices
will be transferred over to the RDAs.
|
