Examination of Witnesses
(Questions 320 - 327)
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER 1998
PROFESSOR PHILIP
LOWE, DR
NEIL WARD
AND PROFESSOR
JOHN BRYDEN
320. There seems to be a significant divergence
of view developing here. One is that the Highlands and Islands
with a population of 360,000 seems to make some sense in terms
of internal integrity. Then, you have also got RDAs — and
there is a spat in the Commons at the moment about whether their
urban dominance will allow them to properly address rural issues
— and whether RDAs with populations averaging about five
million would be the appropriate administrative size for the drawing
up of plans and the delivery of the decision making.
(Professor Lowe) It is difficult because if you took
the urban populations out of those you would be getting nearer
to the populations John was referring to. That is one difficulty.
I think the second is that the territory covered would be smaller
geographically than what John was referring to. Thirdly, if we
are going to get a strong rural voice in relation to the RDAs
and get them living up to what their commitments are, I think
it would be absurd then to weaken those structures.
321. It is clear at the English level that a
whole set of economic planning and physical planning activities
are going to cluster round these regions. There will be exceptions
like Cornwall, South Yorkshire and Pembrokeshire in Wales where
they will achieve Objective 1 status presumably and it will make
sense for plans to operate in a different environment in those
areas.
(Professor Lowe) It will be a legal necessity.
322. Right, okay. In terms of best practice,
how do you see these plans being drawn up in terms of appropriate
consultation and co-ordination with other activities like Objective
1 programmes, MAFF, RDAs and so on, the actual implementation
of the programmes?
(Dr Ward) We have a model in operation at the moment
which is the experience with the Objective 5b programmes. For
each of these programmes there is a Single Programming Document
which has been produced in draft form and circulated around a
wide variety of rural interests. Meetings are held and then the
SPDs are eventually agreed. Those documents make quite interesting
reading in terms of trying to reflect very systematically on the
rural development priorities specific to those localities.
323. Very often the fund is then seen as an
opportunity led rather than a strategic pot of money for people
to pitch into, first come first served.
(Professor Lowe) That is a risk. I know people have
got mixed views about the experience of Objective 5b in England.
The people who will come forward and influence those programmes
initially are those who have got lots of plans and projects in
their bottom drawer and that tends to be the local authorities.
A lot of that was because we had limited experience and also there
was a pretty heavy hand from Whitehall.
Mr George: You are absolutely right about that.
Chairman: I have one question particularly I
want Mr Hurst to ask.
Mr Hurst
324. It is really about the question of the
proposed regulation and the money that is going to be available.
Whilst one I think has, as I am sure you do, a lot of sympathy
for the proposal as a concept I understand from your helpful memorandum
that if one should take out the money going to Eastern Europe
there will actually be a reduction in the amount of money that
is proposed to be spent. Do you think they are running ahead of
themselves, in other words the concept is good but there is not
the willingness to put the public finance behind the proposal?
(Professor Lowe) I think what you have got here is
a document which is deeply compromised but actually, Fischler
will probably have explained it to you, deals with the limits
of the politically possible. So I do not think it is something
over which you should stand back and say it is flawed. Of course
it is flawed. To me when you are reforming a beast like the Common
Agricultural Policy you do not sit down and say how do you rationally
produce something that would look good and work well. You build
contradictions into it and you build contradictions that work
in the direction that you want the thing to go. The metaphor has
been used, by your Chairman, of a Trojan horse or thin ends of
wedges or whatever. The trouble with these things is what do they
mean, how big is the wedge and all sorts of questions like that.
I think they are useful as metaphors. The thing is beginning slowly
but if we relate it to the proper domestic structures, the bulk
of funds for agriculture are European and the bulk of funds for
rural and regional development are still domestic ones. Let's
get the structures right that we want from a domestic point of
view, and programme these funds into it and it becomes much less
of a hang-up. We are not then producing a set of artificial structures
for Brussels that generate very little cash. We are getting the
structures right at a regional level which begins to help us repatriate
this area of policy and begins to allow us to tie agricultural
and rural development where it should be in its proper regional
context.
325. Are we in effect seeing a switch of orthodoxies
or the move of orthodoxies and the money will follow later when
the new orthodoxies are in place? That is the crucial point about
these proposals.
(Professor Bryden) That is what Mr Fischler hopes.
Of course, with the downturn in commodity prices the room under
the guideline disappears pretty fast if not all but disappears.
I think there are two things here. One is the Objective 5b structural
fund changes. There is going to be less money overall for the
existing European countries and considerably less for what were
formerly Objective 5b areas (now the new Objective 2 areas) so
we are going to see that roughly halved in terms of the scope
and in Britain, if the Commission's proposals are accepted, the
number of Objective 5b areas will be literally decimated but there
is a safety net of course which the Commissioner has introduced
which will limit that. So in that sense we will lose structural
fund rural spending and on the other hand the new rural development
measures under Article 31 are obviously extremely limited because
most of the money goes on the HLCA agri-environment and forestry
and that will remain the case because politically it is very difficult
to shift money out of those areas and so we are going to find
resources very limited. This is perfectly true.
Chairman
326. There are many other things we wanted to
ask you. We may put some of those to you in writing. While we
have you before us I think it is sensible to make sure you were
satisfied with what you have had the opportunity to say. We have
had a very clear flavour of what you think is happening at present
but there might be issues you want to put on the record before
we draw this session to a conclusion.
(Professor Bryden) There is one thing I would like
to say. We are moving towards a territorial sort of policy consistent
with subsidiarity and with the kind of overarching objectives
of sustainable development, if you like, in rural and urban areas
and consistent with the kind of thinking in the European Spatial
Development Perspective which we have not referred to which is
not part of the CAP but which is nevertheless part of the territorial
rural development. So I think one is looking to the future beyond
the trade talks to a situation where these things will definitely
remain on the agenda and become even stronger. We have to take
the opportunity we have got to start to build the institutional
structures, to do the strategic planning at the spatial and territorial
level even if we cannot take it quite as far as we would like
at this stage. Agenda 2000 and this regulation does open the door
for that.
(Dr Ward) I was going to add to that that I think
the proposals do represent the first step in an evolution, a journey
towards integrated rural development and bringing that into the
very heart of the CAP, with the decision about whether to fund
non-farmers or not, and that is what we should be moving towards.
I define integrated rural development as three Ps, places (or
the territorial approach), partnership and people. So it is quite
a different beast from the Common Agriculture Policy, and the
very sectoral policy we have had.
327. Professor Lowe?
(Professor Lowe) I think the other agenda is the Government's
domestic one about these regional structures, the strength of
the rural community within the region and making sure there are
good rural safeguards. Should the RDAs begin to have some view
of the agricultural sector within the regions? That is the really
big agenda. I am a member of the contact group setting up the
RDA for the North East of England and we may well be in the absurd
situation where we can comment on the economic prospects of every
single footloose industry in the North East but the one industry
which is actually screwed to the ground we might be told that
is none of our business. That is a silly situation to be in.
Chairman: Thank you for that very valuable statement.
We really are very grateful to you busy men for giving up your
time and coming down some of you further than others. We have
gained greatly from this session and thank you for the written
evidence. I convey the Committee's gratitude to you all.
| 
