Examination of witnesses (Questions 436
- 439)
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY 2000
MR RICHARD
WAKEFORD, MR
EWEN CAMERON
and MS PAM
WARHURST
Chairman
436. Can I welcome you to the Committee? Could
I ask you to identify yourselves for the record?
(Mr Cameron) My name is Ewen Cameron, Chairman of
the Countryside Agency. On my right is Pam Warhurst, the Deputy
Chair, and on my left is Richard Wakeford, the Chief Executive.
437. Do you want to say a few words by way of
introduction or are you happy for us to go straight into questions
on your memorandum?
(Mr Cameron) I think it might be a good idea if I
did a little bit of scene setting. First of all, thank you very
much for giving us the opportunity to come and speak to you. Our
written evidence majored on the fact that we believe the Rural
White Paper should concentrate on a few deliverable objectives—I
emphasise the word "deliverable"—and even perhaps
set out how it is going to deliver those objectives, rather than
trying to encompass all the problems and opportunities there are
in the countryside. Our written evidence, as you will realise,
sets out six possible such objectives and I will not repeat them
here. We are going to have a Countryside Bill this year, but I
think it is important that the government understands that there
are other things that it can do, apart from legislation. In other
words, the Rural White Paper exercise sets out a very good opportunity
for setting the framework for future rural policy. Within the
countryside, there are a lot of pressures at the moment, economic,
social and environmental pressures, that I believe the Rural White
Paper should address. In many ways, we are at a crossroads. For
instance, agriculture obviously is under extreme financial pressure
and probably those pressures will increase because there are more
policy changes around the corner. This is not only the actual
financial pressures; it is the perception of more pressures coming
that perhaps puts it in its current state of flux. I am glad there
are more changes coming of course. There is also a demand for
more people wanting to live in the countryside, hoping to find
their ideal. It is probably even more hard to find in the countryside
than it is in the towns. There is also a huge demand of people
wanting to visit the countryside. That I would underline as being
an opportunity rather than a threat for the countryside. It is
one to be grasped and welcomed. Nevertheless, for some people
there is a perception that it is a problem and it will involve
some change of management thinking which again makes the countryside
believe it is under pressure. There is a very strong need to ensure
access to services, to jobs and to housing for those people who
actually live in the countryside. I think this is a key area.
It is important that the Rural White Paper sets out entitlements,
we believe. In other words, what rural people should expect that
they can have in terms of delivery of services. Clearly, they
cannot have shops every quarter of a mile or opera houses or items
such as that, but I believe that the Rural White Paper must set
out what people and businesses should be entitled to expect in
rural areas. We want to know where we ought to be aiming for and
how we are going to get there in that context. There is also a
need to look at the long term importance of the countryside in
terms of its environmental benefits and in terms of its landscape.
We owe that to the next generation and the one after that. The
Rural White Paper has to look at both the short term problems
and the long term prospects. It has to now address the new paradigms
set out by the PIU report. We need a different agricultural policy,
a different planning policy and maybe a different rural economic
policy. The Rural White Paper and the Urban White Paper must complement
each other. They must go hand in hand. Very often, the solutions
for one can be found in the other and certainly the benefits can
be found in both places to affect both communities. I do not think
the Rural White Paper should shirk problems that need money, problems
such as transport and rural housing. Those are two crucial issues.
Equally, there are areas which do not require money. For instance,
the whole idea of rural proofing, getting government departments
to think and focus on and understand the rural remit within their
policy areas, which I do not believe is happening at the moment.
I would end by stating that we need some bold and deliverable
objectives and the Rural White Paper should not try to be all
things to all men.
Mr Randall
438. From what you have just said, would I be
correct in saying that you agree with the main thrust of the report
from the Performance and Innovation Unit that it is time now to
end the rural policies which are rooted in the realities of the
late 1940s in favour of a more radical approach?
(Mr Cameron) Yes. On the whole, I would agree with
that statement. Certainly in farming there has already been implemented
a shift by the introduction of modulation and a signal that we
are going off in a new direction. It is not just about food production.
We welcome that. In terms of agricultural diversification, we
believe that the days have long gone when farmers were only food
producers. Equally, we support the concept that farming should
be treated as any other rural business, not only in terms of the
small business service perhaps being given the remit to advise
farming businesses in terms of business management and prospects,
but also in terms of planning and the implications within the
PIU report there. In terms of countryside protection, we should
look at the value of land, not only for food production. We strongly
support their chapter on market towns and the possibility of using
market towns to deliver services. We endorse their emphasis on
the need to supply affordable rural housing, a very serious problem,
and also the concept of rural proofing and having a central government
unit that actually looks at the question of the rural remit.
439. Did you not think that the Countryside
Agency itself had a role to play in bringing around this change
of ideas? Why did you leave it to the PIU?
(Mr Cameron) We set out our agenda to the PIU. Bear
in mind that we started on 1 April 1999 and we are still in the
process of evolving our corporate strategy.
|
