Examination of witnesses (Questions 560
- 579)
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
and MR ELLIOT
MORLEY
560. So on a scale of one to ten, where one
is chicken feed and ten is lavish funding, £173 million is
where?
(Mr Meacher) I certainly think it is worth six or
seven modestly.
561. How would you extend the scheme to rural
train services?
(Mr Meacher) Again, I think this is quite important
and there are Rail Community Partnership Schemes promoted by local
business. You raise an important point. I do not think we should
just see this as a matter of roads and cars, although they are
undoubtedly integral and the car will remain absolutely essential
in rural areas as far as the eye can see. I think these rural
community services do need some expansion. Following the Transport
Bill and the way that we are trying to expand the railway system,
although of course that is mainly concerned with Intercity and
major rail services, some extension into rural areas may be justified
if we can also get sponsorship by local businesses which shows
they want it.
562. Since you have raised the issue of Intercity
services can I give you two contrasting views of rural rail services.
The first view is that rural rail services are important for supporting
life in rural communities and need to be subsidised when they
are not economic and they need to be encouraged. The second view
is that rural train services are those nasty stopping things that
hold up fast trains between towns and that they should be scrapped
entirely and people should get buses from the rural areas into
towns where they will then be able to pick up much faster train
services because the networks have been cleared. Which of these
views do you subscribe to and how will the White Paper resolve
the conflict between those two views?
(Mr Meacher) I am not sure that they are necessarily
incompatible. There is a case for intermodal transport, you do
not have to do everything by one single transport mode, whether
it is a car or a bus or a railway service, it is getting the optimal
linkage between the two that is sensible. It is also the case
that for fast Intercity services people do not want, understandably,
to have to make stops at relatively small stations serving a relatively
modest population hinterland. I do not think those are necessarily
inconsistent. We do want fast Intercity services but we have to
find other ways of linking the smaller communities. That may be
the creation of new rural routes that do not branch out of major
Intercity services. As I say, some of these may well be sponsored
either wholly or in part by local business and we would certainly
strongly support that. Others need to link up better with bus
services or taxi services which on a public basis can be regarded
in some cases as an alternative to the bus. There needs to be
a mosaic and there does need to be a lot of local flexibility.
There needs to be a lot of thrust from the centre. I am not trying
to pass the buck or to abandon responsibility but I do not think
that we need one single homogeneous blueprint from the centre
that this is how it should be done.
563. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England takes the view that in Local Transport Plans rural traffic
and rural transport issues are not being prioritised. Do you agree
with their view on that? If you do, how do you get Local Transport
Plans to take rural issues more seriously?
(Mr Meacher) I do not think we do agree with it. Again,
I have to say that this is not my own ministerial area. I do not
think that we accept that Local Transport Plans do not take account
of rural areas. We are certainly concerned with quality partnerships,
which I think is the posh word that we now use for these kinds
of negotiated contractual agreements which involve different elements
of transport. A Local Transport Plan is, of course, drawn up locally
by local councils to take account of the needs of their local
people. It is somewhat surprising to be told that they neglect
their rural hinterland. They are their voters and I would have
thought they ignore that at their peril. It may be that in some
cases there have been some plans that need review or change.
564. Let me give you an example where perhaps
the Local Transport Plans and county councils and maybe even Government
are ignoring the issues of rural people. 18 out of 21 of the major
transport schemes in the Local Transport Plans are road schemes.
That does not address at all the very high proportion of people
who live in rural areas who do not have a car. In addition to
that, Lord MacDonald has just announced that the Government is
going to increase spending on roads. Some see that as a reversal
of attitude. Again, that is not going to be addressing the needs
of people in rural areas who do not have cars. How are we going
to square that circle, if you like, and help those people?
(Mr Meacher) I think what Lord MacDonald was talking
about was not only some increased expenditure on roads, which
after all many people are demanding and with some justification,
the state of some roads does require some further expenditure,
I do not think there is any doubt about that, but also on public
transport. We have had agreement from the Treasury that any increase
in the fuel duty escalator, that is in real terms, should now
be recycled either into expenditure on needed road systems or
into public transport. Of course, we are conscious that something
like a third of the population, many of whom live in rural areas,
do not have access to a car. That is a very important point. We
are looking at a range of innovative ideas to try to increase
it. It is not just providing a bus two or three times a day to
every village however small. There is the Lutterworth post bus
scheme, there is the Wiggly bus scheme somewhere in Central England,
I cannot remember exactly where.
Mr Gray
565. Wiltshire.
(Mr Meacher) There are car sharing schemes. As I say,
there is the use of taxis which can sometimes be arranged from
some focal point.
Chairman: I think we had better stop going around
the whole of the countryside. I am very conscious that we have
a time limit that we have to adhere to and we have got quite a
few more questions on the agenda. I hope we can deal with questions
and answers briefly.
Miss McIntosh
566. I want to ask about rural bus services.
You have just explained the difficulties for people getting to
work from rural areas that do not have transport. North Yorkshire
would have liked more time to have consulted with parish councils
to spend the amount of money that was offered. Would it not be
more sensible for the Government to work into the programme (a)
a period of consultation so that it can actually target the buses
and local parish councils that use them and (b) a longer period
so that the rural bus can actually stay in existence rather than
falling after just a couple of months? I understand that many
routes will have fallen by April of next year.
(Mr Meacher) I am aware of the fact that a substantial
sum of money was not spent in North Yorkshire and had to be returned
to the Exchequer. I am not familiar with the details because,
as I say, it is not my area. I know this happened. I just say
that in other local authority areas, including rural areas, I
do not think we have had that experience.
567. Perhaps they are not as sparsely populated.
North Yorkshire is particularly sparsely populated.
(Mr Meacher) There are other little populated areas,
such as North Norfolk, where I do not think the same result occurred.
Obviously this is not intended to be an obstacle course to make
it difficult, we are actually trying to allocate that money sensibly
in a way that does improve the problem. Obviously we do have to
take account of what happened. We are looking further at that.
It does also require action to be taken at local level pretty
quickly. As I say, in other areas I do not think that there was
the same problem.
Mr O'Brien
568. Minister, we have been privileged to receive
from the Institute of Highway and Transport a copy of their document
with their suggestions for the Rural White paper. 3.7 suggests
guidelines on rural safety management and outlines several improvements
on road safety. This involves traffic calming and effective enforcement
of speed limits. Do you support that?
(Mr Meacher) As you know, we are having a review of
speed and road safety which I think is due to be published next
month. Again, I think we probably should await the publication
of that. What I would say is that traffic management in rural
areas ought to produce safer roads and the better protection of
the character of the countryside. To that extent I am very much
sympathetic to what they are saying.
569. What is your response to the residents
of Surrey who when asked what problems they faced said "speeding
cars" and it would appear that the Department is ignoring
that view?
(Mr Meacher) I do not think it is fair to say that
we are ignoring that view. We have instigated a review which is
going to report next month. As I say, I think we are well aware
that there are some rural roads where there is a bad accident
record, particularly people taking turns too fast rather than
going at excess speeds on straight roads. This does need to be
addressed. There are a lot of complaints in rural areas about
this and road safety is still very unsatisfactory in this country,
too many people die or are badly injured on the roads.
570. Will national standards be set down for
rural areas on safety and traffic calming?
(Mr Meacher) That is what we are looking at. We are
going to make proposals which will apply to rural areas as well
as urban areas.
571. So there will be national standards?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
Mr Cummings
572. My questions are addressed to MAFF so you
can have a rest, Minister. Many witnesses have informed the Committee
of the need for change within the Department. One of the witnesses
noted the "glacial progress in reshaping the priorities of
MAFF". Do you accept that criticism and, if so, what are
you doing to address the need for changes within your Department?
(Mr Morley) I think MAFF is changing. I think MAFF
has been changing since 1997 in relation to the priorities that
we have set the Department. I think that the recent Rural Development
Programme has very much emphasised the way that we are thinking
that agriculture should be going, as we were discussing earlier
on with George Stevenson. In terms of the objectives in relation
to the Rural Development Programme, the objectives are for a competitive,
diverse and flexible economy to respond to ever changing market
changes, responding to consumer wishes, environmentally responsible,
and MAFF and agricultural policies should be an integral part
of the rural and wider economy. Those are the objectives that
we have in the Department and I think that we are successfully
working towards those. The Rural Development Programme is a very
clear, and I might say a very valuable, statement in relation
to that change in agriculture. I do know that a number of other
European Member States have been very interested in the way that
we have put together the Modulation Programme and the Rural Development
Programme and are looking to perhaps implement some of the ideas
we have developed in this country within their own countries.
573. So you are refuting the comments made by
the Council for the Protection of Rural England?
(Mr Morley) I certainly would refute that but I would
not say that MAFF does not need to embrace change. There is still
change that we need to do and there is an issue of cultural change
in relation to the policies which are being pursued by the Ministry
which, as we discussed earlier on, were in many cases dictated
by the need to maximise food production following 1945. We have
come a long way from there. MAFF has been changing over the years
in terms of responding to the changing economic circumstances,
changing consumer demands, changing public perception. That change
is coming and we are implementing that change within the Department.
It is not something that can be done overnight, particularly when
I come back to the point that you are trapped in the straitjacket
of the CAP which dictates the bulk of our budget and the bulk
of what we can do.
574. It certainly is not your morning because
the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors told the Committee
that they consider "that the involvement of MAFF in many
areas of policy is lamentably low when agriculture remains such
an important factor in rural life". Once again, Minister,
do you accept this criticism? Are you expecting to take a higher
profile on a range of issues which have a rural dimension?
(Mr Morley) We are already doing that, particularly
with the Rural Development Programme which I come back to because
it is going to be such a big fundamental change in relation to
rural policy and the very large sums of money and the change of
direction that will be implemented. We are also integrating our
approach more and more with DETR, with the RDAs, with the various
agencies. As a Ministry, of course, we accept that the objective
must be an integrated policy approach within the rural areas.
You cannot ignore the interface between rural areas and urban
areas and that is certainly one of the themes that will come out
in the White Paper, that you cannot divorce the two. That interface
is very important and we have to recognise that in relation to
the White Paper.
Chairman: I think just one last issue. James
Gray?
Mr Gray
575. Is DORA still on the agenda?
(Mr Morley) Is?
576. DORA, the Department of Rural Affairs?
(Mr Morley) It is a decision for the Prime Minister
to make.
577. So it is still on the agenda, you are still
considering it?
(Mr Morley) The door has not closed on any kind of
change. Any kind of change has to be considered very carefully.
It is not one which I can make a decision on.
578. Are you aware that the CPRE, the RSPB and
a number of other countryside agencies of one sort or another,
and I use that word in general terms, have expressed the opinion
to this Committee that they are not opposed to any such thing
but that it will marginalise rural issues?
(Mr Morley) There are arguments both for and against
the issue of a Department of Rural Affairs. What we should be
concentrating on, whether or not we have any kind of institutional
change within the structure of Government, is the integration
of policy across Government departments and we are already working
on that at the moment.
579. What about rural proofing, who should do
that?
(Mr Morley) That is also under development.
(Mr Meacher) We have just set up a Cabinet Committee
on Rural Affairs. There is a strengthened role for the Countryside
Agency which we are keen to develop. There are a lot of PIU suggestions
which are quite radical and interesting, namely that there should
be a lead minister in the Cabinet Office as an external enforcer,
I think that is the word that is currently used, the idea that
there should be a Central Rural Unit rather like the Women's and
Social Exclusion Units, the idea that there should be a Rural
Round Table. These are all ideas which are just as important as
whether there is a new department. The important thing, which
we are all agreed on, is that the rural dimension must be fully
reflected across the whole range of Whitehall.
(Mr Morley) That is a priority, not so much a structure.
| 
