Ensuring All Policies take into
account Rural Needs
79. One consistent call from witnesses was for an
examination of national policies at an early stage of development
for their impact on rural areas, a process given the ugly name,
'rural proofing'. We support the principle of rural proofing
and consider that it is critical that policy initiatives from
all Departments and Ministries are scrutinised for their effects
on rural areas. One important and topical example is the development
of the post office network, where a process of 'rural proofing'
should be carried out to ensure that rural interests are not being
disadvantaged by national policy.
80. Although witnesses were generally agreed on the
merits of rural proofing, there were differing opinions on who
should carry it out. Some (including the Countryside Agency) suggested
the Countryside Agency,[158]
but others favoured the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs.[159]
We do not believe that the Countryside Agency should undertake
this task since it is doubtful whether an Agency of the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would really be
capable of influencing other Departments of State. It is also
clear to us that the Countryside Agency is still in the process
of establishing its strategies and policies[160]
and we are concerned that the Agency should complete this process.
As such, we recommend that the task of 'rural proofing' be
undertaken by the existing Rural Affairs Cabinet Committee. We
make a further suggestion for how the role of the Cabinet Committee
may be developed later in the report.[161]
A Department of Rural Affairs
81. The consensus found when discussing rural proofing
was not sustained when the debate moved onto the possible creation
of a new ministry, the Department of Rural Affairs (DORA). The
idea of a Department devoted to rural issues is not a new one
but has recently been revived. It was argued that:
"to bring that [the
agricultural side of MAFF] together with the countryside and rural
management side of the DETR, creates a very cohesive centre of
attention which demands a Cabinet place."[162]
The other chief arguments in favour of a new Departments
of Rural Affairs were that it would act as a rural champion, that
MAFF is now too small a ministry and will become even smaller
when the food protection is removed from its control, and also
that the DETR is too large. However, as the Performance and Innovation
Unit noted, "even amongst rural lobby groups they are quite
divided as to whether this would actually help get a focus on
rural issues or whether it would hinder"[163]
Indeed, a large number of witnesses argued against the creation
of DORA for reasons which included:
- DORA would risk being a weak, isolated Government
Department with little influence on other Departments. This could
effectively leave rural policy issues marginalised whereas the
goal of rural policy must be to ensure that national policies
in respect of housing, health, education etc. take account of
rural needs; [164]
- there is a risk that the protection and enhancement
of the countryside could be given a low priority, particularly
if English Nature were sponsored by a Department dominated by
ex-MAFF personnel with that Ministry's traditional aims of maximising
food production. The
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds suggested
that DORA would be "unhealthy" for biodiversity;[165]
- structural change is not necessarily helpful[166]
and the size of MAFF and the DETR should not be the major determinants
of the appropriate structures.
We are concerned that the creation of a new Department
would mean that rural issues were marginalised but also that a
Department dominated by the rump of MAFF would be unlikely to
emphasise the protection and enhancement of the countryside. If
a new Department were to be created, it would be extremely important
that English Nature remained an agency sponsored by the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
126 Housing, Tenth Report of the Environment,
Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, 1997-98 Session, HC495 Back
127
Q154 Back
128
Q154, Ev p77 Back
129
Paragraph 70, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing,, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000 Back
130
Paragraph 89, Housing: PPG3, Seventeenth Report, Environmental,
Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC490-I, July 1999 Back
131
Paragraph 70, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing,, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000 Back
132
Q136 Back
133
Q66 Back
134
See Q42 Back
135
Paragraph 7.17, Regional Planning Guidance for the South East
of England, Public Examination, May-June 1999, Report of the Panel.
(Referred to as the 'Crow Report') Back
136
Crow report, paragraph 11.33 Back
137
Crow Report, paragraph 11.3 Back
138
Q30 Back
139 Crow
Report, paragraph 6.35 Back
140
Q47 Back
141
Q16 Back
142
Memorandum from the Local Government Association, HC887 Back
143
Ev p26, p32, p77, p109 Back
144
Ev p77 Back
145
Memorandum from the Hardwicke Estate, HC32-vi Back
146
See, for example, Ev p26, p105, p109 Back
147
Ev p105 Back
148
Q465 Back
149
Q528 Back
150
Q138, Q465 Back
151
Memorandum from the Housing Corporation, HC32-vi Back
152
Q465 Back
153
Ev p26 Back
154
Memorandum from the Housing Corporation, HC32-vi Back
155
Ev p55 Back
156
Ev p8 Back
157
Q122 Back
158
Q498,Q186, Q266, Q86 Back
159
Q579, Q434 Back
160
QQ439, 440 Back
161
See paragraph 93 Back
162
Q176 Back
163
Q620 Back
164
Q434, Q241, Q123 Back
165
Q262 Back
166
Q123 Back
