Examination of witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 1999
MR RICHARD
BURGE and MR
JOHN JACKSON
Chairman
140. Good morning. This is the second session
of the Committee's inquiry into the Rural White Paper. Gentlemen,
may I ask you to identify yourselves for the record, please.
(Mr Jackson) My name is John Jackson. I am Chairman
of the Countryside Alliance.
(Mr Burge) I am Richard Burge, Chief Executive of
the Countryside Alliance.
141. We have your evidence. Is there anything
you want to say, in addition to your evidence, before we start
the questioning, or are you happy just to go straight to the questions?
(Mr Jackson) We are happy if you go straight into
questioning. We might make some general remarks in the course
of our answering the questions.
Chairman: That would not be surprising.
Mr Gray: Chairman, first of all, a point of
order. May I declare that I am a paying member of Countryside
Alliance. I am on the Wiltshire Committee of the Country Landowners'
Association, to which I pay no subscription. I do my insurance,
which I pay through the NFU, so I am a member of the NFU.
Mrs Dunwoody: I am pleased to know you are rich!
Mr Gray
142. I do it through the NFU because it is cheaper
than anywhere else. Maybe now that I have advertised it I will
get a reduction in my payments. I am pleased to declare those
interests. Perhaps I can start with general questions about the
use of the countryside. In your evidence you talk about increasing
the Organic Aid Schemes and the agri-environmental schemes, which
I guess many people would agree with. How is this to be done?
(Mr Burge) The problem we have is that we have good
intentions from the Amsterdam Treaty to convert what is the CAP
at the moment, into an all-persuasive rural development regulation,
which integrates all aspects of rural life. The unfortunate thing
is that the Common Agricultural Policy itself was a failed negotiation.
Our belief is that at the resulting world trade talks, that negotiation
is going to have to be opened up again. On the other hand, there
is room for manoeuvre already within those schemes. The Government
has already demonstrated that by the small increase it has given.
We would like to see the Government move as closely and quickly
as possible to a 20 per cent distribution of the Common Agricultural
Policy into agri-environmental schemes. However, we want to see
that done as part of the investment in the countryside: investment
in the countryside's own ideas of where it can go rather than
top-down development. The interesting thing about the organic
transition scheme is that it is an investment. It is not a subsidy.
It enables farmers to move into a market, from which they are
prohibited going into at the moment, because of the impact of
previous agricultural intervention. We would like to see things
like Countryside Stewardship and other schemes, particularly the
Arable Stewardship Scheme, which is under trial at the moment,
moving into that sort of phase.
143. You want more money from some other place.
(Mr Burge) Redistribution of the money that is already
there, and is probably being spent inappropriately on production
which is no longer required, and on means of production which
is no longer appropriate.
144. Another way of allowing farmers to diversify
would be the proposal, which came out of the leaked report from
the Performance and Integration Unit of the Cabinet Office. This
suggested that we should allow development on high-quality agricultural
land for house building. What is the Alliance's view on that?
(Mr Burge) Our view is that we have no problem in
principle in reducing the planning burden on grade one land, provided
it is there to create sustainable communities in those areas.
If all it does is to create dormitories in particular areas to
feed big cities, then you are starting to destroy the sense of
community in those areas. You are destroying local livelihoods
and you are building housing which is dedicated towards urban
economic growth and not rural economic growth.
(Mr Jackson) If I could add to that. A theme you will
find running through our answers to your questions is that we
believe there is an urgent need for a very careful look at the
structure of the countryside, as a whole, with particular emphasis
on the re-establishment of rural communities. We attach great
importance to that. I think that will come out again in answers
to some of your questions.
145. The final point on this: what would happen
to these views you have expressed quite plainly in your evidence
and this morning, about the use of the countryside, if fox hunting
were to be banned?
(Mr Jackson) As far as fox hunting is concerned, I
would say two things. The Alliance has taken a strong stand on
this. This is partly because it thought that what was happening
to a definable minority was unfair, and that it was right that
a process should start which would bring out all relevant factors.
Secondly, it is our expectation that strong evidence will be produced,
which will show that a ban on fox hunting would have a bad effect
on good quality wildlife management; would have a bad effect on
livelihoods in the countryside; and, most importantly, because
we think this is the key issue, would not result in the elimination
of the imposition of or reduction in avoidable suffering on animals
in the course of properly conducted wildlife management.
Mr Brake
146. What do you think is the best way of helping
the 20 per cent of households in rural areas without a car?
(Mr Jackson) It goes to more than 20 per cent without
a car. I think I am right in saying that already, at the end of
1996, it was known that some 800,000 households were sitting with
incomes on or below the official level of absolute poverty. One
of the things, which has disturbed us greatly, is the extent to
which that enormous number of households is not known about and
is so little discussed. On the car issue, we have some specific
suggestions.
(Mr Burge) The first thing we would like to see avoided
is national solutions imposed to target congestion and over-use
of cars in cities, having an effect on local communities in rural
areas. We would like to see the taxation on fuel retained at 115
per cent of the current EU average and no more than that. We think
there is a case, in addition to the money already spent on improving
rural bus services, that they will only have a certain effect
because of the sparsity factor in the countryside. People are
more sparsely distributed than they have been for a long time,
so it is actually to liberate some of the private car ownership
that already occurs. Regulation on rural taxis is incredibly tight
and we believe that by easing the fuel duty on rural taxis we
could well make them more accessible to people. We also believe
that there are a number of people in rural areas who are on what
we call rural portfolios, where they do a job here and do a job
there. By reducing the licensing requirements and making them
more localised, those local people with a minimum of accreditation
could be available for local taxi services rather than having
to run taxis out of market towns, if all those sorts of scheme
could be built up into appropriate solutions for local areas.
Mr Stevenson
147. You seem to be unimpressed by the £150
million rural transport grant, in your evidence, implying that
it has not really delivered. On the other hand, we are advised
that something like 1,800 new rural services have been established,
so there seems to be a little bit of a contradiction there. Why
is it you take this view? Is it because there is no demand, or
is it because such services are poorly organised?
(Mr Burge) I believe that in some areas those services
have been poorly organised and in others they are very good, but
1,800 new services are a drop in the ocean compared to most rural
areas. The other thing is that there does appear to have been
a particular focus on areas where there is going to be tourist
benefit. Again, that good news. It helps bring economic growth
into those areas, but it does not serve the rural community during
the winter when the tourists are not there. We believe the 57
million a year, which is going into rural transport, is a useful
sum of money; but truly to make people in the countryside more
mobile and give them more access to services and to be able to
get around to find work, it means having some more inventive approaches
to the use of cars than are already there. The other thing on
the use of cars, you are correct in saying that 20 per cent of
rural households are without cars. The proportion of ancient cars
wandering around the countryside is also extremely high. The environmental
impact and detriment of those ancient cars is a cause for great
concern, not only from the point of view of people's lives, but
also in terms of the fact that these are not efficient vehicles.
148. There has been a lot of controversy, comment,
about the fuel duty escalator. You will know that the Chancellor,
in his pre-Budget report, said that the automatic increase in
the fuel duty escalator would no longer be applied, but he also
indicated that any real term increases that may be imposed on
fuel in the future could be ring-fenced and used for transport
purposes. Would you like to see an increase, in real terms, in
the cost of petrol; so that this could, in part at least, be used
to promote rural transport?
(Mr Jackson) If I could answer part of that. This
actually touches on a topic which goes a great deal wider than
the remit of this Commission because if one compares this country
with the United States, there are good reasons to consider whether
it is wise to use fuel by the excise system as a method of raising
revenue, having regard to its extreme importance not just to communities
but to industry. It is quite distinct from alcohol or tobacco.
However, on the assumption that this is a very large topic and
nothing much is going to happen on that, we have to concede to
the reality behind the question.
(Mr Burge) We welcomed the Chancellor's announcement,
which we thought was a very good announcement, but it comes back
to the point about trying to make sure that in an effort to address
over-use of private transport in cities and urban areas, we do
not put that burden on rural people. In addition to the redistribution
of money and ring-fencing of money into rural transport, another
way of doing it is to release the tax burden on some form of local
transport, particularly local taxi schemes.
149. May I imply, in terms of both your answers
then, that you would not necessarily be against real term increases
in petrol, provided some of that at least could be used distinctly
and directly to promote rural transport?
(Mr Jackson) That is quite right.
Mr Brake
150. What do you think of Professor Crow's recommendations
to build 1.1 million homes in the south east?
(Mr Jackson) I can start with a sort of macro answer.
We have, of course, thought about this a lot. The first observation
is that it seems to me, that this is saying what would happen
if nothing is done. I come back to what I said earlier. There
is comment in the press this morning about the north/south divide,
which we are conscious of, but in our judgment the situation is
a lot more complicated than just north and south. If nothing is
done, we are very concerned. We see increasing problems with the
south east. We see increasing problems for the rest of the country.
We see it as becoming increasingly difficult to regain the community
structures in rural areas. It comes back to our main point. We
really believe very strongly that there is a pressing need to
engage in a proper planning activity, very carefully thought out
for the rural part of our economy: believing also that the countryside
belongs to the whole community, and that the whole community should
be taking a great interest in what is happening in the countryside.
151. When you say "the whole community",
to whom are you referring?
(Mr Jackson) Literally the whole community. We see
the countryside as part of our national heritage. We believe it
should be accessible to as many people as possible. We also believe
that it should be managed by people who understand it. We are
as disturbed by the notion of a north/south divide as we are by
the notion of an urban/rural divide, which should not be there.
152. When you say that the countryside should
be accessible, does your desire for it to be accessible extend
to allowing people, who currently live in urban areas, to move
into the countryside?
(Mr Jackson) There are two aspects of this. Firstly,
if I can touch very briefly on the topic of right to roam, Countryside
Alliance is in favour of everybody—including perhaps, in
particular, urban people and the young urban people—having
greater access to the countryside, provided that it is done in
a way which is consistent with good management of the countryside
and does not mess up the livelihoods of people who depend upon
the countryside. That is why we attach a lot of importance to
local agreements. Secondly, the other view which we hold very
strongly, which is like every other part of the community, the
countryside rural community is crucially dependent upon jobs and
income. Whilst Richard will expand on this in a moment, we believe
it is right and wise to go down the road which makes extensive
use of the land for the purpose of creating jobs and income, which
comprises the countryside. We are also conscious of the fact that
with modern technology it is possible for people—and quite
high earning people—to live and work in the countryside,
and spend the money they earn in the countryside. That is one
of the ways you get communities going again. You cannot have communities
without income to support them. They just do not work. People
will not start up shops if there are not enough people to spend
money in them. So we genuinely have a broad approach to this.
We mean what we say, and we say that the countryside belongs to
the whole community. We intend to continue to press very hard
for a proper planned approach to rural affairs in this country.
153. Sorry, but I asked quite a simple question.
Do you believe that urban dwellers should be allowed to live in
the countryside? I do not feel that I have a straight answer to
that.
(Mr Jackson) The answer to that is yes. I would prefer
them to live there and spend their income there rather than have
their second homes there.
154. If that is your view, how does that tally
with your evidence, which suggests that the Rural White Paper
should set up research from scratch on how to attain a zero or
near zero house building policy?
(Mr Burge) What we are talking about there is a house
building policy, which is dedicated towards providing houses that
support and provide homes for people who wish to work in urban
areas. We want to see the linkage of house building and home generation
to jobs in those communities. It should also be remembered that
there are a considerable amount of brown field estates in rural
areas. The current structure on VAT means that it is more cost
effective and more profitable for a developer to build a new house
on a green field in the countryside rather than to redevelop some
of the sub-standard and appalling houses which already exist.
You could end up, in certain parts of the country, with a zero
new house build policy if the incentives were there to enable
builders to develop brown field sites in the countryside; renovate
old housing, particularly old housing which is appropriate for
social use, to enable partnership to exist between housing associations
and parish councils which keeps that housing in social use, even
though pressures on prices might mean that if it is left unchecked
they would go into commuter housing; but, most importantly, to
link that through to the creation of livelihoods in those areas
as well. The problem with house building in the countryside is
that it is almost exclusively dedicated to people who have access
to cars and commute to work in an urban area. We want to see people
living in the countryside and working there as well. That will
provide greater diversity of employment. It will provide people
who already live in the countryside with jobs. It will provide
people, who live in urban areas and want to go and live and work
in the countryside, with the opportunities to do so. That latter
group do not have the opportunity, at the moment, unless they
are pretty well paid.
155. If I understand you correctly, what you
are saying is that building on brown field sites in rural areas
is fine, but building on green field sites in rural areas is not.
(Mr Burge) Building on green field sites is only acceptable
if it is genuinely bringing livelihood and economy to those areas
and not simply creating dormitories.
Christine Butler
156. Where would you suggest these brown field
sites might lie in villages in the countryside?
(Mr Burge) I can take the part of the countryside
I come from, which is North Shropshire, in our little village,
which is 500 households, there are 20 dilapidated, unoccupied,
old houses in that area in that small village, and this is not
an uncommon feature. There is a certain amount of regeneration
going on, the conversion of old farm buildings—a very large
old farmhouse is being converted into two or three dwellings—we
see those as being the route. It will not satisfy all the ultimate
requirements of housing but it will considerably satisfy the requirements
in those areas. Also, these are the sorts of places that could
be turned into good, effective, social housing as well.
157. But have you not a concern that it might
be prejudicial to create dwellings out of the village area?
(Mr Jackson) To take the village I live in, the village
is dying.
158. I said outside of the village area. The
thing is the trend has been that you have had a continued drift
of population into the countryside. Not all of that is being accommodated
within an existing village area. You have accepted that a development
is going to be more and more scattered, which makes it very difficult
to serve. So I just want to know whether you agree with me on
those points, and whether you would be quite happy to see any
brown field site being used, notwithstanding the fact that it
might not be in a village.
(Mr Jackson) To come back to the point we make—
159. I would like you to come back to the question.
(Mr Jackson) It has to be looked at on a case-by-case
basis. We think the village concerned, as a community, should
have a real say in the matter. We have complaints of this already.
We attach a great deal of importance to the re-establishment of
rural communities. There are undoubtedly villages which would
benefit from brown field site development within the village.
There are also undoubtedly villages where the reverse applies.
I think rural communities would like to be involved in this process.
|
