Examination of witnesses (Questions 200
- 210)
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 1999
MR MARK
THOMASIN-FOSTER,
MR ANTHONY
BAILEY, MR
JOHN LLOYD-JONES
and DR ANDREW
CLARK
Mr Stevenson
200. It is going to be brief. This resource
issue is interesting. We have got about £7 million coming
from Europe for the second pillar, plus whatever the United Kingdom
Government matches that with, which is derisory, yet we are spending
hundreds of millions of pounds on Set Aside. Should we not be
pushing for a change in policy in the European Union that says
that each Member State should produce its Rural Development Plans
within a rural policy framework laid down by the European Union,
which would include support for farmers?
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) A brief answer: yes. However, producing
a plan is one thing and implementing it is another. That means
a sympathetic planning climate and it also means a regulatory
system which is commensurate with the scale of the operations.
Mr Stevenson: Thank you.
Mr Gray
201. The regulatory system is what I want to
ask you about, but both of you have given evidence to say that
the countryside is over-regulated, and that must be put right,
and so do all political parties in different parts of the world
say precisely that. Would you not agree with me that any regulation,
no matter how obscure, no matter how burdensome and no matter
how minute, has always got a good reason behind it, and when you
move from the general through to the particular you are up against
things like cattle passport schemes, which the CLA, for example,
cites as absolutely essential if we are going to get the export
ban lifted on beef. So most regulations are necessary, or is it
a general aspiration or are there particular things you would
like to see in the Rural White Paper?
(Dr Clark) I think one thing the Rural White Paper
could do which would be very helpful is to give some prominence
to the Cabinet Office's Better Regulation Task Force recommendations
on how regulations should be developed. The Task Force talks about
consistency, transparency, accountability and proportionality
of regulations. That is a very useful reference point, I think,
for the way the Rural White paper should look at regulation. We
are concerned about regulation, especially the cumulative impact
of regulations, but we also quite understand that agriculture
benefits from regulation because it protects our resources, just
in the same way as it does for other people in society. So regulation
has a role, but what we are concerned about is where you get the
duplication and, particularly, where you get duplication in terms
of visits and administrative systems, so you get a number of visits
on, basically, the same thing. That is where it becomes very difficult
for farmers to cope with it.
(Mr Thomasin-Foster) There are two things, Chairman,
I would like to add to that. One is that with the very, very small
number of staff now on farms there is a significant cost to compliance
with regulation; and the other thing—which follows on from
that—is that these businesses are very often micro-businesses,
they are not just small businesses. Therefore, the whole
proportionality of regulation argument must be understood and
practical.
Mrs Ellman
202. You asked for more resources for rural
areas, specifically mentioning increasing the Standard Spending
Assessments for local areas. Are you saying there that money should
be taken from hard-pressed urban areas and put into the countryside?
(Mr Bailey) We are certainly saying there is a question
to be answered there. Quite a lot of work was done a few years
ago by Salford and, more recently, by the County Councils and
the Rural Development Commission, so there is good information
there that shows, for example, across several parameters of important
social policy that the spend, say, in Inner London is five times
that in a rural area in areas such as childcare and things. Also,
because of the fact that there are these huge differences, the
equation behind the Standard Spending Allocations disfavours rural
areas. They tend to have to expend more money on the discretionary
area of their expenditure, leaving less money for the core. So
there is a big issue here that has not been addressed for many,
many years. It is a tough political question—I accept that—because
what you are playing Peter and Paul on this, and you have to take
away from the other. But there are some very big differences.
I think rural people in rural areas have a right to ask for the
answers. Why the differences?
203. Is it not true that it is because of population
differences? It actually costs a lot more to educate someone in
a rural area, if they are educated there, than it might do in
an inner urban area. Is not that unequal spending, more in a rural
area than in an inner area, taken into account?
(Mr Bailey) From the information I see they are not
spending more. The costs are higher because of the fact that they
are more remote. But are we saying that we will no longer let
people live in remote areas? Are we going to socially engineer
to avoid this? This is part of the process that we are in. The
fact is there are very, very big differences, on all the major
parameters, in what the Standard Spending Assessment delivers
in, say, Inner London as against some of the more remote parishes
in rural areas. These questions need to be addressed, and some
better answers given than hitherto.
204. Inner urban areas, which may be in the
North of England and not solely in London, can put forward a very
strong case to show that their needs are not being addressed.
Are you, by your comments, implying that money should go from
those areas to the countryside, or are you arguing for more public
spending?
(Mr Bailey) We are arguing that the actual equation
and systems that are used, and the criteria and parameters, are
re-visited and re-justified, because the outcome of the method
shows a very big difference in resource allocation.
Chairman
205. Have you put a submission into the Department
of the Environment? They are doing an assessment now of the spending
system.
(Mr Bailey) As part of our Rural White Paper submission
we included a section on this and a table. The best work we have
seen being done on this has been done by the County Council Network
and, also, just before they joined with the Countryside Agency,
by the Rural Development Commission. So there is some quality
work available.
Mr Stevenson
206. Very quickly, is not this, again, not simply
a matter of resources, although that is important? I mean that
in the sense that I think we are all aware that there are those
county councils that not only incorporate urban areas but many
rural areas as well, varying from lowlands to uplands in less
favoured areas, and yet the present system—the Standard
Spending Assessment—provides more resources through such
mechanisms as the Area Cost Adjustment, for example, to some counties
than it does to others. What is the evidence that those counties
that get those additional resources, in comparison with other
counties (and incorporate rural areas as well) give the priority
they ought to give to their rural areas, with the additional resources
they already get in comparison with other counties? Perhaps there
is no evidence.
(Mr Bailey) I certainly do not have the answer to
that one. Again, I come back to one of the sources—the County
Councils' Network—who have done this kind of work. If the
DETR are doing some work, I will certainly make it our business
to make sure that something goes in.
Mr Forsythe
207. Would you like to see fuel duty increased
above the rate of inflation and hypothecated so that funds could
be put into transport in rural areas?
(Mr Thomasin-Foster) In relation to transport in rural
areas, we are very happy to see what has been done so far in supporting
rural bus services. We would applaud that and we recognise that
there should be the possibility of extending those services. However,
no matter how many bus services you provide in rural areas there
is going to be a need for the motor car, unfortunately. Of course,
people do have to have mobility and for people living in rural
areas cars do increase their costs, and I think that needs to
be recognised: indeed, perhaps with the most recent thinking on
the fuel escalator that has, to a certain extent, been recognised.
As far as the provision of roads etc in the countryside is concerned,
we believe that there does need to be further spending on by-passes,
on road improvement and, indeed, on road maintenance, which in
recent years seems to have reduced. I think that enabling road
improvement would actually make rural roads safer, would make
transport for rural dwellers easier, and could remove, to a certain
extent, the disadvantage that those people living in those areas
have.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) I think it is important to realise
that the transport issue in rural areas is not only about moving
people around, it is about moving goods around because agriculture
is a trading environment. So we need to move our goods from where
they are produced to the marketplace. Substantial increases in
the cost of doing that, for whatever reason—and I am not
arguing against the reason—do have a competitive effect
on our position as traders. I think that needs to be recognised.
208. So you would actually welcome an increase
in help to the countryside but not necessarily through fuel duty?
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) I think what this does is give us
an opportunity to re-look at the situation. It may well be, both
economically and environmentally, better to be adding value to
the raw materials closer to where they are produced. That will
have an environmental benefit, it will have an economic benefit.
I fully understand the questions put to the other witnesses this
morning about the economic effect of that and how can you-kick-start
that situation.
Mr Gray
209. Speaking about the government, what do
you think of the new Cabinet Committee currently chaired by Mo
Mowlam? Secondly, do you agree with the CPRE that a new Department
of Rural Affairs would be a bad thing, or do you agree with the
Countryside Alliance who say it is essential?
(Mr Bailey) It is essential.
210. What about the NFU?
(Dr Clark) We differ from the Countryside Alliance.
We very much welcome the Cabinet Committee as we believe it is
very important to achieve policy integration at ministerial level
and people getting their heads together in Central Government—and
in local government for that matter. We think that an awful lot
of time would be wasted in terms of setting up a new government
Department for Rural Affairs and there would be a real risk, if
that was pursued, of ghetto-ising rural issues in terms of "That
is a rural affairs issue, it is not something which we need to
deal with in transport or industry".
Chairman: On that note, can I thank you for
your evidence. Can we have the Town and Country Planning Association?
Thank you.
|
