Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 4 JULY 2000
MR EWEN
CAMERON, MR
RICHARD WAKEFORD
and MS PAM
WARHURST
Mr Cummings
20. The Committee understand there may well
be differing views as to whether there has been a genuine merger
between the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission.
What evidence can you give to the Committee that there has been
a genuine merger between the two bodies?
(Mr Wakeford) I think that what the Chairman said
in his introductory remarks about the philosophy of the environment,
the social and economic considerations coming together in the
principles which have driven the new agency is the starting point.
We have had to adopt a new philosophy as a new agency. It is not
that the word "merger" is banned in the organisation
but I believe that most of the staff, and certainly all of the
board, because most of the board are new, think about themselves
in terms of the new agency and its remit and not in relation to
where they might have come from, what organisation they might
have worked for before. In terms of the practical arrangements
for a merger there are always things which take a bit longer to
achieve, getting the office accommodation sorted, pay regimes
aligned, and so on. Most of that work is done, the majority of
it will be completed by the end of this financial year.
21. How do you account for the fact that the
Committee have been informed that the Countryside Agency employees
who used to work for the Countryside Commission tend to think
in terms of protecting the countryside, and only in protecting
the countryside, and those who used to work on the Rural Development
Committee tend to think in terms of economic and social agenda?
(Mr Wakeford) I do not believe that is true. I do
not know who said that to you. If you want to give me the details
I will have a look. It is a rather awkward question to put to
me, as that is certainly not the feedback I am getting. We have
just completed some research in order to test whether our audiences,
the people we are trying to influence, are aware of us or not
and whether we are influencing their understanding and decisions.
The research showed that 78 per cent cited the Countryside Agency
as the organisation working to get a better deal for those who
live and work in the countryside and those who visit it. That
is a deal across the piece, a better environment, better living
conditions, better economic opportunities.
22. You do not subscribe to the impression that
the Committee have been given?
(Mr Wakeford) I do not.
(Mr Cameron) I think it is exactly the reverse. I
go around and talk to our partner organisations and talk to them
about what we are doing and more and more often the message is
coming through, your staff have a new lease of life. They have
suddenly broadened their horizons. They are approaching the countryside
from a three-legged stool point of view. They are really getting
stuck in. They have an enthusiasm and a freshness about them that
we appreciate. That is the message that comes to me.
23. From who?
(Mr Cameron) From people like the National Trust,
also some local authorities have said that to me. It is a fairly
well held view.
(Mr Wakeford) Can I supplement that, when we merged
we had about 230 Countryside Commission staff and about 120 staff
from the Rural Development Commission. We have nearly 600 staff
now. As well as merging, the Government has given us a growing
agenda to deal with. We do not think of ourselves as a merged
organisation of two parts, we are actually in three parts. We
have a very large contingency of people who have not worked for
either predecessor organisation and who will not say, "I
am an ex-Countryside Commission person and therefore I think this
way". That is not the way we are doing things.
24. What is your own background?
(Ms Warhurst) My background is local government.
(Mr Cameron) Mine is farming.
(Mr Wakeford) I was an administrator in Central Government
but I was the Chief Executive of the Countryside Commission.
Chairman
25. You quoted from a survey that MORI did for
you, would it be possible to have a copy of that?
(Mr Wakeford) I can certainly let you have a copy.
It would be privileged information at the moment because I have
not shared it with my own board, because it is hot off the press,
but I would be delighted to send you a copy.
Mr Cummings
26. How would you describe the Agency as dealing
with Government? Are you a critical friend of Government?
(Mr Cameron) I would describe our relationship with
Government as one of mutual respect. I think we have a very good
relationship with the DETR and Michael Meacher, who is our parent
Minister and also with the Prime Minister. I think we have a good
relationship in terms of working on joint agendas. We advise but
sometimes we criticise them, sometimes we criticise them in public
and sometimes we try to get our way behind closed doors and I
think the relationship is working very well.
27. Do you have a constructive relationship
with MAFF?
(Mr Cameron) Yes, we do. Yesterday we were launching
our initiative at the Royal Show. Nick Brown came along and he
helped us launch it and he was very complimentary about the work
we are doing together.
28. Are you regularly consulted by Government
departments, for example, the Home Office or the Department of
Education and Employment? What mechanisms exist for you to feed
into Government?
(Mr Cameron) I think we do have a good relationship
with the DETR and we do have a good relationship with MAFF and
our input into those two departments is pretty good. I would like
to see a greater input into areas such as the Home Office. For
instance, I have complained recently about the closure of magistrates
courts as being a rural service, trying to rural-proof the thinking
that goes on in all the other departments. I think we can undoubtedly
do more in that respect.
29. Are you concerned in relation to Government
proposals for the future of rural post offices?
(Mr Wakeford) That is a good example of our influencing
role. I was asked to serve on the Steering Committee for the Policy
and Innovation Unit Report on the future of post offices and was
able to bring the Countryside Agency's perspective there. I was
also able, because we have a reasonable research programme, to
bring some research in and within the time scale of that project
to report on the impact of post office closures on small towns
and villages and on the shops that are near those post offices.
All of that was done quietly and behind the scenes. The real decision,
that ought to have been rural-proofed in the first place, was
one by the Benefits Agency, when it decided how it was going to
want to pay benefits to people in the future. They did not think
through, we believe, the full consequences of their decision on
post offices, if there had not been the kind of measures that
the Government has now agreed to put in place following the PIU
report.
30. If you were not invited to sit on this working
party, how would you have channelled the views of the Countryside
Commission into the DETR or, indeed, on the question of policing
rural areas into the Home Office?
(Mr Wakeford) That is a very fair point, this is why
we are looking for the Rural White Paper to say something on the
issue of rural proofing, which is about Government departments
thinking about the rural dimension to all the major decisions
they are taking.
31. Do you have any ideas to give to Government?
(Mr Wakeford) We certainly do. We have contributed
ideas in the Rural White Paper process. It is for those who are
changing policies and taking decisions to make sure that those
decisions take account of the needs and the circumstances of rural
areas, just as they should take account of the specific needs
of urban areas. We will be available to provide research and expertise.
We want to establish a stronger system of secondment in and out
of the Countryside Agency, between Government departments and
the Countryside Agency, so there is a greater awareness of rural
issues among those policy makers. We want to have a formal input
into MISC 8 or whatever form of Cabinet committee is established
to do the rural proofing and to do that checking. Ultimately,
we plan to use documents, such as our annual State of the Countryside
Report not only to present statistics about trends and the facts
in the countryside but also to indicate some of the issues that
may have slipped through the net. After the event we hope that
Government departments will say, "We had better watch out
because the Countryside Agency is available to help; if we do
not ask them to help we may not get full marks in the next State
of the Countryside Report".
32. Has the Agency signed up to the Government's
voluntary sector and how are you putting into practice your partnership
approach to voluntary organisations?
(Mr Wakeford) I would prefer to provide you with a
note on that one, it is quite a complicated area.[2]
(Mr Cameron) In terms of working with
voluntary organisations, there is a whole range of voluntary organisations
we do an enormous amount of work with in different ways. Sometimes
we are working with them, talking to them and making certain we
all know how each other thinks. We consider them an important
part of our life.
(Mr Wakeford) Through the Rural Community Council
network and through the National Council of Voluntary Organisations,
which we grant aid to the extent of about £90,000 a year,
through the current support of ACRE, the charity that is very
much involved with rural communities.
Mr Gray
33. Surely you cancelled your funding for ACRE?
(Mr Wakeford) We are still paying ACRE grants for
various things they are doing for us. They administer our village
hall loan fund. They are doing some research contracts for us
and we are paying money to them this year under transitional arrangements.
Since it is a membership organisation for rural community councils
we are looking to rural community councils to pay for that service
which ACRE provides them.
34. You reduced the funding for ACRE.
(Mr Wakeford) We are in a transitional period. May
I just add the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers to the
list I was giving Mr Cummings.
Mrs Ellman
35. Could you give us examples of how you supported
local government or made local government more aware of rural
issues?
(Mr Wakeford) Local authorities are amongst the bodies
who are most frequently our partners. Wherever you look down the
list of activities we are engaged in, it is local authorities
we are working with. It is local authorities who are concerned
with areas of outstanding natural beauty and very much the lead
in those relationships. We talked already about rural transport
partnerships. It is local authorities who are formally operating
the community forests. When you look at our big programmes local
authorities are the key. On rights-of-way it is the Highway Authorities
that have the obligations in respect of rights-of-way and what
we are doing is paying them grants to help them deliver their
services in an effective way, to try out innovative approaches,
for example, through the parish paths partnerships.
36. Could you give us some examples?
(Mr Cameron) In which respect?
37. In any respect.
(Mr Cameron) There are land management initiatives.
We are working with Norfolk County Council and Sussex County Council
in the High Weald. In terms of housing we are trying to influence
housing policies in rural districts, trying to make certain they
adopt proper indicators. Half of them do not examine the actual
local housing needs within their areas and we are trying to influence
them in their housing policies. There is a whole range of transport
schemes, in almost every county, that we are undertaking.
(Ms Warhurst) There is also the work we are doing
with rural priority areas, the old RDAs, we are working with local
authorities to help shopkeepers on training exercises to make
them more sensitive to tourism requirements or we might be working
with regeneration partnerships that have needs because of the
rural dimension. There is direct funding still going into all
those. We are working in Yorkshire with North Yorkshire County
Council for some of the initiatives on the agricultural/urban
hinterland. There is a lot of stuff we are putting money directly
into. Plus we are funding £80,000 worth of a guide for best
practice in terms of rights-of-way, that local authorities will
be able to use and learn from the good experience of the better
performing local authorities.
(Mr Cameron) In terms of social exclusion, we are
working with—I am just going through one or two schemes
here—"Norfolk Communities that care" scheme. In
the Peak District we are working on a Rural Deprivation forum.
There is the Amethyst Project, also in the Peak District. In rural
Warickshire we are working with the County Council and the Rural
Community Council also on a social exclusion project. If you count
National Parks as local authorities, there is the DARE Project
in the Dales.
Chairman
38. The trouble with all these is they are projects
and people see you as a soft touch, as they saw the Commission
before. You put money up to demonstrate that something works.
(Mr Cameron) Yes.
39. Apart from the stewardship scheme, which
I accept was a great success, with so many of the others, you
demonstrate that something succeeds but no one actually comes
up to fund it afterwards, so the demonstration is carried out
and then it is just forgotten because there is no mainstream funding
to take it over.
(Mr Wakeford) There is something in what you say,
Chairman. I would not accept that the stewardship was the only
success in that respect.
2 See page 5. Back
| 
