THURSDAY 20 JANUARY 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Andrew F Bennett, in the Chair
Mr Hilary Benn
Mr Tom Brake
Mr John Cummings
Mr Brian H Donohoe
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody
Mrs Louise Ellman
Miss Anne McIntosh
Mr Bill Olner
Mr George Stevenson
_________
RT HON DR MARJORIE MOWLAM, a Member of the House (Minister for the
Cabinet Office; Chairman of the Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs),
MS LINDSAY BELL, Deputy Head of Economic and Domestic Affairs
Secretariat, examined.
Chairman
654. Can I welcome you to the Committee and could I ask you to
identify yourself and your team for the record, please?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I am Marjorie Mowlam, Cabinet Office Coordinator. I
have with me Lindsay Bell, a civil servant who advises me on this policy area.
655. Thank you very much. Do you want to say anything by way of
introduction?
(Marjorie Mowlam) If I could make a couple of comments it would be
appreciated.
656. Yes.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Thank you. Can I thank you very much for inviting
me here this morning and giving me the chance to talk about what I consider
an important policy area. You have invited me in my capacity as Chair of the
new Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs. The Prime Minister announced that
this Committee would be formed on 10th November last year. The formal terms
of reference are "to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural
areas". I recognise immediately that those terms of reference are rather
broad and general and unspecific and imprecise in nature. What is the
ministerial group there for? What it is there for is to co-ordinate
government policies affecting rural areas. It is about working across
departments to achieve better results, ironing out any potential difficulties.
It is a forum to look forward on future rural issues and one of those that I
hope we will do a lot of is rural proofing, which would give the ministerial
group a chance to make sure on whatever the government policy issue that the
rural dimension is taken into consideration. The membership of the committee
is quite broad: we have the Home Office, Education, Employment, Health,
Culture and Sport, Agriculture, MAFF, Trade and Industry, Treasury,
Environment, Transport and the Regions involved and other Ministers will be
invited when the policy area affects their Department. I see it as a kind of
forum for discussion and agreement on the impact of a wide range of government
policies on rural areas. Let me make it clear, I am not there to second-guess
the policy work of MAFF or DETR. They are the departments that are doing the
policy. We are there to co-ordinate and work with them to make sure that the
policy is fully implemented. You heard evidence last week about the
Government's proposals for the new rural development regulations. The
Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs agreed the framework for the Government's
spending proposals in the seven-year England Rural Development Plan. At the
moment the group is steering the work of a crosscutting study on rural and
countryside issues which is part of this year's spending review. That study
will look at how Government resources can be used to protect the environment
as well as supporting economic diversification. It will be looking at options
for pooling budgets and for improving access and services in rural affairs.
The ministerial group will seek to ensure that departments work as effectively
as they can to support rural life. This inquiry is about the Rural White
Paper. The preparations for that White Paper are being led by the Deputy
Prime Minister and being prepared jointly by the DETR and MAFF. The role of
the Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs that I chair will be to co-ordinate the
proposals on the White Paper. Mr Chairman, I would like to leave it at that
and answer whatever questions the Committee would like to ask.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mrs Ellman
657. In your opening comments you said that you saw the committee
as a forum. What kind of authority and independence would a committee that
sees itself as a forum have?
(Marjorie Mowlam) We are not an independent body of government. What
we are there to do is work with departments to co-ordinate the work that they
are doing, so it is not an independent body in that sense. I do not think
independent is a word I would use, unless you can illustrate to me
differently, as a description of us. We are there to make sure that when
government policy is put together by a number of departments we maximise the
benefit from those proposals and make sure that what is actually implemented
is not in any sense contradictory and the timescales are in line and in order
to maximise the output we are looking at crosscutting, pooling budgets.
658. If your committee believes that a department should act in a
different way than it is currently doing in order to carry out government
policy more effectively and that department does not agree with you, would you
have the power to make them change?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Why I began off by saying I was a government
co-ordinater and not an enforcer is because I believe you achieve change not
by dictating to people what to do. Usually if you do that you get backs up
and that makes it harder to get an accommodation. My experience in Government
and in previous jobs I have done is that you achieve accommodation and the
best outcomes by getting people to sit down and talk and work together. We
are a co-ordinating department. I do not have leverage in terms of finance
or whatever but what I do have is the support of the Prime Minister on what
is a very important body to make sure that departments work together to
maximise outcomes because unless we do that we are not working to represent
the people that put us here.
659. So if you could not get the support of the department in
changing the way it operated on something you believed should be changed,
would you then go to the Prime Minister?
(Marjorie Mowlam) What we would do is work through the issue. Not on
this particular committee because it is relatively new, but on other
committees that I chair that are cross-cutting we meet and we meet and we have
not yet had an issue that even though we begin sometimes with people with very
different views that we have not found an accommodation on because it is in
nobody's interests in one department to be isolated when they are working with
three or four because they will not maximise the outcomes of what they want.
Up until now I have not had to go to the Prime Minister on anything because
we have found an accommodation, but obviously that is a final route if Cabinet
Ministers disagree. But up to now we have not faced that difficulty.
660. How often does the Committee meet?
(Marjorie Mowlam) As I said in my introduction, the announcement was
made in December and we will meet when needed. We have met once on the
regulatory reform package, we met on the seven-year plan, and we will meet
soon on the funding on the CSR and the spending rounds. We will meet on the
Rural White Paper. I am not a believer in having lots of committee meetings
to make it look like you are doing lots of work. I think you should meet when
you have got a purpose. We have a number of specific meetings. We will meet
on rural proofing which I think will be an important meeting because the issue
we are dealing with is relatively open still.
661. What role is the committee playing in the formulation of the
White Paper?
(Marjorie Mowlam) We are not a policy-making body. As I said in my
introductory comments, we are co-ordinating between departments. We are an
office and not a policy department so we do not have a responsibility for any
specific policy. It has been drawn up by the Ministry of the Agriculture and
by the DETR and other departments are being consulted. The lead on this is
the Deputy Prime Minister. Our role is one of facilitating rather than policy
making.
662. Does that mean that you do not have an input into the White
Paper?
(Marjorie Mowlam) If I wanted to I would.
663. You will not be invited to?
(Marjorie Mowlam) The units in the Cabinet Office working between us and
Number 10 like the PIU will do and if at some point I want to, like any other
Cabinet Minister or any Member of Parliament, I can give evidence. I do not
have any great depth of knowledge on rural affairs. I have an interest, but
I do not have a policy interest. It is not part of the Cabinet job I do. I
have enough to do without taking a policy interest as a lot of people in their
departments are doing that work.
664. Could I clarify the position. Are you saying that your
Committee does not have any formal role in giving any input into the
formulation of the Rural White Paper?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Yes.
Mr Benn
665. You mentioned the PIU report, do you agree with the thrust of
what it says that we need to move away from rural policy based on the late
1940s to the kind of position that now arises?
(Marjorie Mowlam) In answer to the question I have just given to Louise
that my job is not policy, I am co-ordinator of different people's views and
whether I agree or disagree with the PIU I am not advocating my own personal
views. If I am co-ordinating different departments to implement a particular
body and working with them, what I think of it is secondary. I have looked
at the PIU. I think there are some interesting aspects of the report and I
think it has done the job that I see PIU doing which is a group of people,
some civil servants, some external, that come together on issues between
departments or interesting issues which have not been directly addressed
working to create ideas and stimulate thinking. I think that is an incredibly
useful function.
666. What will your Committee do with the PIU report taking it
forward? Do you just put it into the pot?
(Marjorie Mowlam) The PIU report will go to the departments dealing with
policy. We are not a policy-making department, we are an office. I will then
chair meetings between different departments with their views and into the
Rural White Paper will go aspects of the PIU report that they as departments
think add to the policy objectives they have. The PIU is there for
consultation with external experts, with people who will receive the policy
output, the consumers, and they are there to get to policy recommendations
that stimulate thought in departments. When you are in department you get
your head down and try and make your political priorities you were put in
government to do work. You do not have a week to sit down and think, "That
is an interesting policy area. I would like to think about that. Maybe I
could get together a group which will include the academics consumers and
others with an interest to talk about it." Ministers do not have time for
that. What I think the PIU report does on this area, as on others, is bring
to those departments a different way of thinking about the issue and maybe
some good positive suggestions as to how they can better develop the policy
objectives they have. I think that whether I think that the 1940s
interpretation works rather than the present views is interesting but I do not
have a policy point of view and I do not think it helps me to have one.
667. You have talked about the role you see your Committee playing
in trying to bring people together who have an interest in this area. A
number of the witnesses who have submitted evidence to us have said that they
think your Committee is going to have difficulty making much impact if much
more far-reaching changes, in particular in relation to MAFF, are not actually
brought about. Is that a view that you share?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I am not sure what you are actually saying.
668. The view has been expressed in particular that unless MAFF
takes on a rural development responsibility much more clearly, that it is
going to be hard for your Committee to achieve the kind of effective
co-ordination between the different policy departments.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Surely that will be an aspect of the Rural White Paper
which the PIU have put some views on and it will be the Rural White Paper that
merges those different views. If that is a topic of difficulty we will
obviously begin to address it with them, but it is not up to me to sit there
and say, "MAFF has to do A, B and C." That is a decision where the Ministers
at MAFF along with others that are looking at this policy area can say, "This
will be better implemented if A, B and C happened."
669. So you do not think there are problems ---
(Marjorie Mowlam) I did not say that.
670. -- There are problems about effective co-ordination because
of the current focus and responsibilities that MAFF has got?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I did not say that either. What I said was that
departments have policy areas they work in and sometimes it is difficult,
which I readily acknowledge, for departments to work across departmental
boundaries and therefore it is useful to have a Committee like ours with all
the departmental Ministers around to facilitate working together. When they
do not get rewarded or the civil servants do not get rewarded for working
across departments, that is where the difficulty comes. Now the point you are
making about MAFF having both a rural environmental dimension and an
agricultural one is one that has already been addressed partly in the White
Paper but partly people are thinking about it in all departments, but no
specific views have been put forward. I think having got the DETR in place,
with teething troubles but working, I am not sure that structural changes
themselves - a personal view here - are absolutely are crucial. What is
important is that the policy is there. If when the policy is there it is
better implemented by changes in structures then, of course, that should be
looked at but any policy for rural areas by its very nature has to be economic
and social across the board. It is like dealing with problems on only one
dimension. You will not reach sensible conclusions. It is why, for example,
the PIU does the work that it does. It is why, for example, the Social
Exclusion Unit is made up of departments. If you take the example of drugs
which exist in some small communities and market towns and is a serious
problem, you cannot address that problem by just looking at education or
health or home, you have to do it across department.
671. The idea of a separate Department of Rural Affairs has been
mooted. We had a lot of evidence which suggested people do not think that is
a good idea. Is that still under consideration?
(Marjorie Mowlam) It is not not under consideration. We have had
numerous views. We look forward to the reports of this Committee where
different people that have given evidence have put their view on it. The door
is still open, it is not closed.
672. Where might responsibility for English Nature fit? In other
words, if the Government went down the route of a Department of Rural Affairs
would it have responsibility for English Nature?
(Marjorie Mowlam) That is a question of great detail and as we have not
got to the point of the first part of your statement I think it would be
unwise of me to hazard a guess on the second. I will find out if any detailed
thinking has gone on in either of the departments with an interest in this and
write to you on that question, if I may.
Mrs Dunwoody
673. In a normal system of cabinet government cabinet committees
meet together with representatives right the way across Whitehall of different
departments. If needs be they submit policy documents, then they debate the
subject and they reach a conclusion. If they are unable to reach agreement
that is usually kicked upstairs to the Cabinet. If you are not a policy
making body then what is the difference between you and a normal Cabinet
committee?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I am not sure that I accept the premise from where
you start which is that this is normal procedure. I think part of what we are
doing as a Government is looking at modernising government which includes
questioning whether the structures that are there are the best ways of
delivering outcomes. The Cabinet Committee structure that you outline is
still there and still working. I am not sure saying that it is normal and
therefore right I would necessarily concur with. In terms of differences from
other Cabinet Committees, we are not a department so we do not have policy,
but what we do have is more than just Ministers sitting round when they come
with their policy papers. What we are trying to do is to drive departments
to work closer together from the beginning. We do not come together with one
policy paper from MAFF and one from DETR. We look at what they are doing and
encourage work beforehand so that the paper that we end up with is across
department.
674. That is an admirable aim. We have just heard some rather
unfocused discussion from the PIU as to how they see their role. Indeed, they
told us that they had a vision but other people might have other visions,
which did not seem a very evolutionary thought. How is it that you take note
of what the PIU say, you do not push for a particular policy line but,
nevertheless, you are trying from a very early point to get all these
different departments to work together? I am still not clear what muscle you
have got, what you do to implement the policies that are agreed. You did not
say that you reported to the Cabinet, you said you reported to the Prime
Minister and I am not clear what the line of demarcation is there. Frankly,
whatever is decided, in something as wide ranging as a very radical reform of
government in relation to rural affairs we will need to know who has got
sufficient power to implement these policies before we decide how effective
they are going to be.
(Marjorie Mowlam) I said report to the Prime Minister in the context
of difficulties between departments. It was Louise who asked me what would
happen if I did not get agreement and I said we would do our best and we have
not had that difficulty yet, but if we did, we would go to the PM. Obviously
the Cabinet would be the final body for reference. Let us just return to the
PIU. The PIU is new, it is different, it is not a government department. In
my view it is there to stimulate views. What we are trying to do is make sure
policies are made in the most effective and efficient way, with a bit of
lateral thinking, a bit of thinking from people in business, trade unions, the
voluntary sector and consumers of services, so that when politicians are
looking at a Manifesto commitment they do not just think there is one way of
implementing it or one way of working out a particular aspect of the policy.
What I see PIU bringing is vision, which is fine, thoughts on other bits of
policy that we have not looked at and I do not see any harm in that. That can
only lead to good policy in my view. The PIU bring those ideas and the
departments look at them. The departments of the PIU will say, "Okay, this
may link in with this bit of what we are doing for the Rural White Paper."
What I do not have is very much leverage, power or money, I do not have any
of those three things, but what I do have is a position with the Prime
Minister's office next door that says, "Okay, this Bill looks positive. Does
it have the economic and social mix that is needed? Are these the positions
that the two departments are happy with? Is it there? Are those two in there
focused enough that they can work and the departments are happy?" What we are
is nothing more than a body that works to make sure departments are delivering
in the most effective way, that is what we do. Does that answer the question?
675. It is an answer, yes. You are the oil in a machine which I
hope is working.
(Marjorie Mowlam) I am there to make sure it does.
676. So you are the engineer?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I am the first woman engineer in the Department.
Mr Stevenson
677. Minister, could I press you a little more on the wider
aspects of the issues touched on in the Rural White Paper and may I start by
asking you a detailed question. Last week we had Michael Meacher here and he
pointed out that in his view the Rural White Paper should have eight key
components: minimum standards of public service, regeneration, agriculture,
rural governance, rural proofing, planning, social exclusion and conservation
issues. Do you agree with that list and, if you do, can you give us any
indication of which of those issues should be given priority? Would you like
to add to them?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I can add to them, George, as you can as members of
the Party in Government. I think they are a good coverage, personally. I
think they cover eight important areas and I would hope to see all eight in
the Rural White Paper. I am not there as head of MAFF or head of DETR. I do
not want to be repetitive, but I think they cover the areas that are
important. To pick up on Hilary's point, I think social exclusion is crucial
because unless we co-ordinate housing, homelessness, difficulties of
deprivation in rural areas, getting jobs for people alongside the agriculture
we are not responding to rural communities in the way we should.
678. You said that your department is there to co-ordinate
different views and to stimulate thinking.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Not me. I do not want to stimulate anybody.
679. Stimulate thinking.
(Marjorie Mowlam) No, that is the PIU's job in my view.
680. So you believe your Department should not be seeking to
stimulate thinking?
(Marjorie Mowlam) No. We do not have a department, we have a small
Cabinet Office. We are there to facilitate, to co-ordinate, to encourage.
681. Could I try and couch my question on the basis of something
else you said which is that your Department is there to try and to see that
departments try and deliver the most policies in the most effective way.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Not the most policies, to deliver policies.
682. I mean rural policies in the most effective way. Do we agree
on that?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Yes, we do to the extent that implement may be a bit
too strong a word. Going back to Gwyneth's question, I do not have
implementationary powers. I am there to co-ordinate, facilitate, encourage,
monitor and to make sure that when the departments are implementing something
comes out the end that is actually working.
683. But co-ordination as part of that which you insist upon is
trying to bring together different views?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Different views in the sense that different
departments have different aims. We know what aims the Department of
Agriculture has and we know what aims DETR have and what we need for them to
do in the rural area is to match. They get a chance to do that, as Gwyneth
said, in ministerial committees. What we are there to do is help to
facilitate that.
684. Finally so I do not engage the wrath of the chair, in that
context there are those who argue that the changes needed in agriculture, for
example, are not only economic, social and financial, but they are necessary
because for too long the country has accepted the notion that if agriculture
is okay then by some magical definition the rural communities are okay. I do
not think that has ever been true and that is certainly not true today. Have
you got a view on that proposition?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I think the rural community is what the word says, it
is the community, it is not just an economic dimension, it is a social
dimension too, and in that sense the Rural White Paper will address both and
in a way that will hopefully interface and match up so that it is not counter-
productive in terms of emphasising one side over and above the other.
685. That is very helpful. Finally to be more specific if I can,
the Rural Development Regulations seem to be most welcome, although there is
an issue of resources and modulation, but the reality is that the vast bulk
of resources are spent on agricultural production support one way or another.
In the context of differing views and trying to co-ordinate those differing
views and trying to be more effective, do you see the possibility or
desirability of that mass of resources being modulated and redirected in a
more significant way to benefit rural economies rather than just one sector
of the rural economy?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Let me say that I think modulation, like you, is a
positive step and it would be wise to see how that goes, but to imply that
that is the only money going into rural economies and rural communities would
be unfair. œ170 million, for example, has gone into improving rural
transport. That is important given that one in four parish areas were bereft
of any public transport. We are putting money specifically into that. œ40
million has gone into the School Support Fund so that small rural schools can
survive. Do not forget that the previous Government between 1983 and 1997
closed 32 small schools in rural areas each year. We have got that special
fund up to help small schools in rural areas survive. We have put rate relief
on post offices and village shops. I would argue that is a big budget in MAFF
and modulation will help in giving a broader definition of the rural economy
which is what that modulation is there to do. I do not think the Committee
should under-estimate the other Government policies that are going into rural
areas that will have an impact. The Minimum Wage, the Working Families Tax
Credit and the New Deal will all help rural economies and rural communities.
Mr Donohoe
686. I am listening, Minister, to what you are saying in terms of
this and it seems, as in other matters, but you are adding an additional layer
to democracy and the Government is taking itself further away from impacting
on policies rather than towards it.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Impacting on?
687. On the necessary changes in the rural areas. You are taking
yourself further away instead of getting closer to it.
(Marjorie Mowlam) No, I would argue the exact opposite. I would argue
that what we are doing is trying to make sure across department that we get
a policy that has the best chance of having a positive impact in the local
community but in the end whatever we do as central government will need to be
worked in partnership with the groups in the communities. Unless we work with
the local authorities and the health boards in the rural communities it will
not work. Take NHS Direct as a good example. There we have an example of
money going into rural communities taking into account the sparsity of
population in particular areas and a policy that is actually beginning to
work. I do not see it, as you suggest, as an additional layer of government
because we already have Cabinet committees. What this is doing is refocusing
those to make sure that departments know that cross-cutting is better than
not.
688. But you can only achieve that if you are an enforcer?
(Marjorie Mowlam) No.
689. Because that has been the problem. That has been identified
as the problem in terms of the rural areas. There is no focus of attention
and there is nobody driving it through. Just as with drugs there are so many
departments that nothing is ever achieved.
(Marjorie Mowlam) If you take that point of view what other options do
you have? You say that there are a lot of different departments and nothing
comes out the other end, it does not work, so what do we do? We say okay,
let's see if the departments can put policies together so it is a united
policy so that if you are chair of a local district council you do not have
six consultations and six papers and six ways of doing it. We say okay, these
are the policies, this is how they could work on the ground. That is what we
are trying to do. You are right, it is not easy without any money and without
any power and that is why I do not call myself an enforcer. It would strike
me as a daft way of doing it. What we are indulging in now in the CSR is to
see if we can get a cross-cutting budget. That is power, that is leverage
because if you have a cross-cutting budget between departments that says this
is the budget for rural affairs, this is the budget for drugs and it has a bit
of health in it and a bit of home in it and a bit of education in it you have
got a much better chance of getting the outcomes productively and efficiently
because you are pooling that money because the objectives are similar but they
do different bits of the jigsaw. Am I making sense?
690. I am not convinced.
(Marjorie Mowlam) I can live with the fact that I do not convince you
but am I making sense because I am afraid I am not and it is beginning to
worry me.
Mrs Dunwoody
691. You always make sense, Secretary of State. If some of your
colleagues made as much sense life would be a lot simpler. We do not always
have to agree with you but you always make sense.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Thank you.
Mr Donohoe
692. Is the job of rural proofing of national policies going to be
a job solely done by the Cabinet Committee?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I do not have an answer to that yet, Brian, because
we have not consulted with departments and reached a conclusion.
693. Who would you see as doing the job if it was not the Cabinet
Committee?
(Marjorie Mowlam) There are a number of people putting themselves
forward and I think it would be unhelpful for me to prejudge the views that
are coming in as to who would be best. I think what we have to look at is
what offers are coming in. I think the Cabinet Committee has a role.
694. You have already admitted then there is going to be such a
responsibility. Would it not be better to have people identified within each
of the departments that would have that responsibility rather than have it
given to some other agency?
(Marjorie Mowlam) You have just supported one of the options on the
table. Other people support other options, the Countryside Agency, etcetera,
etcetera. I have read accounts of previous witnesses to this Committee as to
what they would like to see. We have not yet made a decision but let me say
that rural proofing is an essential part of making this policy area work which
is why as chair of the Rural Affairs Committee I see that as something I would
like to see the Committee to have a voice over.
Chairman
695. Could you not find a better phrase for us than "rural
proofing"?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Does the Committee have any suggestions?
Mrs Dunwoody
696. Why not a rural dimension? You are good at plain English,
Secretary of State. Could we not astonish the Cabinet but using language that
people understand?
(Marjorie Mowlam) "Rural dimension"? I am not sure I understand. I
think rural proving is not the most helpful description.
Mr Donohoe
697. Can you define it in a number of words?
(Marjorie Mowlam) All I would use is another example, the Regulatory
Impact Unit that we have for trying to decrease the excessive regulation where
it is not used for health and safety, protection of people in the environment.
What that does is exactly what rural proofing should do. Now I do not know
what is the best way of using the language we could use which says what rural
proofing/whatever will do which is to say: "Whatever the policy area for
Government ...". It is like we did on equality before. We have to be sure
that the policy does not go through without the rural dimension being
considered because of the different needs of rural communities. We should not
just focus on urban centres, now that is essential. Whether we call it rural
proofing, rural dimension, impact assessment ---
Mrs Dunwoody
698. You should ask around the Whitehall village.
(Marjorie Mowlam) I could ask around the Parliamentary village and see
if all our colleagues have any better ideas to use, as you suggest, language
which is comprehensible and immediately understandable to people.
Miss McIntosh
699. I think the Minister has been amazingly frank today which has
been admired. I think you have said you have an interest in it but not an
indepth knowledge of rural policy.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Yes. I am in charge of about 16 committees and it
would be naive to suggest that I have detailed knowledge of all.
700. Would you accept that social exclusion is perhaps a greater
problem in the rural towns and villages than perhaps some towns like your own
which you represent?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I have learnt that you do not gain by playing one
group off against another. Who was I talking to yesterday? I was talking to
homeless people who said "We cannot get a house because asylum seekers are
taking them all". We ought to be able to house asylum seekers and the
homeless, and that is what we are working to do. Similarly, on social
exclusion, I do not think it helps to say the urban or the rural, either are
bad. What we have is severe deprivation, severe poverty with all the impacts
that means such as lower education, poor health, little chance of getting a
training and job that they should have the choice to do. I would say that we
will focus on both. What we do have to do, whether it is urban or rural
deprivation, is we have to look at how best - back to working across
Departments in relation to Brian's question - without setting an official tier
of Government up to respond to those needs. Transport, for example, you need
a decent bus service before you can deal with problems of youth or problems
of elderly people shopping and that is probably a bigger priority in relation
to some rural areas than elsewhere.
701. That is very welcome. What would you understand is the role
of the rural sub post office in village life?
(Marjorie Mowlam) My experience - and it is all I can answer you on,
Anne - is I think rural sub post offices have always been, along with the
village shop, a central focus which is why the Government has given 50 per
cent tax relief where there is a certain geographical distance between them
because they are an important focus for the community. I think they perform
a very important role. That does not mean that we should just accept rural
post offices as they have always been. Are there ways we can put other
services together. If you are a pensioner in a rural area, you get the bus
down, you can go and do two or three things. My view is they are important but
that does not mean things should stay as they are.
702. Can I take it one step further, Minister. The Government, I
presume, is in favour of the computerisation programme of post offices and if
that is the case, which I believe it is, then would it not be better for the
Government to wait for the computerisation programme to finish in all rural
sub post offices which is a vast programme - it will take a long period of
time, I would imagine it will probably take about a year or 18 months to
complete - before the Government goes ahead with its proposal to automate all
payments of benefits and pensions? The reason I say that, Minister, is that
I probably represent one of the most rural parts of Northern England, not a
million miles from your own consistency. I have seen for myself, and I do it
myself, sometimes if you are on your own on a Sunday, you do walk down to the
post office for no other reason than just to have a chat and find out what the
local news is. For people, pensioners especially but others who collect their
benefits, others who are not working, there is no substitute for the sub post
office, just for the human social contact.
(Marjorie Mowlam) I do not disagree with you. I think rural post offices
are a crucial form of focus for social interaction in exactly the same way
that living in a semi urban area, the high streets took a blow ten or 15 years
ago when the supermarkets outside of town set up, a lot of the shops became
charity shops, that is beginning to turn round. I experience that in my own
town of Redcar because people like to talk, they like to bump into people on
a Saturday, go to the butchers, have a chat and I think that is a dimension
which is one that we should not ignore. I do not deny your description of the
reality of why that is needed. From a personal point of view, and I know there
is work going on on rural post offices, and I know it is an issue that has
been lobbied on - and I am giving you my personal views rather than the
Government view - that dimension is an important one to take into
consideration. The only additional point I would add is that does not mean
that we cannot improve the service, even if it is a post office or other
services which go with it. In relation to your point on computerisation,
whether we should wait, I am a firm believer because, as civil servants will
tell you I get very frustrated because I want things to happen yesterday, and
you have to consult and you have to work across Governments but I think there
is no harm in doing both in parallel, reviewing the situation in relation to
post offices and at the same time getting the computerisation in place. I
think the 50 per cent tax relief we give to village shops and to rural post
offices is indicative of our acknowledgement of the point that you have just
made.
703. You would regret if your legacy in the present position you
occupy was a large proportion of the sub post offices were to close. That is
something you would regret deeply?
(Marjorie Mowlam) That is the point I am making on change. I think what
we have to do is understand the importance of that function. I do not know
what the policy will be in the end but that is an important function. Whether
it remains in some villages - and this is me again, it is not Government
policy we do not have one yet, it is still under review - for me in some towns
if it was the village shop and that took on the village shop and post office
function, you are talking about a central function that needs to be taken into
account, now it may be the post office, it may be a large village shop, it may
be something else, it may be a health centre because in some villages there
is a health centre, in others they will have the post office. All I am saying
is I am not wedded to a particular pattern of services being given particular
outlets which have been there for 50 years. What I am wedded to is the
services are there for the people on the ground to perform in a way they can
use them. I am willing to consider, which is why I think the PIU is a valuable
asset to Government, because that helps people who then get a lot of time to
think, to look at the different issues and see if there are other ways we can
get our end objective, which is to make sure people meet each other, have a
talk, have a chat, and get a decent service.
Mr Brake
704. In your meetings with different ministers and other
representatives, have they discussed the trend of increasing numbers of people
moving into rural areas to live? Do they agree among themselves whether this
is a good or bad thing?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I have not yet, Tom, had a meeting that has covered
that. As I say, we have had meetings on the rural regulations. We are looking
at the moment at CSR, of which housing is a dimension. We have not had a
meeting specifically on this point. I could not answer your two questions.
705. Have you had any meetings regarding planning, for example,
particularly the rural proofing aspect of planning and the planning decisions,
in other words how you weigh up the rural positives of creating jobs versus
perhaps the rural negatives of destroying an environmentally sensitive site?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I think those are crucial areas but they are ones that
because we were set up at the end of last year, and it is now the end of
January, we have not had time to discuss them. That does not in any way under-
estimate the importance of the two factors that you have just raised.
706. Will you actively consider, therefore, taking those issues up
and making sure they are dealt with?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I think they will be actively considered in the Rural
White Paper and, therefore, they will come before us for different departments
to discuss together.
Mr Cummings
707. The PIU have indicated that at present "best and most
versatile" land is protected from development whereas land of high
environmental value may not be. What is your opinion, Minister, of the
proposals made in the PIU Report to remove protection from best and most
versatile land and enhance protection for land of high environmental value?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Chairman, as I said earlier, I am not there to judge
different policies that will come from the different departments. I am not a
policy expert on this area, it will come from the policies. Let me just say
personally, I think that this is the kind of question that is difficult.
Because it is based in a history of, as I understand it, particular land that
has high agricultural value, and therefore is protected, this is not - of my
reading of what the PIU are up to on this - to say they should necessarily all
disappear. What it is saying is there may be a need for greater flexibility
rather than thinking in terms of natural givens that have been there for 50
years and therefore cannot be rethought. What may be a good idea is to say
is there a chance for flexibility so that in some areas where there is general
agreement --- You know from local authority experience you sometimes run up
in terms of particular regulations, a historical precedent or a planning
regulation that does not meet the needs of everybody, whether it is business
or the agricultural community, there is a kind of general consensus that this
would be a good thing to do for this village and not responding to a
particular vested interest. Now if that is the case then I think all that is
being suggested is that should be looked at. That again is what I think the
value is of reports like this one from the PIU. It actually opens an issue
the Department may not necessarily think of and therefore they can look at it.
Now whether they do it or not is not for me but the Departments will obviously
consider the PIU report and, as policy makers, Departments responsible will
do that.
708. Last week your colleague, Mr Meacher, indicated that
Governments had failed to protect land of high environmental value. Given the
ongoing decline in flora and fauna - and I use the example of farmland birds,
wetlands and meadowlands - how do we give better protection to designated land
such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I think the modulation is a step in the right
direction in that way. What we need to do is to make sure that in the Rural
White Paper the needs of the local community to survive are taken into account
alongside SSSIs and the need to protect the environment and flora and fauna.
I cannot give you an overarching categorical reply, all I can say is that
there are environmental protections, as you know, there are SSSIs. I think
what we have to do, which is the advantage of putting out a Rural White Paper
that covers across the board issues, these can be taken into account in a
realistic and common sense way.
Chairman
709. I will not ask you about memoirs but as far as rural
communities are concerned, how would you like to be remembered for holding
this office?
(Marjorie Mowlam) Let me just clear up the point on memoirs, as you
brought them up. What I actually did was ascertain, not in terms of memoirs
but a particular facet of my work in the Cabinet, which was two years at
Northern Ireland, if at some point in the future, and I have done nothing on
it yet, in any shape or form, I was so to do, what was it worth. That is all
I did, I found out.
Mr Donohoe
710. What about today's Daily Mirror story about you becoming
mayor?
(Marjorie Mowlam) I do not think, Chairman, today's story about me
becoming mayor of London is of relevance to rural affairs but the question has
been asked and I will answer it. We already have a candidate, I am flattered
that they did it but we have a candidate for mayor. We have a number of
candidates. The candidate I would support is Frank Dobson and we will be
voting soon.
Chairman
711. My question was only just an aside, I am afraid.
(Marjorie Mowlam) If we have a general free for all, I deserve the right
to be able to ask the Committee questions.
Mrs Dunwoody
712. That would be fun.
(Marjorie Mowlam) Yes, it would, would it not, I would like to do that.
Have we got time? That is my answer on memoirs. In terms of being remembered
by rural communities, I would like to be remembered as a Minister who helped
rural communities to live as they want, and to make choices in their lives,
and they are able to do that, and that the quality of their life improves.
But, at the same time, it is not off limits for other people who want to come
into rural areas and enjoy the natural beauty and the tourist facilities and
the pubs and the good beer that is available. That is what I would like to
see.
Mrs Dunwoody: Secretary of State, if you never do another thing, you
will be remembered as a human, fallible, intelligent, hard working, and
committed Cabinet Minister and you have the admiration of the Members of this
Committee.
Chairman: There is no need to answer that question. Thank you very much
for coming.
