2 Reactions to the Rural Strategy
15. Several witnesses to the Committee's inquiry
criticised the Government's Rural Strategy. The Centre for Rural
Economy (CRE) felt the Strategy represented "a partial and
disappointing package of institutional reforms", which gave
"the impression of 'work in progress'".[18]
The Countryside Agency said it was "not recognisable as a
strategy in the way that the Cabinet Office recommends as good
practice", it was "insufficiently clear what it is trying
to achieve" and had "no measurable outcomes or priorities".[19]
English Nature also agreed that the Strategy seemed to be more
about rearranging the institutional furniture than defining a
vision.[20]
16. CRE also argued that the proposed institutional
change would be disruptive, hampering both practical delivery
and policy development in the short term. It went on to question
whether "the Modernising Rural Delivery process is potentially
generating a lot of pain for insufficient real gain".[21]
James Derounian said the "stratagem is costly" and the
benefits are "dubious-to-negligible".[22]
During the Sub-Committee's visit to Cambridgeshire, we were also
reminded how important it was for Government to build on what
works now and to avoid unnecessary disruption.
17. When addressing some of these criticisms, the
Minister reassured us that Government was not changing the functions
or objectives of what it was trying to do, but was "just
trying to do it better, in a better and more integrated structure".[23]
The Minister felt the benefits of the Strategy could be judged
on three counts: whether the changes are managed effectively;
on the response of the ultimate recipients (rural businesses and
communities); and on certain criteria, in terms of addressing
rural disadvantage, as covered by the existing PSA target.[24]
18. When embarking
on a programme of change, it is important not to discard elements
of a system that are serving a useful purpose, without first ensuring
the replacement structures will represent an improvement to the
current situation. The Government has to demonstrate adequately
how its proposals will add significant value to the processes
of rural delivery. In its response to our report, Defra should
spell out in detail how the benefits of the proposed changes for
the recipients of the services will outweigh the potential disruption
which such changes inevitably cause.
18 Ev 7 Back
19
Ev 59 Back
20
Q 204 Back
21
Ev 8 Back
22
Ev 153 Back
23
Q 281 Back
24
Q 283 Back
| 
