Memorandum submitted by James Derounian
(V03)
PROPOSAL THAT
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
AND DELIVERY
ARE "MANAGED
SEPARATELY"
Lord Haskins set down his first principle that,
in the interest of better accountability, "policy development
should be managed separately from policy delivery, whilst ensuring
that proper communication exists at all stages between the two
functions". At the very least there is a tension between
these two goals—if policy generation is "managed separately"
from implementation then there must be a distinct possibility
that the two will not dovetail or "join up" to ensure,
in the words of Alun Michael, that "delivery of policy is
effective". At worst, it flies in the face of common sense,
by increasing the distance between policy development, delivery,
monitoring, and beneficial policy change in the light of experience.
Environment Minister Margaret Beckett, in an initial response
to the review, recognised "that policy advice can be particularly
valuable when it comes from those involved in delivery".
DELEGATION
Rural delivery in England should become "much
more decentralised . . . with key decisions being taken at local
levels". But in practice Regional Development Agencies (unaccountable
quangos) will be charged with rural economic and social development,
as opposed to sustainable development (marrying these together
with environmental actions), even though the latter is an overarching
aim of Government policy. Furthermore there is no convincing proof
of RDAs being sensitive and responsive to rural issues? And there
is no evidence of them doing anything other than predominantly
urban economic development. Haskins acknowledged that before taking
on additional work RDAs "must demonstrate that they are ready
to assume new responsibilities", and that there are misgivings
amongst stakeholders about RDAs' ability to "fulfil their
sustainable development role effectively". Where is the demonstration
of their readiness and capability?
REDRAWING THE
INSTITUTIONAL MAP
Wholesale redrawing of the "institutional
map" is proposed: with segments of the Forestry Commission,
Defra's Rural Development Service, English Nature and others being
lopped and realigned, "into a new agency responsible for
sustainable land management . . . Its remit should embrace biodiversity,
historical landscape, natural landscape, natural resources, access
and recreation". Land therefore becomes the focus for sustainability
whilst social and economic activities go out to local authorities,
RDAs and the voluntary sector. This is not a joined-up approach—notwithstanding
the Strategy's contention (Para 5) that the "overarching
Government aim is that our rural policy should have as its outcome
genuinely sustainable development".
A DIMINISHED COUNTRYSIDE
AGENCY
Just four years ago the Government merged two
quangos to create the Countryside Agency. At its launch, Deputy
Prime Minister John Prescott saw the Agency as "central to
delivering the government's vision of a thriving, sustainable
countryside". But it is now proposed to emasculate this "central"
agency so that it continues, in Margaret Beckett's words, as "a
much smaller organisation, with a new, well-focused role providing
independent policy advice to Government from a national perspective
on issues affecting people in rural communities". In fact
a shadow of its former joined-up self. And this central theme
of joined-up governance seems to run counter to the practical
outworking of Haskins' proposals, which are akin to divide and
rule.
A GREATER ROLE
FOR RURAL
COMMUNITY COUNCILS
(RCCS)
I strongly support the recognition that the
role of county-based Rural Community Councils (longstanding independent
charities) "as partners in community-based delivery is underestimated
and should be enhanced".
VALUE FOR
MONEY?
The Haskins review sought "efficiency savings
and maximising value for money". But jobs are likely to be
lost and redundancy paid in this £107 million reform. £107
million would buy many benefits without the disruption.
If these changes do come to pass they will take
until beyond the next general election to implement (assuming
a Labour victory); Haskins estimated implementation "over
three years beginning April 2004". In the meantime the threatened
agencies are likely to "navel gaze"; their staff jump
ship and policy paralysis will no doubt ensue. How does this serve
the English countryside and its communities? Especially if, as
Haskins claims, "the intangible benefits" (like "customer
satisfaction") are as important as intended financial returns.
The stratagem is costly, the benefits dubious-to-negligible.
15 September 2004
| 
