Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Dr Colin Hindmarch (V06)

Response specifically in relation to: support for agriculture (1); ensuring a strategic overview supported by a competent scientific infrastructure (2), effective delivery (3).

Refs in [square brackets] refer to paragraphs in the Rural Strategy

1.   The proposals encourage support for agriculture and attempt to maximise environmental benefits

  They have depth: they put agriculture at the core of the rural economy [11] then role out support for the economic and social regeneration [12, 18] of the countryside. They also consider such things as planning [24], transport [50], affordable housing [50, 58] and tourism [93, 94]; all of which are important to a vibrant countryside. The proposals are also committed to enhancing the value of the countryside [69a and b] and delivering sound outcomes through organisational streamlining [99].

2.   The proposals suggest maintaining a centralised overview, which should help to secure specialisims, standardised data collection and national level surveillance

  In part, they cater for these concerns by: improving the rural evidence base [2] and providing clear national delivery standards [6, 10, 11, 12, 35f]. They also promote the spirit of "Thinking rural, accepting regional variation, but holding to account against national standards" (99e), which is fundamental to maintaining regionally appropriate patterns of biodiversity and farm types. However, it should be pointed out to the authors that since they mentioned foot and mouth [1] it might have been prudent of them to be a little more explicit about the need for the national surveillance of plant and animal disease (1d) and the importance of maintaining a pool of high-level specialised skills (4b).

  High-level skills are mentioned in relation to environment [71].

3.   Delivery (paras 7, 8, 9)

  The proposals are largely sound—even good. They recognise: the need for new methods of governance and delivery [13], including; decoupling policy and delivery [43], and the setting up of rural priority boards [36]; removing overlaps and inefficiencies in public bodies [34], together with the need to improve accountability in the form of PSA targets [26]. They also recognise the need to improve knowledge transfer [19] and promote business links using "additional" money [32].

  Unfortunately, there is not much mention of the direct involvement of civil society (Institute of Biology, Biosciences Federation, among others) in the process of governance (paragraph 10). This should be of some concern to a government that prides itself on taking independent scientific advice and being "inclusive".

16 September 2004





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 4 April 2005