Memorandum submitted by the Outdoor Industries
Association (Appendix 1)
1. We are, on the whole, supportive of the
Bill and its aims. There is much scope within Defra for streamlining
the delivery of its activities, as set out in the Rural Strategy.
The Bill seems to take those proposals through to their conclusion.
Clearly how this actually improves performance cannot be judged
from this view point, but it appears to be a step in the right
direction.
2. The Rural Strategy was a high level direction
document and the Bill, by necessity, includes much more detail—however
the OIA believes that the provisions of the Bill and the Rural
Strategy are in agreement with each other.
3. The OIA believes that the draft Bill,
if enacted would allow the Government to implement its proposals
in an effective way. However, we feel that the Bill has not taken
into account our fundamental concerns on the Rural Strategy paper
itself and that were voiced at the time.
4. The OIA believes that the role of the
outdoors should have far greater visibility in the Rural Strategy
and the Draft Bill than it has been given and that more time and
energy needs to be devoted to its development. We recognise in
the Secretary of States reply to us that there is a number of
tourism and recreation initiatives but we consider that an industry
that has so much to contribute towards a successful rural economy
and community deserves greater recognition and more direct support.
5. We welcomed the amalgamation of constituent
parts of the Countryside Agency, Regional Development Service
and English Nature and can see the benefits of better separation
of policy and delivery. We had also hoped to see the work of the
regional tourist boards under DCMS taken account greater account
of. The plans and strategies of the tourist authorities play a
huge part in attracting visitors to rural areas, developing services,
stimulating employment opportunities and allowing a wide variety
of outdoor based industries to flourish. We felt that there was
a need to encourage a greater collaboration and liaison between
the integrated agency and these bodies in particular could have
benefited from some focused attention.
6. Finally, and perhaps this comment is
more appropriate once the new agency is up and running, we hope
that in re-structuring into the Integrated Agency, the Department
will make more dedicated effort to ensure that the disastrous
effects of the foot and mouth crisis are not repeated in any future
outbreak. The last outbreak severely affected the outdoor industry,
much of it unnecessarily, due to the wholesale closure of footpaths
and access and poor management information systems. With CROW,
the implications of another outbreak could be catastrophic unless
a more detailed agricultural and land ownership/usage database
in particular is available. These views were reflected in the
recent National Audit Office Report on progress of disease control.
The OIA remains hopeful that the integrated agency will have the
creation and management of such a database as one of its priorities.
Outdoor Industries Association
February 2005
| 
