Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Devon County Council

Government Policy:

Ministers’ stated rural priorities of housing, broadband, services, transport and fuel are secondary to the overriding outcomes which are being sought. In the current climate, the sustainability of rural communities must be the focus of our attention: “sustainability” both in the sense of enabling people to remain living, working and playing in rural communities and doing so without jeopardising the prospects of future generations. Accordingly, employment and wage levels provide the starting point for analysis of the affordability of housing, transport and other services. In the predominantly rural county of Devon, statistics suggest that employment levels are above national averages. Nevertheless, the standard measures tend to underplay the numbers not economically active through ill health, caring commitments and “tradition” which tend to be significantly higher in rural areas. This is reflected in income levels which are amongst the lowest in the country, notably in Torridge, in the north west of the county where they are 64.5% of the national average. We estimate that if Devon’s wage levels reached the national average, there would be an additional one billion pounds circulating in the local economy each year. Clearly, this would have the most fundamental impact on the financial viability of all rural services which often are more expensive to provide: higher housing and fuel costs (especially in the absence of mains gas) are well documented. Hence, measures designed to improve productivity and wage levels should have the highest priority. Currently, the proportion of government resources devoted to such improvements is weighted far more heavily to urban areas.

Rural Grants and Funding:

An example of the urban bias is the development of “city deals” where Government has devolved very substantial budgets to eight of the largest cities and intends to continue the process, apparently without thought of how the principle might be applied in rural contexts. In practice, we have at least as much experience as cities in stitching back together sources of funds separated by Whitehall and which need to be aligned in order to enable delivery of coherent, local services. In particular, we have done so in order to access European funds but have been seriously compromised in not having the scale and critical mass of public and private funds available to more concentrated populations. The fragmentation and complications caused by Whitehall bureaucracies only compound these constraints.

Rural Communities Policy Unit:

I have had no direct contact nor have heard of any local engagement in Devon. More to the point, I would have hoped that DEFRA would be actively championing the cause of rural communities amongst other Whitehall departments and leading the charge to mobilise Government funds for “rural deals”. In contrast, DEFRA seems to be behind the curve in preparing the ground for European funding post 2013, where DCLG advocates the localism agenda, BIS a national programme for enterprise and DWP a separate national programme segmenting the European Social Fund. In practice, the Rural Development Programme for England, administered by DEFRA, has built up the best experience of community led development through Local Action Groups, providing a much more cohesive approach. Similarly, the Rural Growth Network potentially will join up discrete initiatives to achieve a much greater aggregate effect more efficiently. This could provide a model for wider application if DEFRA was operating on an equal footing with the other Departments.

I have restricted my comments to what I feel are the most central points which should be addressed. At a later date, I would be pleased to elaborate on a range of practical solutions to the challenges which we are testing in Devon.

August 2012