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

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Cumbria is the second largest county in England and is a predominantly rural county. Over half (51.2%) of the county’s population live in rural areas.1 The county includes the district area (Eden) with the lowest population density in England, and the greatest geographical barriers to services in England (IMD 2010).

1.2 The county is renowned for its mountains, lakes and rural landscapes attracting over 40 million visitor days supporting over 32,000 jobs and providing £2 billion of expenditure annually (Cumbria Tourism 2011).

1.3 The county’s natural assets bring many benefits but also provide many challenges in ensuring people receive the services and support to meet their needs. Cumbria County Council welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into rural communities.

2.0 Role of the Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU)

Cross—Government influence

2.1 It is essential that the RCPU champions the recognition of rural need across Government. The ability of the Unit to influence and challenge across every Government Department is vital. There are, so far, few examples where it can be concluded that RCPU influence has resulted in changes to policy.

2.2 One recent example of effective cross-departmental working by DEFRA is the development of Rural Growth Network proposals alongside BIS. Departments where the RCPU should be focusing its attention include DfT, the Department of Health, and DCLG.

2.3 We expect the RCPU to provide evidence, knowledge, best practice and research to support Local Authorities and other local bodies in addressing issues which impact on rural communities. This requires a robust assessment of need, and clear demonstration of how this is being used to influence and challenge policy.

Engagement

2.4 The Commission for Rural Communities provided a local perspective and recognised the role of Local Authorities and engaged with them. RCPU’s work engaging with national umbrella bodies is not a substitute for local engagement as different rural communities have different needs.

2.5 The RCPU needs to demonstrate how it is proactively seeking the views of the hardest to reach voices in rural communities and how it is meeting the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty based on an assessment of need.

Rural proofing

2.6 Rural proofing has to be consistently and robustly implemented by Government Departments and local delivery bodies if it is to be successful. Therefore, effective rural proofing is reliant on the ability of DEFRA to influence and embed this approach across all Departments and local delivery bodies.

2.7 Cumbria County Council integrated rurality into the Equality Impact Assessment framework some time ago and this ensures the impact of decisions on rural communities is considered during development stage.

2.8 The scale and potential impact of the Government’s current programme of reform means that it is important that effective rural proofing of these policies is carried out in a timely manner. For example, has the Government identified implications from the programme of welfare reform for people living in rural areas, eg the prioritisation of internet-based claim and advice systems?

Independent Advocacy

2.9 The Council set out its concerns about the loss of an independent advocacy role in it’s response to DEFRA earlier this year. The RCPU within DEFRA cannot replicate the role of an independent rural advocate in highlighting issues and stimulating debate to influence and challenge Government. This role could be a focus for the external review of rural proofing.

Policy Focus

2.10 Housing, broadband, services, transport, fuel, socio-economic funding programmes, and Rural Economy Growth Review measures do require focus from the RCPU. However, these are not issues to be dealt with in isolation from each other. A more strategic approach from DEFRA which focuses on the sustainability of rural communities and on ensuring those in rural communities who need support are able to access it would be welcome.

2.11 The policy focus should also recognise the value of rural communities as those who maintain and protect the natural assets for the country—including the landscapes which attract tourists and business, and the natural resources like water and food. The needs of those communities in respect of transport, broadband, housing, fuel and other policy areas should be considered by the Government as supporting the maintenance of many of the country’s national assets.

2.12 For example, a focus should be placed on improving the life chances of young people in rural communities to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by lack of opportunity. Out-migration of young people is a major issue for the sustainability of many rural communities—education, employment, and housing opportunities are key to retaining and attracting young people to live in rural areas.

2.13 A focus on poverty should also be a part of a strategic approach from RCPU. Whilst overall levels of poverty are lower in rural areas, the challenges faced by families in rural communities living in poverty can be more intense. Higher property prices, relatively poor access to services and employment, poor or no broadband connectivity, high transport and fuel costs, and fewer families in a similar situation that may be able to provide peer support may all combine to create a different experience of poverty than that felt by families in more urban areas.

2.14 The RCPU should support local areas in addressing issues resulting from the ageing of rural communities. 55.1% of those aged over 65 in Cumbria live in rural areas. The service and resource implications for supporting people to live independent and healthy lives, and providing services to support those who are vulnerable, are an increasing challenge for Local Authorities.

2.15 Reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating the potential effects of climate change should be integrated into the rural proofing approach. The resilience of rural communities should also be on the RCPU’s agenda.

Measuring success

2.16 The RCPU’s effectiveness should be measured using a set of indicators of a truly sustainable rural community, including sustainable development measures, education, health, accessibility, rural GVA, rural deprivation, and feedback from rural stakeholders.

3.0 Rural Grants and Funding

Business Rates Retention

3.1 The Government’s intention to reform funding for Local Government is an opportunity to ensure the needs of rural communities are taken into account and the delivery of services in rural communities is adequately resourced.

3.2 Whilst the proposals currently being consulted on by the Government make some changes to sparsity weighting in the proposed new funding formulae, other funding mechanisms are likely to increase the disadvantage experienced by rural communities.

3.3 The proposed Business Rates Retention model, based upon growth in business premises, is particularly conurbation centric. In rural areas such as Cumbria economic growth may come through tourism and leisure, or knowledge based industries and micro businesses. Across Cumbria small businesses based in residential accommodation are a common business model which will have a limited impact on business growth as reflected in business rates income.

3.4 It is unlikely that rural authorities will have as much scope for business rate growth as more urban areas, especially as large parts of the county are in designated planning areas such as National Parks. Nationally it is recognised that business rate growth ultimately is dependent upon geography, major infrastructure and high speed rail links from which rural communities have limited opportunity to benefit. Planning constraints in rural areas also limit growth in council tax income to fund local services through additional housing. Consideration of targeted support to address these inherent disadvantages would be welcomed.

Funding pressures

3.5 But low scope for growth does not mean needs are any less in rural areas. Cumbria has an ageing population and is facing greatest pressure on costs of social care and other services to support the vulnerable. These pressures need to be recognised across Government. The current debate on reform for funding of social care is one of the opportunities to demonstrate effective rural proofing.

3.6 The New Homes Bonus particularly disadvantages rural areas—as they have much less scope for housing development they are likely to receive back only a fraction of what they contribute. The cumulative effect is likely to further redirect significant funding away from rural areas.

3.7 The new funding formula for schools doesn’t take into account implications for small schools which impacts particularly on rural areas. The previous protection factor that could be used to ensure small schools have sufficient budget to operate is not part of the new formula.

3.8 The proposed public health funding model doesn’t take into account the significant additional cost of running services in, or the demography of, large rural areas. A focus on the most deprived areas only could mean that the large numbers of people who are socially disadvantaged and live in relative poverty are missed. A formula based principally on a measure of population health should be used for allocation of resources—with the Standard Mortality Ratio for those aged under 75 years used as the population measure.

3.9 A consistent, robust rural proofing approach should be applied to funding formulae decisions cross Government to ensure equality of treatment. Population based formulae disadvantage rural areas. Where formulae disadvantage rural areas remedies should be put in place to ensure equal treatment. For example, funding for local transport networks and services that does not take into account the number of visitors results in disadvantage for Cumbria and puts services and safety at risk for people living in, and visiting, the county.

3.10 The capacity of communities also needs consideration to ensure that barriers to accessing funding are removed. For example, the Rural Community Broadband Fund mechanism requires rural communities to manage a complex and bureaucratic process, obtain and spend a large amount of capital upfront, and negotiate with internet service providers.

Rural Economy Growth Review

3.11 It is relatively early to say how effective the Rural Economy Growth Review measures will be in delivering growth. There are elements which are welcomed. The successful Rural Growth Network (RGN) pilot in Cumbria will provide positive benefits; however, more pilots would be required to make a significant impact. This initiative has enabled the development of a programme that will provide business support across rural Cumbria—creating 480 businesses and 900 jobs.

3.12 It is important to recognise that the rural economy isn’t homogenous. Local economies around cities and within the commuter belt are different than in upland areas. Upland area economies have significant barriers in respect of connectivity and cost of services resulting in vulnerable economies with lower productivity.

3.13 The uncertainty around CAP Pillar II is negatively impacting on the investment environment in the agricultural sector.

4.0 The Rural Statement

4.1 The Government’s Rural Statement should set out a Government-wide commitment to ensure that rural communities are not negatively impacted by Government policy. This should set out clearly how the Government is to assess the impact of policy decisions on rural communities. An impact assessment of policies already implemented, eg the reduction of rural transport grant, would be welcome.

4.2 The Statement should recognise that services and support for rural communities require different policy interventions, and services engineered in a different way, than those that work in urban communities.

4.3 Recognition should be included in the Statement of the value of rural communities in maintaining and protecting key natural assets for the country—landscapes that attract tourists and business; vital resources for the country, eg water, food—and a commitment to invest in those communities

4.4 The Statement should also recognise the barriers, and additional costs, of providing services in rural areas and commit to ensuring funding mechanisms for local services don’t disadvantage rural areas.

4.5 Promoting the sustainability of rural communities across Government needs to be at the core of the Government’s commitment.

4.6 The Statement should set out a commitment to equality of treatment and properly balance the additional funding and devolution of powers to cities with similar initiatives for rural areas.

4.7 The Statement should recognise rural poverty and the particular symptoms of poverty in rural areas.

August 2012