Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Country Land and Business Association

Introduction

1. The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) represents over 34,000 members in England and Wales. All of the CLA’s membership will have an interest in and be affected by the activities and actions of Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU). We welcome the opportunity to respond to the inquiry.

The Approach of the Rural Communities Policy Unit

Engagement

2. A key element in establishing the level of engagement of the RCPU with rural communities is firstly to determine the level of recognition. It is unfortunate for the RCPU that many in rural areas have little, if any, knowledge, of the RCPU and even less awareness of its activities. Such a situation does not bode well in determining the effectiveness of the RCPU in engaging with rural communities.

3. The CLA sees no evidence to suggest the RCPU has actually been effective in delivering to those who live in the remotest areas of England. Indeed, there appears to be a distinct lack of communication from the RCPU to those who live in rural communities. This could be the result of centralising rural policy in order to ensure greater efficiencies. However, what is of greater concern is the inability of the RCPU to deliver to the vast majority of rural areas, let alone those in more remote parts.

Rural Proofing

4. Rural proofing of government policy is always difficult to assess. This was the case with the Commission for Rural Communities and is certainly the case with the RCPU. The CLA is aware of engagement with other government departments, for example, with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) over planning and with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) regarding broadband.

5. But we would suggest this is where a major problem lies. The two aforementioned government departments are responsible for these particular issues; Defra is not. As a result, it makes it very difficult to ensure that such policies take into account the potential impact on rural communities. Of course, there is inter-departmental communication but we are yet to see how this is ensuring that government polices are being rural proofed.

6. One of the successes of the Commission for Rural Communities was its ability to monitor and track rural proofing in all government departments. We see no evidence, in the form of empirical evidence to indicate the success or otherwise of Defra rural proofing.

7. Indeed, there appear to be a strong case for rural proofing to look outside of government departments and to take into account the views of external stakeholders, particularly given the finite resources of the RCPU. In this context, the CLA would suggest that Defra give serious consideration to putting together rural proofing panels with direct input from external stakeholders and their experiences and expertise to ensure that rural proofing is a robust mechanism.

Resources

8. The CLA is somewhat confused as to the claim that the RCPU is a “centre of rural expertise”. We see no evidence in terms of policy making nor in the delivery of policy to support such a view. Indeed, the outputs from the RCPU seem to suggest that, in a number of cases, there is actually a lack of expertise that is hindering the development of effective policy making in rural communities.

9. This lack of expertise is well illustrated through the creation and implementation of the £20 million Rural Community Broadband Scheme. We believe that solely focusing on the development of a superfast broadband network is wrong when considering that this will not deliver an effective broadband connection to those in the 10 percent of rural areas that have no access at present.

10. We are also concerned as to the dissemination of evidence from the RCPU. Under the Commission for Rural Communities, the “State of the Countryside” publication was seen in the industry as being the benchmark for providing much needed statistical information and evidence as to business performance as well as providing a picture of the social characteristics of rural communities. Although we welcome the quarterly “Rural Economic Bulletin”, we believe that the dissemination of the rural evidence base needs to be wider.

11. This leads onto the problem of communication. In discussions with Defra regarding the development and implementation of the Rural Economy Grants Scheme (REGS) under the Rural Economy Growth Review, the CLA (and others) has raised the need to have in place a proper communication plan. We recognise the stresses the resource constraints have on the RCPU but it is vitally important that there is a clear communications strategy run by the RCPU. Such a strategy would also benefit significantly from input from external stakeholders.

Transparency and openness

12. We recognise the huge breadth of the areas the RCPU needs to be involved in. We also note that the actual resources of the RCPU suggest that they may not be that well equipped to effectively deal in these areas without external support.

13. With regard to transparency and openness, we would take the view that there is little difficulty in putting forward our views to the RCPU. In a sense, the door has been opened and remains so. However, we remain concerned as to whether the RCPU is taking on board the points made by trade associations in areas where the latter often has more experience and expertise and can call upon their respective members for hard evidence.

Measuring effectiveness

14. The CLA believes that there need to be a series of performance indicators and that these need to be embedded into Defra’s annual business plan and available to all.

Independent rural advocate

15. We recognise and applaud the significant work that has been undertaken in the past by Dr Stuart Burgess as the independent Rural Advocate. However, we also believe that one of the major disadvantages of the independent advocate was the failure to take on board the views of the many organisations that operate on behalf of rural communities.

16. Indeed, whether by luck or good planning, the CLA believes that an independent voice that represents the vast majority of those in rural communities does exists, this being the Rural Coalition. Defra has already stated that it values the contribution of the Rural Coalition to the policy debate and as a member of the Rural Coalition, the CLA values the level of experience and expertise of the collective whole. In a sense, it could be said, given the range of interests involved and the actual ability to cover all the issues, the Rural Coalition is a “centre of rural expertise”.

Rural Grants and Funding

Rural Economy Growth Review

17. It remains too early to gauge the effectiveness of the Rural Economy Growth Review. However, it should be noted that confidence in the rural economy from those that trade within this environment is falling. According to the CLA’s Rural Economy Index (REI), confidence of agricultural businesses has fallen quite dramatically from +26% in Quarter 1 to -1% in Quarter 2, the main reasons being:

The Eurozone crisis;

Higher input costs;

The lack of broadband; and

The lack of consumer confidence.

18. In addition to this falling confidence, the REI has highlighted a significant fall in the projected level of anticipated investment in non-farming businesses from -2% in Quarter 1 to -17% in Quarter 2. The results highlight that it may prove to be very difficult for Defra’s policy measures to have a positive short term impact.

19. The CLA supports the measures set out the Rural Economy Growth Review. They cover a wide range of areas, from agriculture, rural tourism, delivering green growth and seeking to reduce regulation. However, a great deal will depend on the delivery of these measures. We are aware that the Rural Economy Grants Scheme that seeks to award funding for growth has been well over-subscribed, clearly indicating the need for capital financing.

20. What is also important is the need to ensure that measures that are, in effect, the responsibility of other government departments, such as rural tourism, are fully integrated in terms of overall strategy. There are significant advantages to be had with a delivery approach for rural tourism that includes DCMS, Defra and Visit England. Money is all very well but if it is not used wisely it is a waste of the public exchequer.

Other measures

21. One of the greatest constraints on possible other measures that could have been adopted is clearly the lack of available finance. Given the current economic difficulties money remains tight. As stated above, we believe that the measures that have been adopted could provide a platform for economic recovery. What is essential is that these measures are delivered effectively delivered.

CAP Reform and Pillar II

22. A great deal will obviously depend on the present negotiations in Brussels over the overall EU budget and the various strands of CAP reform. We would agree that, at this stage, it is highly likely that the reform measures will not be implemented until the start of 2015 at the earliest. Such a situation leads to uncertainty for rural communities.

23. However, it is important to recognise that transition measures will need to be put in place in order to fill the vacuum. Although the European Commission still maintains that CAP reform can be implemented from 1 January 2014, we have to be realistic and it is important for Defra, together with its external stakeholders, to develop a transition programme that joins up the end of one programme and the beginning of another. Without such measures, rural development policy could find itself in a very precarious position.

Government Policy

Rural Policy Statement.

24. It is interesting to note that only one of the Government’s rural priorities could be considered as an economic driver, that being broadband.

25. There needs to be an explicit recognition of the drive towards economic recovery and how this would be achieved. A number of reports including Matthew Taylor’s “A living working countryside”, and the recently published NPPF, have all promoted the issue of rural economic growth and employment, but still Defra Minister’s priorities ignore these important factors, choosing instead to focus on important social matters. If there is little money flowing in rural economies then the delivery of new housing and social service provision will continue to fail.

26. This is why the CLA finds it really striking that rural economic growth, skills and rural employment needs are missing from the Minister’s list. Many people in rural areas have long felt that their need for jobs (and housing and services) is largely ignored by government. The DEFRA Minister’s list of priorities demonstrates a continuing failure to take into account the need for jobs, and related skills, in rural areas. The delivery of better quality jobs with better quality wages in rural areas would allow people to be able to work and live in rural areas, rather than having to reverse commute.

27. We suggest the Rural Statement includes a stated priority for the delivery of rural economic growth through the policies that will deliver better quality jobs (and associated salaries), and the requirements for associated educational establishments to deliver skilled people to fill these jobs.

DEFRA’s Uplands Review

28. The CLA believes that upland areas should be considered as “environmentally favoured areas” particularly given the diverse range of eco-system services they are able to deliver. However, the RCPU needs to focus delivering realistic economic returns to Upland farmers. Private initiatives, such as the United Utilities SCaMP project, have added income returns but it remains essential that Upland areas remain profitable. In this context, the RCPU needs to ensure that there is greater flexibility to allow Uplands farmers to be able to diversify which will inevitably mean a more flexible attitude towards planning, especially within National Parks.

September 2012