Rural Affairs

Chapter 13 - Thinking rural

The issues

  • The impact of government policies on rural people, businesses, and the countryside has not always been properly considered, and they have not always been adjusted to take account of specific rural problems.
  • A lack of co-ordination of government policies and activity in rural areas has meant that programmes are not best managed to resolve conflicts and get the results everyone wants.
  • Rural people feel that they are not sufficiently listened to.

The future - what we want to see

  • Systematic assessment of the rural dimension of all government policies as they are developed and implemented - nationally, regionally and locally.
  • Programmes targeted on management of the countryside, for aims which have been agreed with local communities and businesses, co-ordinated to maximise their impact and avoid duplication and conflict.
  • Better arrangements to ensure that government knows what rural communities want, and that the communities themselves are involved in the implementation of policy.

Summary of measures

  • Annual report by the Countryside Agency on the rural aspects of government policies, as well as their annual State of the Countryside report;

  • A rural ‘check-list' for Government Departments to ensure that they take account of the rural dimension in developing policy;

  • Better regional co-ordination of Government activities, with MAFF regional strategy staff joining Government Offices;

  • Establishment of National and Regional Rural Sounding Boards.

Contents

13.1. Introduction

13.2. Rural proofing

13.3. Better co-ordination of policies in rural areas

13.4. Listening to the rural voice

13.1. Introduction

13.1.1. Our consultation with people in preparing this White Paper revealed some clear messages about the way that Government deals with rural issues:

That the government often appears not to ‘think rural' when developing and implementing its policies. We have been urged to make sure all our policies are ‘rural-proofed';

  • It was emphasised that the need for ‘joined-up' government is particularly important in rural areas. The gain from working together can be very great. The use of a village outlet, such as a Post Office, by many different services, can mean the difference between viability or closure;
  • Made clear they felt that rural communities are not always listened to, and that they need to be more directly involved themselves.

13.1.2. Our aim is therefore to:

  • Ensure that our policies take account of specific rural needs;
  • Encourage better coordinated programmes and projects both locally and regionally; Strengthen the ways in which we listen to the rural voice

13.2. Rural proofing

What does rural proofing mean?
Rural proofing means that as policy is developed and implemented policy makers should systematically:

  • Think about whether there will be any significant differential impacts in rural areas;
  • If there are such impacts assess what these might be;
  • Consider what adjustments/compensations might be made to fit rural circumstances.
At the national level

13.2.1. The Prime Minister has already set up the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs to coordinate our policies for rural areas and to consider major rural policy issues. We need to build on this. As announced in Spending Review 2000, we will now be underpinning the work of the Cabinet Committee through a number of measures:

  • We are providing for a fuller role for the Countryside Agency, the Government's statutory adviser on rural issues. We established the Agency in April 1999 as a rural champion. It will be advising Government and its partners across the range of rural issues, conducting research and highlighting, piloting and spreading best practice. The Agency is establishing a rural-proofing studies unit to look at particular service areas;

  • The Agency will make annual reports on the rural aspects of the Government's policies. This will be published, and considered by the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs and the Rural Sounding Board along with the Agency's annual State of the Countryside report (see 13.4.1.);

  • The Agency is preparing a rural checklist to help policy makers take account of the rural dimension as policy is developed. Our Cabinet Office guidance on better policy making (being developed in the light of the Cabinet Office's report on improved policy making in government Professional policy making for the 21st century) will identify rural impact as an issue to be routinely considered, and will give contacts for further advice and assistance;

  • Each Government Department will make an annual report to the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs on how their policies have been rural proofed. A central rural contact point within each department will be established to co-ordinate their rural proofing of policy. This will include periodic meetings with Countryside Agency on current policy development and research programmes. Where appropriate, departments will undertake rural pilots of programmes and policies and develop targets and monitoring systems for key programmes that identify rural impacts;

  • We will equip policy makers with rural policy skills and awareness. Staff training and development, with help from the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (the main civil service training organisation), will include training on rural policy issues. We will also promote secondments between Government Departments, the Countryside Agency and rural bodies so as to develop wider experience and perspectives on rural issues.

Case study - rural proofing in practice: Sure Start
The Sure Start national unit in the Department for Education and Employment has worked with the Countryside Agency to make Sure Start (see box at 4.4.12) work effectively in rural areas.
Changes to the Sure Start catchment model will make it more suitable for rural areas where children living in poverty are dispersed over a wide geographical area. This follows research carried out by the Countryside Agency earlier this year which suggested changes to the Sure Start criteria to help rural areas participate. The key ones: were greater flexibility over numbers; a broader understanding of the term ‘coherent neighbourhood'; an appreciation of the higher per capita cost of providing services for dispersed rural populations; and a recognition of the low existing service base on which to create new services and facilities.

A small number of programmes among the third wave of Sure Start programmes will try out new models in rural areas with a view to developing further guidance. The new models are likely to include proposals for small villages targeting individual families and working out from a small town into a small rural area.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

Regional level

13.2.2. It is also important that Government takes full account of the rural dimension regionally. The nine Government Offices act as the voice of central government in the regions, managing regional programmes on behalf of departments and facilitating effective linkages between local partners and programmes. There is already a network of rural contact points within each regional Government Office. These meet periodically and also have meetings with central government Departments. Similarly the Regional Development Agencies have a rural network. The Government Offices have a crucial role to play in taking forward our rural agenda. To ensure that they play this role effectively:

  • Government Offices' annual reports to central Government will in future include an explicit rural report and will report collectively on the regional implications of national rural policy developments;

  • We will encourage secondments and exchanges of staff between organisations with a rural remit so as to broaden their rural expertise;

  • The Countryside Agency's regional offices will advise and assist other regional organisations in taking forward the rural dimension of their work.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

13.3. Better co-ordination of policies in rural areas

Better regional co-ordination by government

13.3.1. The PIU report Reaching Out on the role of Government at the regional and local level found that, while there was a great deal of good work going on at regional level, the regional networks of Government Departments were fragmented, with no part of Government responsible for co-ordinated action in the regions. The clear message was that Government would need drastically to improve the way it develops and implements policy affecting regional and local areas. To follow up the PIU report:

  • We have set up a new cross-departmental Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) to modernise the way Government works at regional and local level. Through the RCU we will improve the delivery of public services by overhauling the way in which we identify priorities and develop policies which affect the regions. This will involve changing the way we work both in Whitehall and the regions;

  • We are strengthening the presence of key Government Departments in the regional offices. From 1 April 2001, MAFF will participate fully in the work of the Government Offices for the Regions by providing a senior member of its staff (with support) to join each office. This will strengthen MAFF's contribution to developing and implementing policy in the regions and building relationships with regional stakeholders.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

13.3.2. The Government Offices will work in partnership with the Regional Development Agencies, the Countryside Agency, English Nature and others in delivering our rural policies and programmes.

  • We will encourage more co-ordinated rural data collection and sharing of information at the regional level between different Government Departments and other organisations, for instance through joint commissioning of research and sharing the results from research programmes.

13.3.3. The preparation of the regional chapters of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) has already been a major step forward in a more integrated approach to rural development bringing together agricultural and forestry organisations with those with an interest in the environmental, social and wider economic issues to develop the strategy for the Programme. The mid-term review of the ERDP in 2003 will consider whether further integration of the regional delivery activities within the Government Office framework would be appropriate.

  • We will build on the skills of staff in the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency and MAFF's Regional Service Centres to create a new delivery service for the England Rural Development Programme;

  • We will create a new CAP payments agency, merging the functions of MAFF's nine Regional Service Centres and the Intervention Board to provide top quality customer service using modern electronic systems.

The England Rural Development Programme Credit: MAFF
The England Rural Development Programme Credit: MAFF

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

Budget co-ordination

13.3.4. One obstacle to joined up delivery is that budgets for complementary activities are held by separate organisations. At a local level, local authorities already have considerable budgetary flexibility. We have increased the scope for flexibility through:

  • The new power for local authorities to take any action they consider necessary to promote or improve the economic, social, and/or environmental well-being of their local area and communities, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000;

  • The new power for Health Authorities to fund non-health functions introduced by the Health Act 1999. The Health Act also from April 2000 gave NHS bodies and local governments wider powers to develop joint funding and delivery of services where they wish to do so.

13.3.5. We will continue the development of a joint countryside planning process which will entail co-ordinating the use of resources for rural areas at regional level across a range of bodies including MAFF, DETR, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage and Regional Development Agencies. This will make sure that the best value is obtained from the interaction of these programmes and that local activity such as one-stop shops can be facilitated.

Case study ø Somerset Joint Commissioning Board
Somerset Health Authority and Somerset County Council have formed a Joint Commissioning Board which also involves representatives from the voluntary sector and users of services. At the same time staff from health and social services were brought together into one service delivery organisation. The benefit for clients is that they have a single care plan, a single key or link worker and a unified multi-disciplinary team to deal with whatever health or social care need they have.

Case study - urban rural compacts: local authority pilot example
The East Lancashire Partnership is a sub-regional regeneration strategy and action plan. It is one of the 22 LGA New Commitment to Regeneration Pathfinder areas. It involves seven consituent authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Ribble Valley and Rossendale together with Lancashire County Council), together with a range of supporters including the North West Development Agency and the Government Office for the region.
The underlying vision of the Partnership is to transform East Lancashire from a collection of small and medium sized towns into an area based on ‘city living in a rural context'. The area is home to half a million people living in a collection of small and medium sized towns surrounded by countryside. Yet it lacks many of the economic, social and cultural strengths and facilities which one would expect in a single city of the same size. Some of the key urban-rural interdependencies being developed by the strategy include access, transport and health issues. Single Regeneration Budget funding is being used to develop a number of the strands of the Strategy.

Their successful bid for funds from the Single Regeneration Budget round 6 aims to provide access to quality outdoor space and facilities, particularly for the sub-region's most deprived communities; to improve the image/environment of East Lancashire as a place to live and invest; and to provide communities with recreational, cultural and sporting facilities in a countryside environment. The re-use of derelict sites, reclamation of brownfield land and diversification of agricultural land will be priority activities.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

13.3.6. We wish to see more co-ordination of funds from different agencies to support an integrated plan for a local area, to achieve a specific local objective or to deliver joint service plans for particular communities or joint initiatives to tackle social exclusion. We are proposing a more co-ordinated approach in market towns (see chapter 7). We are already developing land management initiatives with a more ‘one-stop' approach such as the MAFF Uplands Experiments (see box in section 8.2). The Countryside Agency's study into restoration of the South Downs and English Nature's proposals for Lifescapes (see section 10.3) will also develop more co-ordinated approaches.

13.3.7. The Local Government Association is piloting an initiative, Urban/Rural Compacts, to look at how to make a reality of an integrated approach and the urban-rural connections.

13.4. Listening to the rural voice

Listening nationally

13.4.1. It is important that Ministers should be fully informed of the state of the countryside and should have have regular and direct contact with the main rural groups so that they know what is going on and what countryside people think.

  • We will create the new role of Rural Advocate to argue the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels in government and outside. The Rural Advocate will have direct access to the Prime Minister and his Ministers and will attend the Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs, providing a voice at the heart of government for rural concerns. Together with the Countryside Agency, the Government's statutory advisor on the countryside, the Rural Advocate will play a key part in rural proofing policy decisions and implementation. The Rural Advocate will be a member of the National Rural Sounding Board, bringing to it expertise and an authoritative voice, and taking away from it messages based on the wide range of rural advice and experience available there. The advocate role will be taken on by the Chair of the Countryside Agency as an addition to his other responsibilities.

  • The Countryside Agency will submit to Government on an annual basis its Report on the State of the Countryside in addition to its annual ‘rural-proofing' report on the rural aspects of Government policy.

  • We will establish a National Rural Sounding Board, as set out in Spending Review 2000. It will meet at least once a year. It will be chaired jointly by Ministers from DETR and MAFF, and will bring together Ministers from Government Departments with a wide variety of organisations and individuals with an interest in rural policy. It will be informed by the Countryside Agency's assessment of the Government's performance in its ‘rural-proofing' report.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

Listening locally

13.4.2. We want to do more to ensure that local people are directly involved in public sector activities so that their voice can be heard, and their knowledge and experience can be fully used. One way that this can be done is by the establishment of consultative groups so that those making and implementing policy locally can hear local concerns at first hand. Many regions have already established rural forums to address rural issues.

Case study ø The Rural Forum for the North West of England

Established in May 1998 by the Government Office for the North West and MAFF, the Rural Forum for the North West of England aims to facilitate a ‘rural voice' which can quickly respond to challenges in times of change, and advise regional decision makers and central government on rural policy issues. The Forum enables the exchange of information between rural interest groups including central government.
Since 1998, the Forum has agreed a programme of work and now has 230 members. It has been able to co-ordinate a coherent rural response on emerging issues such as the Regional Strategy, and Regional Planning Guidance Review and the ERDP.
More recently, the Forum has set-up a Social Inclusion Sub-Group to consider the issues of rural poverty and deprivation and to search out examples of best practice which can be propagated throughout the region. It also plans to organise a sub-group to monitor rural cross-regional border issues that range from land-use planning through to the stewardship of biodiversity in transitional areas.

13.4.3. But more can be done:

  • We will establish Regional Rural Sounding Boards bringing together rural stakeholders within regions to inform and monitor the regional and local delivery of policy in rural areas. These will build on existing Rural Forum arrangements in each region, taking account of further developments in community involvement;

  • We will set up a Rural Sub-Group of the Central-Local Partnership. This partnership brings together Ministers from relevant Departments with Councillors from the Local Government Association. The aim is to ensure that central government works more closely with the local government players who are close to their local communities. The sub-group will begin immediately to assist the implementation of this White Paper.

See progress towards this commitment in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan

13.4.4. We also want the voice of local people to be heard and heeded by giving them more direct involvement in local policies. For instance, well integrated affordable housing for local people will best be achieved where the community has a say over its siting and design, and chapter 12 describes the encouragement we are giving to village appraisals and Village Design Statements.

13.4.5. Another example is the NHS Plan which will put more responsibility in the hands of local professionals and local people, to allow them choice in deciding the best way for their area to meet the national standards of care. Resources and greater responsibility have already been devolved to local groups of doctors and nurses working together with patient and community representation, in Primary Care Trusts and their precursor Primary Care Groups. At October 2000 43 Primary Care Trusts have been established to take direct responsibility for over 80% of the local healthcare budget and spend it in the best way to meet local needs. Some of these already cover rural populations where they have sought to ensure rural representation and the NHS Plan envisages 100% coverage by 2004.

13.4.6. Following the 1999 Health Act, NHS bodies such as PCTs and PCGs already have the discretionary power to work with local authorities to pool funds to enable more closely integrated services (see case study on Somerset Joint Commissioning Board). We now propose to make it possible for health and social services authorities to take the extra step to establish new multi-purpose legal bodies, to be known as Care Trusts, to be responsible for all health and social care. The first wave of Care Trusts could be in place next year.

Case study ø Herefordshire Primary Care Trust

Herefordshire is one of the smallest mainland Health Authorities in Britain in terms of population but one of the largest in terms of area covered. From October, its new Primary Care Trust will among other things:

  • Devolve decision making and resources to local primary care professionals;
  • Implement the second wave Personal Medical Service and Personal Dental Service pilots, improving health for the travelling community and enhancing dental services.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

Page last modified: 19 May, 2005
Page published: 28 November, 2000

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs