Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
27 October 2010 Dr Stuart Burgess and Professor Mark Shucksmith
Q6 Chair: If you could only salvage three of your
recommendations, which three would you choose?
Professor Shucksmith: I was just asked that same
question the other day and I boiled it down to four. I
think the first one is to have an integrated policy for
the uplands, which goes across government
departments and which allows government
departments to work together to make sure that the
policies work in a coherent and mutually supportive
way, rather than getting in the way of one another.
The second and related element is to have a champion
or at least somebody who has the responsibility within
Government and across Government for trying to
ensure that.
The third thing would be to address the problem, the
issue, of inadequate funding for hill farming
producing the public goods and maintaining and
looking after the valued assets that we have. I’m sure
you’ll want to talk more about that. The fourth thing,
if I can add a fourth, is I think one of the really
important things in our report, and it is new—as far
as I’m aware anyway. It is to emphasise and to
recognise the interdependence of the hill farmers and
the public goods and assets with the upland
communities in which they’re embedded. As one hill
farmer told me, it’s not just making a living; it’s
making a life worth living, and how you maintain that
infrastructure. I would add that fourth.
Stuart Burgess: I would respond in many ways in a
very similar basis. I would go for the integrated
strategy, because I think that’s absolutely key, and
encouraging Departments to work across Government,
which is essential. Also around the funding, there has
to be some kind of rethink. We struggled in our own
meetings with whether many should go up the hill, as
it were. Funding is absolutely key to these issues. The
whole point of our report is stressing that it’s not just
about farming; it’s set within the context of huge
potential out there. How is that potential realised, not
just for the sake of the hill farmers but also for the
sake of upland communities? It is the stress on the
upland communities that I think is absolutely key and
essential, and almost unique to our report.
Q7 Amber Rudd: Could you tell me what effect you
think the abolition of the Commission will have, both
on rural communities and on rural policymaking in
Government?
Stuart Burgess: Obviously I was rather saddened
when it was announced the Commission was going to
be abolished, not just for the sake of the staff, because
we have some splendid people there, we really have—
many of whom are experts in their own particular
fields. I value very much the context of the staff and
the organisation. It’s had a short life, but we built up
some strong hard-evidence-based work, and we’re in
tune with the rural communities. Through my work as
a Rural Advocate especially, I was able to bring that
experience of travelling and drilling right down to
rural communities into the heart of the Commission,
to influence thinking, et cetera, and vice versa as well.
I was particularly saddened, and I was saddened for
the staff. However, we have to realise that things
change. Politically, things change, and we have to be
positive and see how things can be developed.
The setting-up of the new rural unit is an opportunity
for this to happen, bringing at least some of our
expertise and a number of people who can populate
that in from the Commission, I hope. That will be
sorted out, I understand, in the next few weeks. There
are some positive signs coming out. I realise of course
that the coalition Government wanted to bring the
expertise and evidence in-house, and in a Government
Department in Defra, and I look forward to seeing
how strong this will be.
The downside of all this is that it’s interesting to
note—I may be right in this but forgive me if I’m
wrong—that this is the first time since Lloyd George
that we haven’t had an arm’s length body out there
concerned for rural communities. We’ve tried to build
up an independent voice, not hostage to any
Government—certainly in my role as Rural Advocate
one of the things I feel very strongly about is that I’m
totally independent and have worked on that
passionately. It is this independent voice that could
easily be lost, but we are where we are, and we have
to make the best of it. I said to Caroline Spelman that
I would work for the well-being of the setting-up of
the new rural unit, and I will continue to do that.
Q8 Amber Rudd: Do you have a view yet on which
elements of the Commission will be taken into Defra?
Stuart Burgess: I think the parts that are particularly
concerned with the evidence-based work and working
with stakeholders, for example; those two areas will
be taken into Defra. Obviously I rejoice at that, and I
hope that we, through the Unit, will be able to produce
some good evidence-based work, working with our
stakeholders, and also representing rural communities.
That is very important, I think. Over the last few
years, through the role of the Rural Advocate and the
work of the Commission, we have built this up,
especially in terms of speaking on behalf of the rural
disadvantaged, for example, in rural communities,
because I have a great commitment to the
disadvantaged, especially in rural areas but also in
urban areas. For the disadvantaged, this area of work
could be lost, but I hope not.
Professor Shucksmith: Could I just add to that?
Stuart’s covered most of what I would want to say as
well. Clearly we hope that the Rural Communities
Policy Unit is a success and it will be at the heart of
Government, and it’s taking the people connected with
policy and analysis and also the Rural Development
Programme for England Network into the Policy Unit.
The only slight worry that I have about that, apart
from obviously the process of transition and
upheavals, is the Commission for Rural Communities
has as its strapline that it’s concerned with rural
disadvantage. We were set up by Parliament to try to
particularly focus on rural disadvantage, and I don’t
think at the moment that’s in the terms of reference of
the Rural Communities Policy Unit. I hope that they
will also have that concern.
The other point is that, being outside Government,
when we’ve given advice it has been public; it has
been transparent. That advice has been not only to
Government; it has also been available to rural
communities and people in rural communities, which
would seem to fit rather well with the idea of the Big
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011