Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 4 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
27 October 2010 Dr Stuart Burgess and Professor Mark Shucksmith
Q14 George Eustice: Since you’ve published this
report—I know the Chair asked you earlier whether
you’ve had a response from Defra—is there anything
they’ve put in train in terms of their policy, since the
new Government, that has addressed some of the
issues you’ve highlighted? Is there anything you’d be
encouraged by in the last few months that has come
out from Defra?
Stuart Burgess: I’ve been encouraged by what the
Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has said. She
has welcomed the report. I had a meeting with her.
Also through Richard Benyon and Jim Paice I picked
up some very good signals and signs, which are very
welcoming. I think the intention there—coming from
the vibes I’m picking up—is pretty clear. Yes, this is
an interesting report. It has some detail and some hard
evidence-based work around it, which is obviously
what we have produced. I’m hopeful that some of the
recommendations will be implemented. Obviously, we
would like all of them to be implemented, but we are
realistic people. We hope that the majority of them
will be. There are particular signs around broadband
issues, for example, that are coming out, which I
would applaud. The work around the National Parks,
for example, and the structure and the report coming
out in January around the National Parks could
address some of the particular issues that we’ve
raised. I’m pretty hopeful at the moment that this
report is being taken seriously, and that a number of
our recommendations will be acted on.
I also know that the wider backcloth of this is that
many people out there in upland areas are coming out
in favour of our report, and are making that known
politically to their own local politicians, a number of
whom have been incredibly helpful and supportive,
saying, “This is important.” They’re also saying to me
that, if we miss this opportunity, we’ve missed it for
a long period of time.
Professor Shucksmith: If I could add briefly to that,
I think it is very encouraging the way that so many
different groups and individuals have come out in
support of our recommendations and analysis. We are
very pleased that the Government are going to make
a policy statement on the uplands. It looks like that is
due in February. In terms of one or two specific things
that have happened—I don’t say that they’re because
of our report, but they’re things that we did want—
the rural broadband pilots, which were announced last
week for Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Herefordshire
and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, are a good
start there. The Big Society pilots, particularly the one
in Eden Valley, I understand from colleagues, are
really trying to move on the arguments about
community engagement, local action and community
plans, with the support of a senior planner from CLG.
The Community Right to Build, I don’t know that it’s
the finished article yet, but there is a consultation
process going on. It does seem to accept the need for
affordable housing in small settlements, and that the
community should be engaged in that.
Having said all of that, there are also things that work
against some of our recommendations. Clearly in the
context of spending cuts, the reduction in funding for
local authorities in particular is going to have an
impact on local services. There is a worry, even more
than when we reported, about how that might affect
services in the uplands; similarly, the reductions in the
budget of Homes and Communities Agency in relation
to affordable housing. There are some very
encouraging signs, and some where we might have to
wait a bit longer until the times are a bit better.
Q15 George Eustice: Quite a few of those things
you’ve mentioned obviously are common to all rural
areas. Did you identify any specific challenges that
affect only the uplands and that are very different to
remote rural areas generally?
Professor Shucksmith: They are challenges that
affect everywhere, but they’re more extreme in the
uplands, so the challenge of providing public services
in remote, sparsely populated communities is a much
greater challenge than providing it in the commuter
belt around London or around Newcastle. There is a
real challenge there. In our report, we’ve called for
some innovation, for example in trying to find ways
in which the voluntary community sector could work
with local councils in finding new ways of delivering
services in such challenging terrain. There’s a
question about how that will be affected by the
context of spending cuts and the other demands that
are being placed on the voluntary sector. As one
instance, again in relation to housing, costs are often
higher, schemes tend to be smaller, the terrain is
worse, and there tend to be requirements for local
materials—Lake District green slate or whatever it
happens to be—which tend to push up costs. If the
Homes and Communities Agency, for example, is
trying to get the most houses for their money, they
will probably not be building them in the uplands.
Stuart Burgess: There are examples around
broadband provision, of course, which is much easier
to roll out in lowland areas than it is up in the upland
areas. There are some marvellous examples of where
it has been rolled out. I would argue very strongly
that broadband in upland areas is quite critical. That’s
another example of how it varies and differs.
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011
Q16 George Eustice: I wanted to ask about hill
farming specifically. Do you take the view that
basically the viability and the state of hill farming is
absolutely central to the state of our upland
communities?
Stuart Burgess: I believe it is. In terms of the
management of land and coping with the environment
and so on, I think hill farming is critical within that
wider context. Keeping the hill farmers up there is, in
my book, essential.
Professor Shucksmith: In relation to hill farming,
there is a further difference between uplands and other
rural areas, because essentially hill farming is not
viable without the support of the European Union.
That’s the reason for the support. That’s the logic in
the Less Favoured Area Payments designed to
safeguard the continuation of farming in particular
regions where it would be threatened in the absence
of the compensatory allowances. That’s the whole
basis of them. Now, hill farms are continuing. They’re
often continuing because of a combination of the farm
income and off-farm work. There’s a question there
immediately that points to the intertwining of the