HC Deb 31 January 1985 vol 72 cc282-90W
Mr. Conway

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now respond to the Countryside Commission's report, "A Better Future for the Uplands."

Mr. Waldegrave

The Government have given careful consideration to the report and I have today sent the following letter to the chairman, Sir Derek Barber, which sets out the Government's views.

Dear Sir Derek

A BETTER FUTURE FOR THE UPLANDS

I must congratulate you first of all on an admirable report —comprehensive, well researched, attractively produced, pertinent, and readable. I appreciate too the efforts you have made to command the co-operation and participation of all concerned with the wellbeing of the uplands. So my thanks to all those who made a contribution to the exercise.The report has another salient virtue—it is focussed and practical. It shows concern for overall strategy, but recognises that we do not live in a world of ideal and immediate solutions.In one sense, the timing of your report could not have been better. Change is in the air and that is clearly the moment to press forward with proposals and recommendations. But, in the shorter term, it poses a dilemma. We are considering a number of rural and agricultural measures but at this stage the exact outcome of various policy initiatives is still unclear. Many of the decisions to be taken could have considerable relevance for the uplands and conversely many of your proposals have implications for other rural areas.Against this fluctuating background, what I propose to do at this stage is to respond to as many of your specific recommendations as present circumstances will allow, giving at the same time a broad indication of the government's overall thinking and attitudes on the issues before us. What I do not propose to do is to rehearse once again at length the facts, figures and conflicting arguments. This means that our response is not comprehensive nd has inevitably something of an interim flavour. This, however, has certain advantages. None of us—government, local authorities, the statutory agencies, the voluntary organsations—has ever been under any illusion that the future of the uplands could be settled by a single, once-for-all, package of decisions. With so many complex factors involved, progress cannot be other than evolutionary, taking account of new problems and new opportunities. The subject will continue to preoccupy us all. One thing is certain: thanks to your report, future decisions will be taken in the light of a thorough and up to date assessment of the issues.We are certainly in agreement on the broad policy objectives, as set out in your first recommendation (paragraph 139). Sustaining vigorous upland communities and improving their quality of life economically and socially, while protecting and enhancing the wildlife, landscape and historic heritage of the uplands and ensuring accessibility to as many as possible, has our wholehearted commitment. I endorse them entirely. Whatever the faults and failures of the past, future decisions on the uplands must represent a careful reconciliation of social, economic and evironmental factors. Lopsided progress in one direction only, at the expense of other objectives, will not be acceptable.

Rural Development

Turning to specific matters, I will comment first on the subject of rural development. This is, of course, a broad concept which impinges on a variety of policies, and with which many different agencies are necessarily involved. The same objectives apply in England and in Wales: but the mechanisms differ. In England the Development Commission's Rural Development Areas, designated by using a mixture of social and economic criteria, have an important role. Rural Development Areas are given priority assistance by the Commission and most of the uplands are within them.

The Commission intends to establish within these areas Rural Development Programmes which will provide a more comprehensive and better co-ordinated approach to the full range of problems facing deprived rural areas than was in fact offered by the Action Plans which they will replace. These programmes — and the consultative procedures which produce them — will be of major importance in the task of attaining a proper balance of social, economic, environmental and recreational measures in the uplands. Developments in agriculture and in the use of farm resources for non-agricultural purposes will be a vital element here and, with this in mind, ADAS will play a full part in the Rural Development Programme process. At the same time, there is no intention that Rural Development Programmes should replace structure and local plans drawn up by local authorities and other bodies.

In Wales, where 40 per cent. of the uplands of the two countries are found, the Secretary of State for Wales plays a central co-ordinating role in the stimulation of rural development, in the light of the extensive nature of his ministerial responsibilities — the economy, agriculture, the environment, planning, transport, housing and many other matters. He encourages active cooperation between the various organisations in the field.

A leading role is also played by two bodies — the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) and Mid Wales Development (MWD). Both bodies offer a wide range of measures to foster suitable projects in upland areas — factory sites, including workshops specifically designed for craft industries, grants for the conversion of redundant buildings and business advice for new and existing firms. WDA, in addition, offers throughout Wales a useful package of investment schemes, including special rural loans. With its interest in social as well as economic needs, MWD can also help with the provision of housing, shopping, cultural, leisure and social facilities, tourist developments and transport. Both bodies are continually seeking to develop new initiatives which will benefit the rural economy.

On the question of finance, I do not think it would be wise to earmark certain proportions of the funds of the development and tourist agencies for uplands work. That, I believe, would be too inflexible. I consider therefore that it must remain the task of the individual organisation to assess the competing needs and priorities and to allocate its funds accordingly. I would not wish to alter this arrangement. It is an indication of the priority we give to their work that the general level of funding for the development and tourist agencies has been shielded from reductions in public expenditure.

Furthermore funding activities of the Manpower Services Commission in upland areas are perhaps not as fully appreciated as they might be. Their Community Programme is already making a valuable contribution, with £2¼ million already committed to projects in upland areas since its introduction in October 1982. This and the Voluntary Projects Programme, recently extended to March 1986, could provide funds for further work in the uplands, although it must be admitted that competition for the available resources is intense.

Agriculture A healthy and profitable agricultural sector is undoubtedly vital to the maintenance of the upland economy and the conservation of the upland landscape. The government accepts that a case exists for looking more closely at some aspects of the way in which support is given to upland farming and we have already adopted the principle that enhanced rates of capital grants should be used to encourage agricultural development sympathetic to the environment. To this end, the farm capital grant schemes now provide for a higher rate of grant for hedges and shelter belts as well as for walls and dykes built of traditional local materials rather than fencing. This is another step towards achieving a closer integration of conservation and agricultural policies; it is intended to develop the concept further. In addition, the government is pressing in Brussels for an amendment to the draft EC structures regulation designed to enable member states to encourage, in environmentally sensitive areas, farming practices consonant with conservation of the environment. It is in any event our intention to introduce further measures to help conservation in the UK. Small or part-time farmers can clearly play a positive role in the economy of rural communities in the uplands. The European Community's new measures to improve agricultural structures are likely to change the conditions of eligibility for capital grants to the advantage of such farmers, although it has not yet been decided precisely how the new Structures Regulation will be implemented in the United Kingdom. We recognise that the Countryside Commission is in a position to contribute to the formulation of farm structures policy and in due course we shall be seeking your advice, as well as that of other relevant statutory agencies, on the implementation in the UK of the new structural measures. Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances represent a major part of hill fanning net incomes and so are an important factor in maintaining farming communities in these areas. This year support is being extended for the first time to the newly designated less favoured areas though at lower rates than the originally designated hill areas.

Diversification The government agrees with the Commission that there is considerable potential for business diversification by farmers in some areas and that socio-economic advice provided by ADAS has an important role in developing this. ADAS operates a three-tier service in this field. Regional Socio-Economic Advisers are backed up by approximately 70 Special Interest Advisers stationed at divisional and area offices. The majority of front line advisers can also draw on a wealth of experience which enables them to give advice on many socio-economic matters, for example, regarding family farms and links with other organisations with rural interests. This expertise is readily available and farmers can draw on it heavily as and when they need it. But it is vital in this type of work to go at the pace the farming industry both wants and can assimilate at any one time. Accordingly, the supply and demand situation concerning this sort of advice is being kept under constant review. The recent review of ADAS stressed the role of conservation and socio-economic advice. ADAS is encouraging the trend towards diversification in line with the duty placed upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Wildlife and Countryside Act (Section 41). Current and future initiatives include enterprise groups in Wales, involvement with the Development Commission over Rural Development Programmes, meetings and seminars with both county and district local authorities, and finally a series of ADAS-organised meetings on diversification being held in England and Wales this winter and involving farmers, landlords, local authorities, the tourist boards and COSIRA. I note your criticism of our decision not to implement the provisions in the LFA Directive which allows grant to be paid to farmers for small-scale tourist and craft enterprises. The conditions attached to these provisions, together with stringent restrictions on the amount of expenditure on tourism and craft projects eligible for aid, have so limited the scope of the measure that the government has not considered it worthwhile. However, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 11 December, when the new capital grants schemes are introduced in 1985 to implement the new EC farm structure policy, it is the government's intention to introduce further measures to encourage farmers to diversify into non-farming enterprises—aids to tourist and craft enterprises being obvious candidates.

Conservation of the Countryside Conservation of the countryside is an objective to which this government is wholeheartedly committed. A whole series of decisions since 1979 have reflected the high priority which we attach to it. Most recently, our decision to step up the funding of both the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, at a time when retrenchment is the order of the day, provides further evidence of our determination to maintain the pace of achievement in this area. The Wildlife and Countryside Act marked a significant advance and we are pledged to the closing of the three-month SSSI loophole. We have also sought to ensure that agricultural policies, particularly on farm capital grants, take proper account of the requirements of conservation, and when the grant schemes were amended both in 1983 and 1984, we grasped the opportunity to make modifications in the interests of conservation. I believe that our record in this area is first-class and we intend to build further on what has already been achieved. We recognise that livestocking practices in the uplands might conflict with conservation objectives in certain circumstances, but there is no evidence of a general problem of overstocking, against which there are in any case already powerful safeguards. The statutory rules provide that HLCAs are not payable on animals in excess of the numbers the land can carry without overgrazing. ADAS look into any cases of localised overstocking and will recommend reductions in payments where appropriate. More generally, there are overall financial and numerical limits of £60 and 6 sheep per hectare in severely disadvantaged areas and £45 and 9 sheep in disadvantaged areas. Conservation of moorland presents particular problems because much of it depends on agricultural use for its upkeep. We did, of course, in December 1984 withdraw grant aid for land reclamation throughout Great Britain. I am not, however, convinced that the further measures you propose—which we have considered most carefully — would necessarily be more effective than the existing procedure. On the one hand, while blanket withdrawals of grant would be unfair to the individual farmer, land improvement which would be beneficial to conservation would also be excluded. In particular, withdrawal of drainage and the range of land improvement grants from section 43 areas would be an unnecessarily severe step which would deny aid to very many farmers who need these grants to sustain the viability of their farms and who are able to carry out these operations without harm to the landscape. Nevertheless I believe it would be a mistake to regard the matter as closed. I therefore propose, with your assistance, to keep the subject under review in the light of futher experience with the working of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This process will be helped, I believe, by the review of Section 43 maps which I understand you are putting in hand at our suggestion. I also have little doubt that local planning authorities would not welcome the extra burden on their resources implied by your proposals to amend planning controls on farming and forestry. In reaching these conclusions, I have been influenced — and impressed — by Dr. Brotherton's figures for the grant notification arrangements in National Parks in the first six months following implementation of Section 41; out of 2,757 cases, only 6 had not been resolved locally. The second six months gives similar results. We have given the most careful consideration to the related suggestion that the exemption currently given to certain farm buildings and farm and forest roads under the General Development Order should be withdrawn throughout the LFAs. We are not, however, convinced that the scale of the landscape problems arising from construction of new farm buildings and roads is sufficient to warrant what would amount to a considerable extension of planning control when we strive to avoid such extensions unless there is very clear justification for them. I can, however, report a modest but significant step forward which we intend to take immediately. We accept that in National Parks there is a case for a system of improved control over the siting and design of farm building and farm and forest roads, provided this can be done without undue cost for local authorities and disruption for the farming community. I have therefore decided to issue a consultation paper proposing that a new LASDO be made covering the design and siting of all farm buildings and farm and forest roads in all National Parks. This will enable the arguments for and against to be exhaustively examined. A change in this direction was recommended, as you will know, by the 1974 report of the National Parks Policies Review Committee. No action was taken because the National Parks Authorities had no power to make discretionary grants to meet the additional costs incurred in meeting more stringent design standards. They now have such a power, thanks to Section 44 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which this government included to allow change of the kind we now contemplate to operate fairly. As with conservation areas and listed buildings, we do not believe that there should be an automatic right to compensation if conditions on siting or construction details are imposed, but we do believe that discretionary grants under Section 44 should be available. Steps would need to be taken to avoid duplication of work in cases where grant is claimed; but this requires administrative rather than legislative action.

Forestry We cannot accept that a case has yet been made that planning controls should be introduced over forestry. Timber production has both balance of payments and, to some extent, strategic implications and contributes to the social fabric of the uplands. Ways of reconciling forestry, conservation and amenity must, however, be seen to be effective if public support for forestry is to continue. Forestry Commission planting policies have been criticised in some quarters as insensitive, but the consultation procedures for forestry grants and felling permissions introduced some years ago, and only recently revised, have shown that acceptable solutions to land-use problems in this area can be found by a relatively informal approach. A key role in this process is performed by the Regional Advisory Committees composed of members with expertise in agriculture, planning and environment as well as forestry matters. To meet the concern that the Committee's proceedings are not as open as the equivalent planning process, the Forestry Commission is currently looking at ways of achieving greater public accountability.

Woodlands We share your concern for native woodlands in the uplands and support the provision of advice and encouragement for woodland management in the interests of timber, conservation and shelter. Such advice and encouragement are already provided by ADAS, the Forestry Commission, numerous County Councils and private consultants in regard to farm woodlands and a Forestry Commission working group has recently reviewed the state of broadleaves in Britain as a whole. The Commission will be making recommendations to Ministers in due course and some of these will be relevant to the uplands. The government are also considering the extent to which farm woodlands might be encouraged as a means of diversifying the farm business. As regards the possible inclusion of enclosed broadleaf woodlands in the HLCA calculations, present Community legislation does not provide for land which is not part of the forage area to be included in the calculation of a farm's financial ceiling for the HLCA payments. However, once the new Agricultural Structures regulation is adopted, the government will consider whether there is any scope for certain areas of woodland to be taken into account.

Minerals We have repeatedly made it clear that consideration of environmental impact must be an integral part of the planning process both when structure and local plans are being drawn up and when specific applications are being considered. In sensitive areas, all possible alternatives, and measures to minimise harmful effects, need to be looked at even more carefully than elsewhere. But bearing in mind the trend of diversification away from agriculture and the simple geological fact that certain types and qualities of minerals are concentrated in the uplands, I am inclined to the view that your report possibly underplays the benefits and importance (not least to employment) of their extraction in suitable — and carefully controlled — circumstances. The gains cannot be lightly dismissed and it should never be forgotten that they have been achieved for a generation within a planning system that has provided a whole battery of safeguards. It is the government's continuing commitment that applications for new mineral workings and extensions to existing workings should be subject to the most rigorous examination, especially in national parks.

Public Access Your report contained several recommendations about the important issue of public access in the uplands. We appreciate the concern both about the need for access and the problems which can be associated with increasing numbers of visitors in the uplands. We believe that the best way to handle both concerns is by leaving them in the hands of the National Park Authorities and the local authorities on the basis of their existing powers. In this context the Secretary of State for Wales and I were pleased to be able to announce an increase in the level of National Park supplementary grant for 1985–86 somewhat in excess of the rate of inflation. Many aspects of access to the countryside are, of course, currently being examined in a research study sponsored by the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council and due to be completed this year. We will look again at access policies when we have the Countryside Commission's review based on the findings of the study. You recommend that existing access arrangements on Forestry Commission forest lands be protected when sold to the private sector. This raises legal problems and a voluntary code of practice by the private sector might be a more sensible solution. The research may help here, too. As regards the outstanding recommendations of the Royal Commission on Common Land, the government has already made it clear that it favours further legislation in due course. We welcomed the Countryside Commission's initiative a year ago in establishing a Common Land Forum to discuss and agree recommendations for such further legislation and we look forward to receiving the Commission's recommendations based on the Forum's conclusions.

Housing You argue in favour of higher Housing Investment Programme allocations for district councils with large rural areas in order to meet the special housing needs of the uplands. I think it can reasonably be argued that, by and large, the system already reflects, and caters for, those special needs, within, of course, the usual limitations imposed by the need for public expenditure restraint. There are two main components in the Housing Investment Programme system in England. One is an objective assessment of housing needs (the Generalised Needs Index) based on specific indicators like stock conditions; the other is the Local Discretionary Element under which the particular circumstances of individual local authorities are taken into account and reflected in allocations. If an authority argues that it has a special need in relation to housing in upland areas, this would be taken into account. In Wales, the methodology is slightly different, but the principle is the same. It is a cardinal feature of both systems that once the broad allocations are made, it is for the local authorities themselves to decide how they are used. The consultations on Rural Development Programmes could provide an obvious opportunity to discuss at local level the housing needs of such areas. As a contribution towards the needs of young workers setting up home for the first time, the Development Commission and the Housing Corporation are currently engaged in a pilot project to provide up to 100 dwellings in rural areas on shared ownership terms. The Commission is contributing £5,000 towards each unit. 85 have been approved so far and some of these will be in upland areas. A modified follow-up scheme has been recently announced and its results will be carefully monitored. It is hoped local authorities will benefit from the experience gained and follow the lead given.

Health and Social Service The government believes that the organisation of health and personal social services is best determined in the light of local circumstances and local needs. It accepts that people living in remote areas have a need equal with those in urban centres for advice and information on health, social service and social security matters.

Education The concern felt about village school closures is very natural, but the objective for education in rural areas must be as far as possible to provide children with the same educational opportunities as pupils of their own age in towns and cities. This inevitably involves local education authorities in a selective programme of closures to secure the best use of available resources and to avoid, wherever possible, the diminished opportunities that can occur in schools that are too small. The new Education Support Grants being introduced in 1985 have been offered to six authorities for pilot projects aimed at improving the education experience in small schools. The Secretary of State for Education and Science in England and the Secretary of State for Wales, as appropriate, consider all proposeals for school closures on their individual merits; an important factor in their decision is the difficulty of the journey that would be involved for pupils travelling to alternative schools.

Transport Particular attention is paid to rural services in the recently published White Paper Buses (Cmnd 9300), which expresses the Government's concern at the decline of bus services in sparsely populated areas. I cannot do better than quote paragraph 3.11 of the White Paper: The Government proposes supplementary measures to help county councils to modernise and improve rural transport services and will be monitoring their effects in the context of deregulation. First, innovation must be encouraged. A new grant will be created to encourage new transport schemes for communities in rural areas. In England, the grant will be for up to £1 million a year, administered by the Development Commission. Similar arrangements will be made for Scotland and Wales. Second, competitive tendering will help authorities to achieve much better value for money for the service they decide to support. But the full benefits of tendering will not be felt immediately. So, third, the Government will make available additional help to maintain vital rural services in this transitional period. This will take the form of a special grant available for 4 years and paid direct to operators of eligible services in rural areas. The total value of the grant will be up to £20m in the first full year reducing by even steps in subsequent years. Of the unconventional services available, post buses have already proved themselves of value in providing transport in upland areas of Scotland and may have great potential in England and Wales. The proposal made in the White Paper to permit more widespread operation of shared taxi and hire car services could also make a substantial contribution to transport services in the uplands.

Policy Coordination It is worth mentioning that at local level the development plan process provides a ready made framework for a comprehensive and integrated approach to rural land use, including that in the uplands. The plan making process includes extensive consultation with Government Departments, agencies and other bodies and public participation is an important aspect. In Wales a wide range of Ministerial responsibilities including Agriculture, Economic Development, the Environment, Planning, Transport and Housing, among others, rests with my colleague the Secretary of State for Wales. He encourages the agencies to work together and with local authorities in collaborative ventures and is well placed to ensure that policies are effectively coordinated. Here at the centre I and my colleagues keep our policies in step. When government policy affects so many aspects of life, however, it is a continuing and difficult task to establish the right balance. When circumstances change quickly, perhaps accelerated by technological advances, contradictions and inconsistencies may arise. These must be corrected but without overreaction — the effect of which would produce a constant seesaw in government policy. I can assure you that our efforts in the uplands will be to achieve a sensible balance and a sensible solution to the problems which you have identified and in particular we shall be aiming to integrate our conservation and agricultural policies. I agree, therefore, that policy towards the uplands needs careful coordination and a clear sense of our objectives so that we do not lose these vulnerable landscapes and their supporting populations through a lack of perception of their overriding needs. We are aware of the different objectives and we shall measure our policies against them. Nevertheless it is important that policy in the uplands should fit within a national framework. It would be unrealistic to expect that the future of our uplands could be settled in isolation. I think it is also unrealistic to expect the Less Favoured Areas directive to deal with all the problems of rural development (as you recommend in paragraph 190). Rural conditions vary considerably within the United Kingdom, even more so throughout the EEC. What we can do is to attempt to harmonise the measures we make available and leave it to the local authorities and other agencies at the local level to implement them according to local needs as they perceive them. This is consistent with the best traditions of democracy and decentralised decision making. The question of parliamentary scrutiny is of course a matter for the appropriate Select Committees but nonetheless I assume they would find it necessary to relate policies towards the uplands to the national context. On the question of flexibility in the operation of policies, I would hope that it would be possible to give sympathetic consideration to the sort of joint official projects you have in mind. Perhaps it would be best to look at these case by case.

Conclusion The report A Better Future for the Uplands identifies very clearly the main issues facing the uplands of England and Wales and provides an invaluable guide to the thinking of the Commission and the other organisations involved. As this letter indicates, it has already influenced Government thinking on these problems and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. It is, in a word, a milestone, but a milestone on a road which stretches far ahead. This letter, as I have already emphasised, is by no means the end of the story as far as policies for the uplands are concerned. At the same time, I very much hope that what I have said, and the decisions I have indicated, make it abundantly clear that the government's approach to these problems is positive and constructive. There are a number of key themes in policies for the uplands and I have touched on them throughout this letter. We accept the need for a prosperous agricultural industry which can and does make a major contribution to a thriving rural sector and the conservation of the countryside. We welcome the increasing awareness of the importance of conservation, and the extent to which the voluntary principle is accepted. National policies must set the framework but within that there is considerable scope for local initiative and contributions from non-governmental bodies. Indeed, if there is one theme which I would particularly like to emphasise in conclusion, it is that a brighter future for the uplands will be achieved, not by government decisions alone, but by the strenuous and purposeful exertions of the many different organisations and individuals involved, working to mutually agreed objectives. I believe that this cooperative approach, already strongly in evidence, will accomplish a great deal and we shall play our full part in it. I am copying this letter to the Chairmen of the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Development Commission, the English Tourist Board, and the Wales Tourist Board.

WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE