Rural government

Levelling up local democracy – more (or less) parishes? 

Levelling up local democracy – more (or less) parishes? 

Parish Councils are the first tier of government and an entry point for democracy. And yet, while they have long been in existence, much of England remains unparished. Parish Councils not only give a democratic voice to their residents but are also the focus of community efforts, deliver services and work in partnership with others.  With a Government review of neighbourhood governance due, what might this mean for areas without a Parish or Town Council – and what might urban areas learn from their rural counterparts? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are Parish Councils? Called Parish, Town, Community, Neighbourhood and/or Village Councils, they are collectively known as ‘Local Councils’ and are the tier of local government that is closest to the electorate in England. Parish and Town Councils are represented by the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), and by county-based associations. 

Elected Parish and Town Councils can be traced back to the Local Government Act 1894. This Act removed all non-ecclesiastical functions from church parish councils and passed them to new, locally elected bodies which became known as ‘Parish Councils’. Ecclesiastical functions remained with ‘parochial church councils’ (PCC) and these are not linked to Parish and Town Councils. 

The Local Government Act 1972 provides the legal foundations and workings of Parish and Town Councils today. The Act sets out the constitution of Parish Councils – and how ‘they shall consist of a chairman and parish councillors and shall have all such functions as are vested in the council by this Act or otherwise’.  Part II of Schedule 12 specifies the legal obligations that a Parish Council must fulfil: 

  • It must hold an annual meeting. 
  • It must hold at least three other meetings a year. 
  • It must appoint such officers as it believes necessary for the proper discharge of its functions. 
  • It must make Standing Orders for the supply of goods and services to the council. 

These requirements are supplemented by any other standing orders adopted by a Parish or Town Council. Where a Council has not filled all its seats at an ordinary election, the councillors who have been elected (unopposed) may co-opt additional members until all of the Council’s seats are filled. A Council must have at least one-third of its seats through election. There are no fixed procedures for how the decision to co-opt must be made, other than it must be taken at a meeting of the Council.  

The Localism Act 2011 allows Parish and Town Councils and Neighbourhood Forums to formulate Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) and Orders, to guide and shape development in a particular area. Policies produced in a NDP cannot block development that is part of a Local Plan, but they can shape and influence where that development will go, and what it will look like. 

Where are they? According to NALC, there are some 10,000 Local Councils in England, with 30% of the country parished and 40% of the population served by 100,000 councillors. 

Source: see DLUHC council tax statistics for parish and town councils – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-council-tax  see also map here. 

The map illustrates how the majority of rural areas in England are ‘parished’ whereas some urban areas are not. These ‘unparished’ areas – or areas with few Parish Councils include: 

  • Areas within Greater London – though do note Queen’s Park in Westminster City Council is designated a Parish Council. 
  • Cities and the areas surrounding them.
  • Smaller council areas that are urban in character. 
  • Larger towns surrounded by rural areas. 

What do they do? A Local Council must act within the law. This means it can only spend, raise or use money for which it has a statutory powers for. Parish Councils have a wide range of powers under different acts of Parliament. Many of these powers are discretionary, meaning they may do something, rather than they must do something. They also act as a sounding board for local opinion. They also have obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010.

Some examples of the projects and activities Parish Councils get involved in include (but are not limited to): 

  • To improve and adapt land for allotments, and to let grazing rights.
  • To provide public baths, washhouses and public conveniences. 
  • To maintain monuments and to contribute towards the expenses of cemeteries.
  • To provide and maintain bus shelters. 
  • To provide public clocks. 
  • To provide and equip buildings for use of clubs having athletic, social or recreational objectives. 
  • To establish and maintain a scheme for the detection or prevention of crime. 
  • To deal with ponds and ditches. 
  • To take enforcement action against those who commit an offence against a Dog Control Order. 
  • To take enforcement action against those that flypost or graffiti. 
  • To maintain footpaths and bridleways. 
  • To acquire, dispose of, and/or accept gifts of land. 
  • To contribute to car-sharing schemes, taxi fare concessions, make grants for bus services and contribute financially to traffic calming schemes. 

In 2019, NALC published a collection of 150 case studies highlighting the work that local councils undertake to support their communities, and why local councils are an essential part of their community.  

Every Parish Council has a clerk who works to ensure the Council as a whole conducts its business properly and who provides independent, objective and professional advice and support to councillors. The SLCC represents clerks working in 5,000 Local Councils in England and Wales. As such, 90% of the SLCC’s member councils pay for their clerks’ annual subscription, as encouraged by the Local Government Act 1972 s 143 (1) (b), ‘a local Authority may pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annually or otherwise, to the funds of any association of officers or members of local authorities which was so formed.’

Under the Sustainable Communities (Parish Councils) Order 2013 Parish Councils are entitled to make proposals for changes in legislation. They may also request the listing of an asset of community value [under the Community Right to Bid], and/or lead the development of a neighbourhood plan or a Community Right to Build order. The Parish Council itself, or individual councillors, can also act as trustees for a local charity. 

While all Local Councils seek to make a difference to their local area, their budget, resources, capacity and priorities will vary. 

In terms of funding, Local Councils raise income through a ‘precept’ on Council Tax bills. The Local Council allocates a sum which a unitary authority or District Council collects for them through the Council Tax system. Parish Councils have been able to raise a ‘rate’ since their establishment in 1894 [linked to the Poor Laws], with the rates currently raised through the National Non-Domestic rate. Between 1894 and 1990 parish councils were able to levy a charge on domestic and non-domestic property; since 1990 the precept can only be applied to domestic property. According to MHCLG and DLUHC data, between 2021 and 2022 8,877 Parish Councils raised a precept amounting to some £617.27 million and comprising 1.8% of the total Council Tax demand. 

Since 2012, Government has required Parish and Town Councils to hold a referendum if their precept increases by more than a set threshold [determined by Government for principal Local Authorities each year]. The average increase in parish precepts in 2021-2022 was 2.8%. This increase is lower than that applied in previous years: 4% in 202-2021, 4.9% in 2019-2020, 4.9% in 2018-2019, and 6.3% in 2017-2018.  

Parish and Town Councils can also accept gifts from parishioners, apply for funding from grant making bodies or Government, and borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board lending facility. Interestingly, they can also apply for a licence from the Gambling Commission [under section 98 of the Gambling Act 2005] to set up lotteries to raise funds locally.  

Parish Councils must appoint an auditor – and, in practice, these are often appointed through the Smaller Authorities Audit Appointments (SAAA), a body established by NALC, the SLCC and the Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA). Allegations regarding any financial irregularities can be made to the respective Parish Council’s auditor who must then decide whether or not to investigate them. 

How do they work between tiers? Where Parish and Town Councils are often referred to as ‘Local Councils’; in comparison, county, district and unitary Local Authorities are referred to in legislation and guidance as ‘principal authorities’. While both are a type of Local Authority, principal authorities have more statutory functions and powers compared to Parish and Town Councils. 

Principal authorities vary in their approach to working with parish councils – with some proactive around delegation and devolution, and others less active owing to queries about the capacity of Local Councils. 

Traditionally, Local councils often work with other tiers of local government. Some examples include: 

  • Being consulted on planning applications and/or preparing a neighbourhood development plan. 
  • Having points of contact within other Council services, such as highways, parks and elections. 
  • Liaising with other organisations providing services within parish council boundaries. 

Parish clerks and councillors are also supported by the Monitoring Officer at their principal authority. This role includes performing ethical framework functions, advice and training in relation to the operation of a code of conduct and/or considering, accepting or rejecting complaints. 

The Local Government Association (LGA) has produced a framework to guide principal authorities interested in supporting Parish and Town Councils to play an increasing role in public service delivery and place shaping. This focuses on three key areas: 

  1. Building trust – confirming the underlying principals, shared commitments and ongoing dialogue. 
  2. A set of practical approaches and materials to assist in how devolution/responsibility shifts will be achieved. 
  3. Enabling factors to support the partnership between principal authorities and Parish Councils – including the concept of ‘parish clusters’. 

And the Rural Services Network (RSN), for example, has established a Rural Village Services Group to ensure villages across England are given a voice into Government and other decision shapers. 

Regarding devolution, NALC have highlighted examples from Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire where responsibility and decision making has transferred from a principal authority to a Parish or Town Council. NALC has also highlighted examples where Local Councils have influenced the way services are delivered by a principal authority and/or participated in the funding of services led by a principal authority. It is worth noting that with reductions in resources over the last 10-15 years, many principal authorities have sought to delegate or devolve assets and services to town and parish councils.    

More recently, COVID-19 has highlighted the role of Local Councils in supporting local residents and harnessing local action – both during the immediacy of the pandemic, and now as we move towards economic recovery. Indeed, between April 2020 and May 2021, Parish Councils were permitted to hold online (rather than face-to-face meetings) as part of the Coronavirus Act 2000. 

Do we need more or fewer of them? Since the 2000s, successive Governments have been supportive of setting up Parish Councils. This can be traced to the labour government’s white paper in 2006 through to the coalition government’s consultation paper in 2013.  

It is the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 that contains the procedure for setting up a new Parish Council. This involves a principal authority undertaking a governance review, either on its own account or in response to a petition from local electors. The purpose of the governance review is to determine whether one or more Parish Councils should be created, divided or merged to ensure ‘that government arrangements are effective and convenient…and reflect the identities and interests of the community in that area’. 

In February 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published its Levelling Up White Paper, which announced a ‘review of neighbourhood governance in England’. The review will consider how Parish and Town Councils could be quicker and easier to establish. The review is taking place in the context of a proposed Strategy for Community Spaces and Relationships, broadening the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy, and a new approach to ‘community partnership’.

Currently, principal authorities can also consider other forms of community governance when carrying out a governance review. This may include, but is not limited to: community forums, tenant management organisations (TMOs) or neighbourhood management arrangements. A governance review can also result in the abolition of a Parish Council.  While it is rare for this to happen, examples in recent decades include Letchworth (North Hertfordshire), Southsea (Portsmouth), Byfleet (Woking) and Lickey End (Bromsgrove). There are also provisions for the dissolution of a parish where it has 150 or fewer electors. Similarly, a newly-expanded village could seek to ‘secede’ from an existing parish council area. 

Back in 2018, NALC estimated there were some 270 more Parish and Town Councils in England than there were 15 years prior. Local government restructuring since the 2010s has also led to the creation of new Parish or Town Councils, particularly in areas which have seen the creation of unitary authorities in place of county or district councils – these areas include (but are not limited to): Cornwall, Cheshire East, Dorset, Northampton and Wiltshire. NALC has produced guidance for  clustering Parish Councils wherein individual parishes must still hold their own parish meetings but a single council can cover a number of neighbouring parish areas. According to DLUHC and MHCLG data, in 2021-2022 there were 648 groupings of parish councils in England.

Sharing practice from rural areas with urban areas? The fact that most unparished areas in England are urban in character, means that if the Levelling Up White Paper leads to proposals for growth, new Parish Councils are likely to occur in towns and cities. What learning can they take based on the workings of Parish Councils in rural areas – and how can we better draw together good practice? I offer four points. 

Firstly, people. Few can forget an unruly meeting between councillors at Handforth Parish [now Town] Council that went viral and somewhat overshadowed the work underway. Who sits on a Parish Council, particularly via co-option can lead to a perception that it permits Parish or Town Councils to co-opt members they prefer rather than those with the particular skills set or area of interest needed. While others are fed up with politics and do not want to put themselves forwards as a candidate. Similarly, constituents who wish to complain about the procedures, decisions or conduct of councillors have few options other than the four yearly elections. Nor do residents have an automatic right to speak at meetings about parish affairs – it is down to the discretion of the respective Parish Council as to whether to afford them of this opportunity or not. With some 100,000 local councillors in England, how can we ensure they function well as the first tier of local government? There are numerous guides to support councillors to better understand their role – from The Good Councillors Guide, Model Code of Conduct, Model Standing Orders and Governance Toolkit through to adhering to the seven principles of public life. While a survey on improving professional standards commissioned by the SLCC found the number of formal complaints against parish councillors made to principal authorities dropped significantly since the original survey in 2017; the number of councils reporting standards issues had increased from 15% in 2017 to 18% in December 2020/January 2021. Further analysis of the survey responses revealed a Parish Council was significantly more likely to have issues where the clerk had been in post, or in the sector, for less than 3-years. While the vast majority of parish councillors and clerks operate effectively, how can we prevent problems from arising and/or better tackle those with complaints (e.g. recruitment, initial and ongoing training, peer-to-peer support, setting terms of office)?  

Secondly, scrutiny and wider governance. Parish Councils are required to have a code of conduct. They can develop their own code or opt in to one used by their district or unitary authority. However, there is no single organisation which oversees Parish Councils. Indeed, other tiers of government are unable to overturn a Parish Council’s decision unless it can be demonstrated that the decision is unlawful.  Parish Councils also do not fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsmen, unless they are carrying out functions on behalf of a District, County or unitary authority. The SLCC survey included a shorter questionnaire for Monitoring Officers at principal authorities to see what impact parish governance issues were having on their role. Again, while most Parish Councils did not give rise to standards issues, there were a handful in each area that caused difficulties for them in terms of time and resources. Under legislation, where a principal authority found a breach and recommended a sanction to the Parish Council, around 50% were not implemented by the parish council. How can we increase the capacity of Monitoring Officers to help them deal with grievances and offer mechanisms such as regular forums between the Monitoring Officer, county associations, councillors and clerks to prevent standards issues? 

Thirdly, funding. Since 2013-2014 the Council Tax base has reflected the actual amounts paid by residents who pay less Council Tax as a result of local support schemes. As a result, in the majority of areas the tax base decreased. Where the Council Tax base reduced, Parish Councils received less money from the precept than previously. Since 2014-2015 funding for council tax support schemes and Parish Council sums have been rolled into general local authority grant funding making it impossible to identify a specific amount which is intended for use for council tax support schemes. 

The precept is the difference between a Parish Council’s estimated income and its anticipated spending requirements for the financial year. In calculating the precept a Parish Council takes into consideration its current year’s spending level, the costs of any additional spending plans or projects, provision for contingencies and reserves, and levels of anticipated income. Part of the calculation also involves the ‘Band D equivalent’. Band D is the middle band of Council Tax and is intended to represent the amount of Council Tax paid on an average property in the area. The Band D equivalent provides a measure which allows precepts among councils of different sizes to be compared. The estimated number of Band D equivalent properties in the tax base is notified to each Parish Council by the principal authority prior to the precept setting exercise. On the one hand, and unlike Local Authorities, there is no cap on precept requests from Parish Councils. Indeed, NALC has highlighted the continued financial pressures placed on Local Councils from COVID-19 and how Parish Councils were not eligible for funding streams allocated to local government.  On the other hand, Government remains concerned about the pressure placed on taxpayers and is encouraging Parish Councils to exercise ‘greater restraint’ and is keeping the matter under review.  How can we collate information on the additional spending plans or projects by parish councils and how these are financed? 

Fourthly, data. There is no central record of the outcomes of governance reviews, or of the parish councils that have been created or abolished as a result. Nor is there a single real-time database that provides an overview of each parish council (i.e., its people – and how many councillors are co-opted, funding, resources, meetings, activities etc.). While we know what Parish Councils are, their place in the local government structure and the powers they can exercise, how can we draw together information to provide a rich evidence base of the work Parish Councils are doing (individually and collectively)?        

Parish Councils have a key role to play in making a difference to the communities they represent. Government focus on levelling up may lead to the creation of more Local Councils in unparished areas. If they want this to take place more quickly and easily, there is much that Parish Councils in rural areas can share with their new urban counterparts.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently supporting a CRF funded project; helping public sector bodies to measure their social value; and evaluating employability schemes and a veteran programmes. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

shared prosperity

Will the Shared Prosperity Fund help rural communities? 

The Government is creating a UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) to replace structural funding that the European Union previously allocated to the nations and regions of the UK. The SPF was announced in 2017, launched in April 2022 and is expected to allocate funding between October 2022 and March 2025. What might the SPF mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The European Union (EU) provides several funding streams to its Member States. One of these streams, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), aims to reduce disparities by helping less developed regions to catch up with more developed regions. When the UK was a Member State four funding streams were provided through ESIF: 

  1. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): this provides support to small businesses and is focused on research, innovation and moving towards a low carbon economy. 
  2. The European Social Fund (ESF): this focuses on encouraging people into the workforce and also funds schemes such as apprenticeships and traineeships for young people.  
  3. The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF): this provides funding to support improvements in fisheries. 
  4. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD): this focuses on improvements in farming as part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  

For the programming period 2014-2020, ERDF and ESF accounted for two-thirds of ESIF funding. 

ESIF is administered jointly between the EU and Managing Authorities nominated by each Member State. It is the Managing Authorities that produce an operational programme, that is signed off with the European Commission, which then allocates funding to the Authority so they can distribute it. In England, the Departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are all Managing Authorities. 

Because the UK has left the EU, new funding has stopped. The Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU included provisions to maintain the existing arrangements for structural funding until the end of 2020. Spending from ESIF lags behind its allocations, so funding remained unspent when the transition period ended. This money can still be paid out, providing the funding was agreed before this point. Furthermore, the EU allows a 3-year window after the close of each of its funding programmes so that this can happen. 

The Government has now created a replacement for ESIF: the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. How has this funding stream been developed; how does it compare to structural funding from the EU that it is intended to replace; and what does it mean for rural communities? 

What is the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF)?  

Back in 2017, the Conservative Party’s Manifesto referenced how ‘we will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom Shared Prosperity Fund, specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations. The money that is spent will help deliver sustainable, inclusive growth based on our modern industrial strategy. We will consult widely on the design of the fund…and [it] will be cheap to administer, low in bureaucracy and targeted where it is needed most’.  

In July 2018, James Brokenshire [then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government] made a written statement on local growth setting out headline details: 

  • The purpose of the Fund is to reduce inequalities between communities across the four nations. 
  • The method for doing this is by strengthening the foundations of productivity [as set out in the Industrial Strategy] to support people to benefit from economic prosperity. 
  • The Government will respect the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the Fund works across the UK. 

The November 2020 Spending Review contained ‘heads of terms’ for the SPF. This suggested: 

  • The Fund will cover the main areas of ERDF and ESF. The first part will cover investment in people and skills, communities and place and local businesses. The second part will be targeted at employment and skills programmes for those facing barriers to participating in the labour market. 
  • The first part of the Fund will be allocated based on achieving specific outcomes and agreeing investment proposals. 
  • Some of the Fund will be targeted at places ‘most in need’ across the UK. 
  • The total amount of funding made available will ‘ramp up’ until it matches current EU receipts. 
  • To bridge the gap until the introduction of the Fund, separate funding [known as the UK Community Renewal Fund] has been provided to pilot programmes and new approaches.  

In May 2021, the Government published a prospectus for the UK Community Renewal Fund (CRF). This set out a list of 100 ‘priority places’ and £220 million of funding to help local areas prepare for the SPF. These places were selected based on an ‘index of economic resilience’ developed by the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The index took account of broader aspects of economic development than the GDP per capita used by the EU to classify regions. This means the places prioritised for the CRF differ from those that received high levels of EU funding. In November 2021 the Government published a list of successful bids. While recognising how the CRF is distinct from the SPF in its design, eligibility and duration; the CRF is intended to inform the design of the SPF, and that feedback will be provided to all bidders to assist them in preparing bids for the SPF.  

In the Autumn 2021 Budget and Spending Review £0.4 billion was allocated to the SPF, with a further £0.7 billion for 2023-2024 and £1.5 billion for 2024-2025. The Review described the SPF as a ‘new UK-wide programme to equip hundreds of thousands of adults with functional numeracy skills to improve their employment prospects; ‘support a range of skills and employment focused programmes’; and how the funding will ‘at a minimum match the size of EU funds in each nation’.

How has the SPF money be allocated? 

In February 2022 pre-launch guidance for the SPF was published alongside the Levelling Up White Paper. This described how SPF monies would be allocated mostly through Local Authorities. A formula would be used to allocate funding rather than areas competing for a share of the funding. The funding would be conditional on each area creating an Investment Plan setting out measurable outcomes that Local Authorities are hoping to achieve – and which take account of other funding streams in being clear what the SPF investment would concentrate on. The pre-launch guidance contained three investment priorities aligned to the Levelling Up White Paper: 

  1. Communities and place: initiatives aimed at improving community infrastructure and investing in neighbourhoods. 
  2. Local businesses: improving the number of jobs and the productivity of existing businesses. 
  3. People and skills: promote adult learning and skills provision. The largest part of this strand will be the Multiply Programme, a new UK-wide initiative to equip adults with the functional numeracy skills to improve their employment prospects.  

It is intended that the first two investment priorities and the Multiply programme will be the main focus of the SPF in its first few years. However, in England, places will be able to select people and skills interventions earlier where they meet specific voluntary sector considerations. 

Building on the pre-launch guidance, in April 2022 the Government published a prospectus. This confirmed the funding allocation places will receive, how it will be delivered, and the investment plan process.   

The SPF will be a mix of revenue and capital funding which can be used to support a wide range of interventions under the three themes in ways that build pride in place and improve life chances. Confirming the requirements set out in the pre-launch guidance, the prospectus set out how all places across the UK will receive a conditional allocation from the Fund, but to access the money they will be required to submit an investment plan to Government for approval. Investment plans will need to include three key sections: 

  1. Local context: an opportunity for places to set out their local evidence of opportunities and challenges through the lens of the three investment priorities. 
  2. Selection of outcomes and interventions: a list of interventions places wish to prioritise under each investment priority, from a menu of options. Interventions should be linked to local opportunities and challenges. Where bespoke interventions are included [i.e., those not on the Government’s menu of options] a clear justification will be required. Funding can be used to support interventions through a grant to a public or private organisation, commissioning third party organisations, procuring service provision and/or through in-house provision. 
  3. Delivery: the governance structures and delivery processes that will support the implementation of interventions; a spend profile with outputs and outcomes figures; and information on capability and previous experience of delivering similar funds. 

In England, local government has been tasked with responsibility for developing the investment plans, and for the delivery of the funding thereafter. Where the SPF operates over a strategic geography (i.e., mayoral combined authorities) all allocations will be made at the strategic geography level, including the 4% available for administration. The SPF will operate over District Councils or Unitary Authorities elsewhere. The Multiply Programme will be delivered at the upper-tier or unitary level in England. The prospectus asks lead Local Authorities for either multiply or core SPF to work closely together to ensure that each element of funding works coherently and is aligned. Lead Local Authorities are also required to take account of the Adult Education Budget and remaining European Social Fund investments.

The Government is making £20,000 available per Lead Local Authority, or £40,000 for each Mayoral Combined Authority and the Greater London Authority, in England to undertake initial preparatory work for the Fund, including developing their Local Investment Plans. 

Each place will be required to have a Local Partnership Group to support the development of the investment plan and to oversee how the funding is administered locally. The prospectus outlines the types of groups that should be represented on the Local Partnership Group. These include local businesses and investors, community and faith organisations, voluntary and community sector organisations, social enterprises, strategic bodies, education and skill providers, public health representatives and rural representatives unless there are no rural communities within the area. In addition to a national evaluation, Lead Local Authorities are being strongly encouraged to conduct their own evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of the interventions pursued.  

The investment plan submission window is due to open on 30 June and close on 1 August 2022, with first payments expected from October 2022 and final payments in March 2025. Local Authorities are required to complete a pre-registration form before they can access the investment plan platform. 

How does the SPF compare to ESIF?  

The prospectus confirmed the SPF is worth £2.6 billion over the period 2022-2025, including Multiply. Funding has therefore been confirmed for three financial years: £400 million for 2022-2023, £700 million for 2023-2024, and £1.5 billion for 2024-2025. While the Multiply Programme funding will be 100% revenue, the core SPF money has been divided between revenue and capital over this period. In England, for 2022-2023, this will comprise 90% revenue and 10% capital; for 2023-2024 87% revenue and 13% capital; and for 2024-2025 80% revenue and 20% capital. 

The £1.5 billion allocated for 2024-2025 is less than the average amount that the UK received from the structural funds in 2014-2020 (approximately £2 billion). However, the SPF is currently intended to cover ERDF and ESF which together averaged £1.3 billion per year. Replacement funding for farming and fisheries is being developed outside of the scope of the SPF. 

The funding is being staggered across the three investment priorities, with most funding for the ‘people and skills’ priority expected to start in 2024-2025 apart from the Multiply Programme. In practice, this could mean some interventions that would have been eligible for ESF will remain unfunded in the initial years of the operation of the SPF. 

As of August 2021, ERDF and ESF funding to England since 2014 covered 52% of the total cost of projects, requiring projects to find the remaining investment through match funding. While the souring of match funding/leverage will not be required to unlock an area’s SPF allocation (so as to ‘provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and tailor interventions to local circumstances’); information on any known or anticipated match or leveraged funding will need to be provided in the investment plan if available at the time of submission. Lead Local Authorities will be required to consider match funding when designing interventions and to provide regular updates on match funding achieved throughout the lifetime of the SPF as part of their reporting responsibilities. 

The 7-year financial framework used by the EU provides areas with certainty over the funding they have to work with; and those in receipt of the funding have a 3-year period at the end of each framework in which to make their last funding claims.    Around half of all public spending in England is allocated as part of Spending Reviews. This is where the Government sets departmental spending totals for the next few years. Reviews may take place every 2-4 years, with the resultant spending plans covering 1-4 financial years. The recent postponement of reviews, and resultant shorter timescale they cover, means that while the SPF will operate over multiple years, the current allocation is only confirmed until 2024-2025. Will these timescales support places to take a longer-term strategic approach to their investment plans?  

What does the SPF mean for rural communities? 

Back in June 2021, the Rural Services Network (RSN) developed a prioritisation framework to support the levelling up of rural communities. This highlighted how the metrics used to prioritise fund allocations often fail to reflect the reality for sparsely population areas and remote communities. For example, the income domain within the Indices of Deprivation (IMD) is commonly used as an indicator of poverty. The data is based on benefit claimant counts rather than employment incomes resulting in a lack of consideration of the sometimes low-income, insecure, part-time and seasonal occupations many rural residents rely upon. Instead, the RSN recommended assessing the standards of living achievable in different locations given local labour market conditions [real incomes] as a basis for the SPF. 

In February 2022, the RSN published its rural lens review into the SPF pre-launch guidance. While welcoming the announcement that all areas would receive an allocation through a funding formula rather than a competitive process, it queried the construction of the formula – will it reflect delivery costs in rural settings? Will the SPF be rural-proofed? They also queried how the SPF could complement other funding streams as many of these already bypass rural areas.  

For allocations in England, the SPF prospectus confirmed that 70% was allocated on a per capita basis, based on Local Authority population size; and 30% using the same needs-based index used to identify the Community Renewal Fund priority places (i.e., data on productivity, household income, skills, and productivity places with lower population density). The full methodology note setting out how allocations have been made is due to be published in May 2022.  

More recently, in April 2022, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Rural Business and Rural Powerhouse published its inquiry into the rural economy. In indicating how improving skills is critical to addressing the productivity gap, the APPG urged the Government to ensure the ring-fenced funding for rural communities previously provided under the EU Rural Development Programme continues under the SPF. They have also called for Wheels to Work and community transport initiatives to be delivered under the SPF. 

When part of the EU, a wide range of programmes enabled farmers, businesses, local organisations, Local Authorities, voluntary groups and communities across rural England to access funding to support their projects and initiatives. Back in October 2021, the Prime Minister committed to ensuring that Cornwall would get at least the same level of funding it would have received if the UK had remained in the EU. Indeed, Cornwall Council submitted a bid to Government in July 2020 for £700 million over 7-years to match the funding it would have received from Europe. Cornwall has been allocated £132 million from the SPF over the next 3-years, and while welcomed by some commentators – indeed the total allocation for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly represents the highest amount allocated to any unitary authority in England [£129,549,117 core SPF + £2,452,414 Multiply = £132,001,531]; others have queried if the funding streams becoming available from central Government will lead to the total amount of investment expected.  

While the SPF is part of Government’s attempt to unlock potential across all parts of the UK, will it substantively reach rural areas? How will investment plans developed to access the SPF recognise the opportunities, challenges and interventions needed in rural places? At the same time, it would be a mistake to view the SPF – and Levelling Up more widely – solely through the lens of public monies and public policy priorities. Its success depends upon voluntary and community sector organisations, the private sector, local leaders and residents. How, therefore, can we ensure rural representation and a voice on Local Partnership Groups? 

Government anticipates approving the first investment plans from October 2022 onwards, with the 3-year funding period scheduled to close in March 2025. Will the SPF level up opportunity and prosperity and overcome deep seated [rural] geographical inequalities? Watch this space…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently supporting a CRF funded project; helping public sector bodies to measure their social value; and evaluating employability schemes and a veteran programmes. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rural scene

How do other countries “think rurally?”

Rural England is not alone in dealing with issues like transport, broadband, affordable housing and access to services which can leave some people struggling to live, work and thrive in our rural communities. The OECD, for example, publishes comprehensive reviews of rural policy in individual countries as well as overarching analytical reports. Looking at rural definitions, policies and examples spanning North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania: what policy solutions, ideas and examples of good practice exist in other countries; and what learning from rural England might we share with others? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is ‘rural’?

In the United States, the federal Government has several ways of defining ‘rural’. The Census Bureau, for example, defines rural as everything that is not urban; with urban areas categorised as having at least 50,000 people. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses county classifications to distinguish between ‘metropolitan urban counties’ and ‘non-metropolitan counties rural’. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS); the total population in non-metropolitan counties stood at 46.1 million in July 2017—equivalent to 14% of all U.S. residents spread across 72% of the land area.

The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) provides an integrated set of standard areas and is split into two parts. The first part, ABS Structures, leads areas to be classified for outputting statistics. The second part, non ABS Structures, is where areas are grouped into administrative areas (e.g. Local Government Areas as defined by State and Territory governments). This framework enables the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and other organisations to publish data that are comparable and spatially integrated. The ASGC defines ‘remoteness’ by Census Collection Districts on the basis of the average district score within the Accessibility and Remoteness Index (ARIA). ARIA sorts settlements into one of the following categories: major cities, inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote. Modified Monash Model Areas (MMM) is a customised remoteness classification developed by the Australian Department of Health for its programmes and initiatives. MMM factors in both geographical remoteness and town size into a single classification. It was designed to address disparity in the uptake of incentives between towns where there may be a significant difference in population size but which shared the same ASGC-RA remoteness classification.

In China, areas are arranged into Administrative Divisions. This process involves five steps: 1) the whole country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. 2) These provinces and autonomous regions are then organised into autonomous prefectures, counties, autonomous counties and cities. 3) Autonomous prefectures are further divided into counties and autonomous counties. 4) Counties and autonomous counties are then separated into townships, nationality townships and towns. 5) Municipalities and large cities are then split into districts and counties. Under this division, ‘urban’ population refers to the total population under the jurisdiction of cities, and the population of towns under the jurisdiction of counties.

In 2013, Finland published a new urban-rural classification. This contains 7 different regional classes: (1) inner urban area, (2) outer urban area, (3) peri-urban area, (4) local centres in rural areas, (5) rural areas close to urban areas, (6) rural heartland areas, and (7) sparsely populated rural areas. One municipality may consist of several different area types. The classification uses a grid of 250 x 250 metres, and overlays this with population, labour, commuting, building, road network and land use data. Under this classification rural areas cover 95% of Finland and are home to some 1.66 million residents (31% of the population).

The European Union (EU) has no binding or legal definition of rural areas. For example, Member States use different definitions in the LEADER Programme (with some countries managing programmes covering up to 20,000 population and other countries between 30,000 and150,000 people). In order to harmonise definitions across Member States, and to cross-reference EU acts and programmes, Eurostat has launched a legislative initiative called ‘Tercet’ to integrate different Member’s typologies into NUTS Regulation.

In Northern Ireland the Urban-Rural Definition Group was established to make recommendations to the Statistical Coordination Group (SCG) – part of Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) – on the terms ‘urban’ and ‘rural’. This led to the publication of the Statistical Classification and Delineation of Settlements in February 2005. Three criteria were applied in ascribing urban characteristics to settlements: (i) population size, (ii) population density, and (iii) service provision. In contrast, rural areas were characterised by a dispersed population, agricultural or other extensive land use and distance from major urban centres [accessibility]. The Group looked at the provision of a post office, ascertaining that no settlement with a population of 2,250 or more lacked a post office – which was viewed as a significant indicator of service function. Settlements were then classified into one of eight bands: Band A (metropolitan urban area c580,000 population); band B (urban area c90,000 population); band C (large town 18,000-75,000 population); band D (medium town 10,000-18,000 population); band E (small town 4,500-10,000 population); band F (intermediate settlement 2,250-4,500 population); band G (village 1,000-2,250 population); and band H (small village, hamlet and open countryside less than 1,000 population). Bands A-E are regarded as urban and bands F-H as rural. Under this definition, approximately 65% of Northern Ireland’s population lives in urban areas and 35% in rural areas.

The sub-group of the SCG undertook a review of the Classification in March 2015 as a result of the 2011 Census and an action in the Rural White Paper Action Plan which stated ‘we will undertake a review of the current classification of settlements to ensure that appropriate definitions of ‘rural’ are available to policy makers where circumstances require.’ The 2015 review proposed establishing a new settlement classification using similar population bands to those in the 2005 classification, with slightly altered boundaries between Bands E and F (where 4,500 is increased to 5,000 in Band E) and between Bands F and G (where 2,250 increases to 2,500 in Band F). The review also proposed expanding the classification to include a service provision element; determined through a 20 minute and 30 minute drive-time to the town centre of a settlement containing a population of at least 10,000.

What all of these rural definitions and classifications share in common is that they all use some measure of ‘population’– and have graduations of settlements from urban [metropolitan areas in America or inner and outer urban areas in Finland] to rural [from band F in Northern Ireland or RA5 in Australia]. Some of the definitions are accompanied by a threshold or cut off point where settlements are deemed rural: 5,000 and below in Northern Ireland or less than 50,000 in the United States. Some of the classifications take into account ‘density’; from a 250 x 250 metre grid system in Finland to a 1km square grid in Australia. However, what all of these definitions grapple with is urban-rural linkages. Finland, for example, developed its new classification as part of attempts to recognise inter-regional relationships. Northern Ireland has considered how to define rural and urban areas in ways which suggest some ‘urban’ settlements may be eligible for certain ‘rural’ programmes because they provide services for their hinterlands and used drive time information to think about the interconnectivity between rural and urban settlements. In May 2019 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the State Council – China’s Cabinet – announced new guidelines on the promotion of integrated urban-rural development.

Many RSN members are familiar with the Rural Urban Classification in England which defines areas as rural if they are outside settlements with more than 10,000 resident population; as well as the University of Sheffield’s work in 2013-2014 on ‘hub towns’, settlements with populations of between 10,000 and 30,000 that provide services, employment and businesses to the rural areas around them. For me, all of these classifications open up four areas for further consideration.

Firstly, and notwithstanding that rural and urban areas are intertwined; the starting point for many of these classifications is urban focused i.e., policy makers, statisticians and cartographers seek to understand how rural is different from urban by concentrating on built-up areas – often defined according to their population size, density, access to services or type of land use. Indeed, data sometimes suggests that rural and urban areas are very similar (sectorally) yet this does not always take account of rural context or how a cluster of (rural) places work together.

Secondly, some of the classifications can lead readers to assume that rural areas are homogenous rather than heterogeneous. Indeed, some residents classified as living in a built-up area consider themselves rural (‘the rural of the mind’).

Thirdly, the data used to develop classifications does not always recognise the strong relationships between residents, businesses, the voluntary and community sector and local groups which often form the basis for action. With fewer people than their urban counterparts, rural communities can be more likely to set up and/or run a service on their own account and to be innovative and imaginative in getting local projects started.

Fourthly, the classifications do not reveal what life is like in many rural communities. The ‘life in rural America’ report found that while rural residents were positive about the national attention that had been paid to rural areas, they had negative views about the state of their local economy and were divided in their views about future job opportunities. An academic at the University of Minnesota described how “until rural towns start emphasising their positives…people won’t stay…When you’ve got this dominant negative narrative, it is very difficult on both fronts both locally and nationally, to perceive that you can actually succeed in a small town…Some are doing it. In Minnesota itself, a local rural development agency is helping towns to rebrand themselves — push the positive aspects which attract people in the first place, but also make it plain that people can make viable careers in the small town.” In China, Joe Zhang describes the state of the roads, community buildings as well as the distance, emotional stress and financial pressures separating some rural families as people of working age move to urban areas for work.

Notwithstanding these four points, the classifications contain nuances that we may want to consider in the content of rural England. For example, the Finnish classification is divided into different levels according to an ‘urban rural typology’: this moves us away from a dichotomy to a gradient. While the Finish classification looks at spatial variables (i.e., population density, land use intensity and the Herfindahl’s Index); the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) also uses datasets to model the amount, density, efficiency, accessibility, intensity, versatility and orientation of areas on 250 x 250 metre grids. And in Northern Ireland the SCG took into account a number of variables in its drive time [service provision element]. For example: what is the drive time between two locations, 20 miles apart, on an A-class road? How do you implement, in a practical way, information that two points are linked by public transport with a journey time of 20 minutes, but the public transport service runs only twice per day compared to two other locations where the journey takes 50 minutes but perhaps operates on an hourly basis?

All of the classifications involve spatial units and mapped boundaries, and it is interesting to note how some Government departments customise them further (e.g. the MMM in Australia).

How can we move away from administrative definitions to more functional definitions that capture the realities, complexities and interconnectivity of rural places? And where rural is taken as a starting point not as an add-on or separate from built-up areas?

A ‘rural’ policy…

How rural areas are defined and categorised has important policy implications.

In the United States, the USDA has been the lead federal agency for rural policy since 1980. The USDA defines rural policy as being concerned with “…the improvement in overall rural community conditions, including economic and other quality of life considerations such as the environment, health, infrastructure, and housing.” There are three divisions at the USDA that concentrate on rural development: (1) affordable and safe housing – which includes the Housing and Community Facilities Program. (2) Economic development and business support – which includes a range of initiatives supporting small rural business, assisting rural entrepreneurs and creating jobs (e.g. Business and Cooperative Program, Rural Energy for America Program). (3) Infrastructure development – including the provision of water, broadband, telecommunications and electrification (e.g. Rural Utilities Service). The USDA also leads three other rural development initiatives: American Indian & Alaska Native Program, Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and Substantially Underserved Trust Area. The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Act) came into law on 20 December 2018 and will remain in force until 2023. The Act contains additional assistance to rural communities in respective of improving health outcomes; broadband

[i.e., expanding the Rural Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program:
providing broadband access to those who live in underserved areas
without residential service of at least 10 Mbps/1 Mbps]

; community and economic development programmes; water and waste; energy; and cybersecurity. While overall rural development accounts for less than 1% of the Farm Act’s outlays, rural America relies on this funding. Specific programmes in rural areas funded under the Act include Business and Industry Loan Guarantees (B&I), Intermediary Relending Program (IRP), Rural Business Development Grants (RBDG), Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP), and Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant (REDLG).

‘Rural’ accounts for approximately 9% of the USDA’s expenditure. Overall, and including all agencies, the federal Government spends 2-5 times more on a per-capita basis for community development in urban areas compared to rural areas. Across the federal Government, there are approximately 88 rural programmes administered by 16 different agencies. At a sub-national and regional level, several state legislatures have addressed rural economic concerns through the creation of initiatives, committees, councils, task forces and agencies. Some of these efforts have existed for some time, such as the Center for Rural Pennsylvania and New York’s Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. Other efforts, including the Georgia House Rural Development Council and the Rural Wisconsin Initiative, are more recent.

In Australia, the Department of Agriculture provides a range of support to farmers and rural communities. Programmes administered by the Department include: a Farm Household Allowance (FHA) for farmers experiencing financial hardship; a Rural Financial Counselling Service (RFCS) for farmers, fishers, foresters and small businesses suffering financial hardship; managing the effects of pest animals and weeds in drought-affected areas; and the Managing Farm Risk Programme (MFRP) which helps farmers find an insurance policy that covers drought and other production and market risks. The Department also facilitates a range of taxation measures to encourage investment in drought preparedness and to even out high and low income years. The Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) is tasked with delivering farm business loans and national water infrastructure loans.

Alongside this, the Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (ITCRD) contributes to the prosperity of the economy and wellbeing of Australians through regional and community programmes [this includes $15 million towards the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal’s ‘Tackling Tough Times Together’ programme to support communities experiencing the devastating effects of drought]. Other funds cover infrastructure, economic diversification, jobs and growth]; and three Regional Deals – which are based on a City Deals model and take a ‘place based approach’ to supporting community led economic, social and cultural initiatives. The Australian Government also coordinates Regional Development Australia (RDA) – a network of committees covering the country that bring together all levels of Government. The ITCRD assists other departments and agencies in preparing a Regional Australia Impact Statement (RAIS). The RAIS guidelines include an implications checklist and mitigation measures that departments and agencies are required to consider during the policy development process. The checklist covers the economy, infrastructure, access to services, and compliance.

The Chinese Government has sought to introduce policy measures to address the imbalance between rural and urban China. In the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2011-2015), the Government committed to “speeding up the formation of a reasonable pattern of income distribution . . ., and reversing the widening income gap as soon as possible”. This commitment was reaffirmed in the Thirteenth five Year Plan (2016-2020). This latest Plan contains a goal to eradicate rural poverty by 2020. The Chinese Central Government is focusing on infrastructure construction and social development – and shifting its attention from urban to rural areas. This includes investing in rural roads, rural drinking water utilities, rural electric utilities [in terms of infrastructure]; and cultural development, education, health and social security [in terms of social development]. Policy reforms have included personal income tax reform [raising the minimum threshold for personal income tax]; labour market policies [annual increases in minimum wages]; the Dibao system [providing minimum income guarantee systems for some 4.97 million rural residents to relieve extreme poverty]; the abolition of agricultural tax and introduction of various direct subsidies [for grain seed, machinery and production materials]; near-universal coverage of medical care for rural residents through the New Rural Cooperative Medicare; making three-year preschool and senior high school education universal; and addressing financial exclusion by putting banking services in all villages. In the academic literature there are discussions around how this policy focus and investment in rural areas takes account of people moving from rural to urban areas.

In Finland, rural policy sits within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Ministry leads on national rural policy which is linked to regional policy and EU co-funded rural development. Policy measures separately target rural areas, the archipelago, and cities. Rural policy is characterised by a network approach and, at a national level, led by the Rural Policy Committee (YTR). The YTR is comprised of representatives of different ministries, regional government, Research & Development organisations and community associations. The YTR leads the national rural policy programme, which for the period 2014-2020 is titled ‘the countryside of possibilities.’ The programme takes a place-based approach, recognising the diversity of places and the different starting points and needs of rural communities. The programme covers five themes: (i) participation and local democracy, (ii) housing and services, (iii) infrastructure and land use, (iv) livelihoods and expertise, and (v) ecosystems and services. In addition to coordinating networks under each of these themes, the YTR also funds 50-70 other rural research and development projects each year (with an annual budget of about €2.5 million).

In Northern Ireland, rural development sits within the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). The Department’s rural work covers four principal areas: (i) rural development grants; (ii) managing the 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme; (iii) tackling rural poverty and social isolation; and (iv) rural needs. DAERA also delivers a Network Support Unit which provides the structure needed for a Rural Network and its activities.

The Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 places a statutory duty on Northern Ireland departments, District Councils and other public authorities to have due regard to rural needs when developing, adopting, implementing or revising policies, strategies and plans; and when designing and delivering public services. The Act came into operation for Departments and Councils on 1 June 2017 and for other public bodies on 1 June 2018. DAERA produces guidance to assist public authorities in understanding their statutory duties; sample Rural Needs Impact Assessment (RNIA) templates; case studies and annual monitoring reports. The term ‘due regard’ means that in making decisions and in its other day-today activities a public authority must consciously consider the needs of people in rural areas. While undoubtedly the Act provides a significant opportunity to ensure that the needs of people in rural areas become embedded within public authorities; how this is monitored and what (if any) mitigation against adverse impacts (if/where these are identified) are put in place both affect the ability of public authorities to discharge their duty and for communities to see more tangible outcomes.

In each of these countries rural policies have evolved over time and this piece presents a current snapshot. For me, these different approaches raise seven overarching points for further consideration:

  1. Rural policy most commonly sits within departments/divisions of agriculture. According to the OECD “rural is not synonymous with agriculture and is not synonymous with economic stagnation.” On the one hand these policy contexts suggest that Government influence and interest in ‘rural’ is a side-effect of sectoral agricultural support. On the other hand, they also signal agricultural department’s roles in championing rural more widely across Government. It is also clear that rural finds its way into other Government departments and programmes (e.g. communities, infrastructure, health). How can we ensure rural areas are seen as the bedrock of economic growth and innovation across Governments and departments rather than solely focusing on cities and urban areas as drivers of economic growth?
  2. This opens up discussions around what the goal(s) of having a rural policy are. There is no agreed upon vision for rural areas and often lots of competing demands. For example: is it about ensuring rural residents have equal, equitable and/or fair access to services as their urban counterparts? Is it about producing food or ecosystem services? Growing a green economy and building resilience to climate change? Preserving settlements and scenery for visitors to enjoy? Should rural policies focus on broad issues (e.g. population decline or growth) or target specific issues (e.g. access to services)? This opens up discussions around whether these policies are ‘redistributive’ in taking resources from one group (urban residents) and given them to another (rural residents); ‘distributive’ in giving resources to a group without a clear sense of if/whether another group pays; or ‘regulatory’ i.e., applying incentives or penalties to influence behaviours. Where do rural communities fit into the policy making process? How can we ensure that policy is designed in a way that fits the needs, opportunities, challenges and aspirations of rural communities?
  3. Policy design and decision making is often driven by a ‘worst first’ approach in that Government support is targeted at those communities deemed the most challenged or deprived. But this can also divert attention away from other rural communities that, with a bit of the resource, could thrive.
  4. The allocation of policy areas is often not accompanied by mandatory funding so any public investment can be tenuous. Policies are time limited, in response to a short-term or specific event (e.g. drought), or – in the case of Finland, Northern Ireland and England – underpinned to some extent by EU policies and funding streams. How can we ensure stability in policy-making and/or that changes and modifications do not lead to long periods of uncertainty?
  5. Place based approaches are increasingly being used by policy makers as part of attempts to bring together geography, data and people to deliver economic, social and environmental outcomes for rural areas. How do we ensure these approaches are ‘place appropriate’ in recognising the heterogeneity of rural areas?
  6. How do/should we monitor the implementation of rural policy? In some countries there appears to be little basis for assessing the effectiveness of policy and public expenditure in rural areas. What works well and what more needs to be done to help Departments/Ministries champion rural communities and share rural expertise across Government? What successful approaches of Government’s collaborating with rural residents, businesses and communities in designing policies and programmes are available?
  7. How much central and local Government funding is invested in rural communities – and what methodology or approach is used to estimate these figures? The USDA, for example, has budget explanatory notes for each division – these documents contain a purpose statement, statement of available funds, staffing/salaries/expenses, buildings / facilities and budget and performance. In England, the Rural Services Network’s Fairer Funding Campaign seeks to change the way the Local Government Finance Settlement is calculated, moving away from the current model of population size to a new approach calculated on need.

Translating policy into practice…reverse innovation?

While there are of course drawbacks in looking at practice from elsewhere – not least examples are always context, place and community specific; how might we exchange experiences and good practices on issues related to funding, economic growth, service delivery and health in rural areas outside of England?

In 2007, the Chinese Government designated Chengdu (the capital of Sichuan province) a ‘National Comprehensive Reform Pilot Region for Coordinated Urban-Rural Development’. This designation led to the setting of specific targets including: closing the gap between urban-rural income and public services; improving the rural built environment; increasing arable land; developing modern agriculture; maintaining forests, the natural environment and greenbelt; diversifying the economy; providing high-quality education and health care; and enhancing community autonomy and social services. The designation led to most of Chengdu’s revenue being devoted to improving peri-urban and rural areas. In 2011, for example, peri-urban areas of Chengdu received more than 70% of the city’s total fiscal expenditures, compared with the nearby suburbs (which received 20%) and the inner city (which received only 10%). Also in 2011, each village in Chengdu received approximately U.S. $47,500. A series of planning guides were published and a single regional plan created. The plan stated that all villages, including those in remote mountainous areas, should have access to 13 basic services [these services include a primary school, cultural centre, sports facilities, shops]. Since the publication of the plan 446 new schools in rural areas have been built which meet the same standards and have the same facilities as urban schools. Economically, Chengdu operates under the principal of ‘one zone, one leading industry’. Under the plan, large enterprises were regrouped into 13 municipal level and 49 country level strategic function zones (i.e., there are zones for technology, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals etc.) In addition, industrial parks were constructed in towns and villages throughout Chengdu – building on historic tradition of town and village enterprises (TVEs). Chengdu has established an employment and training information system. This system collects and updates recruitment information including job type and salary requirements and makes the information available digitally in real time in employment centres in villages.

Back in rural England, RSN analysis shows that that the way in which the Local Government Finance Settlement has been calculated has often resulted in the countryside being significantly underfunded when compared to their urban counterparts. In 2019-2020 urban areas will receive 66% (£119 per head) more in grant funding that their rural counterparts; and rural residents will pay, on average, 20.7% (£98 per head) more than their urban counterparts. This means rural communities are paying more but receiving fewer services than people living in urban areas. And this doesn’t take account of the ‘premium’ in delivering services in rural areas or the distance rural residents are already travelling to access some services. How can we overcome dampening and rethink funding formulae so that (as in Chengdu) rural areas have a fairer deal?

In the United States, the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development at the USDA, Anne Hazlett, describes how “rural communities need forward-thinking strategies to build strong, resilient futures…USDA’s Rural Development Innovation Center (RDIC) is focused on identifying unique opportunities, pioneering new, creative solutions to tough challenges, and making Rural Development’s programs easier to understand, use and access.” The RDIC is exploring a number of issues facing rural communities including access to capital, opioid misuse, and rural workforce development. For example, the RDIC is building a Rural Workforce Innovation Network; and in June 2019, the USDA and its partners selected 47 rural communities and regions to receive free technical assistance for up to 2-years to create and implement economic development plans.

In Finland, the Smartest Village competition, run by the Finnish Rural Network has seen 32 settlements expressing an interest in wanting to become more vital, active and innovative. Participating villages are offered guidance, ideas, peer support and networking opportunities over an 18-month period, culminating in the selection of the winning village at the end of 2019. The competition includes supporting villages that would like to develop accessible and high-quality services in areas (e.g. healthcare, education, energy, transport, local food).

Back in England, and with no agreed upon list of public services from central Government, what (public) services are important to rural communities? How can central and local Governments support the aspirations of rural communities – as per Finland – rather than reverting to what is already provided? What economic growth and development do we want to see in rural areas – and how might we use the learning from the RDIC in the US? Importantly, the examples from the US and Finland are competitive – how can we ensure the application process gives all rural communities an equal chance of participating?

In Australia, the National Enterprise for Rural Community Wellbeing (NERCW) at the University of South Australia is undertaking a range of projects with rural communities in partnership with the Government. This work is set against a backdrop of rural and regional South Australians accessing community mental health services less, being admitted to hospital at higher rates and receiving less follow-up once discharged. Here, there is a recognition that specialist mental health services cannot be maintained at the same level in all rural communities and therefore a range of innovative responses are needed to address distance (e.g. tele-health, Lifeline, Kids Help Line, Mensline). At the same time rural communities have a desire for face to face services closer to home.

While evidence seems to suggest that in rural parts of Australia and England mental health is probably better than in urban areas, research also finds: (1) there are a number of factors specific to rural areas such as demography, access to services, social exclusion and deprivation that may contribute to levels of stress, anxiety and depression in rural residents; (2) some rural occupations have high suicide rates; and (3) those that develop mental illness in rural areas can be less likely to seek early treatment compared to their urban counterparts. What can we learn from the emerging models of care being developed in South Australia?

In Northern Ireland, The Tackling Rural Poverty and Social Isolation (TRPSI) Framework is a rural initiative led by DAERA working in partnership with community organisations to design and implement measures which target the needs of vulnerable people. The current TRPSI Framework is the third in a series of anti-poverty initiatives brought forward by DAERA. TRIPSI has an annual budget of approximately £4 million. DAERA works with other departments (e.g. Department for Infrastructure, Public Health Agency, Department for Communities), rural charities (e.g. Rural Community Network, Rural Support) and other organisations such as colleges, GPs and SMEs to develop and/or deliver the Framework. Some of the initiatives earmarked for funding include: grants of £500-£4,999 to support farmers to provide social farming activities; SmartPasses for rural residents to access concessionary travel on Rural Community Transport Partnership vehicles; a Farm Families Health Checks Programme; SPRING Social Prescribing project; Your School Your Club (which opens up educational sites for local community usage outside of normal school hours); the Libraries ‘Out of Hours Service’ which extends access to library facilities in 6 rural areas; and Prosper Employability Project which provides mentoring support to young people and vocational training leading to qualifications identified by local employers. With the Assembly currently in a period of suspension most policy functions are being carried out by local civil servants under the supervision of Westminster – this can make implementing some of these initiatives at the current time difficult.

Taken as a collective, for me these examples provide recognition of the contribution that rural areas can or could make to national policy objectives (e.g. economic growth, health and wellbeing, sustainability). In so doing they challenge an assumption that rural communities are synonymous with decline and are trying to ensure that ‘no one is left behind.’ These initiatives have often emerged where mainstream approaches have not worked and/or which market led approaches fail to address adequately. They also highlight how there is no ‘one size fits all’ – in some countries the focus has been on investing in infrastructure; while in others on service delivery or increasing the variety of services available. Crucially, these initiatives recognise the importance of taking a flexible and bottom-up approach in ways that fit the grain of different rural places and communities.

Where next?

The RSN is calling on Government to produce a comprehensive long term funded Rural Strategy. While this is not about special pleading for rural, combined with the Conservative membership voting for a new party leader and a new prime minister, this is an opportune time to re-focus politicians and decision-makers on a distinctive rural agenda. With many rural areas facing similar opportunities and challenges; what policy solutions, ideas and examples of good practice can we take from other countries – and what ideas from rural England can we share?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Acknowledgement Sincere thanks to Aidan Campbell, Policy & Public Affairs Officer at Rural Community Network (Northern Ireland) for supporting the development and drafting of this piece: from drawing my attention to the work of The Urban-Rural Definition Group and TRPSI to commenting on an earlier draft and acting as a critical rural friend.

Website: http://www.ruralcommunitynetwork.org/ Twitter: @RuralCommNet

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The term ‘reverse innovation’ describes innovations which may have started their development in emerging economies but have spread into developed economies. The concept was first used by Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble back in 2009 and has been the focus of academic attention ever since then, with scholars more recently seeking to develop a clear concept of what reverse engineering entails, what its characteristics are and to review examples of where such innovation has happened. Reference: J. R. Immelt, V. Govindarajan, and C.Trimble, “How GE Is Disrupting Itself”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 87 (10), pp. 56–65, 2009.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is also a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association.

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Rural NHS

How can we build a rural health and care workforce?

The NHS tuned 70 on 5 July 2018. This year has seen celebrations and appreciation of the vital role that the service plays. As the NHS ages the pressures and demands it faces are very different to those of 1948 – with the workforce under considerable strain to provide services. How can we plan, fund, recruit, train and retain health and care workers in rural areas that meet people’s (clinical and wellbeing) needs and the (professional/lifestyle) aspirations of staff? Jessica Sellick investigates.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

NHS England employs some 1.2 million people – in more than 350 different roles: from 140,000 doctors and 300,000 nurses and midwives through to physiotherapists and dieticians. Despite these numbers it is apparent to all that the NHS just doesn’t have enough staff. There are some 50,000 vacancies in different clinical areas, with a 5.9% shortfall between the staff needed and the staff in post. 

In November 2018 the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) prepared a report for the Cavendish Coalition on the health and social care workforce (H&SC) in all parts of the UK – highlighting trends over time and across regions and job roles – and providing a number of simulations on the workforce in the next few years. By examining the pattern of leavers and joiners to the NHS over the year prior to June 2016 and the year post June 2016 the model suggests the UK may have an additional shortage of around 2,700 nurses. Projecting this shortfall over the remaining period of Brexit transition to 2021 suggest there may be a shortfall of 5,000-10,000 nurses in addition to current vacancies. While challenges around developing a sufficient workforce supply pre-date the Brexit referendum, and Government reforms to education and training routes, the report calls on Governments to urgently review their workforce planning approach.

What do these shortages mean for rural health and care staffing?

In July 2018 I was part of a research team commissioned by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (ULHT), funded by Health Education England (HEE), to apply a rural lens to the workforce challenges facing the NHS in England.  The research involved: 

  • Applying the Rural Urban Classification – an official statistic used by Government to distinguish rural and urban areas – to the different units that health and care as a system is organised into.    
  • Analysis of economic and labour market data: using the Rural Urban Classification to produce a demographic profile for different rural areas, their trends in employment and unemployment, qualifications, occupations and earnings data.
  • An evidence review of academic, health and care charities, national and professional bodies that made reference(s) to rural health and care workforce matters.
  • Analysis of a survey about adult social care involving 13 rural first tier Local Authorities commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Rural Services.
  • A series of one-to-one interviews and focus groups with 20+ NHS staff in Cumbria, Northumberland, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Kent and Cornwall.

The findings of the research were triangulated with a reference group. The group comprised individuals with different perspectives on workforce development at local, regional and national levels (e.g. representatives from rural general practice, acute care, clinical commissioning groups, professional clinical bodies, Local Authorities, charities and community groups). 

The golden thread running through the research is that securing staff to deliver high quality health and care in rural areas (now and in the future) is crucial.  The research identified the following 9 challenges around recruiting and retaining staff in rural areas:

  1. Rural areas are characterised by the disproportionate out-migration of young adults and in-migration of families and older adults.
  2. This means that the population is older than average in rural areas – this has implications for demand on health and care services and for labour supply.
  3. Relatively high employment rates and low rates of unemployment and economic inactivity mean that the labour market in rural areas is relatively tight.
  4. There are fewer NHS staff per head in rural areas than in urban areas.
  5. A rural component in workforce planning is lacking.
  6. The universalism at the heart of the NHS can have negative implications for provision of adequate, but different, services in rural areas.
  7. The conventional health service delivery model is one of a pyramid of services with fully-staffed specialist services in central (generally urban) locations – which are particularly attractive to workers who wish to specialise and advance their careers.
  8. Rural residents need access to general services locally and to specialist services in central locations to provide the best health and care outcomes.
  9. Examples of innovation and good practice are not routinely mapped and analysed which hinders sharing and learning across rural (and urban) areas.

The research also identified 9 opportunities to maximise the supply of staff in rural areas: 

  1. Realising the status and attractiveness of the NHS as a large employer in rural areas (especially in areas where there are few other large employers). 
  2. This means highlighting the varied job roles, opportunities for career development and need for generalist clinical skills in rural areas. 
  3. This means developing ‘centres of excellence’ in particular specialities or ways of working in rural areas that are attractive to workers.
  4. This requires developing innovative solutions to service delivery and staff recruitment and retention. 
  5. This may provide opportunities for people who need or want a ‘second chance’ – perhaps because the educational system has failed them, or because they want to change direction; their ‘life experiences’ should be seen as an asset.
  6. Finding new ways to inspire young people about possible job roles and careers in health and care.
  7. Drawing on the voluntary and community sector, including local community groups, to play a role in the design and delivery of services.
  8. Promoting local solutions to foster prevention and early intervention.
  9. Using technology so face-to-face staff resources are concentrated where they are most effective and needed.

Inherent in addressing these challenges and realising these opportunities are a number of trade-offs. These concern balancing centralisation and localisation (in the way health and care are organised); balancing the flexibility that the workforce desires with filling rotas (to meet required safety standards); balancing the number of clinical specialists with expert generalists; and balancing the use of technology with face-to-face provision.

The research report was published in October 2018. A copy of the report is available from the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) here.  There are three overarching points emerging from the research that may be of particular interest to RSN members: (1) spatial component, (2) staffing and (3) funding.

Firstly, the research highlights the lack of a spatial component in workforce planning. In 2016 the NHS and Local Authorities came together in 44 areas covering all of England to develop proposals to improve health and care. Called ‘Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships ‘(STPs) they have been set up to run services in a more coordinated way, agree system-wide priorities, and to plan collectively how to improve residents’ day-to-day health. NHS Shared Planning Guidance led to the publication of a document setting out how these 44 STP footprints should be formed. This highlighted five factors: (i) geography, (ii) scale, (iii) fit with existing footprints of change programmes, (iv) the financial sustainability of organisations in the area, and (v) leadership capacity and capability to support change. Since 2016 STPs have been publishing plans setting out proposals for how they will achieve these aims – with some STPs evolving into Integrated Care Systems (ICS).

The rural workforce research found 22 of the 44 STPs have a population share equal to, or greater than, the England average (of 17%). The research analysed 10 STP plans in detail – with these areas chosen because they have at least double the share of rural population than England as a whole. Across these 10 plans there are fewer than 50 references to ‘rural’. None of the plans makes a clear link between the rural area they cover and the workforce challenges that they face. That said, some of the plans do highlight how rurality impacts more generically on service delivery (e.g. time, cost and distance) – but these tend to be introductory and contextual remarks rather than integral to the documents. While RSN members recognise and champion the heterogeneity of rural areas– geographically and socioeconomically – this spatial component is not always taken into account in health workforce planning.

Secondly, the research highlights how there are fewer NHS workers per head of population in rural areas compared to urban areas. NHS Workforce Statistics publish monthly numbers of NHS Hospital and Community Service (HCHS) staff groups working in Trusts and CCGs in England (excluding primary care staff). This data on headcounts is compiled and published by NHS Digital. The research looked at the statistical bulletin published in April 2018 which included monthly headcount figures from January 2018. The headline figures show: 

  • The headcount was 1,205,949 in January 2018. This is 7,711 (0.6 per cent) more than the previous month (1,198,238) and 21,068 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,184,881).
  • The full time equivalent (FTE) total was 1,064,810 in January 2018. This is 6,910 (0.7 per cent) more than the previous month (1,057,900) and 19,252 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,045,559).
  • Professionally qualified staff make up over half (54.0 per cent) of the HCHS workforce (based on FTE).

Analysis of this data reveals an overall difference in the ratio of NHS staff per head of population (excluding regional ambulance services) in the 11 most rural STP areas compared to England as a whole of 45%. This means compared to the national average rural areas have 45% fewer workers per head of population. And this picture does not appear to be improving despite the increase in headcount in some staff groups. In rural areas there are 10 key staff groups with shortages. They are: professionally qualified clinical staff, doctors, consultants (including Directors of Public Health), staff grade, specialty registrar, core training, foundation doctor year 1, midwives, scientific/technical and property/estates.

The research found recruitment poses a greater challenge than retention in many (but not all) rural areas. Achieving an optimal balance between mobility and immobility is important – some churn is valuable in stimulating new ideas, but too much churn is problematic. A segmented approach to recruitment is needed to focus on what makes rural areas attractive to different staff groups.

The research also highlights the need (in rural and urban areas) to think of workforce development in terms of an employment pathway: get in, get on and go further. For rural areas this could mean “grow your own”, i.e., finding ways to recruit, develop, cultivate and retain individuals from the local community to enter healthcare careers to help provide a long-term solution to addressing workforce challenges. For rural areas it could also mean thinking about health and care careers in terms of a ‘climbing frame’ rather than a ‘ladder’ because a career could include side-steps, changes in direction, entry into related or new specialisms and/or working for longer. For rural areas it could mean developing more innovative health and care service delivery models. For example, The Buurtzorg Nederland (home care provider) Model is based on small, self-managing teams of community nurses who have access to coaches for ongoing support and spend at least 60% of their time with patients – could a similar approach work in rural England? 

Thirdly, health and care funding formulas do not take into account the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. From speaking with clinical and non-clinical staff the research identified additional costs associated with: staff joining towards the end of their clinical career rather than towards the start or middle (leading to higher wage bills); a lack of nearby acute centres to divert patients to if your own centre is full;  staff distance from training and continuing professional development and higher education opportunities; and poor road network (affecting ambulance response times, staff travel time).  In October 2018 The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) commissioned the Nuffield Trust to carry out ‘a rapid review of the impact of rurality on the costs of delivering healthcare’.  The review is considering how the NHS takes account of rurality in its funding allocations (e.g. unavoidable smallness due to remoteness). The Nuffield funding review will be available on the NCRHC website in December 2018. Given the announcement of an extra £2 billion for mental health services and £650 million grant for Local Authorities struggling to cope with rising care bills for 2019/2020 contained in Budget 2018 [NB: the budget for day-to-day running costs for NHS England is £114.6 billion for 2018-19]; it will be interesting to consider how the findings of the workforce research and the Nuffield review can be harnessed to inform future funding allocations to improve the ‘provider to population’ ratio?

Perhaps what this research reveals is the need for rural proofing in the funding, planning and delivery of health and care services. I am aware that Defra is looking at the guidance it provides to policymakers. There is also interest in rural proofing health and care policies in Northern Ireland and Wales. This also means understanding, in some detail, the character of rural populations and the health issues facing them (which are often masked by official statistics); and thinking through how we promote rural [as offering professionally fulfilling and rewarding careers with high quality of life] to health and care professionals. Can we do this? Watch this space…

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). The NCRHC is a Community Interest Company, national in scope and with a Headquarters in Lincolnshire, and focuses on four principal activities: data, research, technology and workforce.

The NCRHC is providing the secretariat for a new Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care.  The Inquiry is being led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Health and Social care and is co-chaired by Ann Marie Morris MP and The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally. Eight key issues will be considered by the Inquiry over the next two years:

1) What are the needs of rural communities and how are they different from their urban counterparts?

2) How are rural health and social care needs currently met?

3) What is not working in rural communities and why?

4) Workforce challenges and opportunities

5) Education and training challenges and opportunities

6) Structural challenges of fitting current delivery models into a rural setting with different needs and challenges

7) Technology opportunities and challenges

8) Integration opportunities and threats

The first key issue was considered at a session on 30 October 2018 held in the House of Commons. Updates on the Inquiry and how to participate will be available on the NCRHC website and/or by emailing the Operations Director for the NCRHC Ivan Annibal via enquiries@ncrhc.org    

When Jessica’s not working at the NCRHC she is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration.

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association.

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Procurement

How can we “think rural” in public procurement?

Public procurement is the process by which public organisations buy and rent services or functions rather than provide them internally. If the over-riding requirement is that all public procurement must be based on value-for-money and achieved through competition (unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary); how can we ensure procurement has a positive impact on rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

How do public bodies undertake procurement? There are three policy purchasing responsibilities placed on public bodies. Firstly, to offer value for money, defined as “the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought”. The process normally comprises a competitive tendering process; whereby a public body says what it wants to buy and various organisations provide competing offers to supply those goods, works or services. Secondly, to ensure compliance with legal obligations under UK, EU and international agreements. There are three elements to the current legislative framework covering procurement: (a) EU Treaty principles – these set out general requirements such as advertising opportunities and opening these up to suppliers located in other Member States; (b) EU Directives and the UK regulations that implement them – these provide procedures and thresholds in line with the Treaty; and (c) UK-specific procurement legislation – including The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 which contains UK specific rules intended to make public sector procurement more accessible to small businesses. Thirdly, to follow Crown Commercial Service (CCS) policies and standards on public procurement.

For public bodies these regulations set out the money thresholds that apply and procedures to follow during the procurement process. These include: (i) the open procedure – a one stage process during which parties submit a written tender and a supplier is chosen. (ii) The restricted procedure – a two stage process comprising initial selection (using a selection questionnaire), followed by an assessment of technical capability [an Invitation to Tender] which may include an interview. (iii) Competitive procedure with a dialogue and rounds of discussion and submission of information. There is also flexibility for public bodies to use other procurement routes including competitive procedure with negotiation, competitive dialogue and/or an innovative partnership.

How much do we spend on public procurement? The UK Government spends £251.5 billion per year on outsourcing and contracting – this is equivalent to 13.7% of UK GDP or one-third of all public spending (excluding utilities). Expenditure on gross procurement increased by 5.2% in 2016-2017 compared to 2015-2016; and gross capital procurement increased by £1.3 billion (3.8%) over the same period. Since 2010 central Government has moved to a system which buys common goods and services once on behalf of the whole of Government rather than individual departments. The CCS provides documents to assist public sector buyers to think through and identify the most appropriate procurement route for their requirement as well as supplier support, including different ways to sell goods or services to the public sector.

What does ‘good’ procurement look like? HM Treasury offers guidance on how to manage public funds. Around value-for-money this includes ensuring that the organisation’s procurement, projects and processes are systematically evaluated to provide confidence about suitability, effectiveness, prudence, quality and good value (judged for the Exchequer as a whole). Where feasible, procurement through multi-purchaser arrangements, shared services and/or standard contracts to drive down prices is also encouraged. The Government Commercial Function (GCF) is a cross-government network comprising some 4,000 civil servants procuring (or supporting the procurement of) goods and services.  Activities are coordinated by the Government’s Chief Commercial Officer (CCO). The GCF sets commercial standards for Government, ensuring ‘effective and consistent commercial delivery, and to drive continuous improvement of that commercial capability’. The standards cover workforce/resources, planning, identifying a senior officer to oversee the process, early analysis of options, maximising competition, contracting, contract management and supplier relationships.

In this policy context the focus of public procurement is on driving competitiveness and innovation in ways that lead to efficiency in public spending.

The National Audit Office (NAO) estimates that when Carillion collapsed it had 420 contracts with the public sector – while the Local Government Association (LGA) calculated that 20 Local Authorities and 220 schools were directly affected by the collapse. In 2017 Carillion was the sixth largest supplier to the public sector. In June 2018, the East Coast rail service was temporarily renationalised (as LNER) when Virgin and Stagecoach could no longer meet payments as part of their £3.3 billion contract with the Government. In September 2018 Grant Thornton published its audit report following the identification of a significant fraud committed by a former member of staff at Regional Enterprise Ltd, a company set up by a Local Authority and Capita.

These instances remind us that when public sector organisations let contracts or set up arm’s length companies it does not dissolve them of responsibility – they do not outsource the risk. Indeed, if the supplier is unable to deliver the contract the risk goes back to the public sector organisation responsible for ensuring the service is delivered. This means public sector bodies need systems in place to track and manage performance under the contract to avoid such situations from emerging – or to mitigate them should they arise.

These instances remind us that procurement is often a document based exercise – with those who procure services not necessarily involved in the services that are being used or sought. On the one hand, there is no formal training required for people assessing bids. On the other hand, if the process is solely overseen by people who specialise in procurement they may not understand, in practical delivery terms, what is needed? This underlines, therefore, the importance of involving different departments, teams, service areas, officers and elected members in the procurement process. This also underlines the importance of understanding supply chains (and the behaviours of large, medium and smaller suppliers up and down the chain).

The use of online procurement portals for organisations to express an interest in bidding, download documents, submit documents, ask questions and/or be notified of the outcome can also lead to the exclusion of some potential suppliers – particularly in a rural context with a higher number of small and medium sized enterprises and poor broadband coverage in some areas. 

Overall, there are some trade-offs emerging here: should you disaggregate a larger contract into smaller contracts? Who should be involved in procurement within the public body and at which steps of the process? Should a public body procure on cost and how/where does quality fit?

If public bodies were to use procurement for rural good, what might this look like? The challenges of providing public services in rural areas are well-rehearsed among RSN members: rural areas receive some 49.2% (£123) per head in Settlement Funding Assessment grant less than their urban counterparts;  yet rural residents pay approximately 20.17% (£91) per head more in Council Tax even though they earn less than their urban counterparts and receive fewer services.  While procurement cannot overcome some of these central decisions about local government funding; for me there are four steps that could be incorporated into the process to more fully recognise rural circumstances. Firstly, choice: developing procurement mechanisms that fit the needs and desires of rural localities (sparsity) – acknowledging that there may be fewer providers wanting or able to deliver in rural areas. Secondly, design: there is a long standing tradition of rural communities taking action to provide a wide range of services that in urban areas would be provided by the market or by the state. The procurement process should seek to involve rural residents in the process (what are their perspectives and preferences)? This also means recognising market failure and identifying alternative models which fit rural circumstances. If the procurement process is often influenced by the type of service to be offered and the level of resource available (cost) in a rural context it means thinking through different and innovative options. Thirdly, delivery: this means having robust processes and monitoring in place to measure the impact and effects (including ‘rural proofing’). Fourthly, assessment: is the intervention that has been procured any good (what is working well and what is working less well in rural areas) and if the service isn’t benefitting rural communities what can be done to improve the offer?   

Where next for procurement? In June 2018 the Government announced changes to extend the scope of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. Designed to rebuild trust after the collapse of Carillion, the package of measures proposed are designed to reform public sector outsourcing so that central Government bodies must not only consider social value when procuring public service contracts – but that they must specifically evaluate social value. Other proposals include: challenging suppliers to publish data and action plans on equality and diversity; requiring suppliers to develop ‘living wills’ setting out contingency plans should the business fail; improving the training given to Government purchasers and implementing enhanced measures to protect suppliers from cyber-attacks.

The real debate needed now is not whether outsourcing or insourcing is good or bad, but about which services, goods and works should be kept in-house and which should be external?  Above all, how can the procurement process help us deliver locally responsive services that fit rural circumstances – and in ways that balance cost, efficiency, quality and outcomes?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Rural communities and nature

How can we make ‘more space’ for rural communities to connect with nature?

The second State of Nature Report, published back in September 2016 by more than fifty nature conservation organisations, provides an overview of how nature is faring the UK. In the long term (1970-2013) 56% of the nearly 4,000 species studied had declined and 13% of the nearly 8,000 species assessed were found to be at risk of extinction. Changes in the way we manage land was found to be having the greatest impact on species. In the foreword Sir David Attenborough described how “our wonderful nature is in serious trouble and it needs our help as never before…if conservations, governments, businesses and individuals all pull together, we can provide a brighter future for nature and people.” With the UK viewed by some as ‘nature depleted’ what is being done to (or might be done) to help nature – and what might this mean for rural communities? I offer three points.

Firstly, how does Government (through its policies and public investment) seek to secure the future of nature?

In ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’, Government sets out what it will do to improve the environment, within a generation. This 25 Year Environment Plan, published in January 2018, contains proposals to deliver a Green Brexit in restoring nature and focuses on six key areas for action (i.e., air, water, plants & wildlife, environmental hazards, resource sustainability and the natural environment). It also lists 4 ways of managing pressures on the environment: by adapting to climate change, minimising waste, managing exposure to chemicals, and enhancing biosecurity.

There are a number of policies underpinning the Plan – from improving how Government manages and incentivises land management (farming) through to clean seas (sustainable fisheries) and resource efficiency (food waste, litter). Chapter 2 of the Plan, for example, focuses on how to ‘protect and recover nature’. Here proposals include publishing a strategy for nature, developing a Nature Recovering Network, the reintroduction of native species and reviewing National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The emphasis in chapter 3 is on connecting people with the environment to improve health and wellbeing. Here proposals include the development of environmental therapies, encouraging children to be close to nature in and outside of school, creating greener infrastructure and making 2019 the ‘Year of Green Action.’

This Environment Plan sits alongside the Government’s Industrial Strategy – which considers how productivity can be increased through the environment; and the Clean Growth Strategy which seeks to mitigate climate change and deliver green growth.

The Natural Capital Committee (NCC) is an independent advisory committee established by Government to advice on the sustainable use of natural capital. Its current remit includes helping the Government with the 25 Year Environment Plan. The Committee’s latest annual report, sets out its work in 2017 with particular emphasis on working closely with Government’s four natural capital pioneer test beds; supporting the development of national natural capital accounts (and incorporating this into public sector appraisal guidance such as the Green Book); and developing other tools to assist the measurement of natural capital and how it is changing over time.

In March 2018 the Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 published the findings of its inquiry into whether the NERC Act is fit for purpose. Titled ‘the countryside at a crossroads’, the document traces the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities which was tasked with speaking up on behalf of rural communities in raising questions over the extent to which Government decisions are taking account of rural circumstances and needs? The document also describes how the other body created by the Act, Natural England, has been subject to funding reductions leading to concerns over its ability to fulfil its wide ranging remit: how does Natural England balance its statutory, advisory and chargeable activities? Where will the management and maintenance funding for the National Trails network come from? The document cites the ongoing loss of biodiversity since 2006, Government proposals to create a new environmental body to hold it to account following Brexit and the role of natural capital in altering the way we understand, approach and seek to manage nature. The Committee’s overall vision is for “balanced protection and promotion of the natural environment and a reversal of the biodiversity decline. This must be coupled with better recognition of the potential of rural communities and the rural economy, and a greater effort from the Government to ensure that policy changes do not work to the detriment of rural areas.”

Between 27 February and 6 May 2018 Defra ran a consultation on the future of agricultural policy in England. This 64 page document sets out the Government’s ambition for a ‘reformed agricultural and land management policy to deliver a better and richer environment in England.’ The document reiterates the Government’s commitment to payment for the delivery of public goods alongside a new environmental land management system underpinned by natural capital principles “so that the benefits the natural environment provides for people and wildlife are properly valued and used to inform decisions on future land management. The new system aims to deliver benefits such as improved air, water and soil quality; increased biodiversity; climate change mitigation and adaptation; and cultural benefits that improve our mental and physical well-being” (page 8). On 1 May 2018 The Wildlife Trusts published a report ‘towards a wilder Britain – creating a Nature Recovery Network’. This document identifies a need to map important places for wildlife which need to be protected as well as key areas where habitats should be restored. With an ambition to ‘bring back wildlife to every neighbourhood’, the report calls for Nature Recovery Maps to be the foundation of future farming and planning policies.

For me these documents draw attention to six main themes: (1) the need for data and metrics – to define, measure and understand the current – and future – state of nature and the environment. (2) What should we try to protect? Should the approach be about the (sustainable) use of nature, preserving ‘pristine nature’, somewhere in between or something else? (3) Debates around valuing nature: should and/or how do we put a monetary value on nature and the environment? Does putting a monetary value on the natural world help or hinder us in seeking to protect it? (4) Governance –what institutions do we have or need to deliver a greener future? (5) The natural environment follows physical rather than administrative boundaries – how will the post Brexit approach be developed in England? And how will this align to policies being developed in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and further afield? (6) The need to balance strategic visions, ambitions and long term goals with practical delivery on-the-ground.

Policy discussions around nature and the environment all too often focus on how nature is under threat or subject to loss. Funding is then subsequently targeted on designated areas, sensitive areas and the most degraded sites. This can leave people feeling disconnected or having no association with the place and landscape in which they live. How can we address this focus with fulfilling the potential of rural communities? How can we get more people to care and consider nature and the environment perhaps more than they might do at the moment?

Secondly, what other policy approaches to nature and the environment are there – and what might we learn from these?

It is apparent that an occupation with protected area status and meeting policy commitments often leads other approaches to be overlooked. While usually associated with urban areas – as a response to provide spaces where people can reconnect with nature – ‘regional parks’ are one example of how nature can be brought back into neighbourhoods at a local level.

A regional park is a special area of land which can cover a single or several administrative boundaries. In Scotland, for example, the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, section 48A, defines regional parks as “large areas of countryside, parts of which are available for informal countryside recreation.” Currently Scotland has three regional parks: Clyde Muirshiel, Lomond Hills and Pentland Hills. In France, a parc naturel régional or PNRs cover ‘an inhabited rural area that is nationally recognised for its valuable local heritage and landscape, but also for its fragility. Such parks lean on extensive sustainable development plans allowing the protection and promotion of their resources.’ There are 40+ regional parks across France, covering some 13% of its total land mass. Lithuania has 30 regional parks, all established in 1992 but which can be traced back to the Nature Conservation Law in 1959. In New Zealand there are 31 regional parks, all administered by regional councils (the top tier of local government).

There is renewed interest in regional parks in a rural context. In June 2017, for example, the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NAAONB) joined representatives from 20 European states in signing a ‘regional nature parks – working for Europe’ declaration. The declaration calls on European states to make greater use of the regional nature park family: “Europe’s rural areas provide the life support system of our continent. They are the locus of the management and nature conservation of our natural resources…It is clear that the long-term viability of rural areas needs an integrated, visionary approach. Europe’s regional nature parks make a significant contribution to the sustainable development of rural areas…Having strong parks means having strong rural areas” (page 2). The declaration focuses principally on three policy areas: (i) sustainable agriculture, (ii) nature conservation and landscape protection, and (iii) connecting citizens to their region.

The Association of German Nature Parks (Verband Deutscher Naturparke, VDN) project ‘Europe’s Nature, Regional, and Landscape Parks’ from October 2014 to July 2017, revealed how Regional Nature Parks were created throughout Europe from the 1950s against a backdrop of industrialisation, intensification of land use and some of the negative effects of this on people, nature, landscapes and species. Since their inception, the focus has been on the sustainable development of rural areas and the benefits this brings for people and nature. Their work explores the development of regional nature parks (overall and in individual European States) and looks at their future development (as innovative and dynamic regions). Regional nature parks are viewed as “lovely places where people want to live…They are Living Landscapes.” The 24 May 2018 is the European Day of Parks and the EUROPARC annual conference in September is being held in the Cairngorms National Park.

There is no one size fits all model for regional parks, rather a variety of models have been used to establish and manage them. And whilst their geographical size and scale may be smaller compared to some protected landscapes, and there is not always a national policy driver for their establishment or development, they clearly contribute to community wellbeing as well as environment sustainability and economic growth.

Thirdly, what examples are there in England of bringing communities together around rural places to renew and promote their relationships with landscapes?

While there are no regional parks in England currently, Pennine Prospects has facilitated conversations regarding a proposed South Pennines Regional Park – and what this would mean for the area and its communities. This builds upon a track record of delivery which sees the regeneration company promoting, protecting and enhancing the heritage and environment of the South Pennines by working with and for local communities and businesses.

‘Our Common Cause: Our Upland Commons Enabling vulnerable communities to enhance iconic places’ is a Heritage Lottery Funded development project that is aiming to improve outcomes, trial practical conservation and increase people’s enjoyment and understanding of commons on Dartmoor, the Shropshire Hills, Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. Convened by the Foundation for Common Land, with the National Trust acting as the accountable body, project partners include: Dartmoor, Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District National Parks, Shropshire Hills AONB, Cumbria, Devon, Shropshire and Yorkshire Wildlife Trusts. NFU, Natural England, RSPB, South West Water, Duchy of Cornwall, Moorland Association, National Sheep Association and the Open Spaces Society.

While much policy attention has been on developing schemes to generate more green space in England’s towns and cities; there are examples of rural communities (working in partnership with others) to create green spaces in the countryside: from planning ( incorporating green spaces into neighbourhood planning or designating Local Green Spaces in Local Plans) to projects that seek to make amenity land accessible to the local community.

Much of this work and the approaches emerging here chime with The Policy Statement from the 11th OECD Rural Development Conference held in Edinburgh in April 2018 and Rural Policy 3.0’ takes a ‘place-based view of rural development in considering the different conditions and needs of communities depending on their geographies…and their local specific assets, such as “natural capital”.’

If we are to take a place based approach where people feel connected to nature; what happens needs to be from the bottom up: by this I mean based on local desires, visions, values and ideas – which should not sanitise the environment nor attract the ‘usual suspects. ‘What happens needs to involve local communities developing a plan – perhaps taking practice from elsewhere but using this to fit local circumstances. What happens needs to lead to practical delivery on the ground – actions that deliver what members of the local community want so they can see things happening and continue their support. And what happens needs to take account of the bigger policy picture but not be determined by it: no matter how clunky this policy context might seem local communities should seek to use their voice for people and the environment (what strategic conversations do you need to have to be able to fully deliver your action plan?)

Where next?

On the one hand there are concerns amid Brexit that there will be a policy vacuum, with further reductions in public funding, resources and expertise leading to further nature depletion. On the other hand, there are opportunities to develop new and more collaborative ways of working and to rethink rural communities relationships with nature and the environment. What existing or new priorities should Defra, its devolved agencies and other Government departments champion to support rural communities? How or where are rural communities fitting in shaping these priorities going forward? And what more can be done to support rural communities who want to have a greater role in understanding, managing and appreciating nature?

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; supporting a community group to develop a new approach to delivering services; and evaluating two projects providing a range of help to past members of the armed forces. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Suicide Prevention in Rural Areas

What more can be done to prevent suicide in rural areas?

In March 2017 the House of Commons Health Committee published its final report to accompany its suicide prevention inquiry. While the report recognises the Government’s focus on suicide prevention and mental health, clear messages also emerged around the preventability of suicide; how the current rate of suicide is unacceptable; and how the current rate is likely to under-represent the true scale of this loss of life. What more is and can be done to reach out to people who are at risk in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.  

For many people suicide is hard to broach, cloaked in silence and difficult to understand or make sense of. There’s no easy way wither or writing about it. While perceptions and attitudes towards mental illness are gradually changing suicide all too often remains taboo. What is the scale of this avoidable loss of life, how can we reach people at risk of suicide (and support their family, friends and communities) and do rural areas present particular challenges or opportunities for suicide prevention? I offer three points.

Firstly, what is the scale of this loss of life? In December 2017 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its latest statistical bulletin on suicides in the UK. This records registered deaths from suicide by age, sex, area of usual residence and method. In the UK, in 2016, 5,962 suicides were registered – three-quarters of suicides were amongst men, in persons aged 40-44 years of age (with this age group having a suicide rate of 15.3% per 100,000 population) and the most common method hanging. The bulletin highlights a 3.6% reduction in registered suicides between 2015 and 2016; with registrations in England falling a significant amount, Wales and Northern Ireland falling slightly and Scotland increasing by a small amount. According to Emyr John at ONS “the fall in suicide rates from 2015 to 2016 is the largest decrease in 20 years. It fell for both males and females in the UK…It’s interesting to note that between 1981 and 2016, the male suicide rate among the 75 and over group has more than halved.”

It is thought these figures under-represent the true loss of life because of the ‘standard of proof’ required to register suicide. Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 places a duty on a coroner to investigate a death where they are made aware that the body is within that coroner’s area and they have reason to suspect that the deceased died a violent or unnatural death; that the cause of the death is unknown; and/or the deceased died while in custody or state detention. Where an inquest is held the outcome are known as ‘conclusions’ and may be short form or narrative and include one or more of the following type: accident or misadventure, alcohol/drug related, industrial disease, lawful/unlawful killing, natural causes, open, road traffic collision, stillbirth or suicide. From these conclusion types the standard of proof required for unlawful killing and suicide is the criminal standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ For all other types of conclusion the standard of proof is the civil standard of proof ‘on the balance of probabilities.’

The standard of proof has raised debates around whether coroners are reluctant to reach a verdict of suicide and/or whether the current arrangements mask the true number of suicides. Analysis from Bournemouth University, for example, suggested if coroners used the civil standard of proof (rather than criminal proof) there would be a 30-50% increase in recorded suicides. Professor Colin Pritchard, who led the study, describes how “when a death occurs, coroners have to decide whether the death was suicide – which could be hurtful to the family – or whether it was an accident or give an open verdict because they could not decide which. It is then categorised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) stats as an Undetermined Death (UnD) and it is amongst UnD that under-reported suicides are more likely…the UK had a disproportionately higher UnD in every age band than any other country.” In its final report the Health Committee noted its disappointment that in the third progress report on the suicide prevention strategy no reference made to changing the standard of proof.

In addition to overall figures we do know that some groups more at risk than others. Maternal suicide, for example, is the third largest cause of direct maternal deaths occurring during or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy. However, it remains the leading cause of direct deaths occurring during pregnancy or up to a year after the end of pregnancy, with 1 in 7 women who die in the period between 6 weeks and one year after pregnancy dying from suicide. Figures compiled by the Ministry of Justice show 119 people killed themselves in prisons in England and Wales in 2016 – an increase of 29 people (32%) on the previous year. In 2017 the Samaritans published a report setting out why socioeconomic disadvantage is a key risk factor for suicidal behaviour – revealing suicide rates to be two to three times higher in the most deprived neighbourhoods compared to the most affluent. In 2017 ONS published data on suicides by occupation – this revealed males in the lowest-skilled occupations had a 44% higher risk of suicide than men as a whole (with the risk among labourers three times higher) and for women the risk of suicide was found to be 24% higher among professionals. Male and female carers both had a higher risk of suicide than average.

In England, it is difficult to get statistics differentiating those at risk from suicide living in rural areas compared to that of urban areas. In March 2017 the Local Government Association (LGA) and Public Health England (PHE) published a report on health and wellbeing in rural areas. This described how the risk of suicide and undetermined injury may be higher in farming communities due to various factors related to isolation and ease of access to the means of suicide such as guns and poisons. The map on page 32 of the report shows higher suicide rates in areas that are rural and sparsely populated; although some deprived urban areas also have higher than average rates. PHE also publishes a Suicide Prevention Profile – this provides publically available data on suicide, risk factors and service contact by Local Authority or Clinical Commissioning Group geography. In January 2018 ONS provided raw data on farmer suicides in England and Wales between 2000 and 2017.

In other countries more data is available on the scale of the loss of life in rural areas. In the United States, for example, data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found rural counties consistently had higher suicide rates than metropolitan counties. Between 2001 and 2015 suicide rates for rural counties was 17.32% per 100,000 people compared to 11.92% in large metropolitan counties. Over the same period the suicide rate increased by more than 20%. States with the highest suicide rates include Alaska, Montana and Wyoming and those with the lowest rates New Jersey and New York. The University of Washington found people who die by suicide are frequently experiencing undiagnosed, undertreated or untreated depression. Research from Mental Health America suggests the availability of treatment may be an issue in rural states – with Alabama having one mental health worker for every 1,200 people compared to one health worker per 420 people in New York. Studies have also shown that rural dwellers have more guns than their urban counterparts – with 51% keeping a gun at home in rural areas compared to 25% in urban areas. 86% of suicide attempts using guns end in death, compared to just 2% of attempts using drugs.

Suicide can affect anyone and while we should not concentrate on the numbers, having timely and accurate data – particularly for rural areas – could enable us to respond more quickly (which initiatives are working well and less well? Where are the gaps?)

Secondly, what is Government doing to reduce deaths by suicide?

In September 2012 the Coalition Government published ‘preventing suicide in England: a cross-departmental outcomes strategy to save lives.’ This sought to reduce the suicide rate in the general population and provide better support for those bereaved or affected by suicide. It contained six areas for action: (1) reduce the risk of suicide in key high-risk groups, (2) tailor approaches to improve mental health in specific groups, (3) reduce access to the means of suicide, (4) provide better information and support to those bereaved or affected by suicide, (5) support the media in delivering sensitive approaches to suicide and suicidal behaviour and (6) support research, data collection and monitoring. Since then, three strategy updates have been provided: in 2014 (which included a focus on what local areas could do to reduce suicide), in 2015 (which highlighted an increase in self-inflicted deaths of prisoners and increases in suicides among young people); and in 2017 (which follows the Health Committee’s inquiry and sets out how the Government intends to strengthen its response). Suicide prevention strategies are also published in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health, issued in February 2016 by the Independent Mental Health Taskforce, set out a number of objectives for the whole health system in England on suicide prevention. This includes a commitment to reducing the number of people taking their own lives by 10% by 2020-2021 compared to 2016-2017 levels and improving the seven day crisis response service across the NHS. In July 2016 an implementation plan was published. This lays out a blueprint for the view’s delivery over the coming years to 2020-2021. Under suicide prevention this includes a commitment for all Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to work with local partners to develop and deliver suicide prevention plans. These local plans are intended to focus on evidence-based preventative interventions that target high-risk locations and high-risk groups in ways that draw upon localised real time data. Government has committed £25 million to help CCGs and their partners implement their activities and actions from 2018-2019.

Since 2012 with the establishment of Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWB) Local Authorities have been responsible for developing local suicide action plans. According to the Local Government Association (LGA), by the end of 2016 95% of areas had plans in place or were in the process of drawing them up. The LGA produced a suicide prevention guide for Councils – this includes a set of good practice case studies from Lincolnshire, Cheshire and Merseyside, Warwickshire and Torbay.

The task of Local Authorities now, and the Government’s ask, is to take practical steps to reduce suicides.

 

In a health context, an approach known as ‘zero suicide’ has emerged. The concept can be traced back to Detroit which in 2001 became the first place to adopt the idea of becoming a ‘zero suicide city.’ Poverty and high unemployment were contributing to high rates of depression and high rates of suicide. Here mental health professionals began to focus on preventative care – tackling the stigma around mental illness and using identifiers to highlight cases of crisis or potential crisis. Patients attending health clinics are now routinely screened for depression and mental health issues and those identified as being ‘at risk’ can be referred to a mental health specialist. A central recording system means patients are traceable and information coordinated among health and non-medical practitioners. By 2005 the suicide rate among the patient population had fallen by 75% and by 2008 had been eliminated altogether.

In the UK, learning from the United States has informed four zero suicide pilot initiatives covering the East of England (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough), Merseyside and the South West (e.g. Somerset, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire). In November 2017, the Zero Suicide Alliance was launched at the House of Commons; a collaboration of NHS Trusts, businesses, organisations and individuals committed to suicide prevention, it aims to raise awareness of and promote free suicide prevention training which is accessible to all. In January 2018 the Secretary of State for Health and Care, Jeremy Hunt, outlined plans for mental health trusts to draw up detailed plans to achieve zero suicides, starting with those in inpatient settings. It is intended organisations will learn from the pilot schemes – improving suicide risk assessment, improving staff training and improving access to crisis care around the clock.

The zero suicide approach is underpinned by the belief that suicide is preventable and that it is not inevitable for people in crisis. However, the Health Committee in its inquiry flagged that though Local Authorities have suicide prevention plans there is currently little or no information about the quality of plans – and the assurance process to monitor their implementation currently lacking. Where the resources to deliver will actually come from (and whether the £25 million allocated by Government in 2018-2019 is enough) have also been highlighted.

Thirdly, what can we do in rural areas to reach out to people who may be at risk?

The Health Committee’s inquiry recommended that to reach out to those in distress we need to offer non-traditional routes to help people who are unlikely to access mainstream services. If early intervention is important, and supporting people in non-clinical settings is important (including people who are not in contact with any health services), what does this look like in a rural setting?

Back in 2016, NHS Health Scotland published a planning tool and a guide to suicide prevention in rural areas. While no single pattern emerges in rural areas these documents highlight particular risk factors in rural areas (e.g. isolation, declining incomes, the stigma associated with mental health, culture of self-reliance, poor service provision, availability of lethal means and occupational groups such as farmers, vets and doctors); an approach to reviewing [rural proofing] interventions within a suicide prevention strategy; and focussing on what is missing from current interventions.

At a national level charities such as ‘MIND’ – which seeks to address the challenges and stigma faced by those living in rural communities as part of its core activities – through to Farming Help (which runs a helpline and provides other support services for the farming community) provide support. At a more local level there are a plethora of examples of good practice. There are groups that provide mutual support and advocacy – HUG represents the interests of users of mental health services across the Highlands of Scotland and ‘You Are Not Alone’ (YANA) provides a confidential helpline for those feeling isolated, depressed or unable to cope. In some rural areas mental health services are provided using custom-built vehicles (e.g. Doris, the Vale of Clwyd Mind’s mobile outreach vehicle); and/or or using existing community venues (e.g. nurse and farmer health checks at auction mart; and Reading Well). Some Rural Community Councils (RCCs) provide Suicide Awareness Training for frontline workers in areas such as care, family support, housing, children’s centres schools, police, social workers, diocese, probation and youth offending, foster carers, job centres and the general public – for example: Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland,

In the United States, the Suicide Prevention Research Centre recommends educating primary health and care providers on how to assess and manage suicide risk (including reducing access to lethal means among vulnerable individuals) and using telepsychiatry and mobile crisis teams to support individuals at risk. The Rural Heath Information Hub holds a repository of suicide prevention rural project examples. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust has a suicide prevention, intervention and postvention award category – with fellows funded in 2014 and 2018 spending time in the United States and Canada where extensive amounts of work in the field have already been done and support structures have been put in place.

For some of us, sharing our personal experiences of bereavement or suicidal crisis takes enormous courage. Suicide leaves families, friends and communities distraught. Many people find it difficult to talk about suicide and it is difficult to write about. But rather than walking away I believe we need to talk about suicide and suicide prevention in ways that help those that are suffering and those that so desperately want to help them.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

If you are concerned about someone who may be suicidal or are at risk yourself the following helplines are available 24 hours a day unless otherwise stated: Samaritans 116 123; Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) for men 5pm to midnight 0800 585858; Papyrus for people under 35 weekdays 10.00am-10.00pm weekends 2.00pm-10.00pm 0800 0684141 or text 07786 209697; Childline for young people under 19 0800 1111 the number won’t show up on your phone bill; or the Silver Line for older people 0800 4708090. If you have lost a loved one support is available from Cruse 0808 8081677.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce issues and a project looking to deliver higher level technical education and skills in rural areas. In her spare time Jessica volunteers for a farming charity which aims to prevent things from getting to the desperate stage. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/

Island Communities in the UK

A (renewed) policy focus on island communities in the UK…?

While islands are areas of land surrounded by water, many are little more than barren rock with few plants on them and others are amongst the most crowded places on Earth. The largest British island is Great Britain which is the ninth-largest and third most populated island in the world. There are also some 32 islands in England (with the Isle of Wight being the largest); more than 790 islands in Scotland (with Lewis and Harris the largest in the British Isles after the British and Irish mainlands); 11 islands in Wales (with Anglesey the biggest); and 7 islands in Northern Ireland. What are the needs and aspirations of island communities and how can we ensure these are recognised by policy and decision makers? Jessica Sellick investigates.

On 12 July 2017 the first ever meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for UK islands was held. Chaired by Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely, the group comprises officers from Ynys Mon, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and Orkney & Shetland; with other members drawn from constituencies including Worthing, Hyndburn, Hayling Island, Glasgow, Argyll & Bute, St Ives (includes the Isles of Scilly) and Berwick-upon-Tweed (including Lindisfame). Mr Seely explained the purpose of the APPG is “…to promote the needs of island communities within Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and in particular to support the economic and social wellbeing of island residents. Top of the agenda was a discussion on finding ways of making the case, as islands, for the provision of high-quality, accessible public services and affordable transport provision to and from these islands, plus the right infrastructure investment. This group will pool islands’ political resources to lobby government for a better deal for our communities. It means we have a much bigger voice at Westminster and it is part of my plan to go into battle for the Island to make sure government listens and does not overlook us.”

On 20 July 2017 a House of Lords debate took place on the transport needs of remote island communities. This briefing, prepared in advance of the debate, provides an overview of transport policies and schemes in England (particularly the Isle of Wight, Isles of Scilly, Holy Island/Lindisfame, Lundy and the Farne Islands) and other areas of the UK. For me, the debate itself provided three new insights. Firstly, the transport issues facing islanders (particularly the Isle of Scilly) in getting to and from the mainland (e.g. access, seasonality, cost, sole operators/monopolies, market failure and service improvement). Secondly, discussions around whether island communities are discriminated against by policy and decision makers because they are “offshore”; with frequent comparisons drawn to Scotland where examples were given to demonstrate the care taken to make sure all island communities are not prejudiced in their access to services and travel to the mainland (e.g. frequency of transport services, their cost and all-year round availability). Thirdly, calls on Government to not only invest in transport for island communities but also to ensure that islanders’ voices are heard – with Lord Bradshaw querying how “the Minister has to ask himself and his Government whether they really value the islands”. Other points were raised around funding/the Barnett Formula, rural deprivation and isolation and the need for rural proofing.

With renewed interest in UK islands, what studies, policies and practice already exists and how can this inform (future) Government thinking? I offer three points.

Firstly, how have academics thought about islands? ‘Island studies’ has emerged as part of attempts by academics to study islands ‘on their own terms’. This can be traced back to the establishment of the International Small Island Studies Association (ISISA) in 1992, and to the creation of the Island Studies Journal (ISJ) by the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada in 2003 – becoming the official journal of the ISISA in 2012 and part of RETI: The Network of Island Universities in 2013. These were all set up to encourage scholarly [and wider] discussion and debates on island matters including (but not limited to) ‘islandness’, smallness, insularity, dependency, resource management, the environment and community life. Back in 2015 the RETI annual conference and summer school were held at the University of the Highlands and Islands in Orkney. The conference included a dedicated session on “the northern isles” with contributions on Orkney as a gateway to northern Europe, the migration and employment decisions of islanders, Shetland’s cultural and natural heritage and the Orkney model of economic development.

Much academic work has concentrated on the spatial distribution and types of islands – continental versus oceanic, small versus those that are not small, tropical versus temperate, urbanised versus wild. Some studies have explored island life – drawing out differences between living, visiting and/or working on islands alongside the impact of globalisation. The transition made here is from seeing islands as ‘physical spaces’ to seeing islands as ‘living places’. This has been accompanied by a shift from an original focus on individual islands (pre 1980s) to the general study of islands and island communities (post 1980s). This has led to a series of debates around: (i) when does an island become an indistinguishable part of the mainland (e.g. Manhattan Island in New York); (ii) ownership and exploration rights – with the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland all seeking at various points to claim interests on Rockall Bank; (iii) how communities based on islands are subject to particular island-related factors (the ‘island effect’) – with this study comparing the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight; and the University of Aberdeen conducting research into how demographic processes shape social and economic change within different island communities in Scotland. More recently academics have sought to consider islands in the context of place – and their role as a vehicle for cost cutting, prevention and asset-based community development. While islands used to be perceived as isolated laboratories for academic study, today islands and islanders are seen to offer important insights into themes as diverse as sustainable development, innovation, local action (resilience) and livelihoods. How can we gather data and evidence about islands and island communities from across the UK to develop a UK research agenda on island communities? How can we ensure this helps us ‘make the case’ to Government for investing in islands?

Secondly, how have policy-makers thought about UK islands? The UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Assembly have, at various points, recognised the unique circumstances and potential of islands.

In England, this has most recently been seen through the formation of the new APPG, and through initiatives such as a £10 million transport package to improve sea links between Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, upgrade roads on the islands and carry out port repairs; and a £250,000 grant to the Isle of Wight Council to develop a range of projects (e.g. locality hubs, co-location of public services) as part of Government’s One Public Estate (OPE) programme.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to island communities includes the publication of ‘empowering Scotland’s island communities’ by the Island Areas Ministerial Working Group and the appointment of an Island Minister (both in 2014). Since August 2016, Scotland has had an ‘Islands Strategic Group’, to consider issues affecting inhabited island communities and to ensure greater Council involvement in helping to find solutions. Also in August 2016, the UK Government and three Scottish Island Councils (Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles) launched an Islands Framework – including a 10 point plan – for joint working. More recently, in June 2017, the Scottish Government introduced an Islands (Scotland) Bill. Measures contained in the Bill include a requirement to ‘island proof’ future legislating and policies, the creation of a National Islands Plan, greater flexibility around Councillor representation within island communities and extended powers to island councils regarding marine licencing. Islands Minister Humza Yousaf described how “…this government is committed to promoting islands’ voices, to harnessing islands’ resources and enhancing their well-being. The measures in this bill underpin this ambition. In particular, the provision to ‘island-proof’ decision-making across the public sector will ensure the interests of islanders are reflected in future legislation and policy from the very outset. The National Islands Plan will set out the strategic direction for supporting island communities, continuing the momentum generated by the Our Islands, Our Future campaign and the work of the islands strategic group. This is the first ever bill for Scotland’s islands, marking an historic milestone for our island communities.”

The Scottish Government already provides additional funding for local councils with island communities through uplift in their needs-based share of Grant Aided Expenditure (which takes into account characteristics such as remoteness, dispersed populations) and through a Special Islands Needs Allowance (SINA) which recognises the increased cost of delivering services to island communities.

The Scottish Government also takes a sub-national approach to economic development which benefits islands. Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), which can be traced all the way back to the Highlands and Islands Development Board set up in 1965, is a Government agency leading regional growth and development activities across the highlands and islands. HIE works with a range of partners in areas such as economic development, housing, culture, education, transport and digital connectivity; aligning these activities to the Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy.

In Wales, the Isle of Anglesey Council and Welsh Government have started the Anglesey Energy Island™ Programme which aims to create a prosperous economy based around energy projects. In January 2017, Welsh and Irish Governments announced the CHERISH project (climate, heritage and environments of reefs, islands and headlands). With €4 million of EU funds, the project is supporting organisations in both countries to employ cutting-edge technology to analyse island archaeology and heritage sites which are most affected by climate change, coastal erosion and rising sea levels.

With renewed interest from politicians and policy-makers, particularly in England and Scotland, how can we ensure island communities, their needs and aspirations, are recognised in Government activity and legislation across the UK? For example: by island proofing, having a UK islands framework, a new funding formulae, linking to other policy agendas such as devolution and/or by integrating economic and social interventions rather than being silo based?

Thirdly, and finally, how and why are some island communities taking on more responsibility for services and activities and what can we learn from their practice? There are examples where communities have addressed issues (including gaps in services) in ways that generate economic, social and environmental benefits. For example, in June 1997 the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust took ownership of the Isle of Eigg. After years of instability, neglect and lack of secure tenure, the Trust was able to purchase the island with Highland Council and the Scottish Wildlife Trust, raising some £1.5 million to do so. The Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered Scottish charity. Since the community buyout a strategic plan has been developed, and a range of actions undertaken to make Eigg an attractive place to live, work and visit. Today the Trust has three subsidiary companies owning and managing An Laimhrig (the island’s shop, post office, tearoom, craft shop, Trust office and toilet/shower facilities), the island’s electricity grid (Eigg Electric), and renovating the Trust’s properties (Eigg Construction Ltd). Residents on Eigg, Muck, Rum and Canna have drawn on the Nuka model developed by Alaska’s indigenous people to develop a health and wellbeing centre and train four health and social care support workers based in the local communities to deliver health care to people in the Small Isles. Residents on the Isle of Wight, supported by the Council, launched a campaign ‘fight for the Wight’, a petition targeted at central Government to call for increased funding for the island.

These examples highlight the importance of local people being in the lead in finding creative solutions to address local issues; as well as recognising the importance of the support they often receive from Local Authorities, statutory bodies, charities, voluntary and community sector organisations and others. There are many more examples of island community involvement in renewable energy schemes (wind, marine), transport, infrastructure, tourism, enterprise and growth. How can we collect and share this practice – what can be transferred and scaled up to support other UK islanders devise their own projects and initiatives when faced with similar issues? What doesn’t work in an island context and why is this?

With the APPG for UK islands currently working with the House of Commons Library to scope out research and further work, and the Islands (Scotland) Bill making its way through parliament, new opportunities are emerging for island communities to have a bigger say in public policy, will this help us find new ways of making the case? Watch this space…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce recruitment and retention issues and supporting a community rail partnership. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

 

Commercialisation of government services

The commercialisation of (rural) government services…?

The money that Government spends on public goods and services can be broken down and understood in different ways: from total managed expenditure (TME) to departmental expenditure limits (DEL); and from annually managed expenditure (AME) to resource spending and capital spending. Collectively, total spending, at all levels of Government in the UK is estimated to be £784 billion in 2017. Local Authorities are expected to spend about £173 billion– with the largest expenditure on welfare (£55 billion) followed by education (£47 billion), community protection (£15 billion) and transport (£9 billion). While this sounds a lot of money, the Local Government Association (LGA) estimates that by 2020 Local Authorities will have lost 75p out of every £1.00 of core central Government funding that they had to spend in 2015; leading to an overall funding gap of £5.8 billion. What lies within these figures, then, is the reduction of state funding for local and central Government services and changes to how we think about ‘investing’ in local communities (including calls for local areas to be given control over their own finances and growing their local economies). What does this changing state funding mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Back in July 2011, Government published its Open Public Services White Paper. This was concerned with giving people more control over the public services they received and opening up the delivery of those services to new providers. The centralised model of public service delivery was seen as costly and no longer capable of meeting the challenge of delivering personalised, joined up services that the public expected and needed. Here Government was seeking to create “a more innovative, diverse and dynamic landscape of public services.” Competition was seen as a means of delivering higher quality services and improving efficiency while maintaining equity. Subsequently, private companies, charities and voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations started managing huge swathes of public services – from schools and health centres, to train lines and prisons.

As part of attempts to respond to the pressures of funding reductions (doing more with less) and/or to radically transform service delivery (find alternative income streams); the concept of ‘commercialisation’ is re-emerging within public policy. What commercial models and practices are being taken up and what might they mean for rural service delivery?

As a concept for delivering public services, commercialisation within central and local Government is not new. It can be traced back to the privatisation of state entities such as British Aerospace in the 1970s, water and sewerage systems in the 1980s, the creation of private finance initiative (PFI) in 1992, the railways from the 1990s, parts of the probation service and all of Royal Mail in 2015. While successive Governments have remained committed to and reaffirmed principles such as privatisation and commerciality across public services; the emphasis now is on building commercial capability within the civil service (and this is accompanied by an array of terms such as resilience, entrepreneurship and risk appetite).

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) is an executive agency of the Cabinet Office. Set up in April 2014, CCS has five strategic objectives: (1) to deliver savings for central Government departments, (2) to undertake services in an efficient manner which meet the needs of customers and lead to increased spend through central deals, (3) to deliver the Government’s objectives on procurement policy, (4) to continue to improve commercial capability and organisational efficiency, and (5) to strengthen operational controls and deliver the financial plan. CCS is responsible for buying around £2.5 billion of goods and services for central Government departments. The agency also manages buying frameworks that help the wider public sector purchase £12.8 billion of goods and services. In December 2016, the National Audit Office (NAO) reviewed the value that CCS has provided since it was established. While the Cabinet Office wanted to increase the CCS’s management of direct buying from £0.5 billion in 2013 to £13.4 billion in 2017-2018 (generating net savings of £3.3 billion), the NAO found there was no consistent information on what departments spend and no agreement about what should be centralised and what should be bought locally. Auditor general Amyas Morse described how “because of this, it is not possible to show that CCS has achieved more than departments would otherwise have achieved by buying common goods and services themselves.”

Alongside the CCS, in 2016 the Government Commercial Function (GCF) was established. Coordinated by Gareth Rhys Williams, then newly appointed as the Government’s Chief Commercial Officer, GCF is part of the Civil Service and Cabinet office. It offers support to Government departments in four main areas: (i) complex transactions, (ii) markets and suppliers intelligence, (iii) commercial assurance, and (iv) developing commercial capability. In his first public interview Rhys Williams said “the principle driver is value for money, of course, but we are also about performance, better results…what we’re less good at is the bit on either side, and unfortunately they’re important bits. So we are not very good in deciding what we want and involving potential vendors in discussing that, and we’re not very good at managing contracts once we’ve procured what we’ve bought…There’s a number of different versions of best and we need to build some dashboards and then see who is improving the fastest and what can everyone else learn from them to improve our rate of improvements. It is like the bicycle team – hundreds of small improvements and we’re going to keep on going. That is the mentality we have here: how many failed procurements do we ever have? How long does that take? How many contracts are delivering all of their key performance indicators? With these sorts of metrics we can start to collect and share good practice.”

In February 2017, the Institute for Government published its analysis of the Government’s commercial reforms. The reforms focus on recruiting commercial specialists, retaining and developing talented staff, sharing information on what works and which suppliers are performing, and deploying the best professionals to areas of high need within departments. The Institute for Government concludes Government is focussing on the right issues, with the potential to succeed, and that most Government commercial activity should be managed by departments to deliver their objectives rather than through a centralised system.

Whether commercialisation is a central function or sits within individual departments, these reforms (and the activities of the CCS and GCF) are intended to put the ‘commercial DNA’ into Government and the wider public sector.

Within Local Authorities, much of the discussion around commercialisation has focused on the buying of offices/buildings for their income yielding capacity and/or making larger economic regeneration investments to grow the business rates base. Councils were given a ‘general power of competence’ (GPC) in the Localism Act 2011. This gives Local Authorities “the power to do anything that individuals generally may do” as long as they don’t break other laws. The Government intended the GPC to encourage Local Authorities to work with others in providing cost-effective services and facilities in innovative ways to meet the needs of local people. In practice, it means Councils can lend or invest money and/or trade.

In 2016, Civica considered how reductions in central Government funding had driven Local Authorities to adopt commercial strategies and alternative income streams as part of attempts to become financially self-sufficient and sustainable. According to the research, commercialisation now plays a significant part in 40% of Local Authorities current strategies. While generating income is not a new concept for Councils, the need to find new commercial avenues at the same time as closing the budget gap and redesigning services is challenging. Civica identified four critical factors for success: (1) having an appetite for risk and attitude to change, (2) having a clear vision and leadership to move towards a more commercialised model, (3) finding the resources and ability to finance and drive forward new initiatives, and (4) that location and customers affect a Council’s ability to generate income i.e., a view that in more remote parts of the country, where big businesses are less inclined to locate, it is harder to boost the local economy.

In June 2017, the New Local Government Network (NLGN) developed the term: “changemaking”. This describes how Councils have no choice but to find new ways to deliver services and impact rather than scaling back existing ways of working. “The reinvention required is not the redesign of rigid structures or institutional remodelling of organisations. Instead, it must be a change which considers function over form and focuses on raising social impact above all else… [this involves] nothing less than a major cultural shift towards three core values: creativity, collaboration and self-determination.” The report contains examples of ‘changemaking in practice’: from US special forces in Iraq to clearing rubbish in Lima; and from the growth of Dutch home nursing organisation ‘Buurtzorg’ to Etsy, an online marketplace for arts and crafts products. One of the elements of this new transformational agenda is commercialisation: how can Local Authorities generate new revenue streams to fund public services?

There are a plethora of examples of how Local Authorities have interpreted and adopted commercialisation. The LGA, for example, has a commercialisation best practice map which shows how and where Councils in England are engaged in commercial activities. The Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) Municipal Entrepreneurship report includes a set of case studies which highlight how some Local Authorities have embedded commercial skills and business acumen in their delivery.

The Leadership Centre has examined a range of future scenarios for local government finance (from status quo through to financial collapse) as part of attempts to help Councils generate additional revenue to compensate for the shortfall in traditional funding streams. The Heritage Lottery Funds (HLF) State of UK Public Parks 2016 illuminates commercial activities already being undertaken by park services within Local Authorities (e.g. establishing trading companies, adding a retail outlet, business sponsorship, corporate volunteering). In 2016, Councils spent more than £1 billion on real estate in their hunt for income generating property assets: Spelthorne borough council in Surrey, for example, spent more than £350 million on the BP Business Park in Sunbury, and Guildford Borough Council purchased the Wey House office block in Guildford for £22.7 million. Local Authorities are now seeking to fund public services through their property investments, providing professional/technical consultancy and/or opening retail outlets.

For me, against this backdrop of commercialising central and local Government, there is renewed need for discussions around: (a) where commercialisation fits with the strategic aims of Local Authorities and their delivery of services, (b) whether the public/‘customers’ are willing for some or all public services to be commercialised, and (c) where rural fits in the commercial approaches that are emerging.

Firstly, the role of Local Authorities. The Local Government Act 1989 set out the functions of Councils around decision-making on matters affecting their local communities, delegating some decisions to committees of officers and monitoring how these are exercised, and overseeing the performance of the administration and delivery of services and programmes. Today there are some 375 Councils in England and Wales with almost 19,400 elected Councillors. Local Authorities determine local priorities and provide a wide range of services. Where does commercialisation fit between the strategic aims of Local Authorities and the delivery of services (i.e., in juggling income generation, savings, selling or acquiring assets etc.)? It is clear that there is no one model of how/where/when commercialisation fits– many Councils now have ‘commercialisation’ and/or ‘income generation’ strategies. For some authorities these strategies come from their vision for their local area, or to respond to a changing funding climate, and/or as part of attempts to seek more innovative approaches to service delivery. In November 2016 the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts published its report on the financial sustainability of Local Authorities. This describes how Local Authorities have maintained capital spending while decreasing revenue spending. Many Local Authorities have done this by investing less in physical assets such as libraries and parks, and spending more on commercial investments often involving property. The report raised a number of concerns around Officers and Members having the necessary commercial skills and experience, as well as the need to anticipate risks to financial and service sustainability. If we want Local Authorities to become ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘self-financing’, how can we ensure commercialisation doesn’t damage the very things Local Authorities have been set up to do (‘services’, ‘programmes’) and the public services communities want? How can we reconcile the social aims of Local Authorities alongside their commercial interests? And at what level should commercialisation happen – at organisational/whole Council level, in procurement and commissioning teams, in/across individual service areas and/or according to other factors (e.g. budget, place)?

Secondly, are the public (‘customers’) up for some or all public services being commercialised? The Local Government Service List is a collection of services that a council (or other public sector body) in the UK provides to or on behalf of those who live, work and pass through the area for which they are responsible. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) publishes statistical indicators covering the accessibility of services in rural areas. Here, service availability is framed around distance to cashpoints, banks and building societies, supermarkets, NHS dentists, pubs, petrol stations, libraries, jobcentres, post offices, convenience stores and pharmacies. For me, this opens up a dialogue around finding out what ‘services’ are important to rural communities, which ones are deemed ‘public services’ and what role commercialisation might play in their delivery.

On the one hand, there is a view that the public aren’t too concerned with who is providing them with a service as long as that service is delivered to them. On the other hand, public services are very different to businesses – and it is not simply a case of turning one into the other. In December 2016, the Department for Education (DfE) published its report for developing the capacity and diversity of children’s social care services. While the report considered how to promote the marketisation and commercialisation of statutory children’s social services, [interestingly England was then the only country looking at contracting out assessments and decision-making to do with the safety and protection of children] Government subsequently sought to distance itself from the report. The Government response concluded: “we therefore reject those options which would either centralise the delivery of children’s social care services, such as the option to establish a National Children’s Social Care Commissioning Board, or allow profit-making organisations to deliver them.” This opens up discussion around what is meant by marketisation and commercialisation. Research for Defra on alterative service delivery models in 2013 identified 11 models of delivery (from Councils sharing services, through to co-production and private companies). This includes case studies which highlight the role of rural residents in taking on responsibility for the delivery of services ‘on their own account’ as well as the role of Local Authorities, Parish Councils and VCS organisations in supporting them. Is this commercialisation and/or are rural communities ‘filling the gap’ where public providers can no longer afford to deliver services and where commercial providers cannot generate a profit from them?

Thirdly, where does rural fit then in the commercial approaches that are emerging? Rural Services Network (RSN) members inherently understand and grapple with the ‘premium’ involved in delivering services in rural areas. Similarly, rural residents and businesses often have to travel some distance to access services. How are commercial approaches able to respond to the challenges of cost, speed and practicality in adoption in rural places? How is ‘geographical take up’ (reaching rural places) and ‘service take up’ being tackled? What data and evidence exists to tell us what works and why in a rural context? The risk here is that without care and attention the most ‘profitable’ bits of public services will be picked up leaving rural areas underserved. There are also examples of where ‘gap filling’ has been happening i.e., where community minded individuals spot the gaps (or potential gaps) and devise projects to fill them. What happens in rural places where communities do not have the capacity, interest and/or know-how to do this? If putting people first is to remain the mantra of public service delivery, now more than ever in with commercialisation, we need to focus on how services can be even better from the perspective of rural residents.

Finally, what outcomes are we looking to achieve and what difference do we want to see through commercialisation? Are commercial approaches leading to higher quality and more sustainable service provision (in rural areas)? Are they building resilience within Local Authorities and helping them to generate a surplus? Are they delivering value-for-money for taxpayers? Are they enabling central Government and Local Authorities to work together on a shared agenda of making public services (commercially) viable? Going forward, if we want ‘new commercial DNA in the public sector’, how are rural Local Authorities going to continue to play a meaningful role in local communities? Or will we see a return of approaches to public services inspired by budget airlines and national retailers? Watch this space…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce recruitment and retention issues and evaluating a financial capability project. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Will the government’s new industrial strategy benefit rural communities?

Will the government’s new industrial strategy benefit rural communities?

Industrial Strategy is back – Theresa May featured it in her leadership speech as an economic reform “to get the whole economy firing” and now the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has been elevated to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). What does this return to industry/business focused policy-making mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

In a speech at the Royal Society in July 2016, Greg Clark (the then newly appointed Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) set out how the principles underpinning the Government’s science and innovation strategy – excellence, agility, collaboration between different disciplines and sectors, place, openness and internationalism – would inform the Government’s development of a new industrial strategy.

Intended to provide the means to enable the UK to build a long-term economic plan and increase competitiveness, what does the Government’s emphasis on delivering a partnership with businesses across all sectors actually mean? And what can we learn from previous industrial strategies? I offer three points.

First, what is an industrial strategy? As a starting point, it’s a strategic effort to encourage the development and growth of some or all sectors of an economy. In Britain it can be traced back to Robert Walpole, whom in 1721 introduced protections for infant industries by increasing tariffs on foreign competition. Walpole also lowered the duties on raw materials needed by British manufacturers.

A trend towards freer trade began in the late 18th century – amid a growing belief that cheap imports were the key to prosperity– and resulted in the introduction of an income tax act in 1842 to provide compensation for initial losses in Government revenue as tariffs came down.

By the 1930s the focus of industrial policy had moved on again, with a Coalition Government introducing a strategy of minimising competition, encouraging cartels and protecting businesses behind new tariffs. The 1934 Special Areas Act identified South Wales, Tyneside, West Cumberland and Scotland as areas with special employment requirements, with these areas seeing investment in infrastructure.

Post war, the Government sought to hold onto Britain’s traditional industries (textiles, steel and shipbuilding) with mergers to create nationalised and subsidised industries encouraged– and new bodies such as the Ministry of Technology and Industrial Reorganisation Corporation created. The need for an industrial strategy was reinforced by Tony Benn when he was Minister for Industry in the mid-1970s.

Then the Conservative led Government in the 1980s sought to break up nationalised industries and leave things to the free market. Gordon Brown, during the financial crash of 2008 and recession, led calls to rebalance the economy from an over-reliance on financial services towards industry and manufacturing.

George Osborne upon becoming Chancellor described this policy as the ‘march of the makers’. Sir Vince Cable (business secretary in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government) singled out eleven industries with whom the Government wanted to build long-term partnerships with – leading to the establishment of eleven Sector Councils.

From the 1720s to the present day successive Governments have made strategic interventions to drive the economy. These interventions have been horizontal (cutting across the whole economy), vertical (focusing on particular sectors) and/or spatial.

Where national industrial strategies have been pursued these have often come to the fore during periods of economic crisis or uncertainty; while at other times a free market approach has been followed – with the understanding that the market is the best mechanism to decide if businesses succeed or fail.

All of this opens up a series of debates around the role Government plays in economic development: should Government be interventionist or leave the economy to the free market? Should Government focus on specific companies, sectors, markets or only on the barriers deemed most important to the economy overall?

Should Government focus interventions on labour intensive products and services or in higher productivity industries? Should Government only intervene where there is market failure? What about (re)nationalisation – is this in the public interest and/or a legitimate use of public money?

Secondly, what kind of industrial strategy is emerging? In his speech back in July Greg Clark suggested the industrial strategy should be a number of things, including: (1) a long term, predictable and sustained approach to policy making; (2) actively engaging in creating an environment in which businesses can be founded, expand and prosper; (3) making connections between Government policy and business decisions, industries and places, research and practice; and (4) capitalising on strengths by seeking new opportunities. At first glance this seems an impossibly wide remit.

How will the Government reconcile the need for overseas investment in the UK to boost competitiveness yet reconcile that decisions may be made in board rooms thousands of miles away that may not do what’s best for workers, communities and the UK economy – will Government block a deal or impose conditions as per Hinkley Point C project? What can the private sector do to help address issues – working with Government – rather than asking Government to subsidise industries?

In August 2016, The Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s industrial strategy. The Committee is seeking written submissions covering six areas: (1) what does the Government mean by industrial strategy and what does the private sector want from one? (2) How interventionist in the free market should Government be in implementing an industrial strategy? (3) What lessons can be learnt from previous Governments’ industrial strategies and from other countries? (4) What tensions exist between the objectives of an industrial strategy and the objectives of other policies? (5) What are the pros and cons of an industrial strategy adopting a sectoral approach? (6) Should the industrial strategy have a geographical emphasis?

Thirdly, what, then, might the Government’s emerging industrial strategy mean for rural areas? For me there are three main areas of focus: sectors, place and governance.

Sectorally – Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England, identifies agriculture, forestry and fishing; professional, scientific and technical services; and retail and repair of motor vehicles as dominant sectors in the rural economy.

The digest further highlights the role of small businesses in rural areas: while in urban areas 18.7% of people in registered businesses are employed in smaller businesses (of up to 9 employees) in rural areas this figure is much higher at 29%. In urban areas 28.6% of people are employed in registered businesses of 250 employees or more whereas in rural areas this figure is much lower at 15.1%.

How can we ensure rural businesses (of all sizes and sectors) are taken into account by the new industrial strategy?

Whether the strategy focuses on sectors, traditional industries and/or improving productivity, its development could provide new opportunities for Government to strategically consider how it can support the rural economy and lead other Government departments to design more effective and targeted policies for rural businesses.

Spatially – in his speech Clark described how “every business is located in a particular place”. He went on to highlight how transport connections, having a well-trained and educated workforce and pro-business leadership are conducive to prosperity.

In the Government’s science and innovation strategy ‘place’ is articulated in terms of how people and organisations benefit from mutual proximity – the clustering of resources in specific locations (i.e., cities/universities).

While there have already been calls to make sure the industrial strategy makes the most of cities and city regions, what is the most appropriate spatial unit(s) within which the strategy should sit and how can we ensure its geographical emphasis considers rural areas?

The strategy may provide opportunities for Government to take a territorial approach to economic development: one that helps people to find a job where they live (with rural areas retaining rather than losing young people, providing local opportunities to undertake training and skills development); improves access to services (health, adult social care, transport, leisure and entertainment) and advances mobile and broadband connectivity. In rural areas, the context is often different and this necessitates a different approach to policy-making. Should the industrial strategy move towards a more place-based approach?

Governance – the Select Committee chair Iain Wright has said “we…want to test how a new government industrial strategy fits in with its own devolution agenda, so that local, regional and national policies and strategies can be aligned as much as possible.” Ministers from BEIS have already become local growth champions and are tasked with building relationships with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

More broadly, how will the new industrial strategy fit alongside Brexit, devolution deals, LEPs and Combined Authorities? The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), for example, has suggested as the UK will no longer be bound by European rules against State Aid it can readily choose to prop up loss making industries.

How are these different bodies going to work together so policy is coordinated across and within all levels of central and local government? In a previous set of rural words I explored how rural England was becoming a white space in the devolution agenda, how can we make sure rural areas are given the same opportunities for growth as their urban counterparts in developing a new industrial strategy?

Finally, it’s interesting to note how in the 18th and 19th centuries the United States and Germany took up parts of Britain’s industrial policy; in the 19th century Japan imported industrial policies and institutions from Germany; and in the 20th century China has adapted industrial policies from Japan. There may be much we can learn from looking at how other countries do industrial policy.

Will the Government’s industrial strategy reorganise existing policies and interventions or is a new relationship between Government and businesses emerging? And will rural have a place in it? Watch this space…

The RSN Seminar Programme starts in Swindon on 20 October 2016 on the theme of ‘rural economies’. For more information or to book your free place please contact events@sparse.gov.uk

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. She produces evidence bases for Local Authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and the governing bodies of designated landscapes. Jessica recently prepared two Community Led Local Development applications and completed a European project on the social value of volunteering into employment. Her public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing.

Jessica can be contacted at jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or by calling 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk, Twitter: @RoseRegen.

Load More