Rural government

How to ensure government ‘thinks rural’

Back in 2010, the government set out a number of policy commitments which were intended to have a direct impact on the countryside.

With aspirations to turn old thinking on its head and develop new approaches, the ‘Programme for Government’ set out proposals for the devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups; radical reform of the planning system; a ‘home on the farm’ scheme; and measures to help with fuel costs in remote rural areas.

But what’s happened since this initial fanfare? And with an election just weeks away – and the political parties finalising their manifestos – how can we ensure rural voices are heard? Jessica Sellick investigates.

In May 2010, the Coalition government set out a five-year programme for change. Under the strapline ‘freedom, fairness, responsibility’ the document contained a series of commitments to help people come together to make life better. Within the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs section (pages 17-18) the Government set out commitments to protect the environment, make the economy more environmentally sustainable and improve quality of life and well-being.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) went on to develop a ten point growth plan as well as a business s plan – both underpinned by four priorities: (1) leading the world in food and farming; (2) protecting the country from floods and animal and plant diseases; (3) improving the environment; and (4) championing the countryside and improving rural services.

In January 2015, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee published its inquiry into the performance of Defra 2013-2014. The Committee commended Defra on its diligence in updating farmers on the new Common Agricultural Policy rules and for ensuring that the biodiversity offsetting pilots are fully evaluated.

However, the committee described its frustrations “that our concerns about the lack of clarity surrounding pending budget reductions have not been addresses… the Secretary of State must be clearer about where budget cuts will fall and what impact this will have on Defra’s policy delivery. We understand that the Secretary of State makes decisions based on outcomes in line with Defra’s priorities, but the priorities in themselves do not provide a clear guide as to where the axe will fall. Defra has not provided the clarity or detail needed to scrutinise the Department’s planned expenditure or policy delivery”.

Throughout the Coalition, Defra has adopted input and impact indicators to help the public assess the effects of policies and reforms on the cost and impact of public services.

Interestingly, none of this key data references ‘rural communities’ directly rather they become subsumed within datasets such as ‘number of domestic, businesses and other premises in hard-to-reach rural areas that have the potential to receive superfast broadband’, the ‘cost of local authority waste management per household’ or ‘number of households where the risk of damage from flooding and coastal erosion has been markedly reduced’.

More broadly, and set out alongside its four overarching priorities, Defra has completed 48 actions with a further 20 actions in progress and 2 actions overdue (negotiating EU regulation on genetic resources and animal welfare).

Defra itself is currently undergoing a reorganisation. From April 2015, the Department will be moving to a new two-directorate structure covering ‘Food and Farming’ and ‘Countryside, Biodiversity and Rural’. This brings together the responsibilities currently spread between three directorates – Rural Development, Sustainable Communities and Crops (RDSCC); Sustainable Land Management and Farming (SLMF); and Food and Environmental Risk (FER).

This is part of an attempt to make it simpler for people to understand who does what in Defra.

Also from April, Defra will be consolidating its work on rural development, the rural economy and rural services by creating a single, large team. This is intended to bring together mainstream rural policy with the main source of rural development funding, to strengthen how Defra supports rural communities. While the reorganisation means ‘rural communities’ will no longer be subsumed within a directorate that also had crops in its title, it will be interesting to see how this reorganisation unfolds and what this means both for the Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) and Defra’s strategic role as a ‘rural champion’ across Government.

Most importantly, how can we ensure rural communities are not forgotten amid indicators, actions and internal reorganisation?

‘The Rural Challenge 2015’ published by The Rural Coalition sets out headline priorities for the next Government. This includes calls to build upon progress on neighbourhood planning to address rural communities concern about the wider impacts of planning reform; the need to address delays in making high-quality broadband and 4G readily available in market towns and rural areas; and how the gap between rural and urban areas in terms of government funding per head for local authority services is too great and unjust.

The document sets out five priorities for action: (i) recognise the role played by social care and community support in preventative action on health in rural areas; (ii) scale-up and roll out existing models of successful community action (e.g. Village Agents); (iii) strengthen the role of rural community facilities as outreach centres for health and social care; (iv) overhaul the formula for NHS funding of commissioning groups to include a ‘sparsity factor’; and (v) drop plans to remove the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee for GP surgeries or amend the scheme.

In a ‘Charter for Rural Communities’, Jeremy Phillipson (Newcastle University) proposes that rural proofing of growth plans and policies should be pushed forward across all business sectors and localities. Setting out the dynamic features that enable rural economic growth (e.g. more businesses per head of population than many urban areas, rural areas have pioneered privatised and community led delivery of local services), the charter would provide a new commitment to rural enterprise.

These findings chime with Defra’s own analysis which suggested increased connectivity, spread of innovation, growth in knowledge-based industries and changes in working patterns could lead rural areas to ‘catch up’ with their urban counterparts over the next decade.

This could increase the output of rural areas by around £35 billion and create more than 300,000 jobs. According to Environment Secretary Elizabeth Truss, “This is a truly exciting time for rural communities within the countryside set to become even more of an economic powerhouse for the UK, building our economic security. Improved infrastructure is a great driver of change and our investment in broadband and transport links, together with improved mobile phone signals, is unlocking the huge potential for growth in the countryside where entrepreneurial activity is outstripping many parts of the UK”.

Members of the Rural Services Network (RSN) will already be familiar with our Manifestowhich focuses upon eleven interlinked policy topics. This includes a wide recognition that local solutions work best and welcoming a renewed debate about devolving powers to local levels. Here meeting rural needs is not seen solely as an issue for Defra, for one for all Whitehall departments and agencies.

The manifesto echoes many of the documents cited above in calling an incoming Government to recommit to the principle of rural proofing; ensure that any proposals to devolve powers away from the centre give as much consideration to rural areas as cities; and that Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) – or any future equivalent – plays a coordination and promotional role across Whitehall.

Amid all these documents and a bit of informed crystal ball gazing into 2015, I would like a future Government to tackle three overarching issues: (1) helping more people to be able to live and work in rural England – as well as more people able to grow up and get old in the countryside; (2) one hundred percent mobile and broadband coverage in rural England; and (3) no further dilution of any investment in rural policy or comprehensive ‘rural thinking’ by government.

With the dissolution of parliament expected on 30 March and the election itself on 7 May 2015, 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. She is about to undertake a review of a Lottery funded project focusing on how to conserve and improve a town’s assets for future generations as well as completing a European project on ‘social value’. Jessica’s public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk. Twitter: @RoseRegen  

More spending control for local authorities?

With local authorities gaining more ‘control’ over spending at a time of ‘cuts’ and ever increasing spending ‘pressures’; what services should they be providing and at what cost? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Back in March 2011, the government set up a review of local government resources to consider how to give local authorities more control over their money. The Local Government Finance Act – which gained Royal Assent on 31 October 2012 – now provides the legal basis for the provision of government grants to local authorities as well as business rates retention and localising Council Tax support. At the same time, a document released by communities secretary Eric Pickles outlined ’50 practical ways to make sensible savings’.

Mr Pickles suggestions included: sharing back office services (number 1), clawing back money from benefit cheats (number 8), hot desking/estate rationalisation (number 17); closing subsidised council canteens (number 19); opening coffee shops in libraries (number 21); scrapping the chief executive post (number 24), and no longer providing free food and drink at council meetings (number 39).

More than two years on, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned that tax rises of £9 billion (equivalent to 2p on basic rate income tax) may need to be imposed after the 2015 election to fund the gap in public services. This funding gap, estimated at £2.1 billion per year (equating to £12.4 billion by the end of the decade), comes at a time when local authority spending is expected to fall by 50% between 2011-2012 and 2017-2018.

The local government finance system is frequently described as complex, centralised and confusing. In essence, local authorities have three main sources of funding: grants from central government, council Ttx and other locally generated fees and charges for services.

Local authorities then prioritise spending in three main areas: capital projects such as roads or school buildings, council housing and running services. Figures showing the amount of funding local authorities receive and how they spend can vary.

On the one hand, ‘Net Current Expenditure’ – used by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) – covers all local government services including police. Here the DCLG Guide to the ‘local government finance settlement in England’ sets out the rationale for central government providing funding to local authorities with a series of live tables providing the latest or most popular data.

On the other hand, ‘Controllable Expenditure’ used by the Local Government Association (LGA) in their funding outlook work excludes service specific grants for schools, police and housing benefits as these come from ring-fenced grants.

This sets Net Controllable Expenditure for 2013/2014 at £51 billion. These definitions and calculations raise four questions: What are the distinct roles of central government and local authorities? How does the funding received by local authorities compare to their expenditure? What are the emerging issues? And where next?

Firstly, what are the roles of central government and local authorities amid shrinking funding and increasing demand for services? central government is concerned with ensuring public spending and taxation is appropriate to meeting the nation’s economic goals, affordable and sustainable. There is an understanding that the allocation of resources to national priorities and between parts of the country will be led by central government.

Local authority expenditure is therefore specified, regulated or influenced by ministerial departments and government agencies: some of this expenditure has to be provided to a specified level (e.g. with minimum levels of social care achieved) whereas in other instances a local authority can make arrangements for a service to be provided to an unspecified level (e.g. providing “a comprehensive library service”).

Local authorities also provide services at their local discretion and/or can compete and become ‘agents’ in implementing national schemes and funding streams (e.g. Rural Growth Network Pilot programme). Amid these roles sits the European Charter of Local Self Government. This states: local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.

At least part of the financial resources of local authorities shall derive from local taxes and charges of which, within the limits of statute, they have the power to determine the rate. The financial systems on which resources available to local authorities are based shall be of a sufficiently diversified and buoyant nature to enable them to keep pace as far as practically possible with the real evolution of the cost of carrying out their tasks.

In practice this means leads local authorities have to traverse the formula grant they receive from central government, other grants provided from central government to support local services (e.g. money from Defra or the Department for Education); with Business Rates (NB: since April 2013 local authorities have been able to keep 50% of locally collected rates with the other half transferred to central government); council tax; New Homes Bonus; and invest-to-save or invest-to-earn projects.

Local authorities are able to charge for some statutory services such as social care for those who do not fully meet criteria for free care; land searches; and planning applications. Local authorities can also charge fees and charges for services that are not statutory and discretionary (e.g. leisure centres).

Further, legislation allows local authorities to run an incidental (unplanned) surplus parking account, provided that the extra funds are ring-fenced for improvement of parking services or transport infrastructure – notwithstanding how parking charges, enforcement and surplus parking accounts are a constant source of controversy and attract media attention.

Finally, local authorities have ‘reserves’. Sometimes these are earmarked for future spending (e.g. capital project) and/or to cover unpredicted events to mitigate any underlying risks associated with the operation of the council. Judgements about how to juggle this maze of income streams are made at national and local levels.

Secondly, how does income compare to expenditure (especially in rural places)? According to the Local Government Association (LGA), councils in England face a funding gap of £5.8 billion between March 2014 and the end of 2015/16. Their analysis indicates how local authorities need to make huge savings before April 2015, equivalent to 12.5% of their total budgets.

Figures compiled by the LGA highlight reductions in expenditure: highways maintenance expenditure of £279 million in 2010-2011 was reduced to £239 million in 2012-2013; planning and economic development reduced from £904 million to £377 million; and sheltered housing declined from £1,281 million to £875 million over the same period. Similarly, the LGA has since April 2013 provided ‘AnyCouncil’ analysis – which details how a typical council has coped with funding cuts and funding reforms since 2010.

The analysis takes into account the services that are most used and valued by three typical households a broad spectrum of people and family groups (i.e., family with 2 children, elderly person living in sheltered accommodation and a single parent household). The report makes a series of recommendations including: cooperation between central and local government to deliver savings to help AnyCouncil deliver critical services to AnyHouseholds; giving local authorities full control over local tax and council tax discounts and the role of new bodies such as Health and Wellbeing Boards in allowing everyone access to care which meets their needs.

The pressure underpinning these figures and scenarios is expected to become even greater with Local Authorities taking on more responsibilities such as public health and council tax support.

Across 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: with council tax £79 higher per head in rural areas than in urban areas and central government’s Formula Grant to Local Authorities £178 lower per head in rural areas than urban areas.

This means rural communities are paying more but actually receiving less service provision for their return their local 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.

RSN research and campaigning has had some success in setting out how rural areas have different needs; with the Local Government Finance Settlement 2014-2015 providing £9.5 million to the most rural councils to help them transform services and promote efficiencies; and a further £2 million being provided to the most rural councils through another grant. This is allocated according to a ‘sparsity indicator’, which gives funding to the top quartile of authorities on the basis of the sparsity using Census data.

Thirdly, this all raises a series of questions and issues emerge from these roles and funding streams:

  • Should the allocation of central government funding be needs best (cost, demand led) and/or should Local Authorities be incentivised to grow their own budgets?
  • Should ring-fencing be reduced or abolished so local authorities can flexibly spend in the interests of local people?
  • Should we give local authorities more tax raising powers?

The RSN LGA Rural Conference in September 2014 provided an opportunity to hear first-hand how a rural local authority (East Lindsey District Council) and an urban local authority (Worcester City Council) have been tackling some of the funding issues outlined above. Interestingly, both authorities have savings/income programmes aimed at doing the same or more with less and have undertaken similar approaches (e.g. setting up shared services, asset management, transformation).

This has led the authorities to make savings (£7.3 million in the case of Worcester expected by 2015) and reduce staffing levels (from 800+ in 2008-2009 to just over 400 in 2012-2014 in the case of East Lindsey). The conference discussion that followed led delegates to consider if/could local authorities opt out of the formula grant they receive from central government?

At a time of increased flexibility for local authorities, what monitoring is in place to scrutinise council decision making and those taken by cross-border and multi-agency bodies (e.g. Local Enterprise Partnerships, Health and Wellbeing Boards)?

In the House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee report on local government funding published in September 2014, commitee chair Margaret Hodge MP said: “The Government believes that the best way to ensure that councils spend our money wisely is to rely on local residents and councillors to provide scrutiny. However, there is no convincing evidence that ‘armchair auditor’ members of the public are being empowered to hold local authorities to account for how they spend the £36.1 billion in funding they receive every year.

“Councillors do not always have the skills or time to fulfil this role…local authorities are required to publish data such as expenditure over £500, senior salaries and land holdings and building assets, this data is presented in a way which does not make for easy and effective scrutiny by the public. We are also concerned that the public might be less engaged with decisions on services that cost a lot, but do not affect them personally, such as vitally important adult care and children’s services.

“There is a particular gap in assurance for £2.8 billion of ‘targeted’ grants, where departments expect local authorities to spend funding on a specific activity, but do not then monitor whether they do.”

The report calls for clearer rules around transparency and accountability of money.

Finally, where next? All of the above opens up a dialogue around what we mean by ‘services’ and what should or shouldn’t be ‘funded’ at a local level: what services do local authorities and rural residents deem ‘critical’, ‘targeted’, ‘regulatory’ or ‘frontline’ and how should they be funded?

For services like policing, schools and health, should these all be free at the point of use? Should we also be concerned with ‘access to services’ such as shops, pubs, bus services, post offices and village halls and/or what level of service should rural dwellers expect and in comparison to their urban counterparts?

With the Chancellor due to make his Autumn Statement on 3 December 2014; a DCLG and Defra research project on additional and unavoidable costs in delivering rural services due to conclude; and the Independent Commission on Local Government Finance due to publish its report in early 2015; reforms to support local services are expected in the months ahead. 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. She is currently undertaking a European project on ‘social value’ as well as carrying out research for the Lottery on community businesses. Jessica’s public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen More information about the RSN’s work on local finance is available here.

Following the success of the 2014 Finance Seminars, Jessica is working with the RSN to organise an event in early 2015 to explore the implications of central government’s economic update on rural services. Jessica would like to acknowledge and extend her thanks to Duncan Sharkey (managing director, Worcester City Council) and Stuart Davy (chief executive, East Lindsey District Council) for sharing a copy of the material they presented at the RSN/LGA Rural Conference 2014.

Planning for Britain’s rural future

In his ‘Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing’, Matthew Taylor looked at how the planning system could bring a positive, lasting legacy of places in which people actually wanted to live. Rather than fixating on how many new homes were needed, his report considered how to manage and plan for development that was inevitable and necessary; whatever the precise timescale or numbers. For many Taylor’s Review was regarded as a blueprint, setting out the steps necessary for the planning system to play its role in realising a vision for the future of the countryside. More recently, the Government has revealed its own reforms and vision of the planning system. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – launched in March 2012 with practice guidance issued from March 2014 – attempts to ensure the planning system enhances and improves places (‘rather than simply being about scrutiny’). Is this framework enabling local authorities and rural communities to plan for their future? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Rural communities do not stand still, they change whether development takes place or not. While for some people rural sights and sounds are preferable to living in a city any day, it is becoming much harder for them to own their own home, grow up and find a job where they live, keep warm and access local services delivered by real people. At the same time, economic growth is central Government’s top priority. A range of measures have been introduced to tackle what Government believes are the underlying reasons for slow growth of the countryside economy: lack of business premises, slow internet connections and spread out and fragmented business communities. Is the spatial planning process placing the needs of the land, communities and people firmly at the centre to address these economic and social challenges?

The statutory planning system has been described by Planning Minister Nick Boles as having the potential for both “enormous good” and “great harm”…planning is one of the most “creative”, “selfless” and “visionary” roles in public life but could also be “destructive and narrow-minded”. Since the Coalition Government was formed it has been attempting to simplify the planning system. The NPPF forms a key part of these reforms, reducing the number of policy pages and intending to make the system less complex and more accessible for local planning authorities and communities. Every local planning authority in England is now required to have a clear, up to date Local Plan, which conforms to the NPPF, meets local development needs, and reflects local people’s views of how they wish their community to develop. Neighbourhood Plans are a new way for communities to choose where they want homes, shops and offices to be built, have their say on what those new buildings should look like and what infrastructure should be provided. Together, the Local Plan and any neighbourhood plans should form the overall development plan for the local area.

There has been much enthusiasm from communities wishing to draw up Neighbourhood Plans (NP). According to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), in May 2014 more than 1,000 communities had submitted an application to their local planning authority to designate an area to be covered by a NP. More than 80 communities had undertaken community consultation to build an evidence base for their NP; more than 40 communities had submitted plans to their local planning authority; and 13 had gone to a public referendum and passed. On the one hand, the concept and development of NP could be viewed as an attempt to overcome what Matthew Taylor described as the ‘sustainability trap’, recognising where rural communities want their place to be rather than writing it off as unsustainable within a settlement hierarchy and disallowing development. On the other hand, getting a NP through the external examination process can prove challenging, with some failing inspection altogether and/or the Decision Statement making a series of recommendations for the community to take up. How approved NPs (which are being developed on a case-by-case piecemeal basis) will operate alongside the policies and targets contained in the relevant Local Plan are also being worked through.

Nowhere were these questions and issues more apparent than at a recent Rural Services Network (RSN) event on ‘Neighbourhood and the Broader Planning Agenda’. Here 25+ delegates debated whether Neighbourhood Planning is: (a) promoting local democracy (b) costs too much – who pays? – And (c) is a mechanism for supporting the wider rural economy. As well as providing a welcome opportunity to hear what’s happening up and down the country, for local authority representatives implementing the NPPF was seen to be enhancing local democratic decision making with officers across service areas utilising their professional skills. For community representatives, four issues were raised. Firstly, the size and scale of a given area proposed for a NP: will it bring parishes together and/or will parishes support and engage with a NP in a surrounding area? Secondly, how can parishes ensure front-loading community engagement builds capacity, interest and momentum (“ensuring those that shout the loudest aren’t the only ones listened to”?) Thirdly, how can parishes manage expectations, balancing ‘wish lists’ with local resources and legal limitations? Fourthly, does money drive activity? Local planning authorities estimate it costs £30,000 for communities to pay for support, examination and a public referendum of a NP. While the ‘Supporting Communities in Neighbourhood Planning’ programme (funded by DCLG and run by Locality) can provide direct support equivalent to £9,500 or grant payments equivalent of £7,000, there is still a funding gap that some communities are struggling to fill.

To see what can be learnt from a number of reports, policy initiatives and practice – from Taylor’s report to the NPPF – the Hastoe Group has launched a Rural Housing Policy Review. Chaired by Lord Richard Best of Godmanstone, the Review will look at the extent to which the recommendations of the reports have been implemented; what has changed and the emerging challenges– ‘where next for rural affordable housing?’

Taken as a collective, what is missing from these discussions is the relationship between planning reform and a broader economic development agenda (i.e., are the reforms actually helping people to find a job where they live? Are they creating local opportunities to undertake training and skills development? How can we ensure businesses and representatives from farming, manufacturing, tourism, services etc. also have a voice? ). Even Government priorities for making better use of existing buildings will see farmers able to turn unused agricultural buildings into “homes”. How can planning reforms be more directly aligned to the priorities and Enterprise Zones of Local Enterprise Partnerships, to the Rural Growth Network Pilot Programme and rural broadband and mobile infrastructure?

While the Hastoe Review is welcome, there remains a disconnect between national policies, local planning aspirations and the needs of communities and businesses in rural areas – is the countryside under unparalleled pressure (think concrete and bulldozers) or are we achieving sustainable rural places (think living, working, thriving)?

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 is currently supporting 5 existing LEADER partnerships and 2 new groups during Transition in 2014; providing Local Authorities with resources to measure their ‘Social Return on Investment’; and assisting Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) gather rural data and evidence. Jessica was part of the team that undertook a National Review of LEADER and research on where ‘Big Society’ initiatives are working well (both for Defra) and for Oxfam on farm poverty. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk / Twitter: @RoseRegen

Rural Statement – what does it offer?

Is the Rural Statement a ‘new’ contract to empower communities or re-presentation of ‘old’ initiatives? Jessica Sellick finds out.

Under the strap line ‘new contract to give rural communities power to hold Government to account on rural growth’, the Rural Statement 2012 was launched by Environment Secretary Owen Paterson on 12 September 2012. This eagerly awaited document is intended to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to rural England. But what does the Statement say? And does it focus on issues of critical importance to rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

In unveiling the Government’s Rural Statement 2012, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson described how “for too long rural England was neglected by central Government and its businesses struggled to achieve their ambitions. We’ve already transformed the prospects of thousands of rural businesses and want to make sure that change is felt in every part of rural England. To do this, we’ve created the first ‘rural contract’ to give rural areas the power to hold us to account on our promise to grow the rural economy and support thriving rural communities.” But what is this ‘contract’ and will it empower communities? What does the Statement actually mean for people who live, work in or visit rural England? I offer three points.

Firstly, the contents and presentation of the document. The Rural Statement can be traced back to April 2011, was officially announced in November 2011 and due for publication in spring 2012 (a previous article for the RSN sets out its trajectory). This time lapse has culminated in a 20-page document divided into three main sections: (1) economic growth, (2) rural engagement and (3) quality of life. Notwithstanding his department’s logo on the cover, Owen Paterson – who was only appointed as Secretary of State on 4 September 2012 – has emphasised this is the ‘Governments’ Rural Statement, not ‘Defras’ Rural Statement.

The delay in its publication has undoubtedly been driven by inputs from Number 10 and other Government Departments (e.g. HM Treasury, Energy and Climate Change, Communities and Local Government). With the intention of building upon the Rural Economy Growth Review and Plan for Growth, much of what remains is a recap of existing initiatives: from the creation of five Rural Growth Networks (RGNs) to the Rural Community Broadband Fund (RCBF); from the Red Tape Challenge to Buying Standards for Food and Catering; and from the Rural and Farming Network (RFN) to the Farm and Forestry Improvement Scheme (FFIS). At the Local Government Association Annual Conference and Rural Commission, Mr Paterson described this recap as a “useful bible” for galvanising how Defra is working with others across government to make the rural economy more prosperous.

With this in mind, it is clear from reading the Statement that it describes existing projects: from disseminating the findings of the Green Food Project to the compilation of a Government-wide Rural Proofing Package. Interestingly, the Statement has brought to the fore some original commitments set out in ‘Our Programme for Government’, including Home on the Farm Schemes. Alongside the old and forgotten, there are some new initiatives: from the Skills and Knowledge Transfer Programme to GO ON UK (digital skills campaign); from funding a national Wheels to Work co-ordinator for the period 2012-2013 to finding innovative ways of delivering library services and training 5,000 community organisers. However, many of these ideas and Government commitment to digital access/broadband, transport and local services are well rehearsed.

The Statement perhaps has most utility in the way it signals themes that cut across Government – namely localism and the big society, economic growth, quality of life and the sharing of good practice. But this means its look and feel, overall, does not necessarily depict the countryside that RSN readers recognise– it is picture postcard in terms of the images it contains (the landscape scene on page 6, the village setting on page 12) and hollowed out in terms of its final content. All-too-often it touches upon initiatives already in place and how these will further open up rural business opportunities in the near future rather than enthusing the reader.

Secondly, the Statement has stimulated debates around the relationship between the natural environment and the economy. On the one hand, the Statement has been welcomed as meeting the needs of rural businesses. Harry Cotterell (President of the CLA), for example, praised the Government’s recognition of the importance of broadband: “a fast and reliable internet connection is crucial for rural businesses to be able to compete with their urban-based counterparts. The process for rolling–out broadband to rural areas has been far too slow so I am pleased to see the Government has recognised this and is tackling this issue.”

On the other hand, Kate Ashbrook (General Secretary at the Open Spaces Society) believes that green spaces have been overlooked: “it’s time that government recognised the vital role of paths and access land, commons and green spaces, in boosting the rural economy.” And under the heading ‘it’s not JUST the economy stupid’, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) also expressed disappointment at the sidelining of environmental issues. According to Neil Sinden, (Director of Policy and Campaigns at CPRE) “the Statement does not consider how…moves by the…Government to liberalise permitted development rights on agricultural buildings could irreversibly damage rural landscapes and tranquillity. Support for local food offers a great opportunity for the sustainable development of rural economies, but disappointingly is not covered by the Statement”. From broadband and planning to recreation and food, growing an economy which invests in nature is vital. These themes run throughout the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP), which is not referenced in the Statement at all.

Thirdly, how binding is the rural contract? Will it enable rural dwellers to hold Government to account on their promise? Although it is encouraging to see that as a ‘Government’ Rural Statement all departments and not just Defra as the ‘rural department’ have responsibility for its delivery, the document is not written with a contract in mind. How are the contents within it, then, going to be implemented and monitored? Who is accountable and how? In the words of Meurig Raymond (NFU Deputy President) “we now need to see action matching the rhetoric”.

How will the Statement fit into existing Defra processes such as the Capability Review, Business Plan Quarterly Data or on-the-ground activities such as the Rural and Farming Network and rural road shows Minsters will be participating in? Is such engagement robust enough to take up views from across rural England? How will the contract be adequately resourced? In this context, will the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee Inquiry into the work of Defra’s Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU), (which is taking place this Autumn and which many RSN Members have responded to) combined with a new Ministerial team at Defra led by ‘country man’ Owen Paterson provide a new platform for all things rural?

Will the Rural Statement 2012 provide a positive ‘new’ agenda for change or fail to address the different barriers and priorities affecting rural communities?

Jessica is a rural practitioner at Rose Regeneration. Her previous article setting out the trajectory of the Rural Statement can be found here and work documenting Defra’s refreshed Business Plan and Capability Action Plan here. Rose Regeneration has particular empathy and enthusiasm for rural and coastal issues. Work currently being undertaken includes: supporting a Rural Growth Network pilot area, researching rural poverty for Oxfam GB, developing and testing a Rural Economy Planning Toolkit and an evaluation of cultural led regeneration in seaside towns. Rose Regeneration previously supported Pennine Prospects with its application for the South Pennines to become a Local Nature Partnership (which received Government approval) and has completed Local Level Rural Proofing resources for Defra. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk

What’s [not] in the Rural Statement

The government pledged to issue a rural statement this spring. It’s been a long time coming, says Jessica Sellick.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Government will soon publish a Rural Statement. The Statement can be traced back to April 2011, was officially announced in November 2011, originally due to be published in spring 2012 but has now been postponed until the autumn. Intended to demonstrate how Government is supporting rural areas through existing and future policies, what is the Statement going to do for rural communities and (importantly) what is or should be in it?

Defra is preparing a Government-wide Rural Statement, ‘intended to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to rural communities; outline how policies and programmes are already working for these communities; and explain what Defra is doing to promote rural needs and interests’. The Statement is expected to underline the Government’s commitment to promoting a prosperous rural economy and thriving rural communities.

In June 2010, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced a review into Defra’s arms lengths bodies, including the Government’s intention to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities and create a Rural Communities Policy Unit (RCPU) within the Department. This led to a Consultation (in November 2011) on the new rural policy functions within Government, which included proposals for a Government-wide Rural Statement. In Defra’s Business Plan 2012-2015 (refreshed on 31 May 2012), under action 3.12 ‘championing rural needs and interests across Government’, the publication of a Rural Statement demonstrating how policies and programmes deliver benefits to rural residents, businesses and communities had started and was due to be completed by July 2012.

In correspondence between the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries, Richard Benyon and Anne McIntosh MP (Chair, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee) in June 2012, Benyon described how since its creation, the RCPU had been “carrying out a careful assessment of the rural evidence base, considering how best to gather evidence relevant to current policy issues as well as more strategic, long-term evidence about the changing drivers and characteristics” [of rural England].The RCPU Evidence Plan 2011/12 stated that the functions of RCPU would be fully set out in a Rural Statement which it expected to be agreed with Ministers and published in May/June 2011(!) The Plan states that RCPU’s role is one of influencing policy-making and delivery in all parts of Government and to ensure that the implications for rural interests are incorporated appropriately. This includes the analysis and monitoring of rural conditions (e.g. through baseline evidence led by Defra’s rural statistics team and through commissioned research).

With parliament shut for the summer and it apparent that the Statement has not emerged within the timescales stated in the documents above, it is now likely to be launched in the autumn. What impact (if any) is this delay having on ensuring the Government’s commitment to rural communities? And will the Statement – when it comes out – focus on issues of critical important to rural communities? I offer three points.

Firstly, attempting to meet the needs of rural communities within national policy responses is well established. The ‘Our Countryside: the future Rural‘ White Paper (2000) aimed to move away from an outdated, picture postcard version of the countryside, to one where people had access to the jobs and services they required. This ‘fair deal’ and belief in ‘a countryside for everyone’ was underpinned by a ten point plan or Rural Service Standard.

The Rural Delivery Review carried out by Christopher Haskins in 2003 considered how to improve the effectiveness of delivery arrangements for Defra. The report concluded that this should evolve to take account of wider developments in Government, including the commitment to devolution and making public services more accountable and locally responsive.

As a result, the Rural Strategy (2004) took up the vision for rural communities set out in the 2000 White Paper and outlined a new devolved and targeted approach to rural policy delivery (including streamlining 100+ rural funding strands to improve the ‘customer experience’). The Taylor Review of Rural Economy and Affordable Housing (2008) had a clear message: that the planning process had to become an engine of regeneration or the countryside faces a future of decline.

With the election of the Coalition Government in 2010, three overarching rural priorities were assigned to Defra: (1) to support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food production; (2) to help to enhance the environment and biodiversity and improve quality of life; and (3) to support a strong and sustainable green economy resilient to climate change.

Defra has subsequently published plans and strategies and is now focusing upon their implementation: from the Natural Environment White Paper and the announcement of Local Nature Partnerships to the Growth Review and establishment of Rural Growth Networks. Most recently, in July 2012, Defra launched a series of rural proofing resources prepared by Rose Regeneration, Brian Wilson Associates and Rural Innovation underlying the principles of good service design and delivery.

The rural policy journey since 2000 whilst retaining some of the ethos of ‘living working countryside’ has undergone a delivery transition: from regional bodies and funding streams to attempting to be locally responsive and private sector led. Yet what has remained a constant is a sense that the countryside is at a crossroads, with issues such as planning, the reduction of (access to) public services and affordable housing all serving as stark reminders that for many people the countryside is not a picture postcard.

Secondly, what will the Rural Statement focus upon? The RCPU has a particular focus on Ministers’ stated rural priorities around housing, broadband, services, transport and fuel. Within these priorities, heath is emerging as a key area. Defra is working with the Department of Health to refresh the 2005 Rural Health Toolkit (commissioning the Institute of Rural Health to undertake the project). Alongside this, the Government preparing to launch a refreshed National Suicide Prevention Strategy.

Similarly, Communities and Local Government (CLG) have let contracts to examine the delivery of the Right to Challenge, Right to Bid and Right to Build. There are also overarching areas which cross cut these stated rural priorities, namely localism and the big society, economic growth, quality of life and the sharing of good practice (all of which are likely to feature in the Statement). It is not too late for RSN readers to contribute to the debate.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee is carrying out an Inquiry into the work of RCPU, its ability to act as a rural champion at the heart of Government and its effectiveness in delivering rural development. The Select Committee is seeking evidence on: (i) what should be in the Rural Statement, (ii) whether the Government is focusing on the correct priorities and (iii) if the measures announced in Defra’s Uplands Review do enough to support sustainable hill farming. RSN members are invited to address these and related matters in writing by 3 September 2012. So if you were writing the Rural Statement what would be in it? And, in Defra terms, how will this improve ‘the customer experience’ for rural dwellers?

Thirdly and finally, how will the Rural Statement promote rural needs and interests across Government and beyond? It has been suggested that involvement from Number 10, The Treasury and Department of Energy and Climate Change have resulted in several delays to the publication of the Rural Statement. On the one hand, this involvement could be good news in highlighting how Defra is supporting other departments to take account of ‘rural’ needs and interests; on the other hand to what extent will this address some of the issues, concerns, opportunities and threats facing rural areas? For it is clear going forward that the Government now wants to move from flagship schemes to local examples and adopters at grassroots level.

The Rural Insight Survey provides a comprehensive overview of the opinions and experiences of rural dwellers, businesses and local groups. The 2011 Survey found people in rural areas were up for – and already – volunteering to support their local community but did not wish to formalise this commitment or to undertake additional activities or activities that would replace public services that were being cut or withdrawn. The emerging findings from the 2012 Survey (due to be published in the autumn) illuminate how people believe living and working in rural England is becoming less sustainable.

Does the delay in publishing the Rural Statement underline Government’s commitment to rural areas or does it mean rural is under the line and remains off the radar? Although the Rural Insight Survey and Rural Statement are not intended to be calls for special pleading for rural, combined with the Select Committee Inquiry they may provide important opportunities to re-focus decision-makers on a distinctive rural agenda within policy-making.

Jessica is a rural practitioner at Rose Regeneration. Her recent article on Defra’s refreshed Business Plan and Capability Action Plan can be found here. Rose Regeneration has particular empathy and enthusiasm for rural and coastal issues. Work currently being undertaken includes: supporting a Rural Growth Network pilot area, researching rural poverty for Oxfam GB, developing and testing a Rural Economy Planning Toolkit and an evaluation of cultural led regeneration in seaside towns. Rose Regeneration recently supported Pennine Prospects with its application for the South Pennines to become a Local Nature Partnership (which received Government approval) and has completed Local Level Rural Proofing resources for Defra. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk

What’s in the rural economy review?

THE government describes its Rural Economy Growth Review as DEFRA’s deal for the countryside. But what’s in it exactly?

£100 million will be invested in growing rural businesses through the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE)

• From February, grants of up to £1 million or more will boost competiveness and support growth of small and medium sized rural businesses in farming, agri-food, tourism, forestry, renewable energy and high growth sectors. The Rural Economy Grant Scheme will be worth up to £60 million in total.

• From summer 2012, £20 million will be available to further develop the skills of the agricultural, food, forestry and other rural sectors. This flexible and locally targeted programme of activity is designed to improve the competitiveness of rural businesses bydeveloping both technical and entrepreneurial skills.

• Farmers, foresters and horticulturalists are invited to apply for grants to adopt resource efficient ways of working that will boost their profits. Launched earlier this month, the £20 million Farming and Forestry Improvement scheme will provide match funded grants of between £2,500 and £25,000.

Launch of a £20 million Rural Community Broadband Fundto support the roll out superfast broadband

• Rural communities located in hard to reach superfast broadband areas (as defined in their Local Broadband Plan) are invited to apply to the Rural Community Broadband Fund to extend superfast broadband to the remotest areas. Applicants must be a formally constituted group and may include a charitable trusts, charity, or private business (non Internet Service Providers) or social enterprise.

• The £530 million Broadband Delivery UK programme aims to provide superfast broadband to 90 percent of every county with the remaining 10% to receive a minimum standard broadband of at least 2Mbps.The Rural Community Broadband Fund will target the 10 percent hardest to reach places and provide an opportunity for a superfast solution beyond the standard connection.

• The selection process for the Fund is competitive. Applications are welcomed from projects in, or due to be in, a 10% hard to reach location will be assessed against the following criteria.

1. Strategic Fit Does the project integrate with the wider development of Superfast broadband infrastructure in the area?

2. Value for Money Does the project demonstrate good value for money, based on a benchmark intervention of £300 per household/ business premise enabled for superfast broadband access?

3. Outcomes Has the application established a clear basis for need/ demand for Superfast (24Mbps and above) Broadband services through the Toolkit Data Book/Demand Survey? How many beneficiaries will benefit from the project?

4. Delivery Is the proposed technical solution realistic? Has the applicant demonstrated the required capacity, skills and financial resources to be able to deliver the proposed project? Is the project sustainable?

5. Upland Area Is the project located in an Uplands area (defined as a Significantly Disadvantaged Area)? Please note that applications are not restricted toupland areas, but they will be treated as a priority

6. Community Engagement Does the EoI and Community Data Book clearly demonstrate community engagement in developing the project, and community support of the Superfast broadband service?

Around £15million of new government funding to support up to six pilot Rural Growth Networks to deliver growth benefits at a localised level and at a scale appropriate to the rural context.

• Rural Growth Networks will be established to help rural areas overcome barriers to growth such as lack of suitable premises and provision of infrastructure (especially superfast broadband and mobile) and other business services.

• In addition to the £15 million of new funding, pilot Rural Growth Networks will have preferential access to all the new Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) schemes.

• In recognition of the specific issues facing women entrepreneurs in rural areas, Government is targeting up to £2.3 million (as part of the £15 million) to support rural enterprises led by women.

• Each Rural Growth Network will consist of a number of relatively small Enterprise Hubs. These could be generic or have a sectoral focus – for instance on local food, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy, IT, creative/media industries or leisure businesses.

• Government has been working with Business in the Community (BitC) with the aim of ensuring that every pilot Rural Growth Network is partnered with a ‘Business Connector’, someone to bring in additional business expertise and to provide strong links to local communities.

• Bids from Local Enterprise Partnerships will be invited by the end of January to establish a Rural Growth Network made up of a number of Enterprise Hubs. As part of the Rural Growth Network competition and selection process (to be announced in December 2011) LEPs interested in acting as a pilot RGN will demonstrate commitment to improving the infrastructure and premises that businesses need to start-up and grow in these areas. LEPs will also need to be able to provide targeted action to enhance business skills and mentoring opportunities and obtain a commitment from the local authority to allow changes to business premises that support growth. The pilot areas will be announced by March 2012.

• Defra will evaluate the success of Rural Growth Networks and share the lessons learned so that LEPs can better understand what does & does not work in terms of developing rural economies.

• It is expected that an Rural Growth Network would typically consist of between five and twenty small sites or ‘enterprise hubs’ each suitable for between ten and twenty micro or small enterprises, although some larger sites (including existing business or industrial parks) might also be included in an Rural Growth Network. The hubs would be expected to be on existing underused business parks, on brownfield sites or on sites which already have outline planning permission for commercial or industrial development.

To increase the number of rural business premises, there will be action to cut red tape on use of farm buildings

• Farmers can be constrained from growing their businesses by the need to get planning consent for minor changes to the use of farm buildings.

• The government aims to extend Permitted Development rights to enable farmers to change the use of existing farm buildings without needing planning consent.

• A consultation will be launched shortly on changes needed to make it easier to allow the use of farm buildings for business use.

• This will make it easier for rural business to find the premises they need to expand.

£25 million will be invested in promoting rural tourism and supporting its businesses

• From February, Defra will make available grants totalling £10 million to rural businesses and local organisations to invest in local tourism. This Fund will draw on the Rural Development Programme for England.

• VisitEngland is investing £12 million in promoting rural tourism, in order to increase tourist numbers and and overall visitor expenditure by encouraging more people to visit rural England and to stay for longer when they do.

• In addition, local communities will be able to apply for a share of £2 million to improve public rights of way. There is good evidence that clear, easy to use, well promoted path networks result in increased tourist spend. South West Coast Path puts around £300 million a year into the local economies along its length.

Many local path networks are incomplete or difficult to use. Local authorities will be invited to bid for funding to:

– create new path links, circular routes or allow for horses and bicycles

– make existing paths easier and more accessible for all to use

– improve waymarking on the ground, and devise community level notices and maps;

– provide positive links with local transport services and popular destinations.

Local authorities and local access forums will be well placed to advise and help, but delivery and maintenance will be primarily through volunteers. Improved path networks would be publicised through local outlets, and partnerships could also post tourist information on a central web space.

• Defra will work with the 34 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England to develop a new approach to supporting rural tourism in these iconic rural landscapes.

• Building on the success of ‘Our Land’ in the South East, up to £1 million will be invested in a similar sustainable rural tourism initiative in the North East. The project will help tourism businesses offer activities and accommodation which celebrate and connect the visitor with local Areas of Outstandaing Natural Beauty and National Parks.

Community-owned renewable energy schemes will be supported by loans of a total £20 million

• From spring 2012, rural communities will be able to apply for loans from the Rural Community Renewable Energy Fund to undertake the feasibility and planning stages of renewable energy projects.

• The Fund will enable communities to unlock private investment in order to get their renewable energy schemes built, and they will be able to benefit from a share of the income generated.

• The loans will be repaid over an agreed period, so that the Fund can support further community renewable energy schemes in the future.

• The renewable energy schemes supported by the Fund will create jobs and contribute to the Government’s renewable energy targets.

• Further details about how the Fund will operate and be managed will be published in the near future.

Taking the pulse of rural healthcare

Rural people deserve high quality healthcare that meets their needs and aspirations, says Jessica Sellick.

Published by the Department of Health last year, the Green Paper Shaping the Future of Care Together sets out the Government’s proposals for ways to reform the care and support system for adults in England.

The Paper looked at how money could be better invested in prevention, rehabilitation and keeping people active and healthy. Importantly, the Paper states that “people with care and support needs should be treated as citizens with rights, rather than having to fight to get services. Everyone who receives care and support must be treated with dignity and kindness, and their human rights must be respected”.

In this way, the Green Paper included an expectation that wherever you are in England, you will have the right to have your care and support needs assessed in the same way thus aiming to create a level playing field and end the postcode lottery of services.

The Paper builds upon ‘High Quality Care for All’ (also published by the Department of Health), which defined ‘quality of care’ as “clinically effective, personal and safe”. The Final Report looked at the effectiveness of care, from the clinical procedure the patient receives to their quality of life after treatment and how to ensure patients are treated with compassion, dignity and respect in a clean, safe and well-managed environment.

And yet amid the commitments set out in these policy documents – with the goal of a patient centred and led NHS – nowhere are the consequences of when this breaks down more apparent than in The Healthcare Commission’s investigation into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The Healthcare Commission, which reported last month, documented distressing incidents of patients routinely neglected, humiliated and in pain. It found that between 400 and 1,200 more people died at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust than at other hospital trusts between 2005 and 2008. The Commission (patients and relatives) attribute these findings to the Trust focusing on cutting costs and hitting government targets rather than putting the patients first. For me, these policy documents and the Healthcare Commission’s investigation raise interesting questions around how services can meet the changing needs of patients and how to make best use of available resources to deliver improvements in the health and well-being of people, no matter where they live. The provision of healthcare in rural areas, in particular, presents unique opportunities and challenges. I would like to offer 3 points.

Firstly, funding formulae. When the NHS was launched in 1948 it has a budget of £437 million (roughly £9 billion at today’s value). In 2008-2009 it received ten times that amount (more than £100 billion). The Operating Framework for the NHS in England produced annually, sets out the specific business and financial arrangements for this budget. As a general guide, approximately 60% of the NHS budget is used to pay staff, 20% pays for drugs and other supplies, with the remaining 20% split between buildings, equipment, training costs, medical equipment, catering and cleaning. What are the implications of this funding for rural communities? On the one hand, the NHS insists on ‘national standards’ which are applied without differentiation between urban and rural areas. On the other hand, the funding formulas used to allocate resources do not reflect the additional costs of providing healthcare services in rural areas or account for the changing (and ageing) population of rural England.

In response, the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) suggests NHS funding could be allocated using a method similar to the ‘Arbuthnott formula’ in Scotland. The Arbuthnott Formula is a population-based calculation that gives extra weight to certain factors such as the number of older people in particular areas, levels of deprivation and additional costs of providing services in rural and remote areas. Since 2000, the formula has been used to distribute funding to NHS Boards for Hospital and Community Health Services and GP prescribing across Scotland, which together account for around 70% of the total healthcare budget.

Although between 1948 and 2010 there has been increased expenditure and investment in the NHS, last year the Government asked NHS authorities to come up with proposals to reorganise the service to save money as a result of the recession. Articles in the media in recent weeks have documented proposals for London where health authorities are proposing changes (including possible closures) to accident and emergency services and maternity units at 13 out of 36 hospitals. The plans of other health authorities have not been disclosed. How can we ensure that current resource allocations (the funding formulas) and any changes as a consequence of the recession do not discriminate against or mitigate for the health needs of rural communities?

Secondly, models of care and the delivery of healthcare services. Although ‘Shaping the Future of Care Together’ and ‘High Quality Care for All’ states how securing high quality sustainable care for populations in rural areas requires a range of innovative delivery models, they do not explore what these models might actually look like. The RSN believes that rural communities are diverse and different and that healthcare provision needs to be flexible, imaginative and require a very different design, style and mode of delivery.

In practice, an effective model of service delivery to meet the health and well-being needs of rural residents requires a joined-up approach where as many services as possible are delivered locally – from ‘First Responder Teams’ and the ambulance service, to hospitals, GP surgeries and dental practices. With this comes a specific set of challenges around providing (Government/public) funding for effective out of hours GP services, maintenance of community hospitals, air ambulance services and dispensaries in GP surgeries. But there are also opportunities here around developing multi-use health centres in rural locations that enable patients to get as many of their needs met in one place as possible, the development of a ‘one-stop shop’ for healthcare.

For some healthcare services (especially those that are highly-specialist), patients may need to travel. Many RSN Members have documented how transport is a problem – from needing to take 2 buses to get to the nearest hospital to being dependent upon friends and neighbours with a private car. To overcome this, Member suggestions include a wider taxi voucher scheme, telehealth initiatives (but that takes us back to the need to improve the speed and reliability of the broadband infrastructure in rural areas) and the use of existing mobile facilities (e.g. libraries) to distribute information and prescriptions where appropriate.

Thirdly, the perception that many people living in rural areas experience better physical health and enjoy healthier lifestyles is well rehearsed, but this is a complex picture wherein rural communities are often unheard voices due the very nature of their remoteness. This means underlying health problems can go undetected. As a volunteer at UTASS (Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services), I have experienced this first-hand. UTASS is a rural charity based in Middleton-in-Teesdale that was established as a result of unprecedented levels of suicide, higher than average numbers of people accessing mental health services and on prescribed anti-depressants. UTASS provides a 24 hour helpline service, offers emotional and befriending support in partnership with the Farm Crisis Network (FCN) and Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute (RABI), complementary therapies (with the mental health charity MIND) and provides opportunities for other organisations to work from its premises (e.g. Durham Dales Action for Carers, North East Council for Addictions, Durham County Council Social Services). And yet UTASS is dealing with many of the challenges facing the voluntary, community and public sectors in delivering services – including funding (PCT funding for UTASS is coming to an end and it is not possible for this to be renewed) and how to safeguard health services in rural areas.

From policy documents produced in Whitehall to a rural charity in Teesdale; what is clear is that rural communities deserve access to high quality healthcare services that are appropriate to their needs and aspirations. In practice, this means healthcare services should be delivered in a way that makes full use of and enhances local facilities; involves public, voluntary, community and private sectors working together; and addresses ongoing challenges around budgets and funding, transport, the (de)centralisation of services and the stigma surrounding (mental) health issues. Only then will citizens have “rights, rather than have to fight to get services”.

Jessica Sellick is a rural consultant at Rose Regeneration. She can be contacted at jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk.