Monthly Archives: May 2016

Revealed: Defra’s rural policy plan

The departmental plan published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) details its policy priorities for 2015-2020. But what does that mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Single Departmental Plans (SDPs) describe the objectives of the Government over the current parliament and how each department is fulfilling these commitments. SDPs contain information about the delivery of core departmental responsibilities, actions to improve their efficiency and transform the way in which they work, and cross-cutting issues where they need to work together with other departments.

Each Government department has to write its own plan – and have it agreed with the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury to ensure it reflects Government priorities and can be delivered within budget. SDPs are intended to improve the way in which Government monitors its performance and allow the public to track progress against key outcomes. In February 2016, 17 departments, including Defra, published SDPs.

Defra’s SDP sets out how it will spend its £2 billion 2015/16 budget. It includes the department’s vision, namely how Defra “plays a critical role in Britain’s current and future prosperity and the wellbeing of everyone in the country.”

It says: “Our purpose is to unleash the economic potential of food and farming, nature and the countryside, champion the environment and provide security against floods, animal and plant diseases and other hazards. Defra will meet its commitments by opening up data, using data better as a department, and better domestic regulation. We will help to boost UK productivity and extend opportunity.”

The SDP is organised under the department’s six objectives – with what Defra is doing and howDefra is doing explained for each. The six objectives are:

  1. A cleaner, healthier environment, benefitting people and the economy.
  2. A world-leading food and farming industry.
  3. A thriving rural economy, contributing to national prosperity and wellbeing.
  4. A nation better-protected against floods, animal and plant diseases and other hazards, with strong response and recovery capabilities.
  5. Excellent delivery on time and to budget with outstanding value for money.
  6. Delivering efficiently: an organisation continually striving to be the best, focussed on outcomes and constantly challenging itself.

For each objective the SDP names a lead minister and a lead official/s.

The SDP includes three specific references to ‘communities’:

(i) under objective 1 – a cleaner healthier environment – it will ‘develop new approaches for tackling waste crime, including using £20 million from reform of the Landfill Communities Fund’.

(ii) Under objective 2 – a world-leading food and farming industry – Defra will ‘implement the Common Fisheries Policy reforms, devolving the management of North Sea Fisheries to those in the region, including local communities’.

(iii) Under objective 4 – providing security against natural threats and hazards – to contribute ‘over £200 million of Government funding to help those affected by the floods in winter 2015 to 2016 to support the recovery and repair of the affected communities’.

Under objective 3 – a thriving rural economy, Defra describes how “England’s rural areas are of huge importance to us, contributing substantially to the economy, wellbeing and national life”. Defra wants to help rural areas to prosper and contribute to national prosperity; ensure people in towns, villages and hamlets have access to the same technology as those in cities; and to promote rural policy across Government to give a stronger voice to countryside issues.

Defra is aiming to do this through the Government’s 10-point plan for boosting productivity, published by Defra and HM Treasury in August 2015. Many of the targets set under this objective are being delivered by other departments: broadband of at least 24Mbps to 95% of UK households and businesses by 2017 (DCMS lead), expanded apprenticeships (BIS lead), more housing (DCLG lead) and increasing the availability of affordable childcare (DfE lead).

SDP data on how Defra is doing includes indicators to measure the average exposure to pollutants across the population; Gross Value Added (GVA) per workforce job at £44,500 in 2014; and 12,900 households better protected by December 2015 from flooding or coastal erosion.

Priorities Defra intends to measure include: how many kilometres of fresh waters are enhanced each year in England; the number of trees planted assuming an average of 1,100 tree stems per hectare; and the extent of protected areas at sea.

The SDP also tell us what’s in train. For example: Defra will publish a framework and 25-year plan for action on the environment in spring 2016 and extend the life of the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) to at least 2020. Defra is working with industry to grow more and sell more British food at home and abroad; including setting up a Great British Food Unit and trebling the number of food and farming apprenticeships to 18,000 in England by 2020. Defra is seeking to better protect over 300,000 homes and more than one million acres of prime farmland from the risk of flooding or coastal erosion by 2021; and has established the National Flood Resilience Review to consider forecasting, modelling and key infrastructure alongside longer term flood defence strategy. Defra will also be publishing a report on its progress in reducing regulatory burdens to business in summer 2016.

SDPs are supposed to be revised annually – normally each April – to reflect new data, provide written updates on performance and/or revised budget. But since Defra’s was published three developments have taken place which may shape its future development.

Firstly, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee published a special report on 8 March 2016.querying whether the planned 15% cuts to Defra’s budget would impact on the department’s operational efficiency. The Committee asked Defra to clarify its strategy for determining which policies and priorities will be altered by repeated spending reductions. In response, Defra outlined how it has secured £2.7 billion to invest in capital, 12% more than in the previous five years and will make 15% savings to its running costs.

Defra sets out this capital investment in relation to flood protection and defence maintenance, animal and plant disease prevention (Bovine TB), the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and upgrading bio-containment facilities. The Committee also called upon Defra to ensure rural issues are addressed robustly by a number of Government departments – querying what mechanisms a small department such as Defra can implement to make sure rural issues are taken account of.

In its response, Defra referenced its response to Lord Cameron’s review of rural proofing as well as plans to establish a Cabinet Office led rural proofing oversight; create an online evidence hub for rural proofing practitioners; roll out a training programme for departments including advice on the urban/rural classification; and create a new ‘rural ambassador’ role operating across departments.

Secondly, the EFRA Select Committee highlighted how Defra scores below the civil service average for staff engagement and on staff views of leadership. Defra is currently recruiting seven deputy directors– five of these vacancies are within policy areas and two vacancies where the initial focus will be on modernising Defra and the way it works within two key transformation projects: arms’ length body transformation and evidence transformation.

Once complete, the two deputy directors will then be assigned to a permanent policy role within Defra. The posts are Senior Civil Service Pay Band 1: £62,000-£117,800. None of the policy roles focuses specifically on rural communities – the five areas are regulation, Great British Food Unit, Food and Farming Strategy, floods/other emergencies and water services.

Thirdly, what impact will Budget 2016 have on Defra? The chancellor’s announcement of an additional £700 million to spend on flood defence and resilience will help Defra as it identified a black hole of £600 million in its flood defence spending in 2015. The Chancellor announced £60 million to enable community-led housing developments in rural and coastal communities, including through Community Land Trusts, where the impact of second homes is particularly acute (with £20 million of this funding earmarked for the South West). The Chancellor also revealed agreements had been reached to create combined authorities headed up by elected mayors for East Anglia, the West of England and Greater Lincolnshire.

Where next then for rural communities in Defra’s SDP and Government policy?

Amid these documents and announcements it is not always clear where rural communities fit. Are key issues affecting rural communities reflected in these policy drivers and objectives? In terms of the implementation of policy, which priorities can realistically be driven by Defra and which ones need follow-through from other Government departments?

While the SDP with its vision, objectives and data speaks to transparency; if the Government wants the public to assess the effects of its policies and reforms, how can we ensure rural communities inform their development?

With Budget 2016 Defra will not be alone in relooking at where/how it spends its money. Asked for savings of at least 15% will undoubtedly present challenges for rural people and places: will future cuts lead to rurally considered policies and championing or centralised policies imposed from Whitehall? At local government levels, while Government has decided not to impose further cuts on Councils in the short term, how will the Government decide where the new £3.5 billion of savings will fall in 2019-2020? And what impact might further funding cuts have on rural communities?

Are we seeing a positive agenda for rural communities emerging from Government or a failure to focus on issues of critical importance for those of us living and working in rural England?

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 preparing an economic baseline for a Local Authority; supporting the Big Lottery Fund to deliver Village SOS; involved in projects to help older people remain independent and in their homes for as long as possible; and 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 emailjessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website:http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Universities and local authorities – working together for “rural” people and places?

Through their teaching and research, universities are now seen as critical in driving economic growth, prosperity and innovation. They combine global reach with local rootedness – offering well-paid employment to large numbers of people (with their staff and students adding substantially to consumer expenditure).

Local Authorities also play a pivotal role in creating the conditions for economic growth as well as meeting the needs of residents and making places attractive to live and work in. How are universities and local authorities working together – and is this benefiting rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Universities have a long history – as the oldest university in the English speaking world, teaching existed at Oxford in some form in 1096 and developed rapidly from 1167; with Cambridge University founded in 1209.

From the 19th century the University of London was created (1836) with institutions – in what became known as ‘red brick institutions’ – emerging in other cities including Durham (1832), Exeter (1855), Bristol (1876), Birmingham (1900) and Sheffield (in 1905).

The Robbins Report of 1963 reviewed the pattern of full-time higher education and recommended that more universities be built. These new universities – what became known as ‘plate glass universities’ were often located on campuses outside of towns and cities where they would have plenty of room for expansion (eg East Anglia in 1963, Kent in 1965, Lancaster in 1964 and Aston in 1966).

With the passing of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, polytechnics or colleges of higher education were given the name ‘university’ and ‘HE colleges’ became known as ‘university colleges’ (e.g. Leicester Polytechnic became De Montfort University; Newcastle Polytechnic became the University of Northumbria; and Polytechnic South West became the University of Plymouth). As of December 2015, there were 106 universities and university colleges in England recognised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) out of a total of 130 in the UK.

These figures do not include overseas universities with campuses in the UK (e.g. American University in London, Fairleigh Dickinson University in Oxfordshire) or institutions with ‘University College’ in their title but which are not university colleges by statute.

In June 2015, Universities UK published a report setting out the economic role of UK universities. Between 2011 and 2012 the higher education sector generated over £73 billion of output (both direct and indirect effects); contributed 2.8% of UK GDP (up from 2.3% in 2007); made up 2.7% of all UK employment (up from 2.6% in 2007); and for every 100 full time jobs at universities another 117 full time jobs were established in other sectors of the economy. Alongside this, a review of the financial health of higher education institutions published by HEFCE in November 2015 concluded that future projected surplus levels were not sufficient to sustain the HE sector in England.

Indeed the £150 million funding reduction announced by HEFCE in July 2015 had not been reflected in institutional projections and a 5% per year reduction in public sector funding could see the sector in a deficit position by 2017-2018. The review also revealed significant variation in the financial performance and capital investment plans of individual institutions.

The current structure of local government has its origins in the municipal reform of the 19th century. During the 20th century, the structure of local government was reformed and rationalised, with local government areas becoming fewer and larger.

The structure, functions, funding and powers of Local Government have been subject to reform ever since. Today, Councils are funded by a combination of central government grants, council tax, business rates and charges for some services (e.g. parking).

And they continue to face cuts with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) settlement from Spending Review 2015 reducing Local Authority spending by some 6.7% in real terms between 2016 and 2020, with the bulk of these (the latest in ongoing rounds of cuts) frontloaded in the first two-years.

As the money Local Authorities receive from Government shrinks, it is the intention they become reliant on funds raised locally though council tax and business rates.

While Government has sought to protect grants aimed at helping Local Authorities with the additional costs of delivering services in sparsely populated areas, some RSN members have said more/continuing cuts will undoubtedly increase the pressure on the already stretched services they commission or deliver.

With Local Authorities facing ongoing austerity (and pressures such as demographic change, social care) and universities having to cut costs (while investing in infrastructure, teaching and career support so as to recruit students); are Local Authorities and universities working together to harness their resources or do they lack the means to engage with each other on a scale that benefits them both?

In a review of business university collaboration back in 2012, Professor Sir Tim Wilson described how “the diversity of universities in this country provides a rich supply chain of high level skills and innovation capability to companies; yet it is not apparent that UK universities are the magnet for inward investment in a manner that meets their potential.

Some places, notably Cambridge, can claim such a status, but this phenomenon does not appear to have been created through strategic policy, rather through the initiative and activities of entrepreneurial individuals, supported by the civic authorities at that time.”

In his report ‘no stone unturned in the pursuit of growth’, Lord Heseltine called for Government to develop stronger links with researchers, universities and businesses to develop and maintain the UK’s knowledge base. The policy framework to achieve this is being developed through Innovate UK and the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB).

The policy framework for Local Authorities to engage with education that many RSN members are familiar with is set at the level of schools: from sorting out places and providing home to school transport through to allocating finance and implementing legislation from Government.

At present, there is much discussion around the shifting responsibilities of local authorities in education (e.g. places, standards, supporting vulnerable children, academies) – with Councils now enabling schools to lead their own improvement.

But how are – or how can – Local Authorities engage with Higher Education (HE)?

I offer five points: –

First, universities undertake research that could be shaped and used by Local Authorities. The UK Research Councils Rural Economy and Land Use programme (Relu) ran between 2004 and 2013 to advance understanding of the social, economic, environmental and technological challenges being faced by rural communities.

The programme worked with local government and produced a range of policy and practice notes (e.g. economic growth, flooding, farm diversification, energy production, food, Nature Improvement Areas). The “Care Life Cycle” research programme ran from 2010 to 2015.

]Based at the University of Southampton, the programme looked at measuring unmet need for social care amongst older people. Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) was established in 2007 by a partnership of 22 universities, government departments and agencies. It aims to enable funders to coordinate their resources to avoid duplication, bring together different disciplines and take a UK wide perspective.

In Scotland, the University of Edinburgh worked with six local authority social work departments as part of ‘Engaging with Scottish Local Authorities (ESLA)’ project. This involved academics, social workers and involuntary users (i.e., offenders, those with mental health problems or disabilities and families involved in child protection cases) to produce a good practice guide to help build positive working relationships.

At a local level, Camden Council is working with Central St Martin’s to create a Public Collaboration Lab. The lab brings residents, higher education and local government together to add value to a number of projects including libraries, local planning and youth centres.

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has pushed for better focused research impact in and for local government. The Local Government Knowledge Navigator (LGKN), funded by the ESRC, was launched in January 2013 to help local government to make better use of existing national investment in research and to influence future research agendas. A LGKN Evidence Review identified some of the factors that make for successful collaboration between local government and the research community.

These include: a focus on issues relevant to local government action; joint applications from academics and local government; university departments working on programmes directly relevant to local authority decision making; universities working on relevant ‘burning issues’; building long term relationships through postgraduate placements; and leadership from the university – support from the Vice Chancellor to ensure the importance of the projects is recognised and academics time made available.

The final report, published in May 2015, recommended local government and the research community challenge existing cultures and mind-sets; stimulate demonstration projects; establish a web-enabled platform to better connect government and research; and support strategic and scalable research interventions which are likely to have reach and impact in areas such as public health and social care.

How can Local Authorities influence research agendas? And how can higher education research help Councils do more with less?

Second, universities have teaching programmes that benefit rural communities (e.g. medicine, business, agriculture). The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) is funded by HEFCE, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust. The Centre aims to build effective partnerships to encourage partners to embed public engagement in their work. Research in Ireland looked at the role of local access programmes in increasing higher education participation rates.

The study found residents in relatively disadvantaged areas of Dublin were more likely to go onto further or higher education if they lived close by a college. Some HE institutions market their rural location with quality of life and community feel to attract students (e.g. Falmouth University, Hadlow College, Highlands & Islands).

The University of Cambridge has a ‘Community Knowledge Exchange’ which brokers partnerships between community organisations with research questions and students carrying out research in fulfilment of their degree programmes. The National Graduate Development Programme (ngdp) is a two-year graduate management development programme run by the Local Government Association.

Graduates are provided with a series of placements to engage them in the core work of Councils. Participating authorities for 2016 placements include Cheshire West and Chester, Cornwall Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cotswold District Council, Gloucestershire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and Nottinghamshire County Council

How can Local Authorities work with students while they are still at university?

Third, universities have building assets and land. The HE sector has significant funds for leverage – from developing disused land, to jointly investing with the public and private sector to provide office and living space. For example, the Lincoln campus of the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside opened in 1996, bringing large scale HE activity to Lincolnshire for the first time.

With just 4,000 students the campus was located on a formerly derelict area near the city centre – £60 million was spent to create at the time to create what was Britain’s largest free standing new campus area. Today the University of Lincoln has 1,000 acres of farmland, a business incubation centre which has supported 300 new and growing companies, a centre for food manufacturing, delivers work based learning for the Ministry of Defence and recently completed a Science and Innovation Park (in collaboration with Lincolnshire Co-operative).

The University of Plymouth worked with SERCO and Plymouth City Council on a shared services project (HELASS). This explored opportunities for co-working, joint procurement and rationalisation of ICT in the delivery of back office and front end facilities.

How can Local Authorities and universities work within their localities to develop joint plans to share/develop land and buildings for other uses – especially at a time when Local Authorities have been tasked with releasing ‘excess’ land and property.

Fourth, universities are seen as a key partner in driving growth through their education exports, commercialisation of research and innovation developed through business-university collaboration. Universities are seen as a key sector in the Government’s Industrial Strategy; and as having a role to play as ‘place shapers’ in informing local economic strategies (e.g. LEPs, City Deals). The RSA City Growth Commission, for example, made a series of policy recommendations to universities and urban authorities.

The Commission highlighted the role of universities in ‘metro growth’ in calling for authorities to produce graduates on their doorsteps rather than attracting them once they’ve graduated – including having a ‘ReFreshers week’ where local authorities run a concentrated campaign with universities to help focus graduates on extending their roots in their place of study in the key weeks and months before and after graduation – and establishing Metro Investment Funds for Higher Education (MIFHE) to fund research and teaching which will deliver local growth. The Commission further suggested universities co-invest with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to provide start-up incubation and acceleration space.

The Commission described how “in a brave new world, areas shape their competitive advantage…[universities] therefore need to be ‘for’ something different in different places”. From the Midlands Engine to the Northern Powerhouse universities are beginning to respond to the devolution agenda: the Institute for Local Governance (ILG) is a partnership of the North East’s universities, Local Authorities, police forces and fire & rescue services to source research for the public sector.

The University of Manchester has established a new research centre for advanced manufacturing and the University of Sheffield for advanced nuclear materials.

Is devolution fostering closer links between universities and Local Authorities in places?

Fifth, it may be useful for Local Authority representatives to sit on management boards and advisory committees. This enables academics, officers and Members to discuss issues of common interest and exchange ideas. The majority of LEPs already have HE representation on their boards – as part of a move to encourage universities to focus on localities as part of their mission.

At the recent RSN economic development meeting Local Authority officers indicated the benefits have a universities in their localities brings. Yet in many instances opportunities for authorities to work with academics was based on existing links with entrepreneurial individuals and departments rather than something taking place at institutional and systematic levels.

Local Authorities need to tap into HE – influencing research agendas, becoming a greater beneficiary of HE activities, and using this to aid service design and delivery. But this also means universities (in all their guises of size, location, priorities, mission and commitment to the wider public) identifying local government’s needs and what they can do to help meet these needs.

While there are many examples of Local Authorities working with HE to harness expertise and resources, all too often this remains on an ad-hoc or informal basis. And this picture is further complicated for many rural Local Authorities who may have three or four universities within or surrounding their locality.

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 preparing Community Led Local Development application; supporting the Big Lottery Fund to deliver Village SOS; involved in projects to help older people remain independent and in their homes for as long as possible; and 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: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen