Breadcrumbs
Spending Review 2004 (AP03/22)
FOR Decision |
|
1. Spending Reviews establish government priorities for the next three years. The Spending Review 2004 (SR04) will set out departmental spending plans for the three years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The accompanying Public Service Agreements will specify the performance targets that departments must commit themselves to meet in exchange for the investment being made. The process is managed by the Treasury and the outcome is an agreement between them and spending departments. Given the current economic climate, it is highly unlikely that there will be as much new money available in SR04 as in SR02.
2. This paper sets out priorities for the Agency’s input into the SR04. At its seminar on 14th May 2003, the Board discussed ways to assess the Agency’s priorities for the countryside under SR04 and agreed an assessment framework based on 5 criteria. They were:
a) it fits with Defra’s 3 SR04 priorities – i. structural change/regeneration in worst quartile of rural districts, ii. equity agenda where rural figures are clearly worse than urban (eg. access to services, affordable housing, broadband provision) and iii. sustainable land management;
b) it integrates our social, economic and environmental interests for the countryside;
c) it is mainstreaming an idea that the Agency has developed and/or tested;
d) we have some good, quantified evidence of the need for this idea and, where possible, evidence of rural solutions;
e) there are recent or upcoming developments which make it particularly relevant now. It is not simply an old idea recycled.
3. In parallel with this, following the recommendation in the Agency’s second annual proofing report, ‘Rural Proofing in 2002/03’, departments will be discussing ways that they can ‘rural proof’ their SR04 bids. A senior level officials group has been established to progress this, on the recommendation of the DA(RR) Cabinet sub-committee. The Treasury will be issuing its guidance on the SR04 process to departments during the summer and we are liaising with them to ensure that guidance will incorporate rural in the list of issues that Departments are asked to consider.
Progress to date
4. Following the board seminar, proposals have been sought from programme directorates across the Agency and an assessement made based upon the 5 broad principles identified by the Board. Discussions have also been held with Defra and we plan to speak to Defra again before the Board meeting, so we will be able to provide an oral update at the meeting.
5. We are also in contact with the Treasury about making sure there is a strong reference to rural needs in their SR04 guidance to departments, which will be issued this summer. Our plan will be to write to each relevant department, in due course, reminding them of the need for rural proofing and highlighting any key policy issues that have arisen in the round of trilaterals that the Chairman has had with their Ministers and with Alun Michael over the last six months or so.
Priorities for Spending Review 2004
6. In total, 24 possible issues for the countryside have been identified. These are attached at Annex A along with the results of the assessment framework. The ideas are listed roughly in an A1 through to B3 programme order.
7. There are 13 issues scoring 3.5 and above. These are set out in Annex 2 and range across the remit of the Agency. Those scoring 4 or more include: voluntary and community sector; post offices and one-stop shops; broadband; rural transport partnership; affordable housing; country parks; and countryside links.
8. There may be merit in some of the issues being combined into more strategic bids. Of the 13 highest scoring issues, the most obvious canditates for this are:
No.8 (post offices and one-stop shops) - into a bid on community space and the delivery of services through community buildings such as post offices and village halls (although we do not want to lose the idea of a fund specifically for post offices to ensure their survival);
No.2 (parish plans) and No.4 (parish and town councils) - into a more comprehensive parish/ town council bid;
No.6 (sustainable local communities) and No.17 (community renewables) – the bid on sustainable local communities could encompass the community renewables agenda. In addition, although not in the top 13 high scorers, issue No.3 (to mainstream the vital villages programme) could be added in as a stream in this bid;
No.22 (countryside access database) and No.23 (visitor diversity) – into a countryside recreation bid with a focus on visitor diversity. Again, although not a high scorer, issue No.19 (countryside recreation) could be included as an element in this bid.
No.14 (affordable housing needs) already combines a range of initiatives –to take forward new commitments introduced by the Communities Plan in relation to Regional Housing Strategies and to mainstream Agency demonstration work on Rural Housing Enablers. The bid encompasses work that would, therefore, be delivered by a range of organisations.
The role of the Agency
9. In taking forward the issues, our role may be no more than influencing the lead department for that policy area. However, in other cases it may be more appropriate for the Agency itself to bid to it, or part of it. Based on the higher scoring issues, Annex 2 sets out possible roles for the Agency.
10. There is one issue which the Board agreed at its May 2003 meeting (A vision and programme for the Rural Urban Fringe AP 03/15) should be a joint bid between the Agency and Groundwork. This would be submitted to both Defra and ODPM to support a more significant programme on the rural urban fringe. (This bid is included as bid number 24 in the table at Annex 1 for completeness).
11. Those high scoring priorities where the Agency would seem to be well placed to add value and therefore to deliver the bid are:
No.2 (parish plans) - directly delivering grant aid to Local Strategic Partnerships or Local Authorities
No.5 (voluntary and community sector) – management of time investment programme for voluntary sector and support for animateurs
No.6 (sustainable local communities) – demonstration projects
No.8 (post offices and one-stop shops) - demonstration projects and possibly management of a fund to post offices
No.13 (rural transport partnerships) - management of scheme
No.20 (Country Parks) - management of scheme
No.21 (Countryside links) – Agency directly deliver
No.22 (Countryside Access database) – Agency would manage
No.23 (Visitor diversity) - Agency could manage
12. For other issues we would deliver only part of the bid, or perform more of a monitoring role:
Deliver part of the bid
No.14 (affordable housing) - a smaller role in relation to Rural Housing Enablers
No.17 (community renewables) – co-ordination role
Monitoring role
No.4 (parish and town councils)
No.6 (sustainable local communities)
No.8 (post offices)
No.9 (broadband).
Next Steps
13. We envisage working closely with Defra, though retaining the option of feeding in SR04 ideas directly to other departments where we feel we want to promote a proposal that does not meet Defra’s priorities.
14. Following the Board steer, we will work up the priority issues agreed in more detail for discussion with Defra by end July. During August and September, we plan to meet with relevant PSA leads in other departments along with Defra. In September we will produce the Agency’s draft submission for its own bid.
15. The Board seminar in early Septmber will provide an opportunity for the Board to discuss the Agency’s bid and a preliminary draft submission will be circulated for the day. At the 30 September Board meeting a final draft submission will be presented to the Board to gain endorsement. A final Agency submission would be sent to Defra by early October. In the case of activities we propose to deliver ourselves, we will also need to illustrate what activities we will be cutting back on.
Risks and mitigation measures
16. There are 3 main risk areas:
· that we have insufficient evidence to build a robust and well argued submission. This may be the most challenging, especially to find hard, numerical data to support our case. But we and Defra have been building our evidence base, and we can draw on our state of the countryside data, recent academic seminars and Defra’s own data.
· we could lack the clout to influence and negotiate with departments. We plan to address any possible risk from this by working closely with Defra and by getting Treasury guidance on the Spending Review to emphasise the need for departments to meet rural needs.
· there may be a small risk that we do not know what departments’ priorities are that we need to influence. This will be addresssed by a series of meetings with PSA leads during the summer.
17. To agree:
· that we pursue the 13 ideas scoring 3.5 or more (combined into more strategic bids);
· the roles for the Agency as set out in paragraphs 9 – 12; and
· to agree the timetable outlined at paragraphs 14-15.
ANNEX 1
2004 SPENDING REVIEW – ASSESSMENT OF IDEAS FROM PROGRAMME TEAMS
This assessment is based upon the criteria identified by the Board at their seminar on 14th May 2003. They were:
f) fit with Defra’s 3 SR04 priorities – i. structural change/regeneration in worst quartile of rural districts, ii. equity agenda where rural figures are clearly worse than urban (eg. access to services, affordable housing, broadband provision) and iii. sustainable land management;
g) it integrates our social, economic and environmental interests for the countryside;
h) it is mainstreaming an idea that the Agency has developed and/or tested;
i) we have some good, quantified evidence of the need for this idea and, where possible, evidence of rural solutions;
j) there are recent or upcoming developments which make it particularly relevant now. It is not simply an old idea recycled.
Scores are Yes = 1, Partly = 0.5 and No = 0. Overall score is therefore out of 5.
Issue | Description of idea | Fit with 3 Defra SR priorities? | Integrates econ/soc/env agendas? | Mainstreams Agency experience? | Have we evidence base? | What’s new/why this now? | Overall score (0 to 5) |
1. Funding for village and community halls | A mainstream grant for local authorities to help them build responsibilities for village halls and use them to help deliver services to dispersed communities. | Partly, as it would help to deliver services to smaller rural communities. | Mostly a social issue (though possible economic or environment spin offs). | Yes, builds on Vital Villages work as well as earlier CA (& RDC experience) | Some facts and figures, though the case for further help is contested. | Not a new issue but a new approach. | 2.5 |
2. Mainstreaming parish plans | Grant aid to Local Strategic Partnerships (or local authorities) to invest in Parish Plans and their wider roll out and links with Community Strategies and LSPs. Could make links to local authority PSAs. | Yes, partly. Should certainly help identify and address local services and other equity needs. | Mostly social, but with wider economic and environmen-tal spin offs. | Yes, builds on our Parish Plans and LSP work to date. | Despite wide buy-in to PP process, it is unclear if we have a case that Treasury would accept about their benefits. We would need to stress a range of benefits including building social capital. | Builds well on developing LSP and Local PSA agenda. | 3.5 |
3. Expansion of the Vital Villages programme | Build on the success of a RWP initiative, helping to deliver rural affairs PSA. | Yes, tackles equity issues. | Mostly just social benefits (though some wider spin offs). | Yes, extends or mainstreams current VV experience. | Yes, sound evidence base on access to services issues. | Not clear what is new. This is more an extension of an ongoing issue. | 3 |
4. Investment in parish and town councils | Build on existing policy more pro-actively, by encouraging local government reform agenda at parish level. Financial incentives (not traditional block grant) for ‘quality parish councils’ and possible link to local PSAs. | Indirectly, if it stimulates parish councils to tackle local services and equity issues. Defra are strongly committed to promoting Quality Parish Councils. | Mostly on social agenda, but likely to be some environmen-tal and economic issues tackled too. | Yes, builds from our work to help take forward the quality parishes scheme and co-ordinating the National training Strategy for parish and town councils. | Same evidence base as used in RWP and the introduction of Quality Parish Councils (especially from respondents of need for new resources). | It fits with the current agenda for local government reform and local PSAs. | 3.5 |
5. Building the capacity of the voluntary and community sectors and/or community animateurs | Build on outcome of Active Communities Unit work and government cross-cutting review on role of voluntary sector to deliver services. Another strand could be support for community consultants or animateurs to help community groups. This could be linked to Parish Plans. | Yes, where it focuses on the community sector providing services and tackling equity issues. | Mostly social benefits, though could be wider spin offs. | Yes, it builds on our support for community sector groups and our work with them on demonstrat-ion projects. | Yes, we have good evidence about poor access to services and the policy solutions. | ACU developing its work and the cross-cutting study is reaching implementation planning stage. | 4 |
6. Sustainable local communities | Demonstration projects to show what makes a sustainable rural community, investing in energy, services, transport, broadband, housing, etc). | To the extent that it would almost certainly tackle many equity and regeneration issues. | Very clearly covers all three aspects. | Builds on our experience of the various strands, which now need demon-strating together. | Mostly good evidence on these issues, if variable. | Arguably sustainable communities plan raises this up the agenda particularly at this juncture. | 3.5 |
7. Arts in the countryside | Using the arts as a means for rural regeneration and building local capacity. | Yes, if in the worst quartile of rural districts. | Could well be a yes, bringing community, economic and some local environ- mental gains. | We do not have much experience, though LHI relevant. | Some evidence, but possibly not hard enough to convince the likes of Treasury. | No obvious reason to start this now. | 2.5 |
8. Rural post offices/one stop shops | Need to find new broader role for post offices after the 3 year rural fund runs out. Develop them (or other suitable outlets) into one stop service and information points for rural communities. | Yes, if they can be made to improve access to services for rural communities. | Mainly social, but Agency research has clearly shown economic and some environmen-tal gains. | Yes, builds on joint provision and VV work. | We have good evidence about services, the role of post offices and on joint provision. | Government discussions starting about what to do with POs when the current support fund runs out. | 4.5 |
9. Broadband | For those rural communities where no other solution seems viable or likely (ie. no ADSL or link from local school) to fund wireless or similar local solutions. | Yes, an equity issue and relevant to helping economy of worst districts. | Partly. Has economic and social benefits, but environ-mental case is very mixed, but opportunity to address environmental/ countryside character issues. | Partly. We have research and good practice. But it does not actually build on Agency led demonstration projects. | Yes, good data and maps for availability, and on solutions. Weaker data on effects of not having broadband. | Broadband becoming much more important and rural-urban divide has really opened up. | 4 |
10. Young people | To improve the lives of young people (aged 14 to 25) in rural areas, tackling disadvantage overlooked by existing initiatives. Would need to dovetail with Connexions and New Deal and could have links to youth forums/parish councils. | Partly, in that there are some equity issues eg. access to services and facilities. | Partly. Strong social and economic benefits, but environmen-tal unclear. | Partly. We are building good experience, but it will be patchy at the start of the SR round. | Patchy. Data for some issues, but probably doesn’t add up to a clear cut case. There may be some supportive data from Vital Villages (including Parish Plans). | Can’t say rural youth problems worsened, but growing sustainable communities need to retain young people in rural areas. | 2.5 |
11. Structural fund to regenerate neediest rural areas (not on the NRU shortlist) | To tackle disadvantage and regeneration in those more disadvantaged rural districts that do not make it onto the Neighbourhood Renewal Funds target list of the worst 88, helping to meet rural affairs PSA. | Yes, directly addresses one of the Defra priorities. | Would tackle economic and social agendas, and may be some environmen-tal gains. | Partly, based on our experience of MTs, social exclusion, etc, but we have not been a main body for regeneration. | Yes, evidence appears to point to multiple problems in peripheral rural areas. | It is not clear that there is anything new (harks back to rural development areas?). | 3 |
12. Extending (phase 3) of our social exclusion workstream | Current workstream (phase 2) ends in 2005. This would move the work on to demonstrate approaches to a further set of social exclusion issues eg. older people, minority ethnic groups. | Partly, if it targets worst quartile or specific equity issues. | Social and economic, with limited environmen-tal gains. | Not really. More an extension of our piloting work. | Partly. Growing evidence on deprivation issues, but with some gaps. | Not clear that this addresses any new issue. | 1.5 |
13. Continuation of the Rural Transport Partnership scheme | Continuation of the RTP demonstration projects, with increased emphasis on improving ‘accessibility’ and tackling needs. | Yes, tackles equity issues if it emphasises tackling needs and access. | Yes, provides access to jobs, training, services, etc and an alternative to the car. | Partly. Could be seen as extension of current initiative, but would build on our proposed accessibility pilots. | Yes, good evidence on poor access to services and on solutions. | Increasing policy emphasis in DfT on accessibility approach, so some new element. | 4 |
14. Affordable housing needs | Current resources and initiatives do not match the level of need, and small LAs struggle to address needs. This would fund housing in market towns, mainstream the Rural Housing Enablers and fund an innovation grant to help rural LAs develop innovative schemes + input to Regional Housing Strategies. | Yes, addresses an acknowledged equity issue. | Mostly social, though with some wider benefits. | Yes on RHEs and some pilots on other aspects. | Yes, fairly good evidence of needs and lots of work on solutions. | Some new issues with new regional housing strategies. Need to find long term funder for RHEs. | 4 |
15. Rural economies | Facilitate greater opportunities for rural returners, retirees and the disabled, as entrepreneurs and contributors to rural economies. | Partly, if it addresses economic weaknesses in worst quartile districts. | Mostly economic. | There are not Agency pilots on this issue. | Yes, our recent research on rural economies would support this. | Role of incomer in rural economies is new | 2.5 |
16. Market towns | To improve understanding of market towns and their hinterland, then identify new initiatives to build those linkages in a strategic way. | Yes, in that this should some tackle equity issues and some towns in the worst quartile. | Yes, it would cover all these agendas. | It is not strictly about mainstream-ing Agency experience, but would build upon current MT work. | No, it is rather about helping to build the evidence base. | It is not clear that there is anything new on this issue now. | 2.5 |
17. Community Renewables Initiative | A programme of community energy and enterprise, delivering community renewable energy, in ways that bring skills and income to rural communities, have local support and are environmentally sensitive. Would mainstream the approach through sub-regional partnerships (building up from partial coverage of current ones). | Partly. Has some links to sustainable land management and other priority issues. | Yes, clearly integrates all three agendas. | Yes, it builds upon our current community renewables work. | Yes, our feasibility work supports the relevance of CRI and onging monitoring and evaluation work. | It is true that renewable energy is a growing issue on the political agenda. | 3.5 |
18. Rural training | A rural training programme to be funded by local Learning & Skills Councils, offering a programme tailored to micro-business needs and accessible to them. Should be available to wider age groups than current LSC programmes. | Not really, though could contribute to regenerating worst quartile districts. | Partly, in that there are both direct economic and indirect environmen-tal benefits. | Yes, builds upon our crafts training. | Not clear that we have evidence about the importance or potential impact of this proposal. | Not clear that there is any new reason to pursue this. | 2 |
19 Engaging people in countryside recreation | To encourage health and well-being, through active lifestyles and the quality of the environment. | No. | Mainly social benefits. | Yes, builds upon Walking the Way to Health. | Yes, we have some fairly compelling evidence about the benefits. | This would take the walking approach a step further to attract people (particularly youth) to try some new form of activity. It would help to meet the PIU target to get 70% of population taking 30 mins exercise 5 times a week. | 2 |
20. Country Parks renaissance | Funds for a 3 year programme to improve Country Park management and enable them to provide a better service. | Partly. Links to sustainable land management | Yes – tourist/ leisure destinations, outdoor recreation opportunities (especially urban fringe) with impact on health, and equity/diversity agenda in terms of people having access to the countryside.. | Yes, we have quite substantial experience this builds upon. | Yes, completed a review of management of CPs. | Fits with Gov aim to improve quality ‘public realm’ including parks and open spaces. | 4 |
21. Countryside links | Implement improvements identified in the Rights of Way Improvement Plans, to connect visitors and their spending with local services and benefit rural economies, improving the leisure experience in the process. | Partly, if it benefited worst quartile areas and assisted better land management. | Yes -bringing both environmen-tal and economic benefits. Social benefits as walking and cycling are a cheap and accessible form of leisure/ recreation. | Yes, Agency has quite a lot of experience in this area. | Yes from use and demand studies we know networks are dis-jointed and need improvement. | The RoW Improvement Plans are new. | 4 |
22. National countryside access database | Providing better public information about access to the countryside (based on our feasibility study). Could be linked to diversity item below. | Links to sustainable land management. | Case is mostly social, though could be wider spin offs to the rural economy with links to tourism and leisure. | Yes, builds upon Agency work (rights of way, country parks and access mapping). There is a feasibility study. | Yes on need for better quality information – from FMD experience, and our work on better access for people with disabilities. | The implementation of the CRoW Act by 2005. | 3.5 |
23. Visitor diversity | A 3 year funding programme to support countryside service deliverers, to meet the needs of under-represented groups among visitors. Would form part of Action Plan following Diversity Review. | Some links to sustainable land management. | Mostly social, though could be wider spin offs to rural economy. | Yes, we have been actively involved on a small scale in diversity and countryside recreation. | Yes – the Diversity review. | Increasing visitor diversity is a Rural White Paper commitment. This bid would allow delivery of the Action plan on Diversity | 3.5 |
24. Realising the potential of the urban fringe
NB THIS BID APPROVED BY BOARD MAY 2003 MEETING. | To realise the potential of the urban-rural fringe and help deliver sustainable development in Growth or Pathfinder areas (identified in Communities Plan). Funds for urban fringe projects, building on Community Forests, etc. | Partly, to the extent that it links to sustainable land management. | Yes, it is trying to ensure an environ-mental dimension to an economic and social policy. | Yes, builds on our Community Forests work. | Research programme in-hand. | The proposals for growth areas and the Communities Plan are new. | 4 |
ANNEX 2
HIGHER SCORING BIDS AND AGENCY ROLE
Issue | Who might lead the bid | Agency role |
score 4 or more |
|
|
5 (voluntary and community sector) | HO, ODPM & Defra | CA could manage a time limited programme and have a role with the animateurs. |
8 (Post offices and one-stop shops) | DTI, Defra | CA monitoring role. CA build on one stop shop demonstration projects CA could possibly manage the fund. |
9 (broadband) | DTI, RDAs | To build on our good practice guide and monitor the roll out. |
13 (Rural transport partnership) | Defra and DfT | Continuation of the scheme managed by the CA. |
14 (affordable housing) | ODPM (and Housing Corporation). | CA role in relation to Rural Housing Enablers. |
20 (Country Parks) | Defra, DCMS, ODPM. CABE might also support. | Either the Urban Parks Forum or the CA could manage this programme. |
21 (countryside links) | Defra, with DfT and ODPM. | The CA would be best placed to do this. Funds could be allocated to local authorities (but risk being used for other LA purposes). |
24 (urban fringe) | ODPM, Defra (with Rdas and English Partnerships). | CA joint bid with Groundwork already agreed. |
|
|
|
score 3.5 |
|
|
2 (parish plans) | ODPM and Defra | Either direct grant aid or a CA bid. |
4 (parish and town councils) | ODPM and Defra | CA could pilot and monitor |
6 (sustainable local communities) | Defra, ODPM, GOs | Demonstration projects, monitoring and learning role |
17 (community renewables) | DTI, with Defra, ODPM and devolved administrations. | CA retain coordination role for CRI, but initiative would be multi-partner. |
22 (Countryside access database) | Defra (and DH). Partners could include Ordnance Survey, Visit Britain, RDAs and LAs. | CA would manage |
23 (visitor diversity) | Defra, with DCMS, DH and Visit Britain. | CA would co-ordinate bid and identify spending needs. It could manage the fund, with partners like Mind. |
