Archived decisions

Rurality issues and their impact on HCC for planning and resourcing

Strengths

Strong perception exists that providing services to rural communities is more costly than central government allows for, however a large issue

Weaknesses

It is likely that recommendations would single out issues of central government support; central government is not within the power of HCC select committees to influence

Opportunities

Research might unearth additional evidence of use in discussions with central government, but not clear it would be a productive use of select committee time and resource

Threats

Criticism might accrue to the select committee if considered by others to not be best use of time and resources; also if recommendations unable to positively benefit HCC.

Summary and selection criteria

· Rurality, not directly within the remit of the Committee to scrutinise. It may, however, be possible to address rurality in the context of examining HCC's role in `developing sustainable communities'.

· Does evidence exist to suggest this should be an issue for scrutiny?

· Has the performance of the County Council been called into question with regard to its role in developing sustainable communities?

· What potential recommendations might have potential for constructive impact - on the CC (or its partners?) not possible to follow through issues with partners or Central Government.

Potential stakeholders:

    · Central government officers (and politicians?), Members, Department officers eg. R&H/Environment,

    · Commission for Rural Communities

    · Countryside Agency

    · Social Care Institute for Excellence

Documents

    · Out of hours GP services in rural areas, Commission for Rural Communities, July 07

    · The State of the Countryside 2007, Commission for Rural Communities, 07

    · Obstacles to using and providing rural social care, Social science institute for excellence, Sept 07

    · Review of Local Government Finance, Countryside Commission(?), Date?

    · Commission for rural communities report summary, North Cornwall District Council, Sept 07

    · Report (SPARSE) says rural areas pay higher council tax for fewer services, Eden Council, Date?

    · European Charter for Rural Practice, Euripa, 1997

    · Sparse performance profiling service, SPARSE, Date?

Possible rurality issues

    · Central Government funding (unlikely the Ctte could influence)

    · Population and migration (S&H People, HOSC)

    · Access to services

    · Housing and homelessness (Parish and District Councils primarily? - see HARAH)

    · Health and healthcare (HOSC, S&H People)

    · Social care (S&H People?)

    · Education (CYP)

    · Governance? (appears to be more to do with parish/town councils and 3rd sector)

    · Income, wealth and consumption

    · Full and fulfilling employment (Work and Pensions?)

    · Enterprise etc

    · Land use (E&T)

    · Value of land(E&T)

    · Environment quality(E&T)

    · Climate change(E&T)

    · Council tax (linked to governance - above)

Preliminary evaluation

Of the possible rurality issues it is possible to classify them as follows:

    · The influence of the committee is likely to be limited or zero

    o Eg. central Government funding, funding formula

    · The issue is primarily some other authority's remit

    o Eg. housing and homelessness, governance, employment

    · The issue may be primarily the remit of another committee

    o Eg. population and migration, health and health care, social care, education, land use and value, environment

The above exercise potentially filters out issues that might bring little return for the attention of the Committee. Of the remaining issues it is not clear that the Committee could add value in the case of `Enterprise' or `income, wealth and consumption' since if the Committee had recommendations, to whom should they be made?

The final identified issue, `access to services' may be justified in the sense that the services would include those provided by the County and its partners, however in order to evaluate this, it might require a substantial investment in time and resources. In addition, any recommendations would then have to be evaluated by departments in terms of budget limitations, priorities, and potentially diverting funding from other budget areas.

In conclusion, a preliminary scoping suggests that should the Committee take this work forward, the scope for influencing County Council policy, priorities or the services it provides may be very limited or zero unless it could be focused on specific issues such as access to services.