Abstract
For more than 100 years, non-landed and non-Establishment interests in rural England were represented by a succession of three quasi-independent government bodies (quangos). These were the Development/Rural Development Commissions, the Countryside Agency, and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). Their roles embraced, to varying degrees, policy, practice, and advocacy. In 2013 the British government closed the CRC and absorbed aspects of its responsibilities into the civil service. The implications of this decision for the disadvantaged people and places of rural England are explored. The potential for land-related interest groups and traditional elites to increase their influence as a consequence, is considered.First, by way of context, the histories of the three quangos and the main interest groups are described. The views of the latter – and others with related interests - were sought (unsuccessfully), together with the opinions of people involved in one or more of the quangos, and, or, the civil service successor unit. These are presented and discussed. Conclusions relating to consequential ‘gaps’ in independent policy and research are drawn.The aim is to stimulate discussion about the implications for rural England of closing the CRC, for it is possible that the loss of this small organization may have unexpected long-term consequences. The eventual significance of this decision has yet to be determined.
Highlights
In 2013 the British government closed the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), ending more than 100 years of support for rural England’s people and places
The requirement placed on it, ‘to have particular regard to people suffering from social disadvantage and areas suffering economic under-performance’ (CRC 2013 p6), enabled long-standing topics of concern, such as housing, transport and services to be addressed
This paper set out to consider the implications of the closure of the CRC, and its replacement by the RCPU, for rural England’s disadvantaged people and places
Summary
In 2013 the British government closed the CRC, ending more than 100 years of support for rural England’s people and places. Those suffering from social disadvantage and economic under-performance).’ (Defra 2005 App 2 p6). All these organizations were paid for by, but were largely independent of, central government. The paper reflects the writer’s interest in the loss of independent advice and advocacy created by the CRC’s closure, and the lack of prior debate, and supporting evidence and analysis. The paper first outlines the history of the CRC, its predecessors. Information gathered from interviews and email exchanges with people involved, or interested, in the changes explored in the paper, are presented, and the implications of the CRC’s closure for disadvantaged people and places discussed. Some conclusions are drawn, with the aim of stimulating further debate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
