RDC(3) P&D26

Rural Development Sub-Committee

Inquiry into Poverty and Deprivation in Rural Wales

Response from Pembrokeshire County Council

SPJ/PEW
Dr S P Jones
01437 775894

7 March 2008

Clerk of the Committee
Rural Development Sub-Committee
Welsh Assembly Government
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff
CF99 1NA

Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for your letter of 22 January 2008 in which you asked for written evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council on rural poverty and deprivation.

This issue was discussed by the Council’s Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6 March 2008 and a response to your questions is attached.

I would like to re-iterate that the key issues that the Scrutiny Committee highlighted were:

• The need to tackle low wages which is a familiar feature of the Pembrokeshire economy
• The need to increase the amount of affordable housing
• The need to ensure ICT/Broadband infrastructure improves

If you have got any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact either Kefin Wakefield, Head of Economic Development, or me via email:

Kefin.wakefield@pembrokeshire.gov.uk or Steven_jones@pembrokeshire.gov.uk  by telephone on 01437 776165 or 01437 775894.

Yours faithfully

Dr S P Jones
Director of Development

Evidence from Pembrokeshire County Council on rural poverty and deprivation

1. What are the poverty problems faced by rural areas? What are the specific needs of rural areas in relation to this issue?

Lack of suitable affordable housing.  

This is a major issue in Pembrokeshire for both urban and rural communities.  However the problems are more acute in rural areas.  Affordable Housing was identified as the number one priority in a residents’ survey undertaken in October 2007.

• Relatively small amount of housing in total and relatively low turnover rates mean the choice of housing available for rent or purchase in rural communities tends to be small.
• High costs for rent and house purchase mean that younger people are forced to move out of the area to find: training; employment; higher education.  Also issues about accessing further education.
• Some evidence that house conditions in rural areas are worse than in urban areas.  Housing tends to be more expensive to heat due to construction type and more limited choice of heating fuels.
• Second homes; whilst the average figure is c7% of the housing stock in some rural areas it can be in excess of 25%.  Second home owners often have the cash to out-bid local people.
• National planning policies are unduly restricting land supply in rural areas.
• The lack of affordable housing has meant it has proved difficult to devise policies that enable people who have grown up in rural communities to access affordable housing in their area should they need it.

Access to services, transport issues, and car dependency

Another highly significant issue.  Communities in rural areas tend to be older and much more dependent on transport by private car but:

• Not everyone can drive or afford to drive due to: medical condition; age, disposable income; high cost of insurance for young people
• Fuel costs have increased sharply in the past 12 months.  People in rural areas tend to travel longer distances than in urban areas.
• Rural bus services do not offer the choice of destinations or frequency which means that they are not a viable alternative to the car.  Community Transport schemes are growing quickly and complement rural bus services, but they are not a replacement for car transport
• North Pembrokeshire, the most rural part of the county, has a very dispersed settlement pattern.  There are fewer villages that can act as "hubs” for services and much bigger distances between homes on the outskirts of villages and village centres.
• ICT infrastructure is increasingly acknowledged to be the fourth utility but in rural areas is lagging behind.  Connection speeds in major urban areas are accelerating, in many rural areas basic broadband is still not available.

Low wages

Low wages contribute significantly to all aspects of poverty.  In terms of affordability of housing it is the ratio of wages to house prices which makes Pembrokeshire one of the least affordable places in Wales.  Low wages tend to be a problem across Pembrokeshire but figures are not reliable enough to differentiate between towns and rural areas.  A review Joseph Rowntree Foundation study identified Pembrokeshire as having the second highest proportion of employees paid less than £7 hour, householders in receipt of tax credits, in Great Britain and the sixth highest proportion of working age.

• Tourism jobs tend to be low paid, seasonal.  The business base is challenged by a very high number of small/micro small businesses in Pembrokeshire, particularly in tourism.
• Private economy is dominated by a large number of very small firms.  These do not tend to be highly competitive and this feeds through to the wages they are able to pay.
• Continuing decline of the agricultural sector.
• Low wages significantly compounds problems of housing affordability.

Other issues

• Isolation for older people.  Good Neighbour Scheme (North Pembrokeshire, and centred on Goodwick/Fishguard is help to tackle this issue).
• Boredom for younger people.  Lack of things to do (and the need for transport to access youth services) has been raised consistently by young people in consultations undertaken by the Young People’s Partnership.
• Higher costs of goods and services in rural areas.  Local shops are often more expensive than supermarkets.  Petrol and diesel costs are also higher.
• Fuel poverty.  Building types more common in rural areas tend to be less well insulated.  The choice of heating fuels in rural areas is more limited and these tend to be more expensive.
• 'Poverty of aspirations’, particularly of younger people, may be dampened by the expectation that you need to leave in order to get on.

Rural areas tend to have lower proportions of people on means tested benefits but there may be social/cultural barriers to people applying for state help.   

2. Are anti-poverty activities best dealt with by the Welsh Assembly Government or by the Local Authorities? Why?

It is difficult to generalise.  Poverty and deprivation are complex issues which do not lend themselves to simple solutions.  It is also important to recognise the role of the third sector in anti-poverty activities.  The third sector has a strong track record, and this includes work with both WAG and local authorities.

Often both WAG, the local authority and the third sector working together, for example on affordable housing.  

3.i).  What anti-poverty initiatives (Welsh Assembly Government or Local Authority) are you aware of?

The key initiatives that are those that support economic activity throughout the County.  The following is not a complete list, but are examples of the many programmes that are available.  The number of programmes adds to the complexity of delivery

• Structural Funding such as Objective 1, Convergence and the Rural Development Plan
• Communities First
• Ex WDA grants
• Some funding available from Trusts such as the Carnegie Trust
• Pembrokeshire Community Regeneration Fund
• The County Council has, in the past, provided rate relief for rural businesses

Benefits and debt advice.  The Council provides some services itself.  It also provides  funding to the local CAB as well as a smaller contribution to the running costs of Cardigan CAB in the neighbouring county of Ceredigion.  Funding is also provided to a range of other organisations for awareness raising eg for carers.

3 ii)  Do these anti-poverty policies adequately address the needs of rural areas?

The mechanisms for targeting anti-poverty policies need to be addressed. The County Council has already responded to WAG with its concerns that the WIMD is not sufficiently sensitive to rural deprivation and poverty.  A copy of the  response is attached as appendix A.  As the WIMD is used to determine eligibility for regeneration funding such as Communities First and for investment via Convergence Funding, rural areas tend to lose out to urban areas.  More sophisticated measures that acknowledge the over riding importance of low pay in more rural areas need to be used to achieve a more appropriate distribution of regeneration funding to meet identified needs.  Ideally, indicators should  also be able to measure the increased cost of living in rural areas.

4. What specific measures would you like to see implemented by the Welsh Assembly Government to deal with poverty issues in rural Wales?

Affordable housing is critical.  Without this, people will be priced out of rural areas.  One of the perverse effects of this is that rural poverty will appear to decrease as people on low incomes are pushed out by those on higher incomes.    It is also important that WAG and local authorities explore how affordable housing can better meet the needs of local people living in these rural communities.

Support for transport and ICT infrastructure improvements to support economic activity as a means of addressing the problem of low wages.  The case for improved transport infrastructure has been well made, however, ICT infrastructure is also a key issue.  

Many rural areas cannot access broadband at speeds which businesses require, and there are a number of areas where broadband cannot be accessed at all.  This puts rural areas at a significant competitive disadvantage to rural areas.  Without high speed data connections, rural areas, cannot capitalise on the high quality of life that they offer to attract new businesses.  This is critical as these tend to generate high values and, in genera, have a very small impact on the environment.

More recognition of the costs of providing services in rural areas is important.  Work to update the sparsity indicators that WAG, the WLGA and key staff in Local Government has not yet progressed far enough to produce a workable model to replace the system currently in use.  Whilst we do not underestimate the complexity of this task, adequate funding of services in rural areas is vital and we urge WAG to ensure that fair funding models are put in place as a matter of urgency.  Ultimately, people on low incomes rely on Council services more and these services need to be properly funded.

5. What examples of good practice are you aware of in Wales/other parts of the UK/ overseas?

• Rural Housing Enabler concept (there is a joint funded County Council, National Park and Housing Association RHE in Pembrokeshire) is key to understanding the housing needs of rural communities and translating this into local action.  Further funding for the Enabler has been agreed and we are confident that in the next three years, the Enabler’s work will start to make a real difference on the ground
• Community transport schemes.  The number of schemes in Pembrokeshire is expanding and the number of passenger trips for 2007 (42,000) is around 12% higher than in 2006
• Affordable childcare.  The WAG Genesis scheme has enabled one of the main gaps in rural childcare provision in Pembrokeshire to be filled.

DEFRA has undertaken some work which is of interest

• Rural proofing.  Encouraging people to think about the way their service is delivered to rural areas earlier in the planning process will help mitigate against unintended consequences.
• Rural Evidence Hub.  This brings together evidence and information about rural areas.  The better policy makers at local and national levels understand rural issues, the better they can work with communities to develop long term solutions.  Getting better evidence also helps inform who should be doing what.
• Basic skills provision.  Within rural areas, this could and should include support for people to obtain driving licences, eg help with literacy if this is an issue for the theory test.  These sorts of initiatives have been considered by some regeneration partnerships.

6. To what extent are these groups living in poverty in rural Wales?

Children and young people

The map at Appendix B shows the proportion of children and young people that qualify for free school meals.  This is a reasonable indication of poverty amongst young people.

Compared with urban areas, child poverty is less of an issue, however, rates in some rural areas are still high.  A further issue is deprivation such as lack of access to services and dependence on parents for transport to maintain social networks.

The economically active

The main issue is low wages.  Unemployment was a significant problem in the 1980s and 1990s, but now is much less of an issue across Pembrokeshire

The economically inactive

In comparison to the number of people who are unemployed, there are a large number of people who are economically inactive in Pembrokeshire and on disability benefits.

Rates compared to other unitary authorities have reduced in recent years.

Older people

The population profile of rural areas in Pembrokeshire tends to be older than rural areas.  Issues that have been raised through older person’s strategy consultations include: access to services and information about services.  Of particular concern is whether changes to the health service will mean that it is more difficult to access these services.  Although accurate Pembrokeshire specific figures are not available, fuel poverty is also likely to be much more on an issue in rural areas

7. What poverty issues are experienced by these population groups that are specific to rural areas? Please highlight any relevant evidence or research that you are aware of.

Children and Young People

Transport issues, access to further education, skills and training and Broadband access are significant issues

Older people and transport.  

Not all older people have access to a car and some are dependent on a partner.  We are aware that some groups have raised the cost of insurance for older drivers as an issue.  Public transport is infrequent and some older people may have concerns about anti-social behaviour.

These issues have been raised as part of consultation exercises with older people that have been undertaken through the Older Persons’ Strategy.

8. How do the problems of the 4 population groups differ across rural Wales (for example between areas in West Wales and East Wales)?

It is difficult to comment on this as the County Council is not familiar with the situation in other areas of Wales.  However, we assume that  the key drivers for rural poverty will be similar in all of Wales’ regions.  One obvious difference is that West Wales, is much more remote from the rest of the UK than East Wales.  As such, access to specialist health services or higher order retail and cultural opportunities are constrained.

9. In what ways are any sub-groups within the four population groups particularly affected by rural poverty, for example, disabled economically inactive people or female older people?

The effect is perhaps most severe for young people as they will tend to leave their communities due to the lack of availability of housing.  The extent of this problem can be hidden as these people no longer live in rural areas.

People who are disabled (or are caring for people who are disabled) are often at a significant disadvantage in the labour market.  The more rural an area is, the lower the percentages of people that claim incapacity benefit tends to be.

10. What are the most effective ways of tackling poverty for individuals from these groups living in rural parts of Wales?

Research by HM Treasury undertaken as part of the Policy Action Team on jobs was clear that the most effective long term route out of poverty was access to work.  This solution isn’t a panacea - for some economically inactive people, work isn’t a practical option, or at least an option that will lift them out of poverty.

Whilst access to jobs remains important, access to higher paid and more high skilled jobs is more important.  Unless this change is made, Pembrokeshire will continue to have a low GVA economy and rural areas are likely to become 'retirement homes’..

Action is needed to:

• Raise skills levels amongst local labour force.  
• Promoting rural enterprise and diversification of the rural economy.  Our work through initiatives like the 'Produce Mark’ for Pembrokeshire has shown that there is a demand for high quality food products.
• Addressing gaps in the quality of ICT infrastructure between urban and rural areas.

11. How can these problems be addressed by WAG?

First and foremost, WAG needs to ensure that the needs of rural areas are recognised in the indices of deprivation (see Appendix a), previously submitted to WAG).  A partnership between WAG and other local partners is more likely to be effective than action by WAG alone.  

Raising skills levels

Clarity from WAG is needed on the issues Webb Review.  Effective work with energy industry locally has been undertaken by WAG and local public sector agencies however, more work will be needed to deliver in rural areas

Promote rural enterprise.  

Sites and infrastructure remain the most important issues.  This is because it is often not commercially viable for the private sector to develop sites, given the high costs of putting in infrastructure and the relatively low rent levels.  Public sector investment is needed in order to develop sites.

High quality ICT infrastructure

WAG, working with the regulator, need to find a way of encouraging effective competition for BT to drive up quality and drive down price.  WAG also need to explore wireless broadband issues as it is not clear how current or future technologies can use the telephone network to deliver high speed ICT connections to all rural areas.

Appendix A

Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation : consultation on the proposed indicators for updating

Comments of Pembrokeshire County Council

General Comments

There is a strong and growing concern amongst those involved with policy making in the County Council that the existing WIMD indicators fail to reflect the nature of rural deprivation, which results in rural areas appearing to have less deprivation than urban areas. This may be because of a number of reasons, most notably:

• Disadvantaged and poor households in rural areas are unlikely to be spatially concentrated;
• Many of the existing indicators such as unemployment perform in different ways in urban and rural contexts;
• Potentially useful indicators, such as ways of capturing social isolation, tend not to be currently available;
• Existing access to services domain needs to take into account the quality of the service being accessed;
• Statistical data capable of adequately identifying rural deprivation is not yet available, or being collected in a consistent manner.

Previous WIMDs, and many traditional indicators of deprivation e.g. Townsend appear to have been designed with an urban bias, mainly because of policy reasons. Therefore deprivation indicators such as WIMD to date may effectively underestimate the scale of rural deprivation. Deprivation clearly differs between the city and the rural area and this suggests that WIMD 2008 should attempt to develop and use separate urban and rural indicators, or a separate sub index for rural deprivation within the overall WIMD index.

For WIMD to reflect rural deprivation successfully there is a need for the development of indicators of disadvantage that are sensitive to the multiple ways in which deprivation may be experienced by people in the countryside together with the development of methods that capture the geographical dimensions of rurality. This, in turn, impacts upon service provision and utilisation.

In requesting an improvement in WIMD’s addressing of rural deprivation there is the need to clearly define rural deprivation and show how it differs from deprivation per se. We need to clearly show how it is distinct from urban deprivation.

The Individual Domains

Income Domain

It is widely accepted that low income is a fundamental aspect of deprivation, because low income is often the root cause of the lack of necessities which lie at the core of definitions of deprivation. Further, low income, particularly when it is persistent over time, contributes to a wider range of other problems including ill health and inability to access or pay for services. The importance of income in determining deprivation has always been reflected in WIMD by the income domain being accorded the highest weight and being most highly correlated with most of the other domains. Unfortunately, there have always been problems with the measurement of income in the Index, problems which mainly reflect the general lack of comprehensive official measures of income which are suitable for use at local and small area levels such as Lower Super Output Areas. These problems are long standing and yet, despite being frequently remarked upon by Councils, the main governmental statistical and administrative departments responsible have so far failed to provide a general solution which allows access to the income data that they undoubtedly hold down to individual person level. Whilst it was accepted that the 2001 Census would have been compromised by the inclusion of an income question, the ONS did make a commitment at the time to produce local and small area measures of income level and distribution. Five years on from making this commitment, it was expected that such data would have been available for WIMD 2008.  Instead, it is proposed to opt for the Essex University project which will model income estimates from the existing Family Resource Survey. As a County Council we are concerned that this as yet untested indicator will be the sole measure for determining the income domain score, which effectively relates to 25% of the overall Index overall score.

The alternative option suggested relates to indictors that were included in WIMD 2005, whilst the only other indicator that was considered for inclusion was an assessment of Housing Benefits data. This would suggest that other alternative sources of such as CACI Paycheck or ASHE data, were discounted, but this is not made clear.

The apparent dearth of robust small area income data suggests two options:

• The NAfW/LGDU should have considered commissioning work to produce alternative sources of income data eg from Cost of Living or ASHE/CACI data;
• Reduction in the weighting of the Income Domain in the production of the overall index to reflect the weakness or the data.

Employment Domain

Rural deprivation tends to be the consequence of a number of employment related issues such as low pay, self-employment, part-time and seasonal work, and access to employment opportunities, none of which are addressed within the proposed WIMD 2008 employment indicators, rather than unemployment, which is. For rural areas, therefore, WIMD needs to examine the quality of employment rather than unemployment. There are fewer career opportunities in rural areas, firms are smaller and opportunities for graduates are more limited, as are opportunities for training and opportunities for progress within individual firms. Within rural areas there is also often a limited choice by sector, with primary industries, such as agriculture, continuing to be the subject of structural decline and alternatives frequently offered only by low wage service occupations such as the tourist sector which is also often only on a seasonal basis. All these combine to produce deprivation among the rural population.  There is no indication that any attempt has been made to evaluate such issues within WIMD.

Hidden unemployment in rural areas is also an important indicator of employment deprivation, with many people not bothering to 'sign on’ due to the lack of employment opportunities. It is suggested that it would be worth assessing economic inactivity as a potential indictor.

Whilst it is acknowledged that existing data sources to create employment indicators relating to the above rural deprivation issues are scarce, one potential source could be an enhanced Labour Force Survey.

Education Domain

This domain appears to be blessed with a large number of robust indictors, although, it is disappointing that the indictor assessing adults with 'No Qualifications’ is based on 2001 Census data which is now somewhat dated. Whilst these proposed indicators effectively monitor education attainment, or the lack of it, they relate solely to academic achievement as opposed to more basic skills attainment which is not exam orientated.

One disappointing aspect of this domain relates to the six other indicators that were assessed. In virtually all cases they are considered good indictors but are discounted on robustness of the data. It is to be hoped that by the time of the next review that steps will have been taken to make this data available for inclusion.

In terms of education deprivation it is considered that in general inhabitants of rural areas still suffer from a marked paucity of affordable nursery education and childcare facilities, just as they are typically expected to travel further to access education and further education. Whilst the 'Access to Services domain looks at access to primary and secondary schools there is no assessment for access to preschool or further education facilities. Indeed, rural students do not have the same opportunities to live at home while studying, as others in urban areas are increasingly doing. The problem is compounded by the lack of local opportunities and size and sectoral characteristics of many rural firms, which in turn means a lack of demand for graduates.

Health Domain

Involvement with Needs Assessments relating to Health Social Care and Well-being Strategy development in 2003 and 2006 has indicated to the County Council the difficulty in obtaining robust small area health data from its health partners in the exercise. No doubt these experiences have been replicated by most authorities across Wales. It is therefore of no surprise that a large number of potential indicators are ruled out from inclusion in this domain due to lack of data being available. Clearly there is a need at national level to address the problem of availability of small area health data.

In terms of the proposed health indicators it is regrettable that Limiting Long-term Illness (LLTI) information from the 2001 Census is still to be included, as not only is the information somewhat dated, but evidence suggests that in rural areas self-reported limiting long-term illness, as the 2001 Census question was, may be misrepresentative. The information may fail to demonstrate the real level of LLTI in rural areas, given that much of rural industry is related to farming and agriculture and evidence suggests that farmers report less LLTI than others, even though there health is worse. Culturally, ill health is considered a sign or weakness and not discussed. The demands of farming are dictated, at least in part, by issues such as weather and animal welfare. Consequently farmers may not be afforded the option of taking time off if they feel unwell or have persistent pain, they have to work.

Access to Services Domain

The Access to Services Domain changes for the 2005 Index did much to address rural deprivation as it relates to accessibility to services, but the County Council feels that the domain would benefit from additional services being included in the assessment such as:

• Access to adult education
• Access to further education/university
• Access to skills training
• Access to a job centre

In addition there may be benefit in investigating rural deprivation associated with the concept of isolation and distance to nearest neighbour measure that has been evaluated for the Scottish Index.

Quality of the service on offer is a factor that in some cases is just as relevant as actual access to the facility. This is perhaps most vividly indicated by the access to NHS dentists. In many rural areas, whilst an NHS dentist exists within a 20 minute travel time the likelihood that new patients would be able to register is extremely unlikely. Despite this limitation access to services is an important component in assessing rural deprivation and the County Council considers that an increased weighting should be accorded to this domain.

Housing Domain

The domain is included in order "to capture deprivation through a lack of access to adequate housing”, but the proposed indicators don’t really cover the main issues associated with housing deprivation and is perhaps the weakest of all the domains. This is somewhat disappointing given that a poor housing environment is a significant factor in one’s perception of social deprivation.

In rural areas such as Pembrokeshire it is the shortage of low cost housing that is contributing to housing deprivation, with house prices in such areas inflated by in migrants and second home owners. Owner occupation rates tend to be higher with opportunities for renting often limited in both the public and private sectors. Insecurity of tenure follows from both tied properties and the holiday market. The condition of properties in the private rented sector is also on average relatively poor and if measurable would be a better indicator of rural disadvantage than overcrowding.

The limited availability of low cost housing with the need to run a car, to access services and employment, prevents young people from leaving the parental home or leads to migration out of the area. The lack of affordable housing thus ’not only affects individuals and families, but also undermines the achievement of balanced, sustainable, rural communities.

None of these rural housing factors are included as indicators because of the lack of data, which is somewhat disconcerting as the data pool for the housing domain appears to have become smaller as each review of WIMD has taken place, when one would have hoped it would have increased.

Physical Environment

A poor physical environment and its effects on individuals is an element of deprivation that merits inclusion in WIMD 2008, but it is also true that an area with a high quality physical environment could 'hide’ high levels of deprivation as depicted by all the other domains.

In terms of the proposed indicators for inclusion one would want to establish at what level do air quality and air emissions start to effect the perception or degree of deprivation. It is hard to imagine, for example, that any areas in Wales are subject to the levels of air quality and emissions that are currently affecting Chinese urban areas and which unquestionably cause deprivation. This is even more so in respect of flood risk areas. Although recent examples have highlighted the problems of living on floodplains when intense periods of rainfall are experienced, until this 'once in one hundred years’ episode occurs in that area and flooding occurs, for the remainder of the time the area is not subject to any quantifiable sense of deprivation.  

Community Safety

The introduction of this domain is welcomed as there is clear statistical evidence that shows a correlation between crime and deprivation.

Weightings

It is understood that the proposed weightings may be revised following a recent assessment into the impact of changing the weights that underpin the 2004 English Index of Multiple Deprivation. In light of the comments in this response the County Council, would favour:

• a decrease in either the income or employment domain weighting, especially as there is some duplication with them;
• an increase in the access to services domain weighting;
• a slight decrease in the health domain weighting given the paucity of appropriate data