The rural economy is being held back by a lack of affordable housing, supermarket price-wars, poor public transport and broadband connections, according to a new report.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers found the rural economy was 18% less productive than the national average. If this gap was reduced it could add £43bn to the UK economy.

The government said it welcomed the report, and that it was providing £2.6bn to rural areas.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the Rural Powerhouse heard evidence from over 50 rural organisations including charities, campaign groups, academics, and business leaders. 

Calling it “one of the most comprehensive inquiries into the productivity of the rural economy” the co-chairman of the APPG, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, “It is vital that government understands that rural Britain is not a museum, but instead is an important part of the national economy that deserves the chance to succeed.”

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which scrutinised 38 rural police forces across England and Wales, found more than one-third (37%) lacked a dedicated rural crime strategy, nearly two-fifths (39%) did not have a rural crime team, and only 10 forces (28%) delivered rural crime training for new recruits.

More than one in four forces (27%) did not have a police officer of inspector rank or above leading rural crime, the research found.

And only about half (53%) of rural police forces across England and Wales have dedicated rural crime prevention tools, such as 4x4s, trail bikes, night vision equipment or drones.

CLA president Tim Breitmeyer said it is “astounding” that one-third of rural police forces do not have a dedicated strategy or team to deal with rural crime – especially when one considers the huge financial and emotional effect it has on those who live or work in the countryside.

He added: “Farming is a stressful business, where many are working on tight margins. Having to deal with replacing lost machinery, repairing a vandalised barn, or clearing up and bearing the cost of someone else’s fly-tipped mess, just adds unnecessary stress, eats away at meagre profits and takes up valuable time.

Policy makers are not doing enough to address the needs and interests of rural communities including farm businesses, according to the NFU.

The farming union gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

It comes as the NFU’s release of a new document outlining what it would like the government to adopt as part of a new domestic agricultural policy.

The committee is taking evidence on whether the Government has a coherent rural vision and how it can better deliver on policy decisions for people living in remote areas of the UK.

The NFU says Defra needs to be more effective and has recommended the department looks to collate and coordinate the evidence base needed to better inform Government policy.

The NFU thinks that if the evidence had already been in place, there could have been more informed and rural-focused solutions established to ensure rural needs, such as broadband connectivity, are met.

‘Varies greatly’

NFU Vice President Guy Smith, who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday (17 October), said his experience of meeting officials in various Government departments on different issues “varies greatly”.

“I’m into BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and DCMS (Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport) to talk about broadband, I’m into DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) to talk about planning and I’m into the Home Office to talk about labour and rural crime as well as visiting Defra frequently on all the issues that affect our members.

“Sometimes you do find joined-up thinking and an understanding of the impacts on farming – sometimes the issues just fall between departments instead of being picked up,” Mr Smith said.

What can we glean from May’s speech about who she will prioritise and what is in her line of fire? Here’s the most obvious winners and losers.

Winners

British workers

May promised her government would be on the side of British workers, ruling out a bonfire of employment rights post-Brexit, reiterating her leadership race commitment to putting employees on company boards and attacking company bosses who “earn a fortune but don’t look after your staff.”

Rural Britain

Broadband is a priority which May mentioned in her speech, and one her spokeswoman said had been discussed in cabinet meetings and committees. It’s in rural, and traditionally Tort, areas where connectivity is poorest and expect to see some concrete new policy on this in coming weeks and months.

Savers

May said it was clear current low interest rates were not working for everyone, and there were gentle hints that the government may be preparing to rethink quantitive easing, a policy that would be attractive to savers. May said though QE had been good after the financial crash, the government would “acknowledge there have been some bad side effects.” Monetary policy like this however, is really the domain of the Bank of England.

Losers

Foreign workers

May has made it clear she wants to prioritise voter concerns about immigration in her Brexit negotiations. Her speech will have unnerved many overseas workers, including doctors, whom the Prime Minister suggested may only be allowed to stay in the UK for a limited period. Firms have already started a huge backlash against a proposal floated by Amber Rudd to make companies list the number of foreign workers they employ.

Energy companies

May strongly hinted she wanted to tackle high energy bills, without a firm proposal. But her words about energy companies have been seized on as potentially a move towards Ed Miliband-style energy price caps. Her official spokeswoman did not rule out even tougher action, but said firmer policy announcements would follow.

Human rights lawyers

One of the biggest cheers in the hall came as May attacked “activist, left-wing human rights lawyers.” The focus of her anger was abuse claims against British troops, which defence secretary Michael Fallon had announced earlier would be protected against claims arising from the ECHR for future conflicts.

Tax avoiders

Ministers change posts too often, are poorly managed and focus too much on the media rather than managing their departments, according to a report compiled from in-depth interviews with officials, ministers, special advisers and non-executive directors across Whitehall.

The civil service suffers from a tradition of promoting poor workers out of their jobs, rotating staff so quickly they do not have to take responsibility for projects, too much automatic promotion, and paying too little to attract and keep outside expertise, the Reform thinktank found.

More than one current coalition minister argued that responsibility for poor performance by ministers went all the way to the prime minister, David Cameron. “The efficient running of a government department has no bearing on [ministerial] career prospects,” they are quoted as saying. “The prime minister doesn’t say ‘Well done!’ So if you wanted ministers to engage in the process properly, you’d need to send a much clearer signal that this is something that is valued.”

Another minister pointed out structural problems as a result of reshuffling ministers too often. “Frankly if you change ministers every two years you hand vast power to civil servants,” they are quoted as saying. “Civil servants have a certain contempt for ministerial office because they know they are moved so often, and not necessarily on merit and ability.”

* Introducing personal budgets for maternity services to allow women to shop around for the services;

* Front-loading child benefit to help parents with childcare and lost earnings in their children’s early years;

* Setting up a website to allow women to anonymously disclose and compare salaries with others in their industry.

* Hosting aDowning Streetsummit for women in business.

* Criminalising forced marriage.

* Banning advertising which targets children.”

I wonder if much thought has yet been given about how best to engage with the real interests of another important minority group – rural dwellers! This is not special pleading. Its just that this story made me think of some advice I was given by the most brilliant mind I know personally Keiran Brett (drop an email if you want to know who he is) – who said of my well researched socio-economic case for Government intervention to support coastal communities – forget the stats – work out how the places vote! My other good friend and oft referenced individual in Hinterland John Shepherd has previously done some specific research on this issue in terms of ruralEnglandand I am sure he would be happy to share it should you ask.

The article itself explains: “Five million Archers addicts will find out at 10 o’clock this morning (Wednesday) whether the dumpty-dumpty-dumpty-dum signature tune of the world’s longest running drama can survive in the wild.

“The BBC’s most popular radio soap opera is spilling outside the safe sanctuary of Radio 4 with a spin-off series which will bring to centre-stage some of the peripheral personalities from the main programme. Even some non-speaking characters will find their voice.”

The serious question underpinning this latest venture is whether the Archers has a positive or negative impact on perceptions of rural England.

I know that entertainment can never substitute real life but bearing in mind this caveat do you think rural England benefits or gets “dumbed down” by the Archers and do you think the story lines have any impact on public policy?