Examination of witness (Questions 780
- 799)
WEDNESDAY 12 APRIL 2000
THE LORD
FALCONER OF
THOROTON
780. Can I ask about the Comprehensive Spending
Review process, because if one were to expect this new approach
in policy to have an impact, one would expect to see the Spending
Review 2000 to be different in some way from its predecessor?
I would be interested to know what it is about the process that
you and colleagues are engaged in currently in taking decisions
about the Spending Review process which is going to mean we do
not end up with lots of different departmental initiatives. Do
you think there is a pressure still from the Treasury on the public
service agreements to focus on departments individually rather
than to look at the picture in the round, which is what you are
trying to do?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) The Spending Review is
trying very much to look at the picture in the round. The best
example of that is one you know of, which is the Government's
intervention in deprived areas, the cross-cutting group, which
is looking at how you deal with deprived areas across the piece.
The principle of the PIU Report is that before you embark on an
area based initiative as an individual department, you have to
pass it through the Regional Co-ordination Unit so they can see
how it fits in with other things. That approach will be reflected
in the way Spending Review 2000 is dealt with, so that one hopes
out of it will not come area based initiatives which do not connect
with other area based initiatives which do not connect with what
the regions want which do not adequately connect with mainstream
focus.
781. So we would expect public service agreements
which arise out of Spending Review 2000 to look rather different
in that respect from the ones from the previous round?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) I think you would and
I think you would also expect to see public service agreements
between individual Government Offices and Whitehall to indicate
what the Government Offices have to deliver, which again is something
foreshadowed in this report.
Mr Brake: Lord Falconer, can I give you something
concrete to work with? The division of responsibility between
Government Offices and the RDAs is confused, can you give us your
solution to that problem, perhaps without using the phrases "cross-cutting"
or "joined up"?
Mrs Gorman
782. Or two-way street!
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) The RDAs are not an emanation
of Central Government, they are agencies set up in the regions
to deliver a strategic framework for the future of the particular
regions. That gives them a completely different role from the
Government Offices. The role of the Government Office is to speak
for and listen for Central Government in the regions. So their
roles are completely different and it is entirely correct that
their roles should be completely different. They perform completely
different functions.
Mr Brake
783. Let us consider, perhaps more specifically,
social inclusion. Where would that lie between those two bodies?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) The RDAs in their remit
have to focus strategically on how you reduce social exclusion
in their particular regions. Equally, Central Government has particular
policies on social exclusion. The RDAs' strategic framework for
dealing with social exclusion should fit in with Central Government's
policies on social exclusion, they have got to work together in
relation to that. The fact that one speaks for the region and
one speaks for Central Government means they come at it from different
angles but working together in a co-ordinated way will produce
better results.
784. Which of those two do you think should
take the lead overall? Central Government or the RDAs?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) It is for the RDAs to
set out a strategic framework for eradicating social exclusion
in their area, it is for Central Government to have policies as
to how you deal with social exclusion. They both have a role,
they both have to work together. The single regeneration budget,
for example, is dealt with by the RDAs and it is right and sensible
that it is. That is proving an effective means of fighting social
exclusion in the regions.
785. So either neither do or both take the lead.
There is a similar problem, I think, in relation to regional planning
guidance and the RDAs' economic strategies. When this Committee
looked at that we identified this was going to be a major problem,
and the Government suggestion that the planning guidance and the
strategy were going to be of equal status simply was not going
to work because there would be conflict. How do you see that being
resolved?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) It is impossible to avoid
the simple fact that there are different agencies doing different
things because different tasks have to be performed. What you
want to achieve in relation to all of this is a clear division
of responsibility and proper working together. It is of great
use from time to time for there to be somebody or some body who
will try to co-ordinate the various bodies working together, and
that in a sense is the role of the RCU.
786. So in fact, yes, the regional planning
guidance and the regional economic strategies will have equal
status, but then it will be your new unit which will resolve any
conflict. Is that what you are suggesting?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) Where there are problems,
where there are disputes, between the regional players, what the
PIU Report suggests is that the Government Office can very frequently,
though not always, play a useful role in arbitrating disputes
between the various players at regional level. Whether that is
appropriate I think will depend on the particular region or the
particular problem.
Christine Butler
787. Do you think the Regional Co-ordination
Unit, which you have talked about at length this morning, actually
could help or hinder the possibility of regional government?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) I think it is neutral
in relation to that.
788. We are not there yet, so how can it be?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) What the Report says is
that these arrangements are being set up in such a way that they
do not stand in the way of any development which might take place
in relation to any form of regional government. I think that must
be right, must it not? If you have a unit whose aim is to try
and get the agencies get the headquarter departments to work in
a more focused way together, that does not in any way inhibit
whatever developments there may be for the particular form of
regional government.
789. I was taking the view that it might help
in fact because we do not have all the departments down at the
regional level yet. Which ones would you be looking to import
into the regions which are not there currently?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) Most are there in the
regions in some form or another. What we are trying to achieve
is that the Government Offices know overall what each government
department is seeking to achieve in the particular region and
is able to speak authoritatively on their behalf. Obviously the
Department of Health, for example, is in the regions, but the
Government Office is not going to become in any way the sort of
person who runs health in the regions, but they have to know what
the overall policies of the Health Department are and speak in
an authoritative way in relation to them.
790. We have the police forces and we have the
health authorities within the regions.
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) Yes.
791. Their role will not be changed but I am
a bit confused as to what you expect the Government Office to
do in terms of delivering, or is it just disseminating information
to them? How will it actually engage with the health autorities
and the police forces, for instance, so as to deliver what you
have called a more co-ordinated approach?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) Take the following position:
we have at the moment health action zones, employment action zones,
we have mainstream health expenditure, we have mainstream education
expenditure, we have mainstream expenditure by the police authorities
on police in a particular area, we have crime reduction programmes.
Instead of, for example, the crime reduction programme not identifying
in a particular region what is going on here at the moment, what
is the best sort of plan for that particular region, let us see
how we co-ordinate the two—
792. Excuse me, I wrote the preface to our own
crime reduction strategy, and that is not the point, that is focused
and that says the relationship is clearly to be one between the
local authority and the police and many other partners too. I
am not quite sure whether the Cabinet Office has thought this
one through. That is just an example. It is very local and the
health authority and the primary care groups and primary care
trusts are set up to deliver locally. I am trying to get you to
tell me and the Committee what the Government Office could do,
having imported more information from them or whatever, in other
words got more of the Whitehall departments to it. How could that
help matters? How will it relate to what we have already at local
level?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) What the Report identified
was that Central Government would, for example, identify a pot
of money, call it something like a health action zone or an education
action zone, the regions would then say when that initiative—and
I take those by way of example—was set up there was not
sufficient connection with what would actually help in particular
regions because there was not enough communication between regions
on the one hand and, as it were, Central Government on the other.
So what you want in a sense is a means by which there is good
communication back up the regions into Whitehall, so that before
you have area based initiatives, which in effect are identified
pots of money which go to particular parts of the country, you
best identify (a) how it will help particular regions and (b)
how it fits into what other expenditure is going on in the regions.
793. You are making it sound more like a watch
dog reporting back rather than implementing and cascading down.
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) It has got both elements,
has it not? Unless you listen first to what is best going to help
in a particular area you cannot inform the development of policy.
Once you have decided what the policy is there should be somebody
in the region who can say on behalf of Central Government, "This
is what we want to achieve, here is the range by which we can
help to achieve that."
Mrs Dunwoody
794. Does that mean, for example, where there
has been a health initiative plan—and in the North West
we have one in Liverpool, one in Manchester and something in the
south of the region—the role of the co-ordinating person,
whoever that may be, would be to say, "Just a moment, although
you have gone through the performance of getting money for this
specific purpose and although you have complied with all the things
you have to comply with to get access to that money, we think
some of that should be spent in a slightly different way"?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) No. The co-ordinating
unit at Whitehall level will say, "Before you decide to have
this XYZ area based initiative, let's see if it is really going
to help." Assume it has got through that stage, then when
it comes to the expenditure of money in particular regions, the
Government Offices would be in a position to say, "Here is
available this money, this is what we hope to try and achieve
from it, let's see what is the best way to achieve it."
795. So you would be diverting the normal line—which
would be for a planning office in the health sector in the North
West to work out what its priorities are, what its problems are
and then go through the Department of Health—at some point
early on in order to say, "No, because our priorities are
different overall"?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) No, I would not be diverting
it. I am saying at broad policy level you would have the Regional
Co-ordination Unit making sure the initiative as a matter of principle
was a worthwhile thing to do having regard to the regions. Once
it was decided it was, which is an overall national policy issue,
then the Government Offices would play whatever the appropriate
role was having regard to the particular initiative to ensure
that the money was effectively spent and as easily obtained as
was reasonably possible. I do not think I would be diverting any
other existing process.
Chairman
796. While we are on this question of the Government
Offices, are you actually going to get MAFF to come into the same
set up, or are they going to go on as a separate power structure?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) They have a separate arrangement
at the moment and they have separate geographical regions.
Mrs Dunwoody
797. But you are actually sacking large numbers
of those, are you not, my Lord? You are having a go at large numbers
of them in my constituency.
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) I am—
Mrs Dunwoody: You are co-ordinating; you are
pulling together all these Whitehall departments. So perhaps I
should have a go at you about how you are trying to get rid of
my civil servants. It is actually a valid point. At the moment,
MAFF has a different structure.
Chairman
798. Let us be clear, this Committee has pursued
for some years this question that MAFF is an empire on its own.
Let us test your power. Are you going to get them in or are they
going to stay out of your co-ordination?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) At the present time there
are discussions going on as to how MAFF may better integrate into
the Government Offices.
Chairman: That is a beautiful answer!
Mrs Dunwoody: My money is on MAFF, I have to
say!
Mr Forsythe
799. My Lord, the Report called for a strengthened
role for Government Offices in the Regions but they have been
losing functions, they have been losing people and indeed they
have been losing budgets, so how are you going to improve that
position?
(Lord Falconer of Thoroton) As I said to Mrs Dunwoody
earlier on in the discussion, you give the Government Offices
the role of being the authoritative voice of Central Government
in the Regions speaking for the whole of Government. So that is
how you build up this role in the regions. That does not necessarily
mean obviously that the Government Offices will be the people
who, as it were, deliver the money through the various programmes,
but what it means is that if you speak to the Government Office
you know you are speaking to Central Government in the region
which at the present time you do not necessarily know you are
because of, for example, MAFF is a separate arrangement from the
Government Offices.
| 
