Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
RT HON
KEITH HILL
MP, RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP AND RT
HON LORD
ROOKER MP
15 JULY 2003
Q220 Chairman: March next year?
* See Q 245
Lord Rooker: It is around that
time. We did not know whether there would be a call in or not
because we, as planning ministers, were not dealing with that.
There was a Chinese wall for another minister in the department
to deal with that, so that would not be known until the last minute,
but there still are negotiation between the developer and the
local authorities as far as Section 106 is concerned.
Q221 Mr Cummings: A few weeks ago,
the Prime Minister indicated that focusing on delivery and targets
may have been something of a mistake and he was followed by the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and her comments were,
"You can't deliver good health or safe streets in the way
commercial companies can deliver pizzas." In view of these
comments, is the ODPM reviewing its attitude towards targets?
Mr Raynsford: If I can say from
the perspective of local regional government that we have been,
over the last two years or more, trying to refine the targets
and reduce the number of, for example, best-value performance
indicators while at the same time maintaining continuity on the
critical ones that really do help to indicate whether performance
is improving or not because we believe that there is a role for
targets but that it must be focused on results rather than allowing
a proliferation of bureaucracy.
Q222 Mr Cummings: Are you saying
there are too many targets?
Mr Raynsford: We have reduced
a number of best-value performance indicators by a very substantial
amount and we are now at a level where we think there are a meaningful
series of indicators and, in terms of local government, local
authorities are free to add additional ones—some do, some
put in significant numbers of other targets themselves—and
we now think that we have the right focus on delivery which is
above all the important thing.
Q223 Mr Cummings: Will you keep an
eye on this?
Mr Raynsford: Yes.
Q224 Mr Cummings: Do you intend to
monitor?
Mr Raynsford: Very much so and
all the time, but there is a tension here. On the one side, we
want to reduce bureaucratic burdens and we are doing that in a
variety of different ways, not just by looking at targets and
performance indicators. Secondly, you do need continuity to be
able to measure change over time and, if you are constantly changing
the indicators or targets, then you lose that continuity and that
is the balance that we try and strike to ensure that there is
meaningful data which enables local authorities themselves and
ourselves and the Audit Commission to measure change in improvement
because that is really what it is all about, trying to give improvement
in performance while at the same time not imposing an unreasonable
bureaucratic burden.
Q225 Chairman: Would it be unfair
to ask you what the target is for reducing targets?
Mr Raynsford: To increase efficiency
is the target.
Q226 Mr Cummings: If I can move on
to empty homes and perhaps direct this question to Lord Rooker.
Can you tell the Committee what proportion of the £500 million
which has been allocated for housing market renewal pathfinder
projects is to be spent on supporting the local economy and transport
projects.
Lord Rooker: The answer to that
direct and specific question is that I cannot tell you at the
present time simply because that £500 million is over three
years and this is year one. We have just announced seven pathfinders
£4 million each, that is £28 million, but we had already
allocated some money to them, so we have only allocated a small
amount of money, about £50 million, this year to get them
going and their strategic plans will be arriving on our desks
by the end of the year. So, the large amount of the money to be
spent, the £0.5 billion, in the market renewal areas will
be spent in years two and three of the spending round. Until we
have more detailed plans from the pathfinders, I cannot give you
a breakdown between what is spent on, as you say, the economy
or in recreating the communities because we want it to be jobs
led, it is not just a question of housing. It is simply too early
to say at the present time what proportion will be spent on one
aspect or another.
Q227 Mr Cummings: How long is it
going to take before you are in a position to indicate?
Lord Rooker: Not until we come
to do allocations for years two and three and obviously we are
running one-third of the way through year one at the moment. One
pathfinder is more advanced than the others, that is the Manchester
one, and we are looking at the moment at their strategic assessment
and therefore there will be probably a large allocation to that
pathfinder before the end of this year in advance of the others.
They are not all going at the same speed, in other words.
Q228 Chairman: That is a good job,
is it not, because some of them are crawling along and have even
hardly started.
Lord Rooker: There is one that
we have not set up, Humberside. I have visited not every area
of every pathfinder, but I have almost been in most of them now
and there is goodwill on the ground both amongst public and residents
and also the local authorities in Liverpool, in Stoke, in Newcastle
and Gateshead, Newcastle under Lyme and Birmingham and Sandwell.
They are raring to go and they understand that the concept is
not a quick fix in five minutes. In some areas, the dereliction
has been there for years. When I was in Liverpool the other week,
in the pathfinder area there, the dereliction is ten years old
and people have become fed up with one scheme after another and
nothing has happened. In this case, they can see now things beginning
to happen but (a) we have to get value for money and (b) we want
it to be sustainable because we are trying to rebuild the community,
not just fix odd streets of housing. It is much more important
than that, and also of course to learn the lessons to stop other
areas of the country becoming, if you like, pathfinder candidates,
so that we can learn some early techniques to nip in the bud in
other areas of the country to give them the support we need. I
know these things look slow but there is an awful lot going on
and I would imagine that, by the end of the year, we would have
had a good idea for the majority of the pathfinders about their
strategic plans for years two and three. Half-a-billion pounds
is a lot of money as a global sum but, spread between nine areas,
it begins to look a little bit less, but it is intended of course
to lever in an enormous amount of private sector money and therefore
it is not just £0.5 billion that we are talking about.
Q229 Mr Cummings: Can you confirm
to the Committee that funding will be available from the Department
of Transport for the transport improvements that the pathfinders
have identified which are essential to the redevelopment of their
urban areas.
Lord Rooker: Yes, I agree, but
just because an issue has been identified does not mean to say
that we can simply say that another department will necessarily
fund it. That is what the process is about in making sure that
we get decisions across departments, whether it is health, education
and transport in particular, and some of the infrastructure projects
are crucial. As far as many of the pathfinders are concerned,
shortage of roads does not seem to be a problem, to be honest.
It is shortage of jobs, housing and well-maintained areas that
is a bit of a problem. There are going to be areas of opening
up derelict sites and things like that, but I do not think that
the infrastructure is the key issue in the pathfinder areas as
opposed to the growth areas.
Q230 Mr Cummings: Can you tell the
Committee how the housing market renewal fund can respond quickly
to prevent "at risk" neighbourhoods from falling into
decline.
Lord Rooker: There are nine pathfinder
areas, one of which is not fully designated at the present time,
but, of the eight, they are all up and running. They are all well
defined on maps, particularly for the area which we are dealing
with, plus the knock-on effect of what we might do in the pathfinder
area to the adjoining neighbourhoods. We are very conscious of
making sure that we look at the total housing market and the jobs
market, but particularly the housing market in respect of the
knock-on effects. It is true that there will be other parts of
the country that say they will be at risk neighbourhoods. I was
in the south west recently in Plymouth and Penzance and they have
difficulties there proportionately just as great as elsewhere
but the total scale is smaller. They are not designated as pathfinders
but what we are hoping to do is, from the various schemes and
techniques used in the nine pathfinders—and they are all
different—we will be able to use the knowledge gained from
that in other parts of the country, and the `at risk' areas as
you put it, to basically have intervention policies to stop them
becoming pathfinder candidates, if you like, to stop a collapse
of the market. We are dealing with a phenomena that is quite recent.
As I said when I came before the Committee, it is only in the
past three years probably where we have had this complete collapse
of abandonment of houses on a massive scale—whole streets
of houses abandoned for no one single reason. Trying to get to
grips with that means that we are going to have to use some new
techniques, obviously techniques we can employ elsewhere in the
country.
Q231 Mr Betts: Just following up
on two points, I think that the issue of transport is a real one
in an area like Dearne Valley in South Yorkshire. The problem
may in the end be solved by not necessarily getting jobs to the
people but getting people to the jobs and transport links are
awful in places like Sheffield where jobs will be created. Secondly
is the issue of areas that may fall into decline. Negotiations
between the four authorities have tended to focus on the very
worst areas which are now in decline and my worry partly is about
the fringe areas around because, if we concentrate on the very
worst areas, in 10 years/20 years time, they may in themselves
be the very worst areas and we will not have done anything about
this in the meantime.
Lord Rooker: I absolutely agree
with you. I was there last week, as you know, and I am not saying
that infrastructure and transport is not an issue in the pathfinders
but it is nothing like the issue that it is in the growth areas,
put it that way. You are right that if we just concentrate exclusively
on the areas of worst deprivation, ignoring even the bordering
areas, and do that for year after year after year, then, quite
clearly, the areas of decline will simply move to the adjoining
areas, which does not help anybody. It also means that other parts
of the country that are not designated as pathfinders are still
going to need to be able to apply the techniques that we learn
in the pathfinders and it may mean some uncomfortable decisions
in terms of, if you like, making sure that people are not divided
off from communities. I cannot remember the names now of the localities
where I was, but particularly parts of Sheffield where there are
terrific sites for housing but, if you like, with the railway
line and the roads and the way the geography is, people are divided
from the jobs. You do need to make these connections. So, we have
to look at it in the round. It is quite surprising, if one looks
at pathfinder areas on a map, to see how physically large they
are. We are not talking about a few hundred square metres here
or a few small sub-ward levels. They do run to several square
miles and of course they all involve more than one local authority.
So, we have the experience of local authorities working in the
pathfinder areas and, in all the areas I have been to, I have
been surprised at how well the local authorities are working across
the boundary. They have sort of mentally taken the boundary away
and are getting on with working as a pathfinder as a corporate
image. I was very impressed with Newcastle and Gateshead in particular—
Q232 Chairman: They put a good show
on for you.
Lord Rooker: Yes, they know the
minister is coming. I do turn up occasionally on surprise visits
and local authorities get really cheesed off about that, I might
add. Some think that you need a passport to go to their areas!
I do not take that view. I visited an area last week where the
local authority said, "We don't want you to come", but
I happened to be near the area and, as it was a place to which
I had never been, I was driven around to have a look at where
the growth potential is and I will do an official "state"
visit in about two weeks' time in the recess.
Q233 Mr Clelland: Just to follow
up on the point about the importance of local transport, I am
pleased that the Minister has mentioned Newcastle and Gateshead
because I was a little concerned about what co-operation there
is and what co-ordination there is between the departments, the
Department of Transport and your department. The pathfinder area
in Newcastle and Gateshead would benefit very much from improved
links to the Tyneside Metro System, for instance. There is a project
on the cards at the moment called Project Orpheus which the Passenger
Transport Authority would like to be able to introduce which would
do just that and which would actually bring the Metro out of the
underground and onto the street in the form of trams. I notice
that this has been somewhat rubbished by the Secretary of State
for Transport recently, so there is a bit of a problem there in
terms of getting these things co-ordinated and approved by all
departments concerned.
Lord Rooker: There is and I would
like nothing more than to be able to come here and say, "We
will fix all the transports." I do not know what the priorities
are or, if you like, what the economic dilemmas are in terms of
the transport across the country as a whole that Alistair will
be looking at, but you are a Select Committee of the House and
you can summon who you want. All I am saying is that, at local
level and at the pathfinder level and at Government level, we
are working across departments to try and get agreed decisions.
The communities plan is a Government plan, true it is led by our
department but it is a Government plan with other departments.
What we are trying to do is to shift the mainstream funding in
some of the departments, a little like what we are doing with
neighbourhood renewal, to these joined-up priorities. It is not
always easy but I reckon that we are making progress.
Q234 Chairman: You have the £500
million and you are starting off spending it slowly, which is
obviously sensible. At the end of the three years, do you think
you are going to be short of money or struggling to spend it?
Lord Rooker: I will come here
and say I have failed if we have not spent it. I know it is a
myth about profligacy but we get a bit surprised sometimes at
seeing the underspend, so what we are trying to do to avoid underspend
is that we are programming in, if you like, overspend on the basis
that the normal things will happen and we will end up spending
what we have and we will have to be careful about this because
it is public money and we have to account for it.
Q235 Chairman: And there is a danger
that you raise expectations in all these communities.
Lord Rooker: Precisely and therefore
we have to be careful. We cannot come back to the Committee at
the end of year three and say, "The communities plan, the
pathfinders, was a top priority and, by the way, we have not spent
the money." People will not understand that because the public
money is designed to lever in private money as well.
Q236 Chairman: So, you are confident
that you will be short of money rather than have too much?
Lord Rooker: I would certainly
prefer it to be that way round and that is the way we are working
towards, to make sure that we have spent the money on successful
value for money projects and not simply spending, as the old system
used to be, just to spend because you were coming to year end
because you end up wasting money. Our plan will not be to have
underspends that we cannot account for where there are projects
crying out for the funds which are tried and tested, they have
gone through an appraisal process, they have the planning permission
and, for some reason, we have not released the money. That would
be a failure on our part.
Q237 Chairman: Can I take you on
to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. You have put the
boot in on several occasions to local authorities that have been
slow in reaching planning decisions. Do you think you have shown
genuine speed in pursuing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Bill?
Keith Hill: I can see where you
are coming from on that, Chairman. The decision to delay the Bill
in its passage through the House and to secure a carryover was
taken obviously very reluctantly given the importance that we
attached to planning reform, but we were persuaded that the Government
had other priorities in a very heavy legislative programme which
of course had been made more difficult by the amount of time which
the House, very properly, spent on the international situation.
However, I have sought myself to be entirely clear that the disadvantageous
effects in terms of delay of the carryover and later enactment
of the Bill will be minimised and I have now a high level of confidence
that, as a result of various actions which the department undertake,
effectively we will lose only about two months in the implementation
of the immediate consequences of the Bill on the ground.
Q238 Chairman: Do you want to add
anything about Crown Exemption?
Keith Hill: I do not think I do
because, at this stage, I do not know anything about it!
Q239 Chairman: Then there is not
much use my asking you why it was missed out of the Bill.
Keith Hill: It would be misdirected,
if I might say so, Chairman. On my past record of meetings with
this Committee, I expect to see you again very soon and I dare
say we could discuss it then!
| 
