Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
RT HON
KEITH HILL
MP, RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP AND RT
HON LORD
ROOKER MP
15 JULY 2003
Q300 Dr Pugh: Clearly your thinking
is you want to keep the council tax down to a reasonable level
but you want to ensure that schools have all the money that is
due to them. I think a concern we would have is some of the other
services local authorities run would be squeezed. Will you be
monitoring the extent to which funding on that remains on-stream?
Mr Raynsford: It is very much
part of our concern to ensure that authorities do have the means
to meet their full range of responsibilities. Obviously they will
have to take decisions on priorities, we all do, but we do not
want to see the kind of squeeze that you have described and we
want to ensure arrangements that allow authorities to operate
in a positive way recognising the range of responsibilities they
face.
Q301 Mr Betts: Decent homes. How
are you going to square the circle? We have a target of 2010 for
all properties to be brought up to decent standards, we have the
right of tenants to decide who their landlord is, yet to achieve
the right standard requires money to be spent from mainstream
funding, arm's length companies and stock transfers in the right
proportion. If tenants do not vote in the right proportions overall
nationally you cannot ensure a proper homes standard, can you?
Keith Hill: What a very good question.
I am not sure I know the answer to it at this point. It does seem
to me that on the whole the process of stock transfer is pretty
satisfactory. It remains the case that the Government is committed
to the decent homes standard and is committing substantial sums
of money towards that objective. In terms of that objective, we
are certainly thus far on course. We have already brought 700,000
dwellings in social housing up to the decent homes standard over
the last six years. We expect to achieve our target of a third
of those homes which do not attain the decent homes standard at
the moment into decent homes by 2004. We have recently, as I am
sure the Committee is aware, looked very carefully at our forward
programme and made changes and we now expect to meet the decent
homes target by 2010.
Q302 Chairman: I think that is quite
helpful, but the Committee is going to look at the whole question
of decent homes in the autumn and I hope by then you can perhaps
not only tell us that we ask good questions but you can come up
with the full answer to that.
Mr Raynsford: He gave a very good
answer.
Keith Hill: I am grateful for
the support of my colleagues. I thought Mr Betts asked a very
good question and I have done my best, but I certainly look forward
to re-appearing before the Committee to talk about decent homes
in the autumn.
Q303 Christine Russell: Keith, some
time ago you mentioned that there had been an overspend of £45
million on the Starter Homes Initiative. Does that mean that you
are going to miss the target of 10,000 new homes for key workers
within three years?
Keith Hill: We expect to achieve
slightly under the original 10,000 target, we expect that the
scheme will deliver rather more than 9,000 homes but within the
time-frame now. We had a slow start in terms of the scheme. I
think it is generally accepted that we were wrong to go forward
with the £10,000 discount and we have recently halvedthat
to £20,000. We do, of course, face the issue of rising house
prices and to some extent rising construction costs in this area.
Q304 Christine Russell: Is that the
reason why the scheme is not really taking off as well as you
had hoped, because of the level of subsidy compared to the rise
in house prices?
Keith Hill: I think we made a
wrong judgment. There were initial delays in the implementation
of the scheme, in addition to which we made a wrong judgment about
the level of subsidy. That has been increased. We are now at 3,000
homes through the scheme and we expect to be at 9,000 by the end
of the scheme period.
Q305 Christine Russell: Have you
already collated some clear evidence that the scheme has actually
helped to either retain or recruit key workers in different locations?
I am not sure how you are monitoring it.
Keith Hill: This is really, as
with many of our programmes, a matter of local judgment and local
delivery. We set the parameters, we provide the funding streams,
but we expect the delivery to be in the localities primarily through
the housing associations, as you are aware, but the scheme is
focused on health workers, on police officers and on teachers
and they are the recipients of this scheme and also the Challenge
scheme and our expectation is that this provision is actually
going to the key workers in public services to whom it is directed.
Q306 Christine Russell: Can I move
on to Lord Rooker and Strategic Partnerships. How well do you
think they are working?
Lord Rooker: This is a very new
for me so I am going to defer to Nick later on this. In the visits
I have made around the country the idea of including other people
from other walks of life, from the health authorities and the
private sector in these partnerships is wholly good and productive.
I think they are all in place. I do not think everything is set
in stone forevermore. It goes back to some of the points that
David was raising in his questions about local government being
snuffed out of areas. Bringing more people in to the strategic
decisions, particularly joining up areas of public sector activity
has got to be good at the local level. It is not always easy doing
it at the centre of government, but we are positive about it and
we are not just paying lip service to the idea of trying to get
it joined up. Trying to get it joined up at the local level through
the Strategic Partnerships is new for many people and all the
evidence is it is working extremely well.
Q307 Christine Russell: What about
engaging the business community? In my experience the public bodies
are joining up well, the voluntary bodies are joining up well,
but there is still a problem in engaging the business community
in some areas. Did you find that on your travels around the country?
Lord Rooker: I have not found
that. I fully accept that this is going to be the case. Businesses
are there to run a business. Sometimes they are not too interested
in what is going on in the locality until their business gets
affected and by then it is too late and they feel cut out. What
we are trying to do is to have a structure where they are involved
and a good example is what is in the local government's business
improvement districts. We have some businesses queuing up to be
part of the new revenue raising aspect of property owners and
we are saying it has to be the property occupiers because otherwise
it complicates systems, as has been debated in both Houses. Where
they see the interest going beyond their business to the wider
area, when most business people work it out they know that if
the wider area is okay it is going to be good for their business
anyway and they will embrace it. I suppose if there had been the
suspicion over the years that they have not felt part of the whole
that would have put some areas off. I do not have on my desk any
areas of business people making specific complaints about not
being involved or not feeling as though they are involved in the
local Strategic Partnerships at all. I am not saying it is the
same all over the country.
Q308 Chairman: Can I move you off
that and on to English Partnerships. Have they got their act together
now?
Lord Rooker: Their remit has changed
in the last 12 months. In the last 12 months they have got a new
Chairman, Margaret Ford and in the last few months a new Chief
Executive, David Higgins. English Partnerships is a rather strange
organisation because legally it is two separate organisations,
the Urban Regeneration Agency and the New Towns Commission, but
they operate as a single entity and they are a lever for our Department.
We have only two levers in this sense, the Housing Corporation
and English Partnerships, for making things happen in a very positive
way. By the way, the new Chairman, Margaret Ford, has travelled
the country visiting all the new town areas twice, building bridges
where they needed building and cementing relationships particularly
in respect of the growth areas. Sometimes I have travelled to
areas where Margaret has been and they have said how much they
welcomed the visit or they have said that the Chairman of English
Partnerships is coming next week. They are getting about, there
is no question about that.
Q309 Chairman: So you are pleased?
Lord Rooker: Yes, I am.
Q310 Dr Pugh: Mr Raynsford, the exciting
new ministerial Cabinet sub-committee to oversee the Government's
White Paper and its implication, how often has it met?
Mr Raynsford: The new sub-committee,
which is GLP, is having its first meeting this afternoon. It replaces
two other sub-committees, GLD and PSXL, which had different remits
and as part of the process of achieving a focus and cutting out
unnecessary bureaucracy we have brought the two together.
Q311 Dr Pugh: The mayoral and Cabinet
structures, there are two views on this. One is that backbench
councillors have been disgruntled about not having much contact
with what is happening in the local authority. Your view is that
they are activity engaged in their communities in a far more prolific
way than hitherto. Have you any further evidence on that in terms
of data being collected so far?
Mr Raynsford: No. We are funding
a very detailed research study on this which has been conducted
by the University of Manchester. I have seen some preliminary
findings which I think will be published shortly suggesting that
there is a correlation between the performance of local authorities
and those that have both strong political leadership and strong
scrutiny and therefore the combination of powerful leadership
and effective scrutiny and the backbenchers playing that role
in an effective way does seem a common sense conclusion, there
is some convincing academic research supporting that and it does
seem to produce the best outcome. I would not pretend this is
working brilliantly everywhere, there are variations. There are
some councillors who feel frustrated and some areas are doing
much better than others, but I think the principle of having a
clear focus through the Cabinet on giving leadership to the authority
and effective scrutiny performed by backbenchers who have more
time to engage with their local authorities because they are not
sitting hour after hour in committee meetings, for example, is
the right way forward.
Q312 Dr Pugh: The Comprehensive Performance
Assessment, you have been to see all the poor performers, how
did you find them?
Mr Raynsford: I have been incredibly
encouraged by the response of almost all the 15 weak authorities
with very little capacity to improve identified by the first round
of the CPA. Almost all of them have accepted they need to change.
Almost all of them are working very constructively with us to
put into place their recovery programme. Phil Hope and myself
are meeting with all the authorities to review their progress.
I have to say, it is very heartening to see how this is really
making an impact and changing things in areas where they have
had very considerable difficulty over a long period of time. I
mention only Hackney and Walsall as two areas which became synonymous
with problems and where the evidence is that there is real progress
towards improvement in both the performance of the authority and
the delivery of services to its community.
Q313 Dr Pugh: In the case of meeting
some of the others face to face, have you seen any scope for changing
or varying the methodology? Have you found them not to be as poor
as the methodology classified them?
Mr Raynsford: Our focus is on
improvement, it is not on labelling. It is trying to identify
weaknesses and helping authorities to improve their own performance.
The way we do it is through a lead official who is the contact
between ministers and each authority. That lead official works
to encourage the authority to take ownership for the improvement
programme. We are not trying to take over, what we are trying
to do is to get the authority to act in a way which is most likely
to transform its performance and deliver for its own people and
that is happening in almost every area. There are one or two where
we still have a degree of nervousness, but in general I am very
pleased indeed and therefore we are proposing to adopt a similar
approach towards the districts who will be coming towards their
CPA in the months ahead.
Q314 Dr Pugh: What freedoms and flexibilities
will you give them if they do well?
Mr Raynsford: We have already
outlined the freedoms and flexibilities available for the high
performing counties and unitary authorities: freedom from inspection
for three years, freedom from ring-fencing health and in respect
of education, funding and participation in the innovations forum
which is looking for new ways of doing things and developing the
freedoms agenda even further. Those are just three of the freedoms.
Q315 Dr Pugh: And the districts will
get the same deal?
Mr Raynsford: We aim to have a
broadly comparable deal for districts, the details have not yet
been announced because there are obvious differences in terms
of the service responsibilities, but the same principle should
apply.
Q316 Chairman: Has anyone got any
comments about cemeteries?
Mr Raynsford: No!
Q317 Chairman: You are supposed to
be pursuing quite a few issues.
Keith Hill: I beg your pardon,
Mr Chairman, I do know the answer to that. That is primarily a
matter for the Home Office.
Q318 Chairman: Yes, I understand
that, but I think you were doing a survey of how much burial space
there was available and it is supposed to be a joint publication,
this question of the re-use of graves, is it not?
Keith Hill: Personally, as a Friend
of West Norwood Cemetery I am extremely alert to this matter.
It is the Home Office which is taking the lead and we are working
actively with the Home Office to secure a solution to the cemeteries
problem.
Q319 Christine Russell: What about
tall buildings? In its response to our inquiry on tall buildings
the Government said they were going to ask local authorities to
identify inappropriate sites for tall buildings.
Keith Hill: We have implemented
those recommendations on planning in accordance with our response
to the Committee's recommendations and we will be taking forward
our planing of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations
next year as scheduled.
Christine Russell: You have done that,
but have you told local authorities to identify sites?
| 
