Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2003
TREVOR BEATTIE,
ROB PEARSON,
ALAN CLARKE
AND MARTIN
BRIGGS
Q140 Mr Betts: Would it surprise
you that we had some submissions which suggest the funding initiatives
targeting the coalfields sometimes are poorly co-ordinated, and
perhaps suggesting that why do we need EP and the RDAs, why do
we not have one body which combines a sort of land-holding function
and the economic development function?
Mr Briggs: There is a question
for Government, in terms of the way in which the network of agencies
created work together. I would say, actually, the ambition of
Regional Development Agencies and their regional economic strategies,
of course, not owned by the Agencies themselves but their regional
community, is huge in itself and it covers a very wide field.
I would be quite surprised if, in delivery terms, there were not
occasions when people said "That could have been done more
effectively." I think one of the themes of what we say to
you this afternoon is that we have made good but so far limited
progress in integrating a whole range of policy streams in regeneration,
encompassing skills, enterprise, innovation and physical regeneration,
and we need to take it further. There are occasional glitches,
specifically in relation to physical regeneration programmes,
but I think any examples where English Partnerships and the RDAs
are said not to have worked closely together would indeed be few
and far between, in my experience.
Mr Beattie: The essential element
of the programme is that it is national, and therefore if a site
goes slowly, for whatever reason, we have the ability to team
and lade, we have the ability to bring forward other sites, to
make sure we maintain the momentum of the programme, and English
Partnerships has been able to do that at a national level. Also,
of course, at a national level, involving private sector partners
at national level, exchanging best practice, and so on. I believe
that it has been that very national overview and flexibility which
has kept us on target.
Q141 Mr Betts: Do none of
you see any room for improvement?
Mr Clarke: I think there is a
need for some streamlining, in terms of delivery. There is a whole
range of different regeneration initiatives that goes much more
broadly than English Partnerships and the Regional Development
Agency. Perhaps there are almost too many local strategic partnerships,
and so on, so I think there is scope for some rationalisation
and improvement, in terms of delivery. You have got to remember
that the other balance of that is, we allow sub-regional partnerships,
quite rightly, to develop some local solutions to the particular
issues in their area, so there is that issue which needs to be
addressed in this as well, so I would say, yes, there is scope.
Also, there are only so many talented regeneration professionals
around, and people from the voluntary sector. I think that is
a real issue, if they are spread too thinly.
Mr Pearson: I think, at a practical
level, we have been shown to have very complementary skill sets,
taking on what are some very, very difficult sites throughout
the country. I think it is how we build upon that and the degree
of linkage into other things which will improve the product in
time.
Q142 Mr Cummings: My question
is to the Regional Development Agencies, Chair. The Committee
have received submissions which have highlighted the varying levels
of commitment by the RDAs to regenerating the coalfields. However,
are you in danger of concentrating on the large conurbations,
which are more attractive to private investors, and are you not
neglecting the smaller pockets of intense deprivation in semi-rural
coalfield areas? Could you tell the Committee how the coalfield
business plan is tying in to existing coalfield regeneration plans?
Mr Clarke: First of all, through
the concept that I talked about before, which in the North East
is the sub-regional partnerships, we delegated very early on 75%
of the free money that was available after legacy programmes,
and two of those sub-regions are Northumberland and Durham.
Q143 Mr Cummings: Could you
say something about the residual money?
Mr Clarke: When Regional Development
Agencies were set up, in 1999, there were a lot of inherited programmes
and projects which had started already, but there was a decision
that 75% of that money which was available for new projects should
be delegated to sub-regional partnerships and for the priorities
of sub-regional partnerships. As the years have gone on, the amount
of money has increased significantly, as the old programmes have
finished. Two of the sub-regions in the North East are Northumberland
and Durham, which really is where the ex-coalfields are concentrated,
or, in the case of Northumberland, there is still one deep-cast
mine. In those areas, a significant amount of resource is being
spent on coalfield issues, to meet targets that the Regional Development
Agency has set, but where local decisions have been made to address
the very issues you have talked about. Also, at the regional economic
strategy level for the North East, we have two particular initiatives
which have helped. One is all around physical infrastructure and
the other is about urban and rural regeneration. In Northumberland,
we have linked together an initiative to link the coalfields of
South East Northumberland with opportunities in North Tyneside,
to try to make sure that higher levels of unemployed people from
the coalfield areas in Blyth and Wansbeck can gain access to and
be connected with the areas where some of the larger numbers of
jobs are being created. That is another way in which we are addressing
the needs of coalfield areas.
Q144 Mr Cummings: Certainly
there is a failure, in that you are viewing the larger conurbations
as the sexy sorts of investments, to the detriment of people who
are living in semi-rural areas within the Durham and Northumberland
coalfields. How do you answer these criticisms?
Mr Clarke: There are different
policy priorities. Indeed, within ODPM itself there are Core Cities
initiatives, for instance, there have been things like the Capital
of Culture bids, and in the North East we know that Newcastle/Gateshead
led on that, although certainly it was a regional initiative.
If you look at the allocation of resources since 1999, a significant
proportion of that resource has gone to some of the rural communities,
some of the areas with lower populations, and indeed the projects
they have been spent on have been delegated to local players who
decide what the priorities should be.
Q145 Mr Cummings: You do not
require additional guidance then from the Government to ensure
that you give greater priority to the needs of the coalfield areas?
Mr Clarke: I think greater regional
flexibility would be a step forward so that the region could decide
what their priorities were.
Q146 Mr Cummings: Do you require
additional guidance from the Government?
Mr Clarke: Speaking just from
the One NorthEast point of view, I would say, no, but other people
can give their views.
Mr Briggs: Again, I will talk
specifically about the East Midlands experience, where the temptation
to focus on the major urban areas under the Coalfields Programme
does not arise, because the coalfields area excludes our major
conurbations. If you were referring to Mansfield as sexy, it is
the first time I have heard Mansfield described in that way.
Q147 Mr Cummings: No. Basically,
I am referring to the larger metropolitan areas?
Mr Briggs: Absolutely, and Mansfield
and Chesterfield are about the largest places.
Q148 Mr Cummings: I am sure
Mansfield is sexy.
Mr Briggs: I am encouraged to
hear you say so, but, substantially, the East Midlands coalfield
fundamentally is a rural area, with the overlay of the mining
communities, and that produces a series of very important challenges
for us. I think one of the dilemmas it does create is quite a
fragmentation in the culture there, economically and politically.
We are aware that part of the solution to the reshaping of the
coalfields and the defining of the new vision, the new future,
if you like, is our relations, for example, with Greater Nottingham.
Historically, there has been quite a gap, culturally, economically,
socially, between the two. What is happening in the conurbations
is important, but all of the work that we have carried out, under
the Coalfields Programme itself, with English Partnerships and
our other partners, has been concentrated on that rural area,
of north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire. Can I say, because
the issue was raised about the variability of regional responses,
that I know, in particular, my colleagues at Advantage West Midlands
were fingered in a previous discussion here. I know that John
Edwards, their Chief Executive, has written to the Chairman to
explain that, despite the perception which might come from the
way in which they have defined their Regeneration Zones, in a
variety of ways, they do see the coalfields issue as a really
important part of the overall regeneration challenge which they
face.
Q149 Mr Cummings: What is
he doing about it?
Mr Briggs: There is a letter of
about six pages.
Q150 Mr Cummings: Is it intelligible?
Mr Briggs: Absolutely. That letter
contains a whole list of things which are happening.
Q151 Mr Cummings: Things are
going to happen. Are you coming up with the necessary resources
to follow this up? You see, it becomes rather tiresome to be told
continually, "Yes, we sympathise." We are not looking
for sympathy. It is a question of timing?
Mr Briggs: I do not want to try
the Committee's patience but I think, in fact, the letter contains
a whole series of activities which actually are being carried
out now. I agree that there is much more to do but there is a
huge amount in train in both the East Midlands and West Midlands
and I know in the other five regions which are affected in one
way or another.
Q152 Andrew Bennett: Is not
that a problem though that the RDAs have got, that we had to have
that long letter, setting out what they were doing, because the
witnesses we had at the first session felt they were not doing
enough? Surely, an RDA has got two functions, they have got to
do things and they have got to make sure that people know that
they are doing things?
Mr Briggs: Indeed, you have, and
one of the things that I have got very used to, in this role,
is that you (a) can never do enough and (b) never communicate
well enough. There is a huge range of audiences with whom one
deals. Though some of the things which are at the heart of the
challenge set for Regional Development Agencies are stated simply,
in our own case we have established a regional economic ambition,
a top 20 region in Europe by 2010, they are very complicated in
terms of the range of parties, public, private sector, voluntary
communities and others, with whom one deals. I would never be
complacent about the effectiveness of our communication, we need
to do more of it, but, at the same time, I understand very well
why particular interests and particular parties with whom we deal
feel we are not doing enough, in terms of their own particular
agenda.
Q153 Mr Cummings: Can I take
this a stage further. A similar argument is that some former mining
villages do not really have an economic future and perhaps would
change into commuter villages. Having said that, are you confident
that it will be possible to regenerate and sustain coalfield
communities in the regions?
Mr Clarke: I think the first thing
to say is that coalfield communities, as you know, are not homogeneous
communities, there is a very great variety amongst the different
coalfield communities. In the North East we have some of the most
remote rural ex-coalfield communities, which clearly when they
were coalfields that was the reason why those very communities
existed, enormously difficult to find a new substantial role for
those communities. Some of it might be around tourism, which is
happening increasingly, possibly retail and other cultural areas
that we have heard about. In some cases commuting might be an
option but in some of the deeper rural areas that is difficult,
in parts of Northumberland and Durham. In other cases, the coalfield
communities are very, very accessible to the main conurbations,
with improved transport, including public transport, and access
to some of the new jobs which are being regenerated, in some cases
in sectors which looked as though they were on the decline, like
ship-building and marine and offshore oil, for instance, on Tyne
and on Teesside. Then there is a different sort of role for those
communities. In other cases, which is going back before this programme,
Monkwearmouth, site of the ex-coal mine in Sunderland, is now
the home of Sunderland Football Club, which I will not comment
on, and now has other leisure uses, including a 50-metre swimming-pool.
I think you have got to adopt a very different approach to the
very different communities that there are, but, unfortunately,
some are much more difficult to tackle than others, and in some
cases difficult priorities and difficult choices do have to be
made. It could be, in some areas, in the more remote areas, the
use of broadband and ICT technology could help.
Q154 Mr Cummings: How would
you go about developing such a strategy, what input would you
have into it?
Mr Clarke: We would have an input,
but clearly we would have to work closely with local authorities
and parish councils and some of the county areas, the voluntary
sector, people like Business Links and Learning and Skills Councils.
It would require very much that sort of approach. With Government
Office as well, because they are responsible for things like Neighbourhood
Renewal Funding, I think, particularly in the area I know best,
which is in the North East, I am from the North West, pretty well-developed
partnership relationships going back over many, many years. I
accept it is a very, very long haul this, but I do feel there
is a lot of experience, there is a lot of commitment and desire,
but it will take a long time.
Q155 Chris Mole: In looking
at this inquiry, we have seen an awful lot of public money that
has gone into coalfields from EP and through the RDAs and many
other sources, so why does the IMD suggest still that the levels
of deprivation are so high in so many of the coalfield areas?
Mr Beattie: We are dealing with
major structural changes here. What we are doing through the money
which has gone into the Coalfields Programme, we may be operating
on sites on programmes and looking at land reclamation but what
really we are trying to do is bring around a complete change in
the nature of the coalfield communities, tackling, through economic
regeneration, really difficult, intransigent issues, like health,
education, training, the whole package of community measures.
I think it is moderately easy to bring forward change in the physical
infrastructure but the social and the employment and training
background to all this is going to take a lot longer to do. I
think those changes are all well in place now, but much of the
money we have been spending was designed to create a new, solid,
economic base for the coalfield and is pitching at a period still
some years away.
Q156 Chris Mole: How many
is some years away?
Mr Beattie: We are looking at
the completion of the 86 sites by March 2007, the 100 sites by
2012, and certainly by 2012 we will expect all of the outputs
that we have set ourselves for the 100 sites to have been delivered,
including the jobs, including the training. I think that, inevitably,
many of these outputs are rear-ended, they tend to come up towards
the end of the programme because the regeneration and the physical
work needs to go in first. It is cost up front and then the social
benefits tend to follow later.
Mr Briggs: To some extent, I think
we need also to retreat to economist territory and ask ourselves
about the hypothesis as to what would have happened if this had
not been done. I think much of the evidence over the last generation
in the developed world generally is that income and social inequalities
have been growing, and that there are certain dynamics within
the growth of developed economies which are continuing to suggest
that is really a big challenge, to reduce rather than see inequalities
increasing.
Q157 Chris Mole: You are saying
it would have been even more stark?
Mr Briggs: I think there is very
good evidence that, without interventions, things would have been
much worse. Also, it is fair to say, having said that, and I am
the last to suggest that public expenditure is the answer to each
and every problem, that in the East Midlands the budget of the
Development Agency is £120 million a year, the GDP of the
economy is £50 billion per annum. We are very conscious of
that, and that is not a plea for lots and lots more money by way
of intervention, but I think we need to look at the way in which
that public money is spent efficiently to effect at the margin,
but make important differences at the margin in the way in which
our economy is flourishing. It seems to me, we have got three
separate challenges that we are attacking here, in relation to
the coalfields. There is the environmental depredation, caused
by both the industry and the way in which we saw and regulated
those things over the last century or more. There is the whole
set of social questions, which we prefer to pose around economic
inclusion, if you like, ways in which you draw people in to a
lively and vibrant economy, and there are economic futures themselves.
I think, there, taking up a line of questioning that was part
of the previous witness discussion, that is not restricted to
the coalfields. There is a constant process of change and you
are looking to try to make sure that, as far as possible, you
equip people not simply to react to that change, people or businesses,
but to get ahead of the game, and really that is about the degree
to which innovation and creativity are practical possibilities
for business and individuals.
Mr Beattie: Nor should we denigrate
the enormous amount which has been achieved by the money spent
to date. Every day of the first seven years of the programme,
as our evidence showed, nearly four jobs have been created, an
acre of land reclaimed and 175 square metres of floor space brought
back into use. That is pretty impressive for the first seven years
of a ten-year programme.
Q158 Chris Mole: Looking at
how the Single Regeneration Budget is coming to a close, with
the advent of the RDAs' single pot, how do you, as RDAs, seek
to fill the funding gap for social regeneration programmes, because
some of the practitioners involved in this area clearly are concerned
to see that it is coming to an end in a ring-fenced way?
Mr Clarke: All Regional Development
Agencies have a lead role with different parts of central government,
and One NorthEast has a lead role as of 1 October with ODPM. We
are producing papers at the moment for our own national network,
looking at the very issue that you have just talked about but
trying not to talk just about the issue of the Single Regeneration
Budget coming to an end, what next, trying to look more at economic
inclusion and exclusion issues. I think, from my point of view,
as a starting-point, what would be valuable, and this goes way
beyond RDAs, would be to look at all of the various initiatives
which there have been, or are currently, which are focused on
social regeneration. You could include Neighbourhood Renewal Funding,
if you went back possibly City Challenge, which I know affected
only a number of coalfield areas, also New Deal for Communities
and Pathfinder, and carried out a really hard-headed analysis
as to which of those initiatives had led to really long-term,
sustained improvements, which had not, and what the impact of
them was. Therefore, just to start thinking about what we need
to put in place to replace the demise of SRB funding, I think,
is only a partial issue. I think there is a much bigger issue
to look at, which is tied in with the point which was made earlier
about the need to streamline the number of different initiatives
and the different number of partnerships which are set up to do
it.
Q159 Chris Mole: Are you looking
at things like cross-thematic solutions, which allow you to address
the social economy and getting people into work in a traditional
sort of way?
Mr Clarke: I will try. I think
we need to tie in all these things far more effectively and look
at those things which have worked in different parts of the country
and have led to a real, sustained improvement over a long period
of time, perhaps learn the lessons from the things which have
not worked so well. Also to look to improve the quality of the
various regeneration delivery agencies that there are, because
there is some evidence, I think, that there is a lot of money
being spent on administration and management.
|
