Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 256)
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER 2003
RT HON
LORD ROOKER,
MISS MELANIE
JOHNSON MP AND
RT HON
MARGARET HODGE
MBE MP
Q240 Mr Betts: You have just
mentioned the whole problem of a range of different initiatives.
In the paper which we had from South Yorkshire it said there was
something like 50 different area initiatives tackling regeneration
in the coalfields. Does not that mean, in the end, that we do
not get a combined result, which is the effect of all the 50 initiatives
together but many of them actually conflict and people do not
get joined up together, organisations, Local Strategic Partnerships,
spend all their time trying to do some co-ordination, which is
almost impossible? Is there any way we can simplify this greatly
and create almost one body and say, "There's the money, get
on with it"?
Lord Rooker: I shall certainly
go back and ask some questions about that. If there is an area
subject to so many income streams and initiatives, I have not
heard a figure as high as that, I would want to know why we had
not already done some simplification. That is absolutely barmy,
that an area is subject to so many initiatives.
Q241 Mr Betts: That is what
they have had over the time they have been working with them?
Lord Rooker: Some have come and
gone, so that is okay, so they are not 50 initiatives at the same
time. This has been the issue, I think, of trying to target the
money. There is not a bottomless pit. By spreading it thinly we
do not get the benefit, by targeting it we think we do. We are
trying, I might add, within Whitehall, to stop having lots of
new schemes with small grants, and things like that. I have had
discussions with one of my colleagues in another department today
in this respect. We want to try to mainstream as much as we can,
and, of course, mainstream through the normal instruments, whether
it is the local government or indeed the Regional Development
Agencies, and, in due course, probably the Regional Divisional
Assemblies. There will be a role there, in terms of redundancy
of housing, to try to have a single pot in the regions. It is
one of the purposes of that, to get that single pot with the housing
investment programme for local authorities in the annual development
programme for the Housing Corporation, to simplify, get the benefits
of simplification and make sure we deal also with the small areas,
like in the rural townships, as well as the larger urban areas.
You have got to be careful, giving it to a single body which may
have a blind eye to some of the smaller projects, because a quick
fix on a big site looks easier, we have got to make sure we do
not fall into that trap, but, by and large, I would want to simplify
from where we are at the moment.
Q242 Mr Betts: You talk about
mainstreaming, and generally, of course, that is a good idea.
If you are going to mainstream them into local authorities, can
you make sure that they then mainstream it in the sorts of objectives
that you want to see in the coalfields?
Lord Rooker: Yes, this is the
great snag, is it not? We are committed, in respect of our colleagues
and partners in local government, to having fewer ring-fenced
funds. On the one hand, we cannot say "Okay, we're not going
to ring-fence the money" and then say, the next day, "Right,
we want to know exactly which street you're working in, that you
are meeting Government objectives." We cannot, Government,
have it both ways, neither can the House, with respect, because,
as you vote for money, for projects, you will want to see the
end game for that money, you will want to see value for money,
the Public Accounts Committee will want to see value for money
on schemes. If you take the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, for example,
I was very surprised when I went to ODPM to realise that, it is
paid over to local authorities, it does not have to be spent on
neighbourhood renewal per se, it is their view how it is
spent. They have got the floor targets and the indicators, true,
we want to be able to check on that, and we are in touch with
them constantly, but it is not ring-fenced as such. That gives
them greater flexibility. Out of flexibility we get better value
for money. They are on the ground, it is best that we in Whitehall
are not telling them the minutiae of how we operate these schemes.
Recently we made some announcements to unring-fence some other
money that was going to local authorities, some of it in terms
of homelessness. There is an issue there, of unring-fencing to
local government. Then I trust, rather than a wing and a prayer,
they will deliver what you want, in terms of central government,
because we have got to go back to the Treasury at the end of the
day and account for that money, did we get the outcome we expected.
I think we have to be adults. We have a better relationship with
local government than I think we have ever had in my experience
in your House over the last 30 years, and there is a willingness
everywhere I have gone to work in partnership, and they are convincing
me so far that we can get value from money. We get the audited
arrangements and we get the Local Strategic Partnerships operating,
and so I am reasonably optimistic that we can end up getting better
value for money by mainstreaming those. I am speaking at a conference
on the very issue tomorrow.
Q243 Mr Betts: I think local
government may accept that there is a better working relationship
between Government and themselves, but then also they say, from
time to time, that it would be nice if government departments
always worked together as well as they should. Do you think there
is a case for a permanent cross-departmental working group to
be established to deal with the issues of the coalfields, and
indeed perhaps a lead minister appointed, to post together the
various things which different departments are doing?
Lord Rooker: If there are policy
issues, of major changes of policy, the current committee structure
seems to perform okay, in terms of getting agreement across Government.
What it comes down to then is making sure that, as ODPM, we are
in the driving-seat in the sense of trying to encourage and making
sure that, our responsibilities, there is co-ordination across
the piece. It is exactly the same with the Communities Plan launched
by the Deputy Prime Minister in February, it is a Government plan.
The Coalfields Programme is a Government programme, therefore
it is our task to ensure that other departments take account of
this in making their own spending decisions. When we start to
regenerate the coalfields areas, with new jobs, houses are built,
we know for a given number of dwellings you need a primary school,
for another given number of dwellings you need a secondary school,
that has to be co-ordinated with the Department for Education.
We know for a given number of dwellings you will need a health
centre, you will need a GP. That has to be co-ordinated from the
centre. Then the people down on the ground, where it is the primary
care trust, and at the regions and health and the various departments,
as long as they know the people in Whitehall are working to a
plan, i.e., in this case, coalfields communities regeneration,
or the Sustainable Communities Plan, and there is a bit of overlap
anyway, we can get their mainstream programmes bent into this
plan for regeneration. It might look alright for a headline but
it would not make any difference in the way the policy is delivered.
If it is failing and there is a lack of communication, lack of
co-ordination across Whitehall on this, then at the end of the
day that is my fault and I will do something about it, if someone
can point up where there is a real hole in the co-ordination.
I cannot be fairer than that. I cannot offer a quick fix on this.
Most of my time is spent particularly on the communities plan
side of it, and less so on this, because I think the issues are
working quite well. We are going to have more need for that, as
more houses are built in the coalfields, it is true, and more
jobs are generated, there will be this need for making sure there
are roads, the Department of Transport, maybe the odd railway
station, they did talk about Corby this afternoon, although not
quite in this context. Then we will discuss it with our other
partner authorities, where we try to pull them together, down
at their level, at the regional level or the district level, all
these other organisations, whether it is the Environment Agency
or other such bodies, so that they know at that level there is
a Government plan, i.e. to which all ministers are signed up,
which the permanent secretaries are signed up to. I think it would
be giving a false perspective if you said, "Give us a coalfields
regeneration minister." If there were one I suppose it would
be me. If there is a failure of co-ordination I would like to
know about it because it is my responsibility.
Q244 Andrew Bennett: Can I
take you on to the housing question. Over two years ago, a lot
of people, including this Committee, drew attention to the empty
homes across a lot of the North of England. In the last two years,
English Partnerships have been looking really fairly closely at
the coalfield areas and they have now identified a significant
number of empty homes within the coalfield areas. Some of the
things the Committee has looked at are just as bad in the coalfields
as we looked at in the North of England two years ago, so what
are you doing about it?
Lord Rooker: First of all, I agree
with your analysis. There is an overlap in a couple of areas between
the market with more Pathfinders, ie the nine areas—
Q245 Andrew Bennett: Barnsley
and Stoke, I think?
Lord Rooker: Yes, that is right.
South Yorkshire and Stoke, the North Staffordshire Pathfinder.
I have been to virtually all the Pathfinders but I have not been
to all the parts of all the Pathfinders. I was in Stoke and Newcastle-under-Lyme
the other week for the second time this year, and you can see,
you know yourself, when you are taken around there, you can recognise
the Coal Board houses. First of all, most of them are empty, derelict,
sometimes burned out, and you wonder why they have not been cleared
anyway, because they are an eyesore. I regret to say, the planning
for some of these issues, the master planning and then the planning
for the programmes for replacement takes over, and, of course,
the ownership is not always straightforward. You have to remember
the spivs moved in on this lot and they were bought and sold at
auctions in London and at corner pubs elsewhere, and this caused
mayhem, and, of course, this has been highlighted in the last
few years. I think what was said earlier on, and the Deputy Prime
Minister launched the plan in the East Midlands, at Meden Valley,
to look at a project we have got there, from which we hope we
will be able to learn some experience to use elsewhere. In the
Pathfinders, work has gone ahead, several million pounds have
been allocated already to each of the Pathfinders anyway. We will
have their strategic plans for those we have not had at the moment,
which are the two you mentioned anyway, by next spring, to release
the rest of the money. There is half a billion pounds over the
three years in the housing Pathfinders to get cracking on this,
and, like anybody else, I have been chivvying. I want the scaffolding,
I want the bull-dozers, I want the hoardings up, I want the action
and I want the jobs, because it has got to be jobs-led as well
as housing. It is not just a housing project, the housing is the
thing which people see and recognise more easily. We have to clear
some of the stock probably quicker than we have done so far, but
clearing it and leaving it empty for a couple of years probably
sends a signal to the local community they do not know what they
are doing. You do send mixed messages, if you are not careful.
Q246 Andrew Bennett: What
about actually having at least one or two more Pathfinders, if
you are saying they are going well, in some of these coalfield
areas?
Lord Rooker: The nine were designated
by Stephen Byers, just before ODPM was launched. I do not think
we have got plans for any more. Our objective, with the nine Pathfinders,
by the way, is to learn the lessons to stop other areas needing
Pathfinder status.
Q247 Andrew Bennett: We have
identified already that there are some bits of the coalfields
which have exactly the same problems, so if you are not going
to set up a new Pathfinder, what about English Partnerships, they
have got some money, why not let them diversify rather more into
housing, in some of these areas?
Lord Rooker: As you heard earlier
on,—
Q248 Andrew Bennett: They
were singing your praises.
Lord Rooker: They were, were they
not, without any prompting on my part, I have to say. I felt quite
embarrassed. The fact is, they are a class organisation. They
are our lever for change, the ODPM. As a government department,
as I have said to your Committee before, we ourselves do not build
or clear houses, we are ODPM. Our instruments for change are two,
the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. They have got
their remit, they are all professionals, we do not have any day-to-day
interference, and we have given them far more flexibility than
they have ever had before, they know what the big picture is,
particularly in the Sustainable Communities Plan.
Q249 Andrew Bennett: Do you
think they can get on with it, in the same way as the Pathfinders
are doing it?
Lord Rooker: If that was their
view, that for some of their areas, with their resources, they
thought they could make an impact which fitted in with the overall
big picture, I for one would not be stopping them, far from it.
Q250 Andrew Bennett: You have
talked about the Meden Valley and the special purpose vehicle
to do work there, but you mentioned also this question about private
landlords. Are you going to give us a guarantee that local authorities
will be able to license landlords in all these areas of market
weakness?
Lord Rooker: The licensing of
private sector landlords will be at the discretion of a local
authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
I cannot conceive of any local authority coming to the Deputy
Prime Minister, or Keith Hill, in that case, and saying, "Look,
we've got a problem in this area, because it's coalfields, where
the spiv landlords are in." The very purpose for licensing
private landlords was born out of the housing renewal areas, although
the legislation—which I do not think has been published
yet but it will be published shortly, because I think you have
got the Second Reading before Christmas probably—in the
Housing Bill is that it is nationwide. A local authority, anywhere,
can make a case for a street, or part of a street, to be licensed,
if it is based on either anti-social behaviour or other factors,
it can make the case. I have no doubt in my mind that local authorities
will be giving extra powers. Also, of course, with what is happening
in your House today and tomorrow, which is the reason Yvette could
not be present, because she does this on a daily basis, the coalfields
issue, is that the extra powers to facilitate the ease of compulsory
purchase will be placed into the Housing and Planning Bill. We
have taken the opportunity, obviously, with the carry-over, to
make the Bill stronger, in this respect, to give more powers to
local authorities. The answer to your question is, yes.
Q251 Chairman: Will the local
authorities be likely to have the power to license a particular
landlord, as opposed to a particular area?
Lord Rooker: Yes, I think it is.
The idea, of course, let us face it, to license the landlord is
to drive the crooks out of business, let us not put too fine a
point on this. It may be that the landlord cannot be licensed,
the manager gets the licence because he is not a crook, where
a spiv is a rip-off merchant causing mayhem in the community and
therefore can manage it differently. I think there is a fair degree
of discretion for the local authority to license in an area maybe
all the landlords in a street. Of course, the good landlords,
who have good relations with the local authority now, are not
going to object to this, because it is the others giving them
and their industry a bad name.
Q252 Chairman: I think my
point was that you may have a particular landlord who has a number
of properties, in different areas, each one of which is giving
problems, so it is the individual rather than the area?
Lord Rooker: Let me put it this
way, the House has not had the legislation yet, so we have got
plenty of chances for amending it. I would like to think that
the legislation will be flexible enough that, if there were the
case of a national landlord, operating in different parts of the
country, who had a reputation for running the properties badly,
where there was a reasonable amount of anti-social behaviour,
housing benefit fraud and other such matters that caused the licensing
in the first place, we could target that landlord. It may be that
we have to target the areas where they operate, but I do not think
the good landlords will object to that.
Q253 Mr Cummings: Minister,
are you making any representations to the Department of Trade
and Industry to have the question of mineworkers' compensation
for coronary, bronchitis, emphysema, resolved as speedily as possible?
Lord Rooker: I am not aware of
what the delays are at the present time. If there are current
issues regarding mineworkers' compensation, I know it was a large
programme and it was delayed when it started. I am not up to date
with the actual payment levels at the present time. I am well
aware because I was in the House at the time, when many of the
debates and the pressures on the Government were taking place.
I have not received anything, as far as I can recall from my brief.
I have got stuff on the pensions but, in terms of the compensation
for illness, I have not seen anything that is negative about that.
If there are issues, I would be happy to take it up. We will ask
about it, obviously, as you have raised the question.
Q254 Mr Cummings: I would
not want to press you this afternoon, Minister.
Lord Rooker: Do not worry. You
have asked the question. We will check with the DTI about how
it is going, so you can have a note on it.
Q255 Andrew Bennett: It is
an absolute disgrace. I do not have much of the coalfield population,
if you like, but I have got cases where people have died and the
money is going to go to their grandchildren. If the money goes
out now, it goes to an elderly miner who is in poor health and
they spend it in the coalfield area, because their health does
not let them go to Spain, or anywhere else, to spend it so they
spend it locally. You get two hits. You give some compensation
to the person who suffered and you get it into those coalfield
areas. When it is paid out years after the person has died, it
goes to grandchildren in the south of England and they will spend
it anywhere other than the coalfields. We have got some figures
here, which we can give you, that it is going really pitifully
slowly. The only people who are benefiting from it at the moment
are the lawyers dealing with it?
Lord Rooker: I regret that. I
accept completely what you say. I will make it my business, here
on my own, as it were, to check with DTI why it is going, in your
words, pitifully slowly. I take your point exactly that money
paid out later, after the miner sadly is deceased, is less likely
to be spent in that area than it would have been. Let us face
it, that was not the purpose of the pay-out in the first place,
by the way.
Q256 Andrew Bennett: They
are getting a double hit?
Lord Rooker: I know. It is an
unintended consequence that the payout to the miner is spent in
the area, or we hope it will be spent in the area, because it
is not going to solve the miner's ill-health problem, it is not
for that purpose, it is not going to do that. At least, in terms
of liveability, the fact is the state has compensated for the
way they were treated badly in the past. It makes you wonder why
people wanted to fight to keep their jobs to go down the pits,
because it was such an ill-health industry. That is not because
it is a bad industry, you can mine coal quite safely. The fact
is, we all know that in the early part of the century the structure
was set up so it was an ill-health industry, because health and
safety took a very low priority, and not a lot of that changed
in 1948 either, as we know. We were late coming to this and it
is up to our generation to pay the consequences of that by compensating
those miners.
Chairman: Minister, I think your timing
is impeccable because I think we are getting a buzz for a vote.
We know that you have been here all afternoon and we do appreciate
your coming here to give evidence. As a colleague once famously
put it, we congratulate you on your indefatigability. Thank you
very much.
|
