The lack of coordination
9. The impact of regeneration initiatives has been
reduced because Government departments are not working closely
enough together and the large number of programmes now being implemented
by them are insufficiently coordinated.
10. The ODPM has central responsibility for coordinating
the regeneration of the coalfields but it has to rely on funding
and programmes from other departments. Many of the submissions
to our inquiry highlighted the varying levels of commitments by
the other departments. Nottinghamshire County Council commented:
"Nottinghamshire County Council welcomes
the increased understanding from Government of the particular
needs of coalfield areas as they impact on the delivery of key
services and would hope that through the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, all Government Departments be persuaded to engage
positively in the continued support of the coalfield regeneration
agenda."[6]
There is a varying level of commitment to the
regeneration of the coalfield areas from Government Departments.
All Departments need to be actively engaged in the regeneration
of the Coalfields. The ODPM needs to coordinate their contributions
more effectively.
11. There is concern that the plethora of programmes
is reducing their overall effectiveness. When we visited South
Yorkshire, we were appalled by the list of 50 separate initiatives
given to us by the South Yorkshire Coalfield Partnership Board
all aimed at regenerating the coalfield areas. While extreme,
this proliferation of initiatives was not untypical. The Leicester
Housing Association said:
"Despite up to £1 billion of additional
funds being made available to former coalfields areas since the
1998 Coalfields Action Plan, 63% of the wards in the former coalfields
are in the top 20% of wards of deprivation."
The association suggested that:
"the significant additional funds that have
been made available by government have failed to have the intended
impact through the lack of a single focus, through the presence
of bureaucratic systems, through lack of co-ordination, as a result
of insufficient thought being given to projects sustaining themselves
beyond the life of the grant and because of the sheer number of
funding agencies that operate in the area."[7]
12. The Community Empowerment Network in Bolsover
pointed to the increasing amounts of time taken on preparing funding
bids and implementing the large number of initiatives.
"There is a proliferation of agencies and
structures particularly linked to funding regimes. Key agencies
are thought to become 'tied up' in these processes. Former coal
areas are subjected to constant 'bidding regimes' to fund service
delivery. Complexity and range is thought to generate further
bureaucracy, disappointment and is an expensive, exclusive and
arbitrary process. Some agencies do not have the additional staff
infrastructure for participation in such processes resulting in
service delivery depletion."[8]
The Government envisages that Local Strategic Partnerships
should play a central role in promoting coordination. In some
areas partnerships are working effectively to join up initiatives.
The Committee's report on Government Regeneration Initiatives
said that LSPs did not "add value to the regeneration process.
Without significant review, and revision of accountability to
make Local Strategic Partnerships subject to the same scrutiny
processes as local authorities we fear they will amount to little
but 'talking shops'."[9]
In its response, the Government pointed to new guidance which
would help them be more effective.
"Over the summer of 2003, the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister will issue a toolkit of practical advice
and support to help Local Strategic Partnerships make the shift
from partnership and strategy development to the delivery of real
change on the ground."[10]
There are major concerns that there are too many
initiatives in the Coalfields, and that Local Strategic Partnerships
will not be effective in coordinating them. The Government needs
to look further at rationalising the number of initiatives and
at integrating those that remain with similar or related initiatives
to ensure a strategic approach.
Short term initiatives
13. Many of the initiatives addressing the needs
of the coalfield areas do not provide the sustained support required
to address many of the deeply ingrained problems in the coalfield
areas. Providing continuing support for projects when their initial
funding dries up is presently a frequent problem. In the next
three years, several key programmes will come under review or
even expire, raising questions about future funding. These include:
- EU Structural Funds
- English Partnerships' National Coalfields Programme
- Regional Selective Assistance
- Single Regeneration Budget
- Enterprise Zones
- Coalfields Regeneration Trust
14. Submissions to the Committee urged that all these
various schemes should be continued or at the very least that
transitional funding should be provided. The South Yorkshire Coalfield
Partnership Board warned:
"The magnitude of the task in achieving
sustainable regeneration raises concerns in the South Yorkshire
Coalfield about the uncertain future for European structural funds
post 2006. The transformational agenda for the local economy will
take longer than that to be achieved. The fear is that the required
level of support is not kept up for long enough to complete the
economic transformation. Only a gradual tapering of the current
levels of support from Objective 1 could be withstood, without
prejudicing the progress made so far to a post-coal economy.
Whatever happens to structural funds beyond 2006,
it is vital that the South Yorkshire Coalfield area retains eligibility
for Tier 1 Regional Selective Assistance."[11]
15. Deep-seated problems cannot be addressed through
short-term time-limited programmes. As recommended by the Committee's
report on the Effectiveness of Government Regeneration Initiatives,
long term programmes managed by local authorities are needed to
provide certainty and coordination over an extended time. Effective
monitoring systems need to be established to ensure that targets
are met, and if necessary programmes adjusted accordingly.
4 The Effectiveness of Government Regeneration Initiatives,
ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee,
Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, HC 76-1 Back
5
COA 03 Back
6
COA12 Back
7
COA 10 Back
8
COA 07 Back
9
The Effectiveness of Government Regeneration Initiatives, ODPM:
Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee,
Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, HC 76-1 Back
10
The Government's Response to the ODPM Housing, Planning, Local
Government and the Regions Committee's Report on The Effectiveness
of Government Regeneration Initiatives, July 2003, Cm 5865 Back
11
COA 08 Back
