Examination of Witnesses (Questions 452-459)
27 JANUARY 2004
MS STELLA
MANZIE, CLLR
JOHN MUTTON,
MR DARRA
SING AND
MR MARK
TURNER
Q452 Chairman: Can I welcome you all
to the Committee. Can I ask you to identify yourselves, for the
record, please?
Ms Manzie: Stella Manzie, Chief
Executive of Coventry City Council.
Cllr Mutton: I am Councillor John
Mutton, Leader of Coventry City Council.
Mr Singh: Darra Singh, Chief Executive
of Luton Borough Council.
Mr Turner: Mark Turner, Chair
of the Officers' Steering Group on Community Cohesion, Equalities,
Diversity and Social Inclusion at Luton Borough Council.
Q453 Chairman: Thank you very much. We
often let witnesses make an opening statement, if you want, or
are you happy for us to go straight to questions?
Ms Manzie: We are very happy to
go straight to questions.
Q454 Mr Cummings: The Committee have
been told that there is a wide, and some people would say confusing,
range of programmes designed to benefit social cohesion promulgation,
both at central government level and local authority level. How
should initiatives be rationalised in order to create the basis
for a more considered and consistent national approach?
Cllr Mutton: If I start, by saying
there is not one answer, there is not one set of policies. Community
cohesion does not just happen and it does not develop necessarily
through sets of policies, it takes hard work and, more importantly,
commitment. Coventry have been working at it for the best part
of 60 years now, so I do not think I can answer your question
with the type of answer that you may be looking for. I think it
is far wider, far broader than any one simple answer.
Q455 Mr Cummings: I think what we are
saying is, are there too many initiatives, is there a possibility
of the initiatives being rationalised?
Ms Manzie: In the sense of the
funding initiatives which central government provide, I think
the answer has got to be a balance. Certainly local government
in general would say that some of the issues which the previous
witness was talking about, which is the knowledge of local neighbourhoods,
mean that the most useful thing that could happen to local authorities
is that they had sufficient resource within their mainstream funding
to be able to deploy their local knowledge to enable that funding
to be invested in the way in which they thought fit in local neighbourhoods.
In some neighbourhoods that would mean additional investment and
additional mainstream services to combat poverty gaps, which are
sometimes, but not always, linked to community cohesion issues.
However, I think there is a case for some specific initiatives
and I do not think there is anybody who would deny that, on occasion,
it is important that there are specific criteria which enable
both central government and local government to direct funding
to specific neighbourhoods. I think all of us would agree that,
at the moment, and certainly over the past five years or so, there
has been a very wide diversity of funding which has been difficult
to explain to local people and that certainly rationalisation
of that funding would help. I think that process has already started
and the Government have taken cognisance of that, and certainly
initiatives like Neighbourhood Renewal funding have been helpful
to that process of rationalisation.
Mr Singh: I do agree. I think
there is a balance to be maintained between funding mainstream
services and looking at outcomes from a community cohesion perspective
from a range of those services, so, for example, around educational
attainment and what we are doing on behalf of local children.
Secondly, there is a role also for specific initiatives. I think
the issue is perhaps how we can accelerate the progress which
has been made and the commitment which has been given at a national
level to look at the relationship between different specific initiatives,
to try to iron out any conflict in terms of rules, timescales,
target groups in specific geographical areas in which initiatives
are focused. To use perhaps a Home Office team as well as a Regional
Co-ordination Unit within the ODPM actually to undertake that
kind of analysis, to streamline and make sure there is a better
fit between programmes.
Q456 Mr Cummings: Who would do this?
Mr Singh: In my view, I think
it needs to be done nationally and locally.
Q457 Mr Cummings: Are there any mechanisms
in place to assist towards that objective?
Mr Singh: Some I can think of
immediately are, for example, the commitment to use the Home Office
Community Cohesion Unit to review new programmes and look at where
there may well be conflicts or a bit of friction in terms of criteria.
I think there needs to be a commitment from the range of government
departments. The Regional Co-ordination Unit in the ODPM, which
actually was very helpful in producing some recent guidance on
Area-Based Initiatives, is also an important vehicle to help do
that.
Q458 Chairman: Do not some of the Area-Based
Initiatives simply set one community against another?
Ms Manzie: My view is, no. If
the local authority area and the local partners handle it properly,
there is no reason why specific funding initiatives for one area
as against another should lead to community conflict. Here I have
some differences, with great respect to Ted, with some of the
elements within the Cantle Report. That is because, in Coventry,
for example, where we have benefited from a very large number
of external initiatives, we have taken great care in the way in
which, first, those initiatives have been brought into the city,
and, second, the way in which both politicians and executive officers
have explained those initiatives to local people. For example,
there are three major areas of deprivation in Coventry, Hillfields,
Foleshill and the north east, sometimes characterised by Wood
End, which some people may remember for riots in the past. Wood
End, and the surrounding area, is predominantly a white community.
Hillfields and Foleshill both have large concentrations of different
minority ethnic groups. The way in which the city has handled
the funding input into the city is that the north east, with Wood
End in it, has benefited from New Deal for Communities. Foleshill
benefited significantly from Single Regeneration Budget, and Hillfields
and Foleshill have benefited from a wide range of initiatives.
Q459 Chairman: Wait a minute. You are
telling me that, but if I went into any of those three neighbourhoods
would the people in those three neighbourhoods be able to tell
me the same message?
Ms Manzie: I think it is not so
much the issue in those three neighbourhoods. What I was about
to say was, in addition to that, what the city has not done is
made certain that all the funding goes into those three very deprived
areas. Also we have looked at, particularly through Neighbourhood
Renewal funding and a whole range of other funding initiatives,
trying to pick out groups who are not concentrated necessarily
in one single area, for example, the African/Caribbean community,
which is relatively small in Coventry. Indeed, we have tried to
pick out areas which are much smaller areas of deprivation and
make it clear to the rest of the community that there are good
reasons why those communities are receiving funding. Also what
we are doing is looking at the funding in mainstream services
which are delivered to the whole city.
Mr Singh: I agree with a lot of
what my colleague has said. I think the approach in Luton is to
ensure that we target resources at the greatest need but, in order
to do that, to assess actually where that need is and look at
intelligence and data, not just at a ward level but at a neighbourhood
level, and how programmes are impacting on different communities.
For example, in terms of a range of funding to support Early Years
programmes and improve achievement of younger children, we have
ensured that we use Government funding as well as local resources
to ensure that a broader range of primary schools get the benefit
of those programmes. Communication and transparency are two things
which go hand in hand, I think, in terms of allocating or making
decisions about where resources should be focused. We do our utmost
to ensure that we communicate rules and reasons for decisions,
and so on. I think, if you came into Luton and went into some
neighbourhoods, probably you would find still the perception among
some groups that actually they are not getting access to enough
resources compared with other neighbourhoods. That was certainly
what was discovered, as you know, during the Cantle review.
|
