Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 80-98)

21 MARCH 2005

YVETTE COOPER MP

Q80 Mr Betts: Is there a timescale for its completion?

  Yvette Cooper: Not at this stage but I am happy to provide you with any further information on that as soon as we have it.

Q81 Mr Betts: What will be put in place to monitor future developments? Obviously, monitoring is looking at what has happened so far, but hopefully regeneration continues so will there be ongoing monitoring?

  Yvette Cooper: The idea is to be able to say, "This is what the new base line is for the future", so that we need to look at progress that has been made so far but also bring together the earlier evaluations and also set a new base line for the future coalfield funding so that it is possible to make clear exactly what impact further investment through, for example, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, is having.

Q82 Mr Page: So as well as how much funding is going in will it also be part of the process that targets will be set down for achievement on the ground and there will be a monitoring system against those?

  Yvette Cooper: We have not set out exactly the way the evaluation progress would work but what we are clear about is that we need not only to be evaluating what we have done so far but also setting in place a clear analysis of the base line from now going into the future that would therefore enable effective evaluation of any further programmes.

Q83 Mr O'Brien: Support funding is an issue that has been raised with us by all the people who have been giving evidence. Given the fact that Enterprise Zones, the Single Regeneration Budget, the EU Structural Fund are all to end within the next 12 months or so, what funding mechanisms will replace them?

  Yvette Cooper: As you know, we have a cycle of funding which depends on the spending review. We have set out the future funding for the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, for example, which has got a £50 million, three-year package of funding, and of course the English Partnerships programme continues, with all the receipts from those sites being recycled into the programme. The overall coalfield regeneration, funding mainly for which being through the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and English Partnerships, is set to continue, certainly in the lifecycle of this spending review. Obviously, we cannot make commitments into the next spending review, as you will appreciate.

Q84 Mr O'Brien: One of the problems that the areas have in regeneration, and we highlighted it in our report as a deep-seated problem, is the short term basis of these programmes. If there is to be a successful programme the local authorities and the organisation agencies would commit themselves to longer programmes. What is the government doing on that issue?

  Yvette Cooper: We take this very seriously because it affects a wide range of regeneration programmes. It is why we have moved increasingly to three-year budgeting wherever we can and why we changed the way a lot of the budgets are set across the government to move to the three-year budgeting as far as we can. We are, however, constrained by the nature of the spending review cycle and the fact that the government needs to maintain an overall responsible fiscal stance, and so promising future revenue funding where we do not have the overall spending review package clearly would be very difficult for us. There are capital projects in, for example, English Partnerships, where obviously it is possible to plan for a longer term where they have receipts that are being recycled from the sale of land or from other regeneration projects, so that gives them more stability. Otherwise we have improved the situation by going to three-year revenue decisions where we can but we recognise that it still causes some local projects with some pressures.

Q85 Mr O'Brien: One of the concerns that has been expressed is the fact that the coalfield areas have been in suburban or rural areas, and with the four city programmes for regional cities in the Northern Way there is a fear that the coalfield areas will become suburbs of the regional cities, losing the identities that they have held for so long. How can we prevent that, Minister?

  Yvette Cooper: That is an important point and it needs to be addressed as part of the regional spatial strategies. Every region needs to look at that kind of issue about where new housing should appropriately be but also where new employment land should be and where new jobs should be rather than simply have the coalfield communities become effectively dormitories. We have said as part of the Sustainable Communities Plan that we do not think that you should have separation of housing from jobs and employment and other services. In order properly to sustain communities you need all of those things mixed together. Many of those coalfield communities are extremely well placed to take advantage not simply of housing but also of employment growth. We know from our area, if you look at the progress that has been made on the Westhoughton pit site, there are now more jobs above ground than there were below ground just on that one pit site. Yes, there is some housing on the site as well but the main boost has been jobs growth for the area and, because of the site's location close to the motorway and with all sorts of good transport links to other areas, it is extremely well placed to be a prime economic site. The position of particular individual colliery sites depends hugely on exactly what their location is. For some housing will be appropriate but for others employment will be appropriate and we need to take very seriously the importance for those local communities of having new jobs to replace the ones they lost.

Q86 Andrew Bennett: While we are on these questions of funding of special schemes we had in this country five years ago a pretty good scheme for gap funding which enabled developments to take place in areas like the coalfields where there was a gap between the economic viability and the cost of doing it. Commissioner Monti put the boot into those schemes and we were assured by your predecessors that we were going to develop new gap funding schemes which were designed specifically for some of the UK problems. What progress have we made in getting gap funding schemes into the coalfields?

  Yvette Cooper: Probably the best thing for me to do is write to you on that because Jeff Rooker has been taking forward most of the work in that area. What we have certainly done is put in place the funded programmes such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the other work through Yorkshire Forward and the other RDAs to try to support projects that have other wider social and economic benefits but may not be taken into account. In specific answer to your question, if I may, Chairman, I will write to you.

  Andrew Bennett: I am happy to have a note but you might want to reflect that the Deputy Prime Minister is also coming to talk to us and he might like to give us an update.

Q87 Mr Betts: We have got the Pathfinder areas set up to deal with the problems of low demand housing but a very limited amount of the coalfield areas are in the Pathfinder schemes. One of the concerns has been that outside the Pathfinder schemes there is not much else to deal with the problems of low demand housing. Is that the situation? Has anyone got any initiatives up their sleeve on this?

  Yvette Cooper: We start with the Pathfinder programmes that are in place already which cover about 50% of all low demand housing and includes South Yorkshire and North Staffordshire coalfields. We have announced as part of the Homes for All five-year plan £65 million for non-Pathfinder areas and we have said we would like to focus that on Tees Valley, West Yorkshire and West Cumbria, which obviously include coalfield areas in West Yorkshire and West Cumbria. We are likely to say more to Parliament tomorrow about the £65 million and so if I may we will send the committee the information when we have reported to Parliament on that tomorrow. You are right that there are other areas which are not covered by those programmes. We have equally said that part of the regional housing strategies need to recognise pressures on low demand, including pressures on low demand in coalfield areas within their regions. For example, in the West Midlands additional funding has been allocated to the former coalfield authorities in North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Bedworth and Cannock Chase. Of course, the English Partnerships programme, because it includes housing, also includes receipts from housing. We are discussing at the moment with English Partnerships and with the Coalfields Communities Campaign what should happen to the additional receipts that the English Partnerships has accrued, which is likely to be in the region of £30-£40 million although it is not clear yet what the precise amount will be. There is certainly scope to use some of those resources around housing, including looking at low demand. That is work in progress that might affect other low demand areas within the coalfield communities. You will be aware, of course, that there are wider things around—selective licensing, private landlords and dealing with empty homes and so on, which obviously can be used in coalfield areas and low demand areas just as they can in non-coalfield areas.

Q88 Mr Betts: We can accept that an awful lot has happened in the last two or three years to address a lot of these problems but it is still possible, is it not, that of all the coalfield areas we go through most of them probably have got problems of low demand housing and that after the two initial Pathfinders those which are covered by the next round, the additional Pathfinders that have been announced, plus the special initiatives for particular areas you have just mentioned, there may still be some of the old coalfields where there is this problem but resources have not yet been identified to address it.

  Yvette Cooper: We are basically talking about four ways of reaching them at the moment. The first is the existing Pathfinders. The second is the additional low demand one which we will say more about tomorrow. The third is through the regional housing pot and they do have considerable flexibility to concentrate on low demand areas within their regions if they need to. The fourth is the future flexibility from this English Partnerships money of £30-£40 million.

Q89 Mr Betts: Except we were talking earlier about how that might be used to deal with some of the sites that are currently not in the English Partnerships programme.

  Yvette Cooper: There are considerable pressures on it and there is going to be a debate about how we use that money and we are not going to be able to spend the same money twice.

Q90 Mr Betts: So there may still be some areas which have not yet had identified for them the resources they will need to address the problems of low demand housing?

  Yvette Cooper: The existing Pathfinder programme already covers 50% of low demand housing.

Q91 Mr Betts: But not within the coalfield areas.

  Yvette Cooper: Fifty per cent overall of low demand housing, so that leaves 50% of low demand housing remaining once you have taken out the first Pathfinder programme. We are still already on the way to dealing with a lot of the low demand housing and obviously we have to recognise that we have pressures on us for tackling low demand housing in other areas that are not coalfield areas but which face very similar problems, because the root of the problem is very often housing that was developed around a particular economic base and a particular community, which might have been coalfields but might equally have been other of the big manufacturing industries which also had large amounts of housing going up very quickly in order to support a workforce around patterns of lifestyles that no longer exist. There are other areas outside the coalfield areas which face similar problems. What we are trying to do through the Regional Housing Board is address all of those, coalfield and non-coalfield.

Q92 Mr Betts: Just coming back to the coalfield position which is what we are hearing about this afternoon, is there somewhere in the ODPM, a chart or table, something on a board somewhere which identifies all the coalfield areas with problems of low demand housing and the initiatives against each one which are being taken or, where there is a gap, the fact that we have got to give them new initiatives in the future to address it?

  Yvette Cooper: We certainly identified all the areas of low demand housing because that was how we drew up Pathfinders. We also at the same time have all of the work under way on individual coalfield areas and addressing that problem. Certainly we have a lot of that information but I think we have set out a very substantial investment programme as a result of these four things to meet low demand problems in coalfield areas. In some ways it is a moving feast as well, the way in which demand fluctuates in different areas, so it is always true that there is concern about how you address low demand and there may be other areas that we still need to do more on, but we are doing an awful lot.

Q93 Mr Betts: I think that is true. Is it possible to have a note on the different areas, on what is happening in each?

  Yvette Cooper: Sure, yes.

Q94 Mr O'Brien: A number of primary care trusts in coalmining areas have a deficit of over 10 million pounds. Obviously, the last round of funding helped to ease that but it does not bring them up to the level of the best primary care trusts. What discussions have you had with the Department of Health to ensure that they are improving primary health care in the coalfield communities?

  Yvette Cooper: You will be aware that the Department of Health does not separate out in its funding specific coalfield PCTs from other PCTs. What they do is set out in some detail the indices of deprivation and take account of deprivation and disadvantage in a wide range of ways. The latest three-year allocations mean that overall on average PCTs receive a cash increase of 9.2% followed by 5% followed by 9.32% and they made the decision as part of these allocations to move PCTs far more quickly towards their fair share of funds. Therefore those PCT areas that were below their fair share, which certainly includes a lot of coalfield areas, had a much faster rate of change towards their fair share, towards what their proper allocation should be. In 2003-04 I understand the most under-target PCT was 22% under its fair share of available resources. Unfortunately, I do not have in my brief whether that was a coalfield area.

Q95 Andrew Bennett: It was Easington, I think.

  Yvette Cooper: The result of the allocation rounds means that no PCT should be more than 3.5% below its fair share. There are considerable discussions always with the Department of Health, particularly about issues around health inequalities and narrowing the gap there, so those have taken place over an extended period of time. The shift towards the faster pace of change will have considerable benefits for a lot of coalfield areas.

Q96 Mr O'Brien: The one-size-fits-all approach which was introduced at the beginning of the review of the Health Service the committee recommended moving away from to try and identify the problem areas in the coalfield areas. They have specific health problems in the coalfield areas. The elderly and even children have special problems. What specific representations has the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made to the Department of Health to try and ensure that where we need special consideration, whether it be funding in primary care or even secondary care?

  Yvette Cooper: As you know, there has always been an argument about the difficulties for coalfield areas having such high rates of industrial disease in particular but also high levels of ill health starting at a much younger age than you would normally expect in the population, and also having lower life expectancy than other areas. All of those are factors that are taken into account in the way in which the Health Department assesses the need for funding right across the country and certainly the ODPM has been involved in discussions with the Department of Health particularly about the links between inequalities and the floor targets because, as you know, we set floor targets for every area, both coalfield and non-coalfield areas, to ensure that every area gets the improvements in health outcomes that it needs.

Q97 Mr O'Brien: Asthma is one of the chronic diseases that people suffer with in the coalfield areas. We have developed targets throughout the country but in the coalfield areas the development of asthma has caused great problems, particularly in children, and it is important that we make sure that children are catered for in schools. Has there been any dialogue or discussion with the Departments of Health and Education to ensure that there is someone in the school, some staff, that there is equipment there, nebulisers and so on, which can be used to ensure that children do not suffer with an asthma attack?

  Yvette Cooper: I am not aware of any discussion that has taken place between our department and the Health Department specifically around childhood asthma, though if there have been any again I am happy to update the committee.

Q98 Mr O'Brien: What about primary care development?

  Yvette Cooper: I know that the Health Department has looked at issues around childhood asthma as part of their work on developing the Children's National Service framework. Unfortunately, I am afraid I am just not up to date with what work they have taken forward on that.

  Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for your evidence. We look forward to receiving the notes you have promised to let us have. Can I thank everyone for coming and helping to support the evidence.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 12 April 2005