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.
| 
