Examinatoin of Witnesses (Questions 266-279)
MS SALLY
LOW AND
MS CHARLOTTE
MOORE-BICK
27 MARCH 2006
Q266 Mr Betts: Welcome to the evidence
session. As before, I will just give apologies for Phyllis Starkey
MP, the Chair of the Committee, who is in her constituency on
important business this afternoon, but you are welcome anyway.
For the sake of our records, could you just identify yourselves,
please?
Ms Low: I am Sally Low, Director
of Policy and External Affairs for the British Chambers of Commerce.
This is Charlotte Moore-Bick, the Policy Adviser, who compiled
our submission.
Mr Betts: Thank you.
Q267 Anne Main: In your representation,
you discussed a lack of clarity of the regional agenda; why do
you think this is and do you think the Government has run out
of ideas after having a `no' vote in the North East?
Ms Low: I think the referendum
in the North East taught us a number of things. Certainly, from
the British Chambers of Commerce's view, we are in favour of devolution.
What that referendum taught us, and it was interesting that the
North East Chambers of Commerce compiled a survey prior to the
referendum which mirrored the result, was that there was resentment
about the costs that people felt were going to be involved, they
could not see the value of the proposals contained within it and
did not really believe that this was serious devolution. It is
not a rejection, as we see it, of regional government but it is
a rejection in the way that it was formed. In terms of lack of
clarity, from the business perspective we are seeing a lot of
different layers and tiers in the whole structure of government,
and what business is asking really is, from the point of view
of representation, into that whole mix, where does business feature,
but also who rules. If we are going to be serious about central
government rules, and whatever, we have got a growing regional
level there, there is the rise of the city regions as well coming
out of recent debate and also local government, and we are seeing
the launch of the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative, and things
like that, which further serve to strengthen local government.
Of course, with Chambers, their position, our network of Chambers
of Commerce is unique, in that they are absolutely rooted in their
local communities, absolutely bedded in those communities and
very strongly support the economic development activity that is
going on. From that perspective, we seek more clarity about which
level is going to come to the fore and which will have the decision-making
role, particularly with regard to economic development.
Q268 Sir Paul Beresford: Would you
not think the vote in the North East said more than you have just
explained? The North East was the area which supposedly was most
likely to go for a regional elected assembly; they said decisively
"No." Therefore, if that can be extrapolated, everyone
else might have said "no" to an even greater degree
and they do not want a non-elected assembly either so really we
are looking at the wrong thing, if we are looking at regional
government as it is structured by this Government now?
Ms Moore-Bick: I think the issue
really was around the nature of the proposals for the North East
Regional Assembly. From the business point of view, it was seen
as likely to be very costly to businesses, an additional layer
of government, as Sally was saying, not getting rid of anything
but adding another tier of government. Indeed, it would have taken
some of the power up from the local level rather than being devolution
from the centre. We would not see regional government as being
a sort of dead duck, if you like, it has still got a vital role
to play; it is just how you go about doing that. I think there
is a danger at the moment that we may get regional government
by the back door. Regional Development Agencies are being given
more responsibilities, particularly over delivery, rather than
just their initial, strategic role, so there is real concern.
Q269 Sir Paul Beresford: You would
want a total rethink, would you?
Ms Moore-Bick: We want greater
accountability, certainly, and we need to look at how Regional
Development Agencies conduct their procedures, and so on, how
they involve businesses, Regional Assemblies as well; we are very
concerned about the lack of business engagement.
Q270 Anne Main: You have just given
one reason why you believe the model was rejected, the Government
at the time gave a different reason; do you think there is a problem
with everybody putting their own interpretation on why it was
rejected? You do not believe the one which Sir Paul put forward,
which is to ask if people still want it, you have your own reasoning.
Have you got anything to back up that particular view, that it
was a lack of clarity, that was why people rejected it, because
it is not what came out from the Government's view at the time,
they said it was a political one? Other people, who do not favour
regional assemblies, say, "Well, it's just because we don't
want them, and "No" is a `no'." The people who
say they want them because of the value of them, will you please
say from where you have got that information?
Ms Low: What came out of the survey,
as I say, which the North East Chambers conducted immediately
prior to the actual referendum, was that business did not want
something which it saw as bureaucratic and would add more costs
without seeing value, so I can present the arguments from the
business point of view and those were canvassed amongst our business
members in the North East.
Q271 Mr Olner: You are happy about
them being unaccountable; you are happy about a body being there
which was distributing money but was unaccountable?
Ms Low: No; no. Accountability
was an important part of that as well.
Q272 Martin Horwood: Can I ask how
many businesses actually were contacted in that survey?
Ms Moore-Bick: We do not have
the figures to hand.
Ms Low: I can certainly provide
you with some information on it.
Mr Betts: If you could provide some information
on that, it would be helpful.
Q273 Alison Seabeck: My question
is linking into the debate that we have just been having about
the structure, if you like. Clearly, you would be in favour of
some form of reorganisation of the current three tiers of regional
government, for coherence in the political process; how would
you do that, do you have a model in mind?
Ms Low: It is a difficult question.
If you look at it from the way that business approaches life then
you need to concentrate on what the priorities are, exactly what
we want to get out of it, and I think then something like Local
Area Agreements is an important mechanism, potentially, for doing
that. If you look at establishing a set of clear priorities and
then track back to what sort of mechanism and structure should
feed and motivate and enable those priorities to be met, that
is perhaps the better way to look at it. It is an important opportunity
for us now, with this debate and with the White Paper, to discuss
the various pros and cons of what the regional structure should
look like. If you look at what we have got at the moment, the
RDAs perform a duty as a mechanism and a framework for funding
and have a number of core priorities. What we are seeing, from
our Chamber network and the businesses they represent, is a tendency
to hang lots of other things off the RDAs, which does concern
us. We do not have a problem with the way the RDAs were framed
originally, but we do want to see them performing those core roles
and delivering on them and we think it is very important to make
that happen effectively, rather than using them for lots of additional
things, for example, as now they are in charge of the Business
Link and business support, as well as other things, and that is
an important caveat really to how the regional levels are working.
Equally, at local government level, it is important that, with
a role for economic development, business is at the heart of that
focus and is genuinely part of that and represented in those models
in local government.
Q274 Alison Seabeck: That is a very
interesting answer and it links, in part, to comments in your
paper about the consolidation of funding streams as well, in terms
of bringing together perhaps a more efficient model. If you were
going to look at consolidating funding streams and had to lose
one of those arms of regional government in order to do that,
which one would you lose?
Ms Moore-Bick: It is not necessarily
about losing an arm; you may now have a single programme but you
have still got the various streams of European funding, ESF (European
Social Fund), ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), obviously
those are tailing off in many areas, but there is the Competitiveness
and Innovation Programme, which is a fairly recent funding stream,
and, from the business point of view, there is funding available
to support export development, skills, and so on, but it is a
very confused picture. If it were one stream, there was one point
of contact from where they could get the advice, they know what
funding is available and also can see how the funding which has
been given to the RDAs is being used on the priorities like skills
and enterprise, economic development, I think it would provide
greater clarity.
Q275 Alison Seabeck: Have you fed
those views into any other government departments, because, clearly,
if money is being wasted or duplicated, I assume you have already
made those points to the appropriate people?
Ms Moore-Bick: Yes, we talk regularly
to government departments, including the DTI and ODPM, making
those points; absolutely.
Q276 Mr Betts: Is it about being
interested in or bothered about serious devolution, or really
is it trying to ensure you do not have bodies around which might
be a bit anti-business and do things which you cannot quite control
and would be unhappy about, bodies which might be out of your
control or influence?
Ms Low: No, I do not think that
is the case, given the long history and tradition of the Chambers
of Commerce. They are rooted in their community and do play a
major role and are interested in civic leadership and in local
economic development, also encouraging enterprise into areas of
disadvantage; there is an enormous amount of activity as well
with schools.
Q277 Mr Betts: In which areas of
funding do you want to see the goals?
Ms Moore-Bick: I think the five
priorities of RDAs, as they stand, are the right five, from the
business point of view; it is just how they go about acting on
those. In the West Midlands, for instance, a manufacturing strategy
was developed without any consultation with businesses. It is
not about us protecting our interests, but if it relates to a
major concern for businesses in the West Midlands, Rover, and
so on, business should be involved in that. To come back to your
point, I think the five are pretty much the right ones, but it
is doing them better, it is making organisations like the Regional
Skills Partnership actually work so that they are delivering the
skills which businesses need, so people can get jobs in their
region.
Q278 Martin Horwood: Just following
on from Clive's point, far from supposedly being anti-business,
the RDAs, in particular, have a remit to be pro-business and to
develop business, do they not? How many marks would you give them
out of ten, in general, for being effective, pro-business organisations?
Ms Low: You will not be surprised
if I do not give marks out of 10 for that. It is patchy; the information
we receive from our Chamber network is that it is patchy, and
part of that is because the RDAs are being asked to do too much.
Particularly with regard to the new responsibilities for business
support, we are seeing an uneven delivery and an uneven response
to that further role and responsibilities.
Q279 Martin Horwood: If they are
being asked to do too much, it begs the question of where really
those responsibilities should go. Would you rather that they were
exercised at a more local level?
Ms Low: For something as practical
and as business-related as business support, we would argue it
should come down to the Chamber of Commerce network to deliver
business support.
|
