Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-135)
COUNCILLOR GORDON
BIRTWISTLE, MR
STEVE RUMBELOW,
COUNTY COUNCILLOR
DOREEN POLLITT
AND MS
JANE ABDULLA
4 MARCH 2008
Q120 Chair: Do you think you have
failed in the past?
Mr Rumbelow: I think we have been
very honest in the past that we have not always got that right,
and that was one of the contributory factors to the problems we
had back in 2001. It was triggered by criminality frankly, but
we recognised when we looked at the reasons why it took the turn
it took, some of that was about our responsibility for making
sure that we were communicating effectively with communities.
It is very common for councils to communicate with the communities
that are going to benefit but not so common for councils to communicate
effectively with communities that are not going to benefit. We
are starting to get that right. I am not suggesting for a minute
we always get it right, but we have changed our approach to that
significantly. We are resourcing that better, we have better resourced
management, so we have got people on the ground to get an early
warning of some of those issues so we can actually tackle them
effectively.
Q121 Chair: Councillor Birtwistle?
Councillor Birtwistle: I agree
with the Chief Executive. I have only been in the post as Leader
of the Council for 18 months. When we took over control of the
Council 18 months ago we decided the thing that would be at the
top of our agenda would be to be honest with the people. We have
a mantra that we will make the town "safer, cleaner, greener
and more prosperous" but we decided we would also be honest
with the people. We took the view then that we would explain to
people as best we could how the funding was being supplied, where
the funding was being supplied and the reasons why the funding
was being supplied. I think that is one of the reasons why now
we do not have as much emphasis put on the perception that funding
is being unfairly distributed. I think people now understand why
it is being distributed as it is because we are being open with
everybody.
Q122 Chair: Councillor Pollitt?
County Councillor Pollitt: Doreen
Pollitt, Deputy Leader, Lancashire County Council. We have a funding
stream right across county hall. We have a grants committee that
issues amounts of grant out to various organisations right across
the 12 districts and obviously here as well in Burnley. That was
reviewed about two years ago because we found that we had fallen
really in a bad arena in one sense because we continued to give
the same people the grants and we did not always measure whether
those grants were being used properly or not. Two years ago we
completely reviewed it all. We now give grants for three years
so that there is some consistency in projects because one year
is not enough, and we have found that really works. We do performance
management to keep our eye on it obviously because it is taxpayers'
money and we need to be careful with it and that is working better.
The other thing we introduced a couple of years ago was something
called Lancashire Local. That is cross-party here in Burnley between
the county councillors and the district councillors. We come together
and the county councillors devolve quite a substantial amount
of money around highways and different other areas where local
people can see where the money is going and how it is being used.
Each county councillor also has a grant that can be spent on local
issues. That might be buying some new cricket stuff for the local
cricket club. I live in Accrington and I am the councillor for
Accrington, and I gave some money out to a bowling club because
they were having a youth programme teaching men and women to bowl
and they wanted a lightweight ball to use. There are a lot of
things going on. We try to work in co-operation with all our districts.
We have a good relationship with Burnley. I know Burnley, I only
live a few miles down the road in Accrington and so that is helpful.
Lancashire Local has been successful. We have got a climate change
grant of £1 million put into Lancashire Local for local communities
to bid into so they could perhaps cut down on electricity by doing
whatever they want to do with the grant to save electricity, et
cetera, et cetera. There are a lot of different schemes
going on at the moment.
Q123 Dr Pugh: Can I ask about political
leadership. If people live in very distinct communities, obviously
there is a great premium for any elected councillor to be seen
to be doing the best for the community, to be asking for more
resources, more benefits for that community. There is not an enormous
political bonus for them in demanding greater political cohesion
or more fairness all round. Is that what happens in Burnley, that
most politicians become parochial and lose the big picture and
basically get in at election time by banging the drum for their
own community?
Councillor Birtwistle: As a councillor,
and I have been a councillor for 25 years, that is a fair comment
that all councillors that are worth their salt fight for their
own wards.
Q124 Dr Pugh: Is there any political
risk in doing a bit more than that?
Councillor Birtwistle: Certain
political parties within the Council will tend to do that, but
I think we have all realised that we all represent a specific
town, we all represent Burnley, and we are all here to fight for
the best for Burnley. A typical example we have at the moment
is that we are investing over £1 million in a new sports
centre at Padiham. Padiham is at the far extremity of Burnley
approaching the Ribble Valley. A lot of councillors are not happy
with the way that we have funded some of the capital to build
this new facility because they feel they want money spent in their
own wards. It is very difficult to explain to people at the other
end of the town that this is a facility for the whole of Burnley,
not just for Padiham, but for those who contribute to it and pay
for it, as the people in Padiham can use the facilities that we
have in town. We did have some difficulty pushing that through
the budget process. We managed to get it through but there was
a lot of argument, and I tried to explain to everybody that we
all represent Burnley. All right, we have specific communities
we represent in our own wards but we have got to look at the bigger
picture. We want Burnley to be a more prosperous place where people
would wish to come and live and work.
Q125 Mr Betts: What has been said
to us is that the racial tensions are probably eased somewhat
compared with the problems in the summer of 2001, but that almost
seems to be despite the fact you have still got the situation
which the Cantle Report described as "parallel lives"
where people are living in different communities, children are
going to different schools, different places of employment and
are certainly not mixing on a social and leisure activity basis.
Is that a fair description of what is going on? Is there a need
to get people to integrate more together providing we do not have
riots in the streets, is it all all right really?
Councillor Birtwistle: I agree
that we do have parallel lives being lived in Burnley, but provided
at the end of the day the parallel lives meet and create some
cohesion as and when is required then I feel that is fine. I spend
a lot of my time in the mainly Asian ward of Daneshouse and Stoneyholme.
I spend a tremendous amount of time up there. They have their
own religions, they have their own way of living, but they do
come together with the rest of the Burnley community at the Community
Festival and they meet at various functions that we have. I live
a parallel life to my next-door neighbour, he does not live the
life the same as I live, and in the Asian community they do live
a separate lifeline to the indigenous community. As far as I am
concerned, as long as we all live in harmony and peace and we
all get together to sort out our problems and understand each
other's problems, to me people are free to live the lives they
wish to lead.
Mr Rumbelow: It is undoubtedly
the case that community relations are better now than they were
then, and I think that is testament to some of the people that
the Committee have heard from during your visit over the last
day and a half, particularly because, if anything, the conditions
have been getting more difficult and the levels of deprivation
in Burnley are worse now than they were then. We have, unfortunately,
moved in the wrong direction in terms of the Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD) which was published just before Christmas. In
2004 we were the 37th worst district; we are now the 21st worst
district. We have some particularly concerning concentrations
in the overall concentration indicator; we are the fifth worst
nationally and a number of our wards are in the worst one per
cent nationally. Given that, I think the community development
work and the work that we have been doing in the communities has
been incredibly successful. The real issue for us is about general
levels of deprivation; it is about fixing the economy; it is about
making sure that we have opportunities for all our communities
to become economically active, and that actually is the thing
that has been touched on this morning that will deal best with
the cohesion issues such that they are. That actually is not that
different to many other places. I think it is important and I
ought to make the point very clearly that Burnley is not by any
means unique. We had a particular incident a few years ago and
as far as we are concerned that is finished, that has gone, and
the communities are working generally quite well together, but
there are tensions that occur as a result—I think it was
a point made earlier—and it does not matter whether it is
an Asian community or white community, if people see someone across
the other side of the road getting something they perceive to
be different and better, they will make a point about that. If
that community happens to be of a different racial origin then
it is likely that difference will be looked on.
Q126 Mr Hands: You talked about Burnley's
work being very successful. As we know, Burnley is not unique
in having these problems. How much effort is being made to export
best practice from Burnley or indeed import best practice from
other places? So far the description in the last couple of minutes
sounded like Burnley is moving and working entirely in isolation
from other towns and cities in the UK that have these problems.
I am just wondering what experience you have had interacting with
others?
Ms Abdullah: The 15 local authorities
across Lancashire are working together on community cohesion.
There is a county-wide Cohesion Working Group and a county-wide
Action Plan and part of that Action Plan is about sharing information—demographic
information for example, tension levels, that kind of thing—and
also sharing good practice and working on joint projects where
there is added value so certainly across the sub region of Lancashire
there is joint working across our authorities.
Mr Rumbelow: Can I just add, we
are working wider as well. We have got a relationship developing
with Leicester for example. Not yet Mars but maybe that will come
in time! We do make a point of sharing our good practice and going
and learning from other places as well.
Q127 Mr Hands: Can I also ask a question
about violent extremism which cropped up right at the very beginning
of the evidence in the very first answer to the very first question.
What is the Council doing on efforts to prevent violent extremism?
Is the Council really getting to grips with that?
Ms Abdullah: There is a Pan-Lancashire
(with Preston, Blackburn and Lancashire County Council) Forum
on preventing violent extremism that is funded by the national
funding stream, the Pathfinder programme. I think at the moment
we have got about £500,000 running a range of different projects—working
with young people, working with Muslim women in the local community,
working with the mosques—so Burnley Council together with
the other district councils in Lancashire, Blackburn, Preston
and the County, are engaged in a raft of projects really through
that Pathfinder programme.
Q128 Emily Thornberry: Can I pick
up on your point about deprivation because I represent a constituency
in the eighth most deprived borough in Britain, Islington where
we have many different people bumping along, all living on top
of each other and so on. I do not think therefore that it is quite
as simple as you have been suggesting. Of course deprivation plays
an important part in it but it really is not the full answer.
Although we are told that relationships are generally better within
Burnley, I am concerned about the answer that Councillor Birtwistle
has given which is, yes, people may live parallel lives but they
will come together on set-piece occasions and so that is all right.
Surely that is an extremely fragile structure for a town to be
based on? Is community cohesion not about more than that?
Mr Rumbelow: I am sure Councillor
Birtwistle will answer for himself. I am not quite sure he did
suggest that it was set-piece occasions.
Q129 Mr Betts: It did sound a bit
like the sofa set that we heard about before.
Mr Rumbelow: It is not a sofa
set. What we have got here in Burnley is actually a very mature
approach to cohesion. We do not get hysterical about it. That
is really important because part of the problem is when people
get hysterical. I have to say that has on occasion applied to
the Government and the Government has fallen into the trap of
being a little reactionary about these issues. It is not all the
Government's fault; it is very difficult when the Government makes
a point because it often gets turned round by media coverage.
However, it is true to say that we believe that living to a degree
in segregated communities is not in itself a problem. It is only
a problem if those people live entirely parallel lives and do
not come together in work or do not feel able to go shopping in
the same shopping centres and that kind of thing. It is actually
quite natural for people to choose to live close to people they
have particular things in common with. We are not saying that
it is the answer; we are saying it is more complex than that,
but not to get hysterical about it, and not to think the fact—and
I guess here we are talking particularly about the Muslim community—that
Muslims choose to locate quite close together because of convenience
(and that was made very clear earlier, in terms of things like
access to mosques and so forth) is in itself is a problem. We
are very clear that the biggest problem this town faces is deprivation
and the most urgent help we need is investment to turn our economy
around. That is not the total answer but that is the biggest part
of the answer.
Ms Abdullah: The Commission on
Integration and Cohesion did a really good job to try and understand
what undermines community cohesion. What they found is that people's
perceptions about their local area and local services impact upon
cohesion, and local circumstances—such as deprivation, job
levels, those sorts of things—impact on cohesion. Those
are very much things that the local authorities can and do do
things about.
Q130 Emily Thornberry: But when people
were asked, "Do you agree that people of different backgrounds
get on well in your local area?" in Burnley only 53 per cent
of residents responded positively compared to a national average
of 80 per cent.
Ms Abdullah: That is right and
what you will find is a correlation between that answer and people's
answers to perception questions about "What do you think
of your area as an area to live?" and a correlation with
deprivation levels, so Burnley people would answer lower in terms
of their perception of Burnley as an area to live or their perception
of fairness of service provision, deprivation levels, employment
levels, and that kind of thing. What you are saying there is completely
consistent with what the Commission found. Again, it is very much
things the local authorities can and do, do things about in terms
of improving the area.
Mr Rumbelow: I think that is a
very good technical answer but it is really important that it
is complex and therefore it is not adequate just to take that
indicator, take that one result and not see it in the context
of the nature of this place.
Q131 Dr Pugh: Are you suggesting
that Burnley people have a dour Lancastrian view of life which
leads them to be very pessimistic about their own community, because
that is what is being said?
Mr Rumbelow: As a newcomer to
Burnley, I have to say that I did see a little bit of that when
I first arrived, but scratch the surface and it is different.
Q132 Dr Pugh: Following on a point
you said before, looking to the future, you suggested this geographical
segregation by ethnic grouping and so on is not necessarily a
problem. Does that mean if things were to be as you would want
them to be in Burnley in the next 20 years, we could still come
back, not from Mars this time but travelling through time, and
find there is still the same degree of segregation geographically
occurring in terms of dwellings but people got on a heck of a
lot better? Is that a sustainable goal?
Mr Rumbelow: No, I would want
you to come back in 20 years and see an economy in Burnley that
is performing way above where it is now, and what that would mean
is there would naturally therefore be something of a break-up
of those concentrations because you have got to bear in mind that
the housing offer in these communities is at the low end of the
housing market.
Q133 Dr Pugh: So through development
you will have social mobility which will produce mixing of communities?
Mr Rumbelow: If people are helped
to become economically active they will crawl out of poverty,
which is one of the key issues here, and therefore it is entirely
likely that they will start to move out and spread. The point
was made earlier implying that our South Asian community is a
long-standing community. It is not that long standing. We are
still in the third generation so it is not a long time.
Councillor Birtwistle: I think
when the new administration took over, we looked at the problems
we had and we all decided, and the management executive agreed,
that prosperity was the future, and that is why we managed to
achieve an £80 million new college and new university campus
that is going to be linked to an enterprise park developing high
technology manufacturing. We believe this will give hope to the
people of the town that are presently living in conditions that
are not acceptable. We hope that this will lift the town up and
then you will get people who are living on salaries where they
are able to migrate to other parts of the town which are probably
better than the ones they are presently living in and you will
get automatic integration of the different races. Where I live
is classed as one of the better parts of Burnley. I have lived
in my house for 30 years and 30 years ago only the white community
lived there. Now we have numerous members of the Asian community
who have moved into the area where I live buying up £200,000
houses, but they are the professional people that have come and
lived in Burnley, developed in Burnley, their families have developed
in Burnley, and they are now integrating in all the areas of the
town, but it is a slow process and until we really raise the prosperity
of Burnley, when you remember it is an old manufacturing town
which has been economically destroyed over the years, until we
redevelop it as a high-class manufacturing area, it is a slow
progress. I believe you could turn up here in 20 years' time and
see a dramatic difference.
Q134 Dr Pugh: To be fair, if Burnley
was all middle class it might be far less of a problem than we
have got now but Burnley will never be all middle class; Burnley
will always have a range of different classes, different skills
and occupations and so on. What I was really asking you was do
you foresee that this will be conditioned by social mobility circumstances
where the separation of the working class Asian and the working
class white disappears, goes; I am not sure that you do foresee
that ever?
Mr Rumbelow: In terms of where
people choose to live, possibly not. In terms of how people relate
to each other, absolutely yes.
Dr Pugh: That is a good answer.
Chair: Clive, can we ask some questions
about the new migrants.
Q135 Mr Betts: We have talked about
the two separate communities and you have had now a new influx
of people from the Eastern European accession states. Has that
caused any particular problems within either of the communities?
Has that put pressure on public services in any way that you have
found difficult to cope with?
Mr Rumbelow: I think the Committee
will probably have seen that the impact of A8 migration is relatively
small here in Burnley, although relatively small changes in a
small town like Burnley do occasionally put a few pressures on
us. I am not suggesting there have been no pressures as a result
of that but they are relatively small. The fact there have been
so few A8 people migrating for jobs indicates what our problem
is. Our problem is we have not got enough jobs and we have not
got enough high-value jobs. In a perverse way, if we were facing
some of the problems you will see when you visit other areas that
would indicate our economy is doing better than it actually is
and a wee bit more pressure of migration to do with work might
not be a bad indicator to me, quite frankly, in a strange way.
Colleagues elsewhere would not say the same, I am sure. One of
the things we are facing is how government funding flows. One
of the major problems we have got is we have been losing population
for the past few years and that is forecast to continue, at a
reducing rate but nevertheless it is forecast to continue. Clearly
in the way RSG calculations work that is not good news for us.
That does not mean that we need to spend less money because we
are losing population; in order to turn that around we need to
be spending more money. It is very disappointing when you have
a 1.2 per cent increase for 2008-09 and 0.5 per cent increase
for each of the following two years. It is very disturbing indeed.
Chair: Right, we are going to have to
come to a close. Can I thank you very much indeed. I am going
to have to apologise now to the people in the public gallery.
We have just received a note from the party whips back in Westminster
that we have got to leave on an earlier train in order to get
back in time for a crucial vote. I am very sorry because we said
that we would at this point have a half-hour session where members
of the public could contribute. We cannot now do that. It is not
under our control. If there are members of the public here who
had wanted to contribute, then we are more than happy to receive
an e-mail or a written note from you of what you would have wished
to have said. We will leave leaflets on the table here so if there
are members of the public who would want to get their views through
to us the leaflets will tell them how to do it. I am very sorry
but it is not under our control. Literally we have just been told
that we have got to go back on an earlier train than the one we
had intended to go back on. Can I thank all the witnesses for
the evidence they have given, it has been very helpful, and particularly
thank you Burnley Council and the County Council for helping to
organise our visit here. Obviously it has just given us a picture
of what is going on in Burnley. It has been very useful and it
will help to inform our inquiry. We will of course make sure that
people in Burnley know about our inquiry and our report when it
is finished. Thank you all very much indeed.
| 
