Examination of Witnesses (Questions 122-139)
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
JAMES HUGHES,
MR IAIN
WRIGHT MP AND
MR ANDREW
CAMPBELL
2 APRIL 2008
Q122 Chairman: Hello and welcome. I apologise
for having kept you waiting for a few minutes. We will try and
get through as much as we can. I am very glad to see two ministers
here. We are delighted there is recognition that these issues
cross departmental lines. Do you just want to introduce your officials
as well before we start?
Mr Woolas: Thank you very much
indeed, Mr Yeo, for the invitation to today's session. I am joined
by my colleague, James Hughes, who is Head of Climate Change:
Strategy and Public Sector in Defra, who is here to help the Committee
with its inquiry.
Mr Wright: I am joined, Chairman,
by Andrew Campbell, who is in charge of Local Area Agreements
at the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Q123 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Could I kick off by asking how you think we could get more consistent
action right across the whole of local government and how we link
the aspirational high-level strategy with the actions every day
on the ground?
Mr Woolas: Can I try, Chairman,
to answer that question? The thrust of government policy towards
this issue is a devolutionary one and there is a paradox between
consistency and devolution, so the answer to your question is
that we have set a framework which we then within have to advocate.
Now, of course, one of the key levers that are available to us
is the reward grant system. Is it a bribe or is it a tip, is an
open-ended question, but there is to a significant extent built
into the policy this paradox. So persuasion as well as, obviously,
financing become all-important and we believe that by creating
this framework of devolution through the new structure the accountability
structures of local government and regional and devolved government
are the answer to the question. I hope that is an honest answer.
Mr Wright: Can I just follow that
up, Chairman, by saying I do agree entirely with what Phil is
saying about a tension between locally-decided targets, which
are probably more committed to in terms of locally on the ground
and central diktat, and in terms of the Local Government Performance
Framework which Phil has just mentioned, I do think we have got
that balance right in terms of the new framework with the Local
Area Agreements, the 35 targets and the national indicators, which
I imagine we will come on to later. Also, in terms of some of
the things which are on the statute book and are planned to be
on the statute book in terms of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act, which means that local authorities have to have regard to
mitigating and adapting with regards to climate change and also
the stuff which is going through in terms of the Planning Bill,
and it also tends to be the halfway house between the planning
policy statements, the guidance that we have put in place with
regard to that. So in terms of that overall framework and the
tension we have, I do think we have got it about right.
Q124 Chairman: One of the things
that are noticeable is that some of the best performance by councils
is where you have got particularly committed individual officers
or councillors who really grip the issue and regard it as crucially
important. Are you relaxed about the sort of variation that may
lead to between one authority and another, or are there ways of
actually getting the commitment which some people have made part
of the mainstream agenda so that everyone starts to share as climate
change itself becomes a greater priority in overall policy terms,
both nationally and internationally, whether that same process
will happen at a local level?
Mr Wright: In preparing for this
meeting, Chairman, I was looking at transcripts from your previous
evidence sessions and I was struck by the phrase which was coming
through time and time again about "wilful individuals"
and I do think that at both a member level in local authority
and at an officer level that is a major driver in terms of priorities.
I think it is very clear. I am a former councillor and I saw it
when I was a borough councillor. I think in many respects, because
of the performance framework we have put in place, because of
the finances we are providing in terms of mitigating and adapting
to climate change, the key point in the jigsaw is cultural and
I do think that move, in terms of wilful individuals, is probably
the way in which culture can be changed. But in terms of bringing
it together, in terms of highlighting and disseminating best practice,
I think Communities and Local Government is working on that to
make sure that we do ensure that people can step up to the plate
and do what they can in their own individual areas.
Mr Woolas: Chairman, in specific
performance indicators that are Defra-led there are three in this
area, 185, measuring local authority emissions caused by their
own operations, 186, which measures per capita emissions from
the area which the local authority covers, and 188, which is the
adaptation indicator. Those are the three that we are, as you
may expect, anxiously awaiting the outcomes of the Local Area
Agreement negotiations. It is too early to say. The end of June
is the sign-off. The early indications are that a large number
of local authorities are adopting or intending to adopt these
PIs within their 35 target indictors as part of the ones they
can choose as part of the devolutionary regime, but it is going
to be, I think, very important that that figure is as high as
possible and that the number who are not adopting one or more
of these is very small. The indications do seem to be that that
will be the case.
Mr Wright: Just to expand on that,
Chairman, if I may, the latest information we have following the
discussions which are taking place with government office and
local areas, certainly in terms of NI186, which is the per capita
CO2 emissions in the local area, is that this is in the top five
priorities. Something like 120 local areas have indicated that,
and I pay tribute to and embarrass Phil here by saying that in
terms of the work Defra has done in pushing that and demonstrating
how important that is, it certainly seems to have worked with
regard to local authorities.
Q125 Colin Challen: Having served
as a councillor myself for a few years, I am aware that councils,
like the rest of society, can go through phases and fashions and
various stages of development, looking at things, and then move
on to the next, if you like, managerial craze. That, I think,
can lead to a very patchy situation where some authorities led
by these "wilful individuals" can do a lot and others
that probably just do not bother at all. Do you think that the
statutory framework we have talked about already is actually going
to be strong enough to get everybody up to speed at the same level,
setting very clear-sighted targets and demands for them? Perhaps,
if you look at planning applications, for example, whether or
not they will have to be assessed for their carbon balance, if
you like, things of that sort. Perhaps we need to go much further
than you have already suggested?
Mr Woolas: I think the fear you
have or the caution you have is real. We take the view that there
is a number of sticks as well as carrots. I have said it is a
devolutionary regime, but it is not without its sticks. The evidence
from PPS25, for example, on Environment Agency consultation on
flood plain developments, is that it started poorly and has built
into the system, and of course the number of call-ins helps that,
but I think the real cultural change will come about when the
carbon reduction commitment kicks in, in April 2010, because that
will draw the financial decision-making into the policy decision-making
together in a central and mainstream way and larger local authorities,
will be covered by the carbon reduction commitment (as will government
departments). So that, I think, gives some surety against the
fear that this could go out of fashion.
Mr Wright: I think that is a fair
point and I think the premise is right. We do not want to move
on to the next thing in terms of fashionable management jargon
and I think we need to embed this as much as possible in the planning
framework, in the statutory framework, and I do think the performance
framework which we have in terms of local authorities helps. I
mentioned things which are going on in respect of the Planning
Bill. I think this may have changed subject to amendment, it is
going through the House at the moment, but clause 147 does set
out that local planning authorities must include in the development
plan documents policies which are designed to reassure people
with regard to mitigation and adaptation about climate change.
So we are embedding that. On top of planning statements, on top
of revised PPS on climate change, I think we are doing a lot to
embed this in quite literally a sustainable way.
Q126 Colin Challen: Does the Government
have a view on what areas local authorities should prioritise
to make the biggest climate change gains, so to speak, or are
areas chosen by serendipity, they just suggest themselves, "We're
going to review planning law, so let's put something in the planning
law," or, "We might do something on housing, so let's
think about something in housing"? How does the policy on
climate change between central and local government emerge? It
is presumably not just by osmosis but it is by a clear-sighted
series of priorities?
Mr Woolas: The regime, of course,
will change if Parliament gives its approval to the Climate Change
Bill. That will have a major impact. The carbon budgets which
flow from that will have a major impact, along with the carbon
reduction commitment. But I think following that, going back to
the previous answer, it is then dependent upon the suite of performance
indicators combined with the statutory duty to cooperate on public
sector partners, which will empower local authorities to be able
to implement their targets. Part of the policies, of course, to
recognise the importance of the question, is the differences in
the different areas. What you would do, say, in Iain's area would
be different from what you would do in, say, in Cornwall, to pick
one at random, and I think the regime allows that to be recognised.
Mr Wright: Following on from that
again, I do think that is very important. As a central government
minister I do not want to be dictating, certainly in the local
devolutionary agenda which we have. I think what we can do, though,
linking the two themes of questioning so far in terms of that
"wilful individual", the cultural changes, we need to
encourage as much as possible, I would suggest, the picking off
of the low-hanging fruit. I think that is a theme which has emerged
from the Committee already. Particularly with regard to maybe
local authority sustainability of buildings, we can help encourage
a great deal of investment with regard to energy efficiency and
sustainability of buildings in that way, because I think sometimes
people think that this issue of climate change is so big, so global
in its outlook, "What on earth can I do as an environmental
officer in a local authority?" I think if we can encourage
that and say that people can make a difference on an individual
level, and help them with things like the Energy Savings Trust,
Green Homes Service, that sort of thing, we can make a real difference.
Q127 Colin Challen: Perhaps there
is an argument that the Government's role really should be—obviously
it has a statutory role, but outside of that it is just to try
to strengthen the weakest link in the chain rather than possibly
introduce legislation which holds back the strongest performance.
I think there was a bit of a debate about the Merton rule really
as to whether or not those local authorities which really wanted
to be fully responsible and forward-thinking might be held back
by some kind of national standard. So perhaps the real role of
Government is to make sure that there is good practice spread
and to help the weakest links in the chain, because some local
authorities clearly have not got the agenda yet, get up to speed
rather than say that everybody should move at the same speed?
Mr Woolas: I think that is right.
Our policy recognises that, though I think the new regime with
the indicators for local government is a profound change. We have
a number of measures to try and do that in a practical way rather
than just the statutory way. The Regional Improvement and Efficiency
Partnership, for example, we have put £4 million, £2
million each, I think, into that. There is the Beacon scheme,
which is proving to be successful. There are a number of measures
which are helping to spread best practice, though I take the point
that they are not statutory. Of course, the proposal in the Climate
Change Bill on adaptation is that the Secretary of State should
be given powers in the area of adaptation to do exactly what has
been suggested, but that of course is subject to parliamentary
decision in the forthcoming debates in the House.
Mr Wright: Chairman, Phil has
mentioned the carrots that we can provide. I would also say in
terms of not so much the sticks but certainly the auditing and
regulatory regime, the Committee will remember that we are changing
the Comprehensive Performance Assessment for local authorities
to the Comprehensive Area Assessment, which will be looking at
risks and delivery options, and that will be a framework within
which the way that a local area and local authority and its partners
can mitigate and adapt to climate change will be assessed as well.
So I think not only is it important to change things culturally
but to have transparency in the whole process. The CAA will help
do that.
Q128 Mr Caton: Minister, in replying
to Mr Challen you referred to the duty which the Planning Bill
will place on local authorities to address mitigation and adaptation,
and I am sure that is very welcome, but why does it not impose
a similar duty on regional planning bodies in developing regional
spatial strategies and the proposed single regional strategies?
Mr Wright: In terms of the Regional
Development Agency, the 1998 Act has as one of the objects of
the Regional Development Agency a duty with regard to sustainable
development. I know that because I looked at the RDA Act when
I was taking the Housing and Regeneration Bill through the House
recently, because we have just produced, Chairman, an amendment
this week with regard to sustainable development for the new Homes
and Communities Agency. I think that is important. Moving slightly
further afield from that, I think the proposed Sub-National Review
and the proposed coming together of the regional economic strategy
and the regional spatial strategy into a single regional integrated
strategy will really make sure that the homes and the buildings
we need in order to pursue and facilitate economic development
is very much linked together. I think at the heart of that, thanks
to the objects which are already in there with regard to the RDA
Act, sustainable development, economic development which is as
sustainable and green as much as possible, will be literally embedded.
So I hope that reassures you.
Q129 Mr Caton: I am not sure it does.
Obviously that is very welcome, but that does not have the focus
on climate change, the provisions you have put in for local government,
and I wonder why that is?
Mr Wright: One of the things the
RDAs have been doing has been reviewing at the moment their regional
economic strategies and there has been renewed emphasis upon what
are they doing in respect of climate change, and there has been
a lot of good work. I declare a vested interest to some extent,
albeit historically, Chairman, because I used to work for One
North East, the North East Regional Development Agency. But ones
such as EEDA (East of England Development Agency) and the West
Midlands one, Advantage West Midlands, are working really quite
well to make sure that climate change is at the heart of what
they are doing in respect of economic development. As I have said,
I think that will be a process which will be advanced and accelerated
when we see the Sub-National Review pull together these major
regional documents in terms of the RES and the RSS.
Mr Caton: Thank you.
Q130 Martin Horwood: We need a rocket
under the South West RDA in that case—a sustainable one,
obviously! I just want to ask you about procurement, which I think
is an area which has enormous potential for having an impact outside
the scope of local government itself. I have got an office supplies
company in my constituency which is trying to reduce its carbon
footprint by 75% in a few years and that is going to win it preferred
status on some private sector contracts but not particularly in
contracts with local government. What are you doing to provide
sticks or carrots to local authority to look at their procurement
policies as a way of promoting action on climate change?
Mr Woolas: I launched the strategy,
so I will tell you what we are trying to do, when I was in my
previous portfolio at ODPM, I think it was then. The local government
sustainable procurement strategy set out the response to the recommendations
of the Sustainable Procurement Task Force, which we developed
with the Local Government Association, the Society of Procurement
Officers and other stakeholders included the Academy of Sustainability,
the IBA and others, to try and look at how we could crack this
problem of trying to ensure that procurement promoted sustainability
but did not rely on the economies of scale which could deteriorate
local sustainability. So it was local sustainability as well as
sustainability that was important because of the other objectives
we had. For example, the PSA in regional economic strategies does
take sustainability into account. So the five points were trying
to ensure that local authorities and their partners' mainstream
procurement—we found there were different levels of procurement
decisions, or rather decisions were being taken at different levels,
some of them at very relatively low management levels, some of
them at senior, and that to build in sustainability you had to
make it a senior officer decision. Secondly, looking at the evolution
of the best value regime to ensure that the full life cycle of
a product or a service was part of the criteria in awarding the
contract or purchasing the goods or service. There were all sorts
of examples of that that you will be familiar with. Making sure
that sustainability was managerially and politically owned by
the senior officers and the elected members, that sustainability
in procurement was built into that, was a key recommendation.
The action on construction and facilities management, social care,
waste management, energy, transport and food. The final one was
giving greater flexibility to work with other partners, either
across boundaries or within the boundaries. That is the good practice
that we are trying to bring about, but the answer to your question
is to be found in the answer to the previous questions, that we
believe the carbon reduction commitment will change the way in
which public sector management behaves because it will make it
part of the balance sheet and the income and expenditure account.
Q131 Joan Walley: Can I just pick
you up, Minister, on one of the things you just said as part of
that procurement strategy, which has taken quite a lot of time
to get to this stage, and ask you know how that squares with Government
policy in respect of PFI, which is for many local authorities
the only way of getting long-term capital investment into a particular
area, when PFI contacts tend to be kind of at a given time? So
they might be providing ongoing investment for the next 30 years
but they are stuck in stone really because they cannot adapt as
the new environmental technologies come forward. They cannot necessarily
build those into the long-term planning because it is all based
on what the contract agreement was at the time when the PFI was
drawn up, so many local authorities who are relying on PFI to
provide the investment they need find that they are stuck with
something which is out of date.
Mr Woolas: The traditional policy
would be worse from that point of view, and secondly a PFI contact
can allow flexibility in that regard if it is negotiated at the
start of the PFI.
Q132 Joan Walley: And that is recognised
from the sustainability aspect of it, is it?
Mr Woolas: I would argue in general
that with a PFI contract, in part because it is more likely to
be on time and on budget, in part because it is explicit in what
is expected but provides flexibility to both partners in delivery,
there is a better chance of it being sustainable than it would
otherwise be the case on a traditional purchase. Time will tell!
Q133 Dr Turner: We are going to have
national targets, budgets set as a result of the Climate Change
Bill. Of course, these are going to have to be delivered at a
local level in practice, so under what circumstances do you think
you might want to disaggregate targets and cascade national targets
to other levels in spheres of government?
Mr Woolas: I think that is the
$64,000 question, which I suspect is why you have asked it! The
way in which in Defra we see the answer to that question—and
James may want to comment on this—is that of course we have
not got the international agreement yet. We have the proposal
in the UK Climate Change Bill to look at a 60%, possibly or probably
80% when we have got the advice of the Committee on Climate Change
as a UK contribution. You have then got to find ways in the real
world of delivering that and divvying it up. Sectoral approaches
are obviously important. The climate change agreements and the
energy users and producers which are covered by the European trading
scheme provide for a portion of that, but underneath that you
then start to divvy it up, and of course we have the issue of
the devolved administrations, which your inquiry, Chairman, is
obviously looking at. Hypothetically, we will be in a situation
whereby journalists and Members of the House will tot up the targets
of each local authority agreement and the devolved administration
and it may come to less than the national target. Of course, part
of our point in putting a statutory target into legislation is
to ensure that there is that delivery, that it "walks the
walk", as the climate change negotiators say. But I think
the issue you raise is absolutely the right issue and I think
this is why this inquiry is so important, because this is looking
at how we are going to do it in policy terms at a local authority
level.
Mr Hughes: Chairman, perhaps I
could just make a couple of comments? First of all, just to say
that we have already discussed the tension between the need to
give local areas greater formal responsibility for tackling climate
change against the recognition that there is a greater devolved
approach as well towards local authorities. I think what we have
got with the indicators is a step change in terms of highlighting
the importance of climate change and action at a local level,
and obviously the action that we are taking through Government
Offices, through the Local Strategic Partnership approach, the
message we are getting through the LGA and others in terms of
trying to get the Local Strategic Partnerships to embed climate
change within their Local Area Agreements, that is looking at
targets. It is looking at targets at a local level, looking at
targets in the sense that the target at a local level needs to
take account of what can be done at that local level. Our approach
in terms of the Climate Change Bill is to say that the Climate
Change Bill sets a framework. The framework it sets is one of
setting out what the overall target is for the UK. In terms of
actually trying to meet that target, one of the things we have
been very mindful of is that we want to try and get abatement
at the least cost, we want it to be cost-effective, and we need
to have flexibility in achieving that. I think the concern was
that if we started to break that target up into lots and lots
of sub-targets that actually it would become very complex to manage
and could cause problems in terms of our flexibility and our ability
to actually deliver carbon savings at least cost. Again, formally
cascading and breaking up that target at a local level would also
not be consistent with giving local authorities greater devolution
in their approach. So we have not taken that approach, but I hope
that explains why.
Q134 Dr Turner: But if local or regional
government sets targets not necessarily with reference to the
national target, how do you see them relating to the national
target if they do not stack up to the national target? What will
you do?
Mr Woolas: As I say, I think that
is the important question which the country has to come to terms
with and your recommendations will be very important, but it is
not the whole picture, of course, because within industrial sectors,
the transport sector, the industrial sector and indeed the domestic
sector, there will be other contributions. If one looks at—if
I can pick the North East, if you will allow me, Iain—the
North East, where the emissions for the region are very high because
of the industrial processes there (not because of the public of
the North East, I hasten to add), the ability of, say, Durham
County Council to influence the chemical industry in its area
will be limited, but the ability of sectoral agreements and carbon
markets to influence the chemical industry will be significant.
So I think it is a question of looking at the whole picture. We
believe that by having the regime and the performance indicators
that we have—and we saw them as extremely important, and
if I can reassure the Committee, at the time of the machinery
of government changes last summer for the new ministerial team
this was at the top of the in-tray, to persuade colleagues in
other departments that these indicators should be there. We believe
that that regime will itself provide momentum, but whether or
not it provides the guarantee is an open-ended question. The statutory
framework, of course, will force the government of the day to
address that question, but I think it is part of a momentum.
Q135 Dr Turner: Whatever detailed
mechanisms or relationships may emerge in this process, one thing
is for certain: making it work successfully is going to depend
upon some robust data. What is your feeling about the processes
for data collection and coordination that we have at the moment
on measuring carbon reductions, carbon budgets, whatever?
Mr Woolas: I think the Government
recognises the importance of the issue. I think there is a huge
international importance to that issue. It is core, as you will
know, Chairman, to the international discussions and negotiation.
There is a recognition that the UK has a competitive advantage
by being the world leaders in auditing this area. There is an
expertise in the private sector, I believe, in this country which
I genuinely believe is the best, and I think that is regarded
as so around the world, but to be very frank with you I think
we are in early days and I think getting the auditing (as I call
it) right is absolutely crucial, and of course you have got to
compare apples with apples. It is no good, from the point of view
of the atmosphere, getting the measurements wrong or being inconsistent
in methodologies. I think the other point, Chairman, which I know
you are concerned about is to ensure this is the case from the
point of view of carbon markets as well, because carbon markets
will not work if they are not scientifically based and consistent.
You cannot politically fix a carbon market. It ceases to be such
if you do that. So it is one of the issues I worry most about,
and the Secretary of State has told me to worry about it, but
I think we are doing just about what we should be doing, I think.
Mr Hughes: Perhaps I could just
answer that? We have obviously got the National Inventory, which
collects the data for the UK, and that is the information we need
to provide to the UNFCCC to proceed for our reporting purposes
under Kyoto. The information that we collect breaks down in quite
some detail and allows us to get information which we can then
use through some further analysis—and we have done that
over the last year—to look at what emissions can be at a
local level. Now, that information is being developed and I think
the latest information we have got is in relation to 2005, but
each consecutive year that information becomes more robust and
that information will be available for both baseline purposes
for local authorities and for them to be able to measure their
performance as time goes on. This is something on which we have
done a lot of work over the last year in terms of trying to get
that information together, but it should improve rapidly over
the next year or two.
Mr Wright: I am slightly more
optimistic than Phil in this respect. All the evidence that is
coming back to me in terms of the discussions which are going
on with regard to Local Area Agreements between local areas, councils,
LSPs and government office, certainly with regard to NI186 (which
is the per capita CO2 reductions in an area), is that there is
quite robust scientifically-based evidence with regard to this
which has been challenged and been tested. Now, this is a long-term
perspective. It will not be able to be reviewed for 18 months
to two years, but I am confident that that evidence is being put
in there. Andrew, hopefully you are going to back me up in regard
to that.
Mr Campbell: Absolutely. As both
Ministers have said, this is not about central government imposing
targets on local areas. The evidence is there, the 2005 baseline,
but they key is to use that evidence by locality to have the negotiation
about what the right level of target might be for a particular
LAA over the next three year period. Just one addition to what
was said earlier is that there will be some areas which probably
do not include 186, or one of the other indicators, in their LAA,
but information about how they are doing will still be collected
annually, which will feed into the Comprehensive Area Assessments.
So some of the gains will come from outside those areas which
include it as a target in their LAA, but we would still expect
them to take this agenda seriously and make improvements.
Q136 Dr Turner: Obviously the actual
relationship between local and central government is going to
be absolutely crucial in achieving success here. How do you rate
that relationship now? Is there good communication between local
government and national government? Does national government listen
to the concerns of councils, and vice versa? Just what is the
dialogue?
Mr Woolas: I think it is a very
interesting question. I think the Local Government Association
has proved to be a very valuable and now a mature organisation.
It is some eleven years since it started. At an institutional
level, an officer level, official level, policy development level,
there is a very good relationship, and that is not just with DCLG,
that is with the main Whitehall departments. I think Sandy Bruce-Lockhart
and the former Deputy Prime Minister gave political leadership
to that through the central local partnership which was established
and has evolved. I think there is a better relationship now than
there has been probably for 30 years, I would say, and credit
to all political parties who are involved in that. Of course,
the financial decisions still rankle, and I am sure Iain grapples
with those every day. If you had said to me a year and a half
ago, would we get the Local Area Agreement in place in time, I
was sceptical, and I told the other select committee that at the
time. I think local authorities for their part took the attitude
of this new agenda, "We'll believe it when we see it,"
and also, "It's all very well for DCLG to say it, but what
does the rest of Whitehall say?" I think if you were to ask
the leadership they would say that the relationship was good.
It is obviously a political relationship as well, but on this
area I think it is very strong. There is a consensus, I think.
Q137 Dr Turner: So is it fair to
say that what was seen as a somewhat disdainful attitude in the
past of central government towards local government has matured
into something much more responsive, and do you help it along
with staff exchanges, civil servants exchanging with counterparts
in local government so that good practice gets disseminated at
both levels?
Mr Woolas: I think the New Burdens
policy has worked. There was a lot of scepticism that that would
be real, but I think it has become a discipline within local government
and I think local authorities recognise that. Of course, there
are arguments about what the amounts are. Yes, there is a lot
of exchange across local authorities—not as much as I would
like to see—a lot of exchanges with the Local Government
Association, and also a deliberate policy of recruitment across
local authority and central government so that you see career
development for officials in that way. Not in the way that central
government is the senior partners and local government is the
junior partner, but one can see a career development in the different
disciplines and professions so that it is seen as public service
rather than local government and central government. I think the
cultural change is being driven by Local Area Agreements where,
of course, many of the partners at local level are central government
departments and agencies in their local operations, and I think
that is changing the culture.
Mr Wright: May I speak with several
hats on from my former lives? I was a borough councillor, I was
a chair of a Local Strategic Partnership, and now I am a minister
in Communities and Local Government. I think the point which has
been made about maturity is a valid one. Certainly in the five
years that I have been involved you can plot it. The maturity,
the feeling that central and local government have a grown up
relationship seems to be very much progressing. I do, frankly,
get frustrated sometimes with councils. Everything good that happens
is down to a local initiative and everything bad that happens
is because of central government, and I think we do need a greater
realisation of what really is accurate there. But in the main,
I think there is a much greater flow of understanding. The Permanent
Secretary of my Department is from local government and I think
that helps in terms of cultural expectations of certainly my Department.
But I do think Phil is absolutely right, there has been a greater
maturity there, and LAAs have really helped.
Dr Turner: Thank you.
Q138 Joan Walley: I would be very
interested to see the evidence of how that is actually working
in relation to my own constituency.
Mr Woolas: Yes. Can we list the
exceptions, Chairman?
Q139 Joan Walley: I have to say it
is something which I have been pushing for, but I would be very
interested to see just what the evidence is on the ground. Can
I just ask about funding, because I am very aware that, for example,
in terms of Defra's own budget—I was at a Waterways annual
meeting over the weekend and one of the things they mentioned
was the loss of the budget which Defra had had which had been
earmarked elsewhere, leaving a lesser amount for the Environment
Agency. So there are always other demands on money which has been
earmarked. But the point I really want to ask each of you now
is, how confident are you that there are sufficient funds available
at the local, regional and devolved level of government for the
mitigation and the adaptation which is needed? How can you know
what money there is, because if you look at the funds which are
just available for local authorities it is not that great an amount
of money?
Mr Woolas: The approach we take
on that is that of course we would point out that overall the
settlement is inflation plus in the area, but I think there are
two policy points to examine. The first is that the less ring-fencing
there is, the more flexibility there is at local level, the greater
the devolution, the more the paradox which the Chairman started
us off with in his question become pertinent. So again that is
a matter of trust. I think the second point is—and this
takes us to the New Burdens policy, absolutely to the heart of
this, because the economics of this are that in the long run it
is cheaper to mitigate than it is not to. That is not to say that
I am going to ask for the money back from the councils, but it
is an important point. We have to identify where the humps are,
where the investment is needed. Is it in waste collection infrastructure,
for example? How does it relate to the landfill tax? How does
it relate to the point you have made about PFIs? It is very important.
So, is there enough money? There is never enough money. Is the
policy the best it can be within the context of the extra money
there is available? I hope so. The Environment Agency is subject
to the Gershon efficiencies, just as the rest of us are. Their
capital budgets, of course, have significantly increased. The
revenue budgets have been flat cash, I think. If it is not, I
will correct myself, Chairman. So I think those are the policy
frameworks that we see it in.
Mr Wright: I would agree with
what Phil says. I think if you pull everything together with regard
to things like Warm Front, Carbon Trust funding, and things like
that, which do have a real impact upon energy efficiency and means
to mitigate climate change. I think we are in the region of about
a billion and a half pounds a year, which is an enormous amount
of money. I think the challenge we have got, because I do not
think we are transparent enough in that and maybe we do need to
be more open and clearer in terms of how that is directly affecting
climate change, mitigation and adaptation—and I can come
on to, Chairman, my pet subject, which is housing, and I know,
Mrs Walley, you are interested in housing—but I do think
there are unprecedented sums of money available to the Homes and
Communities Agency in regard to housing in order to help regeneration
infrastructure. I do think there is a point in terms of the money
that is being spent. I would not have thought that the man or
woman in the street, even if they are informed, would be thinking
that we are spending a billion and a half pounds each year on
things to try and adapt and mitigate against climate change and
I think we need to be clear about where this money comes from
and how we communicate that.
|
