Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 122)
TUESDAY 7 OCTOBER 2008
COUNCILLOR DAVID
SPARKS, COUNCILLOR
STEPHEN CASTLE
AND MR
SEAN MCGRATH
Q120 Mr Hoyle: Final question: why
do you disadvantage the other districts—other than Preston
that are in there? They have got more money than the rest of the
districts and, therefore, you will take whoever pays the most
money.
Mr McGrath: Preston asked, first
of all, and through the Lancashire European network that we facilitate,
which includes all districts, both chambers of commerce, the Lancashire
European Partnership and various educational institutions, etc,
we are going to be rolling out that model to everybody else, using
it as a pilot.
Q121 Chairman: I think it is a question,
on reflection, we should have allowed more time for, because I
can get very facetious now—I cannot resist the temptation—but
I think there is a huge question about the way UK plc represents
itself overseas. We are a very small country, actually, in the
great scheme of things now—whether we like it or not—with
a tiny population compared with India or China. What I see, in
my more cynical moments, is RDAs battling with each other to prove
that they are more effective than their neighbours, which means
a waste of money, and UK plc being undermined. I see local authorities
loving junkets overseas (God knows we get criticised for that
often enough); to China, in the case of Essex, or Brussels in
the case of Lancashire—it is not quite so glamorous. The
comment I get from the RDAs is quite often: "One of the best
justifications for us doing this work", they say to me privately,
"is that actually it stops the local authorities spending
all the taxpayers' money in a much more incoherent and disjointed
way than we do".
Councillor Castle: Could I come
back on that, having been criticised for going to China—for
which I am personally responsible. The one point I would make
is that you need to understand that the rest of the world operates
regionally and sub-regionally. Whilst we may, in one sense, say
UK plc is a pretty small player out there, the reality is that
for most other parts of the world, whether it is US states (and
I point out Essex is larger than nine US states); whether it is
European Union nations (and Essex is bigger than three European
Union nations), or whether it is states and provinces in China
and India, they operate at that level. Their ability, in diplomatic
terms and in terms of investment, to engage at a national level
is limited, but what they are prepared to engage with is at a
regional and sub-regional level. So Essex's relationship with
the Jiangsu province, which has a population of 74 million and,
therefore, arguably, should be relating to UK plc, is extremely
important in terms of economic development opportunities, educational
opportunities and cultural opportunities that would not be delivered
to us by UK plc. It is delivered because of Essex's distinct relationship.
I think that whilst we need to absolutely scrutinise to what extent
that is being done at a regional level or at a large local authority
level—and there are questions about whether small local
authorities have the capacity to engage but, clearly, large ones
do, whether there is duplication and to what extent the regions
are co-operating and sub-regions are co-operating— I would
strongly argue that there is a role for that kind of working and
it cannot, bluntly, still purely be left to UK plc to do that.
Q122 Chairman: I do not know whether
you agree with the summation of your evidence—particularly
yours, Councillor Castle—but what I take away from this
session is that one-size-fits-all policies, I suspect, do not
work, and I think of Worcestershire County Council, with a population
of half-a-million, which cannot do what you are doing in China.
So it is disadvantaged. However, actually, joining forces with
Staffordshire—sounds a bit strange, the AWM—it seems
a degree of flexibility of variable geometry, while ensuring taxpayers'
money is properly protected, is the Holy Grail that we need to
find.
Councillor Castle: Absolutely,
I would agree with that. If you are insisting on keeping the current
RDA structure (and I am not suggesting anybody here is) then I
think, actually, flexibility in the way that RDAs service bits
of their own region and being clear about ensuring that they are
properly funded is the way forward, but, otherwise, no, I would
actually argue for a variable geometry.
Chairman: We have overrun our time and
you have given very short and coherent answers, all three of you,
so that is a comment on the fascination of the subject. Can I
say what I should have said to the last witnesses: if, on reflection,
you feel there is something you have not had a chance to say or
that has not been reflected, or something you would like to expand
on, we are always open to getting supplementary memoranda after
this. We have found this session extremely helpful, and we are
very grateful to all three of you. Thank you very much indeed.
|
