Regional development agencies and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill - Business and Enterprise Committee Contents


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.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 13 March 2009