Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-218)
PHIL HOPE
MP, TOM LEVITT
MP AND JONATHAN
LINDLEY
29 JUNE 2009
Q200 Chairman: Can I put you behind
the eight ball and ask you what has been achieved that could not
have happened without your undertaking the role as Regional Minister—either
you personally or as Regional Minister?
Phil Hope: Let me give an example
of finances in the region. emda runs something called the
regional risk finance forum, where it brings together some of
the key providers of finance in the region and talks about the
needs that those organisations have, the support they get and
the work they are doing getting lending out into the region. I
was getting frustrated, because I was hearing from businesses
before Christmas that those regional banks were not giving out
the money that the Government had made available to them in the
work that we did before Christmas to provide funds for banks to
give to businesses. In addition to the work that emda was
doing—quite rightly—through its structures and the
finance forum to ensure that those lending organisations, the
banks and so on, knew what was available, I held my own meeting
with those banks and made it fairly clear in no uncertain terms
what I, as a Regional Minister, expect their performance to be.
We had a full and frank discussion, between myself and representatives
of those banks. I was given assurances then, that if there had
been any delay in moving money out into the business community,
in terms of responding more positively to its requests for affordable
loans, for overdrafts that wouldn't be called in and for all those
kinds of things that were a problem for businesses, that there
would be a real commitment to achieve change. I think there was
a complimentary role between emda, providing the professional
work, working with—in this case, I am using just one example—the
banking community and the political role, if I can call it that,
that I played in seeking to put pressure on those organisations
to deliver the resources that the Government provided. I think
that that is where the regional economic cabinet has been quite
important, which has been to add leadership to the partners working
together. As a regional economic cabinet, we spend our time challenging
each other about what we are doing to respond to the needs of
individuals, families and businesses in the region going through
the downturn, to see where there can be areas where we can join
up and do joint projects and activities. To make it very clear,
examples of problems that are happening the region are fed back
through into Whitehall, so that the voice of the region is heard
very loud and clear to influence decision making back at the ranch,
as it were. I think that that is effective.
Q201 Chairman: There is a formal
mechanism, is there, for feeding back into Whitehall?
Phil Hope: Yes, I am a member
of something called the Council of Regional Ministers. We have
an opportunity at those meetings to talk about particular issues
that are arising in our region and to feed those into the centre,
where they require a response that might be from the centre—that
can happen—or it might be that it gets filtered down through
those organisations, and they then respond accordingly. One of
the ideas of Regional Ministers was to unblock, as it were, any
logjams that might exist in the system, where one Department is
not talking to another, one agency is not talking to another or
where there is a contradiction. I had that example today, just
talking to how we roll out the graduate traineeship, where organisations
were talking to me—this is from the universities today—about,
"Here we are. We want to set up these internships for graduates,
but we need to make sure that there is a consistent approach among
jobcentres and HMRC to the way that the tax and the benefit system
delivers to those graduates who are going to do internships this
summer." That is a very good, practical example of the added
value that I believe I am bringing to the development of the region
and its economy.
Q202 Judy Mallaber: How do you
know that you are making an impact? I had a company that I was
dealing with last week that was completely outraged. They are
building houses. They have all the security they need, and the
bank just pulled the loan out of them and demanded the money back.
It is basically blackmailing them to get more money out of them.
The bank—it is a respectable bank—clearly had not
responded to what you are saying, and I dealt with that through
going to the local person who deals with local economic partnership,
who links into emda. Similarly, I had a major company—this
was right at the beginning—that phoned me up to say that
they were just about to go into receivership. I dealt with that
by going through Government Departments centrally. Again, that
was a problem with the banks, pulling money out of them. So how
do you know if you are having any impact? Why has it not occurred
to me in either of those examples to come to you, as the Minister,
when I have gone through other mechanisms? Maybe that is my failing.
Would you be able to help me if I did have a problem?
Phil Hope: First, I welcome MPs
throughout the region, if they have examples of that kind, where
the sort of work that we are doing that is a real help now—the
policies, the programmes, the funding—
Chairman: I might have one for you tomorrow.
Phil Hope: Fine. We'll do that.
Chairman: I'll test the process.
Phil Hope: So we feed them through
to see if we can unblock the blockages. We can challenge the institutions,
if they are failing to do what we expect them to do—in this
case, the banks providing loans or affordable overdrafts and so
on. That is part of my function. There is an organisation set
up to do that. emda is there, and I would expect questions
to be taken to it. But there comes a time, particularly now, when
we just need to—this is the challenge function. When things
aren't working right, or when things are to do with something
that is not within the region but somewhere in Whitehall—there
is some lack of connectivity—I, as a Regional Minister,
want to know about them. I can then take them to the system. I
can speak to Lord Mandelson. He tells us he wants to know about
individual examples of that kind. We can sort out the individual
example, if it can be sorted out, but also, if it is a symptom
of some other wider problem of lack of joint working—whatever
it might be—we can sort out the wider underlying problem
that created the problem in the first place, so it is both. That
is how I see my role as a Regional Minister.
Tom Levitt: I think we'd like
to hear about examples of things that work, because they are equally
valid. We have had cases where an issue such as you described
has come to the attention of senior people in a bank, and they
have sorted it out, because that should not have happened, even
within the bank. But because we managed to draw it to their attention,
it got sorted. Equally, we have banks complaining that people
are not coming to them in sufficient numbers to ask for the money
that is available.
Q203 Judy Mallaber: On those two
examples—there are others—for one I went straight
to Peter Mandelson's office. He was in fact in India, but it went
to the top. On the other, I went to someone local. That goes back
to Bob's question about the function of the Regional Minister.
I have gone above and below you, as it were, in pursuing solutions.
Chairman: Don't worry, I'll do the test
tomorrow. I'll try emda first. If that doesn't work, I'll
be on to you.
Phil Hope: I want to emphasise
the three roles that I play. One is to be out in the region, listening,
hearing what the problems are—the kind you describe—and,
where appropriate, steering them to wherever they need to be solved,
in particular back in Whitehall. Secondly, on the point about
regional leadership, you asked earlier how I know whether I have
had any impact. What difference am I making as a Regional Minister?
The way that I answer that question is by asking those people
with whom I am working whether we are adding value to what they
do. The response I get from the members of my regional economic
cabinet, which includes members of the opposition, by the way—leaders
of Conservative authorities as well as businesses—is, "Yes,
we value the opportunity to come together. We can see the difference
that it makes in terms of people knowing more about the help that
is on offer." My role to promote Government messages, programmes
and policies is having a huge impact. I spend a lot of my time
talking to the local media in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire,
Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire—television and radio stations
throughout the region—in order that the messages, programmes
and action that we are taking is known about. Then, if people
are having difficulties, they will come back to me and say, "That
is not working in my area. What can we do here?" It is that
regional leadership and bringing people together, holding people
to account, challenging regional organisations to step up to the
plate, particularly now, when the pressures are hardest, that
is important. I think of the two sounding boards that we created,
one on social exclusion and one on affordable housing. I chose
two particular areas that I personally thought were big priorities
for the region, outside of jobs and growth. They have had a big
impact. Those people are working together, and new arrangements
are being devised. The policy that we just published on Valuing
Employment Now, which is a Government policy on employing people
with learning disabilities, has been informed by practical steps,
relationships, learning and people talking about obstacles. In
that case, information at regional level fed into Government policy.
I think that we can be proud of what we have achieved in the region
in terms of providing a focus, and bringing together regional
partners around themes and issues that might not otherwise be
addressed in such a sharp and pointed way, given the particular
circumstances of the economic downturn that we are going through
at the moment.
Chairman: You have a point that you wanted
to raise, Peter, about the Council of Regional Ministers.
Q204 Sir Peter Soulsby: When asked
about the mechanisms in Whitehall for a voice to be heard, you
told us about the Council of Regional Ministers. As I understand
it, that was only established in October last year, and it is
not a permanent structure. I wonder what else there is that enables
you to make sure that what you are seeing out there, what you
are being told out there, is actually fed back into the structure.
Phil Hope: There is also—unhelpfully
named—the Regional Economic Council, which is a national
body on which every Regional Minister sits, along with the Treasury.
I think it is co-chaired by the Chancellor and the Secretary of
State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Jonathan Lindley: The Regional
Economic Council.
Phil Hope: Yes, the Regional Economic
Council, to which we are invited. So there is also this broader
body bringing together Ministers from different Government Departments,
Regional Ministers and external organisations to which we can
make our views known and to which, informally, outside the meetings
themselves, we can feed in the experience of what is happening
in the region. As well, there is the Council of Regional Ministers,
where Regional Ministers alone sit and talk in very practical
terms about the day-to-day operation of what is going on in regions.
We learn from each other. I mentioned the Survive and Thrive workshops
run by emda, which are now being talked about, and other
regions are doing them because we talked about them and shared
good practice across the regions.
Jonathan Lindley: There are three
bits of national government architecture. There is the Council
of Regional Ministers, which is as its name describes. There is
the Regional Economic Council, which is Regional Ministers, other
Ministers and representatives from outside Government. There is
the National Economic Council as well, which is effectively a
subset of the Cabinet.
Q205 Sir Peter Soulsby: One good
way of seeing how much importance is given to these bodies is
to have a feel for how much time is given to their meetings and
how frequently they meet. Are you able to give us a breakdown
of that?
Phil Hope: The Council of Regional
Ministers is meeting very regularly right now because of the importance
that we are placing upon this. We are talking about monthly meetings
of the Council of Regional Ministers. You have to be able to do
enough between meetings to make the meetings valuable, so there
is a huge amount of work that goes on in between the Council of
Regional Ministers meetings as well—sharing information
about the development of the economy in the different regions
and the different actions that people are taking, and there may
be issues where regions abut one another and you need to do joint
action and so on between regions. That is a very core part of
the system that we operate within. The National Economic Council—I
must get the names right—meets from once a fortnight to
twice a week.
Q206 Sir Peter Soulsby: And the
Regional Economic Council?
Phil Hope: That is quarterly as
well.
Q207 Sir Peter Soulsby: A typical
meeting—how long for each of them?
Phil Hope: For the Council of
Regional Ministers, normally an hour to an hour and a half, depending.
Q208 Sir Peter Soulsby: Similarly
for the other two?
Phil Hope: No, with those other
ones, because they are big meetings, they take longer—they
are on a quarterly basis. It is sort of two to three hours' time
for those.
Q209 Chairman: We are starting
to move towards the close of taking evidence from you, you will
be pleased to know. We have picked up some of the other issues
about sustainability but, in terms of the single regional strategy,
how do you think this will have an effect on the region?
Phil Hope: The integrated regional
strategy is the most crucial part of the region's development
as a region, because it will integrate economic plans with spatial
plans, so that we can merge together issues around housing and
planning with issues around jobs and employment. I think that
it is a crucial part of the region's future for years to come.
This is an absolutely central part of the way forward. It needs
to build on the very best of our knowledge and experience of the
past, the regional economic strategy that we had and, indeed,
the spatial strategy that we had—it needs to combine the
two together. So, we have an integrated strategy, which has embedded
within it all the issues around sustainable development, which
meets the needs of a very diverse region in all its shapes and
sizes, with its different sectors, and which has ownership and
a kind of commitment of all the partners to pursue it. That is
why the process of how we go about producing that regional strategy
is so important.
Q210 Chairman: But it is going
to suck into emda a whole bundle of work and activity.
Do you think that there is a danger of it losing some focus on
economic strategic and local economic issues?
Phil Hope: We are pursuing an
integrated strategy because only pursuing economic issues in isolation
from the spatial issues carries within it the risk that the two
do not gel together. That is the reason why we need to integrate
the two strategies. I know that it is not easy given that they
operate on slightly different timelines and different legislative
rules and regulations are in place. The history of how one has
developed and how the other one has developed, and how to merge
them together is a challenge, but that is what the Government
have decided to do and, rightly so. They want to ensure that an
economic strategy really does integrate with a spatial strategy
for the region as a whole. Without that, there would be a risk
that the strategy would not provide us with the best way forward,
particularly given the changing nature of the global economy,
the impact of climate change, an ageing population and a major
demographic change. We need to bring all that together to ensure
that people have homes, jobs and places to live in, which they
like and want to stay living in, and to which we can attract people
in the future.
Chairman: Okay. Are there any other questions
that you would like to ask, Judy?
Q211 Judy Mallaber: I have a question
on accountability. There are some reasons for the changes, but
some things we just seem to throw up in the air, but they fall
down again. They seem to be working, and I am not sure why we
then change them. With the loss of regional assemblies, how will
stakeholders in the region be able to scrutinise the work of emda
and have the role that they have had up to now with broader local
government, third sector, etc.?
Phil Hope: This is really important.
There will be a joint board between the newly created leaders'
forum and emda to oversee the development of the regional
strategy. That is absolutely vital. Given the size of that task
and the range and variety of organisations, it needs to be a well-thought-through
plan for engagement so that everyone can see how, when and where
they will have their opportunity to look at and influence the
plan as it develops for the future. I do not think that there
is a straightforward or simple way of doing that because we are
trying to do something that is quite challenging, which is to
achieve an integrated strategy. That does not mean that we should
not do it. It means that we need to be innovative. We need to
be using many different ways of engaging the stakeholders to ensure
that various views and opinions will be out there. Achieving consensus
is where we want to land, and we have a lot of arguing to do before
we arrive there.
Q212 Judy Mallaber: But some of
this is involvement, and some of it is about scrutiny from a broader
group of people and those who are making the decisions. That was
the point of the regional assemblies, but also in your evidence
you said that there would still be scrutiny by individual authorities—I
am not quite sure what that means—and regional scrutiny
by Regional Select Committees and Regional Grand Committees. I
missed the Thursday vote because I was paired with a Lib Dem Opposition
Member. We do not have a Regional Grand Committee, so what will
happen to our scrutiny? We have lost the assembly in terms of
the broader range of organisations, which would be a wider group
than just the leaders' board, or whatever it is called, and regional
scrutiny from the parliamentary viewpoint.
Phil Hope: I have two or three
things to say, the first of which is about scrutiny by individual
local authorities. Local authorities now have quite good, tough
powers to scrutinise both themselves and other organisations in
their area. They can focus on, for example, health and local authorities.
The role of local authorities to scrutinise activities is now
a commonplace part of the system.
Q213 Judy Mallaber: But emda
cannot visit every local authority.
Phil Hope: No, sorry, I was trying
to interpret what I mean by scrutiny by individual authorities
of what is happening in their area, particularly as we move into
economic development and economic well-being as a rising purpose
and a priority for local government. As for Select Committees,
we are here. You are doing your job very efficiently, I might
say, in putting us under scrutiny. We are obviously looking forward
to the report and your recommendations for the future, which will
be very helpful and healthy. Holding regional bodies to account
by the work that you do may not have a regional democratic structure
of its own but, in terms of the Grand Committee, I expect that
there will be another proposal. It will provide you with an opportunity,
when you are not paired with whichever Liberal Democrat you were
paired with, to exercise your vote to create a Grand Committee.
It was wrong of the Conservatives and the Liberals to vote against
the Grand Committee. They have taken out of the picture, albeit
briefly, an important part of the democratic structure that we
want to see operate at regional level to allow every MP in the
region to have an opportunity to quiz me as Regional Minister
and to debate key issues of the day. I regret that and hope that
when the measure comes back, there will be a cross-party consensus
about the importance of having an East Midlands Regional Grand
Committee.
Chairman: Or the numbers will be better.
Phil Hope: That is for you, and
not for me, to say. I hope that we will have the full options
for regional accountability.
Tom Levitt: I think we were unlucky
in that it just happened to be the East Midlands vote that did
not get through the other night. I don't think it was something
specifically aimed at the East Midlands.
Judy Mallaber: I understand that a date
was suggested, but that there was no consultation on it.
Q214 Sir Peter Soulsby: Can I
return briefly to the sustainability issue that we were talking
about earlier? While we have been talking, I have looked at what
the Environment Agency said to us about the East Midlands compared
with other regions. It noted that "it is stark that, in the
East Midlands, there is no champion body. For example, there is
Sustainability North East, Sustainability South West and Sustainability
West Midlands". It goes on to state that "we need to
have a place where that senior level debate can happen with the
emda board and with the Government Office. That is critical."
That is fairly clear from the Environment Agency and it sounds
quite a powerful case. If other regions can have that focus, there
is surely a powerful case for the East Midlands to have it as
well.
Phil Hope: Yes. There has been
quite a debate in the region about precisely that point. There
were a number of surveys last year of some of the regional decision-making
bodies and a wider cohort of stakeholders, including East Midlands
Environment Link, which was consulted about various options in
the paper about how we might take the issue forward. The findings
were that any inclination towards establishing an independent
champion body had changed in a significant majority of participants
who now preferred to mainstream sustainable development through
existing and emerging regional structures in support of the new
regional strategy. I think that the lack of support for a champion,
such as that in the routes that you have just described for other
regions, was because participants were worried about resource
issues and actually concerned that, rather than making it more
of a priority, we would end up sidelining, rather than mainstreaming,
the issue. I know that there could be arguments either side of
that.
Q215 Sir Peter Soulsby: But are
there not arguments that when you mainstream or—as you described
it earlier—embed things, you in fact end up ignoring them?
Phil Hope: Yes, well, two of you
on the Committee have been leaders of councils and others have
been leading players in this. You will know the importance the
bulk of your spend. If the bulk of your spend is just a little
bit of icing over the top—let us call it sustainable development
here—that is fine. But it is much better to take the bulk
of your spend and see if you can rebake that cake, so that it
reflects sustainable development and you get more product. The
question is, is that as visible as the layer on top of the cake?
Maybe it is not quite as visible, but it is much more profound
and impactful to see sustainable development throughout.
Q216 Sir Peter Soulsby: The fear
is that that is not happening.
Phil Hope: Well, I would challenge
that it is not happening in the East Midlands. Tom earlier gave
an example of why we launched the first ever adaptation strategy
in the East Midlands. I think there is a large and important agenda
for sustainable development that has the support of emda
and local government. It certainly has Government support.
Q217 Sir Peter Soulsby: Except
that you could argue that if that is actually happening, the Environment
Agency would probably know about it, and they were the ones who
gave us the evidence.
Phil Hope: Yes, I suppose that
we could look at the specifics that individual organisations talk
about. I think there may have been some criticism in the past—two
or three years ago—when there had been a feeling that they
had not been sufficiently consulted. But now, as we take the integrated
regional strategy forward and consider the importance of mainstreaming
sustainable development as well as the importance of a process
for doing that, which will be debated this week, I hope to see
much more engagement and much more support for sustainable development
being a mainstream, embedded part of our regional strategy for
the future.
Jonathan Lindley: Two quick points.
First, just to make you are aware, if you were not already, that
the Environment Agency's regional boundaries are not quite the
same as ours, so there are actually two Environment Agency regions
that we have to involve. Secondly, one of those regions—the
one that covers the bulk of the region for which I am responsible—has
a strategic programme board, although I cannot quite remember
the precise name of it, which the regional director has just created
and which he has invited me to sit on. If there are any issues
relating to strategic planning or concerns from their perspective,
or indeed things that I want to bring to their attention, I shall
be able to bring those to the Regional Minister's attention as
necessary.
Chairman: All I can say is that all this
discussion about cake has suddenly reminded me that, at this late
hour, it has been nine hours since any food passed my lips. If
you have two quick questions, it might be appropriate for us to
take them, and then perhaps we can wind up the proceedings.
Judy Mallaber: We put Bob in the Chair
because he promised to have it over in an hour.
Q218 Chairman: Nothing else? Is
there anything that you would like to briefly add to your evidence?
Phil Hope: Only to thank you for
your interest and investigations. We look forward to seeing the
results.
Chairman: We will make sure that it is
a good, hard-hitting report—we hope.
|
