Examination of Witnesses (Questions 250-267)
Q250 Chair: Everyone,
welcome to our further session in the inquiry into regeneration.
For the sake of our records, would you introduce yourselves—say
who you are and the organisation you represent?
Toby Blume: I'm
Toby Blume. I run an organisation called Urban Forum.
John Tizard: I'm
John Tizard, a trustee of NAVCA.
Peter Grant: My
name is Peter Grant. I'm a consultant advising NAVCA and I am
here in support of John Tizard.
Q251 Chair: You are all
welcome, and thank you for the written evidence given to us so
far. Dealing with the Government's paper Regeneration to enable
growth, how far do you welcome the communityled approach
to regeneration? Do you think the Government have it right?
John Tizard: We
certainly welcome the principle of a communityled approach.
It remains to be seen whether or not the words will translate
into effective practice. There is a great emphasis in the document—I
think we heard some of it in the previous session—about
the significant roles of the private sector, and clearly that
is very important. Private investment is absolutely critical,
but we feel that it is as important to ensure that the community
is fully engaged and has the opportunity to own the regeneration
of its own area. There needs to be a proper system to allow that
to happen, but there also needs to be a culture that recognises
that this is not just about physical regeneration; regeneration
has to be about building communities and community capacity.
For us—colleagues will obviously have their own take on
it—the words are fine, but it is how that will be achieved,
if the emphasis is very much on a businessled approach rather
than a community approach.
Toby Blume: We
would be very supportive of something that is communityled.
We think that local people should determine priorities and lead
regeneration efforts. I do not actually know what the Government's
approach is. I think it is not particularly clear how they are
going to marry up "communityled", as a phrase,
with regeneration, given that so many things have changed from
how we have tended to approach regeneration for the last 15 or
20 years. I do not see a huge amount of clarity, and there are
too many questions to be able to regard it as a coherent strategy
at present.
Q252 Heidi Alexander:
John, I think you said the words are fine. "Communityled
regeneration" appears in document's title, but then much
of it is really a compilation of different things that you could
cut and paste from other Departments' websites. It talks about
High Speed 2 and Crossrail. Do you really think that there is
enough in that document that reassures you that this Government
are committed to communityled regeneration?
John Tizard: What
I was attempting to say—let me clarify—was that the
words are fine but we need to understand what they will translate
into in practice. We would subscribe to that commitment to communityled
regeneration in the title but, as Toby has said, much of the content
does not give us the confidence that that is going to be seen
through. The emphasis is on infrastructureled regeneration
and the role of the private sector could, unless there are counter-measures
included, exclude communities, and this could then be very much
about regeneration being done unto communities, rather than communitybased
and led.
Q253 Heidi Alexander:
May I ask all three witnesses about the lessons of the past in
terms of involving the community and voluntary sector, and what
you think are the most important lessons for getting really good,
effective community involvement in regeneration schemes and plans?
Toby Blume: At
the moment, there is a distinct lack of remembering of what has
gone before. One of the most valuable lessons was when grassroots
groups—front-line community organisations; very informal—were
given small amounts to follow through on the things they wanted
to happen in their communities. There was all sorts of added
value from that. It was successful through, for example, most
recently, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, Community Empowerment
and Community Chest. It gave people control of a resource that
they could allocate in ways they felt were appropriate.
It died a death when the ring fences were removed—it
was absorbed into the safer and stronger communities fund and,
ultimately, into a single pot. Then it required those groups
to engage with the local authority and to, at their behest, be
afforded some small resource. The difference was that, before,
they were able to go to the LSP or to engage in a relationship
with the local authority with some of their own resource. They
were not entirely dependent on the good will of the local authority.
Sometimes we saw that things that the local authority was not
interested in funding actually brought the local authority to
the table. It resulted in outcomes that were not foreseen by
the authority or other local partners, but ultimately they invested
in, because the community was prepared to take a risk to innovate
and find ways of pursuing their own interest. That is a critical
learning point from the past.
Q254 Heidi Alexander:
So Community Chest is important. Are there any other key lessons?
Peter Grant: Supporting
what Toby has said, what the voluntary and community sector needs
is very similar to the private sector. It needs longterm
commitment, certainty and de-risking of the situation. Unfortunately,
what we have seen over the past year is the disappearance of some
of the support through the disbanding of regeneration agencies,
which have been supporting the voluntary and community sector,
among others. We have mentioned, in our written memorandum, the
repackaging of schemes that we have seen under a different heading.[6]
There is a risk that the opportunities now being provided, say
under the Localism Bill, for voluntary sector involvement in regeneration—within
the right to buy or the right to challenge—will not be fully
carried through because of the support that is now missing to
enable them to take up those rights.
Q255 Heidi Alexander:
You are saying that there is an issue of capacity perhaps within
the voluntary and community sector, and support for capacity building
in order to access the opportunities to engage in the regeneration
process that may exist.
Peter Grant: It
is long term as well. Long-term support needs to be put in place.
John Tizard: The
only thing I would add to what my colleagues have said is the
lesson that the voluntary and community sector and organisations
need to be involved at the very beginning, not part way through
or even at the conclusion of drawing up plans—when they
feel that they have not been able to make their contribution,
which is a loss, and results in them actually not feeling ownership
of the projects.
Q256 Simon Danczuk:
Just a quick supplementary question: you are both large-membership
organisations, with 850 and 160,000. Is membership going up or
down, and what are the reasons for that? If it is going down,
are they stopping joining because they have not got the cash to
join, or are the organisations disappearing?
Toby Blume: A lot
of our members disappeared with the loss of dedicated Neighbourhood
Renewal funding about five years ago. The reason our membership
has grown significantly—by about 400% over the past two
years—is that we decided to remove the fees for notforprofit
organisations, charities and community groups because we felt
it was irresponsible to deprive them of information and support,
that was critical at the time, for membership for the sake of
£10, £20 or £40. Clearly there is a demand. It
requires us to redesign our business model, but that is something
we are prepared to do if it means that we can protect just a few
of them from going to the wall.
John Tizard: The
issue of fluidity and uncertainty would be what I would want to
emphasise. I think we are seeing new organisations; we are seeing
some organisations exiting. Some organisations are currently
not certain about where their funding is going to come from.
They are just now working through what their budget is or what
the implications of the spending cuts are going to be for the
current financial year and the future financial years. We are
also seeing some mergers and consolidation as well. I think that
is something that, again, we would want to encourage, where that
adds strength and gives real capacity to this.
Q257 George Hollingbery:
We have not got you very long this afternoon, so all I am going
to ask is that you do not give a very long reply. Very quickly,
has there ever been a successful regeneration scheme that was
not communityled and was not otherwise known as displacement?
In other words, does it have to be communityled to work
for the people who live there, rather than moving them on somewhere
else and replacing them with people who then go and buy their
houses and support the services?
John Tizard: I
think the answer has to be yes, but it needs to be communitybased.
It needs to bring benefits for people in those communities, rather
than displacement. It is rather like the question you asked the
previous witnesses about employment zones. If the investment
does not produce benefits for the communities for which the investment
is made, in a sense, all you are doing is displacing.
Toby Blume: I would
say that it depends on how you measure success. There are many
regeneration programmes and schemes that have benefited certain
people within those communities at the expense of others. You
could ask: if more than 50% of the population has done very nicely
out of rising land values and house prices, is that success?
I would be concerned about the minority who have been further
squeezed or had to leave the area. I think that I would certainly
concur with John that community interest, vision and the priorities
of local people have to be the starting point for any successful
regeneration programme, but you could find lots of successful
programmes if you defined it slightly differently.
Steve Rotheram: Just for
George, if you want to see an example of exactly that, there is
a thing called the Eldonian Village in Liverpool—the old
Tate & Lyle—and that is exactly what you have
just described there. When you come to Liverpool, I will show
you around.
Toby Blume: The
Eldonians is a very good example of a successful regeneration
programme. It is also one that may be encountering problems with
its business model, which is based on providing services that
are funded from public sector funding. I am not speaking with
any particular insight, but that is a challenge, even to the most
successful regeneration schemes now.
Q258 Mark Pawsey:
I am sure that the bodies you represent recognise that they are
in a wholly different funding environment from the one that existed
some years ago. As far as they are concerned, do they see that
the limited funds available are going to the areas of greatest
need? Do they see the decisions being made as being fair, such
as in some of the communities that might have been hoping that
regeneration funds would come their way? Are they accepting of
the new landscape?
Toby Blume: They
would certainly not feel that the current situation was fair.
You do not have to go much further than the Treasury's own assessment
or the IFS assessment of the impact on poor communities being
disproportionate.
Q259 Mark Pawsey:
I was talking in the context of the amount of money available
for regeneration. I am not talking about the broader economic
objective, but if you say that there is a pot, is it being allocated
fairly among those who are calling for it?
Toby Blume: As
ever, demand greatly exceeds supply, so you are going to have
more people saying that they are missing out than are satisfied
with it. I am not entirely clear what regeneration pot you are
talking about because, as I see it, there is no dedicated regeneration
funding in any great significance that is available to community
organisations. The major resources that are flowing through to
our members at the front line, if you like—community groups—are
areabased grants that local authorities are making available
for activity. Communities are finding new ways to build resilience.
I am increasingly of the view that we should be looking to focus
our attention on resilience, rather than regeneration, which in
some ways invokes huge public spending programmes targeted at
areas. I think it is where they are being creative about how
they can leverage resources to meet their own needs, rather than
any big pot, which is being distributed fairly or otherwise.
Q260 Mark Pawsey:
There are limited funds. I am trying to get an understanding
of whether the communities you represent say, "Given there
is not much there, we're happy with it," or, "We don't
think it is being fairly allocated."
Toby Blume: Do
you mean in the division between areas?
Mark Pawsey: Yes.
Toby Blume: I do
not think that the groups that I work with are particularly aware
of the resources that are going into other areas, because they
are working at quite a local level, so they are not looking at
the south-east and saying, "Do they have more money than
us?" They are just seeing access to their own resources
diminishing.
Peter Grant: There
is always a question as to whether you allocate resources to the
areas of greatest need or greatest opportunity. I am sure you
have heard other witnesses say that to you. In terms of support
for the voluntary and community sector, the Neighbourhood Renewal
Fund and SRB5 and 6 have certainly directed resources towards
the areas of greatest need. It is more important to ask whether,
having done that, they are being directed towards initiatives
that offer the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. In our
written evidence, we have put down a number of ingredients that
we think are important for the effective and efficient engagement
of the community in the process of regeneration, with the leverage
of social value being one.[7]
I will not repeat everything that is in the written evidence.
There is building on social capital as well, and also making
use of local physical assets for community regeneration. There
are a number of factors to consider.
Q261 Bob Blackman:
Building on that, Peter, you talked about SRB5 and 6. Should the
Government be saying that regeneration funds should be targeted
at areas of the greatest potential rather than the greatest need?
Peter Grant: No,
I think it is a balance—it has to be. There are examples
of large amounts of resources being devoted to areas of very great
need indeed, which arguably have not made an enormous change to
those areas, in terms of the socio-economic indicators, over a
period of 30 years. There are others where a matter of a few
years has achieved a great deal, which perhaps indicates the inherent
opportunity there was and the capacity that perhaps already existed
in that community to take advantage of the resources when they
are made available to them. I think it is a difficult question
to answer. I do fudge perhaps by saying that it is a balance
between the two—there needs to be the potential within the
community, as well as the need to use the resources effectively.
Q262 Bob Blackman:
That builds to the next issue that I want to touch on. We know
that public finance is going to be very tight for a long time.
The private sector is at great risk of not being invested. Clearly
there are going to be difficulties in terms of where you concentrate
regeneration resources. The Government have set out a strategic
paper to say that they want communityled regeneration.
What do they have to do in order to actually make that work?
Have they got their plans right?
Toby Blume: As
I said before, I am not entirely clear what the plans are. Even
for things we know something about, such as neighbourhood plans,
we do not yet know precisely how they are going to work on the
ground—or certainly that is my impression.
Q263 Bob Blackman:
There might almost be a blank page here. Given that you have
tight resources, what do the Government have to do in order to
get communityled regeneration going?
Toby Blume: The
first thing they have to do is to reform the economic architecture,
because I think that is a major impediment to communities and
localities actually exerting control over their area. We are
in favour of things like local income tax, devolving taxraising
powers to local areas and using different mechanisms—regional
stock exchanges—to reconnect capital with place. It is
very difficult to see how local areas can create jobs and stimulate
economic development without those levers. I would extend that
through to localising our banking system. If we were serious
about giving people a chance of pursuing some of these ambitions,
we would introduce legislation along the lines of a community
reinvestment Act as a mechanism to encourage financial institutions
to invest in community finance intermediaries—credit unions
and CDFIs—as a way of better understanding what the economic
needs of local voluntary organisations would be.
Q264 Bob Blackman:
In many ways that is the system that pervades in the USA, for
example, where they have considerable diversity.
Toby Blume: In
terms of the localisation of financial services, that is right.
There are many differences, and we would need to develop something
very different to reflect the UK banking sector and local circumstances.
In the US, they have been able to do it, first, on the back of
redlining, where there was clear geographical discrimination,
which was racerelated. Also, they were able to use permissions
to cross state boundaries, for example, as the lever to create
the incentives for banks to invest. I am certain that we could
find ways of doing that which were sensitive to the UK financial
services sector.
Q265 Bob Blackman:
John, do you have a view? I know that was quite a radical solution.
John Tizard: I
am not going to have a debate with Toby, but I think there are
some more immediate actions that could be undertaken. Some of
his ideas, I suspect, will take some time. We have seen the Government's
inability to move the banking system, so it is probably a fairly
long-term to rely too much on the banks.
Just picking up on the role of the banks, there is
some leverage that the Government could have to require banks
to consider investment in community projects and community groups
by building on the Merlin arrangements to promote more social
investment. There is scope there. The most important thing is
to recognise the importance of community has to be more than words,
and to make a requirement on those who are going to use the limited—as
you put it, Mr Blackman—funds that are going to be available
from the public purse to demonstrate that they have full engagement
with the community—on behalf of the community, with the
community and voluntary sector—in order to access those
funds. There is an opportunity to link regeneration with the
localism agenda, in terms of community development, with local
government supporting community development and a community focus.
My final point would be, going back to what was said
about opportunity, that we need to seize the opportunity to use
some of those funds to make investment in building capacity of
communities and community organisation so that those that have
the opportunity can move to a position to lead regeneration.
The real risk is that if we chase only winners, we exasperate
the problems of those who are already the real losers.
Peter Grant: Just
to carry on from that and perhaps to finish off, in our written
evidence we emphasised the financial efficiency of investments
in the voluntary sector, and quoted from research that we have
had done about multipliers of 11 to one on investment.[8]
It is vital that that is protected in future so that the voluntary
sector does not suffer disproportionately in the implementation
of public expenditure cuts, particularly at local authority level,
because those efficiencies are available. That is something that
underpins the Big Society, and it also should be put into practice
in ensuring that the voluntary sector receives the level of support
it needs to continue and keep going.
Q266 Bob Blackman:
What protection would you like to see for the voluntary sector?
Peter Grant: In
our response to another consultation, this time on best value,
we have raised the issue that the response to the public expenditure
cuts among local authorities does vary from one local authority
to another. There needs to be a certain amount of oversight of
that, which is something that the Government have promised, but
they need to find a way of making sure that that actually happens.
Q267 Bob Blackman:
The Government have a localist agenda and say it is up to local
authorities what they do. If the Secretary of State steps in
and says, "Thou shalt not do this," or, "Thou shalt
not do that," that countermands the localist agenda, doesn't
it?
Peter Grant: In
certain cases, that is necessary, but that is just a personal
view.
Toby Blume: I do
not think that that undermines localism. We elect our national
Governments with a mandate to do certain things. We are not saying
that everything is devolved and that therefore central Government
become simply bureaucrats. They are responsible for establishing
the framework within which localism operates. It is perfectly
reasonable to say that we have these expectations of relationships
between local authorities and the voluntary and community sector,
and that includes proportionality in the way in which you manage
the process of spending cuts.
Chair: Thank you very
much indeed for coming to give us evidence.
6 Ev 217 Back
7
Ev 217 Back
8
Ev 217 Back
| 
