Looking at the development of regeneration policy over the last century, it can be argued that there are two distinct trends. When in government the right has tended to prioritise the interests of business, while the left has been accused of ignoring business completely in favour of a community-based approach. It is, of course, hackneyed to say it, but the ‘third way’ solution that involves both communities and business is the only way forward.
The concept is not new. When Robert Kennedy was a New York senator during the late 1960s, his intervention in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a deprived inner-city area in Brooklyn, incorporated big business but also consulted local people. The subsequent success of a later model pioneered by Business for Social Responsibility in Harlem during the 1990s prompted me to announce the appointment of Bill Boler, a vice president of BSR, in March of last year. His role was to demonstrate how British business can succeed in such communities.
It is impossible to renew neighbourhoods if you do not involve the entire local community.
Seventy percent of the UK’s ethnic minority population live in the 88 most deprived areas. Any strategy to regenerate inner-city areas has to tackle this inequality head-on. A recent study by the Strategy Unit (which I sponsored as a minister), Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market, found that there are now wide variations in the achievements of different ethnic minority groups.
The New Deal for Communities programme has shown that the consultation model can be successful; in Brighton an anti-crime strategy that included neighbourhood wardens and clubs for young people reduced crime by eighteen percent between 1999 and 2002. Similarly the NDC-funded East-West bus route in Shoreditch made travel to work easier for local residents and was later mainstreamed by Transport for London.
The NDC model is not perfect; there are examples where there has been so much consultation with the local community that little progress has been made. Similarly, there are examples where people have complained of too little consultation and inappropriate action. Finding a balance will always be difficult, but taking time to learn important lessons from these problems will allow the programme to move forward.
The government has a vision that within ten to 20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. In our eagerness to realise this vision we initiated a plethora of projects, initiatives and programmes. Each has its own rules and its own monitoring and evaluation requirements. The sheer volume and complexity of the system can overwhelm people trying to access it. Many New Deal for Communities programmes are sited in localities which have received or are receiving support from up to ten other area-based initiatives. The audit bill of Kerrier District Council quadrupled over a five-year period because of the number of initiatives that had to be accounted for.
The government recognised this problem and sought to resolve it. We reduced by a half the number of area-based initiatives without cutting the level of investment. This process needs to be taken even further. Unless this is done, the risk is that unchecked bureaucracy will distance communities from the very schemes that are designed to support them.
Without long-term, easily accessible programmes the effects will only be superficial.
The NDC programme is currently funded for a ten-year period: we need to consider the exit strategy for it and other initiatives. What lessons have been learned? Some very hard questions need to be asked about those areas not given NDC status.
Our challenge is to ensure that deprived communities are part of mainstream Britain. If we are not to lose their potential then regeneration and renewal must have an integral place in the economic success of our country.