“Thames Gateway

regeneration handling slammed”

So read the Daily Telegraph on 15^th November 2007 commenting on the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report - “The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations” which had been published that day. It went on to quote the report saying that the Thames Gateway had the potential to become “a public spending calamity” and said that the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) were “manifestly not up to the job”.

If these are the headlines what had CLG to say?

The response of CLG was to claim that the report was dated and that since the Committee had held its sessions progress had been made to improve the situation and that publication of the Thames Gateway Delivery Plan at the Thames Gateway Forum on 28^th – 29^th November would answer many of these questions.

So what were the questions being raised?

· CLG has spent £673 million on the programme in the last 5 years but has this investment been coordinated? Would it have happened even if the Thames Gateway had not existed?

· The programme is 5 years old but the mechanisms for managing the programme are only now being put in place.

· Many stakeholders question CLG’s leadership – especially in its ability to influence other government departments to prioritise Thames Gateway.

· The Committee question whether the programme will achieve its potential which is to make a major difference to economic regeneration and sustainable communities. (It is one of 15 government “mission critical” programmes!)

· The delivery chain is unclear with over 100 organisations involved.

· There is a risk that any economic benefits that are realised will not reach existing residents.

The CLG’s response is that they have taken on board these criticisms, which are not new, and in appointing a Chief Executive in 2006 to report directly to a minister a coordinated approach is being taken, but that when the committee reviewed the programme it was too early to make a considered judgement. Many of these issues will be addressed in the plans that will come out in the near future, starting at the Thames Gateway Forum.

My personal comments:

· I’d much prefer to be on the Committee for Public Accounts than in the CLG! It’s so easy to criticise!

· Coming from a business background I wonder how government ever gets anything done. The complexity of our public sector structures makes progress very difficult, but this does not only apply to Thames Gateway and will any of our major political parties ever address this? I doubt it!

· Many of the major projects that are in progress would have happened anyway – Olympics, CTRL, Ebbsfleet, London Gateway Port….. I think the jury is still out as to whether the current structures will make a significant difference to what would have happened such that the Thames Gateway becomes a recognised region where people want to live and work. At this time it is too early to say.

· It seems that any project that needs to bring together resources from a number of different government departments will always struggle from the fact that departments will have their own targets and these may conflict.

· Historically major regeneration projects, such as Canary Wharf have sometimes brought great economic benefits but these have rarely gone to the original population, but rather to those who commute in to the new jobs or to newcomers who force up prices and force out the existing, deprived population. There is, as yet, no evidence that things will be different this time.

· The Olympics will undoubtedly bring benefits to the area but whether they come to the existing population and are detrimental to the extremes of the Thames Gateway (Essex and Kent) is not clear. The Olympics may well slow up the overall development until 2012. The question is then whether the Thames Gateway can pick up the legacy and develop it to the overall good of the whole area?

· Nationally the Government had a target of 1.8 million new homes. This has been raise to 3 million. It is difficult to see how even the original target can be achieved. (It was reported this week that private house builders have reduced the number of new starts in response to the current credit problems, whereas a significant increase is needed)

but, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Many areas of the Thames Gateway have suffered years of deprivation. Rather than read this report and give up, we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we have the structures and commitment to make the Thames Gateway into the international success that it could be.

All the necessary elements are there – do we have the will to make it happen?

(If we don’t we condemn many deprived people to continued deprivation

and many people without homes to have no hope of every getting housed)