Memorandum by the Campaign for the English
Regions (CFER) (DRA 02)
I write on behalf of the Campaign for the English
Regions (CFER), the independent all-party body which has been
calling for English devolution since before the creation of the
Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. We represent a broad coalition
of activists and interests motivated by a belief that the economic,
social and cultural needs of the English Regions cannot be fully
addressed by purely London-centred government.
CFER is the national organisation within which
all the mainstream regional devolution campaigns co-operate. These
include constitutional conventions for the South West and the
West Midlands as well as the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside
and North West YES Campaigns. We have been a critical friend of
the Government's moves to introduce English devolution and recently
published Regions That Work, a prospectus for fully empowered
English regional government.
CFER is pleased that you have moved quickly
to look at the Draft Bill which was published by the Government
on 22 July. We have welcomed the Bill, which will inform debate
about the issues, particularly in the run up to the referendum
in the North East and hopefully in other regions in the not too
distant future.
Many of the arguments we have been campaigning
on over the last few years have been taken on board, but there
is still much to do. There needs to be greater clarity in the
roles of central, regional and local government. We also hope
that in considering the Bill your committee will take into account
experience now available from Wales, Scotland and London.
In addition to submitting written evidence I
hope it would be possible for CFER to engage with the Committee
at one of the hearings you have scheduled for September.
All in CFER are disappointed that the Government
has postponed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and
Humberside. We have come a long way: short-term electoral jitters
should not be allowed to undermine the legislative building blocks
necessary to the creation of devolved democratically accountable
regional government. Addressing the real needs of people in our
regions depends upon progress towards English devolution. We must
not lose our nerve now. There is and will be opposition from those
interested in maintaining the centralist status quo. We must all
resist this.
We believe the Committee's Inquiry can make
a major contribution to the continuing process of democratic devolution.
We would be grateful for the opportunity to present verbal evidence
in support of the devolution process.
Councillor Philip Davis
Chair
1. INTRODUCTION
The Campaign for the English Regions is the
first and only national organisation campaigning for devolution
to the regions of England. We link all the regional constitutional
conventions and "yes" campaigns. We believe in a strong
voice and a fair deal for the regions of England. As leading advocates
for effective regional assemblies, we encourage the Select Committee
to support the case for strong and clear-cut powers to contribute
to the success of directly elected regional assemblies.
We very much welcome the publication of the
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill. This is a major step forward in
the modernisation of the British constitution. The creation of
new democratic assemblies for the English regions will help provide
the voice and the capacity to tackle longstanding problems. We
strongly support the proposals set out in the Draft Bill. Our
comments here are intended to add some strength to the proposed
Bill, and contribute to the success of the Government's aims in
promoting devolution to the nations and regions of Britain.
In summary, we would hope to see added to the
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill:
— Stronger powers, clearly devolved,
over learning and skills, transport, and cultural activities.
— Financial powers to include allocation
of lottery grants.
— Greater flexibility in the size of
regional assemblies.
— Rights of decision-making in the
hands of elected members only.
— Stronger definition of the rights
of citizens to be consulted.
These points are explained in greater detail
below.
2. FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES FOR
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
We believe that a framework of overall principles
should shape decisions about the powers, finance, and democratic
structure of regional government. The principles we support for
regional government are:
— Regional government needs to bring
government closer to the people, and help engage them in finding
solutions to problems; it should provide new opportunities for
consultation and participation.
— It should bring an enhancement of
democracy, with direct democratic control over services and decisions
at a regional level. Accountable elected representatives will
have a greater incentive to respond to the region's needs.
— Regional government needs the capacity
to tackle problems in the areas it is intended regional government
will address, such as economic inequalities, spatial imbalance,
and sustainability.
— Regional government needs to democratise,
decentralise and integrate the current public sector provision
by government departments, quangos, agencies, and privatised industries.
It should create simpler structures that are clearer to the public.
— Regional government should contribute
a modern constitution based on increased decentralisation. Regional
government should provide greater autonomy for the region, alongside
a strengthened tier of local government, both primarily accountable
to their citizens. Regional government should take powers from
the centre, not from local government.
Our specific comments are based on the development
of these principles.
3. POWERS OF
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
CFER's detailed views on the initial powers
directly elected English regional assemblies should have are set
out in: Regions that Work: A contribution to the debate on
the powers of English regional government, published in March
2004, jointly with the Local Government Information Unit. This
publication is enclosed and further copies are available to the
Select Committee, as is a checklist comparing its proposals with
the draft Bill. Our main emphasis was on: transport, skills, business
support and economic development, and rural development, as well
as supporting the proposals of Your Region, Your Choice.
Whilst we welcome the proposals set out in the
draft Bill, we believe the powers of assemblies need to be strengthened,
for the reasons set out in Regions That Work.
It is vital that directly elected regional assemblies
start with a coherent package of powers. The range of powers need
to help communicate to the man or woman in the street the role
that regional assemblies could play.
We welcome the proposals for:
— The broad general purposes and powers
to promote economic, social development, and improvement and protection
of the environment, and of biodiversity, and the general duties
to promote equal opportunities, and public health.
— The assembly scheme, and the Regional
Spatial Strategy, providing a clear regional direction, within
which other policies and budgets will fit.
— Assembly control for the Regional
Development Agency (RDA), and the increased scope for RDAs developing
through delegation of Business Links, the proposals of the Rural
Strategy 2004, the role in tourism, and the expanded budgets.
— For the assembly to take over the
regional role in EU structural Funds.
— Proposals for the Regional Cultural
Consortium to be accountable to the assembly.
— The clear strategic role in housing,
linked to the Regional Spatial Strategy, including allocation
of funding to housing providers.
4. ADDITIONAL
POWERS FOR
THE ASSEMBLY
A strengthened set of powers will contribute
to the effectiveness of the new assemblies in tackling the specific
challenges the regions face. We believe it is particularly important
for the following to be added to the proposed powers:
Learning and Skills: No regional economic strategy
can succeed which does not tackle the serious differences in qualifications
held by adults in the more disadvantaged regions. The current
structure for skills provision takes too little account of these
regionals differences and is too tied to Whitehall priorities.
We believe regional government needs:
— to determine regional skills strategies
and control the adult learning budget;
— to allocate skills funding to more
local delivery organisations; and
— to run the Connexions Service.
The progress with Frameworks for Regional Employment
and Skills Action and LSC Regional Directors show that the need
for a regional dimension is being recognised by government. However,
the proposals of the Bill and related Policy Statement create
a confused pattern of local, regional and national accountability,
which will not support implementation of a clear strategy which
meets the region's economic needs. If the Government will not
transfer the function to the assembly completely at this stage,
we propose that the adult skills budget for the region should
be calculated and delegated to the regional assembly for a pilot
period. For this period it would remain a ring-fenced budget.
The assembly would approve a regional skills strategy, consulting
with the LSC and others. The assembly would agree targets and
a performance framework with the national LSC. This would give
clearer regional responsibility than the proposed arrangements,
and a clear regional direction to the skills strategy.
Transport: at present, the government's proposals
would require the regional assembly to develop a strategy as part
of the Regional Spatial Strategy, but would give it almost no
powers over relevant budgets and implementation. The two most
important bodies, the Highways Agency and (currently) the Strategic
Rail Authority, remain completely detached from the regional assembly.
We believe regional government needs:
— to have transport planning powers,
including public transport, roads and parking;
— the power to establish a regional
transport authority which would work with sub-regional transport
executives;
— a major role in rail services and
investment;
— to have responsibility for major
roads including motorways;
— to allocate transport budgets, including
rural transport, and have charging, taxation and borrowing powers
to enable improved investment in transport.
Improved transport has been recognised by RDAs
and by business leaders generally as essential to regional economic
success. It is vital to enable people to access new job and training
opportunities supported by the assembly. The assembly must have
the scope to direct transport investment alongside land use and
economic development.
In relation to roads and traffic, the assembly
should be given comparable control over roads to that devolved
in Scotland, Wales and Greater London. The present arrangements
would mean the assembly's transport strategy relying for implementation
on national decisions by the Department of Transport and the Highways
Agency. This is not logical, accountable, or efficient. It is
vital that road budgets are transferred, alongside implementation
capacity. Almost none of this work is genuinely national in character.
The DEFRA rural transport budget should also move to the regional
assemblies. The Future of Rail makes some proposals which would
give scope for investment in rail schemes, but without transfer
of relevant budgets, this would not have a major impact on transport
needs.
Regional government also needs transport powers
which supports its duty to protect the environment, and shift
to more environmentally friendly (and often economical) forms
of transport.
Current decision-making on transport is too
dominated by criteria which are important in London and the South-East,
in particular congestion, rather than wider social and environmental
purposes. Investment decisions are skewed. Decisions vital for
regeneration, such as the extension of the Manchester Metro, are
taken in London, to the detriment of the region.
The Bill should be amended to give flexible
powers to establish a regional transport executive, or to work
with existing PTEs, according to local circumstances, to have
stronger regulatory powers in relation to public transport, and
to take control over major roads.
Cultural services: Recent years have seen many
successful cultural and sporting developments in the English regions,
such as the BALTIC and Sage centres in Gateshead, the Lowry Centre
in Salford, the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, and the successful
Capital of Culture proposals in Liverpool. Much has been gained
from the successful links between economic regeneration and cultural
developments. For this reason, we regret that the government has
backed away from the proposals in Your Region, Your Choice,
to give assemblies the regional budgets for arts and sports, and
a role in heritage and conservation. This could have formed an
effective base for work with local government, and with local
and regional cultural organisations, developing regional identity
and wider participation. Although a strategic role in tourism
has been given to the RDAs, this should be developed further,
giving responsibility for all regional tourist board activities.
We urge the transfer to the regional assembly of all these budgets
and powers.
5. FINANCE AND
THE REGIONAL
ASSEMBLY
We welcome the proposal that assembly funding
should be based on general rather than ring-fenced grants, the
proposals for scope to set a council tax precept, and for powers
to borrow to enable essential investment in the region's needs.
We believe there are additional central and quango budgets which
should be transferred to the assembly. We also emphasise that
creating simpler and more co-ordinated structures, and not duplicating
between the assembly and the government office for the region,
would save money on regional administration. We strongly urge
that regional government should have a substantial role in allocating
lottery funds, and if this is not included in the Bill, it should
be strongly recommended to the lottery review.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
DEMOCRATIC REGIONS
Size of assembly: The Draft Bill would limit
the size of the assembly to between 25 and 35. We believe this
is too inflexible, and in particular would give very limited representation
to rural areas. This proposal can be compared with the National
Assembly for Wales (NAW), which has 60 (full-time) members, with
Wales having a smaller population than all but one of the English
regions. The recent report of the Richard Commission on the future
of the NAW describes the current size of the assembly as stretched
to deal with its current roles, and recommends an enlargement
to 80, if the NAW powers were to be extended. Analysis of the
Greater London Assembly has also pointed to the problems of scrutiny
when many assembly members are appointed to boards of bodies under
scrutiny.
We believe the legislation should allow assemblies
to be bigger than 35, particularly in larger regions. The representative
role of Assembly Members is closely linked to the development
of consultation and involvement of citizens and stakeholders,
who will want opportunities for dialogue with elected members.
There must also be members to carry out policy development, scrutiny,
and membership of some functional bodies and other boards (for
example of housing associations, advisory bodies, quangos, or
funded community enterprises).
Scrutiny arrangements: the Bill sets out arrangements
for scrutiny which would enable co-opted persons to have the same
rights to vote as elected members. Although it is valuable to
have wide engagement with scrutiny, this can be achieved by inviting
evidence, hearing witnesses, and appointing advisers, and by non-voting
co-option. We believe there are certain decision-making which
should be in the hands of democratically accountable members.
If co-opted people are to have equal voting rights, then as a
minimum there should be the same requirements to make a declaration
of financial interest as well as political affiliation.
Political balance and scrutiny: The Bill also
sets out a requirement for the Review and Monitoring Committee
to include all members who are not members of the executive (the
executive can vary in size from three to seven). The political
balance of this non-executive group must then be followed in all
scrutiny bodies. We do not support this proposal. The scrutiny
arrangements should reflect the political balance and mandate
of the assembly as a whole, as is normal in other elected bodies,
including parliament. The proportional voting system will ensure
there is unlikely to be heavy dominance by one political party.
Scrutiny, regional issues and quangos: More
should be done to bring functions currently provided by quangos
and agencies within the scope of the regional assembly. There
remain many appointed bodies operating at a regional level, which
should be reviewed to identify which should become part of the
assembly. An immediate step to enhance accountability would be
to strengthen the scrutiny powers of the assembly to investigate
any matter of importance to the region (in line with local government
and Greater London Authority overview and scrutiny powers). This
should also include rights to receive evidence and participation
in scrutiny from public bodies in the region.
Consultation: The Draft Bill provides more detail
on how specific stakeholder groups or "assembly participants"
such as businesses, employees and community and voluntary organisations
can be involved in dialogue with the assembly. We support the
proposals in the Bill to ensure consultation with stakeholders.
This should help build on positive working relationships created
by current regional chambers. We also believe the legislation
should allow flexibility and evolution of consultation arrangements,
rather than dictate too much detail.
However, we believe that the legislation should
also say something about the rights of citizens in general to
consultation and involvement, as well as particular stakeholders.
This could include a duty to publish a consultation scheme (perhaps
updated annually, although obviously shorter term projects would
arise) which set out arrangements to access information, attend
meetings, be consulted on important developments, and rights of
complaint and redress. A duty to report on this could be added
to the annual report.
Local and regional government: it is important
that regional government develop a partnership with local government.
The National Assembly for Wales (NAW) has a legal duty to work
in partnership with local government, and to report annually on
this, providing a focus for the overall relationship to be reviewed.
The NAW has also established a partnership council with local
government, and a similar requirement should be considered for
inclusion in this Bill.
Role of central government: it is vital that
regional assemblies, having the double democratic mandate of the
referendum to establish them, and their own election, be able
to develop their role and priorities independently of central
government. We believe a clear division of powers and responsibilities
between local, regional/devolved, and national government is an
important element of good constitutional design, and supports
democratic involvement. We remain concerned that the Bill includes
too many powers for the Secretary of State to intervene, set any
conditions on funding, set targets, and issue regulations and
guidance. This is not in line with devolution to Scotland and
Wales, where the accountability to citizens, rather than central
government is clearer.
|
