Examination of Witnesses (Questions 72
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2004
MR NICHOLAS
BOLES, MR
JOHN ADAMS,
MR DAN
CORRY, MR
WARREN HATTER
AND DR
PETER KENWAY
Q72 Chairman: Can I welcome you all?
Can I just stress to you that if you agree with each other, once
one person has said it the rest of you keep quiet! If you disagree,
please chip in as quickly as you can catch my eye. If you would
like to introduce yourselves for the record?
Mr Hatter: Warren Hatter from
the New Local Government Network.
Mr Corry: Dan Corry, from the
same place.
Dr Kenway: I am Peter Kenway from
the New Policy Institute, and may I apologise for the absence
of Andy Howell, who was going to present evidence here with me
today? He is on his way from Wales and obviously has not made
it.
Mr Boles: I am Nicholas Boles
from Policy Exchange.
Mr Adams: John Adams from IPPR
North, which is part of the Institute for Public Policy Research,
based in Newcastle upon Tyne.
Chairman: Does anybody want to say anything
by way of introduction or are you all happy for us to go straight
to questions? Straight to questions.
Q73 Mr Clelland: It is a general
question to all of the witnesses. The elected Regional Assemblies
look set to rely substantially upon a general power of competence
rather than detailed powers and resources in particular policy
fields. What impact is that likely to have upon the effectiveness
of these Regional Assemblies and how, if at all, will elected
Regional Assemblies add value to the current system of government
and the regions?
Mr Hatter: I think we need to
learn from the experience of local government, specifically the
Local Government Act 2000, which gave local authorities the power
of well being. I think there is a pretty broad consensus that
those powers have not been used to anywhere near the extent that
one might wish. There are probably very good reasons for this,
specifically that the relations between central and local government
have been so polarised, and local government over the past few
decades very much got into the mode of being a delivery arm and
responding to guidance to legislation, to guidelines and to directives
from the centre, and actually having a power, something that you
can use rather than a duty as something that you have to do, guidelines
that you have to follow, is something that unfortunately culturally
local government has found it hard to grasp. On the other hand,
I do not think it is realistic to think that there is any real
point in trying to develop regional governance unless there is
that general power of competence. What our research suggests to
us is that the success of regional governance, whether it is through
a Chapter II agenda or Elected Regional Assemblies in the future,
should the electorate so decide, will depend on the individuals
and the bodies developing regional governance having credibility
with the people, with the public and with stakeholders to make
it work, and in a sense that power of competence, you could argue,
is more important than the specific powers that are given to ERAs.
Mr Corry: Can I just add to that?
We are not exactly sure whether the things outlined in Clause
43 do give enough. We are learning from what local government
has; it has a `power' of well being which we think ought to be
turned into a duty of well being, and made clearer. We are not
exactly sure from our reading of what is in the Bill and in the
policy statement so far, whether it gives that power, that duty.
Mr Boles: Your colleague asked
about whether this whole idea is likely to add value to governance
in the country. I would have thought that all of you, certainly
all of us, whatever political, philosophical persuasions we are,
are probably more exercised about the question of how you restore
public faith in the political process, public interest in what
politicians are doing to them than almost any other question,
because it is quite clear that nobody is listening to us and they
all think we are a bunch of lying fools. It would be hard to design
a piece of legislation that was more guaranteed to increase that
cynicism and that apathy than this particular Bill. There is almost
nothing in it that will inspire any confidence in anyone of the
honesty, transparency or real willingness to do something to improve
people's lives than this Bill. These things are a charade, they
are a mockery, they will add no value at all, they will cost a
huge amount of money and they will generate enormous amounts of
blether, with absolutely no purpose. You could have created Regional
Assemblies with a purpose, you could have decided—I do not
know whether it would be a good idea—to regionalise the
National Health Service, to give them control of all of the Primary
Care Trusts in the region; you could have decided to go down that
route, many European countries operate in a similar way. The government
has not decided to do that, yet it is ploughing ahead with an
utterly cynical exercise. It will add no value at all.
Dr Kenway: Let me develop that
point. We think—and I hope our submission made clear what
we think—that one needs to look at the powers that the ERAs
would have, in the context of the fact that they first have to
cross the hurdle of winning a referendum, and we are fully in
support of the idea that it should cross this hurdle, and that
that hurdle should exist, that they cannot simply be imposed.
But our view is that you will not, with the sorts of general powers
which are there at the minute, stand any chance of persuading
anybody that these things are worth having. There has, therefore,
to be—and this perhaps is where I am getting close to my
colleague here—some specific powers, some specific responsibilities
that Elected Regional Assemblies need to have in order to persuade
not just the electorate that it is worth voting for them but also
to persuade serious politicians, whether at local or national
level, that these things are worth getting involved in. Therefore,
there needs to be something specific, there needs to be something
concrete in there. Perhaps I might put one more point that I might
develop later, that we do think those specific things might very
well differ between different parts of the country—that
what is important in one place may not be as important in another.
In our view, in London it was quite clear that one of the main
things that made people think it was worth having a Mayor was
that there was transport to be dealt with. Whether you agree with
what he has done or not it is quite clear that that is what the
thing was about, it was not just about a general power. So our
view is that there does need to be something specific, but that
that could vary between different regions.
Q74 Sir Paul Beresford: Your whole
thesis is going back to what The Times said—you are
providing an answer for a question that nobody is asking.
Dr Kenway: I do not accept that
because we have something, and the way we score it is that the
present Bill gets one thing right and two things wrong. It is
very important that this referendum test is there; I think we
are all agreed on that and the degree of cynicism that exists.
Therefore, it seems to us that there is a opportunity here, perhaps
the opportunity with the delay, even the permanent delay of the
referendum in the two other regions, to think again about what
the scope of this Bill should be, and it needs to provide, in
our view, something that is attractive to both the regional electorate
and to potential regional politicians, and the present arrangements
do not do that.
Q75 Sir Paul Beresford: This is the
shifting the goal posts so that you can change in size and shape
just to fit a referendum that you want to say yes.
Mr Corry: Can I just come in on
that? There is a problem here. Your premise is that there is no
problem, yet for some reason the government decided it wanted
to have a Regional Assembly, maybe its back benchers in the North-east
wanted it or something. But, there is a problem, a problem with
the governance of this country and that is why we at NLGN have
done a lot of work on concepts like New Localism. We have a very
centralised system in Britain, but what governments have been
doing for some time is recognising the need for a regional dimension
to policy development. There were a lot of regional institutions,
many quangos, set up under the previous government and under this
government. There is a question about whether they should continue
to be quangos or have some democratic legitimacy, and that is
a key issue. There is an issue about whether we are ever going
to sort out the relationships between central government and local
government if we do not have an intermediate tier, which just
about every other country in the world has. There is a question
about whether the voices of some of our less well off regions
are getting heard enough in Whitehall and whether elected bodies
could change this. So I think there clearly is a need for ERAs.
Whether this Bill gets it exactly right is another matter. There
is a separate set of issues about whether the set of powers and
the way they are described, will be something that the public
can understand and grasp. But I think that potentially the Bill
does give a general power to do a great deal of things. They will
be different in different regions, and it seems to me the power
allows for that. It will be up to the first set of politicians
that are playing their role in the ERAs to really make these things
hum.
Q76 Mr O'Brien: Do you have a view
on the general powers and strategies? In the White Paper it was
suggested that the number of strategy papers should be ten; in
the Bill it is suggested the mandatory should be four strategies
that should be written. What is your view on this question and
the reduction from ten to four? Is there a significance in that,
on the strategies?
Mr Corry: There has also been
a general trend in terms of local government of the government
pulling back from demanding lots of different strategies and trying
to get them all wrapped up in one community strategy. That must
be the right, basic thing to do.
Mr Adams: The principle that you
do not devolve responsibility without power must also be welcome.
There is not much point asking a Regional Assembly to develop
strategies in areas which has no executive responsibility and
little influence. So it should be up to the Assembly to decide
how it spends its time.
Q77 Mr O'Brien: There is a vast difference
from the White Paper's suggestion that they should have the strategies
set in place for the region then to reduce them from ten to four.
There seems to be a change there without any real explanation.
Mr Corry: You can see it in different
ways. All central government departments have worries about any
devolution of power, and this is why it is so difficult. They
worry that the Regional Assemblies will not care enough about
their areas, and they also of course try to keep them out of their
areas at the same time. At one point they all wanted the region
to have a strategy for their area so that they could keep an eye
on it and influence it. It may well be progress that now less
of these strategies are being mandated.
Mr Boles: I have to say that whilst
I do not agree with much else that Dan has said I do agree with
that. The real problem is that you still have four strategies
because strategies do nothing. The only point in having a strategy
is if you are the body that then does the stuff, that you provide
the stuff, you commission it. The Regional Assemblies are going
to do nothing. All of these bodies are out there doing things
already; the RDAs are working, they are doing the stuff, they
are going to continue to do the stuff. The Regional Assembly might
have some influence with the strategy but only within the Secretary
of State's guidelines. The fact is, it is just going to be a talking
shop and it will create appalling cynicism.
Q78 Mr Clelland: The problem is that
some of these organisations are not democratically accountable
and that is really what this is about. In terms of the RDA, the
biggest area of responsibility that the Regional Assemblies will
have is in the field of economic development. Do you think that
that means because of that that other areas of influence they
will have over, say, culture, sports, art, higher education will
be driven to the periphery, or do you think they will begin diverting
the resources from economic development into these areas, and
what impact is that likely to have?
Mr Corry: I think economic development
is the number one thing and is the number one thing that people
in the regions that vote for these things will be looking for.
The Assemblies will have quite strong housing and planning policies.
These are very strong powers. They do have a very strong link
with the RDA, and it was discussed earlier as to how that would
work and if it became too strong was that a problem, and so on.
So that is going to be the guts of what they do. As Warren was
saying earlier, our work in this area, including that on the London
Assembly, shows regional bodies can start to have quite a big
influence, even with their much maligned strategies, on certain
things which they do not really have much competence over, by
being focused, bringing partners and stakeholders together, and
being an influence on central government departments, and so on.
I think that its role in some areas will be much more like that,
giving regional leadership.
Q79 Mr Betts: When you read through
the Bill and the policy statement it does appear—and it
is probably taking a fairly hard view—that the powers that
the Assemblies are going to have are essentially about consulting
and being consulted about working with other agencies, about developing
strategies. That is what they are going to spend the vast majority
of their time doing. They will spend a tiny bit of their time
doing what they are told by central government in various forms
and virtually no time at all doing anything that is going to make
a significant difference. Is that a very hard judgement?
Dr Kenway: I think that is slightly
too hard a judgement. They are going to spend a lot of time doing
things that are going to make a small difference, as Dan was just
saying about the London strategies. It does seem to us unavoidable
that within this mix there has to be something in there that you
can say, when you go out on the doorsteps and argue for it or
against it, that people can understand these things are going
to have to make a difference. I cannot imagine being able to drum
up a great deal of support for a body whose primary public role
is described as being economic development. That is all very important
work but it is not the thing that is going to energise an electorate.
Mr Adams: Call me old fashioned,
but I do happen to think that ensuring that we have full employment
and we provide people with jobs, which is absolutely crucial to
individual well being, is an absolutely vital responsibility for
the public sector to have. Economic development is not a very
sexy word, but when it comes down to it the north-south divide,
regional economic disparities are of absolutely crucial importance
to the people of the north. If I can go back to Mr Betts' question,
I think there is a difference between the relationship between
the Assembly and, say, the Learning and Skills Councils or the
Highways Agencies, where you are trying to influence organisations
which are completely out of your control, and the work of the
Regional Assembly influencing and actually driving the work of
the Regional Development Agency. Experience in Wales, for example,
has shown that the Assembly, Rhodri Morgan, has very much clipped
the wings of the WDA, and has recently abolished it even. So the
political imperative for the politicians to drive their priorities
is very much there, even when you have an arm's length executive
agency like an RDA.
|
