Memorandum by the Institute of Local Government
Studies (RG 12)
1. Any consideration of "the potential
for increasing the accountability of decision-making at the regional
and sub-regional level" has to start from first principles
by clarifying why we might want to decentralise.
2. There are three different arguments for
decentralisation. Each leads to different kinds of "region":
(a) Central Government does not have the
capacity, or the detailed knowledge, to decide everything in Westminster
or Whitehall. Nor is it good at co-ordinating decisions which
are influenced by more than one part of Central Government. It
therefore needs agencies which do have that knowledge, and to
which it can delegate budgets, and expect that they will co-ordinate
spending. This is the administrative argument for decentralization.
(b) Certain actions, or investments, are
of greater importance when looked at from a perspective out of
London than they are from the point of view of the centre. This
particularly applies to capital investment—in ports or airports
or roads or railways—but also to economic development. For
example, in the creation of new clusters of high technology industries,
or the redevelopment of strategic sites. This is the argument
for local leadership.
(c) Finally there is an argument about local
government, which will become acute in a system of unitary local
authorities, ie without powerful county councils able to mould
and influence education and social services, and even more so
were we to break up the present unitary or metropolitan district
councils into smaller units corresponding to towns or suburbs.
There will be a need to co-ordinate the activities of small councils,
and to maintain economies of scale.
3. The administrative argument requires
a small number of large regions, perhaps 8-12, headed by strong
bureaucrats capable of co-ordinating [ie banging heads together]
and strong political leadership. If there are more than about
12 of these regions, the centre will find it hard to deal with
them, and some are likely to be neglected and unengaged. Our present
structure of standard regions is broadly constructed on this basis.
4. The argument for local leadership does
not require a particular size. It does require energy, drive,
initiative, and the ability to deal with sources of finance in
the public and private sectors [not least the EU structural funds,
now to continue to be a major force in the less prosperous parts
of the UK]. It is the foundation of the argument for city-regions,
because this type of leadership and vision is often associated
with cities. This was certainly the case in years of old. It is
closely linked with a drive for economic development.
5. The argument for co-ordinating local
government requires not too large a scale—probably not much
larger than many counties—ie 30-40 for England outside London.
They may well comprise cities and their hinterlands, but many
of the cities will be relatively small. It is primarily an argument
about service delivery, dealing with issues which the centre does
not want to get involved with [eg co-ordinated admissions systems
for a range of local schools].
6. The present system does justice to none
of these arguments.
7. The most radical innovation, with extremely
important long-term implications, was the creation of Government
Offices in the English Regions. This was done by the John Major
government, which is perhaps why many Labour politicians underestimate
its significance. At first it was only possible to get four Departments
of State to agree to co-ordination of their activities in the
regions [Trade and Industry, Transport, what was then Employment
(now the Employment and Skills part of the Department of Education
and Skills), and the then Department of the Environment, whose
responsibilities included local government and housing]. The Home
Office put one official in each Government Office. So did Culture,
Media and Sport when this Ministry was created. Eventually DEFRA
came on board [this becomes urgent when the Common Agricultural
Policy is increasingly used for diversification out of agricultural
production]. The Department of Health is still reluctant.
8. This system potentially facilitates the
co-ordination of government policy and spending at regional level.
The Government Offices could be as strong as the Scottish or Welsh
Offices were before devolution: they are dealing with populations
comparable in size to Scotland and larger than Wales. But what
they lack at present is political leadership. They do not have
strong champions or advocates at Westminster, nor do they have
any clear relationship with Regional Assemblies or any other political
structures in the regions. Recommendations 1-7 derive from this
point.
9. The less radical innovation was the creation
of Regional Development Agencies by the 1997 incoming Labour Government.
These have suffered because they are essentially regional agencies
of national government, with boards and key staff appointed centrally,
and only loose relationships with regional assemblies. They also
suffered because power was held in other national agencies, especially
English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation, the Learning and
Skills Council, Connexions, and JobCentre Plus. They also had
to deal with local government and many programmes run through
the Government Offices.
10. They were set up as Non-Departmental-Public-Bodies,
when they could have been Companies Limited by Guarantee. The
latter status would have given them a greater feel and propensity
for entrepreneurship. What has actually happened is that they
have set up companies as subsidiaries, eg Urban Regeneration Companies,
the Regeneration Zones of Advantage West Midlands, and other companies
created to develop areas of land or to promote new technologies.
The resulting patchwork quilt is confusing for everyone concerned.
Recommendations 8-9 reflect these points.
11. The currently fashionable argument for
city-regions is ultimately a distraction. They are being promoted
wherever it suits local interests. Thus the Northern Way includes
the large cities of Northern England, but excludes the rural areas,
where some of the greatest pressure on housing, and rapid population
growth, are likely to occur. In the West Midlands the term is
being used for the conurbation: the 7 metropolitan districts that
comprised the former West Midlands County Council. City-Regions
are being promoted in Essex and Cambridgeshire. There is every
prospect, if we go down this road, of another type of patchwork
quilt, of different sizes and types of city-region, and long-term
uncertainty as to their freedoms and flexibilities, and terms
of reference.
12. Any system to replace what we have at
present needs to be simple and effective, with cross-party political
support to maximize its chances of survival long-term. It is not
possible in the short or medium term to hold direct elections.
But then there are advantages in indirect election, because this
is a means of knitting the regional institutions to the sub-regional.
13. The argument above leads to the following
recommendations, which, if taken together, would bring both the
Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies into close
relationships with the Regional Assemblies:
Recommendation 1. The process, started by
John Major, of developing strong government offices in the regions,
should be continued, through to its logical conclusion, where
the regional activities of all relevant government departments
are co-ordinated through them.
Recommendation 2. They should be headed by
powerful civil servants, appointed by the Regional Assembly.
Recommendation 3. The Regional Assembly should
develop structures ["portfolios"] which would mirror
the main activities of the Government Offices.
Recommendation 4. The Chair of the Regional
Assembly should have a title: First Minister, President, Convenor,
or perhaps Lord Lieutenant (recognising, in constitutional terms,
that he or she would also be the Queen's representative in that
region).
Recommendation 5. Each portfolio should be
overseen by an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, involving elected
members from a number of local authorities across the region concerned.
Recommendation 6. There should also be a
cabinet member in the Westminster cabinet responsible for each
region [this would be in addition to holding another portfolio,
but it would give each region a voice at the highest table].
Recommendation 7. English Partnerships, the
Housing Corporation, the Learning and Skills Council, Connexions,
JobCentre Plus, and perhaps the Further Education Funding Council
should be wound up as national bodies, and made responsible to
the Government Offices at regional level.
Recommendation 8. The Regional Development
Agencies should be reformed as companies limited by guarantee,
and be seen as agencies for developing regional investments in
land or intellectual property, with a board wholly or largely
appointed by the Regional Assembly and reporting administratively
and for budget purposes to the Government Office.
Recommendation 9. All existing companies
set up to develop sites or areas, for example Urban Regeneration
Companies, should be reviewed, to decide if they would be better
served by reporting administratively and for budget purposes to
the Government Office.
Recommendation 10. The boundaries of regions
should be reviewed, as a whole, and with the above schema in mind.
In particular the present South East Region should be divided
into three sub-regions (Kent; Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Isle
of White; Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire [possibly with
Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes and Hertfordshire]). The South-West
could be divided into two, the area more closely relating to Bristol
and Bath, and the area that more closely relates to Exeter.
Recommendation 11. The Regional Assemblies/Government
Offices should have direct funding from Westminster, which would
cover expenditure on the main services administered by local government—a
similar model to the Welsh and Scottish Offices pre-devolution.
They would have access to capital funds from the EU, and from
prudential borrowing.
|
