Memorandum by The Campaign for the English
Regions (CFER) (RG 28)
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1. The Campaign for the English Regions
(CFER) was established in 2000 to campaign for the establishment
of elected regional Government in England and to represent the
views of affiliated regional organisations and other supporters
across England. The Campaign has and continues to believe in the
establishment of elected Regional Government as part of a comprehensive
devolution settlement for England.
2. Regional Government cannot and should
not be dealt with in isolation, as it has to date. It is an issue
that goes much wider than the remit of ODPM and therefore really
needs a holistic approach by Parliament. We need to learn from
the recent vote in the North East about establishing an elected
Regional Assembly based on the Government's proposals. We need
to look at our system of Government, identify the issues that
need to be addressed and the measures that can deal with them
coherently and equitably. These matters are considered below.
LESSONS FROM
THE NORTH
EAST
3. The vote in the North East was driven
by intense public distrust of Government, and a sense of resignation
that nothing could or would be changed. Regional issues were swamped
by a pervasive mistrust of politicians.[15]
Voters had no confidence that an Elected Regional Assembly as
proposed would lead to ordinary people having more say about it's
Government.
4. Voters did not understand the changes
that had and are shaping regionalisation, but they certainly took
the view that what was on offer would not address their main concerns.
They were not persuaded that the establishment of a purely strategic
body with no real executive power would make any real difference
to those areas of public policy, which were of most concern to
them in particular health, education, and crime.[16]
5. Voters were uncertain about the consequences
and benefits of the proposed change and those who voted were the
older sections of the population who were most likely to distrust
change.[17]
The vote, as often is the case in parliamentary by elections,
was a punishment for the Government reflecting dissatisfaction
with a host of issues not directly related to Regional Government.[18]
6. There was no real across the board commitment
in Government and across Departments to let go real and substantive
powers and responsibility for services. The exception was the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which heroically attempted
to carry the devolution project forward, but fought a loosing
battle in trying to pursue other Central Departments to give up
their powers and service responsibilities.[19]
As one Minister said to us, "We are not in the business of
devolving responsibility for services".
7. As a result, what the Government offered
the North East and the rest of England in 2004 did not address
a whole range of issues of concern to the public and we advised
Ministers that it would difficult if not impossible to get voters
to support them.
8. Regional Government exists. The issues
that existed prior to and pre-empted the referendum have not gone
away and remain to be addressed.
ISSUES
Accountability and representation
9. The existing electoral and appointments
systems to public bodies and the shear numbers of them who are
locally unaccountable combine to give ordinary voters little influence
over who represents and acts for them.[20]
10. There exists a plethora of sub national
local authorities and quasi-governmental organisations all of
which are ultimately controlled by London based Government. A
number of studies have detailed the scale of this locally unaccountable
government infrastructure in terms of the number of bodies and
the expenditure involved.21, 22[21][22]
11. Accountability issues will not be resolved
by the creation of further regional or sub-regional partnership
structures such as city-regions. While these may be welcomed as
giving formal institutional shape to existing co-operation, or
possibly promoting additional voluntary joint working, they are
unlikely to fill the democratic and governance vacuum at the regional
level. The key questions remain the shift of power from the centre
to the regions and from under-powered limited bodies like the
current Regional Assemblies to empowered directly accountable
regional bodies able to act in response to the regional needs.
12. The core regional issue remains one
of democratic governance and the democratic deficit for the regions
both at the centre and at the regional levels. Driven by the need
to plan and deliver the provision of improvements to regional
infrastructures and services it is not surprising that centrally
driven administrative regionalisation continues apace. What the
centre does not seem willing or able to do is to let go real power.
In a democracy only ultimate accountability to the voter confers
the legitimacy of representative government to tax and spend.
13. The English Regions are poorly represented
at Westminster. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there
is no regional focus for scrutinising Government policy and practice.
Further the membership of the House of Lords is dominated by members
resident and, or with there main interests in London and the South
East. The result is neglect of regional issues and one size fits
all approaches to public policy and service delivery across England.
Regional needs, as a consequence, fail to get addressed, take
an inordinate amount of time and inhibit innovation and regional
learning.
14. The dominance of Westminster and Whitehall
in the Government of England sucks scarce political and administrative
talent from the regions. There is now evidence of a lack of political
leadership in the regions, which needs to be addressed.
Devolution
15. Parliament and the Government continually
look to restructure sub national government, without looking at
themselves and what they can and should let go to the region and
the local.
16. Regional Government exists and is growing,
but it has no real executive power or policy discretion particular
in those policy areas of most concern to the public such as health,
education, crime and transport. It relies on informality, goodwill
and personal relations between those on the inside. Unelected,
anonymous networks, forums, institutions, experts and elites from
which ordinary people and the public are excluded or which they
chose not to connect, sustain it.
Management of services
17. There are a whole range of vital and
difficult public service and policy issues, which do not map neatly
with the mandates, competences and boundaries of existing public
bodies. Issues such as the Regional and Local tax base, Economic
Development, Spatial Planning, the provision of affordable housing,
transport including rail franchising and trunk roads, Public Health,
Education, Police, Fire and Emergency Services are too complex
to be determined by Westminster or Whitehall or by even the largest
local authorities.
18. Westminster and Whitehall are overloaded
and frustrate more than they facilitate innovative regional and
local responses to Regional and Local needs. The West Midlands
has been waiting more than 30 years for central approval of the
investment needed to put in place a modern rail transport system.
19. The existing Regional arrangements lack
legitimacy, clout and high quality political leadership. Regional
bodies are generally not held in high esteem by the few who know
anything about them. They are seen by those who have contact with
them as being expensive talking shops, providing mechanisms to
legitimise and enforce central government policy rather than acting
as a counterweight to Westminster and Whitehall and champions
of the region and the local.
20. At the Local level the system of City/metropolitan
and Shire Local Government created in the early 1970s separates
town, country, problems, and opportunities. It is further complicated
by local quasi-governmental area initiatives including Local Strategic
Partnerships, Pathfinders, New Deal and Neighbourhood Management,
Regeneration Zones etc.
21. The greater share of Central Government
expenditure and activity in the Regions remains tightly controlled
from London and not by the Region or the local.
22. Meanwhile London, Wales and Scotland
which have to varying degrees their own devolved democratically
accountable governments are developing their own distinctive approaches
to public policy to fit their needs and circumstances. Further
devolution to Wales and London is proposed.
PROPOSALS
23. The Government should now think laterally
in terms of further constitutional reform to facilitate regional
elected representation including fairer representation of the
English Regions in Parliament and in the regions.[23]
24. The public needs to be able to more
easily understand who and what acts for them. It needs simplifying
at the national, regional and local levels. We need to clarify
central and regional relations; provide for fairer regional representation
at Westminster; A new more participative and representative politics.
Central/regional relations
25. There needs to be further decentralisation
with greater autonomy for each region, elected Regional authorities
and a strengthened, more local, single tier of elected local government.
The strengthening of the Regional and Local needs to be balanced
by a downsizing of Westminster, Whitehall. The transfer of power
and the focus of representation from London to the Region and
the Local should be broadly neutral over time.
Fairer representation of the regions in the Westminster
Parliament
26. We need to root England—as the
largest country in the Union—in a balanced devolutionary
settlement addressing the unfinished business begun by devolution
to London, Wales and Scotland.
27. This might be achieved by the vesting
of regional powers in elected members of a reformed Second Chamber/House
of Lords, given election by regional lists. Much of the existing
voluntary Regional Assembly structure could be retained as a regional
scrutiny and partnership system working with the Second Chamber
Members constituted as an elected Regional Authority or Board.
Regional capacities and capabilities
28. Each Region should have the ability
and means to represent and act for their constituents within and
beyond the UK; to identify and access the resources including
taxation needed to modernise outdated infrastructure and services,
promote equal opportunities, sustainable development. Each region
needs the powers to mobilise and join up the resources which are
at present in the hands of Government departments, executive agencies,
quangos, local authorities, other public bodies and former, now
privatised public utilities.
29. The Regional Level of Government has
to be about promoting the local, the national and the international.
The Region can provide the bridge that is needed between the local
and international affairs. Regional and local Governments have
a key role to play in promoting local economic self-sufficiency
and local competitiveness in a global economy.[24]
A new politics
30. England needs a new more inclusive Politics
and Governance.
31. Electoral Reform including Fairer votes
are needed to ensure that the new Constitutional settlement and
representative Government at all levels is as inclusive as possible
providing all voters with more confidence that their views will
be taken into account.
32. There is a need to provide new opportunities
for people to serve as elected representatives regionally rather
than at Westminster. New ways need to be found for ordinary people
to be consulted and participate in public affairs. There needs
to be greater direct democratic control by the public over services
and decisions at the regional level. Accountable, elected representatives
would have a greater incentive to respond coherently to regional
and local needs than Government appointees.
33. We need to link Town and Country and
to break out of the divisive straightjackets of the local government
structures imposed in 1974 rather than using them as the basis
of some new quasi-governmental metropolitan joint committee. Such
an approach is unlikely to bring real and substantive devolution
of power, decision-making and accountability to the local or the
regions in England. We do not need a further level of government
based on arbitrary boundaries, based on outdated concepts and
circumstances. We need to recognise the interdependence of Cities,
Conurbations and rural England.
Regional boundaries
34. The existing Government Office regions
cover the whole of England. They are inclusive and embrace town
and Country. These boundaries should provide the framework for
local-to-local and region-to-region joint working. However these
boundaries need to be open so that joint working can take place
across them reflecting regional and sub regional needs, economic,
social and environmental issues that need to be addressed .We
should not be seeking to limit what alliances and partnerships
any local or region enters into. Closer cooperation and joined
up government between all elements of government both vertically
and horizontally must be a good thing and work in the interests
of the public.
35. The addition of to the existing Government
Office regions of sub regionally based governance would further
complicate and add to sub national Government in England. So called
City-region proposals based on former metropolitan Counties would
introduce a form of watered down metropolitan governance-but without
the democratic legitimacy of the old Met Counties. This "Metro
County Lite" approach risks returning us to a "solution"
appropriate to the early 70s, but since by-passed by regional
demographic, spatial and transport evolution in most of the eight
English regions. All English regions bar London are diverse mixtures
of urban and rural areas. 21st century solutions to regional regeneration
and service delivery must recognise this fact.
The process
36. We need a process of further constitutional
reform to be agreed. However the changes were have outlined are
too complex for a single approach to work. What may work within
one region may not another.
37. The changes we have outlined need to
be underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity. Westminster/Whitehall,
the Regions and the Local have a part to play. Westminster and
Whitehall should give a lead by enabling elected Regional Government
to be established. Elected Regional Government could then lead
on how it organises itself and what changes are needed to the
way services and functions are delivered regionally and locally.
Different approaches could then emerge in different regions to
reflect the very different circumstances that exist across England.
15 ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research
Programme: Briefing Note 17, February 2005. Back
16
ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research Programme:
Briefing Note 17, February 2005. Back
17
ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research Programme:
Briefing Note 19, February 2005. Back
18
ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research Programme:
Briefing Note 20, February 2005. Back
19
ODPM, Housing, Planning, Local Government and Regions Committee,
First Report of the Session 2004-05, on the draft Regional Assemblies
Bill. Back
20
ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Research Programme:
Briefing Note 18, February 2005. Back
21
Who Governs the West Midlands? An Audit of Government Institutions
and Structures: Sarah Ayres and Graham Pearce, Aston University
Business School for the West Midlands Governance Action Research
Group, 2002. Back
22
The North East of England: Land of the 1000 Quango, s; Chris
Foote Wood, October 2002. Back
23
Regions that Work: Campaign for the English Regions and the Local
Government Information Unit, March 2004. Back
24
Europe's Hi-Tech Future: The last Colonial Delusion: Caroline
Lucas and Colin Hines December 2005. Back
| 
