1 Introduction
1. The Government's regional objectives for the English
regions have been expressed in recent years through two Public
Service Agreements. The first focused upon raising the economic
performance of the regions, which, with the exception of London
and the Greater South East, trail the European average.[1]
The second sought to "Provide the opportunity by the end
of this Parliament [2001-05] for a referendum on regional government
in regions where there is a demand for it".[2]
2. Accordingly a trial referendum on the establishment
of an elected regional assembly was held in the North East—believed
to be the region with the strongest cultural identity— on
4 November 2004. More than three quarters of those who voted in
the referendum voted 'No'.[3]
While it has subsequently been argued that the reasons for this
'No' vote were complex, the very public failure of this pilot
project put an end to the Government's hopes of establishing elected
regional assemblies anywhere in England for the time being.[4]
Plans to hold further referendums in the North West and Yorkshire
and the Humber were shelved: a new regional policy was required.
3. Our inquiry was prompted by the fact that, more
than twelve months after the North East referendum, the new direction
of the Government's regional policy was still not readily apparent.
We therefore sought to probe the likely future direction of this
policy and initially posed the following series of questions:
- the potential for increasing
the accountability of decision-making at the regional and sub-regional
level, and the need to simplify existing arrangements;
- the potential for devolution of powers from regional
to local level;
- the effectiveness of current arrangements for
managing services at the various levels, and their inter-relationships;
- the potential for new arrangements, particularly
the establishment of city regions;
- the impact which new regional and sub-regional
arrangements, such as the city regions, might have upon peripheral
towns and cities, and
- the desirability of closer inter-regional co-operation
(as in the Northern Way) to tackle economic disparities.
4. After assessing the original submissions to our
inquiry, however, we refined these questions to two:
- How does the current system
of regional governance actually work?
- What role would city-regions play in the future
development of regional policy?
The current system has inserted a layer of governance
between national government and local government which consists
primarily of three 'pillars': the Government Office, the Regional
Development Agency and a Regional Assembly. These organisations
have a strategic role, advising central Government on the implementation
of policy and on spending, based on an understanding of regional
needs and priorities. Their role is, however, neither fully understood
nor supported by much of the public. Within the last few years
an argument has been developing about the potential for cities
to play a greater role in determining the strategic needs of sub-regions,
and driving economic development. If this argument is taken to
its logical conclusion it is possible to envisage a situation
in which, ultimately, a network of cities with strategic powers
to determine planning and investment might render the existing
regional governance structures largely obsolete. Our report therefore
seeks to examine the current state of development of both policies
and to draw some conclusions about how each might be taken forward.
5. The concept of a region can be difficult to define.
As the New Local Government Network (NLGN) have recently acknowledged,
different perceptions are held of what constitutes a region, depending
to a great extent upon a combination of cultural, historical,
social and geographical factors. For some, allegiance to a particular
area is tremendously important—for example, we received
letters and evidence from a number of Cornish groups calling for
Cornwall to be recognised as a region in its own right—while
to others it is not. The NLGN adopted the following definition
of a region:
"a set of communities, towns and cities who
share a similar provincial position and who hold a legitimate
claim as a territory without which England would not be recognisable".[5]
Since our report is primarily concerned with the
operation of existing administrative structures, we use the term
'region' to refer to the nine administrative regions within which
the existing regional governance structures operate.
6. A number of individuals argued against any form
of regionalism within England and urged us to start by considering
whether it would be preferable to abolish the existing structures
completely. We have not done this, as we had formally adopted
the referendum in the North East, and the practical consequences
of the 'No' vote, as our starting point. Nonetheless we wish
to acknowledge that there is a body of opinion which profoundly
disagrees with the whole concept of regional governance.[6]
7. In the course of our inquiry we have received
over 100 memoranda, and have taken oral evidence from 61 individuals
representing 35 organisations. We have conducted two seminars,
on the machinery of regional government and on international models
of city-regions, and have undertaken two study visits: to Bristol,
Exeter and Exmouth; and to Lille, a French city-region of many
years' standing. We are very grateful to all those who have contributed
to our inquiry and enabled us to take on board such a wide range
of views.
8. We wish to record particular thanks to our advisers,
Sir Les Elton and Professor Alan Harding, and to Paul Hildreth
and Professor Peter Newman who provided additional support and
expertise for our seminars. Their help has been invaluable.
1 PSA2 (Regional Economic Performance), Spending Review
2002. PSA 2 is shared by ODPM/DCLG, the Department of Trade and
Industry and H M Treasury. Regional GDP per capita for 2004 calculated
from News Release 23/2007, Eurostat, 19 February 2007 Back
2
PSA3 (Elected Regional Assemblies), Spending Review 2002 Back
3
The outcome was 77.9 per cent (36.7 per cent of the local electorate)
against; 22.1 per cent (10.4 per cent of the local electorate)
in favour. Why the North East said 'No': the 2004 referendum
on an elected Regional Assembly, Briefing No. 19, ESRC, February
2005 Back
4
See for example Ev 7, 66, 134-5, HC 977-II, 2005-06 (hereafter
HC 977-II) Back
5
Ed Balls MP, John Healey MP and Chris Leslie, Devolution and
Evolution in England (NLGN. London, July 2006) p30 Back
6
We have not published this correspondence in its entirety, as
much of it did not relate directly to the points which we had
agreed to address. We have, however, reproduced sample letters
in our volume of evidence and the remaining papers are available
for inspection in the Parliamentary Archives. Back
|
