Recommendations
The Government Offices for the Regions
1. Public
accountability, and confidence in the Government Offices, would
be increased if more of the communications between Government
Offices and central government upon the direction of policy could
be placed in the public domain and thus open to scrutiny. We urge
the Government and the GOs to consider how progress in this direction
might be achieved, with a view to implementing changes by December
2007. (Paragraph 28)
The centre and the regions
2. there
is an urgent need for central Government to take responsibility
for streamlining and co-ordinating its own requirements of the
Government Offices. It is neither sensible nor reasonable for
each Government department to continue to press its own agenda
on the Government Offices without regard to the requirements of
others, and without consideration of the GOs' own strategic agenda.
We look to DCLG's Ministerial team to provide the necessary leadership
in Whitehall to ensure a more coherent, joined-up approach to
the mandates of the Government Offices. The range of PSA-related
targets being implemented by the Government Offices should also
be reviewed in order to ensure that resources are being directed
effectively to deliver the most important outcomes. (Paragraph
39)
3. There is a clear
lack of strategic oversight of the requirements and messages issuing
from Whitehall in respect of the Government Offices. The regional
co-ordination unit should, through Ministers, have the authority
to initiate review of Departmental requirements where they are
in conflict with, or diverge from, the framework set out for the
Government Offices in the recent review. (Paragraph 43)
4. the regional co-ordination
unit should be integrated into the main DCLG estate. (Paragraph
44)
Performance of the RDAs
5. The
Government should take account of strong local concerns about
the poor transparency and accountability of the Regional Development
Agencies and should take steps to improve both. Accountability
would be greatly assisted if the Government clarified that the
Regional Assemblies had the right to scrutinise fully the expenditure
budgets of the RDAs. (Paragraph 55)
Sustainable development
6. Environmental
sustainability is critical and without it economic and social
progress will be impossible. It is too soon to tell if the Government's
approach to regional action on sustainable development will lead
to positive, measurable outcomes. As a starting point, the Government
should ensure that the requirements it has set for the regional
institutions in Securing the regions' futures (which we have summarised
in paragraph 62) are fully met. It should also take further steps
to encourage and disseminate best practice in sustainability appraisal,
and to ensure that lines of accountability for performance against
sustainable development targets and actions are clear. (Paragraph
65)
Regional funding allocations
7. We
welcome the Government's initiative in developing the Regional
Funding Allocations exercise. Although the success of the exercise
in influencing Government expenditure has yet to be proved, we
note that the trial was widely supported and support the calls
both for the exercise to be repeated, and for the second trial
to include allocations for skills and for rail expenditure. Once
the relevant allocations have been agreed the Government should
publish its decisions together with the advice submitted by the
regions, so that the effectiveness of the process can be properly
assessed. (Paragraph 71)
The Regional Assemblies
8. there
is scope for the Government to enhance the effectiveness of the
Assemblies in serving the regional public interest through their
scrutiny work, while also increasing public understanding of,
and confidence in, the existing system. (Paragraph 92)
9. While the Assemblies
have successfully secured effective collaborative relationships
with the RDAs we are concerned that the lack of formal scrutiny
powers available to the Assemblies could be a barrier to their
work if these constructive relationships break down. (Paragraph
93)
10. Although it has
proved very valuable for the Assembly/RDA relationships to have
been established through consensus and co-operation, we believe
that the subsequent addition of formal powers would give the Assemblies
a firmer foundation for their work. The fact that such powers
have been provided for the Greater London Assembly, together with
the current Government proposal to give local authority scrutiny
committees powers to require information from the Regional Development
Agencies, adds strength to this argument. (Paragraph 93)
11. We recommend that
the Regional Assemblies be given equivalent scrutiny powers to
those held by local authority scrutiny panels, to compel the appearance
of witnesses and the production of papers. We look to the Government
to consult on the provision of such powers within the next twelve
months. (Paragraph 94)
12. we believe that
it would be advantageous for the Assemblies and RDAs to agree
and publish a joint statement setting out the basic principles
of regional assembly scrutiny and common elements of procedure,
such as the agreement between each Assembly and RDA on the timing
of a formal response to recommendations. (Paragraph 95)
Scrutiny at Westminster
13. we
accept the argument that, given the existence and increasing importance
of regional governance structures in determining policy, there
should be more thorough and consistent scrutiny of the regions
at Westminster. We are pleased that Ministers also expressed their
willingness for such scrutiny to take place. (Paragraph 112)
14. We believe that
the most effective way of securing such scrutiny would be to appoint
a select committee for each region, which might meet a limited
number of times each year (perhaps in conjunction with the relevant
Assembly) in order to examine the work of key regional bodies
and to call Ministers to account for their performance. We can
also see merit in the suggestion of additional regional debates
or question times in Westminster Hall. (Paragraph 113)
15. Consideration
of changes in the way the House of Commons operates is formally
a matter for the select committees on Procedure and Modernisation
of the House of Commons; and, ultimately, for the House itself.
We shall write to these Committees upon publication of this Report,
asking them if they will examine the effectiveness of the current
Regional Affairs Committee and the detailed implications of improved
Parliamentary scrutiny for the regions. We hope that Ministers
will continue to support any proposals for scrutiny reform at
Westminster which might arise as a consequence of such inquiries.
(Paragraph 114)
Public Service Agreement 2
16. We
welcome the Government's commitment to strengthen the evidence
base for measurement of regional economic performance. (Paragraph
120)
City Regions
17. Our
consideration of the arguments in favour of city-regions leads
us to agree with the Minister that the economic case for city-regions
is the most compelling. Further, we believe that the role which
could be played by city-regions as drivers of economic growth
can be achieved without the need for wholesale re-organisation
of existing administrative structures, which would be both costly
and slow. (Paragraph 145)
18. the Government's
stance on the development of city-regions might be described as
encouraging and permissive: the success of this approach is illustrated
by the number of submissions which we received from authorities
in developing city-regions outside the 'Core Cities'; these included
Stoke-on-Trent, Carlisle, and Hull and the Humber Ports (one of
the eight city-regions linked by the Northern Way). However,
this encouragement has yet to be matched by the specification
of powers or resources which will enable city-regions to act corporately
in new and more effective
ways. (Paragraph 158)
19. The Government
needs to be much more explicit about where, and in what circumstances,
it considers the development of city-regions would be valuable
and about how the boundaries of city-regions are to be determined.
(Paragraph 159)
20. While accountability
should be a fundamental part of any new governance arrangements,
any formal requirement for city-regions to be governed by directly-elected
mayors would require enacting legislation, which can take years
to achieve. For this reason, we welcome the softening of the
Government's stance on directly elected mayors and its new willingness
to build on existing governance arrangements. (Paragraph 167)
21. The lack of clear
detail in the Local Government White Paper on the future development
of city-regions was disappointing. While the Government's determination
to allow governance models to evolve from the 'bottom up' is,
in one sense, laudable, it has failed either to set clear parameters
for, or to express a specific vision of, what is achievable within
the constraints of national policy and available resources. This
failure is impeding realisation of the policy. Unless further
statements clarifying the potential for, and limits on, city-regions
are made soon, the city-region movement will again lose momentum.
(Paragraph 170)
22. The Government
has stated clearly on a number of occasions that, in its view,
a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to sub-regional governance will
not work. The emerging city-regions policy is an attempt to tailor
arrangements to meet specific sub-regional requirements. Having
got this far, however, it is essential that the Government should
give real assurances to those for whom a city-regional style of
governance is inappropriate that the development of the policy
will not result in a reduction of support for other areas. (Paragraph
179)
23. The Government
now needs to determine how the specific powers, resources and
governance structures of each city-region can be best designed
whilst avoiding undermining the capacity of the Regional Development
Agencies to support and promote prosperity in surrounding areas.
(Paragraph 184)
24. We would encourage
the Government to commit itself to a clear city-regions policy,
indicating the extent of city-region feasibility, and the powers
and resources which will be made available, so that this alternative
to regional governance can be properly explored. (Paragraph 188)
| 
