Memorandum by Essex County Council (RG
92)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Essex County Council believes regional
government is deeply flawed. It is unaccountable and lacks resonance
with the general public. The region is too large a structure to
be an effective form of governance; it ignores or downplays the
very real differences that exist among its constituent parts.
2. In spite of the November 2004 North East
vote, it appears central government is set on a regional programme,
with police and health restructuring indicating the future direction
of policy. The current focus on size and uniformity rather than
ability to do the job is likely to damage service delivery and
citizen satisfaction.
3. Almost half of England's population live
in county areas. The model of the core county or county region
should be factored into the current debate around core cities
and city regions.
IS THERE
A FUTURE
FOR REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT?
4. The answer, in short, must be "no".
5. The nine English regions are artificial
constructs that see Liverpool and the Lake District brought together
in a North-West region, Swindon and the Scilly Isles sitting at
opposite ends of the South-West region and Thurrock joining Fenland
in the Eastern Region. Too large and too diverse, they lack both
social and economic cohesion.
6. This is reflected in the fact that in
2000, only 7% of polled Essex citizens identified "their"
region correctly. Three years later, the percentage had not changed.
Nearly a quarter (24%) believed Essex was part of the "South
East".[1]
There is little reason to believe the situation has altered a
great deal in the last three years.
7. The North East referendum result of November
2004 showed that, even in an English region with a common shared
identity, there was little support for regional governance. Academic
analysis suggests that the "No" vote was driven by a
concern that regional government would waste money and lead to
higher taxes, while having little impact in boosting the region's
economy or voice in Europe.[2]
The conclusion must be that people fail to identify with their
region; they also fail to see what positive elements regional
government adds to the mix.[3]
THE LOCAL
CONTEXT
8. Essex has a population of 1.3 million
(1.6 million if the unitary authorities of Southend and Thurrock
are included)—some 24% (or 30%) of the regional total. The
value of total production within Essex was an estimated £16,528
million in 2002—the county's economy the tenth most valuable
in the UK and the second most valuable economy in the East of
England.[4]
Yet only 20% of the Regional Assembly's current membership represents
Essex constituencies. Essex's opinion does not carry the weight
the county's demographic and economic position would lead one
to expect.
9. This is particularly problematic when
one considers that many of the issues our county faces—housing,
economic development, and transport among them—differ from
the challenges faced by our regional colleagues.
10. Essex is London-facing. Essex's policy
issues have more in common with those of the capital and its satellite
counties than Norfolk or Peterborough. Whilst we actively work
with other Eastern authorities where a community of interest exists
(Haven Gateway, Stansted, 2006-07 finance settlement) there are
few instances where close collaboration is possible.
11. The same must hold true for a number
of other authorities in this and other regions—regional
government ignores very real differences. The counties, economies
and issues that exist within regions are too diverse to be able
to be lumped together.
12. Regional government is too remote to
adequately address the needs of citizens. It is also unaccountable.
At present no-one is directly elected to a seat in regional government—but
even if we hypothesise that an elected Eastern region assembly
were introduced, the draft Regional Assembly Bill suggests each
assembly member would have c 200,000 constituents. In comparison,
the average Essex-based Westminster MP represents 94,000 citizens,
and the average county councillor represents just over 17,000.
A strong link between elected representatives and voters is critical
if we are to ensure the public sector delivers excellent, and
accountable, services.
13. Our recent experience of negotiating
a Local Area Agreement has highlighted the wide divergence between
what local people value and what regional government considers
important. Among local partners, regional development agencies
and assemblies are too often felt to be a brake on effective working
and progress.
DEVOLUTION OF
POWERS
14. We have argued for a number of years
that central government should promote greater autonomy for strong
performing local authorities, not the devolution of power to regions.
15. As a county council, Essex believes
strongly in devolving decision-making powers. We are committed
to letting local people decide on issues that affect them and
we would welcome greater devolution of powers from both the centre
and the region to the sub-regional level. There are no obvious
operational barriers to devolving those powers that currently
reside at the regional level to county councils.
16. The Audit Commission's latest CPA results
show that 41% of county councils are 4-star authorities—including
Essex. In comparison, only 25% of metropolitan borough councils,
21% of London boroughs, and 19% of unitaries have been awarded
the four-star designation. County councils are effective, accountable,
and grounded in a geography that resonates with local people.
17. Regional assemblies, development agencies
and other quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations operate
in an increasingly crowded public sector. Local authorities, though,
have a unique selling point—democratic legitimacy. We should
see it as a source of pride that local electors have the opportunity
to vote out their local councillor, and as a cause of concern
the citizen has no source of redress if unhappy with the policy
emanating from the region or those bodies that deliver the region's
agenda.
18. Regional advocacy of social and economic
development and environmental protection is similar to the role
of local authorities as set out in the Local Government Act 2000.
Local government is increasingly a commissioner of services. Regional
government seeks to operate in the same sphere. The question arises
as to what extent the duplication of roles is desirable.
19. EEDA often appears to act as an unnecessary
filter between central and local government. It is inherently
inefficient for local authorities and other local providers to
bid for public funds as every bid submission has an opportunity
cost attached.
20. Paradoxically, large regions lack economies
of scale. They are top-heavy—EEDA forecasts that it will
spend 8% of its budget on administrative running costs in 2005-06.
While accounting protocols differ between regional and local government,
based on CIPFA's Finance and General statistics, Essex County
Council in 2004-05 spent around 1.6% of its total budget on non-direct
service related functions (classified "as central services")—with
the typical county council spending 1.9% on these central services.[5]
21. There is, of course, a need for some
administration to ensure funds are directed to where they will
have greatest effect. Yet this could happen at the local level.
Local Area Agreements have shown local authorities are able to
act as local commissioners and/or deliverers as appropriate. We
have an obligation to ensure public money is spent wisely and
it is not clear to what extent the regional assembly or the RDA
adds value to the process.
22. The public sector should be judged on
its deeds, not its words. It is local government, that educates
the young, that keeps the environment clean, that provides adult
social care services to the elderly. These are important tasks
that need to be responsive to local need.
SIZE SHOULDN'T
MATTER
Police and health restructuring
23. Counties have been the basis of England's
police outside London for as long as there has been an organised
police force. There is no logical reason for regional or sub-regional
police forces. Nor is the Home Office's assumption that 4,000
officers is the minimum level at which a police force can function
effectively at all obvious.
24. West Mercia is the country's best performing
police authority. It has 2,500 officers and is destined for a
four-way merger with the West Midlands, Staffordshire and Warwickshire
constabularies. Yet West Mercia is proof that quality of policing
matters more than adherence to an arbitrary number of officers.
Essex Police has 3,230 officers and, in the opinion of both the
Essex public and the government's own inspectorate, performs well.[6]
In its most recent inspection it had stable or improving performance
across the board. Moreover, Essex Police have consistently exceeded
government efficiency targets over the last five years and have
one of the lowest levels of police expenditure in the country.
25. If Essex Police were to merge with other,
higher precepting, forces in the region, Essex citizens would
have to pay more council tax. Our analysis suggests that if Essex
merged with:
— Suffolk and Norfolk, the police precept
would rise 14%;
— Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, the
police precept would rise 5%; and
— the whole region, the police precept
would rise 15%.
26. In return for increased council tax,
Essex citizens would receive a less effective, less accountable
service.
27. As with policing, so with health. Both
Ambulance Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities are likely to
become regional bodies, although there is no clear reason why
either would provide a more effective service if run regionally.
28. When examining government plans to alter
current Primary Care Trusts, the Commons Health Select Committee
suggested it took 18 months after a restructuring for organisations
to recover and hit their former service levels—and an additional
18 months for substantive improvements to be seen.[7]
Unfortunately, it is the tax-paying general public who receive
an inferior service in the meantime. While there may be a case
for slightly larger structures here what must be recognised is
that what PCTs currently lack in scale, they make up for in responsiveness,
local focus, and local accountability.
City regions and core cities
29. Since November 2004, much has been made
of the concept of core cities or city regions. It is plain that
cities exert a pull on their surroundings. It is also true that
in for much of England beyond the urban north of the country,
the economic geography of growth maps closely onto county boundaries.
To take Essex as an example, 71% of residents work in the county,
and 85% of people who work in the county are also residents.
30. London and Manchester aside, the Essex
economy is worth more than that of any major UK city. If an expanded
Birmingham can be viewed as an economic entity, then so can Essex.
31. Analysis shows that Essex more than
holds its own against the eight conurbations labelled core cities
by Mr Miliband. Picking three key economic indicators, Essex has:
— a greater proportion of its working
age population economically active than any core city;
— an unemployment rate lower than any
core city; and
— a lower proportion of public sector
employees than any core city.
32. There is no need for uniformity. Central
government must recognise, and accept, that local circumstance
will dictate the structures that evolve. Whilst the core city
may be a valid model in metropolitan areas, the concept of the
core county is equally valid in areas with a diverse rural/urban
mix.
33. Regional cities, core cities, or city
regions are simply an acknowledgement of the influence an economically
successful location can have on its environs. What they are not,
and what they must not be allowed to become, is an inappropriate
role model, fragmenting current, successful, administrative structures.
34. Co-operation among local authorities,
businesses and community groups to improve the local environment
is part of day-to-day governance. Essex is working with:
— London boroughs, unitary councils,
businesses and the voluntary sector to ensure the Thames Gateway
offers people truly sustainable communities;
— Brentwood district council, Thurrock
unitary and the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Enfield,
Havering, Newham, Waltham Forest, and Redbridge in an informal
senior level partnership to discuss issues of mutual shared interest
such as transport infrastructure, social worker retention, procurement,
and shared resources; and
— the full gamut of public sector,
community and voluntary sector, and representatives of the private
sector as part of our cross-cutting Local Area Agreement.
CONCLUSION
35. David Miliband recently wrote that he
wanted "strong leadership; a focus on the neighbourhood level;
innovative service delivery; and value for money" from local
government.[8]
We believe local people want the same and that is why Essex has
been delivering these for many years.
36. Regional government is flawed. It is
too remote, lacks accountability and is based on questionable
bureaucratic logic not natural communities. It duplicates work
done elsewhere by other more effective, more accountable parts
of the public sector.
1 MORI, Essex Residents Survey 2003, November
2002-February 2003. Back
2
Rallings & Thrasher, "Why the North East said `No': the
2004 referendum on an elected Regional Assembly", Devolution
Briefings Briefing No 19, February 2005, Local Government Chronicle
Elections Centre, University of Plymouth. Back
3
See ICM Research, Regional Government Survey, January 2003. Back
4
Headline gross value added (GVA) by NUTS3 area at current basic
prices 2002. Office for National Statistics 2005. Crown Copyright. Back
5
Compare EEDA, Progress Report for April-September 2005, available
online at www.eeda.org.uk with CIPFA's Finance and General Statistics,
available online at www.cipfastats.net Back
6
MORI, Essex Citizens' Panel-Wave 4, January-March 2005
and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Baseline Assessment
Essex Police, October 2005. Back
7
House of Commons Health Committee, Changes to Primary Care
Trusts, Second Report of Session 2005-06, 11 January 2006,
pp 4-5. Back
8
Miliband, Local Government Chronicle, 1 December 2005. Back
| 
