Memorandum by COVER/VCS—East of
England (RG 94)
VCS INTEREST IN
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
— Influence: VCS wants to influence
every layer of Government given that Governments take and spend
40% of our money and control (partly from EU) 100% of the regulatory
framework shaping our lives. At the regional level for the VCS
it is about influencing regional planning and investment and monitoring
local delivery.
— Devolution: VCS is interested
as a matter of principle in devolution/distribution of power down
and away from the centre to the regions: Scotland, Wales. Northern
Ireland, English regions. It may make for better decision making
in terms of meeting regional/local needs.
— Partnership working: VCS is
interested in testing the cross sector Stakeholder/partnership
model for planning, investment and commissioning of services.
VCS REFLECTIONS ON
THE THEORY/PRACTICE
OF REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT BASED
ON EAST
OF ENGLAND
EXPERIENCE
— Regional structures: Overall
disappointment in that they reflect national rather than regional
views; devolution up not down:
— Regional Assembly: EERA,
the East of England Regional Assembly is largely ceremonial and
only meets twice a year; the Executive, Panels and Partnerships
are run by the officers and have done a reasonable job in reconciling
regional public sector, party political, business and community
interests into accepting contentious National Government Growth
Plans, targets and levels of investment for the region.
— Regional Development Agency:
EEDA has developed a Regional Economic Strategy that is uncritical
of the Government's Growth Strategy for the region and supports
contentious proposals like Stansted airport growth.
— Government Office: Go
East has a complicated job: Go East tends to be blown around by
a welter of government initiatives including: the Gershon savings
plans; the government initiatives on remodelling LSPs, on developing
LAAs, on restructuring Health and Social Care; and the impending
proposals to restructure Local Government embracing the Commissioning
out of Public Services, and the moving of government at local
level from providers to enablers of services.
— Regional Partnership Group:
An emerging, exclusive (VCS excluded) and rather secretive
Public Agencies group set up to prioritise regional delegated
spending on planning, Social Housing and Transport.
— Regional plans/investments: Mostly
reflect National Government priorities. The words are fine: Social
Justice, Economic and Social Inclusion and Environmental Sustainability
are planned. Delivery is more difficult. Money is tight, the region
is underfunded.
— Regional links to national government:
A largely administrative model of enabling National government
policy to be delivered in the region. There is the regional buffer
role, Regional Government can carry the can for unpopular policies/decisions
in planning, social housing and transport. Shooting the messenger.
— Regional links to local government:
A role of championing National government priorities and monitoring
local government compliance. Not enough carrots.
— Regional accountability: upwards
rather than downwards; administrative rather than political, social
or economic. The 26,000 largely critical responses to the Regional
Spatial Strategy will be set aside. Democratic deficit.
VCS VIEWS ON
THE FUTURES
FOR REGIONAL
GOVERNMENT
— Constitutional: Significantly
powerful Regional Government for the English regions might be
a way of avoiding an English Parliament and moves to break up
the United Kingdom.
— Administrative: Regional planning,
investment and monitoring fits better with the unitary model of
local government, the rationalisation of Health, Care, Fire, Police,
Ambulance and Learning and Skills Council structures and the LSP/LAA
model of aligning public spending and commissioning than the two
tier District/County model prevalent in the East of England. Something
has to give in the East of England either regional or two-tier
local government.
|
