DEVOLUTION WITHIN ENGLAND
202. A third response to the English question is
devolution or decentralisation within England. Peter Facey, Director,
Unlock Democracy, argued that the broader English question around
the governance of England post-devolution cannot be addressed
"without dealing with decentralisation".[339]
In his submission to the Committee, Lord Tyler CBE, author
of the Liberal Democrats policy paper, For the people, by the
people, argued that the Government should return to the question
of devolution within England, "radically decentralising power
to the English regions".[340]
203. Unlock Democracy also supports devolution within
England. It said: "devolution in England should take the
form of directly elected regional government. It is difficult
to see what powers there are that would only apply to England,
which could not be devolved to a regional level. However, this
would have to involve significant devolution of power from Westminster
and not just the regional administration proposed for the North
East. Nor would it have to mean devolution to existing governmental
regions. There is a strong case for devolving power in some areas
down to the local area as some local authorities in southern England
are larger than member states of the European Union".[341]
Sarah Ayres, University of Bristol, concluded that "if you
want to really address the English question
elected regional
assemblies seem the only option".[342]
204. The proponents of elected regional assemblies
regard them not primarily as a solution to the 'West Lothian'
question, but as reversal of the centralising tendency of government
in England, as a means of providing democratic accountability
to the wider range of regional decision making bodies set up under
successive governments, and as a means of enabling regions with
problems as significant as those of Scotland and Wales to adopt
measures and promote solutions which can deal with them. Elected
regional assemblies would be only a partial answer to the West
Lothian question for two reasons: first, unless all regions had
elected assemblies, at least part of England would continue to
have matters which are devolved elsewhere governed from Whitehall
and Westminster. Secondly, it is generally accepted that English
regions would not have or need the same range of powers as the
Scottish Parliamentfor example, no-one assumes that a region
of England should have a separate criminal law. The United Kingdom
Government and Parliament would therefore retain in England and,
to a significant extent, in Wales, powers which were devolved
in Scotland.
205. Regional devolution was what the Government
had intended for England post-devolution. Following the creation
of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies (and the London Mayor
and Greater London Authority), in 2002 the Government published
its White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the
English Regions, which outlined its proposals for elected
regional assemblies in England. Following consultation by the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, an announcement was made
in June 2003 that referendums would be held in the North East,
North West, and Yorkshire and the Humber regions.[343]
206. In July 2004
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister further announced that
only the North East would move forward to a referendum. Citing
concern over reports of irregularities in the all-postal voting
process during the June 2004 local and European Parliament elections
in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber, the then Local
Government Minister Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP said that the North
East had "consistently welcomed" all-postal ballots
and had shown "clear expectation and overwhelming support
for a referendum".
207. The Government abandoned its plans for regional
assemblies for England in 2004 following the rejection of a regional
assembly in the north of England by a majority of four to one.[344]
Several reasons have been identified for the referendum result,
particularly the fact that very limited powers were offered to
the Regional Assembly leading to a very strong perception in the
public attitudes data that this was going to be an expensive talking
shop which would not make any difference because it had no serious
powers.[345] Councillor
Faulkner, Newcastle City Council, told the Committee that "there
was not enough on offer for people to feel it would make a difference".[346]
Professors Rallings and Thrasher also identified "dissatisfaction
with government policy and a distrust of politicians in general"
as a partial explanation for the outcome of the referendum vote.[347]
208. In particular the referendum was linked to controversial
changes to the local government structure which were subsequently
implemented in spite of the 'No' vote.[348]
The referendum took place at a time when the Government itself
was a great deal more unpopular than it was at the time of the
London referendum in 1998, which had approved the creation of
an Assembly and Mayor. It had been assumed that the North East
was the area most likely to support a regional assembly, and the
defeat meant that no further referendums were held.
209. However, witnesses identified two key points
in relation to the Government's regional policy and any consideration
of the future of regional government in England. First, regional
assemblies were "the tip of the regional iceberg" and
since 2004 there has been a steady growth and development in both
regional infrastructure and policy. The second and related point
is the question of whether there is likely to be demand for the
democratization of those structures. Professor Hazell has identified
what he describes as "a form of creeping regionalism"
over the years which was likely to continue and might lead to
the re-emergence of the demand to democratise regional structures.[349]
Councillor Faulkner told the Committee "there is a common
view emerging ... there will come a time when people want to do
it again".[350]
Unlock Democracy told us that they were currently "toying
with the idea of an English devolution enabling act".[351]
210. Mark Sandford, formerly of the Constitution
Unit, UCL, commented that:
"English regional government
has been
a bigger and more complex story than elected regional assemblies
for a long time. The proposals in the 2002 White Paper, Your
Region, Your Choice,
were only the tip of the regional iceberg. Even if the North-East
had voted in favour of an elected assembly, the changes to regional
governance that would have been wrought as a result would have
been less significant than what has already happened in the spheres
of administration, planning and economic management. Unelected
regionalisation of government functions is proceeding apace, quite
separately from the headline-grabbing elected assembly agenda".[352]
211. Sub-national government and regional government
within England are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice.
This is indicative of the Government's approach to devolution
and is a potential example of the impact of the missing centre
identified earlier in the report.[353]
What follows is therefore a review of regional structures and
key developments in regional policy following the failed referendum
in the North East as an attempt to look at regional and other
forms of devolution within England as a potential solution to
the centralisation of power and accountability within the UK.
212. In 2002 the Government published its White Paper
Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions.
It asserted that administrative decentralisation "will make
the delivery of programmes and policies more efficient and ultimately
lead to better outcomes in all regions".[354]
Regional reforms were targeted in three key areas. First, as a
step towards regional democracy, voluntary Regional Chambers (subsequently
restyled 'Assemblies') comprising local authority leaders and
representatives of other regional economic and social interests
were established to perform strategic co-ordination and democratic
oversight. Second, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were appointed
to co-ordinate regional economic development and regeneration
initiatives and promote the regions' competitiveness. Government
Offices in each region had been set up by the previous Conservative
Government, and their roles were extended to provide central government
with a more coherent presence in the regions. In addition to extending
democracy, therefore, the Government's reforms were motivated
by a desire for gains in efficiency and policy effectiveness.[355]
Administrative devolution within Englandto the Government
Office in each region, to the Regional Development Agency and
to other bodies such as the policehas also been reflected
in the voluntary moves to co-terminosity an the Government Office
boundaries of business organisations, local government groupings
and voluntary sector bodies.
213. The Government's Review of sub-national economic
development and regeneration (SNR), has been the subject of
ongoing consultation. The Government published its response to
this consultation in November 2008.[356]
The review proposed abolishing Regional Assemblies by 2010 and
expanding the remit and powers of Regional Development Agencies
by giving them strategic oversight of transport, planning and
housing matters currently dealt with by the Regional Assemblies.
Under the proposals in the Sub National Review, local authorities
will be encouraged to establish effective scrutiny of regional
matters, in particular the work of their Regional Development
Agencies, and parliamentary accountability will be strengthened
(the document states that the Government will "work with
Parliament" to determine how this might be achieved).[357]
214. Alongside this developing infrastructure, the
Government have made plans for strengthening regional accountability.
These were set out in The Governance of Britain, and include
the establishment of regional select committees, one for each
of the nine English regions. It has been suggested that these
select committees would examine the work and activities of regional
bodies, in particular the Regional Development Agencies, and call
ministers, including the relevant regional Minister, to account.
Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP described these as "a gimmick and
public relations".[358]
215. The Communities and Local Government Select
Committee Report, Is there a future for Regional Government?,
proposed the establishment of a select committee for each region
"which might meet a limited number of times (perhaps in conjunction
with the relevant Assembly) in order to examine the work of key
regional bodies and call Ministers to account for their performance".[359]
216. On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed
to establish eight regional select committees. The Standing Order
stated that the regional select committees shall be appointed
to "examine regional strategies and the work of regional
bodies" for the eight English regions, excluding London.
The Government's intention was that the committees would look
at the "development or implementation of policies where there
is a regional aspect to decision-taking and delivery, and would
not be focused on the purely local impact of nationally set policies".[360]
The Standing Order establishing these Committees took effect from
1 January 2009, and the Committees met for the first
time during March 2009.[361]
However, only Labour members have been appointed to the Committees
because the Conservative Party was opposed in principle to the
Committees and the Liberal Democrats objected to the fact that
the Committees' composition would not reflect the balance of MPs
in the region, but were in accordance with the UK balance of seats
in the House of Commons. As a result, neither opposition party
chose to put forward nominations.
217. Ministerial posts for the regions were created.
The Governance of Britain defines the role of Regional
Ministers as to:
- "advise the Secretary
of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the
approval of regional strategies and appointment of RDA Chairs
and Boards;
- represent regional interests in the formulation
of central government policy relevant to economic growth and sustainable
development in areas that have not been devolved to the RDAs;
- facilitate a joined up approach across government
departments and agencies to enable the effective delivery of the
single regional strategy;
- champion the region at high level events and
with regard to high profile projects (including through a programme
of regional visits); and
- represent the Government with regard to central
government policy at regional select committee hearings and at
parliamentary debates focused specifically on the region".
[362]
218. Ministers designated as a regional minister
do this work in addition to their responsibilities as Ministers
in a variety of departments. The Government has also introduced
Regional Boards for local authority leaders in order to address
issues of regional accountability. However, Lord Tyler CBE argued
that these new structures of regional accountability were "no
substitute for holding to account the government office for that
region and the development agency for that region ... it ... has
proved to be an inadequate answer to a very real question of real
devolution, real decentralisation within England".[363]
219. While Councillor Faulkner said: "
what is on offer through sub-national review
gives us more
of a chance than we have had for decades",[364]
Phil Davis, Campaign for the English Regions said that the West
Lothian question would "only be resolved by creating an accountable
structure
in each of the English Regions",[365]
and as Professor Mawson argued, this would "give the English
regions the maximum amount of flexibility to shape the structures
of government to the context within each of the regions".[366]
Phil Davies concluded that "
it may be possible to
improve the present process
and there are aspects of the
sub-national review which could do that, but it is not an answer
to the fundamental constitutional question of balancing the new
UK devolved constitution".[367]
220. The Government has acknowledged the need for
greater devolution within England as part of their response to
the English question. Thus while Rt Hon Jack Straw MP saw "no
good case for having a separate Parliament for England,"
he identified that "the bigger issue within England is to
see a degree of further devolution, as we have achieved in London,
to local government units".[368]
However, the debate is ongoing as to the form which that devolution
should take. Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP said that "regional
government is pretty dead in England now".[369]
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP agreed to an extent and said that while "nothing
is closed for ever and a day
I think
people have
moved on from there and they are more interested in ideas of strengthening
the existing local government units and the development of
city regions".[370]
221. Sarah Ayres, University of Bristol, said that
since 2004 the Government had attempted to tackle the English
question "under administrative decentralisation
putting
down more functions and powers to the existing administrative
tier".[371] She
identified that these developments had focused on the "technocratic
argument
efficiency, effectiveness and economic productivity,
which perhaps is the sub-national review remit", and that
this was how the English question was being dealt with by the
Government.[372]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENGLISH
QUESTION
222. Some have suggested that a partial answer to
the West Lothian question lies in greatly strengthening the local
government system in England and devolving to local authorities
many of the powers which were suggested for regional assemblies.
It is argued that this would be preferred in many parts of the
country over the attempt to create a structure of governance based
on more or less artificial regional boundaries.
223. Insofar as there is concern about the centralised
nature of government in Englandand the fact that UK institutions
are responsible for most English policiesthe further development
of local government clearly has the potential to be a significant
part of an answer. However, this would require a willingness to
devolve further powers and remove Whitehall financial controls
and influence to an extent which has not been a conspicuous characteristic
of the policies of recent governments. Such an approach is undermined
by the desire of ministers to make a visible impact in areas of
policy for which local government is formally responsible, such
as education. The public, and the media, often expect ministers
to take responsibility and action in cases of high profile service
failure within individual authorities.
224. There has also been a marked tendency on the
part of government to promote alternative structures to elected
authorities such as 'quangos' and partnerships through which greater
resources are channelled than are available to local authorities.
Despite the existence of local government, successive administrations
have also considered it necessary to maintain regional tiers for
many of their own operations and have taken the view that there
are matters, trunk road transport amongst them, which transcend
local authority boundaries.
225. We note that the Communities and Local Government
Committee is conducting an inquiry entitled The balance of
power: central and local government in England and the evidence
so far made available indicates that the issues under consideration
have great resonance with the aspects of devolution policy that
we have been considering; including the scope of administrative
competence, decision-making and financial freedom for local authorities.
We also note the progress of the Local Democracy, Economic
Development and Construction Bill which includes provisions
on increasing opportunities for public involvement in local decision-making
and scrutiny; new forms of joint working between local authorities;
and on the establishment of single regional development strategies
produced jointly between regional development agencies and local
authorities.
226. We have
not examined regional and local governance issues in depth during
this inquiry but clearly, in developing a clear and coherent strategy
for devolution, the Ministry of Justice, needs to take policy
developments in both areas into account and establish cross-departmental
working mechanisms with the Department for Communities and Local
Government and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform to do so.
227. However,
it does not appear likely that the powers which future governments
will be prepared to devolve to local government, will be sufficient
to meet the concerns of those who want an English solution to
the West Lothian question or those who believe that power will
continue to be exercised at regional level and wish to see those
powers made accountable and increased.
Conclusion
228. There
is no consensus about solutions to the "English question",
or the range of questions which arise under that heading. Each
suggested answer has its own problems and limitations, and while
some attempt to address issues around centralisation, others attempt
to address the West Lothian question. Those which deal to any
major extent with the West Lothian question, like an English Parliament
and English votes for English laws, raise significant problems
in a state where one of its constituent territories has 84% of
the population.
229. The implications
of having an English Government and First Minister as well as
a United Kingdom Government and Prime Minister have not been the
subject of much public discussion and are politically significant.
Approaches which make the UK Parliament into a federal Parliament
or treat English laws differently at Westminster raise questions
about the nature and role of the Second Chamber which need to
be considered as part of the discussion of Lords reform: clarification
would be needed about whether, and if not why, the Second Chamber
should consider "English" laws when it did not consider
the laws of Scotland.
230. These are
major political as well as constitutional questions which are
for Parliament as a whole to consider. It is our belief that as
devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland develops
in profile and substance, Parliament will come under pressure
to consider these questions.
256 Mr Dalyell's constituency was West Lothian, but
has since been re-named Linlithgow. Back
257
An Introduction to devolution in the UK, Research Paper
03/84, House of Commons Library, November 2003, p. 11 Back
258
Ev 228 Back
259
Q 270 Back
260
For more details see: The West Lothian Question, Research
Paper 95/96, House of CommonsLibrary, September 1995, and Library
Standard note SN/PC/2586, the West Lothian Question, 22 August
2003. Back
261
Office for National Statistics; National Assembly for Wales; General
Register Office for Scotland; Northern Ireland Statistics and
Research Agency, January 2008. Back
262
Q 170 Back
263
Robert Hazell "Introduction: what is the English Question"
in R Hazell (ed) 2006, The English Question (Manchester
University Press), p. 1. Back
264
Ibid, Page 3-5 Back
265
Q 114 Back
266
Q 116 Back
267
An Introduction to devolution in the UK, Research Paper
03/84, House of Commons Library, November 2003, p. 11 Back
268
Q 298 Back
269
Ev 239 Back
270
Q 127 Back
271
Q 130 Back
272
Q 119 Back
273
Q 24 Back
274
Q1 Back
275
Q 17 Back
276
Q 161 Back
277
Q 146, Ev 150 Back
278
Q 155 Back
279
Q 17 Back
280
Campaign for an English Parliament, The Constitutional Case
for an English Parliament, p 8 Back
281
Ev 156 Back
282
Q 6 Back
283
Q 17 Back
284
Q 726 Back
285
Ev 169 Back
286
Q 22 Back
287
Q 127 Back
288
Ev 239 Back
289
Ev 157 Back
290
Q 164 Back
291
Q 24 Back
292
Q 24 Back
293
Q127 Back
294
Q 130 Back
295
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2200804,00.html Back
296
Q 129 Back
297
Conservative Party, Democracy Taskforce Report, Answering the
question: devolution, the West Lothian Question and the future
of the Union, July 2008. Back
298
See also The West Lothian Question, Library Standard note
SN/PC/02586. Back
299
HC Deb, 7 November 2007, col 1497 Back
300
Ev 225 Back
301
Q 130 Back
302
Q 18 Back
303
Q 25 Back
304
Q 79 Back
305
Available at www.observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331157098-102273 Back
306
Q 167 Back
307
www.economist.com/world/britain/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10064563 Back
308
Q 130 Back
309
Q 130 Back
310
Q 6 Back
311
HC (2005-06) 983 Back
312
For example see HC Deb, 16 November 2006, cc9-10WS, and HC Deb
,7 November 207, cc11-3WS. Back
313
HC Deb, 13 December 2006, col 1059W. See also House of Commons
Library Standard Note SN/PC/02586, 18 July 2008. Back
314
For further information on the operation of the Sewel Convention
see Library Standard Note SN/PC/2084 The Sewel Convention.
The Library's territorial extent chart shows which UK Parliament
bills had a Legislative Consent Motion (Sewel Motion) agreed in
respect of them in the Scottish Parliament. See http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/tc_bills.xls Back
315
For further information see Library Research Paper 05/90 The
Government of Wales Bill, Standard Note SN/PC/4407, The
Welsh Assembly elections 2007: the formation of the Welsh Assembly
Government and recent developments in the Assembly: Back
316
One example is the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001. Back
317
Ev 219 Back
318
Ev 219 Back
319
Q 130 Back
320
Q 78 Back
321
Q 499 Back
322
Q 518 Back
323
Q 130 Back
324
Q 18 Back
325
See text box on page 72 Back
326
Q 6 Back
327
Q 135 Back
328
Ev 219 Back
329
Ev 219 Back
330
Conservative Party, Democracy Taskforce Report, Answering the
question: devolution, the West Lothian Question and the future
of the Union, July 2008, p 2 Back
331
Q117 Back
332
Q 664 Back
333
Q 130 Back
334
Q 517 Back
335
Q 24 Back
336
Q 15 Back
337
Q 131 Back
338
Robert Hazell, Towards a New Constitutional Settlement: An
Agenda for Gordon Brown's First 100 Days and Beyond (Constitution
Unit: UCL), p 28 Back
339
Q 170 Back
340
Ev 223 Back
341
Ev 192 Back
342
Q 347 Back
343
Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, Why the North
East said 'No': The 2004 Referendum on an Elected Regional Assembly,
Briefing no 19, February 2005. Back
344
696,519 votes were cast against the Government's proposals, compared
to 197,310 votes in favour. Back
345
Detailed public attitudes research into the North East referendum
showed that, whilst people were absolutely unconvinced of the
model put to them, the people of the North East were, in a clear
majority, convinced that they were politically marginalised, that
they not only did not have a voice at the centre in Westminster
and Whitehall, but also that they were economically marginalised
vis-à-vis other parts of the UK, and the lack of political
voice and the sense of economic disadvantage were clearly very
important issues. Back
346
Q 332 Back
347
Why the North East said 'No': the 2004 Referendum on an Elected
Regional Assembly, Brief no. 19, February 2005. See also The
Referendum Campaign: Issues and Turning Points in the North East
, Briefing no. 20, February 2005, for an analysis of the impact
of the campaigns on the referendum result. Back
348
In both Scotland and Wales local government re-organisation took
place prior to the devolution referendum. Back
349
Q18 Back
350
Q 330 Back
351
Q 173 Back
352
Mark Sandford, Devolution is a process not a policy: the new
governance of the English regions. Briefing no.18, February
2005. Back
353
See paras 31 and 40-41 Back
354
Cabinet Office and DTLR, 2002: 3.14. Back
355
Ev 190 Back
356
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/citiesandregions/govresponseprosperousplaces Back
357
See Prof John Mawson, Regional Governance in England and Future
Challenges for Local Government, p 14 Back
358
Q 125 Back
359
Communities and Local Government Committee, Fourth Report of Session
2006-07, Is There a Future for Regional Government?, HC
352-I. Back
360
Explanatory Memorandum on the Motions in the Name of the Leader
of the House, debated in the House on 12 November 2008. Back
361
Provision was also made for Regional Grand Committees. Back
362
Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170,
para118. Back
363
Q 126 Back
364
Q 330 Back
365
Q 363 Back
366
Q 373 Back
367
Q 363 Back
368
Q 679 Back
369
Q 120 Back
370
Q 680 Back
371
Q 336 Back
372
Q 336 Back