Memorandum submitted by The Campaign for
the English Regions
THE CAMPAIGN
FOR THE
ENGLISH REGIONS
(CFER)
CFER was established as a campaigning organisation
with a firm belief that the English regions would not realise
their full potential without some form of devolved government.
We believe that the present centralised nature of London based
government limits effective policy development, implementation
and civic engagement in a wide range of circumstances across the
regions.
Such limitations could be addressed by transferring
powers from the centre to regional and local government as well
as securing democratic oversight and enhanced accountability over
central government institutions operating within the regions.
In arguing this case CFER remains strongly supportive of Devolution
to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London.
We recognise that the distinctive features of
regional governance arrangements in the English regions and prevailing
political realities will necessitate a different and evolutionary
approach in order to close the huge democratic deficit that currently
exists in England.
TACKLING THE
ENGLISH QUESTION
The present political context presents an opportunity
to resolve the unfinished business of the devolution project as
a whole specifically the outstanding "English Question".
There is an urgent need to address the constitutional and political
imbalance that currently exists between England and the rest of
the UK.In particular action is needed to clarify the relationship
of England to the rest of the UK and to address the democratic
deficit and institutional weaknesses of individual regions.
The English Question needs a solution, which
recognises England's complexity and economic, demographic and
geographical significance within the UK, which avoids the potentially
divisive and centralising proposal for an English "national"
parliament.
An English Parliament would create an unbalanced
constitutional settlement—a problem first recognised by
William Gladstone when considering the implications of Irish Home
Rule in the 1880s. We see present governance arrangements for
the English regions as being overwhelmingly dominated by the nexus
of power and decision making based in the Capital. This centralisation
means it is difficult for Whitehall to devise and implement policies
tailored to local needs and for the regions and the local to influence
the centre. We believe an English Parliament would not resolve
but merely replicate this problem in a different form. In our
view devolution in England should be based upon the building blocks
of the regions.
CFER believes that the solution to the English
Question lies in empowering the English Regions and their local
communities by making existing administrative decentralisation
more directly accountable and understandable to the citizens it
serves and within regions more local. Decisions about devolution
should be taken in the round as part of a wider move to modernise
the political system. The piecemeal approach to parliamentary
reform, devolution, regionalisation and local government has resulted
in a patchwork of arrangements, which is neither equitable, understable,
effective or sustainable.
In adopting this solution there would need to
be machinery in place to periodically give a collective English
view(s). Where there are cross cutting UK or England-wide matters
these could be resolved by bringing the nine regions together
(including London) to operate as an English partnership expressing
a single voice where appropriate. In relation to UK matters they
could meet together in a "Council of the Isles" type
structure, which would include the Devolved Nations and the English
regions. It could establish memorandums of agreement between the
devolved nations and regions and monitor and review cross border
UK-wide policy. This might include for example strategic aspects
of planning, transport, economic development, inward investment,
international trade and environmental concerns.
We are not advocating a Federal structure, rather
a Unitary State model in which macro economic policy, defence,
international relations, social security etc. remained the responsibility
of central government whilst domestic affairs would be delivered,
to varying degrees, by devolved arrangements to the Nations and
regions based upon the specific political and economic realities
of each part of the UK.
In setting out our approach we recognise that
other alternatives have been promoted to address the "English
Question". For example, some have advocated the adoption
of city or other sub regions as the building blocks for devolved
government working alongside local government. We do not see these
approaches as mutually exclusive but rather both are integral
parts of an emerging multi-level form of governance.
From a Whitehall managerial and logistical perspective
it is difficult to deal with more than eight or nine points of
contact with the centre. The base for such contacts is now firmly
established through Government Offices for the Regions, which
currently incorporate around 10 Government departments. There
are certain strategic issues which geographically and in terms
of economies of scale and expertise demand a regional approach.
In many policy areas however, such strategies are best delivered
at a sub-regional and/or local level with the regional tier addressing
strategic cross cutting issues and providing an overall framework
and priorities within which regional strategies can nest.
Devolution as a whole has evolved across the
UK in an asymmetric fashion, reflecting national identities and
political realities at the time of change. We would argue in relation
to the position of the English regions that the present arrangements
are unbalanced across the UK as a whole and if this is not addressed,
then, in the long run the situation is likely to prove politically
unstable.
One key problem in explaining this dilemma has
been the sheer diversity of England and the absence of a strong
English identity and consensus that was reflected in political
pressures of a kind which re-ignited the demand for devolution
and separation in Scotland and Wales in the 1960s.
In England political and geographical identity
is expressed more powerfully at multiple levels in terms of localities,
rural communities, towns, cities and regions. There is no consistent
pattern of identity(s) across England rather there are overlapping
levels of individual and collective awareness. Some regions have
stronger regional identities than others (Yorkshire and Humber
and the North East) but there are also strong identities at other
levels.
Some in central Government have cited the experience
of London government as the way forward with an elected Mayor
and Assembly and a unitary tier of local government. However we
are not sanguine about the transferability of this sort of regional
or city region model of elected government to elsewhere in England.
It is important to recognise that London is a contiguous urban
area without having to deal with complex urban-rural relationships.
Moreover, London is almost unique across England in having two
clear and distinctive sets of identity with a shared commitment
as Londoners and equally strong identities associated with London
Boroughs and neighbourhood communities. Across many of the proposed
city regions, such a duality is not present making it difficult
for local politicians to forge a political community which would
recognise common interests and geographical identity. Moreover
some commentators have failed to recognise the unique political
position of the London Mayor representing six million people,
the largest political constituency in Western Europe, located
at the heart of an international city, geographically proximate
to the corridors of power and with substantial infrastructure
and investment opportunities. It is difficult to envisage how
this successful, high profile, Mayoral role could be easily replicated
elsewhere in England. Rather we take the view that to achieve
the same level of political clout and ability to mobilise investment
opportunities on a similar scale would require operating at the
higher geographical scale of the region. Even then it would be
difficult to match the performance of the London Mayoral system
given its unique position.
The arguments for devolution however, are not
based solely on whether or not there is a sense of national, regional
or civic identity. There are also important questions surrounding
the geographical scale at which the strategic policy formulation
and implementation should take place. In recent decades, for example,
there have been powerful forces of decentralisation at play in
both the public and private realms. Increasingly, government departments
and their agencies have decentralised activities and management
responsibilities to the regions either through the Government
Offices for the Regions or via non-departmental public bodies
and other agencies. Central government has also experimented with
restoring some limited powers and freedoms and flexibilities to
local government and the Lyons Review has raised the possibilities
at some stage of enhancing local taxation.
The regional governance arrangements established
and developed since 1997 (Government Offices, Regional Development
Agencies and Regional Assemblies) have seen a strengthening and
expansion of their roles largely based on the decentralisation
of powers and responsibilities from the centre not sucked up from
local government. However, while local authorities and stakeholders
have been given a seat at the table on some of these structures
it remains the case that central government is still in the driving
seat and that indirectly nominated bodies are not the most transparent
and accountable. Moreover, significant areas of public expenditure
at regional level reside outside the ambit of the Government Office
and RDA in policy areas such as Health and via non-departmental
public bodies.
Further, political, business and community leaders
in the English regions are becoming increasingly aware of the
relative advantages available to the devolved nations in terms
of their ability to pass primary and secondary legislation, the
existence of annual block budgets, access to a single unified
civil service, Secretaries of State in the Cabinet, Regional Development
Agency budgets of two to three times the size of their English
equivalents, higher levels of per capita public expenditure
and a diluted English voice in EU negotiations particularly surrounding
regional matters. These comparisons are increasingly being made
against the recognition that the populations of typical English
regions such as the West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber, are
of a similar size to that of Scotland (5 million) and larger than
that of Wales (3.5 million).
We recognise of course, that there are major
and distinctive economic, social, and environmental problems,
which necessitate a devolved approach and additional public expenditure
and further that there exists a sense of nationhood not present
to the same extent in England. Yet it could be argued that the
present balance of powers, responsibilities and financial benefits
in Scotland and Wales are disproportionate in comparison with
the position of the English regions representing in total some
85% of the UK's population.
CFER supports Devolution and therefore would
not wish to see any retreat from the present arrangements in order
to secure greater equity for the English regions even if this
were politically possible. Rather it is our contention steps should
be taken to enhance the political voice and democratic accountability
of the English regions, which would serve to strengthen their
relative position and the Devolution project as a whole. We believe
our suggested approach would achieve these objectives without
the necessity of fundamental changes in current political or administrative
arrangements.
In the following sections we set out what we
believe to be a pragmatic and politically robust model for the
development of the English Regions and which we believe could
be adapted over the course of time in response to a greater demand
for Devolution. In assuming the potential of this model as a vehicle
to address the "English Question" we have devised a
number of criteria, which are set out below. The application of
these criteria to our proposal is set out in the conclusion.
DEVOLUTIONARY CRITERIA
Genuine devolution must demonstrate that it
is across the board and not simply where it is politically expedient
to do so. CFER suggests that a number of essential criteria must
be applied to determine the basis of genuine devolution. In response
to recent developments, including the 2006 White Paper and the
Sustainable Communities agenda, we pose a number of questions
designed to shape and test the basis of a devolution settlement
for England:
1. How is accountability built into any new
forms of Governance?
2. Is there greater
co-ordination and capacity to devise policy and secure its implementation?
3. Does any specific proposal bring government
closer to the people?
4. Will there be a
reduction in the quango state and enhanced accountability and
control?
5. Will it enhance opportunities for economic
regeneration, civic renewal and more active political engagement?
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
AND THE
WAY FORWARD
The present regional governance arrangements
in England have evolved gradually over the past decade reinforced
by various central government measures. There have been question
marks over the complexity, transparency, accountability and effectiveness
of regional governance arrangements, which has been the subject
of a number of official reviews and consultancy studies.
The following section summarises some of the
main conclusions of the various regional reviews, considers outstanding
issues which need to be addressed and summarises one emerging
model of effective policy making and implementation which at the
same time offers a potential vehicle for more democratic regional
governance.
In addressing the questions we can draw on the
findings of various recent studies and enquiries.
RECENT FINDINGS
ON REGIONAL
GOVERNANCE
— The House of Commons Communities
and Local Government Committee (2007) emphasises the continuing
importance of the regional level in public policy together with
the importance of working alongside activities at sub-regional
and local levels.
The regional dimension is seen as particularly
significant "in relation to issues such as environment,
resilience and strategic planning for housing, industry and transport".
— In seeking to achieve improved effectiveness
and credibility of the regional governance framework (GO, RDA,
RA) the House of Commons report argues that there needs to be
greater local accountability and more dialogue with the centre.
— The Ove Arup Evaluation of the
Role and Impact of Regional Assemblies for CLG (2006) concludes:
"In general, the recent round of regional plan making
can be seen as a success. In particular the extent of the evidence
base is much better... It is also clear that regional planning
and transport is now a much more central policy function... The
new round of RSS takes a pragmatic and functional approach to
sub-regional planning breaking away from the old county based
sub-regions to functional sub-areas and city regions. These sub
areas respond better to the concept of city regions as economic
drivers and allow the RSS to include more responsive spatial drivers."
— In terms of the co-ordination, integration
and alignment of other regional strategies (for which there are
over 20) the Regional Assemblies and their partners have made
considerable progress in recent years in establishing strategic
priorities for their regions which have provided a framework within
which strategies can be prepared, aligned, co-ordinated and implemented.
The Warwick University study for the English Regions Network:
Integration of Regional Strategies (2005) found that this
involved use of Sustainable Development Frameworks or more frequently
Integrated Regional Strategies or Frameworks. This has entailed
a variety of approaches.
— Apart from a smaller number of core
strategies (eg RES, RSS RTS), which have been integrated through
the Treasury mechanisms, the majority of regional strategies have
been dealt with by central government on an individual case-by-case
departmental basis. They have not been viewed in Whitehall as
part of a group of co-ordinated strategies brought together at
regional level despite the activities of Regional Assemblies in
this regard.
— In relation to the core strategies
it is generally acknowledged that considerable progress has been
made in securing more effective co-ordination and integration
in recent years with further encouragement provided by the Regional
Funding Allocation Process.
— The National Audit Office Independent
Performance Assessment of Advantage West Midlands 2007, for example,
comments that: "AWM has worked proactively with both the
Government Office West Midlands and the West Midlands Regional
Assembly on the West Midlands RSS... The RSS and current RES are
very strongly aligned... there is a clear understanding of the
priorities flowing from both documents ...."
— Across all regions Ove Arup come
to similar conclusions. "The RFA task set was a challenging
one for the regions. It tested the resolve of regional partners
to work together... the process also resulted in greater understanding
of the importance of a robust evidence base to underpin investment
strategies. In most regions a productive dialogue, joint working
and a greater consensus was forged between senior decision makers
in the region on shared regional investment priorities. The RFA
process enhanced integrated working between senior housing, transport,
economic development and spatial planning professionals with evidence
in most regions of a more integrated strategy for main regional
investment priorities...."
So much done. So much left to do
A number of regions are currently considering
building on what's gone before by bringing together in a more
formal partnership the key regional players. This will extend
the strategic planning and implementation agenda beyond the present
RFA boundaries (housing, economic development and planning) to
encompass a wider range of strategies and policy areas. In the
case of the East of England and East Midlands, Policy Boards involving
leading politicians and Chairs of key organisations have been
established to oversee determination of strategic priorities and
co-ordination and alignment of strategies. This has been paralleled
by Delivery Boards involving Chief Executives addressing the planning
programming and co-ordination of funding regimes and implementation
through the relevant agencies at regional, sub-regional and local
levels.
In all of this less attention has been paid
to the pivotal role of Government Offices. Through their links
to the Centre, their own regional activities and their remit following
the recent Government Office Review. They are the key to Government
Department activities in the regions as well as bringing to the
table the non departmental public bodies and agencies which have
a significant regional impact. The success of the English regions
in the future depends on a more co-ordinated and transparent role
for them with other key regional agencies.
REMAINING CHALLENGES
FOR THE
REGIONS
While the above discussion suggests considerable
progress has been made in developing more effective regional working,
much remains to be done. There needs to be, for example:
— A regional institution/partnership
structure which is capable of more effectively representing the
voices of the region in their many and diverse forms whilst at
the same time working with democratic representatives and their
institutions.
— Further development of regional working
across a wider range of partners, strategies and programmes (including
central government) in a way, which provides for a greater degree
of democratic accountability without creating additional layers
of bureaucracy, delays and expense. In particular further engagement
of economic, social and environmental partners in the process
of regional working and decision-making.
— A clear vision for the future development
of the region which incorporates the relevant strategies, funding
regimes and partners and sets clear priorities; seeks their co-ordination
and alignment; maximises public/private sector investment and
leverage.
— The achievement of "value for
money" in regional activities by setting clear strategic
outcomes for the region involving all the key institutions with
the aim of contributing to both central government and regional
objectives.
— The facilitation of cross cutting
regional themes such as Localisation, Sustainable Development
and Climate Change.
— Work towards an agreed regional performance
management framework covering all the relevant strategies and
linked where appropriate to sub-regional strategies, LSPs etc.
— Development of shared research, intelligence
and data to provide a consistent evidence base including performance
indicators for application across strategies and funding regimes.
— Utilisation of statutory RSS and
other implementation plans to co-ordinate investment phasing,
timing and roles and responsibilities of key agencies; development
of implementation "task" groups including use of implementation
delivery chains.
— Certainty that through regular dialogues
implementation plans developed by sub-regional partnerships (including
city regions) and LSPs/LAAs are consistent with those being developed
at the regional level.
There also still remains a related set of questions
that need to be addressed about the gap that exists between the
electorate and machinery of Government in the Regions and what
devolved Government is doing for other parts of the Union.
For most people in England there is little understanding
or ownership of the plethora of unaccountable quangos, executive
agencies and non-departmental public bodies, which now constitute
Regional Government in England.
WHERE NEXT?
Over the past decade the government has consistently
taken the view that within the parameters set by the three key
regional institutions that regions should be allowed to develop
their own regional governance arrangements. The evidence reviewed
earlier suggests that in many respects the regions are gradually
addressing the "Remaining Challenges" listed above.
Drawing on existing experiences and debates
taking place in the regions it is possible to sketch out an approach,
which addresses many of the current policy concerns about regional
governance and which is also sufficiently robust to accommodate
various forms of enhanced democratic accountability.
A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
BOARD
CFER still believes that the ultimate solution
to the governance issue (and the issue of evening out growth)
is directly elected regional government able to take a strong,
strategic steer in matter pertinent to their region. In the interim
CFER would welcome moves to establishment of a Regional Policy
or Partnership Board to address the challenges identified.
Its purpose would be to provide strategic leadership
providing a framework for public and private investment and addressing
the key economic, social and environmental challenges. Such a
body would include the leaders of the key regional institutions
alongside democratically elected representatives. It could be
an adjunct to an existing Regional Assembly or be an independent
regional partnership made up of the key regional institutions.
Both models could accommodate additional democratic
representatives from the EU, House of Commons and/or House of
Lords, and local authorities. Key stakeholders groups such as
business and the voluntary sector would also be part of the decision-making
framework reflecting the continuing important contribution they
have made to the work of Regional Assemblies.
Such a Board would establish a clear vision
for the region and provide a framework within which all the strategies
and funding regimes would nest. It would set the strategic framework
for the Region ensuring alignment of RSS, RES but also broadening
to cover a wider range of strategies. It would prioritise investment
and resource allocation to achieve the shared vision utilising
a single strategic performance management framework.
The Partnership Board (Appendix) would comprise,
by way of example, Assembly Chair/Vice Chairs and the Chair/Chief
Executive of the key regional agencies such as the RDA, Strategic
Health Authority and the Learning and Skills Council. It would
also include representatives of the private and voluntary sectors.
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, in order
to deliver mutually supportive regional and sub-regional plans,
the geographical dimension of place would be secured through appropriate
representation drawn from each city region and LAA "locality".
There would also be a Delivery Board of Chief
Executives of relevant agencies and local authorities. Specific
policy themes would be developed and delivered via Task Groups
or Policy Partnerships (eg Planning, Transport, Housing, Climate
Change, Community Cohesion and Health) with direct representation
from all relevant strategic partners,
Delivery Board members would be expected to
represent the collective issues and interests of the members of
their respective partnerships/agencies but also operating within
the context of the Regional Partnership Board's vision and priorities.
The Government Office would play a key-facilitating role in this
regard and in monitoring the contribution of Government Departments
and agencies in the implementation phase.
To maximise effectiveness, the GO Regional Director
would attend meetings of the Regional Partnership Board in order
to strengthen the regional/national lines of transmission and
ensure the necessary input of Departments and agencies to regional
priorities. The GO itself would discuss its own Business Plan
and priorities alongside the other key institutions on the Partnership
Board. In this way the GO could most effectively deliver the targets
set for it in the Government Office Review.
DRAWING THE
CENTRE INTO
REGIONAL ISSUES
To further strengthen scrutiny and accountability
in the English Regions it is suggested that steps are taken to
increase the engagement of Parliament in English regional affairs.
Concern is expressed in many quarters about
the lack of clout of the English Regions which is linked to a
lack of understanding and interest regional issues by Whitehall
and Westminster. In the case of MPs they understandably focus
on local constituency matters and invariably national issues with
little attention to regional matters. From a Parliamentary perspective
what happens at a regional level, and the decisions that are taken
there, receive relatively little attention or scrutiny. When,
infrequently, MPs do get involved in a regional issue it tends
to be after a decision has been made and they are leading or participating
in a local reaction to it.
Government recognises that at it is at the Regional
level that some of the most crucial issues need to be addressed—whether
it be transport, environment, productivity or skills. To this
CFER would add decisions about the future of sub regional working
and local government, which need to be taken on a coordinated
rather than ad hoc basis.
Historically an English Grand Committee has
addressed regional issues in Parliament. However, it has not had
the necessary status and clout and focus to provide an effective
scrutiny of the government's activities in the regions. Meeting
only periodically, it has never provided regular and systematic
assessments of regional affairs between and within the regions.
So, in addition to what we have proposed there needs to be a more
formal level of parliamentary scrutiny and involvement in regional
affairs. This could be provided through a new House of Commons
Select Committee for the Regions and/or Regional members of a
reformed Second Chamber having dual Parliamentary and Regional
leadership roles.
SELECT COMMITTEE
FOR THE
REGIONS
A HOC Select Committee for the English Regions
with a remit to oversee their relationship to other parts of the
Union, the preparation, content and implementation of regional
strategies and funding programmes, alongside monitoring relationships
between Government departments (and their agencies) and the regions.
It would have the power to call to account Government departments,
regional (GO, RDA, RA) and local institutions in relation to the
co-ordination and delivery of regional, sub-regional, city region
and related local strategies (viz LSPs). Attention would
focus as much on joined up approaches within Whitehall as in the
regions. There would be a concern with "value for money"
and the three "Es" in the development and implementation
of regional policies and programmes.
The Committee would call evidence from across
Whitehall but also involve those at regional and local levels
concerned with delivery. It would consider the work of individual
regions but also cross cutting themes. Under our proposals, MPs
would have the opportunity to participate in the proposed Regional
Policy Boards and also in the work of the Select Committee thereby
providing a clear role for Parliament in scrutinising the executive.
SECOND CHAMBER
REGIONAL BOARDS/COUNCILS
Directly elected Regional members of a Reformed
House of Lords could be constituted as a Regional Board or Council
to oversee all Regional Working and thereby provide a directly
accountable executive with similar powers and responsibilities
to a Select Committee. This approach would provide each region
with real direct democratic accountability, members who had a
genuine regional remit and identity.
CONCLUSION
This paper set out a number of essential criteria
which we argue need to be applied to determine the basis of genuine
devolution. CFER's preferred solution to the dilemma of the "democratic
deficit" in the English regions would be through the establishment
of powerful directly elected regional assemblies. However, in
the light of the North East Referendum result and present political
realities, we are proposing a pragmatic and robust model. The
approach is capable of being adapted to the particular circumstances
of each region and would not involve any legislative changes or
entail major restructuring of regional and local institutions
and administrative arrangements. The approach would build on what
has or is being put in place in place. From a democratic perspective
it would provide a stepping-stone to further changes strengthening
regional democratic accountability.
Based on our Devolutionary criteria we would
assess the model as follows:
1. Accountability built into new forms of
government
The model would bring to the table all the key
public institutions responsible for regionally relevant public
expenditure either directly through membership of the Policy Board
or indirectly via the Government Office.
Through the participation of local government
via the Regional Assembly and the representation of MPs and MEPs
there would be strong democratic participation. If a regional
element were introduced into the reform of the House of Lords,
a directly elected element would be possible.
Signing up to, and participating in, the preparation
of a regional vision and its implementation would tie all parties
into a common commitment to delivery of the region's agenda. Government
departments and agencies would be engaged and monitored via the
direct involvement of the Government Office and the Scrutiny Role
of the Treasury Select Committee for the Regions. Public, private
and voluntary sector stakeholders would participate in the processes
via the Regional Assembly.
2. Greater co-ordination and capacity to devise
policy and secure its implementation
The participation of all the key public sector
institutions would make possible the co-ordination and alignment
of all relevant regional strategies (we estimate there are around
20) and funding regimes through the Regional Delivery Board and
would make possible the preparation of regional/sub-regional delivery
plans. This would include as important building blocks the Regional
Economic Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy Implementation
Plan—a statutory document. These programmes could either
be delivered directly by the agencies concerned or via commissioning.
Such a structure would facilitate the planning
of research data collection and its pooling, and the development
of a shared regional performance management system. In many policy
areas it would be possible for the first time to bring together
programmes and delivery bodies in devising and implementing specific
policy themes and plans. Financial and project management would
be enhanced by a shared agenda and collaborative working through
Task Groups. The involvement of elected representatives (directly
and via a Select Committee) would strengthen public scrutiny and
the attainment of value for money.
3. Bringing government closer to the people
By definition it is difficult to engage citizens
in strategic decision making at this level. However, the active
participation of elected politicians from the region at both local
and national levels would serve to enhance democratic engagement.
The introduction of a regional element in a revised House of Lords
would provide a means of introducing politicians with a direct
electoral mandate. Members of the European Parliament could also
potentially fill such a role.
By bringing all key regionally relevant public
expenditure decisions together under the Regional Policy Board,
the present hidden and complex decision making apparatus would
become clearer, simpler to understand, easier to explain to the
general public and attract greater attention from the media.
The Policy Board could adopt a proactive stance
by, for example, establishing or working with existing Citizens'
Panels involving the Youth Parliament and other similar participative
bodies across the region. It could establish concordats or partnerships
with key institutions such as the voluntary sector etc. establishing
modus operandi surrounding policy development and consultation.
With enhanced powers at regional level, politicians would be more
willing to engage in regional affairs, generate debate and involve
the media who in turn would have a greater incentive to provide
coverage.
4. Reduction in the Quango State and Enhanced
accountability and control
Following the recent Review of the role of Government
Offices, the GOs are now charged with the responsibility of engaging
NDPBs and other government agencies in actively contributing to
the delivery of regional priorities. In the past, Quangos have
not always regarded their engagement in the preparation and delivery
of regional strategies as of the highest priority and it has proved
difficult for Regional Directors to exercise influence on this
matter via the relevant Government Departments and/or NDPB Boards.
If such Government agencies were formally part
of the processes of the Regional Policy and Delivery Boards it
would prove much more difficult to avoid participation in the
determination of regional priorities and to renege on publicly
made commitments given as part of a shared regional vision and
delivery plan(s) process.
Moreover by engaging the Government Office directly
in the Regional Policy Board processes the GO could engage in
an annual consultation exercise about the content of its own business
and delivery plans. While the ultimate decisions on individual
programmes would rest with Government departments, the regional
aspects of their activities including their regional strategies
could be planned alongside those of other regional partners.
5. Enhanced opportunities for sustainable
development regeneration, civic renewal and more active political
engagement
By considering sustainable development issues
(economic, social and environmental) under a single agreed regional
vision and set of objectives, there would be an opportunity to
develop a common understanding of regional problems and opportunities
and to mobilise resources, maximising public/private investment
and derive economies of scale and scope. Emerging policy issues
such as climate change could be tackled in a cross cutting manner.
Closer collaborative working could enhance the leadership role
of the RDAs through their Regional Economic Strategies across
a wider range of policy areas and by influencing expenditure decisions
and delivery plans of a greater number of agencies. More comprehensive
co-ordination of public expenditure allied with publicly agreed
implementation plans would provide greater certainty for the private
sector.
By providing a single political and executive
focus for addressing regional strategic issues, it would be much
easier to communicate and engage with the general public on the
regional agenda. Specific forums could be established to secure
the views of citizens and their active participation in tackling
key issues such as urban renewal, climate change, social exclusion,
etc. A regional body with the necessary expertise and resources
could foster a greater emphasis on localisation and new forms
of collective action, for example, promotion of networks of social
enterprises, addressing region-wide economic, social, environmental
or rural issues, the establishment of regional unit trusts or
bonds to raise local capital to bridge funding gaps in the development
of strategic regional infrastructure.
In conclusion we believe much progress has been
made in the past 10 years through partnership working to ensure
that regional governance arrangements are working successfully
in the English regions. The research evidence reviewed in this
paper suggests much progress has been made whilst there remain
questions surrounding transparency, accountability, co-ordination
and democratic engagement.
Given present political realities, we believe
the time is right to move forward building on existing structures
but strengthening democratic accountability and policy co-ordination
and delivery. In our view the suggested model meets current political
and technical requirements with minimum disruption or the need
for legislative changes. It provides a route for further strengthening
of democratic engagement.
Evidence Produce on behalf of CFER by
Professor John Mawson, Director of the Local Government
Centre, University of Warwick Business School
Phil Davis, Chair
Jane Thomas, Vice Chair
Mary Southcott, Vice Chair
George Morran, Secretary
May 2007
APPENDIX 1
| 
