Speaking on behalf of the Campaign for the English Regions, Chair George Morran said: “This news is a terrific boost for the Campaign. The report finds that the majority of people that intend to vote in the three Northern referendums next year will vote yes. It also clearly demonstrates that the idea of taking more decisions in the regions and less in Whitehall has resonance in all the English regions, not just in the North. People, in the Midlands, the North and the South, want a vote on elected assemblies. This report puts a new question to the Government – when can we expect referendums in other regions?”

CFER note that the report reveals that the existing institutions in the regions are less enthusiastic for devolution than the general public. Commenting on this aspect of report George Morran commented “It is hardly surprising that those with a direct interest in the status quo are resistant to change – turkeys don’t vote for Christmas!”

CFER will use the outcome of this research to press the government for a clear timetable for a second wave of referendums at least in the West Midlands and other interested regions by 2006.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. This study was one of the first to be conducted by the Performance and Innovation Unit. It took place during 1999.

2. The objective was to ascertain how central Government can provide better and more efficient delivery of policy and services to people and organisations at local and regional level. In particular, it examined the way that central Government works with local authorities, local business and the voluntary sector. It focused particularly on issues that cut across the responsibilities of different Government Departments. The coverage was confined to England. The study complements other PIU studies: on accountability and incentives in Government, on the effectiveness of policy-making, and on the rural economy.

3. The study was triggered in particular by:
the establishment of a large number of separate area-based initiatives (ABIs) or zones, targeting particular local areas;
the establishment of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and designated Regional Chambers.

4. The problems are: firstly, how should central Government relate to other institutions at the regional and local level; secondly, how does it ensure integration between both the organisations for which it is responsible and also with those for which it is not directly responsible? These difficult issues have been exacerbated by the creation of new regional institutions and programme initiatives.

5. The study looked at how the Government policies on economic development, employment, health, education, crime reduction and the environment are delivered. The Government has indicated a clear intention for services and decisions affecting local communities to be made at the level which is closest to the people and areas to be served, where this is consistent with competence, practicability and cost-effectiveness. But how in practice do we decide on the appropriate level of variation to suit local circumstances? And how do we co-ordinate policies whose direction is set nationally but which are delivered locally?

6. The study took place against a background of other significant change, including increasing emphasis on cross-cutting issues of competitiveness, sustainable development and tackling social exclusion. Within this last, the study needed to factor in strongly how any changes it proposed could contribute to the objective of neighbourhood renewal.

7. A range of reforms being introduced for modernising local Government emphasise the need for central Government to relate to local Government in a holistic way, including in relation to the provision of mainstream financial allocations.

8. The study involved substantial research, through formal and informal consultation both within Whitehall and with regional and local organisations across the country. It also included comparisons with the role of préfectures in France. Consultation took place with businesses, the voluntary sector and local authorities. Particular weight was given to the views of local authority chief executives who are responsible for making connections at local level between different policy agendas.

Chapter 2: What is the Problem?

9. There is widespread welcome for the policies and programmes directed at improving local levels of service in key areas, such as education, health and crime, and establishing clear mechanisms for achieving this. The establishment of Regional Development Agencies and Regional Chambers are receiving strong support as providing a focus for better strategic planning at the regional level. In addition, the steps which have already been taken to improve co-ordination in other ways – through some additional staff being posted to Government Offices for the regions from a wider range of Departments – are also welcomed.

10. People recognise that in a period of rapid policy development, some of the problems are likely to be transitional. They also see that the changes needed to be set in a longer term perspective; and that some of the difficulties which are now seen as significant may not be seen in the same way when the new policies have settled down. The points of criticism below in no way undermined the broad level of support for the Government’s policies and programmes.

11. Nevertheless, the clear evidence from those on the ground and from the PIU’s own analysis is that there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.

12. Delivery of Government’s priorities may be slowed down as a result. In particular:
Area-based initiatives, conceived and managed separately by individual central Government Departments, have created a very substantial bureaucratic burden for those on the ground.
Local players believe that fewer more broadly focused area-based initiatives, would improve the current situation. Also that their implementation could take better account of local capacity.
Local players suggest that mainstream programmes could provide greater flexibility to allow innovative solutions.
The number and extent of narrowly focused plans required by central Government from local authorities is inhibiting their ability to take joined up co-ordinated action where applicable.
The variety of public funding regimes, particularly in the field of regeneration activity, is not helpful to local stakeholders nor does it help Government to make clear judgements about the value of expenditures either in the short term or the longer term.

13. The tiers of central Government that impact on the regional level are highly fragmented, not able to deal with cross-cutting issues well, and generally do not have sufficient influence over central policy design and implementation:
Local players said it needs to be clearer who within central Government is in the best position to tackle social problems. In particular, Government Offices in the regions provide only partial representation of the interests of three central Departments.
There is no remit for any Government official or body at regional level to ensure integration of central Government policies and services in their region.
Regional influence over policy development within central Departments needs to be strengthened.

14. The Government needs a more coherent presence at regional level to deal with social exclusion as a whole, particularly in relation to neighbourhood renewal. The respective roles of the different regional players in this area, especially Government Offices and RDAs, need to be clearly defined.

15. There was also concern that Government Offices did not seem to have been adequately consulted before a number of new initiatives had been introduced with a significant regional or local impact.

16. Better integration; better ways of ensuring that Government service delivery is fitted to local circumstances; and better understanding of the local and regional issues in the design of national policy are needed. This suggests that the Government’s future aims should be to move to a situation in which:
local and regional players have clear roles in delivering well-run strategies for their communities, focusing on locally owned outcomes and taking account of central Government priorities;
individual Ministers are able to use integrated central and regional structures to deliver their own programmes better and with greater clarity of purpose;
central Government is able to engage with local players not just on specific programmes but across the board, with a good understanding of local successes and failures;
central Government is fully sensitive to the local and regional dimension in creating new policies.

Chapter 3

Part One: Changes in the Regions
Part Two: Regional Networks

17. There are a number of separate roles for central Government at regional level. Executive and inspection functions occupy the majority of staff. But other important jobs are:
planning and prioritisation across the region;
the delivery of central Government programmes at a regional and local level;
the provision of funding to local players;
support to and oversight of local performance on strategic issues.

18. Planning and prioritisation involve establishing priorities for each region – and associated delivery of programmes, where decisions need to be taken at regional rather than local level – typically where there is a choice over where in a region new investment, or new infrastructure, should go. The role is being taken forward by RDAs and Chambers. This has been warmly welcomed. But improvement is required in a number of areas – strategy, support and the oversight of local performance – all of which are becoming increasingly important.

19. Current regional networks are complicated and fail to give a clear means of communication down to or up from the local level and fail to provide a clearly identifiable accountable body for Government action across the region on issues where different policies interact.

20. There is an urgent need to reform the current central Government regional networks in order to address the problems identified in the previous Chapter. We have looked at the regional role of central Government in other countries to inform the required overhaul of our system. In particular, central Government needs to provide:
a single focus for all central Government’s regional networks;
clarity over the respective roles of those in the regional tier;
sufficient influence for the regional tier in headquarters policy discussions;
mechanisms to co-ordinate and integrate Government programmes and policies implemented at regional level or locally.

21. Government Offices are best placed to be the starting point for creating this new role. This is based on an appreciation of their current roles in representing Government Departments at regional level, of their existing links with regional and local players (including bid appraisal, funding and monitoring) and involvement with European, national, regional and local strategies. No other Government regional body fits the new role as closely; and there would be constitutional difficulties in interposing bodies with an independent remit (like RDAs) between democratically accountable local authorities and central Government.

22. The current role of Government Offices needs to be built up to enable them to be the principal representatives of central Government in their regions, including:
acting as a source of advice and support to local authorities and other local partners in relation to their cross-cutting strategies;
holding local partners to account in delivering central Government programmes on behalf of Ministers;
providing a strong focus for neighbourhood renewal;
integrating central Government input to local and regional strategies, including those of regeneration;
administering cross-cutting programmes on behalf of central Government;
integrating the contributions from different Government Departments, including enabling a shared vision and understanding of regional and local issues;
acting as a first point of contact for any regional or local player who needs to relate to central Government; this includes business and the voluntary sector as well as local authorities;
arbitrating when necessary in disputes;
representing a broader interest in central Government to regional and local players, including in public;
communicating the Government’s messages to the media;
influencing Government policy at headquarters.

23. Government Offices should continue, however, to be responsible for delivering the programmes of individual Departments where this makes the best operational sense.

24. The effect of these changes will be to make Government Offices accountable for ensuring:
that there are well-developed cross-cutting strategies for local areas and that the central Government input in relation to each local area sufficiently reflects these strategies;
that any action by one Government Department affecting the region or local areas within it adequately takes account of the implications for other Departments’ policies;
the delivery of programmes for individual Departments (as now).

25. In parallel, each main Department whose policies impact at regional and local level should review its own arrangements for relating those affected, particularly with the aim of securing closer linkages with Government Offices. (In a number of cases these reviews are already being carried out). This particularly applies to:
the Department of Health, including both Health Services and Social Care, with particular account needing to be taken of the public health dimension;
DfEE, with particular account of the case for establishing closer links between the existing outreach services in education and Government Offices;
the Home Office, with particular emphasis on crime;
MAFF, with the aim of securing integration between its own policy agenda and regional network and Government Offices.

26. But all other Departments also need to consider the case for closer integration, including DSS, MOD, and the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Unless there are very strong reasons otherwise, all Departments should second at least some staff to Government Offices.

27. The changes proposed for the role of Government Offices mean that their management and reporting arrangements need to be significantly changed. In particular, the current joint management by three Departments should be changed to management by a single co-ordinating unit. Government Offices need to include within them the full range of staffing expertise to cover their new role. This will require strengthening especially in the areas of education, health, social care, crime and agriculture. Their public profile also needs to be raised.

28. The scope for increasing the discretion and financial flexibilities of both Government Offices and RDAs should be considered in the 2000 Spending Review, which has now begun. This should consider how far such flexibilities would provide better mechanisms for GOs to incentivise cross-cutting behaviour by local players.

29. Appropriate Public Service Agreement targets should be drawn up in the 2000 Spending Review for individual Government Offices and for the co-ordinating unit setting out clearly the cross-cutting objectives against which they will be judged.

Chapter 4: Changes at Whitehall

30. Changes at the regional level are not sufficient to improve the effectiveness of Government and changes are also needed in Whitehall. These include the creation of a new unit working on behalf of Government as a whole, superseding the Government Office Management Board, the Government Office Central Unit and the Interdepartmental Support Unit for Area-Based Initiatives. Its main functions would be to:
manage Government Offices;
ensure better co-ordination of policy initiatives with a regional or local impact;
ensure better collective consideration of proposals to change regional or local networks.

Area based initiatives should be rationalised in the 2000 Spending Review by:
focusing initiatives more clearly on outcomes;
considering linkages between them;
pooling budgets in some cases;
considering cross-cutting regional budgets.

Thirdly, changes in budgetary arrangements should provide greater linkages between Departmental spending programmes, European Structural Funding and National Lottery Awards.

Finally, there should be rationalisation of requirements for plans by local authorities.

31. In each of these areas a number of improvements have already been made. But they have been largely on a piecemeal basis and have failed to tackle the problems already identified in a sufficiently thoroughgoing way.

32. Key managerial functions of the new unit should include:
ensuring the accountability of Government Office regional directors; including drawing up Public Service Agreements for them;
co-ordinating action on any Public Service Agreement targets and pooled expenditure budgets agreed on in the 2000 Spending Review;
co-ordinating the establishment of agreements on objectives and targets between Government Offices and individual Whitehall Departments, including on cross-Departmental functions;
responsibility for common issues concerning Government Office management; holding a central Government Office running cost vote and allocating this between them;
researching and disseminating best practice relevant to Government Offices’ functions.

33. Key criteria for determining the best organisational arrangements for locating and overseeing the new unit should be to enable them to provide:
a forward-looking and strategic dimension;
sufficient authority;
sufficient ‘ownership’ of its remit and work by other Departmental Ministers;
clarity in the arrangements;
additional value to other Departments’ programmes;
speedy improvements, while avoiding unnecessary disruption.

34. One important function of the new unit is to ensure that new area based initiatives are properly cleared interdepartmentally before being introduced, including considering the impact on existing initiatives and that new initiatives are related to Departments’ PSA targets both for national improvement and for improvement in deprived areas. The Treasury’s role in monitoring PSA implementation more generally means it will be well placed to help here. Similarly, the creation of new Departmental regional networks will need to be cleared with the new unit. The aim should be to avoid creating separate and uncoordinated structures. A ‘double key’ arrangement should operate, under which both the new unit and Government Offices are consulted in advance.

35. There is a strong case for further action to create better linkages between area-based initiatives, and between ABIs and related mainstream programmes. It is not reasonable to achieve full pooling between all programmes, since often different or partly different objectives are involved. The highest priority for linkages should be where:
there are several programmes affecting the same client group, e.g. children;
there are separate broadly-based horizontal programmes with strong overlaps.

36. This also allows for linkages to be established between both area-based initiatives and mainstream programmes, which is important if the aims of better integration are to be achieved.

37. The best mechanism for looking at a scope for linking budgets in more detail, is through the 2000 Spending Review.

38. There need to be closer links between both the European Structural Funds and the National Lottery programmes on the one hand and other regeneration programmes on the other. Full linkage will not be possible, because of the separate arrangements with administration in Brussels and by the independent lottery distributors respectively. These programmes are both highly significant for local regeneration in many areas.

39. There should be a further examination of the scope for rationalising the range of plans which local authorities are required to provide.

Chapter 5: The Impact of Elected Regional Government

40. The proposals in the earlier chapters should be robust against reasonable assumptions about elected regional Government in England. They neither require nor preclude this. The impact of the Greater London Authority has already been considered in a review by the Government Office for London (GOL). The conclusions of this review are consistent with the thrust to this study, namely that more emphasis will need to be put by GOL on cross-cutting issues. But the implication of our conclusions is that GOL will also need to develop an enhanced cross-cutting role to cover issues where there needs to be an integrated central Government input, especially in relation to the London boroughs, on issues which have not been devolved to the GLA.

41. One effect of elected regional Government could be to involve closer oversight of regional agencies by the elected body. But this does not affect what needs to happen in the shorter term.

42. More broadly, elected regional Government is not likely to be introduced for some time. The changes proposed in this study should sensibly be introduced at an earlier stage.

Chapter 6: The Conclusions

43. The main responsibility for implementation should lie with the new co-ordinating unit proposed above. There should be a process of six-monthly reports to the Prime Minister on progress. Action in relation to the 2000 Spending Review is for the Treasury to lead on. Individual Departments will need to carry out reviews of their regional and ‘virtual’ regional networks as indicated. These will need to involve the co-ordinating unit closely.

The Case for a New North East Assembly

Report of the North East Constitutional Convention
November 1999
Contents

Summary
1 The work of the Convention
2 Key Issues
3 The Case for democratic renewal
4 What difference could regional government make
5 A model of regional government

Summary

The governance of the United Kingdom has been altered forever. The North East cannot afford the luxury of standing aside from this. Inaction is not an option. The creation of an elected North East Assembly, however, presents us with great opportunities to improve the efficiency of governance, make it more accountable and in the process strengthen the region’s voice.

The ability of regions to speak with a clear and democratically legitimate voice will prove increasingly critical to regional well being in a changing world. Improving the transparency and public accountability of existing regional institutions is critical to improving the performance of those bodies and ensuring the adopt strategies that are suited to the region’s needs.

Our model of regional government is based on a number of key principles. First, active citizenship and open decision-making should be at the heart of regional government from the beginning. Second, it involves taking over an existing layer of government and making it accountable to the people of the region. As a result policy-making will be less fragmented, more transparent and of a better quality.
regional government would set the strategic policy framework for planning, economic development, transport and infrastructure, training, arts and culture and would exert influence over health and education and have powers of secondary legislation over some of these areas.
However, this policy would be set in partnership with a Civic Forum comprising representatives of civil society in the region, although the Assembly itself would be democratically accountable for the policies of the regional government.
The existing Government Office for the North East would provide the executive secretariat for the Assembly and Civic Forum with policy delivered through specialist executive agencies.
Delivery of integrated policy (or “joined-up” government) would require the Assembly to have access to a single block grant from central government.
This model involves no new public appointments and reduces potential reorganisation of agencies to the minimum. Rather, it should be possible to significantly reduce the number of un-elected appointees running quangos in the region. But this model substantially increases democratic accountability. The size of the Assembly is matched to the functions it undertakes, comprising perhaps 30-40 members – enough to staff powerful committees and ensure political balance.
The Assembly would not deliver policies directly, but be centrally concerned with policy development, ‘joined-up’ government reflecting regional priorities.
Because the Assembly is concerned with improving the performance and accountability of existing institutions, rather than creating new ones, it has no implications for existing local authorities. Indeed under this model local authorities would benefit insofar as they would have a single regional authority with which to work in partnership instead of the current multiplicity.
This is a model of regional government that is both credible and strong and we commend it to the people of the North East.

1. The work of the Convention

1.1 The North East Constitutional Convention first met in April 1999, with Bishop Michael Turnbull in the chair. It set itself the task, by the end of the year, of proposing a model of regional government that is both credible and capable of generating wide support in the region. To date this has involved a wide range of activities that are listed in Annex 1. Our work is the latest chapter in a long history of debate about the case for an elected North East Assembly. The major political parties, the trade unions, the local authority association have all held the ambition of an elected regional assembly.

1.2 In undertaking its task the Convention was responding to the challenge set down by the new Labour government. The belated modernisation of the constitution of the United Kingdom has been a key theme of the government’s first term. Notably, the government has initiated a widespread and radical devolution of political power to some parts of the United Kingdom. But, as far as regional government for England is concerned, the government has said that it will bring forward referendums only in those regions that can demonstrate a demand for change. The work of the Convention is both a reflection of the growing support for regional government for the North East, and one effort to demonstrate that demand.

1.3 On the advice of government ministers the initial work of the Convention paid great attention to existing models of devolved government in the United Kingdom and beyond. Some of this work was reported in our interim report, which contains more detailed information than we have included. More generally, our proposals here are based on an awareness of the government’s wider agenda for ‘modernising government’. But our work has also been influenced by what we perceive as the characteristic problems of the North East, to which we will turn later.

1.4 The question of regional government has been raised for many years in the North East. However, the work of the Convention probably represents the most sustained, thorough and widest examination of the issue ever conducted in the region. As we hope to show below, we have identified and clarified a number of very important issues. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is still further detailed work to be done and the Convention will continue to contribute to this. As such this report is mainly concerned with establishing a set of principles upon which a credible model of regional government must be based, although we recognise major points of principle cannot always be separated from points of policy detail.

2. Key issues

2.1 The case for regional government rests on answering a number of key questions.

How will devolved government lead to the improved social and economic well being of the region?
How will an elected Assembly lead to improved governance?
Can we ensure that an elected Assembly represents a new departure for the region, while not simply adding an additional tier of remote and unresponsive government?
2.2 We believe we have gone some way to answering these questions. Three sets of issues arise from our work to date. First, there is a growing disenchantment with the way we are governed. This is evidenced by a whole set of indicators, including election turnouts and polling evidence of public attitudes. While this situation is not unique to the North East, as we argue below, the problem in this region is distinctive and severe.

2.3 Second, there is wide agreement that the North East is a region with a characteristic history and identity and these deserve respect. Moreover, the region has distinctive contemporary needs and aspirations that are widely felt to be under-represented in our highly centralised political system. In particular, too often the North East finds itself firmly at the bottom of most lists of social and economic indicators. While the concerns of the public, in some respects, are the same everywhere — to see improved health, education and employment, low crime rates and a stable economy — the North East has distinctive problems in each of these areas and this now is increasingly recognised. Recent events, for instance, have highlighted the way that the region’s relative dependence on manufacturing results in economic conditions distinct from, say, the South East.

2.4 Finally, over time, a series of governments already have created institutions to address regional needs. This reflects the reality that in a modern state, many social and economic policies are best delivered at the regional level. However, as we showed in our previous report, this regional tier of government in England is lacking in transparency, and not directly accountable to the citizens it purports to serve (Figure 1). These are issues that must be addressed if the governance of the region is to be modernised.

Figure 1
2.5 We believe that each of the issues outlined above is best tackled through the creation of a directly elected regional government. First, we believe the North East requires a genuine democratic renewal of its body politic. And we believe the creation of new elected regional government could be the stimulus for this (see section 3). Second, given the region’s distinctive problems, we believe that a directly-elected Assembly open to the influence of the citizen, will address the democratic deficit and, to adapt a phrase of Tony Blair, could provide ‘North East solutions for North East problems’, far better than civil servants in London. The feeling that the concerns of the North East are remote from national politicians is a real and debilitating one. Third, we stress the degree to which a tier of regional government already exists in the North East. But this system of governance is fragmented and, as a result, is inimical to the achievement of ‘joined-up government’ and could have a real impact on the region’s underlying social and economic problems (see section 4).

3. The case for democratic renewal

3.1 A feature of the deliberations of the Convention since April 1999 year has been a particular concern with the issue of extending democratic participation in the political system. Perhaps more than any other issue, this has enthused those who have participated in our considerations. It has become clear to us that unless this issue is addressed, any proposals for regional government are unlikely to win wide support. Moreover, modernisation of the region’s political culture, to make it more modern, open and inclusive, must occur alongside the creation of an elected Assembly, with the latter a catalyst for the former. Without this, the governance of the region is unlikely to be improved. To this extent, extended democratic participation is not an end in itself, but is mechanism for more informed policy-making.

3.2 The nature of the problem is revealed by an examination of the position of women in North East politics. It is estimated that 25 per cent of local councillors in the North East are women — significantly below the national average. Only 17 per cent of members of the new indirectly elected regional Assembly are women. In order, therefore, to address the gross under-representation of women in the region’s political life, any new institution would need to be organised very differently to existing political institutions. Indeed, the creation of an elected Assembly ought to provide an opportunity to substantially increase the political representation of women.

3.3 One of the striking features of the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is that they have both achieved a breakthrough in the representation of women. In Scotland women represent 37.2 per cent of MSPs. While this is still short of parity, it contrasts favourably with the picture elsewhere (only 16.7 per cent of Scottish MPs and 22 per cent of Scottish councillors are women). Moreover, research suggests when the women’s representation crosses a 30 per cent threshold this significantly increases the ability of women to influence decision-making.

3.4 A number of factors produced this result. Research, and the Scottish and Welsh experiences, suggest that proportional voting systems tend to produce better representation of women. In addition, in Scotland and Wales, the political parties, under the influence of Constitutional Convention, ensured the selection of a high proportion of women candidates. In addition, the Parliament’s operating procedures are designed with principles of equal opportunities, power sharing, accountability and wide participation at its centre and mechanisms have been instituted to monitor their implementation. Although these are early days for the Parliament these innovations are likely to have a major impact on its method of work and hold out the promise that they will stimulate further change in Scottish society. For instance a Women’s Consultative Forum has been established in order to co-ordinate the input of women’s groups into the work of the Parliament.

3.5 This experience has a number of lessons for the North East. First if we are serious about changing the political culture in the region, we must examine the operation of the voting system. Whatever the merits of the debate about electoral reform for the House of Commons, it is doubtful whether wide agreement could be achieved for an elected regional Assembly if it failed to incorporate electoral system in which votes cast bore a closer proportion to seats won. It could also have a big impact on the representation of women. The detail of electoral systems is significant because it can have implications for the size and structure of an assembly, but the more important is acceptance of the principle of a more inclusive electoral system.

3.6 Any directly elected regional Assembly ought to be firmly founded on a desire to open up the process of government to far wider democratic participation. Disadvantaged groups, in particular, need to feel the system is open to their influence. A lesson arising from debates on the new devolved government is that, whatever the intrinsic merits of a system of fair votes, this is unlikely in itself to change the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed. For instance, despite the breakthrough in women’s representation achieved in the Scottish Parliament, not a single MSP from an ethnic minority background was elected. In the North East, the indirectly elected Assembly contains only one ethnic minority representative. Yet, ethnic minority communities find themselves among the most disadvantaged in the region.

3.7 There is little doubt that ethnic minority groups in the North East feel that their distinctive needs and concerns are not currently being adequately addressed. This sense of alienation extends to many groups, such as those with disabilities and young people. It especially affects our economically dispossessed communities. For this reason, there is wide agreement on the need for better, more direct and continuing contacts between politicians, political institutions and the wider society. In Northern Ireland, for instance, the planned devolved Assembly is firmly constituted on statutory duties to safeguard citizenship rights and to extend participation in the decision-making process to groups currently excluded from it.

3.8 One innovation adopted in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the concept of the Civic Forum. In both these places the aim of the Forums is to open up and improve the policy-making process rather than to replace the role of elected representatives. They create a mechanism for on-going consultation and partnership between politicians and citizens. The Scottish Civic Forum already has 600 member organisations drawn from all parts of Scottish society. All are committed to working with the Parliament and the Scottish Executive. The case for North East Civic Forum to work alongside an elected Assembly seems persuasive. The creation of a civic forum does not preclude the use of other mechanisms such as citizen’s juries and deliberative polling, but moves us beyond a reliance on the focus group.

3.9 As part of its mission to extend participation, a North East Assembly, as a brand new institution, would be well-placed to exploit the possibilities of the new information and communication technologies from the outset. This would have a number of advantages. First, it could give concrete expression to the region’s aspiration to be at the forefront of the information revolution. The Assembly would be a beacon for other organisations in the region and, indeed, for organisations elsewhere, highlighting the potential of the new technologies to extend democratic participation, while ensuring ways of including those at risk of marginalisation in the information age. In particular, a generation of young people is emerging who are attracted to and are at ease with these new technologies. By being designed from the outset around these new technologies may be one way of reconnecting young people in the region with their democratic institutions.

3.10 In sum, we envisage an Assembly that empowers to communities to participate confidently in the policy-making process. Active citizenship and open decision-making should be at the heart of regional government from the beginning. A regional assembly then could signal a new and closer relationship between government and the citizen and contribute to the broader revitalisation of our democracy.

4. What difference could regional government make?

4.1 There are two major differences an elected regional assembly could make for the people of the North East. First it would strengthen the voice of the region in the corridors of power in London, Brussels and beyond. The creation of a Scottish Parliament and Welsh and (hopefully) Northern Ireland Assemblies and soon a London Mayor and Assembly will add to the already powerful status of these places and highlights further political deficit faced by the North East. In the new devolved Britain and in an integrated European Union, the ability of regions to speak with a clear and democratically legitimate voice will prove increasingly critical to regional well being. Ahead of us are important political debates over resources and influence. In most large member states of the EU this lesson has already been learned and devolved regional government is reality. Following devolution to Scotland and Wales, only England remains as the exception to the rule and this situation is to the grave disadvantage of the North East.

4.2 The creation of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) represents an advance insofar as it brings together previously separate economic development activities. But, as we have already demonstrated (Figure 1) the system of regional governance remains fragmented. The current settlement between the Government Office for the North East, the Assembly/Chamber and the RDA, lacks transparency and makes for a divided regional voice. The RDAs, on the whole, have recognised their work cannot be successful without a meaningful partnership with other sectors. However, they have no proper relationship with other key sectors (health is a good example) because they lack the political authority to develop them. This is a recipe for tension and a lack of cohesion as policy is formed in horizontal lines emanating from London.

4.3 The ability of existing regional agencies to match their policies to the conditions of the North East is fatally constrained by the fact that they are accountable to central government. The multiplicity of agencies means that ‘strategic’ governance in the region often occurs in an uncoordinated fashion. Attempts to achieve co-ordination generally occur in an ad hoc way, rather than systematically, as evidenced by the proliferation of ‘action zones’.

4.4 In addition, the lack of transparency and inaccessibility of these processes to the general public is highly damaging. It is a source of the perception that central government is remote and that local councils are relatively powerless. It is not enough for the opponents of regional government to say that ‘the public’ is interested in ‘bread and butter’ issues, not institutions. The improved performance of these regional-level institutions is central to these bread and butter issues. Improving the transparency and public accountability of these institutions is central to improving their performance and ensuring they adopt strategies that are suited to the region’s needs. This improved performance and sense of regional ownership will create the conditions for better addressing the day to day needs of the region.

4.5 Most social and economic issues are inter-related and the policy responses to them only have a chance of success if they are integrated across different domains. Levels of education attainment affect levels of economic performance, which in turn are related to levels of health and well being. In the North East these issues come together in distinctive ways and require regionally designed responses. Across the EU, and indeed in many other states, democratically elected regional governments play a critical role in marshalling political and other resources behind regional economic strategies. As a general rule, EU states with strong systems of regional government are those that have avoided deep regional inequalities, or show themselves adept at dealing innovatively with regional economic problems when they arise.

4.6 Modern Spain provides a compelling example of the potential benefits of devolution. Previously highly centralised under the Franco regime, Spain has radically decentralised. Regions are able to draw down powers from a tariff on offer from the central government. Most regions have used these powers to frame their own economic development strategies and many have achieved remarkable results. A number of Spanish regions now have levels of income per head in excess of the North East — a situation unthinkable only a few years ago.

4.7 The experience elsewhere demonstrates that the region, not the nation-state or the locality, is the appropriate scale at which to develop strategies and ensure they are integrated and implemented across policy domains. It also demonstrates the dangers to the North East of being left behind in Europe if it does not follow the same path.

5. A model of regional government

5.1 Figure 2 outlines a model of strategic regional government. This model is appropriate to the context of the North East. It would take over responsibility for planning, economic development, transport and infrastructure, training, arts and culture and exert influence over health and education. In this model the task of an elected Assembly would be to set the strategic framework for the region in the main policy fields identified in Figure 1. The directly elected Assembly has ultimate responsibility for setting the strategic policy framework for the development of the region. However, this policy is set in partnership with a Civic Forum comprising representatives of civil society in the region. The Assembly is likely to conduct most of its policy development work through strong committees, in close consultation with the Civic Forum and other bodies, to produce policies whose detail has been thoroughly investigated by specialists and lay people. The Assembly itself would, be firmly constituted around principles of civic inclusion and would ensure consistency across policy domains. The elected Assembly would, of course, in the final analysis be democratically accountable for the policies of the regional government.

Figure 2
5.2 The existing Government Office for the North East provides the executive secretariat for the Assembly and Forum. Delivery of policy is by specialist executive agencies by means of regional public service agreements (PSAs). These are the means by the tasks of the agencies are set and the mechanism by they are held to account. The Assembly and Forum can also oversee and seek to influence other policy domains over which are critical to regional life, but which, initially at least, there appear to be obstacles to the agreement of PSAs (e.g. health). There remains a good case for an elected Assembly to have some powers of secondary legislation over specified areas. Delivery of integrated policy across policy domains would require the Assembly to have access to a single block grant from central government and, in order to promote flexibility and responsibility, possibly its own financial resources, although initially this would involve no powers of direct taxation.

5.3 This model involves no new public appointments and reduces potential reorganisation of agencies to the minimum. Rather, it should be possible to significantly reduce the number of un-elected appointees running quangos in the region. But this model substantially increases democratic accountability. The size of an Assembly would be matched to the functions it would undertake, comprising perhaps 30-40 members — enough to staff powerful committees and ensure political balance. Such an Assembly would be smaller than the Welsh Assembly, and current regional bodies and local authorities. It would not deliver policies directly, but be centrally concerned with policy development, ‘joined-up government’ and ensuring that arms-length agencies genuinely reflect regional — as opposed to Whitehall — priorities. Because the Assembly is concerned with improving the performance and accountability of existing institutions, rather than creating new ones, it has no implications for existing local authorities. Indeed under this model local authorities would benefit insofar as they would have a single regional authority with which to work in partnership instead of the current multiplicity. Local authorities would no doubt continue with their own modernisation agenda in response to the Labour government’s requirements.

5.4 The governance of the United Kingdom has been altered forever. The North East cannot afford the luxury of standing aside from this. Inaction is not an option. The creation of an elected North East Assembly, however, presents us with great opportunities. We have sought to demonstrate these through a model of elected regional government that is both credible and strong. We commend it to the people of the North East.

Regardless of race, creed or social status, bring together persons, groups, associations, political parties and companies wishing to debate and examine the possibilities for improved and democratically accountable regional government within the official Government region of the West Midlands.

Plan and effect debate, education and research round the need for an elected regional assembly for the West Midlands, paying particular attention to models of elected representation likely to include the widest cross-sections of the regional community.

Seek at all times to promote the above debate at the level of local communities, with appropriate outreach to those social groups under-represented within existing political forums
The Aim

The aim of the Convention will be to enable the people of the West Midlands to express a considered view to central Government on the issue of democratically accountable regional government. It will consider the economic and social benefits that representative regional government could bring to the region and in particular to disadvantaged communities and individuals, It will aim to bring about accountable and representative regional government for the West Midlands.

The Process

The Convention will build upon the regional network of its stakeholders, plus media contacts, to foster debate on the case for representative government for the region. We will:

Produce up to date, reliable briefing materials posing the key issues

Hold community based events regionally and sub-regionally designed to involve a wide cross section of West Midlanders in debating the merits of democratic regional government

Lobby and influence existing regional organisations, official or voluntary, on the merits of elected regional government

Maintain links with the Campaign For the English Regions, Charter 88 and other national bodies in order to inform West Midlanders of the wider debate on devolution.

SUMMARY

The future stability of a devolved Britain depends on successfully answering the English question. The process of devolution has left England untouched within an unbalanced constitutional settlement. To date, the English have shown a benign indifference to the issue of devolution. But in the long run, the attention of the English people will be increasingly drawn to advantages accruing to Scotland and Wales under devolution.

The modernisation of the UK’s constitution must not exclude England. It must be a central component of the Government’s vision of a modern and fair democracy. If the Government is truly committed to devolution and the modernisation of the British state, it must honour its 1997 Manifesto commitment and draw up legislation to allow regional referendums on English regional government. It must also make the establishment of democratically elected regional government a key commitment in its 2002 General Election Manifesto.

After lying dormant, the debate on the English question has been resurrected by renewed calls for an English Parliament. How we answer the English question could have a fundamental effect on the future stability of the Union. William Hague’s proposal that only English MPs vote on English matters signals the emergence of the Conservatives as an English nationalist party. The creation of an English Parliament would not contribute to a stable constitutional settlement. The relative size of England, in terms of population and wealth, would ensure that the former would continue to dominate the UK. More importantly, from the viewpoint of the regions, an English Parliament would represent another form of centralisation. On this basis there is good reason to doubt the sustainability of any England-wide solution to governance of England or even to the West Lothian Question.

Regional government is the solution to the English question. There is already a growing hidden and unaccountable tier of English regional government. This undertakes many important government tasks and spends large sums of money with little account to the people of the regions themselves. The creation of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) extends this tier of government. But while RDAs represent a modest advance in the creation of more integrated economic development in the regions, they offer no devolution of democratic power.

There is a strong case for regional democratic control in four key areas of public policy: economic development; environment and infrastructure; employment and training; culture, sports and tourism. Central government activity is significant in these areas but important policy decisions are made without reference to regional accountability. The challenge facing the Government is to modernise and democratise this tier of regional government.

English regionalism is on the rise despite little encouragement from Westminster and Whitehall. This new regionalism emphasises the importance of a coherent regional dimension of public policy, but it goes further and, in some cases such as the North East, amounts to a programme of radical political change based on extending and modernising the democratic system. The Government should respond to, and encourage these developments as an antidote to the ‘little Englander’ mentality.

The Government appears at best undecided – at worst confused and divided – on the future shape of English regional government. Regions should be encouraged to find their own models of regional democracy. The North East Constitutional Convention is elaborating one such model, which other regions could follow. It proposes a variation of the Welsh model: PR elections, cabinet style of government with powerful scrutinising committees. Tony Blair described the National Assembly as a means of elucidating ‘Welsh solutions for Welsh problems’. The English regions, too, need institutions matched to the scale and nature of the problems they face.

EMPOWERING THE ENGLISH REGIONS

1. The hole in the middle

England is hardly mentioned in the devolution legislation, and yet England is, in many respects, the key to the success of devolution (Bogdanor, 1999: 265).

To become a modern democracy we need meaningful local accountability. We need councils with autonomy on local issues and services. And, above all, we need the devolved government for Scotland and Wales extended to the English regions (Charter88, 1999).

The creation of devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and, potentially, Northern Ireland is perhaps the most significant domestic achievement of the Labour Government. Striking images of people celebrating the birth of their new democratic institutions in Cardiff and Edinburgh reaffirmed the view that the way in which we ‘do’ politics in the U.K. has changed forever. However, people in Sunderland or Solihull have been mere spectators at the devolution celebrations. The English have had little to celebrate. The governance of England represents a gaping hole at the centre of the Government’s devolution programme.

The Government has paid little attention to the needs of England and, more especially, its regions. As a first step to devolving power within England the Government has established ten Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Each RDA has a board of directors selected from within its respective region. These boards, however, are answerable to civil servants and ministers in London. The Government has also encouraged the formation of ‘regional chambers’, primarily from local authority associations, but incorporating interest groups such as business, unions, and voluntary organisations. But these organisations are only consultative, have no statutory basis or direct powers and therefore are very weak compared to the institutions created in Scotland and Wales.

These initiatives are welcome but they do not go far enough. The English regions must be allowed to develop powerful, open and democratic systems of government. The English regions need the space to create their own social and economic strategies every bit as much as Scotland and Wales.

A policy vacuum has been allowed to emerge in relation to the governance of England. The Conservatives have attempted to fill this vacuum by raising the standard of English nationalism. This strategy has the potential to threaten the cohesion of the Union and the interests of the English regions.

The Government can no longer sit on the fence. It must take action. Firstly, it must honour its manifesto commitment and draw up legislation to allow referendums on English regional government [1]. Secondly, the establishment of democratically elected English regional government must be made a key commitment in Labour’s 2002 General Election manifesto. By placing the modernisation of English governance at the centre of its vision for a modern and fair democracy in the second term, the Government can extend its commitment to devolution and modernisation of the British state.

2. The English question

More attention than ever is being paid to the English question, and justifiably so. How we answer the English question will have fundamental effects on the future stability of the Union. It will say a lot about how British people think about their country and the way it is projected in the world. But it is not just the Scottish and Welsh who need to understand devolution: the English need to get to grips with it too.

The governance of England is increasingly problematic. Even prior to devolution, both Scotland and Wales benefited from the presence of Secretaries of State arguing their respective national cases in Cabinet. At the same time, Scotland and Wales benefit from over-representation of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Both, but especially Scotland, benefit from a higher level of public expenditure per head, a result partly of the operation of the Barnett Formula (described below). Now the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly will be able to determine their own expenditure priorities, perhaps gaining further advantages in the attraction of new industry and additional resources from the UK government and the EU. In relation to any future changes in these policy areas, especially expected revisions to the Barnett Formula, these devolved administrations will carry great weight compared to the disadvantaged regions of England. In addition, Scotland has as yet unused tax-raising power. These advantages will not go unnoticed in England, especially in those parts of country that already feel remote and out of touch from the centres of political power.

The Conservatives and the English question

William Hague has recently attempted to address the English question. In fact, few actions he will undertake as Conservative leader will matter as much because how we answer the English question could have a fundamental effect on the stability of the Union. In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, sounding more like an English Tory leader and less like a British Conservative one, he argued, ‘The people of England now find themselves governed by political institutions that are manifestly unfair to them’ (Hague, 1999). This unfairness, he argues, reflects the fact that England is ‘under-represented’ in Parliament and that the English ‘do not have an exclusive say over English laws’. Hague describes these injustices as a ‘ticking time-bomb’ under the British constitution and warns about English nationalism whilst sounding as if he were celebrating it. While rejecting calls from his own party to establish an English Parliament, he proposes that only English MPs should be allowed to vote on English legislation. Or, as Hague puts it: English votes for English laws.

Hague’s proposal not only looks like a dangerous flirtation with English nationalism, but it is confused and problematic. Firstly, cutting non-English MPs out of most parliamentary business would undermine the House of Commons. It would meet only for foreign affairs and broad economic debates. But in practice, it would prove difficult to define what might constitute an ‘English Bill’. Secondly, Hague’s proposal overlooks the fact that Scottish and Welsh MPs will continue to have a real interest in English legislation because of one key issue: finance. Levels of public expenditure in Scotland and Wales, because of the operation of the Barnett Formula, will continue to be determined by expenditure levels in England. The Barnett Formula does not determine the overall size of budgets, but provides that, where comparable, changes to programmes in England result in equivalent changes in the budgets of the territorial departments calculated on the basis of population shares. Therefore, virtually all ‘English’ issues involving public expenditure are likely to have implications for Scotland and Wales. For instance, if a Westminster government decided to increase or decrease expenditure on health this would have knock-on effects on the Scottish block.

Hague, moreover, has specifically committed a future Conservative government to the abolition of the recently created Regional Development Agencies. In a speech to the Local Government Association Annual Conference in Harrogate, John Redwood warned potential recruits of the new RDAs: ‘I say to anyone thinking of working for them, only take a two-year contract’ (quoted in The Journal, [Newcastle] 8th July 1999). Redwood also committed the Conservatives to the abolition of the Government Offices for the Regions (GORs), which they created in 1994 in order to improve the co-ordination and integration of policy delivery in the regions. The Conservatives instead promise to strengthen local government. But this approach is fundamentally misguided. First, given recent history, the Conservatives will struggle to present themselves as born-again champions of local government. In any event, local authorities themselves have increasingly joined together to have a bigger voice in many of the debates that concern them. The idea that the voice of Alnwick District Council will have the same weight in Whitehall as the First Minister in Scotland is not credible. Second, and probably more importantly, the Conservatives fail to take into account the growing interest in regional government outside the South East.

The fallacy of the English question

The creation of an English Parliament is likely to threaten the stability of the Union. For this reason an England-wide solution to governance of England is unsustainable. England would dominate the rest of the UK because of its size in terms of population and wealth. More importantly, from the viewpoint of regions outside of the South East, an English Parliament would represent another form of centralisation. Liberal Democrat Leader, Charles Kennedy MP, made the point well in a recent speech:

If an English Parliament was established at Westminster, as it surely would be, would the people of Newcastle or Cornwall really feel that there is any less remote than the current UK Parliament? Within England, there are serious concerns in areas such as the North East and South West that the current Westminster Parliament treats these areas as peripheral. The regions of England are not bothered about Scots and others voting on English matters – they are far more concerned about decisions being taken in a faraway place which seems to know nothing about huge swathes of England. An English Parliament would do little to meet these regional concerns (Kennedy 1999).

Significant regional inequalities exist within England. Currently only two English regions (London and the South East) exceed the European average GDP per head. Beyond this there are marked inequalities in terms of levels of health, educational attainment and housing conditions, as well as access to employment.

These inequalities have evolved over a long period and are the product of complex and varied patterns of economic restructuring. While the South East has developed as an international service centre, the peripheral regions have seen their primary and manufacturing industries decline. While London and the South East struggle with the consequences of too much growth, regions like the North East struggle with the consequences of too little. There is little doubt that the persistence of these regional inequalities helps to underpin the ‘sense of neglect’ outside the South East identified by the Bishop of Liverpool [2]. The furore over the Governor of the Bank of England’s comments in 1998 about the impact of high interest rates on northern job losses, being ‘a price worth paying’ to dampen inflation in the south are powerful testimony to the sense of neglect felt outside the South East. Even without the pressure from Scotland and Wales there would be a strong case for decentralisation within England.

At the same time there is considerable evidence that, over time, the Whitehall preference for ‘one size fits all’ policy solutions has often exacerbated local difficulties. The notion that civil servants in London can produce identical solutions for Cornwall and Merseyside beggars common sense, yet this is the underlying principle upon which public policy in England is based. Devolution of political power to the regions would allow the search for ‘regional solutions for regional problems’, in the way that Tony Blair described the advantages of a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. For instance, agriculture may be in crisis throughout the UK, but the scale and nature of the crisis varies by region. Hill farmers in the northern uplands face different problems from those of arable farmers in southern England. Yet all of these problems are dealt with from Whitehall. By contrast, agriculture is a key policy domain of the Welsh Assembly. A region like the North East of England faces rural development issues more akin to those of Scotland than the Home Counties yet has little autonomy to fashion locally appropriate policies. The training needs of Merseyside are probably the diametric opposite of Berkshire’s, yet the same legislation covers both.

The English regions, although they are not nations, face basically the same ‘democratic deficits’ as Scotland and Wales. The Government ought to understand this only too well. Prior to the last election Labour’s document, A Choice for England, painted a clear picture of the problems facing the English regions. It described how the Conservatives, despite their public opposition to regionalism, had gone about strengthening and extending a democratically ‘invisible’ regional state in England. Regional government dispenses public largesse without direct regional accountability, notably in the form of integrated Government Offices of the Regions, but also in the form of quangos that operate on a regional level. Specifically, the document rejected the argument that regional government represented another layer of bureaucracy, arguing that this was already in place. Instead, it identified a lack of policy co-ordination and a yawning ‘democratic deficit’ which required urgent redress. All of this was underpinned by declamations about the over-centralised nature of British politics and the inefficiencies that this breeds. The Labour Government in its campaigning for a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly argued that over-centralisation of government led to inefficiency and misguided policy making. Yet these arguments equally apply to England where the problems of centralisation are, if anything, greater than in Scotland or Wales.

3. English regional governance

A web of existing regional structures and institutions already exists and provides the basis for democratically elected English regional government. The challenge facing the Government is to modernise and democratise regional structures that are already in place.

Government Offices of the Regions

At the heart of regional governance in England are the Government Offices of the Regions. At the time of their creation in 1994, the then (Conservative) Secretary of State John Gummer described the advantages of the GORs thus:

For the first time there will be coterminous regions for the Departments, and that is vital to the change. It always seemed ridiculous to me that different Departments had different regions. That made any sort of planning almost impossible (quoted in Bogdanor, 1999: 269).

These GORs bring together into a single operation the regional activities of the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. Most GORs also contain staff from the Home Office and Department of Culture, Media and Sport. As such, they provide the source of administrative authority for a range of central government activity in the regions [3].

Currently GORs exist to manage programmes on behalf of their parent Departments in Whitehall, ‘to support and facilitate linkages between partners and programmes, and to inform the development of Departments’ policies from a regional perspective’. But the GORs are failing to meet even their currently limited declared objectives; there are too many lines of accountability, and funding, which makes it difficult to co-ordinate activity effectively. The Government recognises the problem: the Cabinet Office’s Performance and Innovation Unit (the Government’s ‘joined up policy’ think-tank) is examining the operation of central government activity at the regional level, in order to achieve greater integration and reducing duplication of effort. Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Riverside and chair of the PLP regional government group, however, identifies a key difficulty: ‘There could be reluctance from Whitehall who fear a loss of power. The Government should address this concern and see that all regional economies need to develop in the national interest [4].’ The Whitehall turf wars surrounding the creation of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) demonstrate that the civil service has a powerful interest in ensuring that devolution to the English regions is frustrated. The Government would require clarity of purpose and determination to overcome these vested interests and implement meaningful regional government.

Regional Development Agencies

The creation of the RDAs has been heralded as a major new development in the governance of the English regions, at least as far as economic development is concerned. The intention is that RDAs will bring much-needed policy co-ordination and a space for new approaches to economic regeneration. But the White Paper on RDAs stressed these should be ‘business-led’. The business-dominated boards of RDAs are accountable to the Secretary of State. The Government’s approach to RDAs has been widely questioned not least by a number of Parliamentary Select Committee reports that criticised the Government for not giving RDAs enough powers, failing to make the relationship between RDAs and GORs clear and failing to make clear how RDAs will be accountable to any future regional Chambers. Observers have noted that without a unified budget with a power to raise funds and control over key areas such as skills and training – which are critical to economic development – the autonomy, flexibility and effectiveness of RDAs will be limited (Harding et al, forthcoming; House of Commons, 1997, 1998; see also Constitution Unit, 1996).

The Government has encouraged the formation of regional Chambers representing (predominantly) local authority interests (together with some representation of the social partners). The principal task of these Chambers is to scrutinise the activities of the RDA boards. But the chambers will find it difficult to influence the Whitehall machinery because they lack real power or democratic legitimacy. By far the most important lines of RDA accountability are to Whitehall; the only way the views of the Chambers can impact on the RDAs, other than by persuasion, is through a directive by the Secretary of State (Harding et al, forthcoming). Thus, while the creation of RDAs may represent a modest advance in the creation of more integrated economic development in the regions, to date they involve little devolution of political power (Whitehead 1999).

The Quango State

Even if regional government in England is largely invisible to the citizen, it is still more extensive than the institutions of economic development. One of the most superficial arguments levelled against the case for regional government is that it would result in the creation of a new ‘tier of bureaucracy’. Figure 1, however, demonstrates some aspects of the governance of one English region, the North East, based on a mapping of the equivalent powers exercised by the Welsh Assembly. The arrowhead lines on the map illustrate broad patterns of funding and accountability. It shows an extensive tier of regional government already exists, although one without direct lines of democratic accountability to the people it serves.

At the heart of government in the region is the Government Office for the North East (GONE) and also the recently created RDA (called ‘One North East’). But alongside these are various other quangos and agencies concerned with important aspects of life in the region. Not all the agencies active on behalf of central government in the region have regional boundaries that are coterminous with those of GONE and One North East, although there is a general trend within Government now to promote coterminosity which should be advanced further. There is a strong case for regional democratic control in four distinct areas (see Figure 1) where central government activity is significant.

These are:

1. economic development;

2. environment and infrastructure;

3. employment, education and training;

4. culture, sport and tourism.

These activities typically form the core responsibilities of regional governments in many Member States of the EU and other States around the world with devolved systems of government [5]. They should form the core activities of English regional government. By creating regional government the Government will also stand a better chance of overcoming fragmentation and achieving its ambition of ‘joined-up’ government and the regional and local levels.

4. The rise of English regionalism

Labour’s 1997 Election Manifesto stated that ‘in time’ the party would introduce legislation to allow people, region by region, to decide in referendums whether they wanted elected regional government. According to recent press reports, instead of embracing the regional agenda, the Government has lost what little enthusiasm it had for the notion of English regionalism. However, the issue of regional government, and the wider governance of England, cannot be dealt with by ignoring it. English regionalism is a rising force to which the Government will be compelled to find a response.

The evolution of English regionalism

The English regions have been creating political institutions for some time. Given how inhospitable the English political culture is to regionalism, these developments are all the more noteworthy. For example, local authority associations exist in each of the English regions. These are voluntary groupings of local authorities with an interest in regional governance matters as well as issues such as land use planning, economic development, transportation and the regional impact of European integration. These associations have developed from different bases and have evolved in relation to local priorities and concerns, but have increasingly been concerned with the general question of regional governance. Indeed, they now form the basis of the voluntary regional Chambers that are expected to monitor the activities of Regional Development Agencies. In turn, the various local authority associations have formed ‘ERA’, the ‘English Regional Association’, to provide a forum for discussion of areas of common interest.

Civic campaigns in support of regional devolution have emerged alongside the development of regional political institutions. The first of these was the Campaign for a Northern Assembly (CNA) established in 1992 in Newcastle. Among the CNA’s activities was the publication in 1994 in the regional press of a declaration in support of regional government. Several hundred signatures, including the entire Northern Group of Labour MPs, supported the declaration. The CNA repeated the exercise in November 1997 with the publication of the ‘Declaration for the North’, this time in the New Statesman (14th November, p4). The Declaration welcomed the creation of a Scottish Parliament, but called for the Government to bring forward plans for a North East Assembly. Again the Declaration was supported by large sections of the Labour establishment.

Similar campaigns have been subsequently established in Yorkshire and the West Midlands. The campaign for Yorkshire Democracy was launched on 17th March 1999. The coalition of trade unions, local politicians and voluntary sector organisations led by the Archbishop of York calls for directly elected regional government for Yorkshire and the Humber. The campaign’s ‘Claim of Right’ asserts the right of the people of Yorkshire and Humber to determine their own domestic affairs, should it be their settled will to do so. It supports the creation of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Chamber and Regional Development Agency and calls upon the Government to bring forward legislation for accountable and representative regional government in Yorkshire and Humber at the earliest opportunity. These regional campaigns have recently formed the Campaign for the English Regions, designed to co-ordinate and extend the efforts in the individual regions.

A further development, again pioneered in the North East, has been the establishment in England of constitutional conventions, inspired by the Scottish approach. The North East Constitutional Convention, chaired by the Bishop of Durham, was established in April 1999. It set itself the task of agreeing a scheme for an elected assembly and ensuring the widest possible agreement on the scheme. A recent House of Commons early day motion (EDM 847 of Session 1988/9), sponsored by Fraser Kemp MP, was supported by the majority of Labour backbenchers in the region. Regional government is a daily news story in regional press in the North East. Indeed, the editors of the main morning papers are members of the Convention steering group. The work of the Convention continues and some of its thinking is reported below in section 5. A constitutional convention has also been established in North West England this time under the Bishop of Liverpool. At this stage in the North West, the aim of the Convention is a more general examination of the appropriate constitutional arrangements for the region; it seems probable that the conclusions it draws will not be too dissimilar to those reached in the North East.

Few attempts have been made to measure opinion in the English regions. A recent Mori poll published in The Economist (26th March 1999) on attitudes towards regional government did find majorities in favour in London (60 against 21), the North East (51: 29), the West Midlands (46: 37), the South West (47: 39), the East Midlands (40: 35) and the Eastern region (43: 42). Opinion was divided in Yorkshire and Humber (42 for and against), with majorities against the idea in the South East (47 opposed: 37 in favour) and North West (44: 42). While more consistent records of opinion are required, not least to measure the impact of the newly formed campaigns and conventions, disinterested metropolitan opinion formers are well advised to take into account the new regional agenda that is developing in many parts of England. So, too, should the Government.

5. Outline of regional democracy: a model for English regional government

Given the amount of attention the Government devoted to developing coherent devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales, it is astonishing how little thought appears to have been given, let alone agreement achieved on, the future shape of elected English regional government. Whitehall and Westminster are waiting to see what happens in the regions. Some regions are beginning to respond to this challenge and are developing coherent and organic models of regional government.

In the North East where a Constitutional Convention has been established some ideas are beginning to be advanced on the shape of regional government. Although the Convention’s work is not complete, it has clarified some issues and suggested some important questions relating to the operation of English regional government. It presents the elements of a coherent model for the North East, but in doing so raises issues for all regions.

The North East proposals emerge from a particular context. The debate there has been fuelled by the reality of a Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament (in a region that is geographically – and probably socially and culturally – closer to Scotland than London). The debate in the North East, especially within the Labour Party, is 20 years old. The North East has long regarded both Scotland and Wales as competitors for investment and resources. There is wide recognition that, while public expenditure per head is much higher in Wales, and especially Scotland, on most measures of need, the North East is the most disadvantaged region in England. A palpable fear of being ‘left behind’ underpins the debate in the North East. The North East is a region with a strong sense of its own identity and a socio-economic profile similar to that of Wales. Partly for these reasons the Convention has paid close attention to the Welsh model of devolution and has investigated how far it could be implemented in the North East. At the same time, political opinion has tended to be sceptical about the advantages of the proposed Greater London Assembly (GLA) as a model for the North East. While the GLA model represents a constitutional innovation, insofar as it introduces the concept of the directly elected mayor, it is more difficult to view it as a form of devolution. The GLA will take over few central government activities, will not have a single block grant and most of its actions will be subject to the veto of the Secretary of State. For instance, welcoming the publication of the North East Convention’s interim report, Jim Cousins MP pointed to the difficulties of persuading the electorate in the North East to vote for an institution that only had the powers of a London Assembly saying: ‘I do not think the people of the region would vote for a lettuce leaf’ (The Journal [Newcastle] 31st July 1999).

Those in favour of regional government want to break away from the old styles of governing. There is widespread recognition that the Westminster style of politics just does not work effectively. Similarly, there is little desire to see the local government experience writ large. The Labour Party dominates both the national and local political arenas in the region. As much as anything else, the Convention reflects a desire for greater diversity in regional politics. The new democratic innovations of the Scottish Parliament and the practical attempts to create an open, modern and inclusive form of government are undoubtedly an inspiration in this regard. Yet it is only the Labour Party in the North East, as the dominate party in the region, who can deliver democratic change. It is a massive challenge to the party in the North East. It has a responsibility to extract a fair democratic settlement for the North East from Government – even at the risk of a rising electoral challenge in the short term.

The Convention’s interim report recognises that for many the test of whether an assembly is a genuinely new and inclusive institution is whether it is elected by a system of proportional representation (PR). The Convention recognises that a regional assembly elected by first-past-the-post would continue to produce a one party state in the North East and so many groups would be unwilling to support a regional assembly without some form of PR. Alan Beith MP, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, has highlighted this point:

There is no way that a regional assembly could command confidence unless it has a fair system of election. It was recognised in Scotland that a Parliament elected by first-past-the post would be dominated by one party from one area. That is not the basis for setting up an assembly that needs to command public support [6].

A regional assembly has to be appropriately equipped to address the challenges it faces. The size of the assembly is linked to the range of functions it is expected to exercise. The proposed London Assembly is small (25 members) because it has few powers to exercise (and most of the powers it does have are lodged with the separately elected Mayor). The Welsh Assembly has a membership of 60, reflecting the choice of cabinet-style government and the wider range of powers it exercises. The North East Convention suggests that a cabinet style of government, with powerful scrutinising committees, would suit the needs of the North East: it would produce clear political leadership for the region while ensuring inclusiveness. It estimates that an assembly of around 50 members would be necessary to support this model.

The Government Office for the North East has an estimated expenditure for 1999/2000 of £300 million in order to discharge these activities – this is the hidden apparatus of regional government described earlier. The Convention suggests that any credible model of real devolution would place GONE at the centre of a North East Executive. Indeed, it would be difficult to present any model that did not make GONE answerable to an elected assembly as representing a form of devolution at all. But the Convention identifies a range of other powers that could come under the control of a regional assembly. Together these represent a core of responsibilities over which, the Convention suggests, a regional assembly could have the power to make secondary legislation along the lines of the Welsh Assembly (see Figure 1). The ability of an assembly to act effectively, though, would be enhanced by a general power competence. It is acknowledged that such a system of regional government could only work effectively if it were financed by a single block grant, bringing together the range of existing funding streams that supports the myriad of Government activities in the region.

The Convention identifies a role for a devolved regional government to represent the North East (alongside Scotland and Wales) in Europe, the proposed British-Irish Council and in new national forums such as a reformed House of Lords. It identifies a strong case for proceeding to a regional assembly without any alteration to the structure of local government in the North East. It notes that most people in the region live in areas governed by unitary local authorities. This argument might be more difficult to make elsewhere.

A number of principles are adopted by the Convention designed to promote an elected assembly that embodies and reflects power-sharing between the people of the North East, assembly members and a future North East government. It contends that any North East government should be accountable to a North East Assembly and, in turn, these should be clearly accountable to the people of the region. A North East Assembly should be accessible, open, responsive, and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation. The North East assembly should recognise in its operation and its appointments the need to promote equal opportunities for all.

The North East Constitutional Convention presents the outline of one model of regional democracy for the English regions. The region could be a pilot for devolved government, as the Labour Party itself appeared to propose in the early 1990s. However, the model adopted there need not be the only one. In the North East the debate is relatively advanced and heavily influenced by developments in Scotland and Wales, but this is not true of all parts of the UK. A model that is appropriate for the North East may not be appropriate for other parts of England. It is likely, therefore, that any system of English regional government will be asymmetrical in nature. There is no fundamental reason why this needs to be a problem. Asymmetry has always been a feature of the governance of the United Kingdom and is built into the emerging pattern of devolution in Britain. In fact, asymmetry is a feature that could hold the Union together. International experience suggests that uniformity is not always the best way forward. Nations such as Spain have successfully adopted asymmetrical devolution, with some regions starting later on the road to regional government than others.

6. Conclusion: answering the English question

The Government argued that devolution would strengthen the Union. But an England that constantly worries about Scottish privileges in particular will play into the hands of those who argue that the days of the Union are over. Scottish Labour in particular ought to take note. A resolution of the English question, then, is critical to the achievement of a stable constitutional settlement in a devolved Britain. But the size of England, and its internal social, economic, political and cultural diversity means that this cannot be achieved on an England-wide scale. Increasingly, England’s diversity has found expression both in the creation of a hidden apparatus of regional government and a rising regional consciousness. Supporters of regional devolution do not merely want political power, they aspire to the ‘new ways of doing politics’ represented by the thinking of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and others. Despite the vested interests opposed to it, English regionalism is on the political agenda to stay.

To date, despite its commitment to devolution, the Labour Government has neglected the English question. This position is unsustainable in the long run. The Government must give a firm lead on this issue. Regions like the North East, where the debate is advanced, should be given leadership by the Government. Labour did not stand by as a disinterested observer in Scotland and Wales. In these cases Labour saw the future of the Union at stake and presented itself as the party of devolution in order to save the Union. It should do the same in the English regions.

Bibliography

Bogdanor, V. (1990). Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford:OPUS.

Constitution Unit (1996).Regional Government in England. Regional Chambers and Regional Development Agencies London:Faculty of Laws, University College London.

ERA (1998). Regional Working in England: a policy statement and survey of the English Regional Association. (URL:http://www.somerset.gov.uk/era/).

Hague, W (1999).Strengthening the Union After Devolution Speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, London, 15 July. (URL:http://www.cps.org.uk/)

Harding, A., Wilks-Heeg, S., and Hutchins, M., (forthcoming). ” Regional Development Agencies and English Regionalisation: the question of accountability” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy.

House of Commons (1997). Regional Development Agencies. Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. HC415. London:The Stationery Office.

House of Commons (1998). The relationaship Between TECs and the Proposed Regional Development Agencies. Report of the Education and Employment Committee. HC 265. London: The Stationery Office.

Kennedy C. (1999).The British QuestionSpeech to the Scottish Council Foundation, Edinburgh 30 June.(URL:http://www.charleskennedy.org.uk/).

Whitehead, A. (1999).”From regional development to regional devolution”, in Dungey, J. and Newman, I. (Eds). The New Regional Agenda. London: Local Government Information Unit.
[1] Of the 177 manifesto commitments made by the Labour Party in 1997, 75 have been kept in full and 100 are being implemented. Of the two yet to be timetabled one includes legislation on referendums on regional government. See Making Britain Better. 1st May 1999. (available from the Labour Party, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4GT)

[2] William Hague’s speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 14 July 1999 drew a swift retort from the Bishop of Liverpool, chair of the North West Constitutional Convention. In a letter to The Times (21 July 1999) the Bishop drew attention to the dangers of fuelling the sense of political neglect felt in the North West and predicting that this would intensify a ‘politics of resentment’ outside the ‘favoured Home Counties’. Outside of the South East, it is this issue, rather than public disquiet about the West Lothian Question, which is likely to be the most important issue.

[3] GORs are, not yet, territorial departments on the Welsh or Scottish models, although they could evolve in that direction. They do have important responsibilities in relation to managing contacts with Training and Enterprise Councils, strategic planning, transport and European funding and so on.

[4] Interview with the authors, 3 May 1999

[5] The European context is an important on. In many English regions, the European Commission is an important provider of matched funds for economic development. In theory, this gives the regions space to develop their own economic development strategies. But research undertaken in the past for the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee in 1995, showed that central government had the major role in shaping these ‘regional strategies’ to its own purposes. This can be seen as providing further evidence of how Whitehall’s heavy hand limits local initiative. For instance, in many parts of England there is much mileage in terms of economic development, in developing direct strategic relationships with other European regions. Some regions are already attempting to do this, but more could be achieved if the regions had a greater degree of autonomy.

[6] Evidence to the North East Constitutional Convention Inquiry, 2 July 1999

It soon garnered over 140 signatures, including over 115 Labour backbenchers, 4 Labour Chairs of Commons Select Committees, 10 members of the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet, and notable former Ministers like Peter Kilfoyle, Tony Lloyd, Ron Davies, David Clark, Doug Henderson, Win Griffiths and Glenda Jackson.

The motion said:
That this House welcomes the creation of the Campaign for the English Regions; believes that it will succeed in its aim to bring diverse strands of political, social and cultural opinion together to unite behind a call for directly elected Regional Assemblies; wholeheartedly supports the current work undertaken by campaigns and constitutional conventions in the different English regions and welcomes all efforts to speed up the process for devolution for the regions of England in order that they too can join Scottish, Welsh and London counterparts in enjoying the positive benefits of decentralised decision-making.

Sponsored by Louise Ellman MP, the other signatories were:

• Allan, Richard
• Atherton, Candy
• Austin, John
• Ballard, Jackie
• Begg, Anne
• Beith, AJ
• Benn, Tony
• Bennett, Andrew F
• Bermingham, Gerald
• Best, Harold
• Blears, Hazel
• Borrow, David
• Bradley, Peter
• Bradshaw, Ben
• Brand, Peter
• Brinton, Helen
• Brown, Russell
• Bruce, Malcolm
• Campbell, Alan
• Campbell, Ronnie
• Campbell-Savours, DN
• Canavan, Dennis
• Casale, Roger
• Cawsey, Ian
• Chaytor, David
• Chidgey, David
• Clapham, Michael
• Clark, David
• Clarke, Tony
• Clwyd, Ann
• Connarty, Michael
• Cook, Frank
• Corbyn, Jeremy
• Cotter, Brian
• Cousins, Jim
• Crausby, David
• Cryer, Ann
• Cunningham, Jim
• Davey, Valerie
• Davidson, Ian
• Davies, Geraint
• Davies, Ron
• Davis, Terry
• Dawson, Hilton
• Dean, Janet
• Dobbin, Jim
• Drew, David
• Ennis, Jeff
• Etherington, Bill
• Fearn, Ronnie
• Follett, Barbara
• Foster, Don
• Fyfe, Maria
• George, Bruce
• Gibson, Ian
• Godman, Norman A
• Graham, Thomas
• Griffiths, Win
• Gunnell, John
• Hall, Patrick
• Hancock, Mike
• Harvey, Nick
• Henderson, Doug
• Hopkins, Kelvin
• Hoyle, Lindsay
• Humble, Joan
• Iddon, Brian
• Jackson, Glenda
• Jones, Ieuan Wyn
• Jones, Jenny
• Jones, Lynne
• Jones, Martyn
• Jones, Nigel
• Kemp, Fraser
• Kilfoyle, Peter
• Kumar, Ashok
• Ladyman, Stephen
• Laxton, Bob
• Lloyd, Tony
• Llwyd, Elfyn
• Love, Andrew
• Macdonald, Calum
• Mackinlay, Andrew
• Maclennan, Robert
• Mahon, Alice
• Marsden, Gordon
• Marsden, Paul
• McAllion, John
• McCafferty, Chris
• McDonnell, John
• McNamara, Kevin
• McWalter, Tony
• McWilliam, John
• Meale, Alan
• Miller, Andrew
• Mitchell, Austin
• Moffatt, Laura
• Naysmith, Doug
• O’Hara, Edward
• Olner, Bill
• Organ, Diana
• Pike, Peter L
• Pollard, Kerry
• Quinn, Lawrie
• Rammell, Bill
• Reed, Andrew
• Rendel, David
• Ross, Ernie
• Salter, Martin
• Sanders, Adrian
• Sarwar, Mohammad
• Sawford, Phil
• Simpson, Alan
• Singh, Marsha
• Smyth, Martin
• Southworth, Helen
• Starkey, Phyllis
• Steinberg, Gerry
• Stewart, Ian
• Stunell, Andrew
• Taylor, Dari
• Taylor, David
• Temple-Morris, Peter
• Tonge, Jenny
• Trickett, Jon
• Turner, Dennis
• Turner, Neil
• Vis, Rudi
• Wareing, Robert N
• Watts, Dave
• White, Brian
• Whitehead, Alan
• Wigley, Dafydd
• Williams, Alan W
• Williams, Betty
• Willis, Phil
• Winterton, Rosie
• Wise, Audrey
• Wray, Jimmy
• Wright, Anthony D
• Wright, Tony
• Wyatt, Derek

This meeting followed on from a Regional Policy Forum in October 1999 which considered a consultation document drawn up on this subject. Thereafter, a widespread consultation exercise was held amongst all Labour Party affiliates following the publication of a further discussion paper.

The Board places on record its thanks to all those who participated in this process, without whose contributions it would not have been possible to reach the position now agreed by the Regional Labour Party.

The Labour Party also recognises the considerable contribution made to the debate about Regional Government by campaign and lobby groups, in the interest shown on this subject within the regional media.

The Regional Labour Party has already made an initial response to the policy commission consultation documents in both year one and year two of the policy process. The essence of these previous submissions was to both welcome and encourage progress towards the introduction of Regional Government in the North.

The Labour North Board now puts forward a series of key policy position statements which represent the unanimous view of the board, following the inclusive and careful consideration given to this issue by the Regional Party.

Position Statements

1. The Regional Labour is wholly in favour of the development of a Regional tier of Government. Regional Governance is already a fact of Life. Regional Government would take on the responsibility for regional governance.

2. Legislation to facilitate the introduction of regional government within the planned timetable of the next parliament should be a manifesto commitment for the next General Election. This would include the need for a positive vote in a regional referendum to be achieved as a pre-condition to establishing Regional Government.

3. The trigger mechanism for a referendum to take place would be a fixed % of a region’s electorate petitioning for such a vote to take place. This will ensure that the democratic legitimacy of the introduction of Regional Government is established at the outset of the process.

4. The voting system for the election of Regional Government representatives should be based on those used in Scotland and Wales. This will provide for a constituency base and top-up, to ensure fairer representation of gender and cultural diversity is achieved.

5. The Regional government body will have strategic, but not administrative authority over a number of functions and bodies in the region. These are:
Regional Development Agency (One North East),
Government Office North East (GONE),
Economic Development,
Employment,
Joint (local authority) Boards,
Regional and Environmental planning,
Tourism,
Transport,
Health and Emergency services,
Training and Life-long Learning,
Leisure, Recreation and Arts.

6. In terms of size Regional Government should be “big enough to represent and small enough to be effective”.

7. As part of the process of establishing Regional Government there should be a clear commitment to the introduction of a single tier of local government throughout the region. The Cumbria question is a matter for Cumbrians, but the Regional Government North body will be able to include Cumbria if that is the expressed wish of that electorate.

8. Regional Government will be a directly elected body and be the strategic decision making body in the region. It will have a responsibility to be constructive and inclusive.

9. The Regional Government will serve a fixed term of office. It will be financed by a block grant equivalent to the current spend of the list of functions and bodies listed in point 5 above.

Labour North now has a clear and unambiguous policy position on the question of Regional Government which it will campaign for within the policy structures of the party. Finally it recognises that without a New Labour Government committed to devolution none of this would be other than an entirely academic exercise.

Talk today about democratic renewal, constitutional change and the devolution of power to the English regions.

Want to set out the arguments as to why I believe the radical programme of constitutional change we embarked on in 1997 is incomplete without an answer to the so-called English Question.

And to share with you some thoughts as to what the next steps might be if the Party is at all serious about delivering on its outstanding manifesto commitment to allow people to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government.

History of Regional Government

That Manifesto was not something the Party dreamt up at the last minute as a counter-weight to the Scottish Constitutional Convention and our proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales.

It was in fact a central plank in our campaign at the time to clean up politics and reverse 18 years of Tory centralisation and rule by diktat from SW1.

Of course the debate about democratic government for the English regions has an even long history. Here in Yorkshire you could trace it back to the war of the roses and even before that.

I first took an interest in the so-called English question back in the late 1970s when the last Labour government teamed up with the Liberals to piece together the rather messy referendum on Scottish devolution – which as you know was defeated by the peculiar anomaly of counting those who didn’t vote as no votes.

The devolution debate has certainly not been confined to the Labour benches or to the Welsh and Scot Nats.

The Liberals were then, and still are, keen advocates of regional assemblies.

The Tories today might be vehemently against, but back in the 1960s you had young turks like Ken Clarke writing pamphlets supporting the idea of regional government. (Regional Government Oct 1968)

Even as late as 1992 high Tories like Lord Hailsham – Thatcher’s long serving Lord Chancellor – said in his book on the constitution that “decentralisation of powers from the centre to regional assemblies in England ought to do something to counter the top-heaviness and over centralisation of government”. (On the Constitution 1992)

Interestingly, Hailsham argued that regional government is one of the more positive constitutional options, but added that “it is the greatest pity that its feasibility shows every sign of being controversial between the parties, and that my party has come out so strongly against it”.

Kinnock of course was less than an enthusiast and I had somewhat of a rough ride as his shadow spokesman at the time on regional policy .

John Smith as you all know took a rather different view and felt strongly about constitutional reform and the need to modernise our political system.

John Prescott, who has throughout his political career argued for elected regional assemblies, was inspired by John Smith’s commitment to the devolution agenda. It was in fact under Prescott as deputy leader in 1995 that the Party first put forward a firm set of proposals to set up regional assemblies where people wanted them.

Prescott also established the Regional Policy Commission under the chairmanship of the former EU Commissioner, Bruce Millan.

The report of that Commission showed just how much the Tories had failed the regions. That report had a big influence on Party policy at the time and played an important part in helping in shaping the RDA White Paper and RDA Bill.

So, the point I really want to make in setting the scene is that the debate inside and outside the Party on the so-called English Question is not new, and neither is it just a Labour Party matter.

What is different today though, is that we have a Labour Government which as the Prime Minister said at Question Time a fortnight ago, is willing to give powers back to the regions if people want it.

Since 1997

There is no doubt that since May 1997 there has been a transformation in the constitutional make up of this country and an unprecedented devolution of power away from Whitehall.

We have delivered what we said we would in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London.

And, we have through the RDAs and related policies and programmes taken on the challenge of bridging the so-called regional economic deficit.

We have also embarked on a major local government reform programme, beefed up the regional planning system, strengthened the role of the Government Regional Offices under a new Regional Coordination Unit, and helped set up voluntary local authority led Regional Chambers in every region outside London.

On top of that we have begun to reform the House of Lords and resurrected the Parliamentary Committee on the English Regions.

By any measure we have achieved a great deal in only three years.

However, whilst we have made real progress in addressing the regional prosperity gap both within and between regions and there is unquestionably a much stronger commitment by government departments to the regional economic development agenda, we have in my view reached a hiatus in regard to taking forward proposals for directly elected regional assemblies.

I think this view is shared by the Constitutional Conventions in the North East and North West and by the Campaign for regional assemblies here in Yorkshire.

Whilst they have done some excellent work in their respective regions, they are now wanting to see some signal from Government as to what they should do next.

Why we need regional assemblies

I think that a year ago you could argue that the Government was in danger of suffering from constitutional indigestion and that quite rightly we had to concentrate our energies on the wealth creation agenda.

We were right to target resources to those areas, like South Yorkshire, which has one of the lowest GDP per capitas in the country. And it is right that we continue to do that if we are to make all the regions fire on all cylinders.

That said, I don’t accept that there is a trade-off between regional economic policy and all that goes with the talk of a north-south divide and the Party’s commitment to regional government.

Indeed, I would argue that we would be better placed to reduce regional disparities if regional policy itself was driven more by the regions and shaped by the people in the regions who often feel disadvantaged and powerless compared to other parts of the country.

Regions need effective co-ordination and a clear voice in order to promote economic development, and that in my view is best achieved through regional assemblies.

The case for the regions having their own voice and powers to improve the co-ordination and efficiency of policies at the regional level is one argument for elected assemblies.

But, I also believe that regional government will not only add value and improve the quality of decision making, but critically make for better and more responsive government by providing democratic scrutiny and accountability.

(culture change – regions used to having things done for them/RDA change in mindset and marrying of cultures)

National Policy Commission

When the Party met in Exeter in June to discuss the National Policy Commission document on regional government the point about bridging the democratic deficit and devolving power down to let people shape their own future was made time and time again.

The London election I believe brought home to some delegates the fact that the other English regions had been overlooked. There was also a greater sense of confidence among proponents of regional government that the political mood for change in the regions has intensified.

The Policy Commission document spelt out a new role for the regions and was endorsed at Party conference. What it called for was a move to regional government as soon as practicable where there is clear demand for it, and for Government to publish a green or white paper setting out the possible options.

What are the Options?

The Party then is 100% behind the principle of regional government as means to achieving democratic renewal and better government.

But, support for regional government must as, John Prescott has said, rest on what it delivers not on the mere fact of its creation.

If it is perceived as merely a reinvented tier of local government or conversely as means of stripping powers away locally elected politician, I don’t believe it would do justice to the manifesto.

It must be for the people to decide in a referendum whether they want regional government. As we have done in Scotland, Wales and in London, where we introduced enabling legislation early on to give people a choice.

That still begs the question of what functions and powers people would be voting for.

And, indeed whether all regions should have the same powers at the same time or whether some regions could have regional government whilst other are without.

The constitutional conventions and other bodies such as the Regional Policy Forum and the Constitution Unit looked in some detail at the models on offer and have put forward various adaptations of the Welsh and London arrangements.

International Experience

The fact is there are no constitutional blueprints which we can lift off the shelf, either here in the UK or from elsewhere in Europe.

This was brought home to me when I read through the Government’s recently published review of international models of regional government.

That report – which is well worth a read – shows that not only is the UK a late comer to the regional devolution agenda, but that there are a myriad of different models on offer and each with their own distinctive flavour and historical roots.

Different countries have devolved different powers to different regions in different ways.

What the report concluded from this is that an evolutionary and incremental approach to regionalism and regional governance is more the norm, than the exception.

Moreover, when you look at the European experience you see the formation of regional structures of government as a process of change with its own dynamic, rather than a distinct one-off event.

An asymmetrical model with a wide diversity of political institutions introduced at different time, for different purposes and with different powers may be complex and drawn out, but it is what makes up the body politic in most EU states.

Of course there are differences in the way power has been devolved in unitary states like Greece where the transfer of powers has been primary at the county level and Sweden where powers have been moved up from the very local level to elected regional bodies.

For the federal states, such as Italy, there has been a consistent strengthening of the regional tier for over 20 years. That again differs from the German and Austrian models where the Lander exist by right and have wide ranging powers and autonomy.

The more you look the more you see evolution not revolution. In Belgium, for example, significant powers were devolved to the regions after 1993. Similarly in France and Spain decentralisation has been on-going throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

There is no reason in my view why in England regional government could not be phased in with different rates of devolution in different places, with perhaps some regions adopting more powers over time than others.

(This is in fact what is already happening – 5 models of governance in UK)

Critical Mass

I also believe that you must consult as widely as you can on what choice of functions people want, and on the size and type of assembly.

It is not for Government or the Town Hall for that matter to dictate the scope of functions and powers on a one-size fits all basis.

That said, I believe you have to start with a certain critical mass of functions and responsibilities, not least to mobilise public support. I believe it is Government’s job to set the framework and consult on the most feasible options in a Green Paper and from there to construct the necessary legislation.

(this is what we did with RDAs…)

City Mayors

Some critics of regional government argue that the Government would be better placed to abandon the regional agenda and in its place push for city regions led by city mayors.

This argument was in fashion in some quarters before Ken’s election in London, but I think has lost its momentum since.

Let me say that first London is in itself unique. Its population is that of Scotland and Wales combined. And its GDP per head is significantly higher than both.

Moreover, the GLA Act is constituted on the basis of a directly elected mayor and an elected assembly.

The assembly part has an obvious cross-over with regional government, but the idea of an elected city mayor, or even a cluster of city mayors, for the whole of a region makes little sense to me.

I think elected mayors can play an important part in the revitalisation of local democracy and modernisation of local government. But, I can’t see how city mayors could emerge with the best will in the world as leaders of city regions.

Leaving aside how a city mayor would deal with regional bodies such as RDAs and regional planning, I don’t think it would be right or feasible for one or two cities in a region to speak on behalf of other cities, let alone the rural areas beyond the city boundaries.

I very much share Hilary Armstrong’s view that city mayors can co-exist and work alongside regional structures. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is in fact the sentiment behind yesterday’s Urban White Paper which stressed the fact that the fate of most of our towns and cities is tied to that of the region as a whole.

Conclusion

The coming months are a crucial time for the Party as we prepare ourselves for the next general election.

What we must do in my view is take a clear decision on what we want to put in the manifesto in terms of carrying forward our programme of democratic renewal in England.

But we need to do more than that. I believe as a Party we have to put the case and give people a chance to give their views on what form of regional government they prefer.

We can do that by publishing a green paper before the election and engaging people in the regions in a full and open debate on the options.

As I have said we should not presume that the single approach will be right for every region or that we have to have regional government for all regions at once.

If the people of Yorkshire and Humberside decide in a referendum that they want regional government then they should play an active part in making it happen.

To leave the question of whether or not any particular region is entitled to hold a referendum open ended is in my view a step back from the manifesto commitment we gave at the last election.

To leave the English question open ended in that way leaves us vulnerable not only to Tory attack, but also to criticism from within our own ranks. The Tories, who have no seats in Scotland or Wales, have nothing to lose in playing the English nationalism card – especially in the marginal seats where the north-south issue is being talked up by the regional media.

(Hague Oxford speech where he pledged that the Tories would change the constitution to give English votes on English laws – “this would be one of our first priorities …try to ignore the West Lothian question or bottle it up could turn into a dangerous English nationalism that could threaten the future of the UK”) Finally, I would like to say that the opportunity for the Party to change the way we are governed in this country does not offer itself up very often.

It is therefore not only important that we encourage people in the regions to seize the moment and think about what directly elected regional assemblies can offer, but also to open up the debate nationally.

The debate within regions is essential, but I believe we have to raise our sights and put the regional agenda in the bigger picture about the future of the Union and how a modern regional government structure can complement what we are seeking to achieve with both our programme for the reform of Parliament and our reforms of local government.

The regional genie I believe is out of the constitutional bottle and at some point we are going to have to work through what that means in terms of democratic legitimacy and good government for the country as a whole.

My view, and I will finish on this, is that we have a window of opportunity now to test public option and to engage people on what the next steps ought to be in the form of a green paper.

Reforming Governance in the UK, Chapter 4, pp 26-34
Approved by Lib Dem Conference 2000

Decentralised Government

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The Liberal Democrats have long advocated devolution for Scotland and Wales (and when possible Northern Ireland) and a system of directly elected regional government for the English Regions. These commitments have been a core element in our vision of accountable, responsive and efficient government, delivering services at the lowest effective level.

4.1.2 In recent years important advances have been made. A fully fledged Scottish Parliament with legislative and tax-varying powers has been achieved as the fruit of long-term cross-party co-operation within the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

4.1.3 By contrast, devolution for Wales and London has also made some progress, but Labour’s one party approach has led to timid and incomplete reform. We would like to see the powers of the Welsh Assembly enhanced to include tax varying powers and primary legislative powers in a range of key areas including: economic development, industry and training, Welsh language and culture, health, transport, education and law and order. We would also wish to see the Greater London Authority have greater powers, for example to raise revenue and to hold the Mayor to account.

4.1.4 The great failure of the current Government, however, has been to provide democratic decentralisation within England. The majority of this chapter concentrates on this issue.

4.2 The Existing Regional Tier

4.2.1 There is already a significant amount of administration of public services that is done at the regional level. There is a range of quangos and other public bodies operating at a regional level which have a significant impact on the lives of the people in their areas. The problem is that because none of them are directly accountable to the local electorate there is very little awareness of the existence of this layer, let alone much public involvement with decision-making. The relevant Secretary of State appoints most of these quangos. They have little statutory responsibility to take account of local views in what they do. Their boundaries frequently overlap. Recent research done by the Centre for Urban Regional Development Studies has identified 19 separate bodies working within the North East Region, a pattern that is likely to be mapped closely in most regions in England.

4.2.2 Liberal Democrats support directly elected regional assemblies. We wish to pull all these quangos together under the umbrella of regional assemblies. We would simplify the current mess of regional administration, to make it far more transparent, approachable and accountable to ordinary people.

4.3 The Desire for Change

4.3.1 The political imperative for devolution has been ignored in the London-based discussions of regional issues. While demand for Regional Assemblies varies across England there are regions – most particularly in the North East, but also in the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside – where the public are demanding devolution and the status quo is not an option.

4.3.2 The potential for regional government to alter the current stagnant nature of government has hitherto been ignored. Regional government has the ability to deliver ‘joined-up’ government – to use a current buzzword – in other words a holistic, strategic approach to problems. With its attachment to departmental baronies, Whitehall delivers fragmented government. The debate is too much centred on ‘adding another layer of bureaucracy and politicians’. The bureaucracy is already there. The point is to democratise it. A key objective of regional government would be to democratise those organisations and bring them under the scrutiny of elected government, local and regional media and the general public.

4.3.3 Addressing the direct democratic deficit is only part of solving the general lack of involvement by the public in decision-making. Creating a genuinely new body that works with the people of the region and brings them into the decision-making process will give people a degree of ownership over what happens on their own doorstep. This will help create a sense of responsibility and self-reliance as well as generate pride in one’s area.

4.3.4 The establishment of Regional Government will also help to disperse economic power though the regions, as more public sector workers are located at the regional level and regions enhance their capacity to run effective economic development strategies. Stronger regional political centres will help regions retain talented individuals in fields such as the Civil Service and journalism, who currently tend to be drawn to London in order to progress their careers.

4.4 What will Regional Assemblies Do?

4.4.1 Currently there are a number of services that are provided or administered at a regional level, but they are provided by a complex web of quangos and other organisations. These cover a number of strategic functions including economic development, transport, planning, the environment, further education & training as well as cultural issues including the arts, sport and tourism. Many of these bodies cover geographical areas with different boundaries. Liberal Democrats would bring the majority of these organisations under the democratic control of elected Regional Assemblies. So we would redraw their boundaries, as far as possible. We recognise that this would take time, but this would allow ‘joined up thinking’ between all these various bodies, as well as giving greater clarity for the local population. Most importantly, it would allow them to be democratically controlled by the elected assemblies.

4.4.2 A range of functions currently the responsibility of Whitehall departments could also be carried out by the regions. Regions would:

Follow the model of the North East Constitutional Convention in democratising and asserting an influence over regionally based quangos. Regional authorities would be given control over regionally administered functions such as planning housing growth figures for the region. Those quangos that have coterminous boundaries with the Region would be brought under the control of the regional authority. Other quangos without coterminous boundaries would be given a duty to consult all relevant regional authorities on their activities, to at least bring them under the influence of democratically elected bodies. Over time, boundaries would be brought into line and most quangos democratised. The precise nature of each process would vary from region to region, according to local circumstances and the wishes of local people.

Take over a range of current central government responsibilities, such as strategic management of education at a regional level, for example to coordinate and link secondary education, further and higher education and work-based training schemes

Have powers to enact secondary legislation. Rather than the relevant Secretary of State setting the regulations for the implementation of certain laws, the Regional Assembly would determine them.
4.4.3 Ultimately, some Regions might take on primary legislative powers. However, an important set of powers would be retained at Federal level (see section 4.9).

4.5 Implementation and Boundaries

4.5.1 There has been much debate about where the ‘natural boundaries’ of regions fall, particularly in relation to the South East and some of the regions in the Midlands which are particularly difficult to identify. Regions must reflect cohesive natural communities, yet be large enough to be able to compete in the European environment. There is certainly no requirement for uniformity of size.

4.5.2 The nine English regions that were defined for the regional government offices, the RDAs and the regional chambers have proved a good starting point for building a consensus in favour of an elected regional assemblies and the Liberal Democrats are broadly in favour of this approach. In most regions the politicians and interest sectors involved in the new regional organisations are learning how to work together and find common interests. Constitutional Conventions such as already exist in the North East and other areas help in this process, and we would encourage their establishment in all regions.

4.5.3 The process of moving towards democratic regional government would start with the passage of an Enabling Act, setting out a menu of powers which might be adopted by a region. There would be a set ‘core’ of powers which any region wishing to devolve would need to take up. This menu would be drawn up by central government in consultation with existing regional bodies. A referendum on adopting devolved powers could then be triggered by a request from a majority of local authorities or a petition of 5% of the population of a region. Boundaries in this phase would be based on existing regions or subdivisions thereof comprising groups of existing local authorities (to allow smaller areas within existing regions some flexibility where it may be desired, for example in Cornwall). Initial referenda would be on the basis of the minimum core powers for each regional assembly.

4.5.4 Individual regions could subsequently choose to adopt, by referendum, powers from the menu beyond the ‘core’.

4.5.5 Future changes to regional boundaries could be made subject to local referenda called by the Secretary of State for the Nations and Regions. The Secretary of State would be responsible for receiving all representations on requests for boundary changes, and would be required to seek the greatest possible consensus between all affected local authorities and regions before moving to a referendum.

4.6 Funding

4.6.1 In time financial devolution must follow political devolution. This means that devolved bodies should be able to levy and vary specific taxes. Consideration should also be given to allocating a share in the UK taxes raised within their boundaries directly to the devolved authorities.

4.6.2 The transfer of additional hinds from the Treasury to devolved authorities – the fiscal transfers – should be on the basis of needs. It should be on a sufficient time scale and on the clear understanding that no area should be penalised. The objective must be to raise standards everywhere as the economy grows.

4.6.3 It is anticipated that Regional Government would be funded via a direct bloc grant that would be augmented by local tax raising powers. Over time, our intention would be to transfer the tax-raising function progressively towards the regions, from the centre. Options for the tax raising powers could include one or more of the following:

A regional element of a local income tax.

A local business rate with regional element.

A locally determined level of Site Value Rating with regional element.
4.6.4 All central government expenditure should be expressed in regional terms, so that it is clear which regions receive most direct investment from central government in all policy areas.

4.6.5 One of the most contentious issues relating to government finance is the allocation of revenue to different parts of the UK. Some is allocated to the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, on the basis of the Barnett Formula, which was originally intended to be temporary. This does not relate to all the money received by those bodies, but does affect any changes in government expenditure. In the first instance, changes in expenditure are determined in Parliament on an English basis. Under the terms of the Barnett Formula, a proportion of any increase allocated to England is then allocated to the rest of the UK on the following basis: Scotland 10.34% (9.77% for law and order); Northern Ireland 3.41% (3.22% for law and order); and Wales 5.93%. If there is a reduction in expenditure, then a reduction is made along similar lines.

4.6.6 There are five problems with this approach. The Barnett Formula:

Takes no account of the needs of the relevant areas of the UK, because it is solely based on population figures – giving rise to inappropriate comparisons made between the funding received by different pads of the UK, e.g. Scotland and London.

Takes no account of changes in needs over time.

Takes no account of differences within Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Only relates to changes in expenditure, and is not able to tackle inequalities inherent in the current bases of expenditure.

Is not able to take account of regional disparities within England.
4.6.7 Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that all devolved administrations within the UK need to have greater powers over taxation, so that they can meet their own needs through raising resources in their own territories. There is also a case for regions keeping some of the UK – wide taxation raised in their areas rather than it all going direct to the Treasury; this would allow regions as well as the Treasury to enjoy some of the benefits of revenue buoyancy. However, to meet disparities throughout the UK, and to recognise that not all areas may be able to raise adequate funds, Liberal Democrats believe that a Finance Commission for the Nations and Regions (FCNR) should be established. Liberal Democrats believe that the FCNR should:

Have a constitutional status, enshrining the principle of equity of finance across the UK’s nations and regions. The FCNR would be under a constitutional duty to agree rules governing revenue-support and borrowing.

Be chaired by the Secretary of State for the Nations and Regions.

Be composed of representatives of the national parliaments and assemblies of the UK, along with representatives of regional assemblies in England (or regional chambers where assemblies do not exist). The conclusions of the FCNR would require consensus of its members, and would be ratified by the executives of the bodies represented on it. No revenue would be released without such consensus.

4.6.8 The FCNR should carry out the following six tasks in the first year of its operation:
Establish a new Revenue Distribution Formula (RDF) to replace the Barnett Formula. This would be a needs-based formula (reviewed periodically in conjunction with the Comprehensive Spending Review), taking account of key health, poverty and education indicators, and the available tax bases. It would recognise the problems of providing services in areas with widely dispersed populations. The formula would also take account of all spending in the nations and regions by the UK government and the European Union, regardless of whether this constituted revenue made available to sub-UK levels of government. The RDF would be used to allocate finance to devolved administrations. The FCNR would also recommend to Parliament where it would be appropriate to use the RDF to distribute expenditure which involves neither devolved administrations nor local government.

Use the Revenue Distribution Formula to re-base the current distribution of expenditure to reflect needs.

Establish the terms for distributing revenue within England to reflect not only differences between regions, but also differences within regions (e.g. poor districts within generally rich regions). Where regional governments existed. these would match regional government boundaries. Otherwise. Regional Development Agency boundaries would be used.
Establish whether differences within Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales should be considered when allocating revenue for distribution in those countries, recognising that the distribution of revenue is a matter for devolved administrations.
Establish a timescale for implementing any changes in the balance of spending, so that there would not be any reduction in the quality of services provided in any areas that have previously benefited from the formula or from successful local policies. The aim of the timescale would be for the whole country to achieve the high standards reached elsewhere, funded by the growth of the economy, rather than an increase in the tax burden or cuts in services. The changes in the balance of spending would be completed by the end of the process of establishing the framework of elected regional government.
Investigate the possibility of regions receiving directly a proportion of the United Kingdom taxes raised within their area.
4.6.9 In future years, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Spending Review, the FCNR would use the RDF to allocate new expenditure to the nations and regions of the UK.

4.6.10 This new system would be fairer than the current system to all concerned. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland would receive revenue according to their current needs, and disparities within the English regions would be recognised.

4.6.11 The current method of determining need for funding local government is opaque and difficult for the lay person to understand. Despite the complexity of the formula, there are hundreds of examples of anomalies with authorities being given widely varying amounts for providing the same service. This system commands very little confidence amongst government, local government finance experts or the general public alike and it is vulnerable to criticisms of tampering with the formulae to suit political interests.

4.6.12 Once regional devolution in England was established, regions would be given the task of distributing grants to local authorities within their area, from the monies allocated by the FCNR. In the longer term, we would reform local government finance so that local councils were able to raise a much higher proportion of their funding through local taxation (see Policy Paper 30, Re-Inventing Local Government).

4.7 Relationship with Local Authorities

4.7.1 Local government should welcome the advent of elected regional assemblies. Regional assemblies will be drawing power down from national government and nationally-appointed quangos, not drawing it up from the local level. Regional assemblies will do much to reduce the local government time consumed dealing with the multiplicity of regional governmental bodies. Some regional chambers have already enabled a much greater level of regional dialogue, and so co-operation, between their constituent local authorities.

4.7.2 Local government would find a democratically elected regional assembly easier to work with than the current mish-mash of agencies and offices. Devolution and the creation of regional assemblies is about drawing power out from the centre, and providing a strategic approach to powers currently at a regional level. So there should be no adverse effect on either the powers or influence of local government.

4.7.3 Liberal Democrats would draw up devolution legislation tightly, to ensure that regions could not encroach on the existing powers of local authorities. If they wish to, however, local councils should be able to work together to provide efficiency savings, within the framework of the regional government. A good example of how joint working could develop in the regions is the Integra waste management project in Hampshire. The project involves the county and district councils. Because of co-operation, they are projected to achieve recycling levels far higher than would be realistic working alone.

4.7.4 Once elected regional government is in place, we would anticipate that the principal local authority tiers of local government would be rationalised. However, in accordance with the principle of devolution, we believe that decisions about local government structures should be determined at local rather than national level.

4.8 Co-ordination between Regions

4.8.1 The Local Government Association has already taken a lead in furthering co-ordination between the regions and we see this useful role continuing. In the longer term it may be necessary to construct a separate body to represent the interests of regional government, but that would be a matter for the regional authorities themselves to decide upon.

4.9 Continuing Federal Responsibilities

4.9.1 The Westminster Parliament and the UK Government will continue to be responsible for defence, foreign affairs, national security, immigration, social security, macro-economic management, freedom of commerce, some transport infrastructure and setting minimum standards and targets for public service provision. In England and Wales they would also be responsible for the courts, legal services, the law and criminal justice system. In some fields. legislative powers would need to he exercised concurrently at European, national and sub-national levels, for example with respect to the environment.

4.10 West Lothian Question

4.10.1 The West Lothian question (the issue of whether Scottish MPs can vote on English matters at Westminster while English MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters) has beer much debated. If Regional Assemblies are established throughout England. the Westminster Parliament w ill increasingly focus on Federal UK issues and the West Lothian problem will be vastly reduced. Liberal Democrats are clear that Regional Government is the only sensible way to resolve concerns about powers that are devolved only to some regions. Although we are keen to encourage the maximum possible levels of devolution in all parts of the country, of course no region would be forced to take on powers that it did not want beyond the core. However, it seems likely that once the process of regional devolution is firmly underway there will be something of a ‘domino effect’. Slower regions will see the benefits of devolution for their more advanced neighbours, and demand the same for themselves – just as the North East is following Scotland’s lead today.

4.10.2 Once regional government is in place in most parts of England, we will correspondingly reduce the overall size of the Westminster Parliament. For further details on reform of the House of Commons, see the chapter 3 on ‘Accountable and Representative Government’.

4.11 Input into EU

4.11.1 A regional government should be able to negotiate directly with EU on policy matters as well as grant applications, be fully represented on the Committee of the Regions and, if appropriate, have representative offices in Brussels. Decisions on new towns and cross council area developments, including for example housing policy, should be settled at regional level rather than via the DETR.

4.12 The Council of the Isles

4.12.1 The British-Irish Council or ‘Council of the Isles’, established under the Good Friday Agreement, provides for regular meetings between representatives of all the national governments of the British Isles. That includes: the United Kingdom (the Westminster Parliament and the representative bodies in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh); the Republic of Ireland; the Isle of Man; and the Channel Islands. Liberal Democrats believe that the Council provides new opportunities for recognising the flexible nature of relationships within the British Isles, and welcomes the establishment of the Council. Liberal Democrats believe that in its first years, the Council should focus on the following areas of work:

Education, e.g. mutual recognition of qualifications and entry standards.

Environment, e.g. pollution in the Irish Sea.

Tourism.

Agriculture and fishing.

Transport.

4.12.2 In particular, we believe that there is room for regular meetings of a ‘Council of the Irish Sea’ within the framework of the Council of the Isles. In many areas, such as transport and pollution, there will be strong shared interests between representatives of Cardiff, Dublin, Belfast, the Isle of Man and a North West England regional assembly. Liberal Democrats believe that it makes more sense to discuss them at this level in the first instance, than it does for matters to be resolved on a simple Dublin-London basis.

4.12.3 To support the work of the Council of the Isles, Liberal Democrats believe that a permanent secretariat should be established, based in a central location such as Cardiff.

National policy forum report to Labour conference 2000
Chapter on Environment, transport and the regions, pp66-68

EMPOWERING PEOPLE

Labour’s key objectives:

Empowering local people and revitalising local democracy.
Modernising local government structures making it more representative.
Decentralising power to the English regions and strengthening regional policy.
Delivering quality local services.
Labour’s key strategic objectives need good governance in the locality. On its own, central government simply cannot deliver these. Good governance in the locality can ensure:

the development of balanced and sustained economic growth
the social inclusion of all
better access to public services
a developed civic society
Governance in the locality, which is genuinely in touch with people’s aspirations, will achieve these goals. This will only be achieved if local government is modernised.

Labour wants to see modernised government at all levels — and more-visible local leadership with more powers to respond to the needs of their communities. Tackling social exclusion and regenerating local communities will only be sustainable if local people are empowered to improve their neighbourhoods.

Labour also wants to see more representative government at all levels. Labour believes in the centrality of elected representatives in the planning and scrutiny of public services alongside the involvement of users of services and other social partners. In order to better reflect the population at large, there need to be more women, people from ethnic communities, and younger people involved. There should be better and more consistent training to encourage new councillors, and to help people remain as councillors.

Modern local and regional governance has a unique role to play in meeting Labour’s strategic goals. The new Labour government has begun to make these changes and has created new relationships at local and regional level. Labour recognises that local authorities are in the best position to provide accountable, democratically-elected civic leadership. They should be seen not merely as agents of central government policy, but as partners of central government together with the private and community sectors. Labour values diversity and the capacity of local councils to innovate.

Under the Tories many regions experienced severe economic decline and the wealth gap between and within regions widened.

A new role for the regions

Labour’s commitment to devolution and empowering the regions is in marked contrast to the centralising, top-down policies of the previous Tory government. Since the election Labour has established a Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, integrated regional policy into a new merged department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with a minister for the regions, established Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in London and the eight English regions, a Mayor and Assembly for London, reformed regional planning, improved the co-ordination of regional policy and strengthened the network of government offices in the regions, and designated voluntary regional chambers in every English region outside London.

Labour’s first concern has been to address the regional economic deficit inherited from the Tories. The RDAs have begun that task and are working with the key regional players — the business sector, trade unions, local authorities, the education sector, government offices and voluntary sector — to improve economic performance and enhance regional competitiveness.

[RDAs are also discussed in the ‘Regenerating Britain’ chapter.]

Labour also remains committed to empowering the English regions, and in many parts of the country the Labour movement has played an active role in securing regional support for directly elected regional assemblies. The regional chambers and regional constitutional conventions, RDAs and other regional organisations have helped build up the voice of the regions and enhanced regional identities. We will continue to build on this and seek to ensure that the English regions are not disadvantaged compared to other parts of the country.

Despite devolution in Scotland and Wales, Britain remains the only large state in the EU with no comprehensive structure of regional government. We strongly believe that:

decentralised government is better government
government power exercised at regional level should be responsive to the people of that region
regions need their own voice to get the best out of Europe
regions need effective co-ordination in order to promote economic development
democratic regional structures must be based on consent and develop at the pace most appropriate to each region
new powers assumed by regional government should principally be, by devolution, downwards from the centre.
Devolving power can not only provide greater autonomy and accountability at regional level, but also enable better strategic planning and joined-up policy delivery. Labour believes that regional governance should not be about more government, but better government — and should be inclusive and extend democratic participation.

The Labour Party 1997 election manifesto recognised that demand for directly elected regional government varies and said that only where clear popular consent is established will arrangements be made for directly elected regional assemblies.

In many parts of the country Labour has played an active role in securing regional support for directly elected regional assemblies. The Regional Chambers and regional constitutional conventions, RDAs and other regional organisations have helped build the voice of the regions and enhance regional identities.

Labour recognises the legitimate aspirations of the English regions and believes that the essential next step for those regions which wish to do so should be facilitated towards fully fledged directly elected regional authorities which could help renew democracy, modernise the constitution and empower citizens.

Those with reservations about regional assemblies have stated that careful consideration will need to be given to ensuring that elected assemblies do not create additional tiers of bureaucracy; to the responsibilities, powers, size and type of assembly; to the appropriate test of public consent; to the type of voting system; and to the relationship between assemblies and the other democratic institutions, including local government and Westminster.

Labour intends, as soon as practicable, to move to directly elected regional government where and when there is a clear demand for it. The way forward will include proposals to:

request that the existing regional assemblies and chambers, working closely with the regional partners, develop detailed proposals for elected assemblies in their respective regions;
publish a Government Green or White Paper on regional governance.
Development of regional governance structures should not result in adding a new tier of government to the English system and would require a move to a predominantly unitary system of local government as presently exists in Scotland and Wales.