Archived decisions

Contact :Malcolm Cole, Ext 7385

1. Summary

1.1. This report sets out the Government's proposals for regional government in England as set out in the White Paper `Your Region, Your Choice'.

1.2. It also considers and comments upon on series of issues raised by the White Paper upon which the Council may wish to consider its stance.

2. Background

2.1. The full White Paper runs, with appendices, to over 100 pages. The main issues raised are, however, set out in outline in a White Paper summary which, excluding political introductions, is attached to this report as Appendix 1.

2.2. The White Paper does not have a specific consultation requirement although comments may be submitted. In effect, though, comments are only specifically requested on one issue related to the involvement of interest groups in future regional structures. It is clear that the Government intends to move ahead although a long timescale is envisaged with a first referendum in this Parliament and a first assembly in the next. Cabinet will, however wish to consider whether a Hampshire County Council response to the White Paper is appropriate but more importantly to consider its wider response to specific issues as discussed below. Cabinet may also wish the Policy and Resources PRC to examine and comment on the issues.

3. Powers and Functions of elected regional assemblies

3.1. Chapter 4 of the White Paper summarises the issue of functions and powers as follows:-

_ Elected assemblies will improve the quality of life for people in their regions, particularly by improving regional economic performance.

_ Assemblies will be given the lead role in developing strategies to achieve this. They will drive the implementation of their strategies, monitor progress and revise strategies when appropriate.

_ Assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them to deliver these strategies. These will include executive functions such as responsibility for resources and influence to promote results that will benefit the region.

_ Specific responsibilities include economic development and regeneration, spatial development, housing, transport, skills and culture.

_ Regional Development Agencies will be accountable to their elected assembly, which will appoint the Chair and Board members.

3.2. In more specific terms, however, the chapter goes on to state that powers will largely be drawn from "central government bodies such as the Government offices and a number of other public bodies..." and that "Functions are generally not being taken from local government which will continue to focus on local service delivery and community leadership".

3.3. Emphasis is placed on the regional tier of governance improving decision making as "Decisions made at the regional level are better able to address issues which relate to the circumstances of an individual region. In this way they can improve the quality of life for people in their region and for the nation as a whole."

3.4. With respect to specific functional areas, the following detail is provided:-

Economic development

_ improving economic performance `at the heart of an elected assembly's objectives' (including work towards improving employment opportunities and skills levels.)

_ responsibility for ensuring the RDA properly exercises its functions

_ appointment of RDA Chair and members

_ funding to RDAs from the Assembly's block grant

_ major consultee on the Small Business Service 3 year strategy

_ assumption of responsibility for drawing up and organising frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action

_ assumption of Government office role on EU structural funds.


Planning

_ responsibility for preparing spatial strategies

_ power to request Secretary of State to `call-in' strategic planning applications not consistent with regional spatial strategy


Housing

_ preparation of regional housing strategy (including consideration of issues such as location of new housing and the need for new social housing)

_ allocation of support for housing capital investment between councils


Transport

_ responsibility for regional transport strategy

_ advice to government or allocation of funding for local transport

_ allocation of Rail Passenger Transport grants

_ submission of proposals to Highways Agency and Strategic Rail authority for schemes of regional importance.


Arts, Tourism and Sports

_ fund, sponsor and lead the Regional Cultural Consortium

_ (still under consideration) - accountability and funding for arts and sports initiatives of a regional character


Public Health

_ promotion of the Health of the region

_ development and implementation of a health improvement strategy


Rural policy

_ delivery of rural regeneration programmes (including Market Town initiatives)

_ lead partner in implementing regional elements of the English Rural Development Programme


Environment

_ implementation of a regional strategy for biodiversity

_ preparation and overall implementation of the waste element of the regional spatial strategy

_ (still under consideration) - role in respect of flood defence


Crime reduction

_ a full understanding of work of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships

_ ensuring relevance of local activities to regional strategies


Civil Contingency Planning

_ (still under consideration) - main co-ordination role in regional contingency planning

3.5. In addition, Assemblies are also seen as having a scrutiny role in respect of the impact of higher education on economic development, an advisory role to government on the allocation of local transport funding and a general co-ordinating role in bringing the relevant regional actors together.

4. Specific Issues for consideration

4.1. The White Paper makes significant use of the terms `added value' and improving the `democratic deficit' but in each case fails to make any substantive arguments which would either apply generally or be proved specifically in relation to the South East. It also makes no convincing case in terms of either geographical or community reasons for basing the regions on the current government office areas other than the fact that the government have set these areas up for its own administrative purposes and now wish other `out of line' government bodies to adopt them.

5. Added Value

5.1. The White Paper states that "An elected assembly would ensure that regional functions are carried out more effectively and better reflect the needs of the region ..... and will, add value....". The main aims of elected regional assemblies are described as:-

_ Decentralising power from central government and bringing decision-making closer to the people.

_ Giving regions the freedom and flexibility to meet their own priorities, within a national framework.

_ Making government in the regions more accountable to people in the regions.

_ Providing democratic representation in the regions and a new political voice.

_ Improving delivery by ensuring better co-ordinated government at regional level.

_ Giving regional stakeholders a clearer decision-making framework to engage with.

_ Promoting sustainable development and improving quality of life.

5.2. It might be hard to argue with these key principles but equally it is difficult to see how a change in the current arrangements in the South East could be improved by the imposition of a directly elected regional assembly of (maximum) 35 members (3/4 for Hampshire as a maximum).

5.3. The existing arrangements of the strategic authorities in the South East (the counties and unitaries) working in partnership through SEERA and, therefore, with District Councils and interest group partners has the capacity to fulfil all these aims and is already some way towards meeting them. There is no reason why the combination of existing authorities and their over-arching body (SEERA) could not, in effect, become a virtual regional assembly receiving the same powers now promised to those to be directly elected, and taking a leading role on the integration of regional strategies There are other mechanisms under existing legislation that enable local authorities to achieve the same results : to deliver a regional agenda without creating a new layer of regional government.

Democratic deficit.

"We will decentralise power to elected regional assemblies and bring decision-making closer to the people".

5.4. While any decentralisation of functions is to be welcomed and the White Paper does make clear that regional powers will be devolved from central government and not drawn up from local authorities it is hard to see how a regional authority in the South East could be closer to the people or improve any democratic deficit. The White Paper envisages 25-35 members on each assembly which across the South East (8,077,600 population) equates (assuming 35 members) to one member per 230,000 population ie perhaps only 3 or 4 representatives for Hampshire. Taken against an expressed intention of only introducing regional assemblies against a unitary structure of local government this would severely reduce the level of democratic representation.

5.5. In addition, the South East area stretches over nine counties from Milton Keynes, south to the Isle of Wight and east to Dover. It is the most heavily populated of the 8 English regional areas and accounts for more than 15% of UK GDP - the largest share of any of the English regions. It is a moot point as to where the centre of government would be envisaged in such a large and diverse region.

6. Scale

6.1. The White Paper clearly envisages the North East as the first region to go to referendum and establishment of an elected regional chamber. This region of 2.58 million is significantly different in scale from the South East. The White Paper envisages an Assembly responsible for around £350m of expenditure - an interesting comparison with Hampshire's annual budget of over £1bn.

6.2. This sort of comparison does lead to a strengthening of the view outlined under `Added Value' that the counties in the South East could easily be designated (as they already are in EU terms) as regions of their own acting in partnership with other counties in the South East where integration of strategies and joint activity is appropriate ie a refined SEERA or "virtual" region. There is some hope in the statement (paragraph 6.5) that "The Government has not completely ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adapting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing boundaries."

7. Local Government in a Regional Structure

7.1. The White Paper clearly sees a distinction between Regional Assemblies as the `strategic' authorities and local authorities as `service deliverers.' It significantly fails to appreciate that first tier authorities operate at both levels both individually and in partnership with each and with other strategic partners.

7.2. In existing two tier areas, if the government perceives the local mood to be in favour of a referendum, it will first instigate an independent local government review to recommend the appropriate form of `unitary' local government in the area to go alongside the regional assembly. (existing unitary areas will not be reviewed). The vote will then be based on the presumption of a region with a unitary system. As history shows there are considerable difficulties associated with such a way forward. Setting aside the strategic versus delivery argument, local authorities are still to be the deliverers and strategic planners of, eg education and social services. Such services require a capacity of operation which to take existing unitaries requires an authority size of at least 200,000 or above. The inevitable County versus district argument seems set to arise again although, if the minimum capacity argument is accepted either existing counties or groups of districts will be the choice. This in itself gives rise to a future question of community identity which could feature at both ends of the argument. Will voters relate to the South East as their region or contrived groupings of districts as their local government unit.

8. Timing and Choice

8.1. The Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper summary states "No region will be forced to have an elected assembly."

Additionally, at paragraph 2.4 the following statement is made - "Some regions - particularly in the North East of England - may choose to have elected assemblies as soon as this opportunity if offered. But others will follow at a slower pace, and some may not choose to have elected assemblies for many years." It does not go on to say "or at all."

8.2. The perception seems to be that the first regional assembly will not be established for some years and `even then there may be only one in place initially.' One, possibly two referendums may take place within the life of the current Parliament with the first Assembly being established in the life of the next Parliament. For both Referenda and establishment of Assemblies, primary legislation is required and appropriate Bills are to be introduced `when Parliamentary time allows.'

9. Public Opinion

9.1. The White Paper envisages that the Government will decide when referenda will be held by "assessing the level of public interest in each region. A subsidiary factor will be the need to avoid unnecessarily distracting local government with unitary reviews where there is only limited demand for a referendum." It is not proposed to hold referendums at the same time or in regions that "clearly had no appetite for them [regional assemblies]".

9.2. On the evidence to date there would appear to be insufficient support in the South East for a referendum to be successful - a view endorsed by the MORI survey recently commissioned by the County Council.

9.3. Residents interviewed by telephone¹ were asked their views on Hampshire County Council and regional government. The research revealed that only 35% of residents back the creation of a regional assembly with 38% opposing the idea. Furthermore, whilst almost half (45%) of respondents support devolving powers from central government to regions in England, they do not want to at the expense of Hampshire County Council. Some 54% of residents would oppose any proposed abolition of the County Council and only 21% support it. Residents also felt that regional government would not look after the interests of residents as well as the County Council. The most frequently mentioned response was that it would create more bureaucracy and there is no need for change in the structure of local government. Although only 21% of people claimed to know about the proposals for regional government, they are also the people that are most likely to oppose the idea. Furthermore, the data does suggest that the more informed about regional government residents become the more likely they are to oppose the proposal of a regional assembly.

9.4. The danger remains, however, that the revival of the unitary argument might easily provoke a wider discussion on local government which might raise the profile of the issue in the South East. Alongside that, if there are successful referenda elsewhere, the timetable may accelerate and the argument for the complete coverage of England might force the hand of those in the South East.

¹MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1040 adults aged 16+ who live in Hampshire. Interviews were conducted by telephone between April 29 - May 3 2002.

10. Financial issues

10.1. These fall into two categories. Firstly the costs of establishing and running regional assemblies and their own funding regimes and secondly the costs of implementing a unitary structure of local government.

10.2. Regional Assemblies are to be funded primarily by Central Government grant to meet their direct funning costs estimated to be around £25 m pa. This will be in addition to the programme expenditure they will supervise (estimated at £349m for the North East and covering items such as RDA expenditure and housing capital allocations).

10.3. Nevertheless, the government feel that "people in any region with an elected assembly should make some contribution towards its running costs" and "will expect [by precept on local authorities] council tax payers to contribute the equivalent of around five pence per week for a Band D council tax payer". "An elected assembly will also be allowed to set a higher precept within the region to fund additional spending if it is considered desirable. although some capping regime will be put in place. Capital expenditure will generally be funded by central government grant although borrowing powers will be given "to fund capital expenditure where they [the Assembly] can afford to finance it from their revenue budgets."

10.4. So far as the move to Unitary local government is concerned, the White Paper envisages that "there should be savings in the medium term for such a restructuring albeit that there will also be up-front transitional costs." The comment that follows indicates an inability to give specific estimates of costs and savings. That may be so but very recent experience shows that local government review is a highly expensive, demoralising and disruptive exercise particularly where "added value" is difficult to discern. Costs of the last review in Hampshire were estimated at £43.3m. It is doubtful whether enthusiasm for a further local government review in the South East would be increased by an examination of likely associated costs.

Recommendations

1. Work with South Eastern Counties to develop a common view, if practicable, on the potential benefits/disbenefits of Regional Government for the South East of England.

2. To build on the existing work with MORI (paragraph 9.3 refers), in co-operation with other South East Counties, with a view to seeking a clear and objective indication of the Hampshire and wider South Eastern community's desire to embrace the concept of regional government.

3. That this paper be forwarded to Policy and Resources Policy Review Committee for examination and comment on the issues prior to a full debate by Council.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

File Location

None