The Government's White Paper,  'Your region, your choice' was published on 9 May 2002. A summary and some initial thoughts on its implications for the countryside and for the Countryside Agency was circulated to Board members on 10 May. Since publi...
Countryside Agency Archive

Breadcrumbs

response to government's regions white paper: 'your region your choice' AP02/22

Principal Manager Responsible: Crispin Moor Lead Board Member: John Varley

Recommendations:

  • to support the proposals for elected regional assemblies, provided they are adequately rural proofed
  • to respond to the Regions White Paper drawing attention to the rural dimension of the proposals, including: knock-on effects on shire local government structures, interpretation of referendum results in shire areas; and the contributions which the Agency could make in advising regional assemblies on rural policy issues. 

 

Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:
  • Fits within Rural Assurance work on local governance. 
Staff and financial implications:
  • None additional to those previously identified in the Corporate Plan. 
Main issues to concern the Board:
  • Have we identified the main issues emerging from the White Paper?
  • Are there more fundamental and/or different challenges to the countryside and the Agency from the developing regional agenda?  

Background

Introduction and reactions to the White Paper

  1. The Government's White Paper, 'Your region, your choice' was published on 9 May 2002. A summary and some initial thoughts on its implications for the countryside and for the Countryside Agency was circulated to Board members on 10 May. Since publication, reaction to the White Paper has been varied. A summary, together with some commentary on reactions to it to date, are attached at Annex A.
  2. The Board previously considered the issue of regional governance at their meeting on 15 November and agreed that the Agency needed to adopt a consistent approach to all its regional influencing work. It also agreed that in relation to regional governance the Agency should focus its efforts on rural proofing the policy development process rather than on the structural issues. 
  3. Although the White Paper is not a formal consultation document, the Government has made it clear that it would welcome feedback on the proposals contained within it (Paragraph 9.21). We should take the opportunity to highlight the rural dimension and implications of the proposals.
  4. The key issues and implications for the countryside and for the Agency fall into two broad categories: 
  • effects on the countryside, its communities, economies and its environment;
  • effects on the workings of the Countryside Agency itself.  

Both have a number of separate components. These are detailed below.

  1. First, how will the proposals in the White Paper affect the countryside?

    Rural proofing

  2. Effective rural proofing of the work of elected regional assemblies is an issue which we will need to pay close attention to as the regional policy agenda continues to develop. The White Paper states, "It will be important to ensure that elected regional assemblies 'rural proof' their activities to fully take the rural dimension into account" (Paragraph 4.49). Elected assemblies will "have a responsibility to ensure that the countryside, landscape, recreation and rural issues are addressed in other regional strategies" (Paragraph 4.50). We need to be ready to advise and work with Government and the elected assemblies to develop these commitments further. For example, we are well placed to assist in the supply of consistent rural data to all regions through our suite of regional rural indicators. 
  3. There remain some concerns that any 'step change' towards elected regional governance structures may be accompanied by a shift of policy focus towards regional (i.e. metropolitan) centres. Our experience of working with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) over the last few years, particularly in recent months on rural regeneration following the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak, has demonstrated ways of addressing these concerns in a positive way. But we will need to get alongside the new structures, if we are to be able to influence their thinking and operations.
  4. One potential issue of concern relates to the future membership of the RDAs themselves. At present the Government ensures that at least one member of every RDA (with the exception of London) is appointed with relevant experience, interests and expertise in the countryside and in rural economies. The White Paper says that in future elected regional assemblies will appoint members to the boards of RDAs. But central government "will retain powers to ensure that elected assemblies and their Regional Development Agencies continue to address national priorities" (Paragraph 4.23). We will want to ensure that the assemblies continue to make at least one 'rural' appointment to the RDA boards.
  5. Another potential area of concern is around the issue of resource allocation and, in particular, the proposed role of regional assemblies in housing resource allocations. We will want to make sure that the successful relationships and outcomes which we have developed and achieved over several years at the national level, particularly in our work with the Housing Corporation, are not compromised by these proposals. Again, this will be a task for rural proofing the work of the elected assemblies and in influencing their work.

    Local government structures

  6. Perhaps the most obvious specific impact on rural areas relates to local government structures and the move to unitary authorities in those areas covered by regional assemblies. There are advantages and disadvantages of unitary local authority structures. For our part, we  
  • the arguments deployed in the White Paper for local government structure reform to accompany any move towards directly elected regional assemblies;
  • that there is no single 'right' answer to local government structures; 
  • that the emerging experience of rural unitary authorities in England, Scotland and Wales appears to have been generally positive (and we note that the ODPM are intending research during 2002/3 on the effectiveness and impact of unitary authorities); and
  • that the emergence of shire unitary authorities might also help address the issue of the small institutional capacities of some rural local authorities.  
  1. We also have concerns that in shire areas: 
  • debate on the merits of elected regional assemblies could be overshadowed by arguments over local government structures; and 
  • local authorities may in the short and medium terms be distracted from their key role in delivering services and providing community representation and leadership (and may lose key staff during the period of uncertainty).  
  1. There is a range of complex and, inevitably, sometimes competing interests in this policy area. We will want to monitor what is happening and advise government not only on the rural issues involved in reforming shire local government structures, but also the impact on the ground as the proposals are implemented. It is unclear from the White Paper, for example, what might be the content of any government guidance shaping the structural review of shire local government structures (e.g. whether these reforms would be based on county or district or on split boundaries). 

    Regional referendums

  2. The Government's decision to link the issue of elected regional assemblies to the merits of unitary local government structures in shire areas could cause confusion, particularly in shire areas. At worst, this could result in mixed and confused messages emerging from the results of regional referendums. In shire areas the proposed regional referendums will effectively be asking, and answering, two questions, 'Do you want an elected regional assembly' and 'Do you want the proposed unitary structure of local government which the Government is recommending'. By contrast, citizens in unitary local government areas will be answering a single question on the desirability of elected regional assemblies. 
  3. Arguably, it would be better to separate these two distinct questions. We would, for example, be concerned if strongly different results emerged from shire areas as compared to metropolitan and unitary areas from any future regional referendums. We would be concerned, not least of all because we would not know what had determined the voting behaviour of citizens in shire areas, their views on elected regional assemblies or their views on the proposed structure of unitary local government.

  4. Stakeholder involvement on elected regional assemblies

  5. The one question on which the Regions White Paper specifically consults relates to the issue of the inclusion of stakeholder interests on assemblies. 
  6. It is too early in the policy development process for us to be able to give a definitive view on how stakeholder representation should best be achieved. And, as noted in the White Paper, there should be a degree of regional choice and flexibility within any arrangements put in place.
  7. Clearly, there would be insufficient room for all the potential rural stakeholder organisations to be represented on the assemblies. One option might be (as suggested in the Rural Policy section of the White Paper - Paragraph 4.50) to strengthen the links between the regional rural affairs forums and the assemblies. The key rural stakeholders tend to be members of (or otherwise linked with) the regional rural affairs forums. Possibly these forums could nominate one of their members to provide one level of stakeholder representation on the assembly.
  8. We agree that it would be valuable for assembly scrutiny committees and policy development committees to have access to individuals with specific expertise. We would extend this by saying individuals and organisations with specific expertise. In this context, and as mentioned elsewhere in this paper, the Countryside Agency would be in a good position to assist, advise and inform the assemblies. 
  9. On balance, we would favour the Government setting out in statutory guidance to assemblies the ways in which stakeholders could best be involved in the workings of the assemblies, rather than setting requirements down in legislation which could prove to be inflexible in the light of experience.

    Sustainable development and 'taking a strategic lead'

  10. The White Paper makes it clear that elected assemblies will be "encouraged to produce an 'overarching' strategy to set out their vision for the region and their key priorities on the range of issues for which they have responsibility" (Paragraph 4.11). It goes on to state that "the overarching strategy will act as the sustainable development framework for the region, replacing the voluntary frameworks currently produced" (Paragraph 4.12). We support these proposals, from which two issues arise: 
  • The White Paper's diagram of regional strategies for an elected assembly (Box 4.1) appears to list the regional sustainable development strategy as but one strategy amongst a list of ten, rather than as the 'overarching' strategy described in Paragraph 4.12. This apparent ambiguity requires clarification;
  • It will be important for elected assemblies to rural proof the overarching strategy as well as other regional strategies. Again, we can assist them to do this. 

Issues for the Countryside Agency

  1. An important issue for the Agency is how will the White Paper's proposals potentially affect the workings of the Agency. Again, there are a number of components to this question and these are detailed further below.
  2. As a national organisation we do not have a strong institutional perspective on the White Paper. Whilst some of our programmes and activities are delivered by our regional offices, they remain national level initiatives and feed back into the development of rural policy at the national level. At this stage there do not appear to be any planned impacts from the White Paper on the main programmes and budgets of the Countryside Agency that would have significant knock-on effects to our organisational efficiency and effectiveness.
  3. Nevertheless, a range of issues may impact on the organisational design and operation of the Agency. It is difficult to identify these impacts fully, since they will not be clear until later in the process. The Agency needs to address: 
  • the differential impacts on our regional offices, in particular, of the creation of elected regional assemblies in some regions but not others;
  • the links between elected regional assemblies, as well as enhanced regional chambers, and our lead Board members in the regions;
  • the impacts of these reforms on some of our programmes and responsibilities, particularly some of our statutory responsibilities relating to countryside access and national parks;
  • our need, in those regions which do not wish to move towards elected assemblies, to continue informing, advising and working closely with the existing regional chambers, Government Offices for the Regions, and RDAs, particularly given their strengthened role and influence (as detailed in chapter two of the white paper). 
  1. We believe that we can work closely and effectively with both elected regional assemblies, where they are established, and with enhanced regional chambers. For example, in the North East the Agency already works closely with the Government Office, the RDA and with the Regional Assembly. All of these bodies are partners in the region's 'Rural Action Plan' to boost rural recovery post Foot and Mouth. More specifically, the Agency acts as joint secretariat for the regional Rural Affairs Forum which is represented on the Assembly. We also have regular contact with the Government Office, particularly through its rural director, and we work with the RDA at director level and below on a range of partnership programmes. We assist all these structures in rural proofing their activities. 
  2. We will need however, in all regions, to increase the influencing role of our regional offices on the regional governance sector. This may require organisational and resource adjustments. Moreover, as we develop an enhanced regional influencing role so we will also need to set out clearly the role of the regional board member.  

ANNEX A

Summary of 'Your region, your choice' White Paper and initial reactions

White paper summary (taken from the Government's official summary paper)

"This Government has worked hard to decentralise power and decision-making. Power has already been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and London-wide government has been restored to the capital. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been created in England as economic powerhouses in each region with a network of regional chambers to scrutinise them.

We believe that successful solutions to regional problems need to be rooted in the regions themselves. We are therefore:

  • improving co-ordination of Government policy in the regions and joining up regional strategies to provide for more efficient and effective delivery; 
  • bringing decision-making closer to those it affects, by giving more responsibilities to the regional chambers and the regional Government Offices; 
  • improving arrangements for regional planning;
  • ensuring a stronger regional input into national policy-making and spending decisions, thus adding to the extra resources and greater freedom and flexibility we have already given to the RDAs.  
But some regions may want to go further than this, and may judge that an elected regional assembly will allow them the best chance to improve decision-making and accountability. We believe regions that want that chance should be given it.

A step further – elected regional assemblies 

We believe elected regional assemblies can improve both the accountability of government and also its efficiency and effectiveness.

They will improve accountability by:

  • making the existing government bodies in the regions more accountable to people in the regions; 
  • decentralising more power from Whitehall and bringing decision-making closer to the people; and 
  • revitalising democracy and giving the regions a new voice, both within the UK and in Europe.  
They can improve effectiveness because they will:
  • be able to join up – and where necessary rationalise – the many strategies and partnerships in the regions; 
  • have powers to offer tailored solutions that meet the particular needs of their regions; 
  • make it easier for regional stakeholders to contribute to decisions; and 
  • have greater freedom through their block grant to allocate resources and determine priorities in their region.  
What will elected regional assemblies do?

Elected regional assemblies will develop a strategic vision for improving the quality of life in their regions, in particular improving economic performance.

They will be responsible for setting priorities, delivering regional strategies and allocating funding. In addition, elected assemblies will have a significant influencing role, including scrutiny powers and making appointments to regional public bodies ('quangos'). 

Subject to agreeing a small number of key national targets, an assembly will have complete freedom over how to spend the resources at its disposal.

There are many areas of policy where a regional dimension could improve both the decision-making process and successful implementation.

Among those areas where the regional assembly will have specific responsibilities are:

  • economic development 
  • skills and employment 
  • housing 
  • sport, culture and tourism 
  • transport 
  • land use and regional planning 
  • environmental protection, biodiversity and waste 
  • public health  
As well as drawing up – and delivering – regional strategies for each of these individual policy areas, their task will also be to ensure they all fit together effectively so they improve people's living standards and quality of life. This is where we believe elected regional assemblies can have an important new role. They will be able to look at 'cross-cutting' issues such as sustainable development across the region.

Your region, your choice 

Before an elected regional assembly is established in a region, a referendum must be held and a majority of those voting must be in favour of having an assembly.

Interest in elected regional assemblies varies across England. So we won't require referendums to be held in all eight English regions outside London at the same time. Instead, we will hold a referendum in a region when we consider there is sufficient public interest in one.

We will gauge that interest by taking into account the views of members of the public and those of the regional chamber, local authorities and other key stakeholders in the region.

Democracy, not bureaucracy

Elected assemblies will provide direct accountability over key regional public bodies ('quangos'). Almost all of their functions will be taken from central government, not from local authorities. By providing stronger scrutiny and improving co-ordination between existing bodies, they should reduce bureaucracy, not add to it.

Even so, in areas that currently have a county and district council, a regional assembly would add a third tier of elected government below the national level. We believe that moving to a single tier of local government would: 

  • simplify relationships for both local authorities and regional assemblies; and 
  • make it much clearer to the public who does what.  
So in any region where the Government decides that a referendum on an elected assembly should be held, there will first be an independent review of local government structures. The review will recommend the most effective wholly unitary local government structure for the region and will be carried out by the Boundary Committee for England. But restructuring of local government would only take place if the region votes for an elected assembly.

Size and constitution of assemblies

The Government wants elected regional assemblies to be: 

  • democratic and responsive; 
  • inclusive and representative; 
  • small and streamlined; 
  • effective and efficient.  
We envisage assemblies will have between 25 and 35 members. They will have a leader and cabinet of up to six members chosen by – and fully accountable to – the full assembly. It would be the task of the cabinet both to develop policies and, after gaining approval for them from the full assembly, to implement them.

Regional assemblies will be based on the existing administrative boundaries used by the Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies.

Stakeholder involvement

The aim of the elected regional assemblies is to improve local decision-making. So they will need to ensure they harness the experience, expertise and commitment of others in their region. We want to see them making full use of all stakeholders – including the business community, trade unions, social and environmental partners, and other elected representatives.

Close working with regional partners should ensure that an assembly's policies are soundly based and have widespread support. Such stakeholder forums (such as the Scottish Civic Forum and similar arrangements in Wales and London) have worked well.

We would like to hear your views on how prescriptive the Government should be in setting out how regional assemblies should involve key stakeholders. 

Elections

The voting system for elected regional assemblies will be the Additional Member System (AMS) form of proportional representation (PR). This is the system already used for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority. It ensures the overall composition of an assembly would broadly reflect the votes cast for the different parties at the assembly election.

Funding of assemblies

Most of an assembly's money will come through a single Government grant. The assembly will decide how it should use this to address key regional priorities. Based on figures for 2001/02, an assembly in the North East would be responsible for around £350 million. And it would influence decisions on how more than £500 million more is spent by its key partners.

Assemblies will be able to raise additional funds through the council tax. The money will be collected on behalf of the assembly by the local authorities in the region as part of their existing arrangements for collecting council tax. Non-domestic rates will not be affected.

The contribution of council tax-payers to the running costs of the assembly would be equivalent to around five pence per week for a Band D council tax-payer in any region. An elected assembly would be allowed to set a higher charge to fund additional spending if it considered this desirable. We will, at least initially, limit this amount through arrangements comparable to the existing local authority capping regime.

Timetable

We intend to introduce a Bill to provide for referendums and associated local government reviews when Parliamentary time allows, with the aim of enabling the first referendum to be held during this Parliament. Once at least one region has voted for an elected assembly, we intend to introduce a further Bill allowing them to be set up. Elections for these assemblies, in the regions where there has been a 'yes' vote in a referendum, would be held within months of the Bill becoming law. In practice, this would allow the first regional assembly to be up and running early in the next Parliament".

Reactions to the white paper

The media have divided on reasonably predictable regional and political lines. The Daily Telegraph is opposed and sees the white paper as proposing the abolition of shire counties. The Guardian is supportive but would like to have seen more powers being given to the proposed assemblies. Most of the regional press in the north has been supportive. The media have suggested that the cabinet itself is split on the merits of the white paper proposals. 

National business leaders have not been enthusiastic, although business leaders in northern regions are more supportive. 

The Conservative Party remains opposed to the prospect of elected regional assemblies and is also focusing on the perceived threat to shire counties as well as the perceived threat of a 'devolution tax'. The Liberal Democrats support elected regional assemblies, but feel that these proposals do not offer the assemblies enough powers to make a real difference. 

The Campaign for the English Regions have been supportive of the proposals as have a number of the existing regional chambers. 

The Local Government Association (LGA) has been cautious in its reaction. Indeed it recognises that local government is split on the proposals, partly along political lines. However the LGA has agreed that any change in regional arrangements must deliver a genuine devolution of power from Whitehall rather than remove responsibility from local councils. It has also stated that there must be as little disruption as possible to the work of councils in delivering public services. On the issue of local government structures the LGA is taking a neutral line and is asking whether local people will be able to decide on the new regional and local structures.