Enhancing regional governance capacity in the UK: A comparison of England’s decentralised and devolved arrangements Ian Stafford & Sarah Ayres Regional Studies International Conference Leuven, Belgium, 6-8 April 2009 Background to Paper: Part of 2 year research project analysing the quality and depth of regional decision-making procedures for RFAs in all English regions The paper draws on the regional case studies carried out in London, South East and the North East between May and September 2008 This paper is very much work in progress and an early draft of our analysis.

Introduction Since 1997 the Labour government has adopted an asymmetric approach to devolution, introducing different models of governance in the Celtic nations, the English regions and London. This paper explores the distinct governance arrangements in London and two English regions, focusing on the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) exercise. Research Qs: How have the different territories responded to the RFAs? What are the key issues highlighted by these approaches? What can this tell us more broadly about the distinctive governance arrangements?

English Regionalism since the 1990’s Since coming to power in 1997 Labour has ‘beefed’ up the regional level. Regional ‘troika’- Government Offices of the Regions, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies. Creation of elected Mayor and Greater London Authority (GLA Act 1999) 2002 White Paper ‘Your Region, Your Choice’ proposed elected regional government Failure of 2004 referendum in the North East Strengthening of administrative decentralisation via the Chapter 2 agenda Government Offices were established in April 1994 RDAs and unelected regional chambers or assemblies were announced in the 1997 White paper ‘Building Partnerships for Prosperity’: RDAs were established to improve regional economic performance and work with regional partners in the region to draw together a Regional Economic Strategy The regional chambers comprising representatives from local government and regional business, social and environmental interests, to provide a semblance of democratic accountability, but without legislative or decision-making powers. Key functions were to scrutinise RDAs’ activities, coordinate and regional strategies. In addition despite adopting a language which highlighted the flaws of the previous Conservatives introduction of quangos, the Labour government has introduced a variety of non-departmental public bodies, most notably the RDAs but also Learning and Skills councils, Highways agency and so on. Your Region, Your Choice marked a key point; proposed for all regions a package which includes freedoms and flexibility for the RDAs; a new enhanced role for the regional chambers; better regional planning; and a strengthening of the Government Offices and other regional bodies. (Chapter 2 agenda).

Regional Funding Allocations Regions invited to prepare advice on spending priorities in each policy area up to 2007-8 & indicative planning assumptions up to 2016. Transport: major schemes under the Local Transport Plan (LTP) system and Highways Agency schemes of non-national status Housing: the Regional Housing Pot funds Economic Development: the RDAs cross-departmental ‘Single Pot’ Regions able to vire funding across spending pots. Lack of policy manoeuvre due to existing commitments and level of resources within exercise. The Treasury’s guidance stated advice must be: Evidence based, Agreed within the region, Realistic and Consistent In July 2005 regional partners were invited to jointly prepare advice to ministers on spending priorities in each policy area through to 2007-08 and to prepare indicative planning assumptions up to 2016. Transport: Also didn’t include rail expenditure and had £5m rule of thumb. Housing: covering funding to improve existing housing conditions and provision of additional affordable housing. The regions had already been given responsibility for identifying spending priorities within economic development and housing policy and therefore the RFAs provided little room for manoeuvre within these two policy sectors. A Treasury Official, for example, pointed out that, ‘the big prize was bringing transport into the equation’. Only amounted to £4.1bn in 2006/7 and while significant, this represents just 14% of total public expenditure in the three policy areas. Guidance stated: Evidence-based - robust regional evidence, Agreed within the region - represent a regionally-agreed view of priorities, Realistic - it is important that cost estimates are robust and proposals have been tested for deliverability, Consistent - consistent with wider national policy objectives and regional and local strategies.

North East Response developed by high level steering group and three policy groups: RFA Project Group Interim Regional Transport Board Regional Housing Board One North East Board GONE provided critical leadership Process strengthened the evidence base and consensus around regional priorities but failed in effective policy coordination Character of process varied across the 3 strands – level of engagement and transparency weakest in economic development

South East South East submission developed by: RFA Steering group Regional Transport Board Regional Housing Board South East of England Development Agency ( SEEDA) Board Process led by regional officials and senior politicians Challenges around developing regional consensus Coordination not fully achieved but proposed innovative Regional Infrastructure Fund RTB and RHB adopted partnership approach Inclusiveness and transparency varied across 3 strands

London Inclusion within the RFA process was not a given Exercise restricted to economic development and housing ‘Low key’ response developed in-house by GLA and London Development Agency (LDA) officials Submission centred on pulling together existing policy priorities – required no new procedures or stakeholder engagement Process reflected features of decision-making in London: Mayor and GLA legal requirement to align strategies Mayor and senior advisers provide leadership GLA developed robust evidence base Competing narratives around inclusiveness Absence of transparency and limited accountability

Conclusions Effectiveness of decision-making procedures varied across London, North East and South East Strong leadership within London, Regions reliant on partnership and consensus-building Failure to develop effective policy coordination Robust evidence base developed in all three Little stakeholder engagement in London and the economic development strand in the regions Level of perceived transparency varied Future instability within the English regions and London