Annex 3: Visit note—meeting with
the West of England Partnership, 7 June 2006
On 6-7 June 2006, the Committee visited Exeter, Exmouth
and Bristol for its inquiry, Is there a future for Regional
Government? The following notes were made at an informal
meeting held at the Government Office for the South West with
the West of England Partnership.
Participants:
Cllr Simon Cook, Executive
Member, Bristol City Council
Terry Wagstaff, Assistant
Chief Executive, Bristol City Council
Sonia Mills, Chief Executive,
North Bristol Health Trust
Professor David Clarke,
Pro Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol
Simon Birch, Chief Executive,
West of England Partnership
Cllr John Crockford-Hawley,
Executive Member, North Somerset Council
Cllr Paul Crossley, Leader,
Bath and North East Somerset Council
Cllr Malcolm Hanney, Executive
Member, Bath and North East Somerset Council
Cllr Ruth Davis, Leader,
South Gloucestershire Council
Amanda Deeks, Chief Executive,
South Gloucestershire Council
Cllr Roger Hutchinson,
Deputy Leader, South Gloucestershire Council
Liz McCarty, Assistant Director for the West of England,
Government Office for the South West (Observer)
The Chair opened the meeting by explaining the two
main themes of the Committee's inquiry, as follows:
- How the current system of regional governance
actually works, and
- What role would city-regions play in the future
development of regional policy?
Paul Crossley said that
the fundamental reason for failure of the 2004 referendum in the
North East had been the lack of powers offered to the elected
Assembly. The South West was a diverse region, and there would
be no great demand in the region for an assembly without powers.
The Assembly had proved effective in its scrutiny role.
The sub-regional agenda was important, and had led
to the creation of the West of England partnership. The four unitary
authorities within the partnership were working together on housing,
jobs and regeneration. The partnership included all political
groupings, and had worked well in addressing challenges such as
proposed increases in housing. The partnership needed Government
to work in partnership with it to deal with issues such as the
infrastructure deficit, and meet the costs of developing improved
transport systems. The South West was one of the most dynamic
English regions and the Government would be likely to achieve
its objectives in the region.
Councillor John Crockford-Horley said
that the key factor in the current partnership was trust: this
was vital. Trust had not been present under the governance arrangements
for the county of Avon, which had been perceived to be focused
heavily upon the urban centre of Bristol. The same trust would
not exist if the partnership area were brought formally under
one authority.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney said
that the West of England partnership had been one of the first
coalitions to look jointly at questions of housing. Its effectiveness
had been recognised through its comments on the Regional Spatial
Strategy. It also needed to work together on other issues such
as health, social services and transport. There was a need for
co-terminosity of health service structures with local authority
areas, for the sake of efficiency. This need had been widely recognised
by local authorities, Members of Parliament and public commentators,
with the result that there was now one Primary Care Trust for
each unitary authority, including a single Trust for the entirety
of Bristol.
Councillor Roger Hutchinson said
that the authorities are and have been working together well from
the start. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) had been one of
the biggest issues facing local authorities in a long time. There
was significant cross-party consensus on the way forward.
Councillor Simon Cooke
said that the concept of a Bristol 'city-region' carried the same
connotations as the former county of Avon: this was unfortunate,
as there remained considerable sensitivity over the establishment
of Avon. It had never been the intention of the partnership that
Bristol City should dominate.
The South West region was a strangely structured
entity. It was long and thin with one city at the top. As a region,
the South West did not work and this was why four authorities
needed to work together, as a functioning unit in a wider body.
The West of England partnership needed (and was able) to address
certain issues immediately, but others—such as an increase
in cultural capital—would evolve more gradually. It was
not possible to build what the Government would call a 'city-region'
as fast as the Government, perhaps, thought that it should; however,
the partnership could build sustainable communities.
Sonia Mills said that
the primary care trusts and hospitals were significant employers
in the sub-region, having 24,000-25,000 thousand employees. They
were major spenders and contributors to regeneration of the area,
and major service users for the city-region. The Health Service
had difficulty engaging on a unitary basis. While it found a stronger
planning partnership at the sub-regional level to be very useful,
it was in difficulties with how to respond structurally, as it
was not a sub-regional level organisation itself. Three health
authorities had now merged.
Professor David Clarke said
that Bristol University was the third largest employer in the
sub-region. Its employees lived across all four unitary authority
areas. As an organisation, the University welcomed the West of
England partnership, but felt it needed to go further. It was
sad that there were no funds for public transport, as there were
real difficulties getting people to and from the University. There
was a need for a clearer regional perspective.
The lack of a formal city-region approach was felt
because Bristol had been designated a science city. This science
city was perceived to encompass the whole of Greater Bristol,
including all four universities in that area. The universities
were keen to develop the science city but to do so needed participation
of all four unitary authorities. It was clear that the development
needed support from the universities, government and industry
in order to provide an effective challenge to science bases elsewhere
in the world.
There was a lack of central organisation. The partnership
needed to build on the existing relationships of trust, and to
generate investment of capital. He did not have views on a name
for the partnership, although the name Bristol was a globally-recognised
brand.
The Government had not given a clear definition of
what constituted a city-region. His personal definition was of
the economic city-region; the West of England partnership generally
represented the sub-region around Bristol. This area was a driver
for the South West region. The region also drew on the economic
power of the South East; Bristol's proximity to the South East
was important to its success.
Terry Wagstaff said that
the partnership was looking to reduce the complications arising
from the large number of agencies working in the region, and to
improve multi-agency working. The RDA had recognised the importance
of the sub-region in its plans. The partnership wanted the local
Learning and Skills Council to share its skills agenda, and progress
was being made.
The possibility of establishing an executive for
the partnership had so far been resisted. However, executive
member boards had been set up to think through issues such as
housing on a partnership basis; suggestions made by these boards
had to be endorsed by the cabinet of each unitary authority.
Delivery vehicles would be found to take forward these plans.
Although the partnership was voluntary, it was serving the area
well and could deliver real outcomes.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney said
that voluntary working could be effective where there were common
interests, for example, promoting sustainable growth, employment,
and the role of the West of England and South West in the 2012
Olympics. These issues needed co-operation within the West of
England and South West region. It was necessary to recognise also
the existence of intra-regional competition. Some people had concerns
that the creation of an additional 'city-region' tier of governance,
with formal powers, would lead to a return of the problems encountered
by the county of Avon. It was necessary to ensure that the process
remained bottom-up, and continued to work as it did now.
Councillor Paul Crossley said
that the former ODPM Minister, David Miliband, had been open to
innovation and experimentation with different models of governance.
The partnership model used in the West of England—including
4 unitary authorities and 4 political parties—had proved
effective. The partnership was building trust across its work
on priorities, and working on strategic areas.
Some of the major strategic facilities in the area
were the airport and seaport. These had been controversial. There
remained social concerns which it was important to address co-operatively.
The seaport had the potential to be one of the biggest in the
country. The area also had four universities.
The partnership was trying to ensure equality and
accountability, over which it recognised there were concerns.
It was trying to incorporate agencies into the Partnership, in
order to increase accountability. He believed that the governance
model operated by the Partnership was transferable.
If the formal South-West region were abandoned as
a governance concept, a region of sub-regions would be worth exploring.
However, the regional Assembly had a clear purpose: there were
many agencies operating in the area, such as South West Tourism
and the Learning and Skills Council; the Assembly's scrutiny function
was important. He would personally prefer that the Assembly were
directly elected and had stronger powers; however, he recognised
that this was not on the Government's agenda. Therefore he believed
that the Assembly should be given stronger powers of scrutiny
at the regional level.
Councillor Simon Cook said
that within Bristol there was less respect for the Regional Assembly,
which was perceived as inefficient. It was also perceived that
the South West as an administrative region did not work. It was
noticeable that major private sector organisations such as Lloyds
structured their business at the sub-regional level because they
saw these areas as distinct.
Amanda Deeks said that
in South Gloucestershire the debate was not about the effectiveness
of the Regional Assembly but about how to direct funding held
by quangos towards local priorities. This was particularly an
issue with the Learning and Skills Councils. It took a huge amount
of time and resources for councils to lobby regionally. The Regional
Funding Allocations had allocated £320 million for the area,
but the lack of certainty about access to the funds prevented
effective planning and capacity building. Money was also available
through DEFRA's Rural Renaissance programme. If there were certainty
about the specific allocation to South Gloucestershire the council
could do much more.
Sonia Mills said that
the National Health Service had also organised itself on a sub-regional
basis. The partnership had learned how to deal with issues, but
the next challenge would be to bring other organisations into
the partnership. Broader issues such as health had still to come
to the table. The agenda needed to be widened.
Councillor Ruth Davis
said that the funds held by quangos were far in excess of what
local authorities were given to spend. The money should be allocated
according to greatest need. The RDA tended to focus on Bristol,
and other areas had to fight this tendency. South Gloucestershire
included very diverse communities: no one community was quite
like another. Across the South West, Devon and Cornwall had very
different problems. Councils could not easily be champions of
their communities if they had to compete and fight their way through
so many different layers of bureaucracy to fight for an equitable
allocation of resources. At the moment, they did not even know
how much money was available.
Councillor John Crockford-Horley said
that there was no ideal model, but the current system of unitary
authorities gave smaller communities an effective voice: for example,
Weston-super-Mare was a small town, but within the unitary authority
was a significant contributor: thus, when the unitaries came together
in the West of England Partnership, that voice was sustained.
The South West region was purely an administrative construct:
a sub-region based on the economic footprint of Bristol was more
logical.
Councillor Roger Hutchinson said
that the West of England partnership was more transparent, had
a public profile and was working from the bottom up. Mechanisms
such as Local Area Agreements could be used to provide accountability
for its operations. The biggest difference which could be made
would be the joining-up of different funding routes.
The partnership had sought to draw in its own social,
economic and environmental partners, who included the universities,
the health sector, the Avon Wildlife Trust, the TUC, and voluntary
and business sector representatives. There was a vacancy for a
transport representative. The partnership was looking for a 66%
: 33% balance similar to that of the Regional Assembly. It was
also looking to provide a geographical balance. In time it was
thought the SEEPs would begin to have a constituency of their
own.
Terry Wagstaff said that
the business case for Bristol had gone to the Secretary of State
for Communities for approval. There were five core priorities
in the plan. The authority wanted to anticipate the impact of
economic growth on the city's infrastructure, and wanted to have
more say in how policy is formulated, and how national priorities
are modified to take account of local priorities and solutions.
The Regional Assembly's processes were attenuated; the West of
England partnership needed to move faster.
Professor David Clarke said
that he had been impressed by the attitude and lack of politics
within the Partnership. The Government Office had been very helpful.
He noted that the South West had a GDP above the European average.
Councillor Paul Crossley
said that he did not see the Government Office as a quango. It
was an arm of Government, and accountable through Whitehall. In
Bath and Somerset they were working with the Government Office
in a way they had not been able to five years previously. The
Government Office had been very helpful in developing local area
agreements.
Terry Wagstaff agreed.
The Government Office had now to achieve the balance of being
a critical friend to the region in Government. Two departments
in the Government Office—DfES and DWP—were more difficult
to work with than others, and found it difficult working across
boundaries. However, DWP had improved, and a new agenda was emerging
of openness to local areas.
Councillor Paul Crossley noted
that the Environment Agency sometimes struggled between its twin
roles of enforcement and policy development. Composting organisations
in the region had had to close down because the seasonal nature
of green waste had led to limits being temporarily exceeded. As
one facility had closed the transfer to others started a domino
effect.The cross-party waste group in the partnership had been
set up in response and the situation did not repeat this year.
Councillor Ruth Davis said
that the Highways Agency would not engage with local authorities,
and there had also been difficulties trying to engage the railway
authorities with local policies and priorities.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney said
that all the unitary authorities were aware of the hinterlands
within them. He agreed that the establishment of an elected city-region
authority would cause significant controversy in these areas.
Professor David Clarke said
that he did not believe the remainder of the South West region
would be concerned about the establishment of a Bristol city-region,
as it would be simply too far away. However, the region would
draw strength from greater levels of economic activity in Bristol.
| 
