Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council welcomes the invitation to submit evidence to the Committee to support its inquiry into "the persistent gap in growth rates between regions". The Council is pleased to submit the following evidence for consideration by the Select Committee.

  Doncaster MBC is the largest Metropolitan Borough Council in the country by area and serves a population of approximately 290,000 people. Like many northern areas in the UK, Doncaster has suffered significantly during the 1980s and 1990s through the decline in traditional industries.

  Doncaster is an area which holds tremendous economic potential. Although some progress has been made in recent years, the Council believes that without further intervention by the Government, the Council and its partners on the Doncaster Strategic Partnership will not be able to address the underlying structural problems in the economy left by the demise of traditional industries. These will require both supply and demand side interventions by the Government.

  The Council agrees with the Government's view that there are just as many disparities within regions as there are between regions. However, the Government needs to recognise that a national policy alone will not be sufficient to address inter or intra regional disparities. Despite views to the contrary, a north-south divide is clearly evident as illustrated in table 1.

  National monetary and labour market initiatives, like the New Deal, need to be supported by dynamic regional policies with targeted interventions in lagging regions. The Council would urge the Government to develop flexible policies will allow a region and sub region to draw upon their natural competitive advantage rather than compete against each other for the same clusters, industries and jobs. The Council believes that failure to recognise the shortcomings of current regional policy will result in the continued divergence in prosperity between regions.

  Flexibility at a national level also needs to be replicated at the regional level recognising that administrative geographic units are not necessarily co-terminus with economic and social spheres of influence or opportunity. Both Doncaster and Sheffield have distinctive economic, social and cultural functions and identities which extend outside the South Yorkshire, and the Yorkshire and the Humber administrative regions. In Doncaster's case, its economic, social and cultural catchment area extends well into the East Midlands region. Should a favourable decision be received on the airport planning application at the former RAF Finningley site, then undoubtedly Doncaster's sphere of influence would extend well into the North of England.

  Regional policy therefore needs to be capable of adjusting to the opportunities within local and regional economies which cannot be captured or nurtured through centralised, national interventions. Such interventions can only be assessed and implemented within the regions, where relationships between major growth areas and their hinterlands is better understood and a greater priority assigned to dealing with the associated opportunities or problems.

  While not a city in name, Doncaster could develop its own city-region distinct from that of Leeds and Sheffield. As such, it should have equal access to the benefits afforded to "Core Cities" like Urban Regeneration Companies (URC). At present the Government seeks to ration URCs to two per region reinforcing the core cities model. This is an effort to minimise competition between areas but which will only serve to broaden disparities within regions, and therefore to further disguise those between regions. Regional policy must be strengthened to encourage polycentric growth to avoid overheating of local economies with the well-known effects on housing, congestion and quality of life. Indeed, a robust regional policy is the only solution to overcoming the current problems being experienced in the South East Government alone is not able to deal with the problems this creates and it should free the Regions to allow them to assist the Government to overcome them.

  While central Government has a clear role in fostering the conditions for national economic growth, it must also be willing to promote conditions for regional and sub regional economic growth by giving maximum flexibility to regional development tools like the Regional Planning Guidance, the Regional Economic Strategy and the Regional Transport Strategy. It must also increase its investment in the regions through Regional Selective Assistance and other regional aid packages which will help rebuild the demand base within regions.

  While recognising the Government's commitment to improving transport through the 10 Year Transport Plan, the Council would urge the Government to reconsider existing proposals to ensure that transport investment is not concentrated in the south. Of all the regions, Government investment in transport is lowest in Yorkshire and the Humber. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Arterial routes throughout northern England require considerable investment to both maintain and expand the existing network into the growth areas of the future. The Council has a keen interest in Government aviation policy and would welcome support for growth in airport capacity in the North of England.

  The Council fears that the increase in European Union (EU) regional aid in recent years will result in the UK Government reducing or redirecting its own intended investment in the regions. Historically, EU regional aid, like Objective one, has supported demand side initiatives much needed in areas where the industrial base has been devastated. The Government must ensure that EU regional aid is not used to displace UK regional aid, but used to trigger additional UK investment in industry, transport and infrastructure. Over reliance on supply side initiatives may be one reason why the current Government spends far less on direct regional aid than our main EU counterparts. Unless this issue is readdressed urgently, regional disparities will increase both within the UK, but also between UK and other European regions. The Council urges the Select Committee to further examine the findings of the Second Report by the European Commission on Economic and Social Cohesion.

  The Council recognises and welcomes recent developments in Government regional policy most notably with the creation of Regional Development Agencies and Learning and Skills Councils. These agencies have not been in operation long enough to evaluate fully their contribution to the reduction in regional prosperity. It is increasingly clear, however, that their ability to deliver a regional policy is constrained by their overwhelming obligation to implement a national agenda. Equally, the Council welcomes the new financial flexibilities awarded to these bodies, but fears that the level of resources they have been allocated will ultimately be insufficient to address the breadth and intensity of deprivation currently prevalent in regions like the Yorkshire and the Humber.

  It is also evident from reviewing the activities of the Regional Development Agencies, that their approach to regional development is all too similar. The Council believes that this is in part due to their process of formation, but also in part due to the centralising effect of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Council believes, that for the RDAs to be truly successful, they must be allowed to determine their own development priorities with greater accountability to the communities which they serve; accordingly, the Council welcomes the Government's proposals for Regional Government, which will allow the Region, if it so chooses, to take a much greater control of Regional institutions like RDAs.

  The Government must also facilitate a longer term approach to their activities. The current focus on short-term outputs unfortunately results in targeting of activities on areas which present "quick wins" rather than those which require long term sustained investment. It also often results in regions competing for the same role and investment rather than developing their own national and international competitive advantage. Despite these reservations the Council is keen to work closely with the Regional Development Agency to help realise its potential.

  The recent move to a directly elected mayor in Doncaster has so far proved successful. The Council would urge the Government to consider the lessons of the Doncaster experience and ensure that there is greater accountability to the public. Regional Government would provide a significant step in the right direction and, the Council believes that without either direct election or representation of locally elected representatives, regional government will not capture the public imagination and will not be able to address the true needs of local, deprived, communities.

  The Council would ask the Inquiry to consider a practical step that the Government could take if it is minded to review its approach to regional policy seriously. The Council supports the Government's approach to strategic financial and policy planning and would encourage it to commission an early review of Regional policy through its Spending Review programme, due to commence in 2004. Given the scale and complexity of the issue, the Inquiry might wish to consider whether such a study should be undertaken on an accelerated basis, possibly beginning towards the end of 2003.

  The Council is pleased to submit the above evidence and would welcome the opportunity to provide further evidence to the inquiry if requested.

William Bradshaw

Assistant Chief Executive