Memorandum by Social and Environmental
Partners (SEPS), South East England Regional Assembly (DRA 18)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The South East region has a partnership
Assembly comprising 74 local authority representatives, 17 Social
and Environmental Partners (the SEPs), 17 Economic Partners and
three Town and Parish Council representatives. These three non-political
(stakeholder) groups of the Assembly have played a full and decisive
role in the decision-making of the Assembly since its inception
in 1999. They are effectively engaged in all aspects of the work
of the Assembly, including membership of the Regional Planning
Committee, Executive Committee and Healthy Region Forum. In addition
to their work as Committee Members the stakeholders play a full
and active role on the Assembly's Select Committees which scrutinizes
the work of SEEDA, the South East development agency. The stakeholders
are also part of the Assembly's representation on the Regional
Housing Board and the Regional Transport Board Pilot, engaging
fully in the continuing work of these Boards.
1.2 The stakeholders' knowledge base and
expertise has been developed over years of involvement in the
business, education, voluntary, community and environmental sectors.
This provides them with a unique focus on the common themes and
disparities over a wide range of practical issues across the region.
As voting members of the Assembly, their personal engagement and
development is key to providing this viewpoint. They receive continuing
support and briefing to enhance their work in broadening the regional
agenda. This enables them to play a positive role as valued and
informed players in policy making for the future of the region.
Their contribution is also enhanced by engaging with their fellow
stakeholders who contribute a wide range of expertise from broad
regional perspectives.
2. THE SEPS
2.1 The viewpoint of the SEPs is unique
in that while traditional local politicians bring to the region
specialist knowledge of their own local areas, the SEPs bring
specialist knowledge of their own sectors, whether faith communities,
social housing, the environment or the elderly, but with a regional
perspective. This balances the social and environmental strands
of sustainable development. The SEPs' continuous commitment as
individual members of the South East Regional Assembly, supported
by their sponsor organizations and networks, enhances their skills
as a team and enables them to work together to develop practical
issue-based initiatives for the region, beyond the political and
local dimension. These initiatives often receive widespread support
from the political members. A recent example was the successful
motion by the SEPs to address the backlog of homelessness as a
priority within the South East Plan. It is this region-wide issue-based
perspective that is irreplaceable within mainstream debate and
their presence, as full Assembly members with voting rights, reinforces
their individual commitment, acceptance and presence within the
system.
2.2 The SEPs welcome the opportunity to
respond to the draft Regional Assemblies Bill which sets out the
Government's proposals for establishing Elected Regional Assemblies
(ERAs) in those regions of England where the majority of votes
cast in a referendum has been in favour of an ERA. This response
will further establish the SEPs' place as valuable and informed
players in policy making which affects the future of the region.
In addition to this joint response, individual SEPs, or their
networks, may also comment on the draft Bill. These representations
will emphasize or expand on issues from that particular network's
perspective, and are additional to this response.
2.3 The SEPs welcome the draft Regional
Assemblies Bill and the commitment it makes to devolving power
to the English regions. However the SEPs are concerned that the
lack of provision for stakeholder engagement will reduce the effectiveness
and diversity of ERAs. Their inclusion as full members of the
South East Regional Assembly has meant that the contribution of
the voluntary and community sector has been made available to
those involved in the development of the most economically successful
region, and is in line with the aim of the World Summit of Sustainable
Development to foster full participation. Indeed, stakeholder
representation strengthens the legitimacy of the South East Regional
Assembly and enhances the regional partnership.
3. PROVISION
FOR STAKEHOLDER
PARTICIPATION
3.1 The SEPs are concerned at the lack of
statutory provision in the draft Bill to provide a coherent and
funded alternative to their present role that would allow an input
of similar quality and expertise. Without detailed stakeholder
participation guidance, it is likely that considerable disparities
could arise across the regions which would be inequitable and
could lead to practical difficulties in inter-regional working.
3.2 The current quality of input from the
economic, social and environmental partners is irreplaceable in
that it complements the existing local representation by addressing
regional issues. This, together with the contribution of town
and parish council members, provides a balance of views to address
the three strands of sustainable development, while engaging communities
in the decision making process. If stakeholder involvement is
to be discarded, the system to replace it must be an improvement
on the partnership engagement which exists in the South East.
Provision for stakeholder involvement needs to be clearly defined
on a statutory basis, after proper consultation.
4. ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR STAKEHOLDER
PARTICIPATION
4.1 While there is provision for an annual
statement describing stakeholder participation (Clause 51 and
52), and while there exist within the draft Bill requirements
to involve stakeholders/ERA participants (Clause 53), there is
no mechanism to monitor or achieve quality control over the methods
and systems employed, nor over the outcomes of consultation or
participation. Under current proposals it would be possible for
an ERA to conduct a paper-based box-ticking exercise that fails
properly to engage stakeholders on any basis of real value.
4.2 Stakeholder engagement must be based
on equality, diversity and inclusivity, with an aim to increase
participation by those networks and communities which are currently
under-represented. The process for engaging stakeholders should
be defined and should be transparent, with demonstrably clear
lines of accountability. The SEPs also suggest that a method of
monitoring and evaluating how stakeholders have been engaged and
how their contributions have been implemented is essential. Indeed,
this should be part of the process of assessing an ERA's performance.
4.3 The requirement to co-opt "assembly
participants" to Review and Monitoring Committees (RMCs)
is undefined and appears to be largely discretionary (Clauses
81 and 82). As the approval of the Secretary of State is required
before such stakeholder engagement, there is a presumption that
there is no engagement until formally approved. If there is no
proposal for a statutory basis to allow full stakeholder involvement
on these committees, it is dubious whether their sponsor organizations
or networks would be as supportive as is currently the case. There
would equally be little prospect of continuity of personal engagement.
Since there are no provisions within the draft Bill for the conclusions
of RMCs to be considered by or acted upon by the Executive, their
value is questionable.
4.4 The selection of "assembly participants",
whatever this means, is undefined. There is no requirement to
balance co-opted members between the economic, social and environmental
sectors, the three strands of sustainable development, to ensure
reasoned conclusions are drawn. Further, there is no absolute
requirement to involve any assembly participants in committees.
5. QUALITY AND
BALANCE IN
REPRESENTATION
5.1 Currently, in the South East, the SEPs
are elected by their networks or selected by their peers. They
therefore represent their network's views and seek to speak on
behalf of their networks and to further the aims of sustainable
development. This structure enables communications to be maintained
both via the networks and supporting organizations, and from the
Assembly Partners' Support Unit team which provides regular briefings,
advice and support to the stakeholders.
5.2 This mechanism allows the seventeen
SEPs to debate issues, to respond to consultation documents and
to arrive at an informed consensus view in proposing and supporting
regional policies. Without the existence of the SEPs, these organizations
would find it difficult to maintain their current commitment to
engage in the work of the Assembly. The proposed intermittent
engagement with individuals and organizations, with an inconsistent
level of briefing on the work of an ERA, would create a chaotic
and ineffective environment for debate. The SEPs are concerned
that it will be difficult to achieve stakeholder buy-in if they
are only required to dip in and out of an ERA's work, and are
not continuously involved with its work.
6. LEVELS OF
PARTICIPATION IN
COMMITTEES AND
FUNCTIONAL BODIES
6.1 The draft Bill requires the Secretary
of State to authorize participation in Regional Monitoring Committees
(RMCs) (Clause 82). The SEPs consider that such participation
should be clearly defined and not left to the discretion of RMC
members, or to the Secretary of State.
6.2 A further concern is the lack of stakeholder
participation in the development of the Regional Spatial Strategy
(Clauses 98 to 104) or in the scrutiny of the Regional Development
Agency (RDAs) (Schedule 4). RDAs are responsible for preparing
the Regional Economic Strategy and for promoting sustainable development
across the region. The SEPs therefore, consider that economic,
social and environmental stakeholders should be engaged in the
scrutiny of their work. In addition, as RDAs are to be responsible
for the needs of rural communities, it is surprising that there
is no statutory mechanism for community or stakeholder engagement
in this work.
6.3 The SEPs are surprised that there is
no proposal in the draft Bill to engage stakeholders in the work
of the Learning and Skills Council, the Regional Housing Board
or the Regional Transport Board (Part 10). Currently in the South
East, the SEPs are part of the Assembly's representation on the
Regional Housing Board and the Regional Transport Board pilot.
6.4 The proposal that appointees of ERAs
to the Regional Cultural Consortium must have some experience
is welcomed but again no stakeholder provision is specified (Part
8). This is surprising as in the South East, SEPs representing
the Arts Council, Sport England and the Cultural Consortium, have
seats on the Regional Assembly. Nor is there provision for stakeholder
engagement to the Regional Fire and Rescue Authority (Schedule
5).
6.5 Although Clause 53 provides for stakeholder
engagement under the draft Bill and states that ERAs must make
arrangements to encourage and facilitate the participation of
stakeholders (Clause 53(1)), it is unclear if the structures laid
out in the remainder of the draft Bill would support any specific
stakeholder engagement of value. Clause 53(5) states that the
Secretary of State will issue guidance on stakeholder participation
and in so doing will consult established ERAs and others as appropriate,
before publishing guidance. The SEPs are concerned that there
is no provision for wider consultation and no measures to ensure
that existing regional chambers and their stakeholders will be
consulted. A wealth of experience and expertise is available which
it appears, will be ignored.
6.6 The SEPs would suggest the value of
setting-up a Select Committee to review stakeholder engagement
in ERAs and establish how this engagement can be provided, supported
and developed. There might also be merit in addressing the need
for a consistent working model across the nine ERAs to provide
certainty of engagement. Further, stakeholder support should be
fully and independently resourced. It should not be dependent
upon the whims of the members of ERAs. A similar support unit
to that functioning in the South East might be a starting point
for consideration. This unit provides advice, support and a central
research and training facility for the Regional Assembly stakeholders
and aims to increase their effective engagement in their Assembly
work.
The following are detailed comments on other aspects
of the draft Bill:
7. CONSTITUTION
7.1 The use of a small executive comprising
possibly two members and a chairman would decrease the ability
of the people in the region to be involved, or properly represented.
If an executive of six members is quorate with 25% attendance,
major policy decisions of a region such as the South East, with
a population of eight million, will be decided by just two ERA
members (Clauses 32 and 33). This might remain the case for ten
months if six meetings are to be held each year (Clause 29). The
SEPs are concerned at this narrowing of the base of representation
for decision making.
7.2 The SEPs are concerned that the provisions
for non-attendance in Clauses 32 and 33 allows a member to remain
in office while failing to attend five consecutive meetings before
disqualification. This is an unduly long time before action can
be taken for non-attendance (Clause 15). With an executive of
seven ERA members, it would become unrepresentative if its size
was reduced in this way. This would be a heavy burden for the
attending ERA members who may not have the experience necessary
to make decisions requiring detailed regional knowledge and expertise
on the complex issues arising. This would also fail to represent
the needs of the diverse communities in the South East. The lack
of stakeholder involvement also decreases the ability of the executive
to address sustainable development requirements as specified in
Clause 44(4).
7.3 If only ERA executive members are to
address policy issues for the region, the majority of ERA members
will be without a voice in the decision making process. In a region
like the South E, executive members will effectively be speaking
on behalf of more than one million people. This can hardly be
considered to be representative and raises major issues around
accountability.
7.4 The SEPs are concerned that the draft
Bill will legislate for an ERA of between 25 and 35 members. In
a region like the South East, ERA constituencies would be greater
than parliamentary ones. In the Parliamentary elections of 2001,
the average electorate per seat in England and Wales was 68,000.
ERA members in the South East would be representing more than
200,000 voters. Again, this is unrepresentative and raises major
accountability issues.
7.5 Constituency ERA members would be elected
from such large populations that they would have little detailed
knowledge of their electorate, and communities would fail to identify
with them as individuals. This is currently the case with Members
of the European Community. Further, Clause 44.4 requires that
the ERA "give equivalent consideration to the interests of
different communities both inside and outside the region".
This would present difficulties to constituency members representing
large and diverse areas who could not reasonably be expected to
know these areas in detail. The SEPs are concerned that this lack
of knowledge together with an unreasonably heavy workload would
result in decisions being made without due diligence and without
an adequate basis of representation.
7.6 The SEPs consider that it is against
the principle of inclusion that candidates must be working in
the region when they stand for election (Clause16 (2)). This is
inequitable in the South-East where many residents work in London
simply because housing in the capital is unaffordable. This clause
also excludes those who live with parents, students in lodgings
or others who cannot be defined as tenants and is critical in
the South East where house prices are exceptionally high. This
clause is contrary to the principles of inclusion on grounds of
age, gender, and social background.
7.7 The SEPs are concerned that Clause 21(3)c
is unworkable as they feel that, in practical terms, such a notice
cannot be placed.
7.8 The SEPs consider that Clause 53 line
3 needs to be rephrased as the term "assembly participants"
is unclear and misleading. It could be taken to refer to ERA members
rather than stakeholders as intended.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Although welcoming the draft Regional
Assemblies Bill and its commitment to devolving power to the English
regions, the SEPs are concerned that the lack of provision for
stakeholder engagement in ERAs will reduce their effectiveness
and diversity. In the South East stakeholder representation strengthens
the legitimacy of the Assembly and enhances the regional partnership.
The contribution of the stakeholders has been recognised as contributing
the wider view of the diversity of the region and as engaging
communities in the decision making process. If stakeholder involvement
in ERAs is to be discarded, whatever follows must be an improvement
on the partnership Assembly which exists in the South East. Provision
for stakeholder involvement needs to be clearly defined following
consultation and review. There is merit in a Select Committee
undertaking a review of stakeholder engagement in ERAs to establish
how continuing and meaningful engagement can be provided, supported,
funded and developed.
8.2 More generally, the SEPs are concerned
that the intended size of ERAs of between 25 to 35 members is
unreasonable in the South East region which has eight million
inhabitants. An ERA member representing more than 200,000 voters
is unrepresentative and raises major accountability issues. Similarly,
a small executive of between two and eight members representing
either million people begs belief. Current Government concerns
about engaging communities in the decision making process appear
to have been ignored.
| 
