Memorandum by the Continuing Commission
on The South (DRA 49)
1. ABOUT THE
COMMISSION
1.1 The Continuing Commission on The South
was mandated by the March 2003 Southampton Conference on devolution
in The South.
1.2 Within the limits of a manageable panel,
The Commission aims to be fairly balanced: geographically, politically
and in its mix of elected representatives, executive officers
and regional experts. See appendix for the present composition
of the panel and the basis of membership.
1.3 Part of the remit of the Commission
is precisely to develop and put forward amending clauses to the
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill with a view to a more flexible
and incremental approach.
2. INFORMATION,
ISSUES AND
POSSIBILITIES
2.1 Boundaries and Heartlands
Existing official regional boundaries in The
South are problematic: they are a problem for just about every
geographical area and community, from Cornwall to Kent. They are
a problem for every aspect of the project, from administration,
planning and infrastructure to relations with local and very local
bodies to the capacity to win popular support.
2.1.1 Rigid adherence to the regional map
set out in the Regional Development Agencies Act does not take
account of experience since the inception of the RDAs. This is
especially an issue for Cornwall and the South West.
2.1.2 The boundaries of the arbitrary South
East region separate Bournemouth from Portsmouth and Southampton
yet link Margate and Milton Keynes!
2.1.3 There are enough arguments of structural
logic and evidence of popular support (active or latent) to justify
examination of regional options for:
(b) South Central/Wessex/Thames Valley.
2.1.4 Concern in Whitehall with regional
symmetry or uniformity of scale finds no counterpart in continental
Europe, where there is a wealth of practical experience to draw
on.
2.1.5 A more imaginative approach to regions
in The South needs to be matched by scope to adopt popular and
appropriate names.
2.2 Powers and Progressions
As with boundaries, the framework of the Draft
Bill is rigid and restrictive, rather than progressive and enabling.
2.2.1 The powers to be devolved where elected
regional assemblies are endorsed go very little beyond the much-criticised
White Paper. (Thoughtful critiques available on request.)
2.2.2 There is no provision for incremental
powers, perhaps criteria related, where regions achieve both popular
support and effective performance.
2.2.3 There is no provision for differential
powers for different regional evolutions.
2.2.4 There is no sense of progression in
winning popular support. Rather than putting the spin machine
to work on a package offered from the centre, the starting point
for any would-be democratic region could be a two way dialogue
with those actively concerned (thus a better chance of getting
it right), leading on to drawing in latent support and then putting
the case to the wider public. (Cornwall/Kernow has done this on
its own: from a dynamic Constitutional Convention to 50,000 signatures
to 55% popular support already.)
3. MAKING A
DIFFERENCE
3.1 Notwithstanding the concerns and possibilities
raised in outline above, the Commission on The South welcomes
the democratisation and devolution project being pursued by this
Government. We support the principle of regional devolution.
3.2 The Commission has already been exploring
issues as they affect The South and will continue to do so. However,
this work had been stalled by the long delay in publishing the
Draft Regional Assemblies Bill as an indication of Government
intent.
3.3 The Commission would ask that the Select
Committee invite it to give evidence when it meets to scrutinise
the Draft Bill. We feel that it is important for the scrutiny
process to challenge the assertions and assumptions of Government
on the issue of new regions.
3.4 We would in particular want to expand
the theme that a more successful application of the enabling process
would occur if there were more flexibility.
3.5 In addition, we would support any requests
to be heard directly from Cornwall and from the South Central/Wessex/Thames
Valley area.
3.6 We understand that the Government still
wishes to see more directly elected regions up and running in
order to offer working models to others. This could readily be
achieved in Cornwall—provided that the Government embraces
the principle of asymmetry—where there is strong and growing
support for a directly elected assembly with credible powers.
Presented for The Commission on The South:
Andrew George MP
APPENDIX
CONTINUING COMMISSION ON THE SOUTH
The Commission Panel
| Name | Status/Position
| Location |
| Whitehead, Alan | [Chair] MP for Southampton Test
| Southampton, Hants |
| Anderson, Victor | London Development Agency; Adviser to Mayor (formerly Assembly Member)
| Forest Hill, London |
| Arnold, John | Southampton L.P. (former Council Leader)
| Southampton, Hants |
| Biscoe, Bert | Chair, Cornish Constitutional Convention; Cornwall County Councillor; Cornwall Association of Parish and Town Councils
| Truro, Kernow |
| Cartwright, Elizabeth | Leader, East Hampshire District Council; Vice-Chair, Association of Hampshire and I.O.W. Local Authorities
| Petersfield, Hants |
| Deller, Barry | Director, Association of the Councils of the Thames Valley (ACTVaR)
| High Wycombe, Bucks |
| George, Andrew | MP for St Ives
| Penzance, Kernow |
| Ray, Martin | CEO, Eastbourne Borough Council; Hon Secretary, East Sussex Local Government Association
| Eastbourne, East Sussex |
| Robins, David | Convenor, Wessex Constitutional Convention;
Planning & Transport Policy Officer, North Somerset Council
| Weston-super-Mare, Somerset |
| St John, Michael | Somerset County and Mendip District Councillor; Member, South West Constitutional Convention
| Bath, Somerset |
| Stuckey, Douglas | Wessex Regionalists; publisher and writer on the South West
| Wokingham, Berks |
| Tildesley, Vincent | [Convenor] Steering Group Member, Devolve!
| Thame, Oxon |
| |
|
BASIS OF
MEMBERSHIP
All members shall reside in the South (defined as the three
Westminster/Whitehall designated regions of South West, South
East and London).
All members are invited to attend in a personal capacity,
while bringing to the table some of the views and concerns of
their organisations and/or constituencies of interest.
Regardless of political affiliation (if any), all members
shall be understood to participate on a non-party basis, seeking
the best interests of the Greater South and of its various geographical
areas and communities.
| 
