Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 479)
WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2004
RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP AND MR
IAN SCOTTER
Q460 Mr Sanders: Is not the threat
of international terrorism important enough to get that co-ordination
right?
Mr Raynsford: Absolutely, which
is why we are doing a large number of things to help the emergency
services to work together in the most effective way. That is why
we have procurement of new radio communication systems which are
interoperable. That is why there is an enormous amount of joint
training and why we have set up regional resilience forums in
each of the regions to pull together the various emergency services
and other players who must work together. Just as an aside, I
was in Birmingham at the beginning of this week and met with the
West Midlands Regional Resilience Forum and heard of the very
good work that they are doing to co-ordinate the work of the emergency
services, the military, local authorities and utilities to ensure
that the region is prepared not just for terrorist threats but
also for major emergencies such as flooding or other national
disasters. That work is going on. Obviously an elected regional
assembly would have an interest in that work.
Q461 Chairman: Would it not go a
bit further than having an interest in?
Mr Raynsford: It would be responsible,
as I have said, for the fire and rescue service in its region,
and that is a very major component, and so it would be very much
engaged.
Q462 Mr Sanders: You said earlier
that the elected regional assemblies would be pursuing economic,
social and environmental well-being. That is an amendment of the
Local Government Act as I remember. Is there not the possibility
here of duplication, and indeed tension, between different functions
of local government and regional government pursuing that same
agenda?
Mr Raynsford: I understand the
concerns that there might be overlap and there might be duplication
and that is why, as I said in response to Chris Mole's question,
we will be introducing specific provisions to limit and restrict
the ability of elected regional assemblies to act in areas which
are clearly the remit of local authorities. Defining that is quite
a delicate matter because what you do not want to do is to cut
across genuine partnership working and the regions helping local
authorities in a constructive way. That is what we want to see,
but it is absolutely part of our remit that the elected regional
assemblies should not be able to take over or trample on those
functions discharged by local authorities, which should remain
local authority responsibilities at the local level. That is our
thinking and the legislation will reflect that.
Q463 Sir Paul Beresford: That is
very interesting indeed when one looks at the Mayor for London
and his relationship, if you can call it that dynamic perhaps,
with the London councils in that in drawing that legislation up,
what you do not have in there will be seen as an open door for
plucking.
Mr Raynsford: The Mayor is an
ambitious character and he has set out his views on the future
structure of local government in London, but those are just his
views. The Association of London Government, representing the
32 London boroughs and the City of London, has a rather different
view. I have to say that we have no plans to change the structure
of local government in London.
Q464 Sir Paul Beresford: That is
fine but in this particular Bill you have to be very careful how
you actually put the restrictions down because that is not included
and could be seen as an open opportunity.
Mr Raynsford: I agree with you
entirely, and that is why I said, in response to Chris Mole's
question, that it is a difficult matter because one does not want
to discourage genuine partnership and working together where it
would be to mutual advantage, but you have to ensure that the
elected regional assembly cannot trample all over the local authority's
responsibilities.
Q465 Mr Sanders: We heard yesterday
from the Chief Executive of the Government Office of the North
East who said that around 100 staff would transfer from the Government
Office to the regional assembly if there is a yes vote. Will the
costs of their salaries be met in full by central government grants
to the North East or will any part of that fall on the council
taxpayer in the North East?
Mr Raynsford: That will all be
transferred by Government and Government will meet those costs.
Q466 Mr Sanders: Every year from
here on in?
Mr Raynsford: It will be on a
like-for-like basis. I cannot guarantee that if there are dramatic
changes, if there were substantial increases in the numbers in
some of those functions. If the assembly itself decided to increase
the size, then it would, in our view, have to take some responsibility
for that but the costs of the staff who will transfer will be
met by Government so that there would be no new cost imposed on
the assembly as a result of taking staff from the Government Office.
Q467 Mr Betts: In terms of the size
of the regional assemblies, is it reasonable to fix the maximum
size at 35, given the amount of population there could be in some
of the regions and we could be looking at constituencies for directly
elected assembly members of probably three times a parliamentary
constituency? Is that not going to create a gap between the electorate
and the people they elect?
Mr Raynsford: No, I think it is
absolutely desirable, precisely for the reason that I was talking
about in response to the earlier questions from Chris Mole and
Sir Paul Beresford, and that is that if you keep the assembly
small, it is much less likely to start looking for extra work
to undertake and start trampling on local authorities. If you
look at the experience in London with an assembly of 25 for a
city of seven million people, that has worked in exactly the way
that we would have expected, that the assembly has generally focused
on matters that are London-wide and has not tried to double guess
and duplicate the work of individual local authorities. It is
exactly that model that we want to see in the English regions.
If you duplicate the kind of level of representation that you
have either for local councils or for Members of Parliament, you
will have a large assembly; there will inevitably be tension between
the different tiers of government because people elected for the
same size of constituency will be pursuing the same interests
possibly from a different perspective, possibly in conflict with
each other; and you will have real problems of dual mandates with
both people being able to say they represent exactly the same
constituency and they have got a right to speak on the subject.
If you have different sizes of constituency and a larger constituency
for the regional assembly, then it is much less likely that the
elected members of the regional assembly will claim that they
have the same mandate as someone elected for the local authority,
or indeed a Member of Parliament. I think it is entirely consistent
with the principles on which this whole project is based that
elected regional assemblies should focus on the regional matters,
that they should not interfere with the work of local authorities
and should not be double guessing the work of Members of Parliament.
Q468 Sir Paul Beresford: Your choice
of London is a little unfortunate because the reality is that
it is a very ambitious one to a constituency of seven million.
Mr Raynsford: The Assembly in
London is 25.
Q469 Sir Paul Beresford: I realise
that but the Assembly's influence is negligible compared to the
ambitious one.
Mr Raynsford: That is the separate
model of the elected mayor. That is the difference between the
London model and the elected regional assemblies.
Q470 Mr Betts: It works in Scotland.
I know there are slightly different powers. May I say that there
is a relationship there to parliamentary constituencies. Just
going on to the form of election, I have heard you say before,
Minister, that you have looked at the models elsewhere in Scotland
and Wales, but in reality are not those models now coming under
question from the Scottish Executive and the British Report in
Wales? They are questioning whether the additional member system
really works and whether there is not a conflict between the two
types of member. When we have asked witnesses so far about why
this model was chosen, all we have been told is, "Ministers
like that model". We can find no evidence at all that anybody
has been consulted about it or anybody has expressed a preference
for it.
Mr Raynsford: There are very significant
reasons and advantages for the particular model. Let me just run
through them. I do think there is a difference between Scotland
and Wales where Parliament and the Assembly are much larger, in
terms of the numbers of members, than you will have in an English
regional assembly. The kinds of possibilities for conflict between
different tiers of government are, for that reason, probably rather
greater. The reason for going for the type of election that we
have proposed, quite apart from the issue of size, is to ensure
that you do have a more proportionate representation of the interests
of the region than would be possible by a first-past-the-post
election, particularly in terms of regions with a very strong
majority of one particular party at parliamentary level. Let us
take the North East as an example. I think it is important that
there should be opportunities for representation by other parties,
which might be completely excluded if the election was on a first-past-the-post
basis in a region like the North East. As part of the more inclusive
approach in the Government's model, we did believe it was right
to have scope for an element of the Assembly elected in proportion
to the votes cast for the different parties throughout the region.
There is also scope for independents to stand as regional members
rather than as constituency members. That may well feature in
the North East as one possibility. I believe there are advantages
to that. The second factor is ensuring probably a better gender
balance and better representation of the different minority interests
in various areas. It is very notable that in the cases of Scotland,
Wales and London the gender balance on those bodies is far better
than in most local authorities and indeed in the Westminster Parliament.
That is because the system has allowed an approach, which has
been taken up by most of the political parties, to ensure that
they are getting a broader representation of different groups
in the community. In the case of London certainly, ethnic minority
groups also are of particular importance. Ensuring representation
of women and minority groups, ensuring that the body is more proportionate
to the votes across the region as a whole than would be the case
with a first-past-the-post assembly, and ensuring that the assembly
focuses on its function, which is to act as a regional body pursuing
regional issues and not duplicating the work of local authorities,
all of those pointed to the kind of structure that we have proposed
of a small, streamlined assembly and elected by an AMS system.
Q471 Mr Betts: It is a bit ironic,
is it not, Minister, that, in terms of a measure which is about
devolution, on this issue there has been no consultation or listening
to the views of people in the regions about the system of voting?
Mr Raynsford: There has been.
Q472 Mr Betts: What was the process?
There has been no process at all, has there?
Mr Raynsford: There has been because
I have debated this particular issue at almost all the meetings
I have held over the last two years in different regions. Certainly
we have listened to the views, and the views are varied. Some
people are very opposed to our proposals; they would like large
assemblies; they would like small constituencies. Other people
recognise that the small, streamlined assembly is a very good
idea and they like the more inclusive approach or a proportional
system of election.
Q473 Mr Betts: Just to be clear,
though, one of the most important issues would be the split between
the directly-elected members and the regionally-elected members
in terms of deciding the ultimate composition of the assembly.
That is not laid down in the legislation, is it? Can you give
us any indication about the likely split in terms of proportions?
Mr Raynsford: We have said approximately
two-thirds will be elected from constituencies and one-third from
the region as a whole, and we will be issuing guidance to the
Boundary Committee when we issue guidance to them on framing the
constituencies as to precisely how that should be achieved.
Q474 Mr Betts: In terms of the cabinet,
again there has been a bit of scepticism about having a cabinet
as small as three potentially to cover all the various functions.
I suppose you could get a situation where, if one of the cabinet
members is away and the chair had a casting vote, one person could
determine what exactly happened in the cabinet and determine the
policy of the assembly. That does not sound terribly democratic,
does it?
Mr Raynsford: As always on these
occasions, you have a choice. You are either very prescriptive
or you offer options. We have said that there can be a cabinet
of a size as small as you say at one extreme but with seven members
at the other extreme. It is up to each assembly to decide what
is the best way to go forward. It is going to have to come forward
with its own standing orders and proposals, and no doubt those
will be debated in the assembly. If you believe in being highly
prescriptive and insisting that there must be a particular size,
then you would go down the route you are proposing. I happen to
believe it is right to give a measure of discretion to the assembly
itself.
Q475 Chairman: Why not give total
discretion and let them decide what is most efficient?
Mr Raynsford: As always, as I
said earlier, there is a balance between setting a national framework
that ensures some consistency so that you do not have wholly inconsistent
approaches in different English regional assemblies—and
that is what we have sought to do by setting a maximum and minimum—and
giving the range but giving the assembly the opportunity to decide
what arrangement it thinks is most suitable for its region.
Q476 Chairman: You might have a situation
and in a particular region they might decide that they have to
have an executive of three because if they have an executive of
five that upsets the balance of the scrutiny committee. Is that
not a bit daft?
Mr Raynsford: I can see mathematically
how that might just about be possible. I think it is unlikely
to be a major motivating force. I know there is an issue about
the provision that the scrutiny committee and any sub-committees
have to be proportionate to the electoral composition of the RMC,
the Review and Monitoring Committee. The thinking behind this
is that if an RMC were to be required to set up its sub-committees
with the membership in proportion to the whole assembly including
the executive, as against its own committee, which is purely based
on the non-executive members of the executive, then they might
not set up any sub-committees because they would see that as,
in a sense, watering down their effectiveness. Because there is
a requirement that the RMC itself should be made up of members
who are not on the executive, for the obvious reason that they
are scrutinising the work of the cabinet, then the logic seemed
to point to having any sub-committees of that body of similar
proportion. I have heard the arguments advanced. I have looked
at the figures. If you think about it, it is unlikely, given the
range of numbers that we have talked about with the maximum of
seven, that actually the political composition would be so skewed
that the assembly would not work effectively as a result of the
requirement that the RMC and its sub-committees should be made
up solely of members who are not on the executive.
Q477 Chairman: This principle does
not apply as far as the House of Commons is concerned. Where is
the logic for this? Is it that you actually have your scrutiny
panel making sure that it does not reflect the composition of
the whole region as opposed to the region minus the executive?
Mr Raynsford: I think really the
issue is one of scale. When you are talking about the House of
Commons at 650 members, it is a very different matter to talking
of a regional assembly of 25 or 35. It is important that the members
who are responsible for scrutiny should feel that they are able
to do that and are not inhibited from scrutinising the work of
the executive. We believe that is best achieved by ensuring that
the political composition of all scrutiny bodies should match
that of the RMC itself, which is formed of all the non-executive
members of the assembly.
Q478 Mr Clelland: One argument against
those who say that the assembly would be too small is the fact
that there will be other people involved in the work of the assembly—stakeholders,
the voluntary sector, the business sector, local government, et
cetera. While the Bill gives assemblies an encouragement to
facilitate the involvement of stakeholders to such an extent that
the assembly may think fit, the assemblies are not subject to
a more definitive obligation to encourage and facilitate stakeholder
participation. Why is that?
Mr Raynsford: That is exactly
for the reason we have been debating in the course of this discussion:
there is a balance to be achieved between setting in place the
overall objectives and giving discretion to individual elected
regional assemblies to decide how best to do things in the light
of circumstances in their region. The North East is a relatively
small region. It may well feel that arrangements for engaging
stakeholders can be handled in a way rather different to what
might apply in, say, the North West where, because of the geographical
distances, the arrangements for stakeholder involvement may be
sub-regional. For example, a sub-regional structure may well be
regarded as appropriate in a larger region and that might not
be felt to be necessary elsewhere. I am not saying it will not
be but this will be a decision for the region to take. We think
it is right there should be discretion and that regions should
be able to shape their institutions in a way that does respond
to their needs within the overall requirement that they have got
to engage stakeholders. That is the balance we are trying to achieve.
It is hard, as you will know from the questioning. On some issues
I am being accused of being too much a centraliser by being prescriptive
and on others I am being accused of allowing too much scope as
in Clive Betts's question about whether it is right to let an
assembly have a cabinet of just three. We have to try and get
a balance here. My view is that we are trying to achieve a national
framework that ensures some consistency between different regions
where regional assemblies are set up in different regions and
the basic principles are met but that we allow a good measure
of discretion for the assembly itself to organise its own affairs.
Q479 Mr Clelland: While the assemblies
would be encouraged, and I am sure they will wish to do so, to
engage and involve stakeholders, stakeholders themselves may be
reluctant to be involved unless they feel they have a real say
in the work of the assembly. Of course, that comes down to whether
they may have votes on committees and sub-committee. We have had
some concerns expressed about people who are not directly elected
having votes. What will be built into the legislation to allay
those concerns?
Mr Raynsford: There will be a
permissive framework: we are not going to exclude that possibility.
We think that assemblies should be able to consider it, but there
are certain things that must be decided only by elected members.
I think it is possible within that permissive framework to allow
a sensible engagement of stakeholders in a very creative way so
that they could, for example, sit on scrutiny committees and have
a vote in such circumstances; they could play a role in policy
development and policy formulation; they could perform advisory
functions and really feel that they are making an impact and influencing
the work of the assembly. I think we do see scope for active participation.
We will encourage it with guidance. I am sure that the stakeholders
will come forward themselves. I have encouraged different stakeholder
groups in the North East, including representatives of the rural
sections of the region and the business community, to come forward
with their own proposals as to how they can most usefully engage.
I would hope that the assembly, if there is a yes vote and one
is set up, will listen carefully and think deeply about these
issues and then come forward with appropriate proposals to ensure
constructive engagement by stakeholders.
| 
