THE POWERS OF REVIEW AND MONITORING
COMMITTEES
160. The draft Bill proposes to give review and monitoring
committees the power to examine the discharge of a function by
any of the following:
a) the executive or a committee, sub-committee
or member of the executive;
b) a special adviser;
c) a functional body of an assembly (including
the Regional Development Agency, the Regional Fire and Rescue
Authority and Regional Cultural Consortium);
d) an employee of the assembly; [and]
e) an employee of a functional body. [223]
161. When pursuing its scrutiny functions, Clause
77 of the draft Bill would provide RMCs with the following powers
to compel evidence:
(1) For the purpose of the discharge of the RMC's
function under section 74(2), the RMC or any RMC sub-committee
of an assembly may require an individual falling within subsection
(2)-
(a) to attend proceedings of the RMC or RMC sub-committee;
(b) to answer questions put to him by members
of the RMC or RMC sub-committee in the course of those proceedings;
(c) to produce to the RMC or RMC sub-committee
any document in his possession or under his control.
The people to whom these powers apply are, however,
limited to members and staff of an assembly and its functional
bodies.[224]
162. A number of witnesses told us that they consider
the RMC powers currently proposed in the draft Bill to be insufficient.
In particular, we were told that the list of persons subject to
these powers should be expanded. The Local Government Information
Unit, for example, wrote:
We would like the Bill to set out clearer powers
of scrutiny, including rights to call staff and information, in
relation to external bodies, and quangos. Local government scrutiny
committees have powers to investigate and report on 'matters which
affect the authority's area of the inhabitants of the area'. This
power should be given to regional assembly scrutiny bodies as
well.[225]
In our previous report, Reducing Regional Disparities
in Prosperity, we recommended that elected regional assemblies
should be given the power to scrutinise the Government Offices
in the Regions:
Where elected regional assemblies are introduced,
arrangements should be put in place to allow some form of scrutiny
of the Government Office by the assembly, as has been the case
with Regional Development Agencies, which are scrutinised by unelected
regional chambers, whilst retaining accountability to Parliament
through DTI Ministers.[226]
Forum for the Future also stressed the need for government
offices to become accountable to elected regional assemblies:
There is little discussion within the bill about
the relationship with regional Government Offices. These have
the potential to become a 'mini regional Whitehall' supporting
and accountable to the Assembly. Otherwise they will continue
to be a powerful, but unaccountable public organisation within
the region.[227]
163. In response to this recommendation, ODPM wrote
that "[t]he Government Offices (GOs)
are part of central
government and thus accountable to Parliament" and that "[e]lected
regional assemblies will not have a remit to scrutinise GOs, which
will continue to be accountable to Ministers."[228]
This view was reiterated when we asked ODPM officials about the
limited powers:
Clause 77 of the Bill allows RMCs and RMC sub-committees
to compel evidence, but that is from people associated with the
assembly (the employees, the members, the leader), not people
from outside bodies. The RMC is mainly about looking at the work
of the assembly and how that fits in with the rest of the region,
not for scrutinising other outside bodies.[229]
They also suggested that the power to compel the
provision of evidence from outside bodies is unnecessary because
such bodies would be likely to cooperate with RMCs on a voluntary
basis.[230]
164. The powers that the review and monitoring
committees would have are inadequate and inconsistent with the
arguments made by the Government in favour of elected regional
assemblies. If their powers are not extended, review and monitoring
committees would be unable to hold to account unelected quangos
operating within the region, even if they have received funding
from the assembly. They may also be unable to investigate whether
a coordinated and effective approach to sustainable development
is being taken within the region. Review and monitoring committees
should not be expected to rely on the voluntary cooperation of
those outside bodies which are key to delivery of the assembly's
underlying purposes. The power to compel witnesses to attend and
to provide evidence, though rarely used, would give an important
impetus for key stakeholders to cooperate in the process of scrutiny.
THE LIKELY PROFILE OF BACKBENCH
MEMBERS
165. The effectiveness of elected regional assemblies
would depend to a large extent upon the quality of its elected
membership. Your Region, Your Choice explains that:
The Government believes that members of an assembly
executive and the chair of an assembly will have full-time posts
and should be paid accordingly. Other members of a regional assembly
will also have an important role, which is likely to require them
to work for perhaps three days a week on assembly business. In
order to recompense them for this work, and to attract good quality
people who may otherwise be unable or unwilling to stand for election,
we propose that these assembly members should receive a salary
of around two-thirds of that for the executive members and assembly
chair.[231]
The Policy Statement does not explain whether the
Government still expects that backbench members would be part-time.
166. Some of our witnesses commented on the possible
impact of part-time membership on the profile of backbench members.
Mark Sandford, for example, told us:
My guess is that the fact that the backbench
members will be part-time will be an encouragement to dual mandate
holders, people who are already MPs or perhaps county or unitary
authority councillors, to take on those roles as well
I
think the part-time nature of the membership is going to make
it very difficult not only to develop a profile of the members
but actually to do the job
I am quite curious as to why
the Government has made so much of the part-time nature of assemblies.[232]
The Local Government Information Unit also wrote
that full-time salaries for all elected regional assembly members
is "essential if candidates are to reflect the whole population,
including young people, those with young children, and people
at an age when they need to establish a career."[233]
167. It would be unfortunate if backbench members
were paid only a part-time salary as this could lead to review
and monitoring committees being dominated by dual-mandate holders,
the retired and the unemployed. While such groups should be represented,
other groups which are more likely to need a full-time salary,
such as younger people and those with families, should not be
dissuaded from standing for election. In addition, we are concerned
that part-time backbench members could struggle to perform their
role effectively. Non-executive members may, for example, be required
to sit on more than one review and monitoring committee. If they
are to do justice to their committee work, the three days per
week suggested by the Government would be insufficient.
115 Clause 3(1) Back
116
Clause 6 Back
117
Registered political parties would be able to submit a list of
candidates to be regional members. Back
118
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 6.12 Back
119
Q 23 (Professor Hazell) Back
120
Q 45 (Professor Hazell) Back
121
Ev 75 Back
122
Ev 32 Back
123
Q 470 (The Minister) Back
124
See, for example, Ev 131 (South East County Leaders' Group)
Back
125
Ev 189 Back
126
Ibid. Back
127
Q 21 (Professor Hazell) Back
128
The Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the
National Assembly for Wales Back
129
Report of the Richard Commission, National Assembly for
Wales, Spring 2004, Chapter 12, paragraph 18 Back
130
Ibid., Chapter 12, Findings Back
131
Q 21 (Professor Hazell) Back
132
Q 339 (Mr Bevan) Back
133
Qq 284-289 (Mr Allan) & Qq 471-472 (The Minister) Back
134
Q 472 (The Minister) Back
135
[Letter dated 28 September 2004 from Richard Allen including written
responses to questions raised in oral evidence sessions] Back
136
Q 66 (Professor Travers) Back
137
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 6.13 Back
138
Q 473 (The Minister) Back
139
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 6.13 Back
140
Ibid. Back
141
Q 45 (Professor Hazell) Back
142
Ev 87 Back
143
Q 46 (Professor Hazell) Back
144
Clause 3(4) Back
145
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 77 Back
146
Ev 87 (Derbyshire County Council) Back
147
Ev 163 Back
148
Q 516 (Councillor Davis) Back
149
Ev 131 Back
150
Ev 59 Back
151
Ev 163 Back
152
Q 337 (Councillor Thomas) Back
153
Ev 57 Back
154
Ev 125 Back
155
Q 490 (Councillor Davis) Back
156
Ibid. Back
157
EV 51 Back
158
Q 490 (Councillor Davis) Back
159
Ev 197 Back
160
Ev 196 Back
161
Q 107 (Ms Gordon) Back
162
Q 15 (Mr Sandford) Back
163
Ibid. Back
164
Ibid. Back
165
Q 19 (Professor Hazell) Back
166
Q 467 (The Minister) Back
167
Q 490 (Mr Donnelly) Back
168
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 7.2 Back
169
Policy Statement, page 12 Back
170
Clause 32 Back
171
Ev 51 Back
172
Q 138 (Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart) Back
173
Q 26 (Mr Sandford) Back
174
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 7.27 Back
175
Clause 125(1) Back
176
Clause 125(2) Back
177
Q 30 (Mr Sandford) Back
178
Q 68 (Professor Travers) Back
179
Ibid. Back
180
Clause 32(3) Back
181
Qq 474&475 (the Minister) Back
182
Ev 131 Back
183
Ev 195-196 Back
184
Ev 56 Back
185
Q 26 (Professor Hazell) Back
186
Ev 76 Back
187
Q 26 (Mr Sandford) Back
188
Clause 33(4) Back
189
Clause 33(6) Back
190
Ev 49 Back
191
Ev 173 Back
192
Ibid. Back
193
Q 26 (Mr Sandford) Back
194
Q 366 (Mr Clarke) Back
195
Policy Statement, paragraph 27. See also Clause 73 Back
196
Clause 74(1)(a) Back
197
Clause 74(1)(b) Back
198
Clause 74(2)&(3) Back
199
Clause 75 Back
200
Clause 76 Back
201
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 7.5 Back
202
Q 34 (Mr Sandford) Back
203
Ev 174 Back
204
Ev 62 Back
205
Q 19 (Professor Hazell) Back
206
Ibid. Back
207
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 7.6 Back
208
Q 476 (The Minister) Back
209
Explanatory Notes, paragraph 250 Back
210
Clause 75(4)&(5) Back
211
Q 30 (Mr Sandford) Back
212
Ibid. Back
213
Ev 51 Back
214
Ibid. Back
215
Ev 49 Back
216
Q 30 (Mr Sandford) Back
217
Ev 76 Back
218
Q 517 (Councillor Davis) Back
219
Q 476 (The Minister) Back
220
Ibid. Back
221
Q 30 (Mr Sandford) Back
222
Ibid. Back
223
Clause 74(3). Back
224
Clause 77(2) Back
225
Ev 49 Back
226
Reducing Regional Disparities in Prosperity, July 2003,
HC 492-I, paragraph 170 Back
227
Forum for the Future, Ev 194 Back
228
Government Response to ODPM Select Committee Report on Reducing
Regional Disparities In Prosperity, September 2003, Cm5958,
paragraph 57 Back
229
Q 309 (Mr Scotter) Back
230
Q 310 Back
231
Your Region, Your Choice, paragraph 7.24 Back
232
Qq 17&18 (Mark Sandford( Back
233
Ev 49 Back