CO-OPTED MEMBERS OF REVIEW AND MONITORING
COMMITTEES
177. One specific form of stakeholder participation
envisaged in the draft Bill, is the co-option of stakeholders
as members of RMCs. Your Region, Your Choice described
this as follows:
people with specific expertise could be co-opted
onto scrutiny committees, possibly with voting rights. This would
be in line with existing local government practice and proposals
for change in "Strong Local Leadership Quality Public Services".[251]
Clauses 78 to 82 of the draft Bill provide a legal
framework for the co-opting of stakeholders but do not explain
how this would operate in practice. Instead the draft Bill proposes
that this detail would be set out in an elected regional assembly's
standing orders, in guidance issued by the Secretary of State
and in secondary legislation.[252]
For example, the Secretary of State would be required to issue
guidance as to:[253]
a) the circumstances in which, and the means
by which, it is appropriate for an assembly to co-opt a member
of the RMC or an RMC sub-committee;
b) the descriptions of persons who may be appropriate
to be co-opted, and the circumstances in which it may be appropriate
to co-opt an assembly participant or an assembly participant representative;
c) the function of co-opted members; and
d) provision to be made by an assembly in its
standing orders for co-opted members.
178. We received a significant amount of evidence
supporting these proposals. IPPR North, for example, wrote that
"[t]he power of co-option can be a useful tool to broaden
the knowledge and experience of a committee".[254]
Professor Hazell also explained how he thought co-opted members
could improve the quality of RMC scrutiny:
They will be on both sides of the table as it
were and because some of them will be on your side of the table
they will be very well placed to encourage and beat the bushes
hard in relation to any specific inquiry and to get the best set
of witnesses on this side of the table.[255]
179. Some witnesses were, however, concerned about
the degree of discretion which assemblies would be given in this
context. The Social and Environmental Partners of the South East
Regional Assembly wrote:
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.[256]
The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
urged for the permissive regime in the draft Bill to be strengthened:
We question whether the discretionary nature
of this co-option will actually lead to effective participation
by stakeholder representatives. We would welcome more explicit
requirements for co-option where Assembly members lack the specialist
knowledge to effectively input to specific strategy development
processes. We also wish to see mechanisms in the Bill for ensuring
that Assemblies do not restrict co-option to a regularly used,
narrow base but involve a range of appropriate stakeholders, all
of whom should have a requirement upon them to pursue the objectives
of the Assembly.[257]
It asked us to "push for guidance on this aspect
from the Secretary of State as soon as possible."[258]
The National Trust also wrote that it "wishes to see better
acknowledgement of the valuable role of the voluntary and third
sector in regional affairs by increasing its representation and
co-option opportunities."[259]
The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) wrote of its
hope "that the Secretary of State will include representatives
of disability organisations amongst those that he believes it
is appropriate to have as co-opted members and that he will consult
RNIB in preparing such guidance."[260]
180. The voluntary sector has an important role
in providing specialist expertise. elected regional assemblies
would need guidance on how this input should be facilitated.
Voting rights
181. The draft Bill goes further than merely suggesting
that stakeholders could sit on review and monitoring committees;
it also provides statutory authority for co-opted members to be
given voting rights. Co-opted members of an RMC or an RMC sub-committee
could, however, only be given voting rights if the assembly has
a voting scheme.[261]
These are described in the draft Bill as schemes which provide:
a) for a maximum or minimum number of the
co-opted members of the RMC or an RMC sub-committee who may be
permitted to vote at meetings of the RMC or the RMC sub-committee;
and
b) for rules by which the assembly may determine
in any particular case which of the co-opted members are permitted
to vote at a meeting.[262]
The draft Bill would give the Secretary of State
the power to direct an assembly to vary or revoke its voting scheme
and to make regulations regarding what voting schemes can and
cannot include.[263]
182. While many interested parties supported the
general idea of co-option, some considered that giving voting
rights to non-elected members would be a step too far. The Campaign
for the English Regions (CfER) wrote:
We believe there are certain decision-making
which should be in the hands of democratically accountable members.
If co-opted people are to have equal voting rights, then as a
minimum there should be the same requirements to make a declaration
of financial interest as well as political affiliation.[264]
CfER also argued that "[a]lthough it is valuable
to have wide engagement with scrutiny, this can be achieved by
inviting evidence, hearing witnesses, and appointing advisers,
and by non-voting co-option."[265]
IPPR North viewed the grant of voting rights to non-elected RMC
members as an affront to democracy:
The draft Bill creates Review and Monitoring
Committees, and gives a regional assembly the power to co-opt
individuals onto this committee (clause 78). However, clause 80
gives that individual equal voting rights with a democratically
elected assembly member. The power of co-option can be a useful
tool to broaden the knowledge and experience of a committee, but
co-option with voting rights is contrary to democracy.[266]
183. The co-option of non-elected members to the
Review and Monitoring Committees of elected regional assemblies
should be encouraged as a way of securing specialist knowledge.
Giving these members voting rights, however should be treated
with extreme caution as it can undermine the role of the elected
representatives.
234 
