Regional committees
105. The Governance of Britain Green Paper
made proposals to improve democratic accountability and scrutiny
of the delivery of public services in the English regions.[134]
This followed on from proposals in a Report from the Communities
and Local Government Committee for the establishment of "more
thorough and consistent scrutiny of the regions at Westminster".
The Committee suggested that select committees on the regions
might be appointed, on an experimental basis, and asked the Modernisation
and Procedure Committees to examine the detailed implications
of improved parliamentary scrutiny for the regions.[135]
We discussed the Government's proposals at our informal meeting
with the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Justice,
and the Modernisation Committee is now inquiring into regional
accountability, including what models of accountability might
work; what the role of the House should be in regional accountability;
and what resources would be needed to make regional accountability
work in the House of Commons.[136]
106. Our Chairman and two select committee chairmen
gave evidence to the Committee's inquiry in February 2008. We
argued that any new parliamentary arrangements for regional accountability
should not overlap with, or undermine, the role of the existing
departmental select committees. We also expressed concern about
practical issues—for instance the possibility of conflicting
demands for resources and access to relevant witnesses.[137]
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Rt
Hon Hazel Blears, and the Regional Minister for the South West,
Ben Bradshaw, gave evidence to the Committee's inquiry on 5 March
2008. The Ministers argued that Parliament could have "a
clearer role in holding to account the range of regional organisations".
Ministers felt that the nature of any new committees was "very
much for the House to decide", although Ms Blears floated
the idea of some kind of "hybrid" committee model—"a
select committee with constraints". Ms Blears agreed that,
if a select committee model was chosen, there was a risk of overlap
and confusion with existing select committees, and that therefore
"clear boundaries" and a "proper structure"
would have to be put in place. Mr Bradshaw also drew attention
to the existing pressures on Members' and ministers' time, which
should be taken into account in deciding what kind of new system
should be established.[138]
107. We await the outcome of the Modernisation Committee's
inquiry into regional accountability, and more detailed proposals
from the Government. At this stage, we reiterate the concerns
put to the Modernisation Committee by our Chairman and other Members,
that establishing a group of select committees on the regions,
operating in the same way as the existing departmental select
committees, could lead to wasteful duplication of effort, confusion
over the roles of the different committees and conflicting demands
for resources and access to relevant witnesses. We welcome the
prospect of enhanced regional accountability, but it must not
be at the expense of replicating—or weakening—the
existing scrutiny system.
Scrutiny of major planning proposals
108. The Planning Bill, published in November 2007,
contains provisions which could have a significant impact on the
work of certain select committees.[139]
The Bill would create a new system of development consent for
nationally significant infrastructure projects, including the
publication by the Secretary of State of "national policy
statements" on proposed planning and development projects.
The Government suggests that such statements could cover, for
instance, key elements of energy policy relevant to infrastructure
provision and infrastructure development for water supply and
waste water treatment. Such statements would "set the framework"
for decisions by the proposed new Infrastructure Planning Commission.
The Government proposes that the House "establish a new select
committee with the main purpose of holding inquiries into draft
national policy statements in parallel with public consultation",
and suggests that such a committee should be comprised of members
from existing select committees with a particular interest: BERR,
EFRA, Transport and Communities and Local Government.[140]
109. Chairmen of the committees most affected have
twice discussed the Government's proposals with the Leader of
the House. These discussions are continuing. The Government has
not yet made a detailed announcement about how it intends to proceed,
and the Planning Bill is still before Parliament. At this stage,
we make the following points:
- The principle of parliamentary
scrutiny for National Policy Statements is welcome and we believe
select committees are the proper forum for such scrutiny;
- The Government should work closely with the committees
most affected to ensure that any new arrangements allow existing
committees adequate time to carry out effective scrutiny without
adversely affecting the rest of their programme of work, and
- Decisions on the statements should be made by
the House, informed by the committees' analyses, and the Planning
Bill should be amended to ensure that ministers may not designate
statements without the approval of the House.
We look forward to a continuing dialogue between
committee chairmen and the Leader of the House on how these aims
can best be achieved.
134 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain,
Cm 7170, paras 115-20 Back
135
Communities and Local Government Committee, Is there a future
for Regional Government?, paras 113-14 Back
136
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons,
Press Notice No. 10 of Session 2007-08, New inquiries,
24 October 2007 Back
137
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons,
Minutes of Evidence, 27 February 2008, HC 282-iv Back
138
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons,
Minutes of Evidence, 5 March 2008, HC 282-v, Qq 144, 152, 163-64,
166 Back
139
Planning Bill [Bill 71 (2007-08)] Back
140
Written Ministerial Statement, 27 November 2007, col 14WS Back
