Contact : Malcolm Cole Ext: 7385

1. Summary

1.1. This report updates Cabinet on a number of measures recently published by the Government which take forward the regionalism proposals for England. It also makes recommendations in respect of the development of the County Council's response to these issues.

2. Introduction

2.1. The Government published the White Paper "Your Region - Your Choice" in May 2002 which set out proposals for the incremental introduction - subject to a referendum - of Regional Assemblies in eight regions of England which were identified by reference to the RDA/Government office areas.

2.2. The County Council considered their response to these proposals on 25 July adopted the resolution set out in Appendix A. This response was duly forwarded to Government.

2.3. Since that time, Government activity in this policy area has been swift and following an indication in the recent Queen's Speech, the following developments have occurred:-

_ publication of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill


_ publication, by the ODPM, of a paper entitled `Soundings exercise on the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly'


_ publication, by the ODPM, of consultation on the proposed statutory guidance to be issued in respect of Local Government Reviews.

3. Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

3.1. This Bill was published immediately following the Queen's Speech. First and second reading have taken place and the Committee stage commenced on 3 December.

3.2. In summary the Bill will:-

_ allow the Government to order that a referendum should be held in a region on whether that region should have an elected assembly if there is evidence that there is sufficient interest in the region in the holding of a referendum


_ provide for local government reviews to be conducted by the Boundary Committee for England of the Electoral Commission before a referendum is held in a region. The aim of this is to draw up proposals to achieve a wholly unitary local government structure in the region


_ enable the Government to require the Electoral Commission to give advice on the electoral areas for, and the total number of members to be elected to, assemblies following referendums


_ create a new power for the Government to pay grants to regional chambers to fund their role in scrutinising the Regional Development Agencies and to cover the chambers' costs in giving regional advice to the Secretary of State.

3.3. While appearing only to establish the process to hold the first referendums and the associated reviews of local government, the Bill does give cause for concern in a number of areas namely:

Level of interest to be established by the Secretary of State prior to holding a referendum (Clause 1 (4)) - the Bill is vague as drafted requiring only that "the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in a region." It is hoped that an appropriate amendment to the effect that the level of interest justifies holding a referendum will be introduced.

Referendum Question and Preamble (Clauses 2(1) and (2)) - as drafted in the Bill the referendum question simply asks:

"Should there be an elected assembly for the......region"

There is no reference to the intention to link Regional Assembly establishment with a revision of local government in two tier areas (to a Unitary System) although this is included in the draft preamble to the question. There is considerable concern that voters should - in the question proper - be made clearly aware of the association between these two issues. Either a combined question or two separate questions should be asked and it is to be hoped that a suitable amendment might be carried. Unfortunately, the likelihood of such an amendment has been reduced following acceptance of the draft question by the Electoral Commission who have a statutory right of consultation.

Voting (Clause 3 (1)) - entitlement to vote will be region wide ie in all council areas. In this event, voters in Unitary areas will contribute to the decision to establish unitary councils in other areas. This is clearly inequitable. To achieve the equitable outcome would, inevitably, require a splitting of the referendum question ie separating the Regional Assembly issue from the local government review issue.

Repeat Referenda (Claus 5 (5) (2)) - if a referendum fails, the Bill envisages a period of five years before the question can be asked again. This is a ridiculously short period which would place local government under continuous threat of upheaval. A raising of the timescale to, at least, 10 years, would be appropriate.

Majority Vote in Favour - the Bill does not appear to contain any indication that a referendum vote show a majority of those voting as in favour of establishing a Regional Assembly or even an indication of any threshold level of voting eg 25% of those eligible to vote expressing assent. Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to implement the Boundary Committee recommendations for local government but does not appear to do so in the context of a majority `Yes' vote.

Definition of `Region' (Clause 26) - the Bill proposes to reinforce the definition to coincide with RDAs and Government office areas. There are still considerable doubts about the suitability and democratic legitimacy of these areas. It would be a more satisfactory outcome if `regions' were left to be defined by the Secretary of State leaving an ability to adjust or amend as circumstances dictate.

3.4. In addition, the Bill lays the groundwork for referenda to be held before the powers of the Regional Assemblies are defined - a classic `pig in a poke.'

3.5. Each of these issues was raised with Hampshire MPs at the joint meeting on 13 December and their support sought in achieving appropriate amendments. In addition, through the Leader of Essex County Council, who is a member of the House of Lords, amendments not incorporated in the House of Commons Committee stage will, with mutual agreement, be sought at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. In this connection, the support of the Bishop of Winchester might also be canvassed.

4. The Referendum `Soundings Exercise'

4.1. On 2 December, the ODPM published a consultation paper entitled `Soundings Exercise on the level of interest in each English Region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly.' A copy of the full document is attached as Appendix B.

4.2. In launching this consultation paper the Minister for Local Government stated:-

"We are today asking people to give us their views on the level of interest in holding a referendum on establishing an elected assembly for their region. This is what we are calling a `soundings exercise.'

We are writing to the existing regional chambers and to local authorities, MPs and MEPs in the English regions, outside London, to seek their views on this factor. We are also alerting a number of other bodies to this exercise. But we want to hear views from anyone who wants to write in.

We will give full weight to relevant letters and petitions from members of the public. The weight we will attach to responses from representative organisations will be increased if it is clear that respondents have consulted widely themselves. We will also take account of petitions and opinion polls, to the extent that they are relevant to our decision and have been conducted in a way likely to generate a fair and representative outcome.

I should make clear that we are asking people about their interest in holding a referendum - not the interest in an elected assembly. This is what the Bill now before Parliament allows us to do.

We don't need the results of the soundings right now. We are asking people to give us their views by 3 March next year. That gives people plenty of time to think about our proposals and whether they are interested in a referendum. It gives local authorities and other organisations time to find out what people really think."

4.3. Hampshire County Council commissioned MORI to undertake a telephone survey of Hampshire residents to obtain their initial attitudes and perceptions to the concept of regional government, just prior to the white paper on regional government being published. This was conducted between 29 April and 3 May 2002. Interviews were amongst 1040 respondents aged 16+, and set against the known profile of Hampshire. The key findings were:-

_ Only one in five people interviewed claimed to know a great deal or fair amount about the proposals for regional government.

_ More supported than opposed the principle of giving greater powers of government to the regions (45% versus 30%).

_ However, there was less support for an elected assembly in the South East (35% in support versus 38% against).

_ There was less support for a regional assembly if this was to mean the abolition of the County Council (21% in support compared to 54% against).

_ Residents generally supported devolving power from central government to a regional assembly (58% agree and 21% oppose), but do not feel that an assembly would look after the region better then Hampshire County Council (24% agree: 47% oppose). This was underpinned by concerns about bureaucracy, and seeing no need for change.

4.4. At the meeting of the South East County Leaders on 5 December, it was decided that the South East Counties should obtain evidence from residents in the South East to include in their response to the government's consultation on which regions should proceed with referendums. This would include the crucial question on whether respondents across the South East would wish to hold a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly. It should be noted that this is distinct from assessing the level of interest on establishing an elected regional assembly.

The Leaders agreed to MORI undertaking a regional research exercise to gain an understanding of residents' attitudes towards elected assemblies. It would also gauge the level of interest in holding a referendum on establishing an elected assembly. The exercise would be largely modelled on the Hampshire regional government survey. It would also run alongside any work commissioned by CCN.

4.5. The research approach would be to conduct a region-wide telephone survey amongst 1-2k residents in the South East region. The cost would be 20-30k (depending on the higher or lower number of interviews). The cost to each County would be 2-3k. The sample would be drawn from the known profile of the population of the South East to ensure data was representative and robust (another stipulation in the recent government `soundings' paper). Counties would also be able to buy additional interviews for analysis on a more detailed level. This project is likely to proceed in early January 2003, with the findings available by the end of January.

4.6. Given approval, the authority would collaborate with other partners in this exercise. This will give uniformity of approach. The project will be modelled on the Hampshire survey, therefore there is little value in requesting additional interviews. The authority will be able to make a comparison with our present data and the regional results, once the findings are known. The Hampshire regional government research is only seven months old and still current. Furthermore, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking for data based on regional opinion; not those on a County by County basis. Following the outcomes of the research the Cabinet may wish to consider other research options which might strengthen the case opposing regional government.

4.7. In addition to the proposed survey work described above, as part of the preparation of the County's formal response to this document and to marshal support against the holding of a referendum in the South East, it is suggested that a Hampshire and South East position statement on this issue be prepared. This could be used as a means of informing public debate and made available for the County's range of partner organisations who may well be the subject of formal consultation. In particular, the opportunity could be taken to promote this statement through existing mechanisms -especially the emerging Hampshire Strategic Partnership.

5. Draft Guidance on Local Government Reviews

5.1. At the same time as publication of the `Soundings' exercise the Minister for Local Government also launched a draft of the Guidance that the Government will issue to the Boundary Committee for the local government reviews which will be held where interest in a region has been judged to be strong enough to hold a referendum. This will allow the Referendum to take place against the background of a scheme to introduce unitary local government across the region in the event of a `Yes' vote.

5.2. The Preparations Bill sets out the functions of the Boundary Committee when undertaking any review. In particular, the Boundary Committee:

_ must recommend unitary councils to replace all existing two-tier areas in a region

_ cannot make recommendations which affect the boundaries and structure of existing unitary councils in the region or affect the boundaries of the region itself

_ and must have regard to:


· the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities

· the need to secure effective and convenient local government

5.3. The Boundary Committee must also assume for the purposes of any review that there is an elected assembly for the region.

5.4. The Government are proposing to consult widely on the guidance, so local authorities and others will have an opportunity to comment and submit their ideas as to how the Boundary Committee might approach the reviews.

5.5. The Government's approach is that the Boundary Committee should seek to identify the unitary structure which "will result in authorities best able to deliver the local government modernisation agenda - in other words, effective community leadership and quality local services. So when considering both the identity and interests of communities and the issue of effective and convenient local government, the guidance will ask the Boundary Committee to give particular weight to those factors expected to have the most impact on councils' capacity to deliver the modernisation agenda."

5.6. The Minister's announcement contained the following statement:-

"You will also see, despite rumours suggesting we plan to abolish county councils, that there is no steer for either unitary district councils or county councils. The Boundary Committee will be free, within the statutory constraints, to recommend whatever unitary structure it thinks best for the two tier parts of the region."

5.7. When outlining the approach to the review the guidance tends to stress the importance of creating structures that are likely to help deliver the government's priorities. When considering "the need to reflect the identities and interest of local communities" and the "effectiveness and convenience" of local government the Boundary Committee is encouraged to give most weight to those aspects "that have the greatest relevance for the role of local authorities today." In sum:

_...the Government believes that the most appropriate structural change for an area will be the one resulting in those unitary local authorities that are best able to deliver the modernisation agenda for quality services and community leadership and to take forward the agenda for sustainable communities."

5.8. The guidance is careful not to come down firmly in favour of a particular size of authority and includes the caveat that:

_Some of the most significant factors that determine the ability of authorities to deliver this agenda have little direct relation to the geography, structure or size of the authority itself."

5.9. Rather, the guidance asserts, there is evidence to suggest that "the quality of political management, a willingness to innovate, and a sound corporate structure and capacity, are the most significant determinants of high-performing councils." Nevertheless, the guidance then goes on to suggest that "the ability of authorities to develop or sustain those attributes may be affected by their geography, structure and size." It specifically expects that "the Committee will want to look at:

_ the track record of existing two tier authorities as evidenced by published best value and comprehensive performance assessment data


_ the nature and effectiveness of community engagement and existing partnership arrangements"

5.10. The guidance is at pains to point out that "communities of place" exist alongside "communities of interest" and partly on this basis:

_..the Government does not believe that affinity solely to communities of place is a good basis for drawing-up the administrative boundaries of local authorities."

5.11. Specifically in relation to counties the guidance states:

_The Government is aware that many people attach importance to long-established connections and fully understands the affection in which, in particular, traditional counties are widely held...(and) therefore hope that the Boundary Committee ..would endeavour to reflect tradition...Equally, these considerations should not be seen as preventing recommendations for new unitary authorities that would cross existing county boundaries."

5.12. On balance, the Government does not take the view that traditional attachments to "community of place" should be a decisive factor:

_In the Government's view...the Committee should give greater weight to the wider patterns of community within an area and to the economic links between communities."

5.13. Although this guidance would seem to be less than supportive of the existing county structure the Boundary Committee is invited to weigh these considerations against the need to ensure effective partnerships and the advantages of ensuring coterminosity of a range of boundaries:

_a multiplicity of smaller local authorities can impose significant costs and lead to `partnership fatigue"

_...the alignment of local authority boundaries with those of other significant partners might be helpful in creating the climate for effective partnership and inter-agency working"

5.14. The guidance dismisses the rival claims of those who argue, on the one hand, that larger units of government should deliver efficiency gains and savings, and those who argue, on the other hand, that smaller units are more likely to achieve these:

_In practice there seems to be little hard evidence to support either of these propositions."

5.15. Notwithstanding this stark position, a number of other aspects of the guidance seem to favour larger authorities. In the first instance the Boundary Committee is invited to consider the "the track record of existing authorities in the region" and the extent to which "their structure, geography and size has contributed to their performance in particular services." More clearly:

_It has been suggested that smaller units of government deliver advantages in terms of responsiveness, democratic scrutiny and public confidence...In the Government's view, this underestimates the potential for large authorities to deliver effective democratic scrutiny through devolved arrangements, effective working with parish councils and improved democratic representation".

6. The LGA Position

6.1. Although there is no single local government view on the Government's proposals for regional government, the LGA:

_ has argued that coupling the issue of public support for regional assemblies with the requirement to establish a wholly unitary local government system in any referendum is unnecessary and will distract from the overriding objective of improving local public services

_ believes that, should the Government insist on linking the question of local government reorganisation with the establishment or otherwise of a regional assembly, then only those people living in two-tier areas should vote on the future local government structure in these areas

_ considers that in carrying out its work the Boundary Committee should be able to consider all options, including maintaining the status quo in some regions should this found to be the optimum local government structure, taking into account all relevant considerations.

7. Timing

7.1. In the case of both the `Soundings' paper and the draft Boundary Committee guidance the Government are calling for responses by 3 March 2003.

7.2. Once the Bill becomes law, the Government will decide which region (s) will have a local government review and a subsequent referendum. The Government anticipate the local government review process to take between 9 and 12 months.

7.3. Assuming a `Yes' vote in at least one region, the Government will introduce a Regional Assemblies Bill to provide for the "establishment of an Assembly in any region that had voted for one in a referendum or did so subsequently." The Government's view is that given the need for a second Bill, "it is hard to envisage a local government reorganisation [in a `Yes' vote region] happening for at least 4-5 years."

7.4. In general (paragraph 2 of the `Soundings' document) "It is the Government's intention.........to provide the opportunity for at least one region to hold a referendum about establishing an elected Assembly during this Parliament."

8. Conclusion

8.1. The County Council is already responding, via MPs and contacts in the House of Lords, on the detail of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. This work will continue as the Bill makes its way through both Houses of Parliament. In terms of the `Soundings' document and the draft Boundary Committee guidance, following the action indicated in paragraphs 4.3 - 4.7 above, a formal response, on behalf of the County Council, will need to be prepared. It is suggested that the draft response be presented to the Cabinet at its meeting on 10 February 2003 with a view to the formal response being submitted to the County Council meeting on 20 February 2003.

Recommendations

1. That the survey work, in co-operation with other South East counties, be undertaken in accordance with the details set out in section 4 of this report.

2. That efforts continue to seek appropriate amendments to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.

3. That a position statement on these issues in respect of both Hampshire and the South East be drawn up and distributed widely to Hampshire partner organisations and the Hampshire public to inform the debate by making clear the arguments against the desirability of either a referendum about, or the establishment of, an elected Regional Assembly for the South East.

4. That, following the above action, a draft County Council response to the `Soundings' document and the draft Boundary Committee guidance be prepared for the Cabinet meeting on 10 February for onward submission to the County Council.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

File Location

None