I AM the leader of the currently unelected North West Regional Assembly and I take a keen interest in the debate on the proposed directly elected North West Regional Assembly on which the people of the region will be asked to decide in the referendum in October.

Whilst I expect the "No" campaign to fight their corner vigorously I also expect them to stick to a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Their letter (April 30) therefore is disappointing. For instance they state:

That the Elected Assembly will not have the powers of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly of Wales. No-one ever claimed it would have since it is modelled on the only existing elected English regional assembly, that being the Greater London Assembly which has in conjunction with the Mayor of London done some of the things that the "No" campaign claim an elected assembly would not be able to do e.g. putting more police on the beat, improving bus services.

That an Elected Assembly would involve enormous cost. There is no reason why it should, since by the "No" campaign's own admission it would have only 30 to 35 members and would not need a large staff since its main functions would be strategic rather than the delivery of services. The running costs of £25million which the "No" campaign admit to amounts to approximately £4 per year per person. Nor would it need expensive new premises since, the accompanying local government re-organisation would free space in several of the region's towns and cities and the assembly would be taking over some of the existing regional government staff who work in various existing government offices in the region.

That an Elected Assembly would replace 500 local councillors with 30 to 35 members. Not true. The local government re-organisation would replace the 500 local councillors with, admittedly, a smaller number of councillors on the new unitary local authorities.

That elected members of the Assembly would have an unmanageable number of constituents. Not true. They would not be there to deal with inquiries and complaints about public services like education, housing or social services. Those responsibilities would remain with local councillors and with Members of Parliament. The Assembly members would deal with strategic issues like planning, economic development, public health and regional funding for education, housing, sports and arts, transport etc., and relations with central government and other regions.

And whilst the "No" campaign find it expedient, when writing to the Lancashire Evening Telegraph to speculate on the Assembly's HQ being in Manchester, there is no reason why it shouldn't be in Preston or any one of a number of locations which have good transport links and accessible administrative buildings.

And lastly, if the "No" campaign do not like what is on offer, what would their alternative be. Why do they not tell us?.

Coun DEREK BODEN, Bury.