Government policy for English Regions

by Andrew Duff M.E.P.

"England now includes virtually the only regions within the European Union which don’t have the choice of some form of democratic regional governance". So says the British government in a recent, long-promised white paper Revitalising the English Regions. New Labour’s pronouncements often make one blink, as they lurch semi-literately from frank revelation to supreme deception. But this one in particular is of interest to Liberal Democrats in English regions who want more decentralisation and is of special, almost vested interest to those few of us who have the privilege of representing an English region in the European Parliament.

Regions are an increasingly vital part of the European political system. As we try to decentralise the management of many EU common policies, we have to rely on credible regional authorities inside the larger member states. Once the Union enlarges from fifteen to twenty-five member states, regions will be the smallest blip noticed on the political radar screens of the supranational institutions in Brussels. This fact serves to drive the move to regionalisation in France, Italy and Spain as well as in the UK (Germany, of course, is already fully federated).

In none of these historic centralised nation states is the experience of devolving power easy. But it is an essential reform, especially within the eurozone, with its one interest rate, where economic, cultural, social and political assets have to be assembled carefully to maximise regional competitivity.

So how does John Prescott’s white paper stand up to Lib Dem scrutiny? Not well. It is sensible that one tier of local government will be removed as an integral part of regionalisation. It is certainly good news that our regional assembly in the East of England is to become directly elected by proportional representation and that its competence will extend strategically across most domestic policy areas. But the autonomy of this new assembly will be severely constrained by central government. A plethora of targets will have to be agreed with Whitehall, and although it will no longer be composed of local government councillors, the assembly’s spending power will be limited to central government performance-related grants and the levying of a small precept on top of the already small, unpopular and regressive Council Tax.

Even the decision to move towards direct elections will be that of central government which will have the power to decide on our behalf if and when there is "sufficient interest" within the East of England to warrant a referendum.

Reading between the less than lucid lines of Mr Prescott’s document, the only body that is set to benefit from a growth in executive power seems to be GO East, the regional office of the Whitehall departments of state. The East of England Development Agency (EEDA), on which many hopes rest for genuine devolution, will not enjoy the increased autonomy it needs to get things done by the region for the region. There will still not be a single authority to whom the European Commission can speak concerning our regional development. The mish-mash of quangos governing services of public interest like health, transport, police, education and enterprise will not be streamlined under the executive authority of anything purporting to be a regional government.

The old Whitehall game of divide and rule, now redundant in the Empire and hopeless in the European Union, has found a new playing field in the English regions. The elected regional assemblies – patronised yet not empowered – will remain supplicants of central government.

Sitting in the Convention I hear many serious representations from regional government elsewhere in Europe about how they see their future within a stronger and more democratic system of EU governance.

Many regions are asking for a larger role in both formulating and implementing common policies as it is the transposition of EU directives into the domestic context that gives rise to many of the problems that at present seem unfairly to beset the image of ‘Brussels’. Others are more concerned to conserve their constitutional prerogatives against encroachment from a more powerful European Union. Some are intent on protecting a specific cultural heritage, such as a minority language. The more peripheral regions, many of them islands, have more down-to-earth interests. The Scottish Parliament is active in building networks with other autonomous bodies with legislative powers. Taken together these regions are impressive advocates of establishing a new concept of official ‘partner regions’ of the Union.

But where are the English voices? Alas, there are none. Europe is being a built without a coherent sense of where Britain stands on most of the central issues, including devolution. The UK official representative on the Convention is Peter Hain, Minister for Europe, who has yet to convince his fellow conventionnels that New Labour is abreast of current developments let alone in a position to make constructive proposals about the future of Europe.

Let us hope for some much sharper thinking after the summer break.