The Hard-headed Case For Regions

Written by Mike Tuffrey on Thu 1st Aug 2002

In one of those quirks of political timing, I've returned to regional government after a 15 year Thatcher-induced gap at just the point the tide seems to be turning in the argument for the regions. Our Parliamentarians were right to give John Prescott's White Paper 'Revitalising the English Regions' this May a general welcome while forcibly highlighting its limitations.

Following the successes of our colleagues in Wales and Scotland, now Liberal Democrats in England must seize the moment. London's new government, for all its faults, points the way. But if we are to win the argument – Labour is planning a leisurely timetable and is making change dependent on a referendum yes vote – we'll have to face up to some tough choices as a party.

The world has moved on from the days of the GLC and the other metropolitan authorities. Today's GLA with its 400 core staff is a far cry from the GLC and its 10,000 employees. The public won't vote for more government, nor will the media give anyone calling for it an easy ride. The argument has to be won on BETTER government – which is why the party's Reform of Public Services policy review is absolutely right to put devolution centre-stage.

Let's put the spotlight on the hundreds of unaccountable quangos and shadowy agencies (and thousands of expensive bureaucrats) that try to deliver or coordinate services and strategies in the English regions.

Let's demand the abolition of the government's regional offices. These nine 'coordinating' bodies control over £6 billion of public spending under more than 70 separate funding programmes. Often seen as the friend of the regions in Whitehall, in fact they provide a fig leaf of respectability to an otherwise demonstrably centralised system. Indeed in the one place where we do have what passes for a regional tier – London – the government office has actually increased its number of staff and departments.

We must make a careful case for a selectively longer list of functions to be devolved, including the power (= money) to go with the responsibility (= drawing up 'strategies') unlike London. Health is the obvious starting point, as it is a top public concern where people can readily understand the need for a regional approach. But let's not over-stretch the public's faith (and our credibility) in what will be a wholly new and unfamiliar tier all on day one.

And on money, we need to be clear and honest: clear that better government means better spending, not more overall; and honest that greater autonomy means less reliance on the sugar daddy called the national exchequer. Speaking as a Londoner, we already contribute significantly in excess of £14 billion more in taxes each year than we get back in public spending. Yet we have some of the most deprived communities in the country and the highest proportion out of work except for the North East. Our share of public spending under Labour has fallen and we're getting the lowest rises at a time of overall growth.

Finally, the White Paper's sting in the tail, anathema to Liberal Democrats – imposition of unitary local government if a regional tier is to be created. Of course, we must oppose such a 'one size fits all' approach. At the very least, the option to keep counties and districts should be included as a second referendum question (as the Scots had for tax raising powers). But unitaries do work reasonably well in some areas and the prize of securing a regional tier, on which further reforms could later be built, is a huge one. Tough choices indeed.