The going gets tough in the Region

Written by Andrew Duff MEP and published in East Anglian Daily Times on Tue 10th Apr 2001

Over the next five years the European Union will be pouring almost £100 million into the economic development of our region. That is the good news from Brussels. The money will be invested in the areas in the East of England that have become too reliant on declining industries such as car manufacturing (Luton), tourism (Southend, Great Yarmouth and Cromer), fishing (Lowestoft) and food processing (the Fens, and rural Norfolk and Suffolk). Many of these places have rapidly ageing populations. They all suffer from poor transport links and low levels of skills, education and, of course, pay.

The fact that we have attracted so much regional aid from Brussels says a lot about how we have been so badly let down over the years by London. The places that are to get EU funding are officially poor by European standards. So we should seize this opportunity to improve our economy, but celebrate soberly.

The EU money is intended to trigger another £140 million investment from the British public authorities and about £28 million from the private sector. The Treasury now has to agree to increase its own spending in the East of England in order to draw down the money from Brussels - despite the fact that is its own lack of investment that has caused much of the problem in the first place. Gordon Brown's parsimony is bad enough, but the system of allocating public funds between UK regions makes matters worse. A recent report showed that our region would get another £7.2 billion if we were treated in the same way as Scotland!

To make a success of this EU investment we also need the right mix of good projects. Here the regional and local authorities, quangoes galore, voluntary sector and business all have a crucial role to play - in partnership. Last week, unfortunately, the necessary spirit of cooperation went missing when the region's economic development strategy was rejected by Tory and Labour members of the East of England Regional Assembly. Liberal Democrat members, who had certain reservations about the environmental impact of the proposals, were seeking a qualified endorsement of the strategy.

Everyone knows how difficult it is to draw up a first class, comprehensive economic strategy for this diverse region, especially when the responsible body, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) is new to the task. But for councillors to abdicate their responsibility to back our region's economic development seems to me a pity. I doubt whether the views of the Regional Assembly, which is at any rate only consultative, will be taken seriously in the future if its members are not prepared to bury partisan squabbles and excessively localised preoccupations for the general good. The political crisis in the region certainly makes it more difficult to maximise the opportunities that EU funding provides. It also weakens the voice of the East of England in the interesting national debate about where regionalisation is headed.