Andrew Duff MEP

Looking East

Although political and legislative work in the European Parliament takes up most of my time, I take very seriously my mandate as a regional parliamentarian. I and my seven other colleagues in the European Parliament - whether they appreciate this or not - were elected to be spokesmen for the interests of the East of England. This was something new, brought about because of the breakthrough we had in proportional representation - an innovation that presupposes that there would be some added value in having regional, in addition to local MPs.

I must say that I have found that side of my work frustrating. The message that we have had this reform has been slow in getting home to a wider public. A recent opinion poll in the East of England (conducted by the EEDA) showed that only 10% of the public could name the six counties of their region; and an alarming 11% thought that 'the East of England' was in Yorkshire.

I meet many people in a position to know better, such as local government officers, who simply do not understand the new role of the MEP. They, and the local media, seem more intent on preserving their own parochial self-interest, and seem sometimes even antagonistic to the growth of the regional dimension in English politics. Not even television has risen to the challenge of making regional politics work, and, of course, TV's uninterest in matters European is staggering.

The development of regionalism here has not been helped by the slow start of our own Regional Development Authority. It has had a mixed start. It has tried to focus on articulating a number of priorities for economic regeneration, but has been too easily swayed by the plethora of local vested interests that it soon confronted. EEDA is now doing better, and it should be strongly supported by Liberal Democrats in what it is trying to do, in building up its authority vis-à-vis GO East, in exerting influence on the new physical planning authority of the East of England, and in encouraging networking among those, such as universities, who have unrealised potential to contribute to the success of the region.

EEDA should also in my view amalgamate with the East of England Inward Investment Agency; assert itself in relation to many of the weak regional bodies and Quangos that exist, for example in the field of tourism; strengthen its partnerships with NGOs, especially in the environmental fields; and last but not least establish a more formal and functional relationship with the only people with a democratic mandate to speak for the region, the MEPs. All this would redress the balance with local government and prepare EEDA to play a more powerful political role if and when a further round of decentralisation from Whitehall and Westminster ever comes.

Similarly, the Regional Assembly has begun to try to articulate a coordinated view of local government at the regional level. Despite the tremendous efforts of our team of councillors, led by Chris White, it seems to me that the work of the Assembly has been too much on institutional and procedural questions and not enough on seeing the big picture.

This problem is very much exposed when one watches developments from the perspective of Brussels. At the level of the European Union, the region is the smallest tier of authority that counts. This has been evident for some time, but is inevitable in the soon to be enlarged Union of 25 or 30 member states.

Frankly, the East of England is failing to punch its weight in Brussels. It is not working as well as other English regions, such as Yorkshire. It is certainly light years behind what is being done by more mature regions of comparable size and wealth from the mainland, like Flanders just across the North Sea.

Few people have been capable of spelling out to others, especially investors from Europe's more and more integrated capital markets, a coherent case for regarding the East of England as being special. Why is it a special case? Not because of the social exclusion and rural poverty that undoubtedly exists in our region; nor because of its physical and cultural diversity; nor because of its hard-pressed health and care services and its creaking transport infrastructure; not even because of its pressures of growth.

Put simply, the East of England is special because we have here the widest mixture and the largest concentration of science research and hi-tech industry in Europe. If anywhere is to become Europe's version of Silicon Valley - perhaps 'Photonics Fen' - it could be here. It could be here. But it will not be here unless we can compete with Germany and even France in recognising what qualities and assets we need to cluster together to grow to the critical mass required. This means working hard at regional development, agreeing on who should take the lead both in London and Brussels to speak for the region, and in setting ourselves ambitious targets for growth.

It also means burying the worst jealousies of local government, and of working more closely at all levels with scientists and entrepreneurs as well as with conventional schools to educate ourselves about what the learning society entails and why this region, often experimentally, should be in its forefront.

Now I know that, despite our growing clout at local and European level, we Liberal Democrats cannot be expected to achieve all this by ourselves. But we can be speaking about what we want and why we want it, with a clearer voice. And we can be making sure that when we get more Lib Dem MPs for the region at the next general election they will join in the effort to make the East of England one of Europe's top regions.