25/10/04

The campaign wants to keep the status quo, which would mean decisions affecting the North-East still being made in London.

Having our own elected regional assembly will mean decisions for our region being made here in the North-East by people we elect, not by unelected quangos appointed by government ministers in London.

Rule from London has left our region the worst in the country by any measure of economic and social well-being. An elected regional assembly would be a powerful voice for the region, and would have the finance and the planning powers to do things better for the region.

Most people are dissatisfied with the present system of regional decision-making. An elected assembly would give us the chance to make decisions for ourselves. - Councillor Chris Foote-Wood, Northern Region Liberal Democrats.

LIKE many No campaigners, Roy Makin (HAS, Oct 15) is so obsessed with conspiracy theories that he has lost his grip on reality.

The county council is not trying to confuse people by promoting local government reorganisation, as he suggests.

In County Durham, voters are going to be asked two questions in the referendum - do we want the strong voice and better decision-making that a regional assembly could offer, and if an assembly is introduced, how would we like our councils to be reorganised?

True, I am pro-assembly and favour the establishment of a single unitary council. But not because I want to dupe the public, but because I think that devolution will help to regenerate the region and one cost effective, high performing council, is the best option for improving the quality of council services in County Durham.

Mr Makin suggests that anyone who votes yes and expresses a preference for a single unitary council must be stupid.

I beg to differ. Anyone who votes for better regional decision-making and more cost effective local government - £14.6m a year more cost effective - is eminently sensible in my book. - County Councillor Joe Armstrong, Esh Ward, Durham County Council.

A CONSEQUENCE of a regional assembly in Durham would be its unfortunate impact on the immediate green setting of the city.

In the past, the renowned planner, Thomas Sharp, argued successfully against the county, industry and unions to prevent a power station being located little more than a mile downriver from the cathedral.

Today, the chosen assembly site is on the same side of the city, nearer to the cathedral, and in an area of high landscape value and green belt. The county authority has already proposed a new road through the area to lead to the site, while appointed consultants have warmed to the idea of the assembly and mentioned the inevitable knock-on effects for the city.

However, Thomas Sharp, in his Cathedral City: A Plan for Durham, wrote "Bigness is not an attraction in a city of Durham's kind... There is no need for Durham to grow large. There would be no benefit in it: on the contrary, there would be injury."

His words of wisdom have not lost their relevance. - Douglas Pocock, Durham.

THOSE who say the No campaign has to propose alternative reforms to those offered by an elected regional assembly appear to be turning logic on its head. I always understood any proposed change had to prove itself better than the status quo.

The fact that such a vast majority still don't know what benefit an elected assembly would have proves that, despite the waste of millions of taxpayers' money in trying to sell one, that the Yes campaign has failed miserably to convince most people on its perceived benefits.

By contrast, the No campaign has fulfilled its role of telling voters of the potential substantial extra costs and lack of real power and funding an elected talking shop will have.

This in spite of the electoral commission, most of the region's media, and the Yes campaign having done their best to conceal the deficiencies and real agenda of Mr Prescott's dream.

If the No campaigners have concentrated on "gimmicks and stunts" - like pointing out the phenomenal costs of the Scottish parliament building, Ken Livingstone's London council taxes increased by hundreds of pounds - it pales into insignificance compared to the shenanigans which have taken place to foist this white elephant on us. - John Heslop, Gainford.

WHEN are the British people going to wake up and see what is being done to them through devolution?

The fact that it is costing millions of pounds of taxpayers money and all with the blessing of the Government, should sound bells ringing in the minds of the electorate.

There is an old but true saying "united we stand, divided we fall" and isn't it a fact that with four regions, four weaker voices, instead of one strong one, we will have no say at all in Europe.

We will end up as country regions of Europe instead of the Great Britain we inherited from our ancestor.

I would like to know if France and Germany are creating barriers by dividing up their people. - B Tingate, Darlington.

SEVERAL people have been writing to say that they do not have much information about the powers of the proposed assembly.

Actually, the Government has to be a bit careful about this; it is all based on a draft Bill, which, of course, may or may not be amended when it is put to the Commons and the Lords later this year.

It is worth noting that if other regions are to go ahead they will have firm information on which their electors can base their decision. Not only that, they will not be forced to use a discredited postal voting system.

If one looks at this draft, which is all we have, it really does not give any real power to the assembly.

All important decisions have to be acceptable to the minister. The funding for any proposal would have to be provided from the centre as the assembly cannot raise any itself.

The minister is obliged to discuss projects before deciding whether they can go ahead or not. The assembly, in fact would respond to the minister, not to us. We don't even have a representative whom we can call to task. - David M Bishop, Guisborough.

OH dear, Mr Mallon! You complain that the No campaign does not tell the truth (Echo, Oct 22).

The reduction of councillors - hardly in the hundreds that you suggest - will only apply where two tiers of existing councils are combined into one, unitary council and the county councillors disappear.

In Teesside, of course, we already have unitary authorities and so we are not voting on anything except whether to have a regional assembly.

If we did have such a group, then there would be three extra politicians to pay, in addition to all those MPs who can already speak for the area.

Rather a pity that someone who is based in Teesside and has done so much for us seems to have missed the point and made such a misleading comment. - M Tubman, Stockton.