DURING the 1990s, the trend in local administration was towards smaller units that were closer to the people they serve.

Cleveland county was split into four local councils; Darlington fought a bitter battle to escape from what it saw as the overwhelming shadow of Durham county.

This reorganisation led to other changes. The fire brigade, for example, became County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service to reinforce the feeling that it served local communities.

The NHS picked up on the idea. Regional health authorities were replaced by more local primary care trusts. In education, the education authorities were by-passed with money allocated direct to headteachers for more local spending.

In general, people liked these changes. They liked knowing where they could go to moan if council services weren't up to scratch; in Hartlepool, where it has long been suspected that the town hospital is vulnerable, they like the security of having a local trust running their local services.

One of the reasons the North-East voted against a regional assembly last November was fear that this trend would be reversed. People didn't want to be subsumed into a "Geordie Parliament" and lose local control.

But now there's an about-change. Fire brigades will have regional control rooms. There are controversial plans to replace the local health trusts with regional bodies. Yesterday, Home Secretary Charles Clarke suggested that Britain's county police forces will be merged into bigger, more regional, constabularies.

Before any of these schemes go ahead, there must be real thought as to how regional services can reach out and talk and listen to local people about local needs and local opinions.

If we do get regional fire rooms, police forces and health authorities to go with our regional development agency and regional spatial strategy, won't that be de facto regional government? And what, exactly, was the result of last year's regional government referendum: wasn't it 80 per cent against?