Mr. Gray: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Letwin: I am saying not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but that it would cause difficulties for a federal Government, supposedly responsible for macro-economic policy, if they could not control the great bulk of fiscal policy and expenditure. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to attend to that issue, which needs serious consideration before we leap in the direction of an English Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked whether a federal UK Government, if one were brought about by the creation of an English Government, would be able to maintain sufficient national confidence in the face of a powerful English Government to hold its own in the European Union. All my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that any federal government should have such an ambition.

Because of such problems we need to pause before launching ourselves into the idea of an English Parliament. We must ask whether there is any other less dramatic solution that might address the West Lothian question, while not suffering from those drawbacks.

The range of options that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described, including giving a veto over English legislation to Members of this House who represent English constituencies, are serious possibilities. I do not think that they would necessarily create constitutional crises, but I see that they would create constitutional tensions.

I fear that what the Government have created, and the problems to which it has given rise, make it impossible to conceive of a solution that is wholly perfect for this country, configured as we are. I do not think that regional government gives us the beginning of an answer. I see that an English Parliament and an English Government would give us one answer, but an answer that involves real difficulties. I do not argue that a veto for English Members over English legislation, or any of the other variants, gives us a perfect solution, but those ideas may have fewer deficiencies than that of an English Parliament.

In any event, this is the terrain on which we need to hold the debate. We need to admit that there is a problem and to agree that it needs a solution, and that we need to discuss urgently as a nation--with the co-operation of the Government, I hope, rather than in the absence of any real interest from them--whether we shall choose an English Parliament, or perhaps some more modest proposal, so as to discover whether that would be a sufficient response.

12.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): One of the pleasures and privileges of the life of a junior Minister is to be frequently present in the Chamber on Wednesday mornings and at other times when Adjournment debates are taking place. I will have

9 Jun 1999 : Column 602

The first was a serious and intelligent debate with high quality contributions from both sides of the House, characterised by an almost total absence of party political jibes, nasty personal attacks, overblown rhetoric and paranoid hyperbole. However, I have to say that--with at least three honourable exceptions, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who wound up for the Opposition--the tone of this debate has been rather different. At its lowest, it sank to inexcusable and nasty personal attacks on the Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). To one of the Opposition Members who made those attacks, I must point out that my right hon. Friend represents Airdrie and Shotts, not Glasgow. It is somewhat odd that a Member who referred to the nasty side of English nationalism should reveal such ignorance about Scotland.

The Government are determined to decentralise power, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London authority and the proposals set out in our local government White Paper are all important examples of how government is being tailored to suit the circumstances of the different areas within the United Kingdom.

The debate about some form of self-government for parts of the United Kingdom seems always to have been with us. The response over the years--from the time of Lord Salisbury, who was mentioned in the debate--has been to provide for increasing administrative devolution, with powers and functions being exercised by the Secretary of State. But that was not matched with arrangements to ensure accountability to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland--or, indeed, to the people of parts of England. The need for action to address that "democratic deficit" became more and more pressing. Only by taking action to relieve those concerns could we provide a sound framework to maintain and secure the long-term future of the United Kingdom.

Some would argue that devolution means the end of the UK as we know it. That tends to be the cry of those who are resistant to change, and have resisted it over the years. We want there to be change, where appropriate, to address real concerns, because we know that resistance, especially unthinking resistance, to change has given added force to the voices of those who argue that there is no possibility of responding to the legitimate concerns for more devolved government in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Any student of the history of these islands who thinks about the debates in this House more than a century ago, when the idea of some degree of devolution in Ireland was first considered, will recognise the force of the argument that unthinking resistance to change does not guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to support the continued integrity of the United Kingdom by responding to the legitimate concerns of the different elements within the UK who wish to see more devolved power.

Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)

9 Jun 1999 : Column 603

Mr. Raynsford: I have two answers for the hon. Lady. First, I agree with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Secondly, I must remind her that she is wrong, because one of the referendums involved the people of London, who had an explicit opportunity to say whether they wanted a degree of devolved power within London--power that is currently exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but which will in future be exercised by a democratically elected London mayor. I shall deal with that element in a moment.

The first step in our regional agenda for England was to establish regional development agencies to improve competitiveness and to provide for effective co-ordination of economic development. The RDAs were established last December and became operational on 1 April.

We expect RDAs to become powerhouses for regional economic development. Currently only two English regions exceed the European average in terms of GDP. That cannot be right, and we must take action to tackle that deficit. RDAs are now lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment initiatives, raising skills, improving the competitiveness of business, and social and physical regeneration.

Our aim is for RDAs to provide a framework for economic decision making in the regions, and to give a better strategic focus. They need to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the needs of the regions. We are also encouraging the formation of regional chambers to build up the voice of the regions within the current framework.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) chided us for the delay in proceedings, but last month we designated the first ever regional chambers--in the north-west, the east midlands and the west midlands. Chambers in other regions are currently under consideration. We are proceeding, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the basis of consent and the views of the different regions, which, as he acknowledged in his speech, is an appropriate approach. We shall continue in that vein.

9 Jun 1999 : Column 604

The chambers are voluntary groupings of local councillors and representatives of the various sectors with a stake in a region's economic, social and environmental well-being.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Very briefly, because I am trying to respond to a debate, and I have been given only 10 minutes in which to do so.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that in the north-west, which he has mentioned, the regional chamber is already planning to call itself the north-west regional assembly, and that 70 per cent. of its members are councillors, with not much representation from productive industry?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely unhappy about the idea of a chamber or regional assembly in his region, but we believe that it is right that the voices of those who have proper responsibilities in the region should be taken into account. That includes councillors, as well as representatives of other sectors. As I have already said, the chambers are representative of a wider group of people than councillors. As the RDAs are business led, it is appropriate that there should be a counterbalance in the form of the chambers, which involve democratic representation.

We have given the chambers a specific role in relation to RDAs--to help make them responsive to regional views and to give an account of themselves to those with an interest in their work. We also remain committed to move in due course to directly elected regional government where there is a demand for it. How quickly we move in that direction will depend in large part on the success of the RDAs and regional chambers--