| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.4 am
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): I am saddened by the way in which many Labour Members will unquestioningly support any proposal that seeks to remove the power of scrutiny from this Chamber. They will send that power anywhere, provided that the Chamber is not seen to be the place where the Government are held to account. However well intentioned their views on this matter may be, they are failing their constituents and themselves; by following the Government's lead on a range of constitutional issues, they are slowly consigning Parliament and themselves to eventual oblivion.
My constituents send me to this Chamber to hold the Government to account, and that is the prime job that every Member of the House is sent here to do. The Select Committee procedures are effective, and we should concentrate on those in seeking to modernise and improve the House, rather than usurp or seek to replicate powers that already exist and are effectively used by those Committees.
The whole question of regionalism is abject nonsense. The regions exist only in the minds of the politically correct and the political elite; they do not exist in the minds of my electors in Cheadle. They know not what the north-west is, and I suspect that they care less.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) rose--
Mr. Day: I shall give way in a moment.
Despite the fact that my electors have been part of Greater Manchester since 1974, they still vociferously defend their Cheshire identity. I heard a Liberal Democrat Member--I cannot remember which one--say from a sedentary position that we must have smaller units that people identify with. I am amazed that that hon. Member does not know that those units exist: they are counties and cities. They are where the English identity rests and what it is all about.
If hon. Members are concerned about making up any deficit in our role, as English Members of Parliament, of serving our constituents, they should redress the political deficit that England has suffered since the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were set up. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I very much believe in the union of the United Kingdom. I know that the Government do not because the constitutional changes that they have introduced have greatly damaged the long-term survival of what I know as my country--the United Kingdom.
Although I accept that the Scottish people wanted their own Parliament--I do not accept that the Welsh wanted their Assembly, but they got it--that should not have gone ahead without thought being given to how to redress the problems caused for England. If we are to save the United Kingdom, the issue of English rights must be addressed. It will not be solved by setting up a nonsense Committee, which in effect will remove power from where it should be and from where we should be seen to be acting on behalf of constituents--this Chamber.
Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. Surely the whole purpose of the proposed Committee is simply to lend parliamentary legitimacy to regionalism, to give credence to the idea that we suffer from under-government and need more government and to underscore the notion of a bloated European Union chessboard on which this country is nothing but an insignificant pawn.
Mr. Day: My hon. Friend is right. Regionalism makes sense only within the concept of a European federal state of regions, and I reject that concept. I am wholeheartedly happy to be part of the European Union and to enjoy the benefits of friendship and trade, but I do not want a European super-state to be created. Nor do I want the rights of the House of Commons to control and question the Government of the United Kingdom to be removed to any significant extent to any so-called region, for that would undermine the whole concept of the United Kingdom to which I am wedded, and the whole reason for the existence of Parliament.
Serious issues lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. If hon. Members want to know what the people of this country think about where they come from and who they are, they should speak not to people who are involved
in politics or to members of their own party, but to their own people, the people whom they represent, and to people who are active in industry. Incidentally, industry in my area is not desperate for a regional assembly in the north-west, nor are my electors: when I mention the prospect of such an assembly to them, they are horrified at the thought of yet another tier of politicians, who might be even worse than I am. That is the way in which the public regard the body politic: they want fewer politicians, not more.Tonight, I shall, with great enthusiasm, vote against this ridiculous proposal.
12.12 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): I shall not attempt to follow that performance by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who appears to be arguing in favour of home rule for Cheshire and against regional or even national government. Do his constituents not shop or go to the theatre in Manchester? Do they not use the facilities of the whole region? Do they not go to Trafford Park to shop? Do they not think regionally in any way? The hon. Gentleman appears to be curiously insulated from reality.
Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to learn that many of my constituents shop as far afield as London. It does not mean that they want to be part of Greater London.
Mr. Mitchell: It might make more sense if, on their way down, they stopped at Meadowhall, where things are much cheaper.
The debate should not be prolonged unnecessarily. All I want to do is sincerely welcome the proposals laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In my view, the Committee should have been re-established years ago, before devolution took place. Devolution is not necessarily a spur to the action, but it adds to the arguments in its favour. It is right that we should have the power to discuss regional issues in our own way and in our own format. With or without devolution, we need such a forum.
Like it or not, we are all regionalists now. Life is lived more widely than the small constituency, village, town or even city. Manchester was once a powerful, but narrow, focal point; now, with modern transport such as the motor car, it is a focus for the entire region. Development must be handled on a regional basis. What Scotland now has creates competition for development and public spending--a competition in which the English regions need to be able to have their say and put their case if they are to compete effectively with Scotland.
Let us take the civilised parts of the country: the northern region is foremost among those demanding regional devolution. I have no doubt that regional devolution would be carried in a referendum in the north-east, and polls reveal that there is also demand in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside.
Mr. Mitchell: If there is no demand for some form of regional devolution, why have those three regions already created their own regional assemblies? Demand is stirring, rising and becoming more important.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No, I shall not give way for now.
The position taken by the two Opposition parties is extraordinary. I should have thought that the Liberals wanted devolution all round, but they are quibbling about a minute step towards that. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) does not want devolution. He wants home rule for Cornwall--an even smaller unit. Just as the Liberals reacted to the problems of home rule in Ireland by calling for home rule all round, so they should logically react to devolution to Scotland and Wales by calling for devolution all round.
Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that home rule means rule at home, not here in the House of Commons? Devolution means delegation of responsibilities to the people who will be affected by those decisions.
Mr. Mitchell: Does the Liberal party not want that? Does it not want regional devolution? Why is it quibbling about this small step on the way?
I intend to turn now to the Conservatives, so let us hear something of their views.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that a poll taken throughout the United Kingdom for The Scotsman less than three weeks ago, which particularly addressed the question of devolution in the regions, showed that there had been a marked decline--10 percentage points--in support for regional devolution within England since the last general election? How does that square with his statement that there is massive demand in the regions?
Mr. Mitchell: The demand is emerging in the three northernmost regions: true north--the real Britain, in my view. The hon. Gentleman should study the poll in The Economist in March last year, which showed a demand for regional government in all those regions. He should also examine the surveys carried out for the Kilbrandon commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which showed a stronger degree of regional feeling, a stronger sense of deprivation, a stronger feeling of isolation from London and a feeling that there was a lack of concern in London about their issues in the three northern regions than in Scotland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |