| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Teddy Taylor: Don't spoil it.
Mr. Mackinlay: Although I know my friend's views on the issue, I shall not give way.
I should like also to kill the ridiculous suggestion made by some hon. Members and some members of the press that the House of Commons has too many Members. It is true that, numerically, the House is one of the world's largest democratic legislatures; but we do too much in this place. All democracies of comparable size have federal arrangements. If we had a federalist system, we would be able to diminish our membership. In total, however, the United Kingdom has fewer Members than all the legislatures of the Federal Republic of Germany or of the United States of America.
Although I am very proud to be an hon. Member, I am not prepared to continue with the charade that we do things well in this place. We sit for longer than any other of the world's other Parliaments, and do so because we--like our Executive--deal with every issue from pavements to atomic weapons.
An absurd amount of stress and strain is placed on every British Prime Minister. Whereas the President of the United States and Germany's federal Chancellor deal with macro-economic policy, social policy, defence and foreign affairs, the British Prime Minister deals not only with all those issues, but with whether chess should be an Olympic sport, whether there is a problem in a Yorkshire canal, and with some other very important local issues besides.
We are simply trying to do too much. That fact becomes obvious when one examines other legislatures. In Germany, many of the most important issues of service delivery--in law and order, education, health and welfare--are addressed by the Lander in Munich, Bremen or Hamburg, for example. Elsewhere in the world, they are dealt with in Victoria, British Columbia, or in Sydney, New South Wales.
The federal Governments of those countries apply themselves to the real issues and to using better decision- making processes. In tackling modern government's extensive and increasing role, those federal legislatures sit less, but provide higher-quality deliberation and greater scrutiny and accountability than this overworked, under-resourced and inadequately prepared place can ever do.
I invite Ministers to consider another point. The Government's policy is that, if the English regions want them, we might have elected regional assemblies. Frankly,
people in Tilbury do not lie awake at night saying, "I'd love to have an East Anglia regional assembly." Then again, not many people in Wales were lying awake at night saying, "We want a Welsh Assembly."
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
I was.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Not many people were, though.
On the grounds of good governance, however, it was right to establish a National Assembly for Wales. One old-fashioned virtue of government is called leadership. We should be arguing for devolution on the grounds of good governance. That was the purpose of establishing the Assembly in Wales--which I think should be a law-making Assembly.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackinlay:
Yes--the hon. Gentleman has been very good.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I am fascinated and thrilled by the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that, irrespective of the views of all the people of Tilbury or Southend, and of his and my views as Members of Parliament, regional government is going ahead? Millions of pounds are being spent on setting up a regional government, based in Cambridge, affecting both Tilbury and Southend, but the people are not aware of it and we have not participated in it.
Mr. Mackinlay:
That is why the hon. Member for Thurrock is saying that we should not be frightened of democracy. What is so dreadful about having elections? We should have elections to those bodies, because they are coming into being, as the hon. Gentleman recognises.
Before concluding, I have some other, minor points to make. Can there be some reciprocity of access between Members of this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey):
And the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Indeed. That would be good, fraternal and healthy, especially in these early stages.
The previous Labour Government produced a White Paper, "Devolution: the English Dimension", at the time of the previous attempt to introduce Scottish devolution. It should be updated and we should have a full day's debate--instead of half a day--on the issue. Perhaps we could coax some English Labour Back Benchers to the Chamber.
I make no apology for raising the question of our overseas territories. In any federal assembly, the democratic deficit in respect of overseas territories should be addressed. Spain, the Netherlands, France and the United States all provide some limited representation for their overseas territories, no matter how small, in their legislatures. There is a compelling, overwhelming case for redress, especially for Gibraltar, which is part of the European Union but is currently disfranchised.
None of the issues to which I have referred will go away. The Government go on about being modern and radical--my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,
whom I love and support very much, does a lot of that--but radicalism means tackling all the issues and not being bogged down in the Conservative excuses, which suggest that there is nothing to be dealt with in the English dimension. There is much to be done if we are to maintain and promote the unity of the United Kingdom, which has been so dangerously prejudiced by the attitude of the Conservative and Unionist party for so many years.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
It is always a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), but it is a somewhat intimidating experience after that fine performance. I agree with almost everything that he said. As for his last few remarks, which were rather more partisan, I hope that I can persuade him that I, at least, believe that the earth is round.
If the hon. Gentleman spoke for Essex and for England, I will speak for Worcestershire and for middle England. This morning, in the paper that speaks for middle England, The Birmingham Post, the chief feature writer, Jason Beattie, wrote:
Today, there has been a debate about tuition fees in Scotland. The tall oak of proper recognition of the English dimension is likely to grow from the small acorn of that debate. Today, we have heard that the Welsh Assembly is likely to vote to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban in Wales, and I say good luck to it, because it is the right decision. The long journey to a proper constitutional settlement for England is likely to begin with the English understanding of that single step of Welsh determination to do what is right for agriculture and for the people of Wales. Both those issues may dampen the enthusiasm of the Government for proportional representation. I certainly hope so.
I would not start from where we are. What I am about to advocate to the House is not my preferred solution. I would have approached the issue differently, but that is history and there is no point going over it again. We are where we are. English Members, and all Members of this United Kingdom Parliament, are left with a puzzling and complex conundrum--how to achieve two apparently contradictory aims. First, how do we give England a fair say in the new constitutional settlement and, secondly, how do we strengthen the United Kingdom? That is crucial, because the arguments for independence and separation did not die after the elections last week.
"When Labour embarked on its great devolutionary experiment like some mad scientist let loose in a chemistry laboratory it started a chain reaction which it has no idea how to stop."
That reflects what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said so wisely today--we are not at the end of the story; we are not even at the beginning of the end; we are at the beginning of an experiment that leads we know not where.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |