---

Parliamentary Representation (England)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that on that issue, at least, we are in the same place. It is important to recall that asymmetrical constitutional arrangements are nothing new. Wales has its own history within the Union. Until the early 20th century, Wales and England were administered as one, but in 1964, the first Secretary of State for Wales was appointed with their own Department, the Welsh Office. During the following 30 years or so, that role was progressively widened. The creation of the Welsh Assembly in 1999 put domestic Welsh policy issues under the democratic control of the Assembly. Northern Ireland has been served for many years by a separate civil service, and separate Northern Ireland Departments have carried out the functions of their Whitehall counterparts. Such asymmetry is not confined to the United Kingdom. It is a feature of most modern democratic constitutions around the world, as the protections necessary for the more dominant partners in any state are not the same as those necessary for minorities. We believe that the creation of a separate Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly has enabled better local decision making in response to local issues. It empowers local people and, to pick up the point made by the hon. Lady, local people perceive it to be fairer. We believe that that strengthens the Union, which is enormously important. We are bound together not just by a common identity and citizenship but by the enduring interests of all the nations of the Union. All parts of the Union share resources and pool risks, to the benefit of each. That is a particularly important point to make to the House. At this time of extraordinarily rapid and extensive change in the world around us, pooling risk is important to all of us. We share access to natural resources and, more importantly, to the human resources made up of all the diverse peoples living here. The risks that we pool and carry together involve inherent uncertainty and are increasingly volatile. How do we thrive in an increasingly competitive globalised economy whose demands change ever more swiftly and radically? How do we manage the constantly evolving threat of international terrorism and major challenges such as climate change? In all those matters, we believe, as I hope everybody in this Chamber believes, that the United Kingdom is stronger together than apart. The hon. Lady made that point powerfully. There have always been asymmetrical constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom, both before and since devolution. They reflect the different sizes, historical backgrounds and aspirations of the different parts of the UK. That is true of England as well. Again, the hon. Lady made an important point: there is also immense diversity within the UK's constituent nations. The south-east is very different. The area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has distinctive characteristics and is quite different from other parts of the south-east, London and my own constituency of Swindon. Such diversity is a source of strength for all of us. We should celebrate it, and our constitutional arrangements must inevitably reflect it. I come to the specific measures suggested in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey is imaginative and creative in his policy making. He is a policy entrepreneur who brings great radicalism and insight to all his proposals, but I am afraid that on this occasion he is wrong. He argued for radical new constitutional structures, and some of his remarks found favour with other hon. Members who have spoken. Before I address the points raised by my hon. Friend, I should like to correct something he said. He seemed to be suggesting that this Government were somehow conservative and predisposed towards the status quo. If he looks back on our record of constitutional reform and renewal in the past 11 years, he might wish to reconsider that attitude. We are perfectly willing to undertake constitutional reform when we think that it is merited, and we have done so consistently since 1997. With respect to my hon. Friend, his proposals are impractical and might in many ways be dangerous to the future of the United Kingdom. As other hon. Members have recognised, if any federal structure were imposed in the United Kingdom, it would be dominated entirely by England. England has more than 85 per cent. of the population and creates more than 80 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Any separate English Parliament or equivalent would dominate the Union's macro-economic needs through decisions on spending policies, and the UK Parliament, however constituted, would be left trailing in its wake. Any federation where one partner has 85 per cent. of the economic strength and the population simply cannot work. That is why constitutional experts generally reckon that only federations where no one partner has more than 30 per cent. of the population and the economic strength are viable. Nowhere in the world does such an unbalanced federation work.