Yesterday in the House of Commons Edward Leigh made the following admission “We have had an interesting statement and questions on Ukraine, but such issues are complex, and it is hard to express difficult economic and historical arguments in a 30-second question. As we have a House of Commons in which we are not overburdened with work at the moment, will you use your good offices with those who decide things—I do not know how much power you have—to get a full day’s debate on Ukraine, which after all is an extraordinarily important issue that we need to discuss urgently?” The emphasis in the section is mine, but it reflects other comments that have been made by observers in a number of settings. A naïve assumption that many of us could own is that a Government is elected on the basis of a 5 year legislative plan and once we have chosen the party (or in the case of a coalition, parties) that will govern us, they get on with it. The truth is that what is discussed or not in our Parliament is determined largely by the leader of the House of Commons, currently Andrew Lansley. Another Conservative MP, Peter Lilley was speaking on Saturdays Week in Westminster and he defended the rather unambitious legislative plans for the last 14 months of this Government by suggesting it is better to pass few laws well than many laws badly. The problem with this analysis is that over the last 46 months this Government has passed significant levels of legislation and some of the items such as the lobbying Bill have been passed at great hasted and very badly.

My own views on what Parliament debates are irrelevant and will continue to be irrelevant, and yours are irrelevant too. When we are presented with a selection of MPs to vote for in May 2015, their views, just like those of Edward Leigh and even John Bercow will also be irrelevant, unless they happen to be members of a party or coalition that forms the Government, and even then unless they happen to be members of the Cabinet. The exception to this are the days and occasions when backbench MPs are allowed to hold debates, but sadly ones that rarely change our laws. This was touched on by Peter Lilley on Saturday. Because the Government has a modest legislative agenda, there will be more time for backbench debates, but what he failed to point out was that these debates would have little impact on you or me. Accountability in terms of our Parliamentary democracy means that we can hear and see what our MPs get up to, but it does not mean that they need to pay attention to what we say or ask for. The truth is that most MPs are unable to make changes to what happens in our Parliament, and as the Lobbying Bill shows, far too many are determined to vote with their party loyalties than with the views of their constituents, even when they could make a difference.

For the record I would welcome the idea from Edward Leigh that more Parliamentary time is spent discussing the events in the Ukraine. It is clear that whatever happens after Sundays referendum, that our future and Ukraines future are linked in many ways. Men and women in Ukraine will listen to the words of our Parliamentarians and having heard what the Prime Minister said in his statement, if I was in Kiev, I might well interpret his comments to suggest that this nation is concerned about them and their future. As things change in Kiev, these words may come to sound very much more important to those listening 1400 miles away from Westminster than David Cameron may appreciate. The differences between Kiev and London are stark but nevertheless I want to live in a society where democracy is more than a fig leaf. The voters on Sunday are participating in a democratic process which David Cameron has suggested is illegal. There is clearly nothing illegal about the democracy we have access to. However it is vital that our democracy and specifically the actions of our Governments can be seen to respond to the views of communities and Parliamentarians. That is surely the sign that we are part of a dynamic and healthy as well as legal democracy.