In his 1979 pamphlet "A Voter's Guide to the Scottish Assembly - and why you should support it" Gordon Brown complained about the democratic injustice meted out to Scotland under Conservative governments.

between 1959 and 1964 and 1970 and 1974, the Scots people were ruled by a government that they didn't elect, and when the Scottish Grand Committee had to carry a majority of Tory MPs.

That 1979 complaint finds its parallel in today’s Britain. Today it is the people of England who find themselves under a government and prime minister that they did not elect, at the behest of a Labour Party which failed to win the popular vote in England at the last general election.

And just as Scottish committees had to carry a majority of Tory MPs in the past, Gordon Brown's new English Regional Select Committees are proportionately balanced in line with the political composition of the House of Commons (i.e., five Labour, three Conservative and one Liberal Democrat) irrespective of the voting patterns of the region in question.

How did this come about?

In June 2007 the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced the appointment of nine regional ministers. In the July 2007 Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, the Government proposed that regional committees should be established. Soon after, the Review of sub-national economic development and regeneration announced the abolition of the existing regional assemblies.

In October 2007 the Modernisation Select Committee announced an inquiry on Regional Accountability. Their report, published on 10 July 2008 recommended that eight regional select committees should be established, with membership reflecting the membership of the House but with fewer members than existing select committees. The Committee also recommended that there should be eight regional grand committees, to include all Members from each region. The grand committees would be places for debate on regional matters, and for questions to be asked of the regional ministers.

On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish eight regional select committees and grand committees. To a man all Conservative and Lib Dem MPs present voted against the Government, but Gordon Brown won the day by a margin of 30 votes.

Prior to that vote Theresa May MP had tabled an amendment to force the House to vote on whether to remove the sections from the Government’s motion which related to regional select committees, so that the motion would only indicate approval for regional grand committees. Grand Committees, argued Ms May, were all that was required to plug the accountability gap.

To plug the regional accountability gap, we need go no further than setting up regional Grand Committees, which would give every Member in a region the opportunity to make their views known about what was being done by bodies in their region. Every part of a region would be represented, and we would avoid the position that could arise with the regional Select Committees, whereby people from outside the region may be included to maintain the Government’s majority. The Grand Committees would not need to meet so often, and their running costs would be significantly lower than those of the regional Select Committees.

The House divided 233 in favour of the motion and 250 against, with the votes of non-English constituency MPs proving decisive. Theresa May's amendment was therefore not carried and the House went on to agree to the establishment of both grand and select committees.

Without any manifesto authorisation and with little by way of public consultation Gordon Brown had ushered in a new era of regional accountability. "This week's vote", remarked Chris Leslie, "marks an important stage in English devolution and the Government should take credit for giving MPs greater scrutiny and accountability over English governance".

On 3 March 2009 the Regional Select Committees were appointed by the House but it is only now that we get to see the Regional Grand Committees at work. The first meeting of an English Regional Grand Committee took place in Exeter on 3rd September when MPs in the South West got to hold Minister for the South West Jim Knight to account. It was an ignominious beginning.

Gary Streeter, Tory MP for South West Devon, rubbished the notion the meeting was bringing Parliament outside London.

He said the key difference was in Whitehall, members addressed ministers with the power to act, whereas Mr Knight could only share views on issues outside his remit as employment minister.

Andrew George, Lib-Dem MP for St Ives, said the [grand] committee had "questionable legitimacy", and criticised the Government's fearful approach to devolution.

Adrian Sanders, Lib-Dem MP for Torbay, hit out at the Government's decision to insist MPs who sat on the South West Regional [Select] Committee, which compiled the report considered by the Grand Committee, were Labour, considering the party has now all but been wiped out in parts of the Westcountry. He branded the decision "partisan", in line with an "authoritarian" approach to government.

Mr Knight was asked by MPs how much time he dedicated to his role, considering he already had the full-time job of employment minister. Many jeered when he said 35-40 per cent of his time was spent on regional affairs, prompting Mr Streeter to label him a "part-time minister".

Today (8th September) the second Grand Committee takes place in Bedford, and if reports are to be believed Tory MPs are expected to boycott it.

The purpose of the Regional Select Committees is to look at how national policy is delivered within the region and to examine the work of regional quangos and government offices.

The Regional Grand Committees are supposed to bring together all MPs from their region to consider the “state of the region” and question Regional Ministers about their work. It can be argued, therefore, that they serve a useful democratic purpose and increase regional accountability.

Should the Tories and Lib Dems use the Grand Committee meetings to hold ministers to account or should they boycott them altogether?