| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Quinn: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's confidence about the outcome of a referendum on an English Parliament, would he want to sit in that Parliament, and what role would he see himself performing for his constituency?
Mr. Forth: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I would very much like to be a Member of an English Parliament. I would like to be the Finance Minister of the English Administration. I would like then, on behalf of my constituents in Bromley and Chislehurst, to remove the huge subsidy that my constituents are currently expected to pay to the Scots and the Welsh. That would be the first immediate service that I could render them. I should think that that would guarantee my re-election for the rest of my political life. I would then wish to continue by querying seriously the expenditure that the new federal Government would be proposing in other areas. I am excited at the prospect. That is my first bid for my next political career and my latest political reinvention of myself, which is something at which I have become rather adept over the years.
What my hon. Friends are suggesting is a matter of fairness to the English people and a proper response to what I rather loosely characterised as the West Lothian
question. We could add more questions. I am tempted to say that we could ask the English in a referendum, "Would you like to continue to be part of the United Kingdom?" We could ask the English people, "Do you want to continue subsidising the Scots and the Welsh to the extent that you have been expected to do in the past?"
These questions could be asked in addition to asking the English whether they want their own Parliament. Once one starts down that road, there are endless possibilities when it comes to asking questions of the English on the simple basis of fairness. I am not saying that we should necessarily amend the Bill to include the questions that I have postulated. Perhaps we should consider a separate measure to facilitate that approach. As I have said, once we start to think in this way, many other questions arise and they all deserve and demand answers.
That is the tragedy of the position at which we have arrived. It is the tragedy, in a sense, of why we are here today. If the Government had thought out properly where they were going on these matters, had paused and thought and perhaps even set up one of their famous reviews or, dare one say, a royal commission to examine in a systematic and coherent way what our future constitution should be, that would surely have been the right way of addressing these matters. I would argue, however, that we should leave relatively well alone. It is a tragedy that half-baked and half-thought-out ideas are being imposed on us for the wrong reasons. If we are not careful, the results will be disastrous for the whole country.
Mr. Dalyell:
Iain MacWhirter, the commentator, argues persuasively in this morning's edition of The Scotsman that there should be a Kilbrandon-type commission on, as he puts it, "the governance of England". Would the right hon. Gentleman be in favour of such a proposal?
Mr. Forth:
In the absence of the referendum that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has proposed, and which I support, I suppose that such a commission might be the next best thing. As ever with these matters--I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me--the terms of reference given to such a commission would be crucial. If it were to make assumptions such as, "We shall start from the point that we have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly," ignoring why in some mysterious way these institutions should be different, and were then to focus on the requirements of the English, without being able to look beyond that, I would be reluctant to accept such a proposal. If such a commission were given a much wider brief, it might make a degree of sense--for example, if we were all prepared to commit ourselves, even if that meant undoing some of what is now being done in Scotland and Wales, to achieving a more coherent result--and be an approach worth taking.
Mr. Forth:
I shall give way once more, but then I really must conclude.
Mr. Quinn:
On the basis of what you said--
Mr. Quinn:
I am sorry. On the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, does he agree that there is a strong possibility that the review would develop into determining a regional identity? I represent part of Yorkshire, which is split up into different counties at the moment, and the mood of my constituents is that a regional identity within Yorkshire would be the logical conclusion of the suggested review.
Mr. Forth:
The hon. Gentleman is correct. If what the newspaper quoted by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has in mind is an open look at what the best arrangements and dispensations would be, I concede that it is quite possible that some regional arrangement might emerge. A word of caution, however. One must not then assume that the transfers that take place--rather invisibly at the moment, and which therefore are broadly accepted--would continue. The warning that I must give to some of my colleagues and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is that they must not assume all that currently exists and simply bolt something ostensibly rather good on to it.
If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) were to have a Yorkshire regional assembly, which he seems to crave, I say to him in a spirit of comradeship that he must not expect huge transfers of money--which exist at the moment but are concealed--from my part of the world, in outer London, to his to continue. That is the health warning that I would place on all this.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
It is called convergence.
Mr. Forth:
My right hon. Friend has used that dread word "convergence". In a sense it would be divergence, both constitutional and economic, if we were not very careful.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay for doing the House and the nation a service by bringing this question before us today, because it enables something that has been ignored, swept aside, buried by the political establishment up to now, to be brought to the surface and discussed in a preliminary way in the House. I hope that we give her Bill a Second Reading, as that will allow the matter properly to be carried forward in the place where it should be, the House of Commons and this Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The average length of speeches so far has been about 25 minutes. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but many will not do so unless some brevity is introduced.
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble):
I travelled down overnight from Lancashire in the hope that the debate would demonstrate that the Conservative party had learnt something from its election defeat. One reason for its defeat on 1 May was the fact that the status quo was not acceptable constitutionally to the majority of the British electorate. The fact that the Conservatives lost all their seats in Scotland and Wales to parties that are committed
Dr. Julian Lewis:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Borrow:
Yes, but I am mindful of your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Lewis:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I too am mindful of your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman's point is not made in the case of Wales, where, despite the best efforts of the Labour Government to persuade the Welsh to vote for an assembly, it squeaked through by a mere 6,000 votes.
Mr. Borrow:
If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall deal with that point later.
When considering the case for constitutional change, we should not examine each individual item in isolation, but recognise that we have started a process of change to modernise the British constitution to make it more democratic and accountable. We should recognise that the principle of subsidiarity--if I may use a word that is often used by the Conservative party in relation to the European Union--is important in determining the future structure of the British constitution.
There is a dynamism in the changes that the Labour party has proposed. The fact that there was overwhelming support for a Parliament in Scotland with revenue-raising powers demonstrates the extent to which the people of Scotland want devolution and constitutional change. That, to a lesser extent--I admit to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)--is also the case in Wales. We await the result of the referendum in London on setting up, once again, an all-London body. It is a significant contrast that whereas the Conservative party, when in government, was more than willing to remove, without the consent of the people, powers that had been given to set up structures, whether it be the Greater London council or other councils throughout the country, the policy of the Labour party in government is to seek consent before structures are set up. As I have said, the constitutional changes that we have set in train are dynamic.
A couple of Opposition Members mentioned the possibility that if people were offered in a referendum a possibility to bring power closer to them and to have more control over their decisions, they would be more likely to vote for those changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) explained the difficulties of the Bill in respect of a federal structure based on an English Parliament, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly, and said that it would be imbalanced. The Labour party, in opposition, flagged up that the end process should ideally be based on elected assemblies throughout the English regions, with powers similar to those to be exercised by the proposed Scottish Parliament.
In a meeting at which I spoke last night in Leyland, in my constituency, there was very strong support--and some impatience--for an elected assembly for the north-west of England. The accountability mechanism of the regional development agencies, which we debated
earlier this week, is not as strong as it should be. I am convinced that there will be a growing demand for an elected assembly, to which the RDAs will be accountable.
In accepting the need to bring power closer to the people, we also have to look at the changes introduced in the past 18 years by the Conservatives in respect of local government, and the extent to which many of its powers were removed and constrained. I want a democracy based on unitary local government with real powers and with revenue-raising powers, and a regional structure that is based on elected assemblies, again with revenue-raising powers. That may well mean that there is less to be done in this Chamber and that we need less bureaucracy in central London. In terms of the point made by Opposition Members about the English subsidising the Scots, there is a feeling in many English regions that they subsidise the south in terms of paying for the bureaucracy of government in London, when much of the structure could be based in the regions and be more accountable and closer to the people whom it is there to serve.
11.12 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |