| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): The hon. Gentleman is making it up.
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman should go and talk to Michael Forsyth, as many of us did throughout that period. Michael Forsyth was under no illusions about what he was up to.
Mr. Jenkin: I know Michael Forsyth--he is a friend of mine. It is slightly odd for the hon. Gentleman to caricature his campaign as Secretary of State for Scotland--when he was constantly warning against the dangers of nationalism--as somehow aiding and abetting nationalism. If that is the topsy-turvy logic that the hon. Gentleman is using in the debate, he is running away from the truth--not us.
Mr. Kennedy: I shall not dwell further on history. Suffice to say that Michael Forsyth was warning against nationalism, of course, but he was also talking it up and trying to give it a focus in that campaign because he thought that, if he could polarise the debate into a choice between Conservatism and Unionism or nationalism, he would win. The Scottish people were not taken in--we are a good deal more sophisticated and subtle about recognising that there is a range of options. I shall turn to those.
First, this entire House is a range of historic inconsistencies. Hon. Members have only to look at the role of Irish Members earlier this century, when precisely the dangers or difficulties alluded to in West Lothianism were the order of the day.
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman is right about that, but in the days of Stormont there were far fewer Unionist Members of Parliament for the Province in the House than their population justified.
Mr. Kennedy:
Yes; but, with the reimposition of direct rule, there were subsequent changes under the Callaghan Administration to take account of that fact and, indeed, such provisions are included in the proposed legislation. We have long since accepted that. Once we have Scottish devolution, at an appropriate juncture there will have to be a re-evaluation--[Hon. Members: "Where?"] It is in the legislation. There will have to be a re-evaluation of the basis on which Scottish Members are sent to Westminster. Of course, that will have a logical sequential effect on the number of Scottish Members sent to Westminster. I think that that accounts for the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Historic inconsistency has been a recurrent feature of this place. If one were to start with a blank sheet of paper and draw up a constitution for the United Kingdom today, I doubt whether one would begin with something with the shape and substance of what we have. At least those who are engaged in that process in Scotland and Wales have a terrific opportunity. If one were drawing up a basis for operating a Parliament, as they are doing--considering potential Standing Orders and procedures, how to go about legislation and all the rest of it--one would not adopt the procedures that have been imposed on us in this place, as they hardly take into account how a modern and multifaceted democracy such as ours, with different nation states involved, should be structured.
Dr. Godman:
On the inconsistencies, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, sooner or later, we would be faced with a choice between the break-up of the United Kingdom and setting up a federal United Kingdom. In the meantime, how would he deal with the inconsistencies that characterise this place?
Mr. Kennedy:
I shall be happy to come to that matter in a moment.
The final weakness of the argument put by the Conservatives at the beginning of the debate is that, despite all that period in office and all the great thinking that apparently went on about the different constitutional options, the one practical proposal that they came up with to deal with the anomalies, frustrations and shortcomings of the political system and the business of political administration was called "taking stock" and, as far as any of us who were involved in it can recall, it simply involved turning the Scottish Grand Committee into a rolling roadshow.
The Scottish people were not taken in by that either. As the then Secretary of State discovered to his increasing misfortune, once they had realised that the Committee need not merely be an opportunity for some pump-priming or pulpit politics from the Secretary of State in different parts of Scotland, it became a much bigger opportunity, from Stornoway to Selkirk, for some of the largest demonstrations against the Conservative Government, so the whole thing ended up backfiring in their faces. The inadequacy of the Conservative party in and out of office in trying to produce practical solutions to tackle those genuine political problems has been a great difficulty indeed.
What of the role of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster after the devolutionary settlement and further into the life of the Scottish, and indeed the Welsh, Parliaments? I do not know how others react, but I am amused by those occasional newspaper accounts of how Westminster Members of Parliament from Scotland and from Wales--and presumably from Northern Ireland, too, if an assembly is established there--will become part-time. Anyone who has tried to fulfil both Scottish and United Kingdom roles in party politics as well as in institutionalised Westminster politics will testify to the contradictions, conflicts and frustrations that can arise. I think that people will accept that, if politicians have
more time in which to do their job, they will be able to work in a more informed and detailed way, which will make for better representation at both levels.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
What about the rest of us?
Mr. Kennedy:
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be overburdened either, as I care about his welfare. I hope that, in due course, he will be the beneficiary of an evolved system under which he can perform his role more efficiently and effectively--we all know that, under the present Westminster system, there is inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
Mr. Maclean:
The hon. Gentleman's argument is facile, as he knows. He looks forward to the day when the 500 English Members will have as little to do--and be as genuinely idle--as those Scottish Members who will be sent to Westminster after devolution and who will have very few subjects with which to deal. That is not a good enough answer to the West Lothian question.
Mr. Kennedy:
The right hon. Gentleman hails from my constituency--he comes from the Black isle, a place that is associated with sound logic. If he thinks about the sound logic of what he is saying and what I am saying, he will realise that it surely makes sense from a reformist point of view to want a United Kingdom House of Commons to operate more efficiently and more effectively for all Members from all parts of that United Kingdom. The Bill represents a significant improvement for those of us who represent constituencies in the Scottish nation. Other parts of the United Kingdom will now have to address their different concerns, paramount among which is what will happen in England.
I have no great ambition, post-Scottish devolution, to cast a vote in the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons on specifically English legislative matters. A system will have to evolve that can take account of the fact that the democratic deficit in the United Kingdom will be most manifest in England. England will have to resolve that in one of several ways: English Members may want to meet as a specifically English Parliament; the best way forward for the predominant partner in the United Kingdom in terms of population may be to move in a more federal direction; or there may need to be a specifically English Grand Committee. The House of Commons will have to be a good deal more open minded and constructive in finding a solution for England than the Conservative party has been in its attitude to Scottish and Welsh devolution.
Mr. Hogg:
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to vote on exclusively English business. Will he associate himself with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in stating that, after the Bill is enacted and the Scottish Parliament has become operational, he will not vote on English business? May I take it that the hon. Gentleman and other Scottish Liberal Democrat Members will not vote on English business when there is a Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Kennedy:
No. I chose my words with care and was being quite frank. I have no ambition--I do not think
I find the new clause almost offensive in its supposition, which is an historic mistake, that, because a solution is being fashioned to a set of problems in the United Kingdom--or two sets of problems, if we include Wales--the way in which to deal with outstanding problems affecting England is to turn the guns on those who have made progress towards resolving the anomalies under which they suffer. That is not an appropriate way forward.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's last comment. I invite him to tell the House to what in the new clause he objects as part of the evolving process of which he has said he approves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |