| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.15 pm
Mr. Kennedy: The new clause focuses on the continuing role, responsibilities, duties, performance and contribution of Members of Parliament representing only one part of the United Kingdom--Scotland. Surely it would be far better to focus on the part of the United Kingdom where outstanding problems will genuinely present themselves--across England.
I do not know the solution to the English question. Some Labour Members have mooted the possibility of more regionalism in England--indeed, we are seeing the first signs of that. Perhaps there will be an English Parliament. I strongly suspect that, in the context of a developing European Union, the only way in which to make sense of this entire patchwork is a federal United Kingdom, in which there are specified powers and responsibilities at each tier of representation, and the Westminster Parliament operates federally on items of United Kingdom business that truly carry repercussions and legislative implications across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England--irrespective of whether England is unitary or made up of the regions. That would be a far better approach than the one suggested in the new clause. Moreover, we should not talk down the on-going parliamentary role of United Kingdom Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke about conflict, and there have been many predictions of a battleground inevitably opening up between Edinburgh and London. I do not doubt that there will be tensions--practical politics suggests that there will be--or that there will be political conflicts from time to time. However, a much more immediate and perhaps more telling source of tension and conflict may be within Scotland itself--between the various local authorities and the Edinburgh legislative body. In many ways, I hope that that is so, as it may encourage greater autonomy in different parts of Scotland on such subjects as local income tax or whether there should be proportional representation in elections to local authorities.
As the Secretary of State knows, Liberal Democrats welcome the recognition, in the White Paper and in the Bill, that the role of the Secretary of State will not only be highly diminished but--I think that the White Paper acknowledges this--in due course wither on the vine. We also welcome the recognition that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament will have to be reduced.
As has been said, the role of the political parties will also change. Liberal Democrats have experience of that, as our party already operates federally. The relationships between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and elsewhere across the political parties will become significantly different. That will bring fresh problems, but it will also mean that politics as a whole will have a far less top-down approach than under the current unitary and centralised system.
It is surely good that, after devolution, UK Ministers will have fewer territorial responsibilities and so will have to behave with greater regional sensitivities, both within England and to the different political cultures that will then be fully apparent in Scotland and in Wales.
We acknowledge that there are further problems. This is, to coin a phrase, very much unfinished business, in the sense that, even when the Bill is enacted and the Scottish Parliament is up and running, there will be a serious job for the House of Commons to do on a United Kingdom basis in examining its structures and procedures and the roles and inputs of Members of Parliament from different parts of the country.
Some have argued consistently that this Parliament will not have a real, on-going role, but I believe that that is a wrong analysis. Those of us who hope in due course to contribute to the workings of the House under the new, devolved procedures look forward with considerable relish to doing so. Any problems could not be adequately addressed by the new clause or by the general approach of Conservative Members, so we shall certainly not join them in the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, North and Leith):
I welcome this debate on the West Lothian question. Some people latch on to the question as a rationalisation of their unremitting hostility to any constitutional change, but the issue none the less needs to be debated and clarified.
I make it clear at the outset that I am perfectly relaxed about asymmetric devolution, which is practised in many countries; if asymmetry is regarded as an anomaly, hon. Members should reflect on the anomalies that already exist and are probably inherent in the Union of four nations of greatly different sizes.
I read the new clause with interest. It reminded me of the description by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), of Scottish Members of Parliament after devolution as ships lost in the fog. I have thought about it a great deal, and it occurs to me that the functions of Scottish Members here after devolution will not be all that different. The simple reality is that great areas will be reserved--the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seemed to forget that they would be reserved--including defence, foreign affairs, social security and the Treasury.
Interested as Labour Members are in Scottish affairs, the opportunities to scrutinise and debate them in the House are negligible. What will be different after devolution? Apart from Scottish questions once a month--there could even be an argument for keeping them--little time is spent scrutinising Scottish affairs in the House. The first anomaly of the present situation is that Scottish affairs are devolved to the Scottish Office, but there is no time to scrutinise them in the House.
With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), this is not a unitary state, but a Union of four nations. For 100 years, the equivalent of nine Whitehall Ministries have been devolved to the Scottish Office. The core argument for the Bill is that it is about good government for Scotland. Some of us cannot wait to have a parliament in which we can talk about the health service, housing, local government and other issues in Scotland--all matters which have been devolved.
We have to force ourselves to be patient when we hear Conservative Members speaking about future scenarios, because we remember that from 1979 to 1997, all the affairs of the Scottish Office were run by a party that was voted against in Scotland at general election after general election. That is a far greater anomaly than the so-called West Lothian question.
For 18 years, English Members imposed their will against the views of the people of Scotland, but in the whole of this century, there have been only two years--from October 1964 to March 1966 and from February to October in 1974--when there was any possibility of Scottish Members imposing their views on the House; and that will become even less likely when, as I hope will happen, the United Kingdom Parliament changes to a proportional representation system.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
On the basis of the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, presumably he regrets the fact that the previous Labour Government had any influence whatever on arrangements in Northern Ireland. There are no Labour Members in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chisholm:
I am not sure what point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making.
Mr. Garnier:
I thought that my point was simple. The hon. Gentleman is complaining that, for 18 years, his country, Scotland, was dominated by the Government formed by a Conservative party that, he correctly claimed, did not have a majority in that country. To follow the logic of that point, he must accept that Labour, both now and when it was previously in government, could have no business interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chisholm:
Northern Ireland is to get its form of devolution as well. My point is that, whatever system of government we have for a Union of four nations, there will be some anomalies. I am pointing out the anomaly of the past 18 years and asking Conservative Members to weigh it against the anomaly that they describe. I am quite prepared to accept that what they are going to talk about for the next five hours is, indeed, an anomaly, but it is less of an anomaly than what we have had for the past 18 years, because the prospect of English Members of Parliament imposing their views on Scotland is many times greater than that of the Scottish majority imposing their views on England.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
A constitutional settlement that lasted for 290 years, until last November, established that we were a body corporate: what affected one of us, affected all of us; the concern of one of us was the concern of all of us. The Government decided to change that arrangement and to disband the unitary state. They are groping towards a new constitution
Mr. Chisholm:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my point is that it is a different kind of anomaly. There is an asymmetry inherent in the fact that a large nation, called England, is joined with three smaller nations, called Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because England is so big, there is far more likelihood of the scenario that we had from 1979 to 1997 arising than the scenario that forms the main theme of Conservative Members' speeches. The hon. Gentleman is simplifying the position. There is no symmetry inherent in the present situation. He is also wrong, in that we do not have a unitary state. He has reinforced my point about the anomalies of having devolution without scrutiny and of having English Members imposing their views on Scotland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |