| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John MacGregor (South Norfolk): I hear what you say, Sir Alan, and I shall take as few interventions as I can.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) rightly said that there would be continuing interest in this matter in Parliament and, if necessary, beyond. Perhaps he underestimates just how much keen interest there will continue to be. We are seeing today what we have predicted all along, which is that the Government have unleashed forces whose development they simply cannot control.
What the Secretary of State is worrying about today is the rise of the Scottish National party in the opinion polls--the lead that it now has--and the possibility that he may not command a majority in the first Scottish Parliament. He should be much more worried about the issue that we are debating today, as it is the most fundamental question in the Bill. I find it astonishing that so few Labour Members from English constituencies are present--none so far, in fact.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)
indicated dissent.
Mr. MacGregor:
One has arrived at last, no doubt because the Walworth road bleeper told him to. If not, that suggests that Walworth road itself cannot see the importance of this matter to English Members of Parliament.
I spoke on the Second Reading of the first devolution Bill in the late 1970s. As a comparatively new Member, and as a Scot who represented an English constituency, I focused on two issues that I still consider fundamental: the fact that the Barnett formula, which had then been recently introduced, gave disproportionate per capita public spending to the people of Scotland, and--above all--the West Lothian question.
I do not suppose that anyone listened to me much then, because I spoke at 7 am after an all-night sitting; but those who were there will recall that there were several all-night sittings on Second Reading. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was there. I have subsequently admired the way in which he has pursued the West Lothian question, and brought it to national attention.
I have also waited with interest to see whether the Labour party--now the Government--would find an answer to the dilemma. The Government have not produced one, because they simply do not have one. It is
the deep black hole in all their proposals. No doubt that is why they tried to curtail debate on the issue to just 50 minutes in Committee.
Mr. MacGregor:
It is true, and I am glad that we have a whole day to debate it now.
Having set course for a Scottish Parliament, the Government will be forced to a conclusion that they do not want.
Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor:
Not at the moment.
The Government will be forced to a conclusion that they do not want, because public outrage at their proposals for English constituents, coupled with the logic of the situation, will make that conclusion impossible to resist.
My only other speech on the matter was on the Barnett formula and public expenditure, in which English Members have a reasonable interest. Interestingly, I was criticised by several Scots for having the audacity to intervene in a Scottish debate, and for speaking only at that stage. I hope that the same point will not be made today, as there is massive English interest in the issue. It is vital that we should speak for the interests of the 90 per cent. of the population who will be affected, including the people of Norfolk and my constituents.
It would be interesting to ask those who objected to my participation in that Scottish debate, in which I had a legitimate English interest, what they imagine the feeling in the House will be when Scottish Members try to speak on English matters while there is no possibility of our being involved in Scottish matters. What happened to me seemed clearly to indicate what is likely to happen, and I hope that they see it in that way.
There are four options before us. I want to be constructive. I stress that I did not want to go down the road that we are taking, but the Scottish Parliament is going to happen. We must accept that, and everything that flows from it is the responsibility of the Government.
The first option is the status quo, but that is totally unacceptable and unsustainable. The arguments against it have been so well deployed--particularly by the hon. Member for Linlithgow--that I need not dwell on them. It will daily become more obvious that it is unsustainable for Scottish Members to be able to vote, and, perhaps, speak, intervene or ask questions, on English matters in a future Parliament. It will not be enough for them to offer to exercise restraint, as the Stormont MPs did--that has already been discussed--and, indeed, I do not think that they will do that. It is obvious that the self-restraint shown by Ulster MPs will not be shown by Scottish Labour Members.
The position will not be just an anomaly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said; it will be a constitutional outrage. It has not had a great deal of attention in the English press--most of the Bill's coverage has been in the Scottish press--but, whenever I tell my constituents what the West Lothian question involves, they are outraged. It will quickly become an issue when we see it happening week after
week in practice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was absolutely right about that. The status quo is unacceptable, and it will not last.
The second option is regional development agencies, or regional assemblies. The Government have, in my view, put those ideas up as a sop, a fudge and a smokescreen, to suggest that they are an English alternative. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning said in The Scotsman that regional assemblies would, by definition, be the answer. According to him, the more power is devolved to the regions, the more that answers the West Lothian question, but that simply does not add up. It is nowhere near right, for four reasons.
First, we know that the Government will introduce regional assemblies in a spasmodic way, where there is clear demand for them. There will not be a uniform response in England, and assemblies cannot therefore be an answer to the Scottish Parliament.
Secondly, we must accept that there is no regional coherence, or sense of national belonging, in the English regions, as there is in Scotland. The people of Norfolk do not identify with the people of Essex or Hertfordshire in the same way as the Scots, in relation to their national feeling about a Scottish Parliament.
Thirdly, there is no demand for assemblies in many parts of England. I know that there is demand in the north-east, and, possibly, in one or two other northern areas, but there is no demand in East Anglia, except from a few Labour councillors and a few officials who see big opportunities for further personal advancement. The ordinary population does not want another layer of bureaucracy. There is no demand, and it simply is not an answer to the question of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Robathan:
How many letters has my right hon. Friend had from constituents putting the case for a regional assembly? Is it as many as I have had, which is none?
Mr. MacGregor:
That was exactly the point that I was going to make. Not only have I had no letters, but assemblies have never been mentioned at all by constituents, except by those who oppose them. I do not think that Government policy stands up on that ground. That is why we will not see regional assemblies all over England, and that is another reason why assemblies will not be equivalent to the Scottish Parliament.
My fourth point is the one that matters most. Assemblies do not address real issues of comparability. Regional development agencies and assemblies will not remotely measure up to the range of issues, responsibilities and powers of the Scottish Parliament. RDAs will not cover most of the domestic issues that are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Even if they did, they would not control them, but would remain subject to decisions made in Parliament and Whitehall. They would not have the autonomy that will exist in the Scottish Parliament.
Let me turn to expenditure. I do not think that there is any suggestion that regional assemblies or RDAs should be given a block grant, which they could deploy as they wished, to cover not only the issues with which are
supposed to deal, but all the issues to be covered by the Scottish Parliament. I have not heard that suggested. There is no equivalence there, and I do not believe that that would ever happen.
RDAs and assemblies will not have powers over primary legislation. It is ludicrous to imagine that 10 English regional assemblies will replicate what the Scottish Parliament will do in terms of primary legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |