| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) rose--
Mr. Dewar: I shall take the former parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Jenkin: I own up to that accolade. The Secretary of State spoke about a Scottish Parliament without tax-raising powers as a non-sequitur. I have two questions. First, why is such a non-sequitur proposed for Wales? Secondly, if the answer to the second question in the referendum is that the Scots do not want the tartan tax, will he persist with his non-sequitur?
Mr. Dewar: I said that I would take the hon. Gentleman. I shall not take him, but I shall answer him. The Government are not in the business of rigidly forcing a template upon every part of the United Kingdom. We shall consider opinion and appropriateness. We propose a different scheme for Wales because its needs and aspirations are different. That seems a sensible way to proceed.
On regional developments, we have already allowed for the possibility of development agencies. We have made it clear that we shall discuss and listen to opinion in the regions and move only if there is consent and support for the change. The worst scenario would be for the Government to prattle on--
Mr. Jenkin:
The right hon. Gentleman is waffling.
Mr. Dewar:
The hon. Gentleman knows all about waffle. I am trying to make an important point to which I hope he will listen. It would be unfortunate if the Government spoke about the need to consult and to move democratically and then attempted to impose from the centre solutions that were not necessarily acceptable. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's hopes about a split vote will be disappointed. I have every confidence that we shall complete our programme.
Many people want to take part in the debate, and I am impressed by the enthusiasm of new Members. This is the largest attendance on a Friday that I have seen for some time.
I mentioned development agencies in the English regions and how we shall handle that. In London, there will once again be consultation, as there should be. I think that the overwhelming view will be that it is nonsense for such a great capital city to remain voiceless and to have its administration and responsibility fragmented and inevitably weakened. It is right to look at the government of London, to try to create a sensible and strong voice for the city.
During this Parliament, we shall start the process of reforming the upper House. Neither I nor my colleagues are here to lash out at the Lords. It is not a matter of the politics of envy or of old enmities remembered. We certainly do not intend to belittle the integrity or commitment of individual members of that Chamber. However, there is a case for sensible change and we must rethink the role of the House of Lords, which is full of anomalies. While it bravely tries to do its job, it is often limited by its structures. The starting point of removing the votes of hereditary peers is sensible, but I stress that it is the first instalment, the first stage of an important constitutional reform.
I think that I am right in saying that in 1995-96, two thirds of the votes won by the Government in the Lords would have been reversed if hereditary peers had not had the vote. That is important in terms of the day-to-day management of the House. I say gently and, I hope, tactfully, that it is difficult to argue that hereditary peers are drawn from a wide and representative stratum of society. We should address that. I discovered in some reading a few days ago that it worried Lord Curzon. If it worried George Nathaniel Curzon, it ought to worry us.
I think that we have allies among Conservative Members. It is strange that although Conservatives defend as absolutely essential the presence of hereditary peers, they are remarkably coy about creating hereditary peerages. Those that are created are carefully selected, although I shall go no further into that. New hereditary peerages are almost as rare as Scottish Conservative Members. I know from personal experience and civilised debate that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks is coy about saying that, if by mishap at some future date--I accept that pendulums swing, especially after the events of two weeks ago--a Conservative Government should come to power after we have abolished the hereditary principle, they will reintroduce it. I welcome that sensible stance, but I suspect that Conservatives defend it simply because, as is their innate wont, it is there and not because they believe in it.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
I have a straightforward question for the Secretary of State. How can it possibly be right to destroy or fundamentally alter the existing structure, without first thinking through and putting before the House what is intended to replace it?
Mr. Dewar:
No questions are quite straightforward, even those from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We think that the hereditary principle is indefensible and that it should go, and we shall defend that proposition as it stands. A more broadly based House of Lords could continue with its present role. However, we have gone further and said that there are some interesting ideas on the role of the upper House and on how it can be made more directly representative. There are ideas on the part that elections should play in that process and on whether the Lords should have the role of a constitutional watchdog.
I am not endorsing any of those ideas, but they are interesting and this first stage would give them an impetus. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not disagree; those matters will have to be settled in debate in the House and in the public domain.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
If the hereditary principle is unacceptable, where does that leave the Sovereign?
Mr. Dewar:
The Sovereign is in a quite different position. The hon. Gentleman's question would be fair if the Sovereign were a political figure who was involved in the maelstrom of political argument. If I suggested that the Sovereign should be given such a role, even marginally, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that that was anathema and totally
I stress that we are looking at a five-year programme and that, although the revival of our constitution and bringing people back into the political debate more effectively is enormously important, there is much else of interest to this Administration. Health, education, housing and the economy will all have formidable consideration, both in the House and in the Government, as will the search for peace in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Prime Minister is in the Province today, which is always a continuing concern and of importance to us.
I should mention one other theme in the package: the protection of individual rights. The European convention on human rights will be imported, although not into the law of the United Kingdom, because it is already there. The rather revolutionary suggestion is that we should allow British courts to deal with a law that we imported some 50 years ago. Sometimes people say that we are rushing into and hurrying things. It is extraordinary that this necessary and important reform has been waiting for 50 years; I am personally glad to see it in our programme. There is no reason why people who want to have the protection of the European convention on human rights or who think that it is relevant to their case should have to go to Strasbourg to seek redress at considerable--
Mr. Bernard Jenkin:
People can come to this Parliament.
Mr. Dewar:
No. We are talking about the courts system, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, ingenious though he is, will not suggest that we import into this building the entire legal machinery and process. If he does, I look forward to the flow chart that he will produce.
Mr. Jenkin:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar:
No. When we come to the debate on the European convention on human rights, the hon. Gentleman can make his point, but there is great unanimity of opinion in the legal profession and among people who are interested in law reform.
The freedom of information Bill will also be part of our programme. As hon. Members will know, there is a long and honourable tradition of Back-Bench attempts to introduce such a Bill, most recently by the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). There will be a wide welcome in the community as well as in the House for the decision to import such a measure into legislation under the auspices of the present Government. No one could deny that there is a case for a more open approach and for more transparency in government. I think of the debates, and I will not go into them, about the Scott inquiry, and the circumstances surrounding them, and of even more mundane-sounding matters such as food safety. There are circumstances in which secrecy can bring cruel dangers, as we in Scotland know from the E. coli outbreak--sadly, I understand that another case was reported today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |