| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. Now and again, the Government have to face up to one uncomfortable fact: they are the Government. They, not we, are the ones who have to deal with that anomaly, so it is up to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Chancellor to fight it out with the
Secretary of State for Scotland so as to ensure fair treatment for all people in all parts of the United Kingdom.
The current position of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales more closely resembles Whitehall farce than Whitehall competence. The Secretary of State for Scotland is at this very moment engaged in a shabby auction with the Liberal Democrats on the very issue of Scottish tuition, while remaining a member of a Cabinet which has collective responsibility for the imposition of student fees on English students. It is quite apparent that no politician can have two masters: the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales must resign from the Cabinet immediately on their appointment in Scotland and in Wales.
Who wins the trial of strength over tuition fees between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Treasury will provide an interesting indication of where things stand within the Government. In the devolved Parliament, will the Labour party be allowed to follow any policy different from that commanded by the Treasury and Downing street? Will power be devolved in reality, or only on paper, as many of us expect? That issue will also provide an interesting test of the Liberal Democrats' commitment as they aspire to join a coalition in Scotland. Will they be true to their election pledge that they would demand the abolition of tuition fees? Anything less than an absolute commitment, and the Scottish electorate will see them for the chancers that they are.
There are anomalies here at Westminster that must be dealt with, the first of which is the tax and spend anomaly. Currently all Members of the House of Commons are able to questions the Ministers who are directly responsible for how the Scottish and Welsh blocks are spent. Under devolution, although all Members of the House of Commons will be responsible for raising taxes, we shall have no mechanism for scrutinising how a large proportion of those taxes are spent. That weakening of our scrutiny, coupled with the devolved Members' detachment from tax raising, provides one of the most potent sources of conflict between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Westminster. I expect the Secretary of State in waiting to tell us tonight how that is to be resolved, because failure to resolve the problem of tax and spend and scrutiny will not only betray the intellectual bankruptcy that lies at the heart of the Government's devolution policy but show the current Administration's callous disregard of the rights of the House of Commons.
One of the problems that must be faced is speculation as to the appropriateness of certain ministerial appointments. There can be no doubt about the legitimacy of the monarch appointing to her Government any Member of Parliament from any part of the United Kingdom to any post to represent any part of the United Kingdom. However, it must become difficult for any Member of Parliament representing a Scottish seat to hold ministerial office in, for example, health, education or--dare I say it--transport, for they would be responsible for matters of policy in England while having no say whatever in the same matters as they affect their own constituents in Scotland. That anomaly needs to be dealt with, because otherwise it will create unfairness and
uncertainty which are disadvantageous to the entire process of government and cannot help the process of devolution.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the conventions of our constitution have allowed Scots to take part in decisions in Cabinet even in respect of matters in which the Scots had no direct interest and even--as in the case of Lord Mackay of Clashfern--when the individual concerned did not represent an English constituency?
Dr. Fox:
It might have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice but, as a Member of the House of Lords, Lord Mackay did not represent any constituency at all. It is worth noting that the conventions that have applied in this House are conventions relating to a Union Parliament, not to a Union Parliament with a devolved Parliament and a devolved Assembly. We shall have to find new conventions to govern proceedings in this place and in the two devolved bodies, and those will necessarily differ from the conventions that have governed our proceedings in the past. In addition, the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions occurred when there were reciprocal rights between different parts of the United Kingdom, but reciprocal rights of representation have now disappeared under the system introduced by the Labour Government with the help of the Liberal Democrats.
We have had several debates in the House in recent months about proportional representation--in the context of Europe, devolution and the Jenkins proposals. It would be wrong of me not to thank the many Labour Members of Parliament who have offered their support in the past few days in the campaign to stop the Government introducing PR at Westminster. Many of them have said that they will have to do their duty and vote for their own side tonight, but that they are with us in spirit. They hope that we will effectively destroy any chance of introducing PR at Westminster. They can reciprocate by looking at the motions tabled for the various trade union conferences--which I believe are inspired by sources at Downing street--welcoming proportional representation. I hope that those who do not want PR at Westminster will put down motions at those trade union conferences ensuring that that view is made abundantly clear. They must not be used as puppets for Downing street as part of the Prime Minister's long-term plan to turn this place into a democratic poodle.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
The motion on the Order Paper asks hon. Members to vote for the proposition that the Government should abandon any plans to introduce proportional representation at Westminster in light of the experiences in Scotland and Wales. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? Would the Conservatives have preferred to see last Thursday's elections in Scotland and Wales held under the proportional or the first- past-the-post system?
Dr. Fox:
If the hon. Gentleman had attended the devolution debates in this place, he would have heard that we clearly favour the first-past-the-post system. We have never voted for proportional representation. It is typical
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South):
I understand why the Tory party in Scotland put up candidates for the Scottish elections. However, having lost out on the first-past-the-post option, is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the successful Tory candidates will not take up their seats in the Scottish Parliament because a discredited electoral system was used? That is surely the only honourable position for them to take.
Dr. Fox:
We all make mistakes by allowing certain interventions. That is clearly a ridiculous notion. If the hon. Lady thinks that, because we did not vote for a particular electoral system, we will not play a full part in the new democratic process, she has some lessons to learn. If it were a question of consistency, I suppose that an anti-European such as Neil Kinnock would never have ended up a European Commissioner.
Every one of our warnings during the debates on proportional representation--we warned of instability, a lack of stable government, the disproportionate granting of power to minority parties and, worst of all, Government policies being decided by politicians after the election rather than by voters at the election--has been vindicated. Those elements are readily on show in the great Dewar-Wallace extravaganza that is being played out in Edinburgh. We can be sure that, after the Liberal Democrats' selling out on closed lists last year, few, if any, Liberal principles will not be available at bargain basement prices to allow the Liberal Democrats a sniff at the inside of a ministerial car.
Throughout the devolution debates, Labour promised us that devolution would kill nationalism "stone dead"--that was the phrase used by the Secretary of State for Defence. However, neither the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) nor the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) looked exactly moribund on Friday morning--indeed, I have seldom seen them looking so rosy about their own prospects. Nationalism is resurgent and all those who wish to see this country held together--albeit belatedly--must embrace the unionist cause that the Conservatives have championed for so long. We never wanted devolution, but we accepted the results of the referendums. We have said that we will try to make it work--and we will. However, no one can make it work while the contradictions and instability at the heart of the legislation remain.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
Does my hon. Friend agree that one interesting contradiction that has not yet been touched on is the question of ministerial accountability? Many routine decisions with cross-border implications will be made by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. Although Westminster will have the power to intervene, the routine aspects of decision making will go to Edinburgh. The letter from the Prime Minister replying to my question of last week makes it clear that
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |