| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.18 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): I intend to speak briefly and raise a few points about which I want hon. Members to think.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a delightful speech in which she spoke about her role in this Parliament and told us what questions she
intended to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder whether hon. Members have thought about that. I have tried to find out: three weeks ago today, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State on which subjects he would answer questions, and, as far as I can tell, the hon. Lady will be able to question the Secretary of State only about air sea rescue and ask him whether he will pay an official visit to Aberdeen.
To be frank, we have not thought this thing through. I speak as one who has always been opposed to devolution, root and branch, and as one who believes that it will all end up with a horrible constitutional shambles. My brilliant hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are right to attack the Government's policy, but the older ones like me should have more humility. We should not forget that it was the Conservatives who, for the same devious reasons that motivate the current Government, introduced devolution back in the time when our superb leader was the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Our chief objective tonight should be not to decide whether devolution is rubbish or good, but, now that it has happened, to put some specific questions to the Government that they must consider if devolution is not to end in disaster.
First, will the Government state clearly, precisely and unambiguously in what areas they believe they have the power to overturn the decisions of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly? Student fees are a perfect example. The Scottish Parliament has the power to scrap them, but the Government, under section 35(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998, have the power to say to the Scottish Parliament, "Get lost, you have no such power and your plans will interfere with our arrangements." I may be wrong, but the Government have a duty to state clearly and precisely--particularly with regard to reserved powers--where they believe they can and cannot interfere.
Secondly, we must face the problems that will stem from proportional representation and from having two groups of Members of Parliament in the Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members should reflect on what has happened in other countries with PR systems--we should not pick out only those countries where the system has worked. In countries with pure PR systems, instead of majority rule, the mad, lunatic fringe parties always hold the balance of power and run the show. I would not think of referring to the Liberal Democrats as the mad or lunatic party in Scotland--far from it--but we must face the fact that, basically, they are in charge at present and, because of PR, will determine policy vehicles and their form and direction.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has a long-standing interest in this matter. What would happen if there were a Euro MP, a Westminster MP, a regional MP and other regional non-constituency MPs plus councillors in Tilbury? To whom would the hon. Gentleman's constituents turn? Hon. Members should realise that, when an army of politicians represents a single area, it is an absolute nightmare. If Conservative and Labour Members have not thought about that, we will face a disaster.
I used to be a Member of Parliament in Glasgow. What will happen if a Glasgow constituent has a problem with a school or a hole in the road? When a series of Members
of Parliament represents different parties in an area, the only thing we can be sure about is that they will blame each other for any problems.
Thirdly, we must consider the West Lothian question and find an interim answer. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It doesn't really matter because Labour has a big majority." That is the case now, but it will not last for ever. What will happen if the number of independents grows or some freedom is allowed in the Labour party? I know that an issue will emerge about which Labour Members have strong feelings--many of them are decent people--and they will not want simply to follow the party Whips. It is not good for Parliament if Scottish Members are to be allowed to determine English issues.
There is an easy answer. We could change the Standing Orders to recognise that, until further notice, Scottish MPs shall not interfere in, or vote for, matters relating to England and Wales. Such a rule would be easy to administer and would not create a constitutional nightmare. We must face the inevitable.
Fourthly, what will happen to England? I was horrified to hear the reply of the Minister--who is a delightful lady--to a question about the possibility of establishing an English Parliament. She said, on the one hand, that the Government might consider the possibility of regional government for England if that was what the people wanted, but, on the other hand, that the Government would not consider establishing an English Parliament, although the people might want it.
The Minister, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are well aware that basic regional government exists in England. We do not have elected assemblies, because people do not want them. There may be a demand for such bodies in the north of England because the people think that, like Scotland, they will somehow get extra cash. The hon. Member for Thurrock and I have some experience of regional government. We yearned to escape from the brutal rule of the Essex county council because Chelmsford was too far away. However, we now find that, under regional government, we will be subject to the rule of Cambridge. If the Government have any doubts about that, they should go to Tilbury and Southend tomorrow and ask how many people there know that they are part of the east of England region. Nobody apart from the consultants who want to make lots of money by carrying out surveys for the expensive new authorities knows anything about it.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may be right. Perhaps this will turn out to be a wonderful, rosy, exciting constitutional experiment. However, I hope that they accept that there is just a possibility that the whole thing will turn out to be a costly and divisive flop, with non-stop, deeply felt rows between Edinburgh and London. I believe that devolution will develop in that way because the control of money will result in blackmail. Laws passed by the Scottish Parliament will be overturned by England by the front door or the back door.
Let us imagine that things go terribly wrong, as I fear that they will--I pray that I am wrong. Is there not a case for what we might loosely call a five-year review? After five years we should look at the issue again, see how the system has worked and see whether it is worth carrying on. If it is going to create tension, cause problems and create a lot of unnecessary extra expenditure with an army
of politicians creating a constitutional nightmare, should we not have some procedure to allow us to think again? I say in all sincerity that I am not trying to bash the system. I hope that it succeeds, but I fear that it will be a great disaster. Surely there should be a procedure to enable us to think again if everything goes wrong.
There is a real danger of a constitutional nightmare. I fear that there will be a wild increase in spending and regional government will be forced on England regardless of whether the people want it. That is surely wrong. I hope that the Government will show humility, accept that they might be wrong and agree to a five-year review. That is the right way forward.
Finally--I promise that I shall sit down after this point--many years ago, before most hon. Members here were in Parliament, I had the pleasure of being the leader of the Scottish Conservative party. That was not because I was good, but because there were not many of us around. The other reason was that our splendid leader, Lady Thatcher, had the same views on devolution as I did. Unfortunately, the rest of the Scottish party thought that devolution was wonderful. We fought the 1979 election on a policy of total opposition to all that nonsense. We took the nationalists head-on. We made people think about independence, which was their logical policy. As a result, they disappeared. We wiped them out.
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West):
I regret that the debate has been so short, because there have been some interesting and stimulating contributions. I am pleased that some English Members have had the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his thought-provoking comments about the future constitutional position. I found his remarks about an asymmetrical settlement interesting, although I do not necessarily agree with them.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) also made some intriguing comments. He seems to be taking the argument about an English Parliament seriously, unlike the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who sadly did not have an opportunity to speak. I hope that I am not being too disrespectful when I say that she is raising the possibility of an English Parliament as an act of provocation. She is raising the spectre of English nationalism in an inflammatory way, when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire looked on it as a possible solution to the anomalies in an asymmetrical system of devolution. As a Welsh Member, I am acutely aware that the UK has an asymmetrical system.
One of devolution's major implications for the House is that there will be an impetus towards further serious strategic thinking about the role of the regions in England and whether it is better to create a regional system or to consider England as having an identity in its own right. There are weaknesses and strengths in both arguments.
In the short time available, I shall deal with what I hope will be the exciting results of devolution. I am pleased that a partly proportional electoral system has been introduced for both bodies. It may be slightly controversial of me to say that, in many respects, the result was disappointing for the Labour party in Wales, but at least it has produced a body that is broadly proportional in terms of the votes cast.
I strongly believe that the balance of the parties in the Assembly is such that there will be an opportunity for more consensual and pluralist politics, and that is what the public want. It is possible to have consensus and pluralism and still have genuine scrutiny. One of the virtues of a more devolved system is that there can be more thorough scrutiny of how public money is spent and policy developed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |