---

9.33 pm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) that this is a short debate, but I am afraid that I can agree with him only on that point.

I was surprised to hear the suggestion that current events are giving Conservatives a dose of their own medicine. I hope that that is not why the Government are imposing devolution on us and failing to deal with the West Lothian question.

I could not pass up the opportunity to reflect on the new Labour Government's great achievements of the past two years, one of which is to have created two institutions that have breathed new life into nationalism and given it a home. So much for the promise to kill nationalism stone dead. They have created a system that has led to them losing some of their heartland seats. Coming from Swansea, I know Islwyn, Rhondda and Llanelli well. I never thought that I would live long enough to see them change their Labour party complexion, but they certainly did last week.

The Government are responsible for the improbable circumstance of the Secretary of State for Wales being the same person as the First Secretary of Wales. We have to concede that he just slipped into that position late on Friday as one of the regional list Members, but he will not be able to sustain his position as Secretary of State and First Secretary because of collective responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned the ban on beef on the bone. If the Welsh Assembly decides to lift the ban, the Secretary of State

11 May 1999 : Column 211

for Wales will follow that route as First Secretary, but his own Government will wish him to follow a completely different route. I therefore believe that he should resign forthwith as Secretary of State for Wales.

The Government have also managed to split constituencies asunder. Seven constituencies in Wales are now served by politicians representing a different party from the party representing them at Westminster, and the same applies to three constituencies in Scotland. It will be interesting to see how those politicians work with each other. It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who was present at the beginning of the debate, is not present at the end. I would have liked to ask him how he would continue to work with David Davies. Interesting times lie ahead.

The lacklustre turnout has been mentioned. All political parties will need to address that. A 46 per cent. turnout cannot be acceptable in the election of a body for which, we are told, the Welsh people have been waiting for 300 years. We must do something to ensure that there is a better turnout in the future, but compulsory voting is not the answer. As far as I am concerned, the voters are never wrong--although I had my doubts about the last general election--but, when they decide to stay at home, that says something to all of us.

Then there is the wonderful system of proportional representation with which we have now been blessed. It has assured us of a minority Government in both Scotland and Wales. Two out of two cannot be bad on the first go, can it? Deals--some formal, others informal--are now being struck between the Labour party and the party with the lowest representation: the party that came fourth in Wales and Scotland. Deals are now being done behind closed doors, and we will never know exactly what will happen. We could end up with policies that none of the parties supported.

There is also the problem of the Prime Minister's role, and his relationship with the devolved bodies. It has been said that

"The Secretary of State's election was the result of a combination of old Labour vote-rigging and new Labour control freakery. Welsh electors last week expressed their anger at London's imposed leader. New Labour has created its own powerful opposition in Wales. It was a disaster, conceived in Downing Street and produced by a new Labour team in Cardiff. The party was judged to be unprincipled and undemocratic."

Those are the words of a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)--and who am I to disagree with his views?

We have discussed policy differences. We have discussed the possibility that policies in Scotland and Wales will be different from those in the rest of England, and that we do not know what deals the Liberal Democrats will be able to extract from the Labour party in Scotland. I think that they will be a little more feisty than they were in the House of Lords when they caved in on the open-list system that they loved so much, and we ended up with a closed-list system for the European elections; but deals will be done. That is part of the present system of coalition.

Tuition fees have been mentioned. Irrespective of the system that is used, if tuition fees are abolished in Scotland, what will happen in England? Is it sustainable

11 May 1999 : Column 212

to have no tuition fees in Scottish universities, but to have them in England--or for Scottish students to be given money amounting to the fees, so that they can go to any university in the United Kingdom, while English students are not given that opportunity?

Miss Begg: Perhaps the Scottish Tory party should have addressed those issues before it went into an election with the policy of abolishing tuition fees.

Mr. Evans: The issues have been dealt by the Conservative party in Scotland, as the hon. Lady knows. What I am pointing out are the anomalies that will exist in Scotland as a result of devolution. The position on tuition fees will be completely different in Scotland and in England. Does the hon. Lady really think that that will be sustainable? Her Government's policy is that tuition fees should be imposed on all students in England, yet in Scotland there will be no tuition fees.

I shall be interested to see whether the Liberal Democrats stick to their guns in Scotland. One Liberal Democrat member said:

"There is going to be no backing down on this. If we roll over on this demand, we will be the laughing stock of Scotland."

The Liberal Democrats do not seem to have noticed that it is the Government who are the laughing stock of Scotland.

Then there is the policy on beef on the bone in Wales. Tomorrow, Rod Richards will table the motion that that ban should be lifted in Wales. I shall be interested to see whether the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru stick to their guns. During the election campaign, they said that they would support that policy. When the Welsh Assembly meets and discusses the motion, we shall see whether they support it.

T-bone steak will be the national dish of Wales. We know that the Secretary of State for Wales likes beef on the bone, although he cannot always recognise it, even when he is eating it. The absurd image of the meat police at the Severn bridge, turning people back with their beef on the bone, does not bear thinking about. Whitbread inns in Bristol will have no beef on the bone on their menu, but Whitbread restaurants in Newport will have it on the menu.

We want to know what will happen in Scotland with regard to tuition fees, and what will happen if the ban on beef on the bone is lifted in Wales. The Government cannot continue to shy away from answering the questions, as the Minister did in her opening remarks. It is shameful.

There is the problem of England. The West Lothian question has always been acknowledged, but it has never been addressed. What will happen? The right hon. Lady said that referendums will be held in the regions. It is as though she recognises that Scotland is a country, Wales is a country, but England is not--England is made up of various regions. That is not a consistent line, and she knows it.

Mrs. Liddell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the policy of his party to establish an English Parliament?

Mr. Evans: No, it is not. If the hon. Lady wishes to change places with me, I should be happy to sit where she

11 May 1999 : Column 213

is sitting and make the real decisions that are necessary. When one is in government, one must make real decisions, but she is failing to do so. She is promoting referendums in the regions of England, but she is not prepared to accept that there is an English identity.

We know the views of the Liberal Democrats. I debated with one on Sunday, who said that they wanted English regions, and that the regions could have tax-raising or tax-varying powers. That means that the tax rate in the north-west of England could be 3p more than in the north-east or the south-west of England.

Mr. Maclennan: Those are our policies.

Mr. Evans: We know that those are the right hon. Gentleman's policies, and we are delighted to give them more publicity, as they are absurd.

Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is growing regional consciousness in England, with the regional development agencies and the regional chambers, at least one third of whose membership comprises non-elected social partners? Does he recognise that central powers are increasingly going to regional offices, and that the only thing that is missing is full democratic accountability? Does he accept the importance of the English regions?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady obviously lives in a different part of the north-west from me. As I was going around at the recent local elections, people did not say that they wanted a regional assembly elected in the north-west. They are certainly concerned about what is happening in Scotland and Wales.

What will the hon. Lady say to her constituents if the West Lothian question is not properly addressed? There could be a time when Scottish Members of Parliament could outvote her on issues that are purely English and Welsh, whereas she could have no say in what was happening in Scotland. Indeed, even a Scottish Member could not have a say in what was happening in Scotland. She knows that there is a real problem. She has acknowledged it, but the Government are not prepared to deal with it.

---