Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill [HL]

My Lords, although I do not support the Bill I welcome the debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in a sparkling speech which we all enjoyed. I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Adams of Craigielea on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her speak on many future occasions. I hope I will be forgiven for saying that I am just a wee bit suspicious that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has introduced the Bill more in mischief making than in trying to find a real solution to a genuine problem. I hope I do not shock the noble Lord when I say that I genuinely understand the concerns of some English Members of the House of Commons on this matter. Michael Ancram described the constitution as being ““unbalanced””, and I think that is a fair description. As next year is the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union—which makes this debate relatively topical—it may be appropriate to remind noble Lords opposite that before devolution, before the setting up of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scottish MPs and the Scottish people had to endure—not only for decades but for centuries—the anomaly whereby English MPs determined legislation which applied only to Scotland. That often meant, during what should be described as the Thatcher years, that Bills were pushed through which were total anathema to the majority of Scottish MPs and the people of Scotland. My noble friend Lord Elder referred to the poll tax being pushed through—and the fingerprints of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, are on that particular measure—which rubbed salt into the wound because it came to Scotland a year before it came to England and Wales. Another example is the reorganisation of local government in Scotland, where the Conservative government abolished popular regions such as Strathclyde and Lothian and introduced a new system which they thought would be of benefit to them. But it split up Ayrshire, for example, and was not popular in my own county. We had to endure that anomaly for centuries, so it is not a great disaster if the imbalance the other way lasts for a few years while we try to find a stable solution. But what the noble Lord has produced is not a stable solution. It is patchy, it is messy, it is unworkable and it is hasty. First, all current MPs were elected at the last election on the understanding that they would be Members of the House of Commons in a United Kingdom Parliament. We should not change that in the middle of a Parliament. As the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee, two classes of MPs—I think it would be more than two—would not work. The noble Lord should know that Bills have clauses, some which apply to England, some to Wales only, some to England and Wales, some to Great Britain and some to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Under the noble Lord’s Bill, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would be in and out like some kind of parliamentary hokey-cokey—it would be completely unworkable. Can the noble Lord say in his reply how he would suggest the Speaker might designate the Crossrail Bill or other Bills that apply only to London. Would only London MPs be allowed to vote on those Bills? How could the Speaker designate such Bills? There are a number of other examples.