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

My Lords, the noble Lord’s proposal would compound the very problem that Enoch Powell foresaw. The only logical solutions to the West Lothian question are home rule for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—which would, by definition, mean the disintegration of the United Kingdom—or a partial but consistent devolution throughout the United Kingdom. But as we know, there is no demand for an English Parliament. However many times Conservatives may argue that the situation created by devolution is indefensible and inequitable—the words of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor—English voters, English citizens, remain unmoved by that argument. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s powers of seduction, voters in the north-east slapped down his proposition for a regional assembly. That was their right. For the time being, at least, regional assemblies are going nowhere. That may change because, as my noble friend Lord Judd noted, there is a problem about the unaccountability of regional development agencies. I am in favour of gradualism in matters of constitutional change. I am against schematic solutions. For that reason, I disagree with my noble friends who have recommended having a royal commission. The remedy, as my noble friend Lady Adams said, is in the hands of the English. If they wish to grasp that remedy, they will do so in due course. The West Lothian question is the wrong question to ask, as my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine once said. There is no need to try to answer it, now or for the foreseeable future unless, as a Conservative, you are very worried about the inability of your party to win seats in Scotland and Wales. But in terms of the real interests of the United Kingdom, I think we can accept that the West Lothian question is a conundrum of great but abstract beauty which need detain only constitutional anoraks and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is far too stylish to be an anorak. There are problems about how we are to legislate in the context of devolution. Having represented a Welsh constituency, I am very aware that Wales-only legislation has not been adequately scrutinised by Westminster. If it is agreed between the Executives in Cardiff and Whitehall, it lands as a fait accompli on Wales. I believe that the answer to that lies in fuller participation by all Members of the House of Commons. But we will have an opportunity to examine these matters further when the Government of Wales Bill is brought before us. Meanwhile, the West Lothian question does not, I submit, bother our citizens overmuch. They know that devolution, by providing a focus for Scottish and Welsh identity within the United Kingdom, has strengthened the cohesion of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, quoted polls, but polls have shown that since devolution, more Scots say that they are proud to be Scots, while rejecting nationalism. My spies in Dorking tell me that nothing is further from the minds of the good people in the ““Baker’s Arms””. They want more freedom and more choice in education—the noble Lord raised that very point, anticipating the debates we will shortly have on education legislation—which the noble Lord denied them through his great, centralising Education Reform Act 1988, and they will not mind if they get more freedom and choice in education by grace of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament. As they enjoy their beer in the ““Baker’s Arms””, they enjoy stories that start, ““There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman”” because it is traditional for the nations of the British Isles to tease each other about their idiosyncrasies while happily accepting that we all remain Britons together. In Dorking, they recognise that Tony Blair, a Member of Parliament from County Durham, that remote palatinate, is a splendid Prime Minister. They look forward to Gordon Brown, every inch a Scotsman, representing a Scottish constituency, becoming Prime Minister. Dorking is not Dunfermline. They look forward to it, but they are not impatient. They say to themselves that among the political leaders they have most admired in our history, many have been Scots—Harold Macmillan, Alec Home, Robin Cook—and others Welsh—David Lloyd George, Nye Bevan, Neil Kinnock. So far from wanting Members of Parliament from Scotland or Wales to disengage from the great issues concerning the governance of England, they want the ablest Members of Parliament, from wherever they come, to be leaders of our politics. They do mind about some constitutional issues. They do not want regional assemblies, at least for now, but they want the restoration of real responsibility and authority to local government, which the noble Lord also denied them when he was Secretary of State. They are worried about a perceived decline in the standing of Parliament and politicians, but the noble Lord’s Bill would compound that problem. They are uneasy about the relationship between Parliament and the European Union and between Parliament and the judiciary. But in addressing himself to constitutional issues, the noble Lord has not chosen to address those great questions. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, as a Conservative and a historian, should introduce a measure such as this. A true Conservative—and I am objective in this matter, albeit a little partial because of my unregenerate sympathy with true conservatism—sees the strength of our constitution residing in its flexibility and its ability to accommodate and express the diversity of our United Kingdom. A true Conservative does not worry about anomalies and is not preoccupied with symmetry, consistency or uniformity. James VI and I was not bothered about such matters, nor were the framers of the Act of Union. So why, after centuries of historical experience and the forging of British identity, should we be now? To a Conservative, politics is not rooted in logic or even rationality but in an understanding of human nature and a pragmatic response to its distinctive and varied manifestations. The organic metaphor for the constitution has been the compelling metaphor for Conservatives, at least since Burke. We should allow our communities and nations to develop and express themselves in their distinctive institutions. Conservatives such as the noble Lord should not be putting forward a blueprint for constitutional change because he should recognise that authority is immanent in our ancient institutions. I have always admired the noble Lord’s virtuosity as a politician, but I had never before thought of him as a purist. When he was Home Secretary, he betrayed no embarrassment about the extension of the franchise by his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, to Britons living abroad. While police may have wanted to interview some of those expatriates on the Costa del Sol, the Conservative Party was busy canvassing their votes. If a retired Surrey businessman should be entitled to vote in a British general election, why should a Member of Parliament from a Welsh, Scottish or Irish constituency, duly elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not vote on all matters brought before the Parliament of the United Kingdom? I can only suppose that this measure brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is a spoof. It must be so, and I very much agree with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Judd: it is plainly unsuitable for the House of Lords to initiate legislation—radical legislation—imposing duties on the Speaker of the House of Commons and constraining the powers of Members of the House of Commons. The noble Lord has offered us elegant entertainment for this Friday morning and we should be grateful for that, but the Bill should not proceed.