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

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking on bringing forward the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, I have much enjoyed the debate. It reminds me very much of the debates that we used to have about Scotland long before the 1999 Act. Perhaps we should have such debates more regularly on matters that are naturally reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. I was rather stunned by the tone of the attacks on my noble friend—on his motives, his political record and on education. We have been told that he introduced the poll tax and caused the demise of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan even said that my noble friend was tasteless. Insults were rained down on his head for what is really a very humble measure. It is no exaggeration—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon—that it should never have been left to a private Member, either my noble friend here or Mr Frank Field in another place, to introduce the proposal to be resolved before Parliament. The Government should have dealt with it a long time ago. My noble friend and Mr Field represent different parties, and, as my noble friend reminded us, Mr Simon Hughes told the Herald on 18 January that, if he were elected as Liberal Democrat leader, he would prevent Liberal Democrat MPs who represented Scottish constituencies voting on English laws. That shows that concern on the issue runs across all parties. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Mr Hughes explains that policy to Sir Menzies Campbell. I listened in vain during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, to learn whether he agreed with Mr Hughes. I take it that he does not. Certainly, his partner in the historic Cook/Maclennan talks that promised so much, Robin Cook, saw the tremendous problems raised by the West Lothian question, although I am not sure that he came up with any better solution. In the Conservative Party, we agree with my noble friend Lord Baker that the West Lothian question needs to be addressed. Many noble Lords opposite accept that there is a problem but do not find my noble friend’s solution favourable. There are also noble Lords opposite, however, who do not believe that there is a problem at all: the head-in-the-sand approach. They are in denial. Well, they ought to wake up and see what is coming down the tracks. We agree emphatically that, now that there is a Scottish Parliament and the Parliament at Westminster no longer speaks for the whole of the United Kingdom on domestic policy matters, it is not sustainable for policy in England on matters that are devolved to Scotland to be decided by the votes of MPs representing Scottish constituencies. That is not a nationalist agenda; it is certainly not a Scottish nationalist agenda. There will come a time, and it may not be long, when English people simply will not accept that. I wholly accept that that is not the case at present, but the feeling is out there, and it is growing. Speaking as a Scot and a passionate supporter of the union, I regret that. It will happen, however, and the matter will be startlingly personified when—I refer to the brief interchange between by noble friend Lord Baker and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart—Mr Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, as we now gather will happen some time next year. It is possible, of course, that Mr Brown might take the Simon Hughes option and decide to set an example by not voting on English Bills. After all, the current Prime Minister sets a striking example of abstinence in the voting lobbies, as we discovered last week. Somehow, however, I do not think so. This intensely serious matter, which could be solved by a convention of not voting, in the same way as the noble and learned Lords of this House do not vote on political matters under the Bingham declaration, will therefore have to be solved by statute. I instinctively prefer convention to statute. It was that flexibility, for instance, that allowed us to save the recent Planning Act that Government carelessness had lost. However, this Government have never been comfortable with the role of convention in our constitution. I suspect that the only way around the problem is to look at statute to address the question. That law, my party believes, could and should be along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Baker. I am delighted that we have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—still the Lord Chancellor—with us this afternoon. Will he tell the House whether the Government will bring forward a Bill during this Parliament along the lines proposed by my noble friend? Can he give us an assurance that, if my noble friend succeeds in carrying his Bill through this House, the Government will not object to it when it is presented?