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

My Lords, I said, first, that I preferred convention. If convention is not going to work, it will have to be statute. I also said that a solution would have to be along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Baker. There are some issues, however, that will no doubt be teased out in Committee. What is the noble and learned Lord going to do if the Bill gets to the House of Commons? Will he allow this Bill to be debated in another place, in the way that we have done today? I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a profound believer in the role of Parliament, and I am sure that he will want to encourage another place to have its say. For those reasons, I say little about the central premises of my noble friend’s Bill. He has, after all, expounded them clearly, and others have reinforced his arguments, with which I agree. I have no doubt, however, that those who say that the Speaker will not be able to find his way through Bills and decide which country they cover are wrong. The Speaker could be relied on to fulfil the role determined for him under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, and one or two other noble Lords mentioned the issue of this House. The problems do not arise in this House, however, as it is not, as yet, a representative House. Were it to be so, we would have to consider analogous arrangements or agree some convention to the same effect. My noble friend gave us some splendid examples of smoking and roads policies illustrating the present inequalities, but there are others. In recent Sessions, we have debated two intensely controversial issues—the imposition of tuition fees on English students and the creation of foundation hospitals in England. Those policies are devolved matters in Scotland and ones in which the Scottish Parliament would have no part. However, they passed through the other place only with the votes of Members representing Scottish constituencies. That was a reason—not the only reason—why I thought it right to recommend to my colleagues to invite the other place to think again. On both occasions, the issues were returned by the other place, after further consideration, with majorities that did not depend on the votes of Scottish MPs. If it had not been so, it is highly likely that there would have been more divisive comment and greater resentment from those in England who resisted those policies. That will eventually happen again in this Parliament, with its smaller government majority. It could happen again in the case of the impending education legislation, if the Prime Minister is not ready to accept Conservative support for constructive school reform. It could happen in respect of the legislation on identity cards, because the Scottish Parliament has declared that there will be no question of requiring people in Scotland to buy an ID card or accept electronic numbering and tagging before they have access to an NHS dentist or get a prescription. Yet, Scottish MPs may determine that English people will have to do just that. We have to proceed carefully, in full awareness of the potential of the West Lothian question to divide. Many noble Lords have spoken on that, but I say to those who have said that this is a nationalist agenda: the high-risk road is not legislating as my noble friend proposes but not legislating and letting matters drift on. We all recall the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg:"““I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian question is to stop asking it””.—[Official Report, 25/6/1999; col. 1201.]" We are not stopping asking it. Many in the House have asked it in a penetrating way today. Many people outside Parliament are asking it. My noble friend has provided not only an opportunity to debate but also perhaps the solution that we will come to in the end. I therefore hope that we can go one better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us what the Government’s answer is?