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

My Lords, of course I recognise that there has been a major constitutional change. I addressed the issue of what most promotes the union. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, and supported by the Conservatives, far from promoting the union, damages the union. I do not see a problem that is solved by the Bill. I am gratified that there is not a soul in this House who supports him, apart from the Conservatives who, as I understand it, caused the problem in the first place. Our national Parliament is sovereign in all matters. If it is to continue to remain at the heart of our union, all its members must be able to consider any matter before Parliament. At the heart of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, in favour of the Bill, is the proposition that if English MPs cannot vote on devolved matters because they are dealt with in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, then non-English Members of Parliament should not be able to vote on comparable matters in the national Parliament. That is, as I understand it, though it was never put like that, the essence of his case. To have some Members who can vote on some issues while others can vote on everything indubitably creates a two-tier system of MPs. Such a proposal, despite the claim of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, to speak at one stage for the people of Scotland, has no groundswell of support, either in England or Scotland. That is unsurprising, because it has absolutely no basis in principle. Devolution happened in Wales and Scotland because their peoples wanted it. The people of England have not been the victim of proposals forced on them almost exclusively by Scots and Welsh MPs. If every one of the non-English MPs coalesced they could not outvote the English MPs. Only if well over 200 English MPs and every non-English MP voted for a proposal can it get through. The poll tax was forced as an experiment on the Scots. Is the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, surprised that the Scots wanted new arrangements? Fairness to the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish, coupled with strong local support, made devolution necessary. The preservation of the union made it necessary. There is no similar case for English devolution. The total disinterest that people in England show in this issue makes it clear that they realise that as well. Parity with Scotland and Wales does not remotely support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and inevitably his proposal would promote separation between England and the rest. Two tiers of MPs encourages separation. It undermines the coherence of the single most important national body. I really hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, enthusiastic as he was, would notice that the blandishments of the Scottish National Party might be pointing in a different direction from the position he wanted to go. He is blinded by symmetry from the dangerous road he is urging us to take. It is also contrary to our constitutional view of the role of our elected MPs. Of course they represent their constituencies, but they do something more. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, gave us a partial quote from Edmund Burke, who described the House of Commons as,"““a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole . . . You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament””." That appears to be a constitutional principle that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, wants to say goodbye to. It is critical to our constitution that MPs are about more than geographical or sectional interest. That has always been our constitutional principle. They must represent our national interest. All these principles show very clearly that the noble Lord’s proposal is lunacy, but the assertion of principle in this case is so clearly supported by thinking through the consequences of these proposals. At the heart of our constitution is the need for the executive to enjoy the confidence of the Commons. Having two classes of Members of Parliament means that the executive could enjoy the support of the majority on some issues, but not on others. There might be a majority for the government on defence or social security, but not on health and education. Whether there was a majority on the fight against terrorism would, in the mad, mad world of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, depend on the view which the Speaker expressed on individual clauses in an individual Bill, because the noble Lord envisages in his Bill that the Speaker could say that the scope of one clause was territorial right across the UK, but that another clause was limited to a particular part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord does not explain in his rip-roaring speech how this matter is to be dealt with. Do we have an executive that cannot carry their manifesto programme in the House, or does he envisage an English executive and a national executive? Do we envisage a Prime Minister who could speak on some issues, but if he was from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, he could not speak on other issues? The first course is chaos. The second course is separation, or a significant step towards it. Not one aspect of this has been thought through by the noble Lord, but the idiocies of this Bill go much deeper than that. It envisages that the Speaker will certify those Bills on which only English MPs can vote. The Barnett formula provides that Scotland and Wales get a proportion of English expenditure on devolved issues. Any Bill, or any provision of a Bill that could affect expenditure on a devolved issue, will affect expenditure in Scotland and Wales. Most provisions in health or education Bills will have such an effect. It would be wrong in principle, and I am quite sure that even in the mad, mad world of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, he does not intend that the non-English should be deprived of the ability to vote on something which so significantly affected their financial position. Parliament has at its heart the issue of supply, determining how the national cake should be cut. To exclude the non-English from voting on issues central to that is unthinkable. I would be interested to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, on that aspect of his proposal when he winds up. Then there are the cross-border issues, which the noble Lord dismissed, treating Ireland as similar to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in their relationship. I do not think that the relationship is the same. I do not think for one moment that the relationship between the countries that make up our country is the same as the relationship between the United Kingdom and France, which he gave as an example. In a nation that encourages people to cross borders, there are bound to be cross-border issues. How we deal with supply, cross-border issues and issues where a successful approach is one that crosses the line between reserved and devolved issues is not addressed. These issues all need a national parliament. The point, as I say, has not been lost on those who oppose the union, and I cannot do better than to quote Mr Peter Wishart of the Scottish National Party, who made the point that his party is at one with the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. Where does this recipe for chaos, which the noble Lord proposes, end? His Bill is called the Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill. Why stop at the House of Commons? He says that this is not a representative House, and that the principle that underlies his Bill in the Commons—namely that Members of that House cannot vote on Scottish and Welsh domestic issues—therefore does not apply here. I am afraid that it does, as a matter of principle. If the noble Lord is after symmetry, it would apply, because, as I understand it, the constitutional principle that underlies it is symmetry. So we would have a two-tier House of Lords. Just think what we would lose. We would lose the excellent Question on breast cancer posed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Thursday. Where would that leave the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? As he told us proudly, he is Scottish to his fingertips. Wherever Strathclyde is, it is in Scotland. Would the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, be the Leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords or would another noble Lord be the Leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords (England)? Who could that be? It could not be the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which may be a relief to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Could it be the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking? We were worried that it could not be, until the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, told us that Monmouth was in England, so perhaps it could be. That is the route that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, wishes us to follow. A moment’s thought tells us that it is unthought out and anti-unionist. The most sinister aspect of today’s debate is that it represents, as I see it, a sea change in the Conservative Party’s position in relation to it. Ernie Bevin once said that you do not want to open that Pandora’s box, because you never know what Trojan horses will jump out. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, attractive as his enthusiasm is, to think again about the union of this country and to take this Bill and remove it from Parliament.