HC Deb 23 February 1998 vol 307 cc128-45
Dr. Fox

I beg to move amendment No. 258, in page 37, line 32, leave out from 'is' to end of line 33 and insert '120 per cent. of the electoral quota for England.'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss clause 81 stand part and the following: amendment No. 259, in clause 114, page 52, line 13, at beginning insert— 'Subject to subsection (3) below,'. No. 260, in page 52, line 17, at end add— '(3) With the exception of an order relating to section 81, no order may be made under subsection (1) until each House of Parliament has approved any draft Order in Council which may be required to give effect to the first report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to be submitted after 31st December 1997 under section 3(2) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.'. New clause 6—Restrictions on voting rights of Scottish members of House of Commons— 'As from the day on which the Parliament first meets, no member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Scotland shall be entitled to vote in that House on any matter certified by the Speaker as relating solely to another part, or other parts, of the United Kingdom.'. New clause 16—Restrictions on voting rights of Scottish members of House of Commons (No. 2)— 'Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Scotland may continue to participate in any vote in that House unless the Speaker deems the vote to relate to matters exclusive to England, or to England and Wales.'. New clause 19—Restriction on voting rights of Scottish Members (Committees on English Affairs)— '.—No member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Scotland shall be entitled to vote in, or participate in any other proceedings of, any committee of that House established under any enactment or by the Standing Orders of that House, the functions of which are to consider matters exclusively in relation to England which are not reserved matters within the terms of Schedule 5 to this Act.'.

Dr. Fox

In this, the off-peak part of the debate, some of us will have a chance to delineate arguments that will, no doubt, be taken further by hon. Members who wish to star in the peak viewing time part of the debate on the next day that we consider the Bill, but a few points need to be made at the outset.

We shall debate what has come to be known as the West Lothian question. It is worth pointing out at the outset that we have to get one thing into perspective. Despite what I think is often a distortion in the Scottish media, when we discuss constitutional relationships between Scotland and the rest of the UK, we in this House have to remember that Scotland constitutes 10 per cent. of the UK population and it is unacceptable to force a constitutional change on the rest of the UK because of what 10 per cent. of the population may want, however much it is their right to have that. We have to keep that in mind when we consider the possible alternatives and answers to that question.

There are two reasons for tabling this group of amendments. The first is to deal, or at least to address, the West Lothian question. It is not possible to deal with, or to answer, that question within the constitutional relationships that we are being asked to discuss. The second reason is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is set up in the most practical way possible.

As I have mentioned in a previous debate, the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked us to imagine the worst case scenario in all our considerations. That is what we seek to do in all our amendments—to minimise potential friction when the Scottish Parliament is set up.

There are two different parts to the West Lothian question. The first involves Scottish Members of Parliament of this House affecting and voting on English issues, where English Members of Parliament cannot affect the same issues in Scotland. The second part involves Scottish Members of Parliament in this House affecting English issues, when they themselves cannot affect Scottish issues in their constituencies, as a result of a devolved Parliament having been set up.

Mr. Swinney

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox

I have hardly said anything yet. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose intervention will be as relevant when I have said nothing as when I have said something.

Mr. Swinney

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. Will his arguments tonight be the same arguments deployed by the Conservative party at the next sitting of the Committee when this debate will be continued, bearing in mind that the Leader of the Opposition is making a landmark speech on this subject tomorrow evening?

Dr. Fox

There is obviously some confusion of terms if "generosity" is how the hon. Gentleman sees me registering despair—but, having heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I understand why. If the hon. Gentleman reads my right hon. Friend's speech, he will realise that the Conservative party has moved on. We have done so because events have moved on. We did not seek to have a debate on the changing constitutional relationships within the United Kingdom, but that debate has come about because of the result of the referendum. We campaigned, I believe honourably, for our point of view—that is what one does in a democracy—but that view was rejected and instead the Scottish electorate voted for the establishment of a Parliament, with tax-raising powers. That is where the debate now starts.

I say to one or two of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches and to some in my party outside the House that to talk of an evolutionary approach to the constitution, when the Government's agenda is to throw up the pieces of the jigsaw of constitution and hope that they fall down in something like a coherent manner, is no longer on the menu for our party. We must move on and address the issues as they are presented, and do so within the Government's time scale. However, that does not mean that we should not deal with the issues in an intellectually coherent manner. The debate that we are having is an inevitable result of what has happened in recent months, not least the election of a new Government.

The are several ways in which we can respond to the West Lothian question, but we cannot answer it. As I have said previously, there is no answer to the West Lothian question within devolution, because devolution pretends, wrongly, that we can change the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom without changing the relationship within the remainder of the United Kingdom.

We must do what we can to deal with the question, and several options are open to us. There is the option to do precisely nothing—to make no change to our arrangements here or to our other constitutional arrangements, and just wait and see what happens. That is not a particularly constructive approach.

There is the possibility of developing English regional assemblies, moving down the federal path. The small problem with that, and something I find rather interesting when studying the Scottish media, is that it appears to be of no importance to certain political traits in Scotland that there is no demand for English regional government. Indeed, there is so little appetite for the proposed regional development agencies—the precursors for English regional government—that we wonder whether, if regional government will ever come.

A third option would be to set up an English Parliament, a separate body elected in the same way as the Scottish Parliament and with devolved powers set out in the same manner as the devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament are set out in the Bill. We could also have designated English legislation—which is dealt with in new clause 16—but there are drawbacks to that proposal, which is favoured by many. Who will decide what is to be a designated English Bill? Should it be left to the discretion of Madam Speaker? It would be a heavy burden for any constitutional politician. If it is to be decided by a resolution of the House, would Scottish Members vote on what should be an English-designated Bill? The practical difficulties would be enormous.

Mr. Wallace

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decision on whether Bills should be sent, for example, to the Scottish Grand Committee, is made by Madam Speaker, who has to determine whether a Bill relates exclusively to Scotland. Why should Madam Speaker have any greater difficulty in determining whether a Bill relates exclusively to England?

Dr. Fox

That is a matter of degree. We have a Scottish Grand Committee. There could be an argument for an English Grand Committee operating in the same way, but there would be a problem of scale with such a Committee. That is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is not sensible to pretend that it does not exist if we are to have a rational debate on how to proceed. We could have English only—or English and Welsh only—sessions in the House, which would effectively be an English Grand Committee, as is suggested in new clause 19. All the options will have to be considered. If the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who is about to leave, would like a copy of the speech to be made tomorrow night by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I shall send him one, so that he does not feel that he has missed anything from the rest of the debate.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

As the principal Opposition spokesman on the amendment, my hon. Friend is rightly posing a series of questions. Is he aware that most Conservative Members of Parliament have a forthright view on the issue? We are not prepared to accept Scottish Members being able to come here to vote on matters over which we have no control in Scotland. They must accept either that such Bills should be marked or that their representation should be reduced. There is increasing anger on the Conservative Benches about that. We want the Government to address those issues firmly, properly and fairly.

Dr. Fox

My hon. Friend makes the points more clearly than I could. Devolution will inevitably create tension in the House and the United Kingdom unless the West Lothian question is addressed swiftly. There will be a feeling that Scottish Members have undue influence over affairs in England, with no reciprocal arrangement.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the poll tax? A majority of English Members voted through a tax that at one time applied only to Scotland. Does he recognise that at no time will Scots form a majority in this Chamber, as the English Tories did when they voted for the poll tax to operate in Scotland? Does he not accept that such behaviour, not the anomalies that we might have now, threatens the Union?

Dr. Fox

Several responses immediately come to mind. England accounts for around 90 per cent. of the UK population. It will inevitably provide the largest number of Members in a united Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that, in recent weeks and again tonight, he has voted for clauses that give the English Parliament the same rights to impose legislation like the poll tax that he so abhors. Clause 27(7) made that clear—

Mr. McAllion

Does the hon. Gentleman realise what he has just said? He said that we voted to give the English Parliament the right to legislate over Scotland. I hope that, as a Scotsman, he will retract that abhorrent statement and remind himself that this is the United Kingdom Parliament, not an English Parliament.

Dr. Fox

I meant the Union Parliament. One of the things that I hate most, particularly when I am watching football, is for the United Kingdom to be referred to as England. Even worse is Scotland being referred to as England.

Clause 27(7), which we debated recently, gives this House a right to legislate on all matters, including economic matters. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) voted for that power. If it is ever used, he should remember that. Even if I accepted what he said about undue influence in one direction—which I do not—there is no excuse for similar influence in the other direction. We must have a clear relationship with no potential for English Members of Parliament to feel that they have too little influence over affairs in other parts of the United Kingdom when Members of Parliament from that area have an influence over their constituencies. It is simply a matter of fairness, given that we have already started down the road of devolution. It is a matter of balance—[Interruption.] Hon. Members talk about fairness, but if they are as stubborn as those who refuse to accept that we have now entered a new constitutional landscape, it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom and play directly into the hands of the nationalists who seek to maximise friction through the Bill.

Mr. Salmond

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox

How could I mention Scottish nationalists without giving way to their current personification?

10.15 pm
Mr. Salmond

Personification—that is good; I quite like that. On the subject of friction, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, one of the hon. Gentleman's former—defeated—colleagues, said yesterday that if an English Grand Committee were set up and if the House overruled that Committee, he could see that leading to a constitutional crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if clause 27(7) were used to overrule a Scottish Parliament, that would lead to a constitutional crisis?

Dr. Fox

We remain a Union Parliament, and clause 27(7) simply states what we are—the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom. My former colleagues, like my current colleagues, are entitled to their views. It is a testament to the current resurgent intellectual health of the Conservative party that we are having such a wide-ranging and fruitful debate. [Interruption.] Of course I am smiling; I am looking forward to the future when, as a resurgent, intellectual Conservative party, we take more than a large share of seats in the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment No. 258 deals with the relative size of electorates.

Mr. Dalyell

It is just a thought, but would the hon. Gentleman have said that when he was a junior Foreign Office Minister?

Dr. Fox

As a junior Foreign Office Minister, I would not have presumed to say anything about Scotland. Given my departmental remit, I was happy to comment on the constitutional relationships in Sri Lanka and Nepal, but I would not have dared to stray on to the territory of the Scottish Office.

Amendment No. 258 deals with the relative size of the electorates who will return Members to this House. We have to ask in all seriousness why Scottish Members of Parliament should have the same size of electorate as proposed in the Bill to come to this House when they will not be dealing with the same work load as Members representing seats in England and Wales. The Scottish Members who come to this House will not be dealing with health or education, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, those issues take up two thirds of his work load. To tell the electorate that they must send a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons to do a third of the work that Members in England are doing would smack very much of snouts in the trough. I admit that that mentality is currently the hallmark of the Government, but it is not a sound constitutional model for the future.

Mr. William Cash (Stone)

My hon. Friend is deploying some very profound arguments. He has dealt with the West Lothian question, representation at Westminster, and the relationship between ourselves and the proposed Scottish Parliament. Will he explain why we are on a one-line Whip, given that we are debating a fundamental matter that affects the very future of the United Kingdom?

Dr. Fox

I think that it would be out of order to discuss such matters, and the party's internal organisation is not a matter for me at this point. or, with respect, for the Committee.

Amendments Nos. 259 and 260—[Interruption.] I have not eyes to see.

Mr. Salmond

Within the sight of the Committee, an hon. Member made an intervention and is now being spoken to by a Conservative Whip. I hope that no restraining influence is being used, against the procedures and wishes of the House.

The Chairman

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is in danger of compounding a felony.

Dr. Fox

I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was fully in favour of rehabilitation.

Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 deal with the timetable for the implementation of the Bill and the setting up the Scottish Parliament. We feel that it should not commence until the next report of the boundary commission as it affects Scotland. There is a simple, practical reason for that. The Scottish Parliament will be set up with about 129 MSPs. Yet, under clause 81, within the first term of the Scottish Parliament their number will be reduced. It does not seem a stable, practical basis for setting up a Parliament to say to the newly elected MSPs, "Off you go to Parliament, all 129 of you but, by the way, in the first term your numbers will be cut and some of you won't be there the second time around." That is hardly a recipe for harmony. Surely it makes sense to set up the Parliament with the numbers that will run for several terms. Would that not be a far more stable and sustainable basis on which to set up any new legislative body?

Sir Robert Smith

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the previous Government established a principle of exactly the opposite only a few years ago when they set up Aberdeenshire council with 47 councillors, only to inflict a boundary commission review increasing that number to 68?

Dr. Fox

If the hon. Gentleman found that so unpalatable, I am sure that he will support our amendment. Having experienced something that he did not like, he should try to avoid it happening again. That is what we are seeking to do. It is typical of the Liberal Democrats with their recent defector recruits—if I said defective, I apologise—the party for whom the Bells toll, that they should try to apply something that they do not like out of some bizarre sense of consistency, irrespective of the damage that it might do.

We are making a sound and practical proposal. As there will be a problem of relative over-representation in Scotland, why can we not have a single boundary change to establish the number of MSPs after the first election? Our amendments seek to introduce equality that does not exist in current legislation.

I am conscious of the time and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak as there are important issues to be considered. I know that my hon. Friends want to discuss some of the specific options in detail, but what is not on offer is that we do not address the West Lothian question. Some Labour Members profess themselves to be Unionists and I take no issue with their integrity on that, but if they wish to preserve the Union and want the new constitutional relationship to work, the problem must be addressed. Not addressing it will trigger a residual English nationalism which is just as potentially destructive for the Union as Scottish nationalism.

We all want to see patriotism in our politics, but we should avoid nationalism tinged with xenophobia. That is the issue which the House has to discuss and, if we get the arrangement wrong, it is not we who are doomed, but the Union itself.

Mr. McAllion

I shall be brief to allow the European experts to try to channel the debate into European byways, but I have to quarrel with the final sentiments of the hon. Member for Woodspring(Dr. Fox), who tried to draw a distinction between patriotism, which was wholly good, and nationalism, which was wholly bad. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it was a false distinction.

Nationalism is not a single beast. There are different varieties of nationalism. It can be well argued that some of the speeches by Conservative Members—particularly those who regard themselves as Eurosceptic—are nationalistic. It seems that British nationalism is fine, but any other nationalism—Scottish, Welsh or Irish—is bad. That is not an acceptable distinction. If I were to draw such a distinction, it would be between ethnic nationalism, which is bad and should be rejected wherever it raises its ugly head, and civic nationalism, which is a good and progressive force that can be found all over the world spreading democracy and increasing the rights of ordinary people whatever their ethnic background. It is civic nationalism which is wound up in the Bill—a nationalism that gives the people who live in Scotland, no matter who they are, the same democratic rights as can be expected by people living in any other democratic society.

I strongly oppose the Conservative amendments because, if they have a unifying theme, it is to punish the Scots—to have a go at the Scottish Members of Parliament who remain here after a devolved Parliament is established in Scotland. In one way or another, the amendments punish Scottish Members. Their constituencies have to be bigger than the constituencies of other Members of Parliament—the figure produced is 120 per cent. The Opposition do not want parity between Scottish, English and Welsh constituencies; they want Scottish constituencies to be bigger than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and they want the Scots to be treated differently from people living anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Collins

The hon. Gentleman is making a case for parity between all parts of the United Kingdom, but that is what we have now in the United Kingdom Parliament. It is Labour which seeks to break that parity by establishing a separate Parliament in one part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McAllion

We do not have parity: nor am I arguing for parity. But neither are the Opposition arguing for parity. They want to discriminate against Scotland. They want Scottish constituencies to be bigger than any other constituencies in this Parliament. I regard that as punitive against Scottish Members of this Parliament in that it treats them differently from any other Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is not a constructive attitude to be taken by the official Opposition at a time when they do not have a single Member representing a Scottish constituency.

Mr. Grieve

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but several amendments have been tabled and they would have different effects. Is not one of the central issues that although the Government have accepted that there will have to be a change in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, they will not accept that that change should be made at the same time as the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood starts? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is justified and that the over-representation thereafter should continue?

Mr. McAllion

I do not think that the change is justified at all. I remember that, for a long time when we were in opposition, we argued against any change in the constituencies and said that it was completely irrelevant to change the size of Scottish constituencies, because Scottish Members would still have a role to play in this Parliament.

In any case, changing the size of Scottish constituencies does not affect what the Conservatives identify as the West Lothian question. What does it matter whether there are 73, 58 or 49 Scottish Members of Parliament? They will still be doing the same thing to which the Opposition object—voting on English and Welsh matters. Changing their number is neither here nor there.

Mrs. Laing

The hon. Gentleman just said that Scottish Members of Parliament after the formation of the Scottish Parliament will be doing the same thing, but that is not true. They will not have nearly as many duties to perform on behalf on their constituencies as Members of Parliament currently have or as Members of Parliament who are not Scottish Members will continue to have after the Scottish Parliament has started, because so many matters will have been devolved to the Edinburgh Parliament.

Mr. McAllion

The hon. Lady completely misunderstands. Whichever Members get sent down from Scotland to represent Scottish constituencies in this Parliament will do exactly the same sort of work as other Members of Parliament. They will be here every night, voting in the Lobbies on every single issue and it is their right to do so, because this is a United Kingdom Parliament.

If the English people choose to have their domestic legislation dealt with in the United Kingdom Parliament, there is a price to pay for that choice. The price is this: whichever Members of that United Kingdom Parliament are here have a right to vote on that legislation. If the English Members do not like that, they have an alternative: they can go down the Scottish road, go back to their constituencies and around the country and argue for English devolution within a federal set-up. None of the Opposition Members have ever made any attempt whatsoever to do that. They have simply come here and whined and pined about how their rights as individual Back Benchers will be different from those of Scottish Members of Parliament. They should go back and talk to their constituents, because I do not detect anywhere in England the upsurge of feeling against Scotland that they talk about.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion

The hon. Lady is on her own—we all know that she is a bit benighted, but she is the only one who continually froths at the mouth about Scottish devolution. Even her own constituents are not that concerned about it, but I shall give way so as to allow her to froth once more.

Mrs. Gorman

I thank the hon. Gentleman for stopping frothing at the mouth for a moment. I rise only to point out that I have made the case in the House on a private Member's Bill for an English Parliament to mirror the powers, privileges and exemptions that the Scottish Parliament will have.

Mr. McAllion

I know that the hon. Lady has made the case in the House but how much campaigning has she done out on the stump around England? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who used to represent Glasgow, Cathcart, made some comment from a sedentary position that I could not hear. He paid the price for not listening to the campaign for Scottish devolution. He was kicked by his Scottish constituents. His was the first Tory head to roll because the Tories would not listen to what the Scottish people were saying. If they had paid attention when he lost his seat they might still have a presence in Scotland.

10.30 pm

The continual refusal to listen to what the Scottish people want explains why the Conservatives have collapsed in my country. I remember, or rather I have read in history books, that 60 or 70 years ago, Scottish Members moved legislation for a Scottish Parliament in this House. They were laughed at. No one paid any attention to them but that did not stop them. They campaigned, kept up the fight, spoke to others and kept the idea alive. At the end of the trail, we are debating what they fought for all those years ago. It is the absence of that sort of fight in England which means that the Tories have no right to tell us that we cannot have our Parliament now.

Mr. Salmond

Is not the hon. Gentleman underestimating the intellectual ferment that we were assured the Conservative party was in?

Mr. McAllion

I never underestimate the Conservatives; I thought that they might win some seats at the general election. I was proved wrong then and I am sure that I would be proved wrong now if I said that there was intellectual ferment among Conservative Members. They are all just sitting there like dummies. [Interruption.] Well, they are. I can only say what I can see, though I am not wearing my glasses.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

rose—

Mr. McAllion

The top dummy is up.

Mr. Howarth

I will see the hon. Gentleman outside afterwards, after that profoundly offensive remark. If he had not been such a dummy himself, sitting in the Tea Room or wherever it was—

The Chairman

Order. I think that a bad example has been set. I do not think that such words add to the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. Howarth

I am sure that they do not.

If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) had been here throughout our earlier proceedings, he would have seen that many of my hon. Friends participated in the debates and that the expression that he used was therefore wholly inappropriate.

Mr. McAllion

I was not here earlier because I was attending a meeting in Committee Room 10. I was not sitting in the Tea Room but was carrying out my duties as a constituency Member of Parliament, looking after foreign affairs and trying to stop the war in the Gulf. There are other issues that affect Scottish Members that would require them to come here to debate after we have our own Parliament in Scotland.

Dr. Fox

I hate to bring the hon. Gentleman back to real world, however temporarily, but when he says that he thinks that the demand for Scottish constitutional change was overlooked for too long in England, he is making exactly the same mistake in thinking that he can impose a view of constitutional change on the English without their having anything to say about it. It is a grave mistake to think that the English, who constitute 90 per cent. of the UK population, will not have a view. He is in danger, through his comments, of putting the Union at risk.

Mr. McAllion

It is an oxymoron to talk about bringing me back to the real world in a debate in this place. Nothing could be further from the real word than our debates. Labour Members are not imposing anything on the English people. It is for the English people to articulate their demand for English home rule. Conservative Members can sit here all night saying what they think, but they must remember that, at the general election, they were defeated in England, just as they were in Scotland. They do not represent the voice of the English people. What they call for is not what the English people are calling for. When the English people legitimately call for their own Parliament and home rule, the Labour party and Government will support it; they would be mad not to.

Mr. Hayes

Will the hon. Gentleman or, failing that, perhaps the Minister later comment on the issue first raised in the House on 1 February 1977 by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), then the hon. Member for West Lothian, about whether following devolution, Members of this House would have the right to raise questions that are within the jurisdiction of a Scottish Parliament? If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) cannot answer that, he is imposing significant restrictions on the rights of English Members.

Mr. McAllion

Any hon. Member would be entirely free to write to their equivalent Member of the Scottish Parliament and ask them to raise such issues in the Scottish Parliament. I am not trying to stop them doing that.

Devolution is a response to the democratic demands of the Scottish people. They have asked for their own home rule parliament. This Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided to honour the Labour party's manifesto commitment following the election of the Labour Government. There is nothing untoward in that. Conservative Members keep pointing out anomalies because a Scottish Parliament will exist in what used to be a unitary United Kingdom. Of course there are anomalies—but what about the anomalies before? When did we hear Conservative Members complaining about the way in which the poll tax and local government reorganisation were imposed on Scotland when nobody in Scotland wanted it? In the general election in 1992, 75 per cent. of the Scottish people voted against a Tory Government, but had one imposed on them. What about the sensibilities of Conservative Members then? There was not a whisper from them about any anomaly or inconsistency or anything being intolerable to the Scottish people.

I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. The amendments' unifying theme is very much in line with what the Tories did for the past 18 years in Scotland. It is against the Scottish people and against their interests. Their constituencies would have to be bigger, and when their MSPs were sent down here they would be stopped from taking part or voting in certain debates. That is not as bad as the poll tax and local government reorganisation, but it is in the same vein. The Conservative Opposition have yet to learn the lesson of the general election defeat. It is time that they started listening to people in the constituencies in which they are trying to be elected, instead of telling them what they should be thinking.

Mr. Cash

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a vast amount of money is being paid to the Scottish people as a result of the United Kingdom Parliament's decisions? Whether or not that is justified, it blows a hole in his argument. Furthermore, the amount of money that is being paid as a result of the Bill—the effect of giving jurisdiction to the Scottish Parliament with regard to education and all the range of reserved matters—indicates the huge gulf that the Government are creating between the Scottish people and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's argument is completely flawed because, on one hand, money is largely being provided by taxpayers south of the border, and on the other, jurisdiction is being given to the Scottish parliament. Is not that the very reason why the West Lothian question is so important and why Scottish Members should not be allowed to vote twice?

Mr. McAllion

That is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong when he says that the English are subsidising Scottish public expenditure. Earlier debates on the Bill have patently shown that to be false. He does not include in the calculations all the non-identifiable expenditure largely spent in the south-east of England, or North sea oil revenue, which has been used by the people in the south to subsidise mass unemployment for 20 years. There are all kinds of arguments. The West Lothian question is a problem only because it is a problem for the Conservative party. That is the nub of the argument.

Somebody mentioned that there was likely to be a speech tomorrow night by the Leader of the Opposition in which he will advocate that an English Grand Committee should be set up to deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] How do I know? The spin doctors are writing in the press. How do I know what my own party is saying? I have to read it in the papers. It is the only way I know what is happening in this world.

The Leader of the Opposition's speech brings into question the remarks made by Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, who used to be a very senior figure in the previous Government.

Hon. Members

Sir Malcolm.

Mr. Davidson

He did not beat his wife.

Mr. McAllion

The last thing that I want to do is to involve Sean Connery.

Malcolm Rifkind argued that were this Parliament to overrule the decisions of an English Grand Committee, it would lead to a constitutional crisis. I remember Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. Forsyth and others in the previous Parliament arguing that the answer to the Scottish problem was to set up a Scottish Grand Committee, which would be overruled when it suited the House of Commons. They did not see any constitutional crisis when they were in government. They only see constitutional crises when they are not in government. When will the Conservative party stop being an English nationalist party? There is no constituency even in England for such a party. The English people rumbled the Tories a long time ago. When will they begin a productive relationship with the peoples of this United Kingdom?

There is one amendment that I do not completely rule out—the one dealing with changing the boundaries for a Scottish Parliament. In the constitutional convention, there was a clear commitment on the part of all its members that there would be a separate boundary review for the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I will never accept that, just because the number of Scottish Members at Westminster is reduced, the number at the Scottish Parliament must automatically be reduced, too. We in the convention committed ourselves to honouring the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament by allowing them a separate boundary review. I hope that the Government will remain true to that commitment.

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman has reached an important point in his speech—[Laughter.] It is about the only important point in it. What he suggests is not, in fact, in the Bill. However many Scottish MPs are removed by the boundary review from this House, there will, under the Bill, be a commensurate reduction in directly elected seats and regional seats in the Scottish Parliament. That is what the Bill says: will the hon. Gentleman support the Bill?

Mr. McAllion

The clauses dealing with that were not debated tonight owing to the timetable, but it is a serious issue which will have to be debated. What the right hon. Gentleman describes does not tally with the commitment that the Labour party gave in the constitutional convention. We rightly make great play of honouring the commitments that we gave in that convention. Here is one commitment that we should honour; I shall continue to support it.

The Opposition are for ever saying that the English people are Unionists. Being Unionist is not the same as being anti-Scottish. That is a distinction which they fail to make. The Opposition seem to think it impossible to be a good Unionist without being prepared to put the boot into Scotland and Scottish interests. They cannot conceive of a kind of Unionism that operates with Scotland and England being partners in a reformed relationship, a very different one from the sort of Unionism that they used to represent many years ago. Their type of Unionism died at the 1997 general election.

If there is to be a Unionist future, it will be very different from anything the Opposition recognise. The sooner they understand that, the better.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

Although we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) for preventing war in the Gulf, as he apparently did in a Committee Room this evening, he may have made some mistakes when assessing the current situation. For instance, he made a vicious personal attack on me, saying that I had lost my seat in Scotland because I had failed to listen to people's views on devolution.

There are probably many reasons why I was thrown out of my seat, but, in 1979, there was a vigorous Conservative party in Scotland which was absolutely opposed to devolution. We fought the battle hard and wiped out the SNP from the House of Commons. The SNP's 11 Members of Parliament were knocked for six. Unfortunately, because the nationalist vote collapsed on that occasion, and because I depended on an adequate SNP vote, I was thrown out at the same time.

I had warned the Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, who had told me to eradicate the SNP, that that would mean eradicating me, too. It appears that she, having considered the bargain, was willing to take the risk.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman has cheered me up a great deal. I now realise that there was a silver lining to the 1979 general election result. He speaks of the SNP being eradicated at that election. True, we did not do very well; we had only two seats left. But eradication means having no seats, as the Conservatives in Scotland have now.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is right. Losing nine of 11 seats is a substantial reduction, shall we say? The lesson presumably was that supporting the nonsense of devolution does not necessarily knock the SNP for six.

I was also astonished by what the hon. Member for Dundee, East said about the size of constituencies. He said that we should not change the arrangements and have larger Scottish constituencies. I tried to understand the logic of that assertion. He seemed to be saying that my constituents who live in multi-storey flats are not as important as his constituents who might live in bungalows with big gardens. Trying to calculate an hon. Member's significance according to size of constituency or size of property would lead to constitutional madness.

10.45 pm

The hon. Gentleman said, finally, that if the English do not like the Bill, they can have their devolved Parliament too. Can there be a sillier answer? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has tabled an extremely sensible private Member's Bill that has made many people think about the issue, but why should we land ourselves with a separate assembly with lots of extra Members of Parliament all of whom want secretaries and researchers and to go on trips to the United States and Canada to study devolution there? Why should we undertake the huge responsibility of paying for all that?

One of these days, the hon. Gentleman will have to tell the people of Scotland what he has done to them, and the cost that they must pay for it.

Mr. McAllion

The hon. Gentleman is missing an important part of the scenario for England, which is the massive reduction of seats in this place. That would be warmly welcomed by people across the United Kingdom. The House of Lords could be turned into the House of 200, and that could be the federal Parliament, so we could do away with this House entirely.

Sir Teddy Taylor

I am trying to present a logical argument. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. I am told that the House of Lords has 1,500 members and is the cheapest assembly in the world. It may not be the most logical one, but it works, which the Scottish Parliament will not do for the United Kingdom.

I have noticed in the debates on Scottish devolution that every minute there is less enthusiasm for the idea. When we started, there was a huge amount of enthusiasm for a devolved Parliament, but now we see it fading away. Those who think about the matter seriously—there are some hon. Members on all Benches who think about it seriously—have suddenly realised the significance of clause 33.

The first time a Secretary of State tells the Scottish Parliament, "I'm sorry, that law is dead," that will be the beginning, as Scottish National party Members are well aware, of a deep division. When the Scottish Parliament says, "We believe that this is okay constitutionally," and the English Parliament says, "No, the legislation is dead," there will be a terrible problem. Having lived in Scotland for most of my life, I know what that will mean.

We have just been talking about taxes and the problems that will arise. Hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are well aware, as the Conservatives learnt to their cost, that the problem of SNP-ism—the problem of the desire for independence—is not solved by offering a halfway house. It does not work and it will not work.

Mr. Salmond

Is the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, then, that this Parliament cannot overrule a Scottish Parliament without division? Presumably this Parliament could not abolish a Scottish Parliament without division, so what is his conclusion?

Sir Teddy Taylor

My conclusion is that the structure of the devolved Parliament is such that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, it will lead to bitter division between Westminster and Edinburgh and will lead to the kind of fracas that will destroy our nation. The evidence is clear. The hon. Gentleman knows that, when devolution gets going, his party will have a great future. It may be good for Scotland; it may not. People should wake up to what will happen.

Mr. Hayes

Is not my hon. Friend drawing attention to what has been described as the balkanisation of Britain? It was described as such by John Strachey, who was the Member of Parliament for Dundee, West, I think. Perhaps that suggests that the west of Dundee has a greater propensity for intellectualism than the east.

Sir Teddy Taylor

John Strachey was in charge of food rationing and ran an admirable system whereby he saved public expenditure by making the food coupons so small that people who did not have glasses could not read them. That certainly saved expenditure, which was important.

If we are to proceed with the Bill, we must sort out the problem in a sensible way. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I have put forward a suggestion. If hon. Members do not like our idea, what do they suggest? In the old days—I am one of the oldest Members here—people used to face up to problems. A great chap called Gladstone was a wonderful Prime Minister and a Liberal Democrat. He introduced a Bill about Ireland in 1893. He wrote clearly and precisely in the Bill that the answer to his devolution proposal was to have no Irish Members in this Parliament. That caused a great deal of distress and concern in Ireland, but at least he faced up to the issue and said, "This is my idea."

Another great chap was Harold Wilson from the Labour party—in fact, he is one of my favourite Prime Ministers. He was not terribly popular with some, but I thought that he was a gem. He faced up to the situation. Unlike many in the Labour party, Harold Wilson was a gentleman. He said that the devolution problem could be solved if people "considered their position." Basically, he told the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland that, if they were to get devolution—which he thought was a good idea at the time—they must consider their position when issues are raised in this place that related not to Northern Ireland, but to England, Scotland or Wales.

Harold Wilson suggested tackling the problem through honour. He wanted all Northern Ireland Members to say, "This is not our business, so we will go home and study other matters or serve on a Committee and see if we can improve the situation in Northern Ireland." If everyone had been as honourable as Harold Wilson, there would have been no problem. Sadly, things do not work out like that. We simply cannot solve constitutional problems by appealing to people's honour—particularly in a narrow situation such as this.

So what can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I have made a suggestion in proposed new clause 6.

Mr. Dalyell

As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, I had several meetings in the middle 1970s with Harold Wilson about the devolution question. The difficulty—as he would eloquently put it—was that the Irish never failed to ask for certain favours in return, especially when it came to the nationalisation of steel and problems with the late Woodrow Wyatt and the late Desmond Donnelly. There is a price to pay for playing that game.

Sir Teddy Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He points out the logic of the situation: if we rely on people being gentlemanly, we sometimes find that the so-called gentlemen will exact their price. There was no steel in Northern Ireland, so the Irish Members of Parliament said, "If we are to act like gentlemen, we want something for it; if the Government have a narrow majority, we want something in return." That is the trouble with running things on the basis of all being gentlemen together. There will always be rascals: someone will say, "I'll be a gentleman if you pay my price"—which might be a trip to South America, a place on the Front Bench or dinner with one of the party Whips. There are many prices, and we cannot pay them all. That would prove very expensive indeed.

So what shall we do if we are not going to try to solve our problems by having dinner with the Chief Whip? The answer is simply that we must do something. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I have made a simple suggestion. New clause 6 says that, from the beginning of the new Scottish Parliament: no member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Scotland"— whether it has multi-storey flats, bungalows or anything else— shall be entitled to vote in that House on any matter … relating solely to another part … of the United Kingdom. That is a sensible suggestion.

Sir Robert Smith

While I appreciate that the principle behind the proposed new clause is sensible, does the hon. Gentleman realise that, for the first year, the Scottish Parliament will meet as a shadow Parliament with no responsibility for Scottish affairs, so the consequence of his new clause would be to allow English Members to have a say in Scottish affairs for one year while denying members of the Scottish Parliament any say in English affairs? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think about withdrawing his proposed new clause, which is flawed, while recognising that the Government may accept the principle behind it.

Sir Teddy Taylor

That is a very sensible and helpful suggestion. If, like the Liberal Democrats, the Government can respond positively, I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause. If the Government say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I have not got it exactly right, but that they accept the principle behind new clause 6 and promise to introduce an even more sensible measure that takes account of the problem, I shall happily withdraw it.

Mr. Davidson

Would the hon. Gentleman intend to apply the same principle to the Natonal Assembly for Wales, to London because of the London authority and to any northern assembly that might come about, or are we faced simply with an anti-Scottish measure?

Sir Teddy Taylor

In no sense is the amendment anti-Scottish. I am trying to protect the United Kingdom. I am trying to safeguard the people of Scotland and the people of England because I love them both equally. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of my being anti-Scottish.

I say to the hon. Gentleman honestly and seriously that if he thinks that we can have a similar answer for the regions, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. I know that he is a busy person who takes an interest in many things—perhaps helping the hon. Member for Dundee, East to stop war in the Gulf—but he should think about the English regions. No one wants them, apart from people in the north-east of England, who seem to think that a regional system will help them to receive the same Euro-subsidies as they get in Scotland.

Mr. Davidson

The hon. Gentleman says that no one, apart from people in the north of England, wants regional assemblies. Has he taken London into account? I am not clear whether his answer is a yes or a no. Would he extend the principle to other areas that might have a form of devolved structure?

Sir Teddy Taylor

If people do not want regional government, cannot afford it and see no benefit in it, given the limited amount of certainty that is left we shall not find the answer by following that course. No one is suggesting that regional authorities should have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. Those who follow these matters carefully will understand that these proposals are being shoved on us because of pressure from the European Union, which wants regions established throughout Europe and the abolition of democratic national Parliaments.

We must face the problem. If my suggestion is unacceptable, what should we do instead? We cannot look forward to the future with an Assembly that will do huge damage to the present Government and to Scotland, but if we are to have such an Assembly, let us not turn it into a constitutional nightmare. Unfortunately, we shall face such a nightmare if something is not done along the lines that I have suggested.

I appeal to the House of Commons to realise that something must be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I have openly, fairly and clearly made a suggestion. If we are wrong, what suggestion should take its place? If nothing is done the foreseeable nightmare will become even worse.

Mr. Dalyell

I shall reply in some detail and seriousness to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He said at the beginning of his speech that we are confronted with a problem that faced a man called Gladstone. That certainly was the case. Morley's biography of Gladstone describes in detail the problem that Morley called the problem of the ins and outs. Joseph Chamberlain followed, with similar results. The proposed answer was unworkable for a simple reason—there is such a thing as the Treasury.

It is all very well having dispensations and people acting honourably and saying, "All right, we won't vote on certain matters." If there is a Government with a large majority, that may be possible, but if there is a Government with anything like the majorities of the 1970s and the mid-1960s, that response is impossible because it becomes impossible to run any sort of economic policy.

So it was in Ireland. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East knows his history. What about Carson? Carson said that it would be impossible in terms of Dublin government—this was in 1912—because the ins and outs would not work. One listens seriously to the hon. Gentleman, but if his proposal had been a possibility and if it had been workable, those clever men John Smith and Bruce Milian, and those equally clever men Sir John Garlick and Sir Michael Quinlan, would surely have alighted on it in the mid-1970s, but they turned it down as unworkable.

I shall not insult the hon. Gentleman by saying that it is an old chestnut—[Interruption.] It is not often that a Whip comes to sit beside me. I have to say that I am wearing the wrong glasses. I cannot read what the Whip was indicating.

I am in the position of the night watchman. The truth is that the enterprise on which we are embarked remains one of peculiar and, perhaps, unique difficulty. It is hard to find any significant example of an established semi-federal state—one in which a substantial proportion of the population are governed—

It being Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.