Scottish Constituencies (Members' Voting Rights)

HC Deb 21 January 2004 vol 416 cc1389-443

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

4.18 pm

Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)

I beg to move, That this House deplores the practice of Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on bills concerning issues that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, especially those which introduce in England measures that have been rejected in Scotland; condemns the unfairness that this represents to those in English constituencies and the Government's failure to address the problem; notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation; calls on other Right honourable and honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies similarly to abstain from such votes; and believes that the fairest long-term solution is for bills on areas of policy which have been devolved to Scotland to be so ratified by the Speaker and for Right honourable and honourable Members from Scottish constituencies to abstain from voting on such bills. The Scotland Act was passed on 19 November 1998, and it was greeted with a general welcome north of the border. Scotland would have its first Parliament for 300 years, and a new political landscape unfolded in Scotland. No longer would we Scots be able to put our failings entirely down to the failings of Westminster; we could deal adequately with our unique political and social issues. No longer could the carping continue. Within the powers of the new Scottish Parliament lay the ability radically to influence our own nation. Rightly, the Scottish nation wanted, and received, the ability to direct its own course on a whole raft of policy issues.

Several hon. Members

rose

Mr. Duncan

The motion is about ensuring that devolution works. The Scottish Parliament is here to stay—all £400 million-worth of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The only other option for Scotland is to follow the policies of separatism and independence, so often rejected by the Scots electorate. We wish to give no further oxygen to the separatists and nationalists, and that is why we want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's continued failure to address the West Lothian question.

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I welcome his wish to give no extra oxygen to the forces of separatism. Does he therefore agree with the comments of his boss, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)? A couple of years ago, in opposing a ten-minute Bill moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the right hon. Gentleman said: If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairs—assuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt—we could let loose forces which, if ruthlessly exploited, could make us strangers to ourselves."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 925.] Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion would achieve precisely that?

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman will find out shortly whether I agree.

Put simply, it does nothing for the cause of stable devolution and good government across the United Kingdom for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies such as my own to continue to seek to vote on legislation in this House for which the equivalent power has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

It is somehow appropriate that we are bringing the matter to the attention of the House today in the week following the announcement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he will not seek re-election. The fact that we face the prospect of the architect of the West Lothian question leaving the House before his constitutional dilemma is properly addressed is an indictment that we must try to avoid. The outside world recognised long ago that this constitutional outrage would have to be addressed. Indeed, in 1998 The Herald interviewed the hon. Gentleman, who is now Father of the House, and he said: It was in 1997, and I kept asking how can I vote on education in Accrington but not Armadale, local government in Birmingham but not Bathgate, health in Liverpool but not Linlithgow. When responding to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, Enoch Powell christened that "the West Lothian question". Twenty-seven years later, it is high time the hon. Gentleman had an answer.

Of course the Government have their own solution. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in the Daily Mail on 17 July 1999: now that we have devolution up and running, I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian Question is to stop asking it.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan

As the Scottish Parliament enters its sixth year, it is legitimate to ask why the Government have completely failed to address that question. It is really not that difficult. The Scottish people themselves realise that the issue must be addressed before it further undermines the new constitutional settlement.

Several hon. Members

rose

Mr. Duncan

I was interested to read in a recent newspaper poll that a clear majority of Scots back our view that hon. Members with seats in Scotland should abstain on devolved matters. It is unusual for this Government to be so dismissive of opinion polls. We are well used to them being dismissive of their own manifesto commitments, but suddenly public opinion in Scotland does not seem to matter either.

Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD)

When the hon. Gentleman visited my constituency recently, he will have been aware of the presence of St. Andrews university. Is he seriously suggesting that, if it is my considered judgment that the passing into law of the

Higher Education Bill would have long-term implications for that university and its students, I should abstain next Tuesday evening?

Mr. Duncan

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn shortly why I feel that he should abstain. The Scottish Parliament has made its decision on tuition fees, and I will come to that shortly.

Devolution, as Scots know, has reached a fork in the road. We can do as the Government would hope, and keep our hands firmly buried in the sand—failing to accept the natural consequences of devolution and putting the stability of the settlement at risk—or recognise that devolution has moved Scotland on.[Interruption.] Government Members might do well to listen. Devolution has moved both Scotland and the United Kingdom on—

Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South) (Lab)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries) (Lab)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan

We must accept the consequences—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that the House has had a demonstration that the hon. Member at the Dispatch Box will indicate when he is giving way. If he does not wish to give way, that has to be respected. In addition, it would be better if we had less sedentary barracking.

Mr. Duncan

Do we recognise that devolution has moved Scotland and the United Kingdom on, accept its consequences and thus build it on a stronger foundation?

Let us review why we have reached this fork in the road at this time. The point is that the Government have so lamentably lost control of their own Back Benchers that rebellions are regular and their huge majority faces constant threat. The last occasion on which the fork in the road was clearly in focus was in November last year, when the House faced a choice on whether to introduce foundation hospitals in England and Wales. Despite the fact that that part of health policy is clearly a devolved power, the Government survived the vote only with the assistance of their Scottish Lobby fodder on their Back Benches. Even though the decision on whether to introduce that policy for their constituents was clearly within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Members saw fit to troop lamely through the Lobby and save the day for their beleaguered Prime Minister.

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He referred to the vote on foundation hospitals. Does he remember that, when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was shadow Health Secretary, he said that after devolution he could not fill the role of an English Health Secretary dealing with English health matters? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not alone in making that argument.

Mr. Duncan

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The irony continued: not only did Scottish Members vote on foundation hospitals, but they followed through the Lobby a Secretary of State for Health who represents a constituency to which he did have to answer for that policy.

That travesty was made even worse by the knowledge that the Scottish Labour party, of which those hon. Members are such loyal servants, had explicitly ruled out a similar policy in Scotland. In the Scottish Parliament, David McLetchie MSP asked the First Minister: Will the First Minister … follow the lead of the Prime Minister by setting up foundation hospitals? The First Minister replied: We share the objectives and the end result, but the processes in Scotland and in England are, quite rightly, different. There are different education systems in Scotland than there are in England and there are different health structures. We are a smaller country. We can do it even better. We can be bold and radical and we can ensure that we make a difference."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 3 October 2002; c. 14411.] That is as near as the First Minister gets to a straight answer, but it shows how entirely duplicitous the Scottish Labour party has become.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) (Lab)

The hon. Gentleman has been talking for almost 10 minutes, but he has not mentioned Northern Ireland. It is strange that he attacks Scottish Members of Parliament but not Northern Ireland Members. Why is that?

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is currently no devolution in Northern Ireland. I shall address that point in due course.

David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members

Give way!

Mr. Duncan

Here we learn the extent of Labour's undermining of the Union—a policy that Scottish Members are not willing to countenance for their own constituencies, but which they are willing to impose on England and Wales. Is it any wonder that resentment is now building against Tony's tartan army?

Mr. Salmond

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burnside

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan

I give way to the hon. Gentleman at the back.

Hon. Members

Oh!

David Burnside

Is the hon. Gentleman in any way concerned that his historical and traditional allies, the Ulster Unionists, who were once part of the Conservative and Unionist party, feel unable to support the motion for fundamental constitutional reasons, and will go into the Lobby with Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Duncan

I am genuinely sorry to hear that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that devolution is now settled and stable in Scotland, but regrettably the situation is different in Northern Ireland.

I abstained in the Division on foundation hospitals, and am happy to accept that, as a consequence of devolution, the decision on foundation hospitals in Scotland should be made by the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Russell Brown

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I have asked him many times before and to which he has never responded. People who live at the eastern end of my constituency do not depend on Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary for hospital care; they depend on the Cumberland infirmary at Carlisle. Was I wrong to vote for foundation hospitals, bearing in mind the fact that my constituents depend on an English health authority for health service provision?

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues, is seeking to deny devolution and the fact that it created that situation. It is extraordinary that the Labour party in Scotland sought to gain political advantage from devolution, but now that it is in place it is seeking to avoid the logical consequence of its decision. The foundation hospitals vote exposed another U-turn by the Scottish National party. Strangely for the nationalists, they had adopted a principled stance and decided not to vote on devolved issues. However, when they smelt blood on the issue of foundation hospitals they adopted an opportunistic stance, and voted with the aim of defeating the Government.

The House should be aware that the actions of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues then and now are designed to destabilise the constitutional settlement. However, a brief analysis of the separatist position exposes their ridiculous hypocrisy and opportunism. If Scotland were an independent country as the nationalists wish, they would not even be represented in the House and would have no say whatever in what England decided to do with its university system. If England introduced top-up fees, the effect on an independent Scotland would be the same as it would be if the Government won Tuesday's vote. Are we to assume that for the purposes of this issue SNP Members are happy to be part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Salmond

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has realised that a consequence of independence is that there would be no Scottish MPs at Westminster. However, to pursue a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times in this Parliament on English legislation, some of which, such as the Mersey Tunnels Bill, would have no financial consequences for Scotland whatever. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has pointed out, the Higher Education Bill has direct consequences for Scotland. How can the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale abstain on things that are of vital interest to Scotland yet vote on things in which Scotland has no interest?

Mr. Duncan

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that later in my argument. There is a simple resolution to the problem. The Speaker should certificate which Bills are, or are not, devolved, and Members of Parliament from Scotland should vote accordingly.

The rationale of the nationalists' position is that they would only ever vote when higher public expenditure in England and Wales was possible, provided that that would result in greater funds for the Scottish Executive. That is unsustainable and will not work. It is designed with one objective in mind—the undermining of the United Kingdom. On that basis, I am happy to oppose the nationalists' view.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op)

On the classification of Bills, does the hon. Gentleman remember how he voted on the Second Reading of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? How will he vote on Report, as all but three clauses apply to England and Wales, three clauses apply to Scotland and three to the whole United Kingdom? If we adopt the procedure that he suggests on Report we will have a legislative hokey-cokey—"I'll vote on this but not on that"—which is ridiculous and unworkable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. No one is going to start a hokey-cokey while I am in the Chair.

Mr. Duncan

The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is getting excited on his birthday, and has forgotten that that Bill has already completed its Report stage. It is obvious that a Member of Parliament from Scotland should vote on clauses with an element that is applicable to Scotland, but otherwise should not. The simple issue is whether Mr. Speaker should be given the ability to certificate Bills—could he do so, much of the confusion would end.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con)

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) complained that he would not be able to vote on an issue affecting patients in his constituency who attend hospitals in England. The same applies to me, because I cannot vote on issues involving patients in my constituency who travel to Borders general hospital at Melrose.

Mr. Duncan

My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. That is called devolution—or that is what the Government led us to believe. We pointed out such difficulties at the time, but they now seek to deny them.

The next test of double standards in Scottish politics will come next Tuesday, when the House makes its long-awaited decision on the Higher Education Bill. Much of the comment over the past few days has centred on the belief that there will be a cross-border effect in the top-up fees vote. It is suggested that Scottish universities will be substantially affected and that Scots students will pay the fees when attending higher education institutions south of the border. I agree. I speak as a Scot who graduated with some pride from the University of Birmingham, where some of the most active student groups were those of the Scots.

I entirely accept that whatever the result in the House, universities in Scotland will have to respond and compete. The Scottish Executive will have to review their policies to ensure that Scottish institutions of tertiary education are not disadvantaged—indeed, that they can be made to flourish in an increasingly competitive market. But that is for the Scottish

Executive to decide—that was the result of the passing of the Scotland Act 1998. There are inevitably cross-border effects: the only way of preventing them is to ensure that all policies are the same across the UK. Devolution was—and is—about allowing things to be different. There was a cross-border effect when the Scottish Parliament took its decision on tuition fees in 2001. The stage 3 vote was taken on 29 March that year. Students from outside Scotland, within the UK, found that their own Member of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) must be one such—was unable to influence the new financial arrangements. I am sure that many hon. Members south of the border received correspondence from constituents on that point, but were unable to participate in the vote. It is called devolution, and it needs to work.

One can imagine the constitutional crisis that would have ensued if English and Welsh Members had sought to change that decision. They would have been accused of denying Scotland its rightful post-devolution say in higher education. The same Scots MPs who will make up the lobby fodder for the Government next Tuesday would have hounded them. I restate the call made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on Sunday: in the interests of students across the UK, and of stable and successful devolution, hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies should abstain from the vote next Tuesday.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) (Lab)

Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether the Leader of the Opposition is advising Tory Members in the House of Lords to abstain on such votes?

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that Members of the House of Lords do not have constituencies—that is the difference.

We have never pretended that these are easy issues. They are as difficult now as they were in 1977, and they will not get any easier if the House postpones addressing them. I point particularly to the fact that it is not always clear whether an equivalent power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. How much more straightforward it would be if Mr. Speaker were to certificate on each Bill whether it exclusively concerned matters of policy devolved to the Scottish Parliament: that would make the position entirely clear and transparent.

I commend that suggestion to the Government. Not least, it might assist them in making an accurate analysis of my voting record. We certificate each piece of legislation as being, for example, compliant with the European convention on human rights. Some Labour Members suggest that it would be too complicated for the Speaker to certificate in that way. I reject that suggestion, and I suspect that you do, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Once Mr. Speaker had certificated legislation, we would expect hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to abstain on Divisions by voluntary convention. I urge Members on both sides of the House to recognise the advantages of such a move.

Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is proposing a part-time Member of Parliament who would not take part in all the work of the House. If he does not want to participate in work on English legislation, will he take a pay cut?

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman raises a particular issue. I have said that salaries for Members of Parliament are not an issue for Members of Parliament. I am content for the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider that matter, and no doubt it will comment in due course.

Several hon. Members

rose

Mr. Duncan

I will give way, for the final time, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. If I have understood his argument, he wants to see devolution work in a sustained and stable way. Will he therefore confirm that he would like to see the fulfilment of the devolution settlement in Wales by further devolution? Will he also confirm that Conservative policy is that any future Conservative MP sent here from Wales will not be permitted to vote on issues that do not apply to Wales?

Mr. Duncan

As far as Wales is concerned, obviously we are awaiting the Richards report, which we will consider in due course. As for MPs from Wales, the hon. Gentleman knows that there is currently a significant difference between devolution in Scotland and devolution in Wales. The key issue is that the Scottish Parliament has the ability to legislate.

This morning, President Bush delivered his state of the union address. Like the UK, the United States of America is a union founded on mutual consent and respect among its constituent parts, so it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the state of our Union.

Too many hon. Members have not accepted that the rules of the game have changed since devolution. It is unacceptable and unsustainable for hon. Members from Scotland to continue to force through legislation that is unwanted by the majority of hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by it. Such constitutionally cavalier behaviour merely breeds resentment, which one must concede is perfectly understandable.

Devolution will never be deemed a success until that constitutional imbalance is addressed though a Bill certification system. Until that happens, it is incumbent on hon. Members with Scottish constituencies to examine the potential consequences of their actions. We know that the nationalists have their own agenda, but I urge Unionist Members from Scotland to stop playing into the hands of those who wish to see our Union brought to its knees. Devolution is about answering the difficult questions as well as the easy ones; the West Lothian question must be answered before very much longer.

4.43 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire)

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end and add

believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.". It is not often that I have this affliction, but what we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has almost left me speechless. I want to be generous to him, but there has never been a better example of an hon. Member bumbling into a situation that he cannot get out of.

I am faced with the dilemma of how seriously to take the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman. For reasons that I shall outline, it is hard to debate the motion, which was advanced by the Conservative and Unionist party. The hon. Gentleman's principled position is not really principled, because—as hon. Members have already identified—his voting record shows how often he has breached that principle.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mrs. McGuire

Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's mother is a constituent of mine, so I would be afraid to return to my constituency if I did not take an intervention from him. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I do it in my time, not his.

Labour Members firmly believe in the importance of constitutional principles, not the fly-by-night principles that the Conservative party outlined. We believe in the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster and that all hon. Members should have equal rights and equal responsibilities. Those responsibilities are exercised on behalf of the United Kingdom, not simply on a constituency basis.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mrs. McGuire

I shall take an intervention from the former shadow spokesperson for Scotland, who did the job from Beckenham.

Mrs. Lait

I am most grateful. Although much of my family lives in Scotland, the Under-Secretary will be pleased to know that no members live in her constituency.

What is the point of principle in reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland in Westminster and maintaining the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? The purpose is merely to continue to dominate the Scottish economy.

Mrs. McGuire

That is a debate for another day.

We believe that there is a delicate balance in our constitution between the Executive and the legislature and between the centre and the nations and regions of our country. The constitution should be flexible enough to accommodate change while maintaining that internal balance. The Conservative party should consider that seriously, especially in view of the advice that it is getting from the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale One.

The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale claims that he will not vote on so-called English issues. He and the Leader of the Opposition have paraded that so-called principle around the country's newsrooms. It fair put me off my breakfast on Sunday morning. However, as many other hon. Members have said, closer inspection sees that principled position unravelling before our eyes. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, we all know about the Mersey tunnel. Which part of the Mersey did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale believe to be in Scotland when he voted on that measure? How does he explain the principle behind his vote on top-up fees on 23 June 2003?

Mr. Gray

On behalf of my mother and the good people of Dunblane, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Why is she, as Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office, wherever that may be, replying to the debate, which is entirely about English votes on English matters? She mentioned the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland. How can he come to England and pontificate on motorways and Mersey tunnels when he claims to be a Scot?

Mrs. McGuire

Every boy is a mother's son, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that since the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale opened for the Opposition, it is perfectly logical for me to make a contribution.

Mr. Duncan

The Under-Secretary cited a vote on top-up fees. Will she be more generous and concede that that was not on legislation? It is perfectly legitimate for a Scottish Member to sign an early-day motion, but not to vote on legislation. That is the key point.

Mrs. McGuire

Let us consider deliberations on the Criminal Justice Bill last year. I have all the Divisions on English issues flagged. I say in a spirit of generosity that the hon. Gentleman has painted himself into a corner. On 23 June 2003, in a debate on English education, he said: I am not a regular participant in education debates in this Chamber for the obvious reason that Scottish education is largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This issue does affect me, however, as I have children in education in Scotland who may well attend a higher education institution in England".—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 755.]

I am a generous woman and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that to err is human, but I have to say that to err on more than 30 occasions—the most recent being on 18 November 2003—is neither divine nor human, but a blatant example of Conservative cynicism.

We have a feeling of déjà vu, given that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) debated this very subject in Westminster Hall just a few days ago. That debate was fully answered by the Deputy Leader of the House. Two debates on the same constitutional issue have taken place within a matter of days. Why? Not because the Opposition care about the constitution. Indeed, the fact that we are having a second debate in such a short time proves exactly the opposite.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab)

rose—

Mr. George Osborne

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

The Opposition are willing to take any course and ride roughshod over some of our most cherished and fundamental matters of principle, which underpin our constitution. That is the dangerous conundrum that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has got himself into today.

Mr. Pike

Does my hon. Friend believe that the Conservative party is so committed to devolution that Conservative Members would admit that it was totally wrong to allow Tory MPs to vote in strength to introduce the poll tax in Scotland during the 1983–87 Parliament?

Mrs. McGuire

With great respect to my hon. Friend, the poll tax unfairness was pre-devolution. However, the lesson of the poll tax is linked to what my hon. Friend says, because, by introducing general taxation in one part of the UK without introducing it universally, the Conservative Government upset the delicate balance between the regions of the United Kingdom—that is what they did.

Mr. George Osborne

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

Let me make some progress.

The Opposition must answer several fundamental questions in the debate. Why are they attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster? How do they believe that an Executive can carry on when a Government party of any colour is able to command a majority only on some issues, not on others? What alternative form of constitution do they propose? Are they asking us to choose between federalism, which may well be supported by the Liberal Democrats, and breaking up the Union? Is that what they want?

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)

The Minister referred earlier to what she described as opportunism. Is she aware that I, in common with all my hon. Friends, stood for Parliament at the last election on a manifesto that spoke of English votes for English matters—and that was before the Prime Minister had broken the promises that he made in the same election?[Interruption.]

Mrs. McGuire

The chorus says it all, and the hon. Gentleman's party lost.

I am rapidly coming to a conclusion: that the Conservative party sits in the Scottish Parliament, which it claims not to believe in; that Conservative Members' colleagues sit in the European Parliament, which they do not believe in; and I am now beginning to suspect that Conservative Members sit in this Parliament without believing in it.

Mr. Osborne

rose—

Ann McKechin (Glasgow, Maryhill) (Lab)

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the Opposition appear to have forgotten the terms of the code of conduct for Members of the House, which state that they have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents"?

Mrs. McGuire

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that appropriate comment on the record. I would hope that some Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Osborne

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

I want to make some progress.

The Opposition's argument today ignores constitutional principles. In view of the "principled" flim-flam that we heard from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I hate to tell him that his argument was constructed for short-term gain based on parliamentary arithmetic. He made that particularly clear towards the end of his speech.

Quite simply, the Opposition's argument is designed to remove the voting rights from a core group of MPs. The constitution should not be used in that way.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

I shall not give way, as I want to make some progress. I am aware that lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should like to leave them some time, so that we can get as many arguments on the record as possible.

The constitution of this country limits political power and balances the relationship between our institutions. We cannot, and should not, change it by adopting stupid procedural alterations that would have fundamental consequences. Have the Opposition really considered what their so-called simple suggestion would mean? It is bizarre for a Conservative and Unionist party to advocate proposals whose consequences could signal the end of the partnership that is the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

Clearly, this is not a short-term issue, as it has been bubbling away for the best part of 30 years. Will the Minister deal with the central problem—the lack of parity between Members of this House with Scottish constituencies and those with English constituencies? At the moment, Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English ones cannot vote on Scottish matters. Furthermore, that lack of parity is compounded by the fact that Scottish Members of this Parliament cannot vote on most Scottish issues. Does the Minister accept that some rebalancing of our procedures is needed, given that lack of parity?

Mrs. McGuire

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a very civilised manner, but he ignores the central aspect of the Opposition's argument—that there should be two classes of Members of Parliament in this House.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

We are getting into difficult territory, so I shall refer the House to the comments of one of our colleagues, who set out the consequences of the Opposition's position most effectively. He said: Let us imagine a situation … where the withdrawal of Scottish MPs left a majority on English matters in the House different from that of the UK Government. One would then, necessarily, end up with a Government elected on a manifesto significant parts of which they could not deliver, and a competing Administration, unable to deliver their manifesto because they could not command the business of the House, and would therefore depend on the opportunistic hijacking of the Government's proposals."— [Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 924.] That is very well put. That observation was made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—the shadow Secretary of State for local and devolved government.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made his remarks when opposing a Bill brought in under the ten-minute rule? Most of the Labour Members who voted on that Bill voted for the position advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, as he made a brilliant case for retaining this Parliament as a UK Parliament. It is unfortunate that his should be the second name on today's motion.

Mrs. McGuire

My hon. Friend encapsulates the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. The motion under debate undermines the arguments that he put forward then.

Mr. George Osborne

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. McGuire

No. I have said that I want to allow plenty of time for Back Benchers to make contributions.

This Parliament is a UK Parliament. It is a sovereign Parliament. It was sovereign before devolution, and remains so today. The Scotland Act 1998 states that explicitly. It is entirely alien to this Parliament that there should be two classes of Member.

Mr. Osborne

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. McGuire

No, I want to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think we need a little less excitement.

Mrs. McGuire

I remind the Opposition that the rights of the member nations of the UK have been debated in this House since the 18th century. The same conclusion has been reached time after time—that it is unacceptable to have different classes of Members in a UK Parliament.

Several hon. Members

rose

Mrs. McGuire

I think I have made it perfectly clear that I am going to take any more interventions at the moment.

We have before us an Opposition motion that has not been drafted in some treatise by Burke, by Gladstone or by some eminent royal commission, or as a result of considered cross-party discussion. It is a tawdry exercise by a party that, for potential short-term gain, wishes to ransom an arrangement that has stood the test of time in this House.

Mr. George Osborne

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. McGuire

No.

The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is leading his party down the road of supporting the nationalists, and he cannot get away from that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) asked the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale about one of the comments of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, whom I shall embarrass one more time. He said: I do fear that we shall be providing the weapon for an assault on the integrity of the Union … If we exclude Scottish MPs from our deliberations on purely English affairs—assuming that those can be isolated and defined, which I doubt".—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 325, c. 925.] Those are not my words, but the words of a leading member of the shadow Cabinet.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that the Government, by contrast with his party, have taken a principled position on how the electorate in Scotland are to be represented in this House. We have acknowledged the argument that Scotland is over-represented here, and although it is for the boundary commission to make final decisions, that representation will be reduced by 13 seats. That is a sensible, magnanimous and principled change, brought about because some Members have been asked to put aside their personal interests to implement it.

Mr. Osborne

rose—

Mr. Andrew Turner

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

I am not taking any more interventions at the moment.

We have a flexible constitution that recognises that we have an asymmetric country and that we need to meet its changing demands. In other words, our constitution works.

Mr. Turner

Given that an elector in my constituency has one 100,000th of a say in the election of its Member of Parliament, how can the Minister defend a position in which electors in parts of Scotland have one 25,000th of a say?

Mrs. McGuire

The argument against having two classes of Member of Parliament has been made by the hon. Gentleman's own Front-Bench spokesman on devolved government. That argument has already been made, not by the Government but by the Opposition.

Mr. Osborne

rose—

Mrs. McGuire

I just want to deal with one final point that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper

Nithsdale raised. He said that he wanted the Speaker to have a power to tag some Bills geographically. The hon. Gentleman assumes that that would be a neat solution, but like so many of the Tories' neat solutions, from the poll tax to the botched privatisation of the railways, it is not simple at all. At best, it would be extremely complex to administer and, moreover, we would be in danger of prejudicing the impartiality of the Chair. How would the Speaker tag the Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill, for example, which contains issues that undoubtedly impact on Scotland? And what if the majority of the House thought that the Speaker was wrong?

Anyway, why stop at Hadrian's wall? Why not follow the logic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and say that a Manchester MP cannot speak on the future of airports in the south-east of England, or that only London MPs should vote on the future of Heathrow, or perhaps that all naval decisions should be made by MPs who represent Portsmouth?

Mr. Salmond

The position of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale on top-up fees is totally absurd, as is his voting record. However, may I point out that the Speaker already has the power to certify Bills as exclusively Scottish and send them to the Scottish Grand Committee? Why would it therefore be such a problem to give him a similar power for English matters?

Mrs. McGuire

As the hon. Gentleman knows, by convention the Grand Committee has not legislated, so that would be a difficult move to make. I am interested, however, in his and his party's very positive contribution to the debate.

One final point should be addressed. Why do the Opposition talk only about the voting rights of Scottish MPs? Why is there no mention of colleagues from Wales who vote on matters that are devolved to Wales? Why not question the voting rights of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who vote on Great Britain matters that will not extend to Northern Ireland? The reason, of course, is not the fact that Members with Scottish constituencies vote; it is how the majority of them vote that really irritates the Opposition.

The motion is not constitutional. It is an attempt by the Tories to gerrymander votes in the House to their own political ends. Members on the Labour Benches believe that we remain a United Kingdom Parliament and that, as such, We shall not move into a realm where there are first and second-class Members of the House.

I have spent all my political life endeavouring to minimise participation in the House of Commons by Opposition Members and their parties, but I have done so in the proper fashion: I have taken my arguments to the electorate. Since 1997, the Scottish electorate have agreed with me in almost every case—the exception is that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Since 1997, Scottish electors have had the opportunity to choose a Conservative on 144 occasions, yet on 143 they have refused.

The hon. Gentleman is a Member, however. May I suggest to him that that is a privilege and a solemn responsibility? In all sincerity, I ask him not to shirk that

responsibility, not to treat it lightly, not to parley it for short-term political opportunity. I ask him to participate with us, as a full member of the United Kingdom. That is the principled position. I ask the House to reject this foolish motion and to vote for the amendment.

5.7 pm

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on his Damascene conversion to the cause of devolution, but may I invite him to think that through to its logical conclusion?

At the heart of the debate is the West Lothian question. It is a real and serious issue that merits careful consideration; we need to look at the principles behind it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and his hon. Friends introduced their motion in such a self-congratulatory and self-seeking way; the subject deserves better than that.

The West Lothian question was first put about 27 years ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the present Father of the House. That was well before the current devolution settlement, and well before its implications had been experienced. We must consider the issue in the light of that settlement and its success in the devolved nations. From that perspective, it is clear that the West Lothian question needs to be rephrased. Instead of asking, "Why should the Member for West Lothian—or Linlithgow as it is now—vote on English matters, when his English counterpart cannot vote on West Lothian matters?", we should ask, "Why does the English citizen not enjoy the same representation and democratic accessibility as his or her counterpart in West Lothian?"

Which end of the telescope do we want to look through? That is at the heart of the debate. For those who, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, are of the opinion that devolution for the nations of the United Kingdom brings positive results and improves contact between the governed and those who govern, it is clear that England is suffering from a democratic deficit, which needs to be remedied.

On the other hand, those who have never believed in devolution and would dearly like to see it fail will naturally ignore these facts and seek to unpick the settlement. The Conservative motion is clearly in that vein. Not for the first time, the Conservative party is simply looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

We should take as our start point for the debate and for the serious issues within it the fact that the devolution settlements for London, Wales and Scotland—and indeed Northern Ireland, which we all hope will go to its full conclusion in due course—are all here to stay and are by and large successful. The answer to the West Lothian question, therefore, must lie in the remedy for England.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

While I go along to a surprising extent with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in that I am a long-standing advocate of an English Parliament, must he not acknowledge that to lump together, as he has done, the Scottish Parliament and the arrangements for London, Wales and Northern Ireland is not the right direction to take, as they are all completely and inherently different? Our focus on Scotland is valid to the extent that Scotland is the only fully legislative Parliament with a degree of taxing powers, which is why we are focusing on that.

John Thurso

I believe that my later remarks will fully answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. But I would say that it is the principle of devolution that counts, and that is what I am looking at.

My party has always believed that the natural end result of devolution is a federal United Kingdom, where each of the nations enjoys domestic devolution within one United Kingdom state, with this Parliament as the United Kingdom federal Parliament. It is a position we have held for a long time. It is clear, and it unquestionably answers the West Lothian question. Indeed, it is the only answer.

Mr. Foulkes

If it is not too patronising, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he agree that we are going through a process of phased federalism? Scotland has legislative as well as Executive powers. We hope that the Assembly for Northern Ireland will soon come back, and it also has legislative as well as Executive powers. Wales is looking at the possibility of legislative powers.

Mr. Forth

What about England?

Mr. Foulkes

Absolutely. The real difficulty, which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is highlighting, is England. What we need is devolution for England or for its regions, or a combination of both.

John Thurso

I concur entirely. But I have always believed that all devolution in the area of the constitution is iterative. That is why I voted as I did on the arrangements for another place; I believe that it will be fully elected one day and that every little step on the path helps.

I turn to the proposals in the motion. Leaving aside the rather narcissistic comments therein of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, it could be said that his proposals might offer an interim solution. But any detailed examination reveals them to be both simplistic and impractical. I shall give three examples.

First, however, it is important to understand what devolution actually did. Here, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself to the Scotland Act 1998, although some of what I say will apply to other devolved areas.

In the Scotland Act devolution was delegated by this Parliament. What we did here was to delegate responsibility for certain legislative and Executive action. We delegated power; we did not cede it. Power delegated is power retained. This Parliament remains sovereign and may at any time use that retained authority to pass legislation for devolved matters if it so chooses, notwithstanding the devolution settlement.

That is clear in several sections of the Scotland Act. Section 30, for example, enables the Government by Order in Council to make any amendments or any change they wish to schedules 4 and 5, the schedules that set out both the reserved and the devolved matters. Therefore, by the simple expedient of an Order in Council, what is or is not devolved may be changed. Thus, any piece of primary legislation passed in the House could become Scottish legislation at a future date without any consideration in Scotland.

I fully accept that that has not happened to date and that it may even be unlikely. I would certainly like to think that with the current Government it would be unlikely. But let us foresee a different situation, with two different parties in power in Scotland and in the United Kingdom Parliament, when we may find that the temptation becomes overpowering. In section 28(7), it is made absolutely clear that the powers given to the Scottish Parliament do not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland. Taken together, this means that any piece of primary legislation agreed to in this place by the simple expedient of an Order in Council may be imposed on Scotland, devolution or no. How do I answer my constituents if that occurs and I have neither taken part nor voted?

Secondly, we must look at the Sewel motion—the device by which matters of legislation considered in the House that have devolved competence may be put into effect in Scotland without a Scottish Act. It was originally intended, when the Scotland Bill was being considered, that this device should be something of a back-stop. but I believe that, since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, there have been 46 Sewel motions, covering 41 Bills. If I am not allowed to take part in the proceedings in the House, on what has now become a fairly regular occurrence, my constituents are deprived of any voice in the matter.

The third point that I raise is perhaps one of the most important, because it relates to one of the most important reserved functions—the Treasury. Given that virtually every Bill brought before the House has financial implications or requires a money order, it is unthinkable that any hon. Member should be deprived of the right to express an opinion or to vote.

Mr. Gray

Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that almost every Bill brought before the Scottish Parliament has consequences for the Treasury. and yet I, as an English MP, have no say whatever in that?

John Thurso

By a remarkable coincidence, I was just coming to that. The point is that the funding of the Scottish Parliament is undertaken by a block vote, which is voted—

Mr. Forth

From English taxpayers.

John Thurso

From British taxpayers. It is voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and paid for by the British taxpayer. That block grant and how it is spent is then decided by the Scottish Parliament. There is no such arrangement for England. There is no English block grant. All the grants that are given to the devolved nations are awarded under the Barnett formula—which is a pretty unwieldy formula, and worth considering on another occasion. At the moment, the United Kingdom Treasury and, if you like, the English Treasury, are inextricably intertwined.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)

My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the delicate balance that exists between the countries of the United Kingdom in relation to taxation, but is there not also a delicate balance between the levels of public expenditure that are financed by that taxation throughout the United Kingdom? When referring to the Barnett formula, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if there was further devolution of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to and an English regional assembly was in place, the formula's 25-year reign would have to be ended and the present unsustainable, over-generous formula would have to be replaced by a needs-based formula?

John Thurso

I am particularly happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Barnett formula is outdated and that we need a much more needs-based formula, so that any area of the United Kingdom that is deprived may be given the support to which it is entitled. But the principle that I am aiming at—and it must remain—is that UK Members vote on UK Treasury matters, which means voting on virtually every Bill.

Mr. Peter Duncan

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logical consequence of what he is saying is that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, which are subject to devolved policy, will elect to vote for ever-higher public expenditure in England and Wales simply to provide, through the Barnett formula, a knock-on benefit for the Scottish Executive?

John Thurso

No, I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman because that ascribes to Scottish Members a degree of cynicism that simply does not exist.

Lembit Öpik

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a more practical difficulty for the Conservatives if the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) insists on saying that the Opposition motion outlines their policy? If he persists with that policy, no future Conservative Member of Parliament representing a constituency in Wales could possibly be allowed to vote, by his own party's conventions, on matters that do not relate to Wales, and no Conservative Member of Parliament representing an English constituency would vote on matters relating specifically to Wales. I therefore assume that he will advocate abstention on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill, which has no bearing whatever on English Members of Parliament.

John Thurso

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

As I hope that I have made clear, any detailed consideration of the proposals in the motion shows them to be fundamentally flawed and unworkable, but there is ultimately a more important principle at stake: for so long as this is the United Kingdom Parliament, its Members must be equal in the Chamber and in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The concept of part-membership has been considered by academics and many contributors to the debate and almost universally rejected as impractical, unworkable and undesirable. Just as in another place all peers are equal irrespective of rank, office or attendance, so it must be that in the Chamber all Members must be equal. That is not to say that there is nothing the House can do about current arrangements. Indeed, an English Grand Committee to mirror the current Scottish Grand Committee should certainly be considered, as might other devices; but, in the Chamber, we must remain equal before the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Alan Duncan

The hon. Gentleman says that, in the other place, all lords are equal; but, in fact, in that place, to reflect the specific status of certain lords, various conventions have arisen that govern their conduct—for instance, the Law Lords do not vote on any item of legislation—and it is exactly that kind of distinction on which the debate is designed to concentrate.

John Thurso

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, with a small degree of experience, that it is a very strongly held principle of convention in the other place that all peers are equal, despite the fact that there are obvious inequalities between them. If my memory serves me correctly, that understanding arose when an early Earl Spencer was accused of doing something nefarious by another peer; the doctrine of equality, despite whatever each peer was up to, was entered into. That is an interesting parallel, and one that we can adopt.

So long as we are equal in the Chamber, I see absolutely no reason why Members should not serve in the Government for whatever Department they are chosen to do so by the Prime Minister. I well remember a notable English Member who fulfilled the role of Secretary of State for Wales. I never carped about that, and I do not carp the other way round.

The Conservative party for most of its distinguished history has operated on the principle of the preservation of the status quo interspersed, when change is inevitable, with benign opportunism. It is that which gave us Disraeli's "one nation", Salisbury's "villa conservatism" and Macmillan's "You've never had it so good." It is sad today to see that once-great party so far from its principles and so far from a positive Unionist stance and to have descended, with this self-congratulating and self-serving motion, into the malign opportunism of a perceived short-term gain—to see a party of former British stature descend into the gutter of English nationalism. The Union deserves better, and I hope that the House rejects the motion overwhelmingly.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the House that there is now a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

5.24 pm

Mrs. Helen Liddell (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

I will not delay the House long because it is very clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House how unacceptable the Opposition motion is. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for actually managing to get through that speech with a straight face. If we look in detail at the wording of the motion, we see that it notes that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntary to abstain from voting on such legislation. Let us be absolutely frank: the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that he has repeatedly voted on legislation that affects England. I tried to do some research into his election address at the past election, and I found no reference to the fact that it was his intention to come here as a part-time Member of Parliament—nice work if one can get it. My constituents certainly did not send me to the House as a part-time Member.

Mr. Andrew Turner

rose—

Mrs. Liddell

I shall make some progress, and then happily give way.

As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale made what was fundamentally an English nationalist speech. However, I should point out to Conservative Members that of the 529 hon. Members who represent English constituencies, only 164 are Conservatives. I had always believed that throughout the history of the Conservative party it had been viewed as the Conservative and Unionist party.

Mr. Forth

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Liddell

Let me make some progress, and then I shall happily give way.

The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is selling the history of his party down the river, as, indeed, is his parliamentary leader. For almost a century we had devolution in Northern Ireland, yet Northern Ireland Members voted on legislation with the Conservatives. There are those of us in the House who are aware that Northern Ireland Unionists kept Conservative Governments in office by voting with them. If such voting is so heinous now, why was it not heinous then? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that point.

Mr. Forth

Can the right hon. Lady explain how Scottish nationalism can be paraded with such pride and yet English nationalism can be referred to with such apparent contempt? If she is not careful and if she does not listen to the arguments that emerge in debates such as this, we are in danger of a serious English backlash—I will be part of it.

Mrs. Liddell

The right hon. Gentleman addresses the House in a Scottish accent, but he is a Member of the House only because he represents an English constituency—Scottish constituencies would have nothing to do with him.

I am a Unionist. Many Labour Members believe that the United Kingdom is what stands best for our constituents, and that a devolved Scottish Parliament, a devolved Welsh Assembly, the continuation—I hope—of devolution for Northern Ireland and devolution for the English regions that want it strengthens the United Kingdom. Conservative Members are the separatists in the argument, and seeking to have two different standards of Members of Parliament is a dangerous road to go down.

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when there is only one Unionist party in the House—the Labour party.

Mrs. Liddell

I would be tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross because he made and good and powerful Unionist speech.

Let us be absolutely clear. The debate is not about the West Lothian question. It is a piece of cynical opportunism and an attempt to defeat a Labour Government. It is interesting that a Conservative Member is making a separatist point because the Conservatives and the real separatists defeated the Labour Government in 1979.

The debate is about next week's consideration of the Higher Education Bill. It is important to put on record that although it is assumed that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, a third of its clauses relate to Scotland. One of the most critical aspects of the Bill is the fact that it will increase the cut-off point—the salary at which graduates must start to pay back money—from £10,000 a year to £15,000 a year. That will affect my constituents and I want the measure put in place because it is important to them. I have constituents who attend English universities. They study everything from ballet to business management and have an interest in that legislation.

The prosperity of all the United Kingdom is important to my constituents as well. The Higher Education Bill attempts to bring English university entrants up to the same level as Scottish university entrants. It tries to correct an imbalance that affects the performance of our economy.

Mr. Andrew Turner

I do not want to argue with the right hon. Lady about the purpose of the Higher Education Bill, but surely she accepts that English students attend Scottish universities and French students attend English universities. Neither of those examples is an argument for the Parliament of those countries to intervene in the running of Scottish universities.

Mrs. Liddell

I was not aware that France was part of the United Kingdom. I thought we got that sorted out about 1,000 years ago. The fact that French students come to Scottish and English universities makes me proud to be Scottish, British and European.

It is no surprise that the people of this country are cynical about politicians because this motion is one of the most cynical moves I have ever seen. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is trapped in this argument. I would be very interested to know—although we never will know the answer—whether he was aware that his party leader was going to tar him with the responsibility of not voting on English legislation. It will be interesting to see at the next general election what his constituents think of a Member who has stood up in the House and said that he is determined to be just a part-time Member.

Mr. Salmond

For the sake of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm that if she agrees with her Scottish Labour colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee that the Bill will have an "adverse impact" on Scottish universities, she will vote against it?

Mrs. Liddell

That is not what they said. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman. The changes that the Bill introduces will go a long way to improving the lot of my constituents. He has to be mature enough about devolution to acknowledge that just because something does not have "made in Scotland" stamped right through it does not mean that there is something wrong with it. He is changing his position on whether or not he votes on such matters. Were the model that we want to introduce for England replicated in Scotland, it would be a considerable improvement on the lot of Scottish students.

We need to expose the opportunism of the motion. I think that the House will overwhelmingly show up the cynicism and opportunism of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I am sorry that a party that has a proud tradition of Unionism should have been so easily swayed into the separatist camp.

5.33 pm

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con)

It is a pleasure to be the first English Member to participate in the debate. I listened with respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). I hope that she will not find my speech cynical or opportunistic. It is certainly not meant to be a separatist speech or an argument for English nationalism or an English Parliament. I am interested in rebalancing the constitution to take account of the reality of devolution. That is a responsible thing for the House to do.

Constitutional reform has not been the Government's strongest point. Having promised the country at the last general election that we would have a more democratic House of Lords, we are now moving towards a wholly appointed House of Lords without even waiting for the next Parliament to break that election commitment. Regional assemblies have yet to fire the public's imagination. We recently saw a bungled attempt to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. We heard earlier today of the inexplicable delay in the introduction of a civil service Bill.

The debate shows that Labour Members are oblivious to the imbalance in our constitution post-devolution. When we recently debated the matter in Westminster Hall, at the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), nearly all the Labour Back Benchers who participated were from Scottish constituencies. The only English Labour MPs present were the Minister and, briefly, his Parliamentary Private Secretary—an indication of a lack of concern by Labour Members about the constitutional imbalance as seen from the English perspective. As we move towards the next election, and as discipline within the Government begins to break down, so the so-called West Lothian question once again raises its head.

The present constitutional settlement is unfair, unstable and indefensible, and Labour Members seek to portray it through the eyes of Members, but I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that that is the wrong lens. We should look at the issue through the eyes of our constituents and ask whether they are equal. The injustice is simply explained. Until 1998, the people of North-West Hampshire could influence, through their MP, policy in Scotland, for example, on care in the community, and of course the converse was the case. After devolution, my constituents lost that ability, but although they can no longer have a say in whether their Scottish friends pay for personal care in a nursing home, their Scottish friends can influence whether they have to pay for such care. I have to say to Labour Members that it is frankly impossible to defend or explain the current position to my constituents.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young

In a moment. The position is compounded by the West Lothian question, whereby Scottish Members can impose foundation hospitals on my constituents, but not on their own. As an English MP with English constituents, I find it impossible to defend the status quo.

Mr. Foulkes

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young

No, I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

Angus Robertson

On defending the indefensible, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the participation of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) in the proceedings on the Mersey Tunnels Bill and the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill? What impact do those matters have on Scotland?

Sir George Young

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) defended himself remarkably well in the face of a sustained onslaught from Members on both sides of the House. The proposition that we are debating today is whether Scottish MPs should vote on matters that exclusively concern England and Wales. We want the position to change, and I hope that when it does hon. Members will observe the convention that I am about to promote.

We got an insight into the Government's response in the debate a fortnight ago. The Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who replied to the debate, said: We are not here just as representatives of our constituencies on some sort of delegative or representative basis, but to make judgments and take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK. We are manifestly not; I can no longer take decisions on behalf of the whole of the UK. He went on to say: The arguments are new and opportunistic, and they were not heard when the Conservatives were in government". Of course they were not—we did not then have devolution and the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Foulkes

The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, but does he agree that the answer is not to introduce the dog's breakfast suggested by his Front-Bench spokesman—to try to classify Bills as applying to England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or some combination of the three—but to do as we did when we got furious because the right hon. Gentleman imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We got devolution; surely he should be campaigning for devolution for England.

Sir George Young

I am delighted that I have carried the right hon. Gentleman with me so far, and I hope to carry him for the rest of my argument—a substantial burden.

In the debate a fortnight ago, the Minister said: The Government will not listen to what we consider to be a bogus argument". They will not listen to an argument legitimately put forward by Conservative Members and our constituents. Describing the remedy that I favour, which had been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the Minister then said: The consequence of his argument would be a breakdown of the power of this Parliament's sovereignty."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 58–60WH.] That is a bit rich from a member of this Government, who have done more to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament than any other.

In fairness to Ministers, I have to point out that they have now abandoned one argument—regional assemblies. Throughout the last Parliament we were told that they were the right answer to this issue. The Under-Secretary did not use that argument this afternoon, and it was not used a fortnight ago, because it is not a legitimate argument.

I make no apologies for bringing to the attention of the House once again the fourth report of the Procedure Committee in the 1998–99 Session, which contains a section on legislation. The proposition that the Under-Secretary suggested we dismiss as impractical was specifically examined by a Committee of this House. Those who are interested in the subject will find support from the Procedure Committee for an argument that, in the light of devolution, different procedures might be necessary.

That Committee had a majority of Labour MPs. It anticipated conflict post-devolution and wisely suggested procedures to minimise it. It suggested that we change our rules by convention. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report are worth reading in full. The latter states: The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, as currently apply to bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance we believe it is. There may soon be governments of different parties in different parts of the United Kingdom; party balances already differ in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is an important conclusion because it concedes the principle, post-devolution, of new procedures for legislation affecting England. Once that point has been conceded, English votes for English Bills is the logical conclusion.

That is not to bring an end to parliamentary sovereignty. On the contrary, it is to keep parliamentary sovereignty alive by making changes to reflect the fact of devolution. Paragraph 28 argues that representation on Bills dealing with English legislation should be in accordance with party balance in England, not the House.

The Procedure Committee, which approved that unanimously, included nine Government Members. It also included the Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The principle that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I are putting forward is not just ours. A Committee of the House adopted it. The Committee also dealt with the argument that identifying such Bills would be impossible for the Speaker by dismissing the point in paragraph 27. So, this is not a cynical and opportunistic argument from the Conservative party. It is taking forward a unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee.

David Taylor

Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that, even given his long parliamentary experience, knowledge of constitutional affairs and service on the Procedure Committee, it will always be possible accurately and unambiguously to classify Bills as so-called English legislation? Does he not recognise that some very complex issues are involved and that such a proposition would be a dog's breakfast in its own right?

Sir George Young

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks not just at the Report but at the evidence given to the Committee. It took evidence from Clerks of the House and Chairmen of Standing Committees, and came to the conclusion to which I have referred: We recommend that the provision allowing the Speaker to certify Bills should apply to England. After listening to the evidence—presumably from those who thought that such a solution was difficult and from those who thought it was practical—the Committee reached that unanimous conclusion.

What did the Government do when they received the report? They just dismissed it. They said: If…it were possible to identify some bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit this would have for the House. The whole debate about the West Lothian question simply did not appear on the Government's radar. They did not so much disagree with the solution; they did not think that there was a problem.

There is support in my constituency for the sort of solution that the House is debating. I remember seeing an opinion poll showing a majority in Scotland for the proposition that Scottish MPs should not vote on English domestic legislation. So, the proposal that only English and Welsh MPs should vote on Bills covering England and Wales could work perfectly well within the conventions and traditions of Parliament. It is based on precedents, would be accepted as fair in Scotland as well as in England and represents common sense. It would deal with the English question; it would make the Union stronger. The Government are making a serious mistake in their response, and I hope that quite soon it will fall to a different Administration to put right this constitutional injustice.

5.44 pm

Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)

I am delighted to take part in this debate, although it is probably the most irrelevant waste of time in this Chamber for a long while. I must ask why and why now? The debate is nothing to do with the subject of the motion. That has been said time and again but bears repeating. This is purely an attempt to highlight the fact that next week my Labour colleagues from Scotland and I will vote on the Higher Education Bill. Of course we will vote on it, and on any other issue that is required to put through our Government's programme, because we are elected as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, with the same rights, the same duties and the same responsibilities as every other Member.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP)

The focus of our concern is not the fact that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will vote next Tuesday, but the way they will vote. Why does she not protect and defend the Scottish interest? Everyone in Scottish higher education is of the opinion that tuition fees will be bad for Scotland. Why is she voting against the Scottish interest next week?

Rosemary McKenna

I thought that we were discussing people's right to vote, not higher education. Of course, SNP Members' position is totally unprincipled. We vote on any issue; you pick and choose.

Mr. Andrew Turner

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosemary McKenna

Not now. Allow me to make some progress.

When in 1997 the Labour party promised the people of Scotland, and the people of Wales and Northern Ireland, that we would deliver devolution, we did not say, "Ah, but this will mean that your Member of Parliament will be of lesser value than those representing English constituencies." When in 2001 the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth re-elected me, they did not say to me, "Ah, but you'll only go down there and vote on certain issues—you'll not vote on health or on education or on that sort of issue." With my colleagues, I stood for election as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I had every intention of voting on all issues. That is the constitutional position, and it is opportunism in the extreme for the Conservatives to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Alan Duncan

Will the hon. Lady be a bit more forthcoming about the existing disparity between the responsibilities each of us holds, which she says are equal? I can vote on hospitals in my constituency, whereas she cannot vote on hospitals in hers. In fact, although there is a rational explanation for the difference, there is a disparity in the responsibilities, influence and power that we are able to exercise in legislative matters.

Rosemary McKenna

It was a decision of the House. It was your choice and it is your choice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.

Rosemary McKenna

I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was part of the Opposition party that made a choice, and he chooses not to support the Government's attempts to deliver regional government to the rest of the country.

In the 1980s and 1990s, I played a role in Scottish local government. I was spending a lot of time visiting this place to represent those interests by 1992, when the then Government imposed a reorganisation of Scottish local government that was unwanted and uncalled for. They did so because we had opposed the poll tax. The previous Government had imposed the poll tax in Scotland despite the fact that they had no majority in Scotland, and the fact that everyone in Scotland opposed it. In addition it was imposed in Scotland a year before the rest of country.

Mr. Gray

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rosemary McKenna

No, I will not give way on this matter.

The following Government detested Scottish local government, which had managed to protect the people of Scotland from the ravages of Thatcherism, an example of which is the miners' strike.

Sandra Osborne (Ayr) (Lab)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party was also opportunistic in respect of local government reorganisation in Scotland, as shown by its decision to have three local authorities in Ayrshire rather than one all-Ayrshire authority because of its—mistaken—belief that the party could keep control of South Ayrshire council?

Rosemary McKenna

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The then Secretary of State drew a map showing several small blue areas, which the Conservatives thought would deliver some Conservative councils in Scotland.

I was in this Chamber as a visitor on 17 January 1994—almost 10 years ago—when the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the recently retired Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, made the following statement: On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject".—[Official Report, 17 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 548.] They certainly did. There was not a single Tory council left in Scotland.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Lady appears to be arguing persuasively that the people of Scotland did not like having decisions imposed on them by a national Conservative majority. Does she not therefore agree that it would be entirely obnoxious for the people of England to have a decision imposed on us by a Labour majority in the House produced by Scottish votes?

Rosemary McKenna

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I am about to make. A huge majority voted against the Conservatives in Scotland, but the Government have a majority in every part of this country and in all its nations, with the exception of our friends in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gray rose—

Rosemary McKenna

I shall not take any more interventions, as I want to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to contribute to our debate.

Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I watched "Frost on Sunday", on which the Leader of the Opposition said: I would rather lose the vote than ask Peter Duncan to abandon his principles and vote on top-up fees when they do not have them in Scotland! Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the same hon. Member who managed to find a principled reason to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill? Perhaps we have a Mersey tunnel in Scotland—I would be happy to have one, as I desperately need something to break the bottleneck on the A80 in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition was not only cynical, but was seen to be cynical. His criticism and pretend outrage, which he does so well, make an increasingly disillusioned electorate even more cynical. However, that may be his intention.

I shall briefly reiterate a point made by many hon. Members. If it is an anomaly for us to vote on certain legislation, we should remember that Westminster has been riddled with anomalies for years. We should remind ourselves of the position of hereditary peers, mostly Tory, who voted without a mandate on legislation affecting everyone. That point was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab)

Is not the key point the fact that the governing party put the proposition of devolution for the countries of the United Kingdom to the people of Scotland and Wales in a referendum? Bills then proceeded through both Houses of Parliament and were enacted—that is how devolutionary measures became law. If the Opposition oppose devolution, should they not put their propositions to the country in an election and hold referendums for the people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to see what they say? The Opposition are wrong to try to fetter the rights of every hon. Member through the cynical procedure proposed in the motion.

Rosemary McKenna

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

It will be time to look at voting rights in Parliament when we have devolution for the English regions; a settled and fully operational Northern Ireland Assembly, which we all hope will soon be restored; and a reformed House of Lords. Let us have no more nonsense and time wasting in the Chamber on pointless Opposition debates such as this one. If the House ever decides to look at the reform of Members' voting rights it is likely to command support only if there is thoughtful deliberation on the issue and a constitutional convention or something similar that works through consensus and agreement. Even so, we may decide just to leave things as they are.

5.54 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP)

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on the courage with which he advanced his argument—I just hope that that does not become self-sacrificing at the time of the next election.

The West Lothian question is so called because of the exchanges that took place in 1977, but of course the issue is much older than that—it dates back to 1886 and the original Irish home rule Bills. It is worth reflecting on their provisions. Gladstone's first Bill was quite simple: it was designed to remove all the Irish Members from this House. Because of the obvious inequity of that, his second Bill reversed that and all the Irish Members were to be retained. That experiment reached the end of the road with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. A compromise was adopted, and under the new arrangements Northern Ireland's representation was significantly reduced. Conservative Members may like to bear that in mind. They would perhaps be better pursuing the issue of ensuring that the over-representation of Scotland, which was difficult to justify before devolution, and is impossible to justify now, is addressed more rapidly. The Government are slowly moving in that direction, but it is legitimate to argue about the figures.

Mrs. Liddell

Progress is already being made on that matter. Very shortly, new boundaries that will lead to a reduction in the number of Scottish Members from 72 to 59 will be in place.

Mr. Trimble

I appreciate that progress is being made—I merely make the point that Conservative Members would do better to pursue that issue than one that is not valid.

Mr. Gray

The Scots are moving towards parity with England, but why should they have that when they have their own Parliament? There should be far fewer than 59 Members here in Westminster.

Mr. Trimble

That is precisely my point. It is a valid issue, unlike the issue that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pursuing.

We have heard good arguments, which I will not repeat, about the equality of Members, problems regarding differential majorities on different issues, and the difficulty of distinguishing such issues. With all due respect to the Procedure Committee, I doubt whether it is possible to make such distinctions, given that issues that appear to be exclusively Scottish or English will have consequential effects elsewhere, even if only economic and financial.

Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab)

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the debate pack produced by the Library, which confirms his remarks when it states: In practice there is almost no "English-only" legislation at all—bills apply either to the UK, Great Britain or England and Wales together.

Mr. Trimble

I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing the point that I am trying to make. It is probably impossible to make such distinctions.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said that power devolved is power retained, as did the Minister when he emphasised sovereignty. In the present devolution set-up, it is a mistake to overemphasise the extent to which the devolved Administrations have freedom in the choices that they make. Yes, devolution makes them more accessible and gives them the power to make adjustments, but the extent to which they can do so is significantly limited, because the key decisions—those on taxation and expenditure—are still made here. In that context, we cannot allow parts of the country to be deprived of equal representation. That is a simple, basic point. There may be anomalies elsewhere, but expenditure of taxation is so fundamental to government that there must be equal representation for all parts of the country.

One must also bear in mind the operation of the block grant. Some of the earlier comments about the Barnett formula missed the point that financial arrangements for the devolved regions are based on public expenditure for England and Wales. Government policy in England and Wales determines the total block grant, which reflects those expenditure decisions. Government policies are therefore crucial for Members from Scotland, Wales and—if devolution occurs again—Northern Ireland, because they determine the total block grant, and that point has certain consequences.

As I have said, there is scope for local discretion, but it is limited. The Scottish Parliament has said that it will not follow Government policy on tuition fees. That choice is open to it, but it will have to compensate the Scottish universities. How long will that be possible? I know that the Scottish Parliament is better endowed financially than we were in the Northern Ireland Administration. We examined student finance in 2001 and I am happy to say that we decided to reintroduce grants. The Higher Education Bill, which comes before the House next week, will do for England and Wales what we did for Northern Ireland, and I am glad to see that the Government are following our example.

The Northern Ireland Administration could not go as far as the Scottish Parliament because we could not finance the policy, and the extent to which we could vary our block grant was limited. The Scottish Parliament has a bit more elbow room, but I am not sure how long it can maintain that position. The fact that the Scottish Parliament has taken that decision and is likely to sustain it for the next few weeks or months—or perhaps even for a year or two—cannot be used to justify depriving people of the opportunity to participate in something that is likely to affect them.

While economic powers on taxation and public expenditure are concentrated in Westminster, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory. The essential power to determine financing rests here and is reinforced by the joint ministerial committees, which are not mentioned very much but which are significant tools used by Whitehall to ensure close co-ordination of policy across the United Kingdom.

The point is further reinforced by the fact that people's expectations in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are determined by Government policies. Public opinion generated significant pressure in Northern Ireland, although things may be different in Scotland. Public opinion was generated by policy that was originally introduced in England and Wales, and much of the pressure on us was to read across policies as quickly as possible. The distinctions that have been drawn about those matters are quite wrong.

Mr. Forth

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trimble

I am sorry, but I shall not take any more interventions because I no longer get extra minutes for them and my time is running down.

A further, simple point is that we are all elected to this Parliament, which has particular powers. We are elected not to be regional or parochial, but to use our judgment as best we can on all the issues that come before us. Even if a matter relates exclusively to part of England, I sometimes feel that I can make a contribution and improve the quality of decision making both for the whole of the United Kingdom and for particular parts of it.

The Conservative motion is completely misconceived. It is not even in the interests of the Conservative party to pursue the issue, because the way in which it is being addressed will simply reinforce the common view of Conservatism in Scotland, which is unhealthy for the Union and the United Kingdom.

It would be difficult for Ulster Unionist Members not to support a Government amendment that opposes any step that would undermine the Union". I began by congratulating the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and I shall end by congratulating the Government on being firmly Unionist today. I hope that they will repeat the experience tomorrow, and in the days that follow.

6.5 pm

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab)

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

The Opposition have recently worked themselves up into a self-righteous frenzy about the voting rights of hon. Members north of the border. First, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) secured an Adjournment debate in which he condemned as outrageous my decision to go through the Lobby, and today, his leader is not using the valuable tool of an Opposition day to discuss an issue of great national importance.

The choice of subject constitutes another example of English nationalism, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention. The Tories are aided and abetted by some of their friends north of the border. Inconsistencies are revealed when we consider the different standards that the Tories apply to different parts of the United Kingdom. They have mentioned foundation hospitals and tuition fees, neither of which applies to Scotland. However, they do not apply in Northern Ireland either, yet Ulster Members have not been subjected to the same criticism as Scottish Members.

If hon. Members are to vote only on subjects that affect their constituencies, the logical conclusion is that no London Member should vote on transport issues, which are now the responsibility of the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly. Why did the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and twice on foundation hospitals? The Tories are hypocritical and opportunistic.

It is disappointing that Conservative Members take such a simplistic approach to the constitution. Some parts of Bills apply to the United Kingdom and others only to England and Wales.

Mr. Gray

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson

I shall—although in his Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Gray

The record will show that my speech was excessively long because I gave way so often. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read Hansard. However, I am grateful to him for giving way to me.

Why should Scottish Members of Parliament come to England to vote against foxhunting in England when English Members of Parliament have no say on foxhunting in Scotland?

John Robertson

I know that foxhunting is very important to the hon. Gentleman, but I have the same voting rights as him. I vote on the same legislation as he does. [Interruption.] I can and will vote on foxhunting.

Pete Wishart

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson

I am sorry, but I want to move on. I shall give way later.

Parts of the Higher Education Bill apply to Scotland. The introduction of variable fees will affect Scotland. I doubt whether I shall be able to get in during the debate next week, so I want to put it on the record that Scottish universities are better funded now. The rate of the increase in funding in future will mean that they are 15 to 16 per cent. better funded. They will still be given extra moneys under the current system until 2009–10, when the position will be re-examined. That will be roughly on a par with what the variable fees will do in England, so there will not be such a disparity between Scotland and England as some hon. Members have implied. My great concern is the perception that Scottish students may be put at a slight disadvantage in that the wages in English universities might be higher than in Scotland. That problem must be looked at, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to do such things. That is what devolution was all about: Scotland should examine matters that pertain to Scotland, and we examine matters that pertain to the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members have mentioned how important are the finances of the UK—

Pete Wishart

The hon. Gentleman asked how many measures he could no longer vote on. Well, he cannot vote on hospitals, schools or most of the domestic agenda in his own constituency, but he can vote on hospitals, schools and most of the domestic agenda in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Surely that is absurd.

John Robertson

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his input, but he is backing up exactly what I said. I cannot vote on those things and neither can he, so we are in exactly the same boat when it comes to voting on legislation. I realise that that is a slightly negative way of looking at it, but we all vote on the same legislation. The hon. Gentleman tells me that I cannot vote on some things—but that is because those matters are taken care of in Scotland.

Mr. Alan Duncan

Fair point—but does the hon. Gentleman not find it slightly offensive to the basic principles of democratic conduct that when he exercises his right to vote as a UK Member of Parliament, he may be doing so on matters that do not in any way affect his constituents, but do affect mine?

John Robertson

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, he has not listened to the contributions of others—particularly that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats—about the finances of the country. Every Bill that passes through the House has a financial effect on the UK. In an excellent contribution, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reiterated that point. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) can fail to grasp that UK finances have an effect on Scotland and the Scottish people.

Mr. Gray rose—

John Robertson

I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman, which is more generous than he was in Westminster Hall.

Sir George Young rose—

John Robertson

I want to move on a bit.

The Opposition parties have one thing in common: they want to become the Government, which is perfectly fair. However, they should do that through politics and the ballot box, not by trying to move the goalposts sideways and reinvent what politics is all about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said in Westminster Hall: I wonder whether we would be having this debate today if we had a Conservative Government with a large number of Conservative Members in Scotland. I suspect not."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416. c. 44WH.] I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We definitely would not have had today's debate if the Conservative party had maintained the sort of support that it had in the past. It is up to Conservative Members to ask themselves why they do not receive support north of the border.

I greatly admire the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale: he and I agree on many things, but not on this. I also have to tell him that I hope he loses his seat in the next general election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Because of the boundary changes, I know that it will become a Labour seat. We shall have another Labour MP in Scotland. I noticed a wonderful Freudian slip in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which summed up the Conservative party well. He said that his hands were buried in the sand. I know that he meant to say "heads", but "hands" was what he said. It is a Freudian slip, because that is exactly where they were when he was writing his speech—buried in the sand.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) told me—he is away now, putting on his monkey suit for a dinner tonight—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale was being made a patsy. I can tell hon. Members that that term means the same as "fall guy". The Leader of the Opposition set the hon. Gentleman up with this debate, which has no purpose other than to allow Scots to have a go at each other, and Labour Members to have a go at the Opposition. It has been fun, and I have enjoyed it, but the debate has been a misuse of parliamentary time.

My hon. Friend the Minister made the important point that this is a constitutional issue. If Conservative Front-Bench Members had their way, the Union would be split up. I think of the Conservative party these days as the English national party, and its members will be eagerly abetted by the Scottish National party—whom we call the Tartan Tories. They are the same, and I am sure that we will see that when the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) makes his contribution. His conservative tendencies will be evident as he sets out his own form of nationalism. There is no doubt that we will have some fun with that.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that Conservative Members were looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I can tell him that they have not even taken off the lens cap. They are not even looking into the abyss: they have no clue what they are looking at. That is another problem, because we are talking about what is good for Scotland and for the British people. The Opposition want to get rid of Scottish MPs, who they think have nothing to contribute. However, I believe that the Scots have contributed more than a little to the history of the House, and I like to think that some of us will do a lot more in the years to come.

In all seriousness, the debate has a sad aspect—the increase in nationalism in this country. We all know what nationalism has done throughout the world. It does nothing to enhance politics. We know the effects of bigotry, and this country would be in a worse state if we were to give in to it. I urge Opposition Members to join me in supporting the Union in the Lobby tonight.

6.17 pm

Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)

First and foremost, I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I also represent an English constituency. It is vital that all hon. Members remember that our duty is to govern the country in an equal and fair manner. As a Conservative and Unionist, I will not support any proposal that would undermine the nation's unity in any way.

I urge all hon. Members, especially those who have complained about so-called English nationalism, to accept that the constitutional mess sadly created by this Government's policies assists those who want to create the divisions in our country that the vast majority of hon. Members oppose. Hon. Members of all parties must ensure that our policies and ideas are formed in the knowledge that our responsibility is to govern all British people, in the whole of the country. It is wrong that any legislation should benefit one part of the UK preferentially.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am confused: is he supporting the motion or not? I hope that he will clarify that. He believes that our constitution is in a mess, but Opposition Front-Bench Members have said—today, at any rate—that they support the devolution settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman support it?

Mr. Rosindell

I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That Union must be based on fair and equal constitutional government across the kingdom. The present system is not fair to the whole of the UK. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was correct to say that, if a Scottish Parliament has devolved powers, the only logical conclusion is that England should have a Parliament as well. Let me make it clear to all hon. Members, however, that I do not support the idea of an English Parliament like the Scottish Parliament that has been created. I should like to see one electoral system and one general election held on the same day for the whole United Kingdom. The issue would then be about which matters we, as English, Scottish or Welsh MPs, thought should be devolved, so that we could separate to decide on them. It is completely wrong that Romford has one Member of Parliament but that a Scottish or Welsh constituency has a Member of Parliament here at Westminster plus a Member of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. That is the complete mess brought about by the current constitutional arrangement.

I honestly believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I have had many discussions on a number of issues, is committed to the Union, as I am. Many of the personalised attacks that have been made this afternoon on my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) are unfair, because he has simply tried to raise a constitutional anomaly which, if we are not careful, will end up dividing our country far more than at present.

Rosemary McKenna

If the hon. Gentleman believes that his constituents are disadvantaged because we have Members of the Scottish Parliament, what steps is he taking to support the Government's attempt to provide regional government in England, which would give his constituents exactly the same privileges as we have?

Mr. Rosindell

When the hon. Lady talks of regional government, she insults everyone in England. England, no less than Scotland, is a nation. To condemn English nationalism, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) did earlier, is divisive. I detest any policy that is likely to divide our country further. I entered Parliament, and joined the Conservative and Unionist party, first and foremost because I believe in this country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are in a constitutional mess, and we must return to the real issue of how to resolve that problem.

I reiterate that we must have a fair and equal system across the country. We do not need to create more politicians, as we have done with the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We need only one MP per constituency, and we could then divide up on devolved issues. I would have no problem if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sat in an Edinburgh Parliament as the hon. Member for Stirling to deal with education, health or local government, as long as I could also sit in an English Parliament to do the same. What is wrong is that we have two MPs for Stirling, one called an MSP and one, the hon. Lady present today, sitting in Westminster. We must have one Parliament, one electoral system and one general election—a simple system that is fair and equal for all people throughout the United Kingdom.

Mrs. McGuire

I know from our discussions how committed the hon. Gentleman is to the Union, and I remember that he tried to become a Scottish Member of this Parliament when he stood as the candidate for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party in Glasgow, Provan. As he will remember, he indulged in a fairly interesting election campaign.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to leave it there?

Mr. Rosindell

I am delighted that the Minister remembered that I was first a candidate in Glasgow, Provan. I was proud to stand for that constituency, which was a long way from home. I admit that it was a place that I knew little about, but it was none the less part of my country. I stood as a Conservative and Unionist candidate at a time when many members of my party were willing to ditch the word "Unionist". I shall never do that.

I urge the Minister: please, let us not bury our heads in the sand. Many people in England are increasingly angry and hurt by the current situation. We need to find a permanent resolution to this constitutional anomaly.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston) (Lab)

The hon. Gentleman said that he entered Parliament to support the unity of the United Kingdom. He became a Member only two and a half years ago, in 2001, so can he understand that those of us who entered the House in 1979, and suffered 18 years of opposition and opposed the policies of the Conservative Government, which caused tremendous harm and hardship to Scots and Scotland, do not have great sympathy for the situation of the hon. Gentleman and his party? Can he also understand that those policies and that Conservative Government presented a far bigger threat to the Union—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer and time is running out.

Mr. Rosindell

I accept the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was making. As a United Kingdom MP, I believe that my constituents and people in England must accept the decision of the United Kingdom Parliament. Sometimes things work out the other way around.

First and foremost, I am a United Kingdom MP and although, in my view, the present situation does not benefit my constituents, I accept that we are one nation. Several countries make up the United Kingdom but we are one people and one nation, and any Member of Parliament or any individual who undermines the Union damages the future of our nation.

The West Lothian question is not new. There are many other anomalies. We govern the British overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, yet their people have no vote in the House. I should like this place to be truly the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all British people should be represented here, while deciding for themselves on locally devolved issues—whether in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the House of Assembly of Gibraltar. We must always be a United Kingdom Parliament, however, governing all British people equally throughout the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and the territories that remain British and for which we are responsible.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, who is tackling a very difficult situation for our country. I hope that hon. Members will stop personalising the issue and realise that there is a serious constitutional anomaly. We should work as a United Kingdom Parliament to solve the problem in the long term. If we politicise it—as has happened to a great extent in the debate—we shall be further divided and we shall further undermine the unity of our country. We shall be doing the greatest disservice that Members of Parliament could ever do to the United Kingdom.

6.28 pm

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)

I want to bring the debate back from the somewhat intriguing vision of an imperial Parliament, covering all the parts of the globe that are still coloured red, to the practicalities of the Conservative proposals.

Mr. Savidge rose—

Mr. Lazarowicz

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a little while.

The practical difficulties cannot simply be laughed off as the Conservatives have tried to do today. Members on both sides of the Chamber have given examples that show how the proposals would not work in a practical sense. I want to dwell on two of those in more detail and take some of the lessons that need to be drawn from them.

First, the Higher Education Bill, which comes to the House next week, has been mentioned. Clauses on tuition fees will not be applicable to Scotland, but they have implications for Scotland. Large parts of the Bill will be directly applicable to Scotland as well. Therefore, clearly, that cannot be regarded as an English-only measure.

Last year's legislation on foundation hospitals was applicable only to England, although it clearly had UK-wide implications, including many sections that applied to other parts of the United Kingdom as well. A couple of years ago a number of hon. Members who are present in the Chamber served with me on the Standing Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill. That contained provisions some of which applied to the UK as a whole, some of which applied only to England and Wales, some of which applied only to Scotland and some of which applied only to Northern Ireland.

The consequence of the Conservatives' proposals would be to have what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) so graphically described as a hokey-kokey, with Members from different parts of the UK having to run into the Chamber, vote on those provisions affecting only their areas, then leave again as the English Members came in for their bits and went out again to be replaced by the Northern Ireland Members. There would be no way to have any serious debate of broad issues of principle.

At what stages in the process would the voting ban on Scottish Members, and perhaps in due course Northern Irish and Welsh Members, apply? Would it just be on Report, when we deal with specific amendments and clauses? Or would it apply to Standing Committees as well? Would it apply to Second and Third Readings, when we are voting on proposals as a whole? Would it apply just to those measures that are exclusively English, of which there are hardly any? Or would it apply to those measures where the bulk of a Bill applies to England only, but where there are certain important Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish consequences as well? How would that new system work?

Would we have two-, three-, or four-stemmed Second Reading debates, in which we voted for the Scottish bits, the Northern Irish bits, the Welsh bits and the English or UK bits? What should we do if a measure received Second Reading approval for the English bits, but not the Scottish or Welsh bits? How should we resolve the differences? Clearly, it is a recipe for constitutional chaos and could not be managed meaningfully within this Chamber.

The only arrangement that would be even more unworkable is that which I understand is favoured by the Scottish National party. The present proposal at least has some clarity, in that measures that were applicable only to England would not be ones on which Scottish Members could vote. The Scottish National party would replace that with a pick-and-mix system under which a Scottish Member could choose the issues on which he or she wanted to vote. The reality is that there is hardly any issue that one could not, if one wished, suggest had some implications for Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish constituencies.

Mr. Savidge

The Mersey tunnel.

Mr. Lazarowicz

In that case it might be hard to see a Scottish connection. However, for example, the London underground might be thought of as a matter for debate simply by London Members, but London is the capital of the UK, and what happens to transport in my constituents' capital city is of interest to them. Hardly any measure could be seen to have no implications for Scotland.

Mr. Gray

What possible relevance does fox hunting in England have to people in Edinburgh, North and Leith?

Mr. Foulkes

The foxes go over the border.

Mr. Lazarowicz

I am happy to accept that there is a theoretical anomaly in the position that the hon. Gentleman describes, but the question is this: what is the price of trying to work out a system to resolve that anomaly? The result of the solution to the dilemma that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be to undermine the entire way in which the Executive relates to the legislature in this Chamber. As a consequence of the Conservatives' proposals, there would be occasions when the Executive chosen by the majority in the House could not command a majority for its legislation. In the long run, we would end up in a situation in which we had the official Government, the Executive, and on some measures a shadow Cabinet, the shadow Government, acting as if it were a semi-detached Government with some status in this Chamber. Obviously, that would be unsustainable.

In the long run, the only outcome would be that there would be pressure to set up an English Parliament with powers relating to many matters that are relevant to England only. Like many of my hon. Friends, I do not necessarily oppose that proposition, but I suspect that many hon. Members with English constituencies would much prefer to have a federal system within England instead of an English Parliament that would inevitably be much more dominated by the south-east and London. We could discuss that subject in due course, but it seems to me that if we were to set up an English Parliament, that should be done by choice and as a result of debate on that issue, as opposed to being brought in through the back door by a constitutional mechanism that would bring chaos to the workings of the House if it were ever put into effect.

We should ask ourselves, why are we being invited to go down that road today? Is there really great public or parliamentary demand for such a change? I am not aware of any public tumult in England demanding such a change, although there may well be if the Tories keep trying to whip up anti-Scottish feelings, as some of them want to do.

Mr. Peter Duncan rose—

Mr. Lazarowicz

I will give way in a second.

If there had been a great deal of concern within Parliament, we might have seen slightly more Conservative MPs from England in the Chamber today. There certainly does not seem to be any major concern about the issue on their side, even though it is their debate.

Mr. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman asks how widespread this concern is. He knows that there is majority support for our proposals among the wider electorate in Scotland. They know that devolution, to be stable, needs to work properly, and to work properly needs to be stable. Why is he refusing to accept that?

Mr. Lazarowicz

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I have not had a vast influx of constituents demanding such a change. In fact, not one has expressed that view, and I should be interested to know how many hon. Members have been contacted by anyone demanding such a change.

As hon. Members on both sides of the House well know, the Conservatives are suggesting this measure today purely because it is seen as a good piece of political opportunism to take advantage of one or two slight difficulties with the majority on the Government side. [Interruption.] Everyone knows that. It is for Oppositions to cause embarrassment to Governments from time to time and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise, but the Conservatives really should consider the forces that they are in danger of unleashing in political debate in this country. It is fair for them to ask the questions that they are asking today, and it would be fair to develop a debate on them over a period, but to put it bluntly, the way in which these issues are being raised today and have been raised previously, even though they have been raised by a Member from a Scottish constituency, is designed to start whipping up anti-Scottish feeling and resentment among the electorate in England. That is what it is about.

I have always been one of those who thought that separation of Scotland from England would only be likely to come about not because a majority in Scotland wanted it. but if politicians in England started playing an anti-Scottish card for short-term popularity. That is what the Conservatives are in danger of doing by pursuing the line they are taking today, and which they took in a recent Westminster Hall debate.

It is precisely because I want the Union between Scotland and England to survive and prosper, strengthened by devolution, that I hope that the House will reject the Conservative motion today. I urge all those in the House, on whichever side of it they sit, who do not want to see separation between England and Scotland, who do not want to see border guards at Berwick and customs examinations at Carlisle—[Interruption.] I do not expect support from Scottish National party Members today. I urge all those who do not want to see that separation, including those Conservative Members who realise the danger of the road on which they are treading—there must surely be some—to support the Government amendment tonight.

6.39 pm

Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very surprised to be called so late in the debate, and I will be brief.

Like the Conservatives, I want to find a solution to the West Lothian question, but I want a solution that is fair to England and fair to Scotland, too. What the Conservatives are suggesting—that Scottish Members stay away from the vote next week—will, indeed, be fair to England, but it mostly definitely will not be fair to Scotland because, if the Bill goes ahead, it will lose out quite significantly: up to £100 million of funding. We would experience a decrease in staff and resources over the year, and our effective advantage would then be compromised.

The Conservatives believe that the devolution settlement is some sort of perfect arrangement, whereby the Scottish Parliament takes its decisions, determines its own agenda and policies and is then locked in some sort of vacuum, impervious to any decision that is taken down here in the larger, Big Brother House—but the devolution settlement is far from perfect. As the settlement currently stands, the Scottish Parliament is very much only a pocket-money Parliament. We are still very vulnerable to decisions taken down here.

It is in every Scottish Member's interests to ensure that Scotland's interests are protected and defended. That should be the sole priority of Scottish Members in the House. Those in Scottish Labour know that, and they have a solution to the West Lothian question. It is quite simply that the Scottish Parliament should do as the Big Brother UK Parliament should do, too. Even if tuition fees are bad for Scotland, their solution is quite simple: the Scottish Parliament should simply adopt tuition fees as a policy too—so much for internal democracy, so much decision making, so much for separate solutions for separate legislatures and so much for their commitment to devolution.

Labour Members say that there is a problem with jumping in and out of legislation. Well, that is not a big deal; it is what we have been doing for the past 10 years. If the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) does not want to do the hokey-cokey, we will provide the information for him and let him know which measures will be voted on. If that is too much of a big deal for him, why does he not get the underemployed Scotland Office to give him a brief on the exceptions that are confined to Scotland? In that way, he would no longer have to play that game and do the hokey-cokey.

There is a solution: give Scotland financial responsibility and fiscal autonomy, and the Barnett formula immediately goes. Better still—give Scotland independence and England, too. In that way, the Lobby fodder of Scottish MPs will not be needed to get English legislation through.

6.41 pm

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

This has been a good-natured debate, which has generated some excited interest. That is down to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) —he is so often mistaken for my brother—who initiated the debate and who in what he bravely said wants to define a procedure for the House that embraces equity, fairness and consistency.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me a minor diversion, just to pay tribute to the originator of the entire issue: the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—or for West Lothian, as he will perhaps be better remembered. He and I first encountered each other on this very issue 25 years ago. Indeed, when devolution referendums took place at the end of the Callaghan Government, the hon. Gentleman was a champion of the issue. As the president of the Oxford union, I oversaw a televised debate, and the hon. Gentleman pulled out at the very last minute. He said that the BBC was behaving badly and that, because there was a 40 per cent. threshold, staying away was equivalent to voting no. In his normal, logical way he became very angry, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) replaced him—in a pretty ghastly brown suit, but that is by the by.

The hon. Gentleman will not mind if I tell the House that, 25 years later, he had the good grace to confess that the real reason that he pulled out was that those in the vote no campaign decided, at the very last minute, that they did not want to parade before the cameras someone who might be thought to be an Etonian toff. Well, I can assure him that we see him not as a toff, but as the Father of the House and the originating and enduring champion of the issue that we are debating today.

All new constitutional arrangements create new problems. As Lord Lawson said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is bit like simplifying taxation—it always makes it more complicated. What devolution has done is to create some new complications. It is all about who has power over what, and by what right. Scotland wanted power over its own affairs in some areas separate from the House, and it has now got it. But we now have the classic and almost insoluble overlap and inconsistency of the legislative power that has followed.

There are two sides to the West Lothian question—perhaps doubly galling for Scottish MPs. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, but English MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. The situation is doubly irritating because in addition to English MPs being unable to vote on Scottish matters, Scottish MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters. They can no longer vote on many matters that affect their constituents because they are devolved matters.

Mr. Savidge rose—

Mr. Duncan

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? We are short of time and I know that the Minister wants a good 10 minutes to speak, so I hope that he will accept my apologies.

Let me address several worries that have arisen during the debate, one of which is very odd. The first concern is that addressing the conundrum would somehow create two-tier MPs. However, we have that situation at present to a large extent. There is already an imbalance, and our proposal is designed to rectify that in several respects. Scottish MPs have more authority over English affairs than English MPs—and Scottish MPs, to some extent—have over Scottish affairs. That inconsistency requires rebalancing. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was in the Chamber a few moments ago, spotted the problem 25 years ago. He said: it would be wrong for those of us from Scotland to…interfere in English domestic affairs after"— devolution— has been reached."—[Official Report, 1 February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 457.] Devolution has been reached and the inconsistency has now arisen.

In response to a further objection that was raised, I argue that the proposal before us today would not jeopardise the integrity of the United Kingdom—it might do the opposite. It would establish a practice that would be more likely to secure that integrity and that would stabilise, rather than complicate, our procedures.

We live with having Scottish Members in the Cabinet, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Chancellor is Scottish and we had a Scottish Foreign Secretary for some time. They have occupied their posts for the whole United Kingdom—indeed, the Chancellor's ever-growing taxes affect Scotland as much as England and Wales. We can live with that, but if we consider the way in which hon. Members vote on specific measures, there is inconsistency. If it is not addressed, there will be renewed pressure for an English Parliament and, thus, perhaps further fragmentation of the United Kingdom.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) persuasively argued, recent events have sown the seeds of English and Welsh discontent more deeply. Measures for England have been enacted that could not have been enacted without the support of Scottish Members. However, as if to add insult to injury, the very same measures have been rejected in Scotland. Indeed, the same Scottish Members would have rejected the measures for Scotland if they had possessed a vote. The situation rubs our noses in it. It is as if Scottish Members are saying, "We're not going to have it ourselves, but we're going to force it on you", and, worse, demanding the right to do the opposite in England to that which they would choose to do in Scotland.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.

Hon. Members mentioned the poll tax, but there was no devolution at the time. Although devolution occurred later, we had the poll tax in England, too.

Let me canter through the alternatives. The Liberal Democrats propose a federal United Kingdom, but Conservative Members do not support that. Equally, we do not support the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. Complete Scottish independence has been suggested. We could have what might be called the "Rifkind option" of a double majority. Under that option, the support of the majority of English Members and the majority of the whole House—Scottish Members would thus be allowed to vote—would be required before any measure could pass.

We could establish an English Grand Committee or have English-only days. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggested during a Westminster Hall debate that Scottish Members could also make up the Scottish Parliament, which would give them a dual mandate and introduce a measure of consistency to parliamentary conduct. We could have a voluntary convention, but as the Government have trampled over many such conventions, I doubt that that would last. The proposal in the motion is that the Speaker should certify the category into which Bills should fall. That might help my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale with any vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, especially if such a Division took place after dinner.

The situation could be serious if we fail to address the problem. [Interruption.] Perhaps even the Scottish nationalists would listen to this point because it is important and I want to admit it to the Minister. It would be really serious if the UK Government commanded an overall majority only with the help of Scottish Members of Parliament. Without the practice we advocate, and without it being established now as the way to conduct our business, a future Government in such a challenging arithmetical predicament could find its entire legitimacy questioned.

Our proposal would remove the indignation of being told what to do by a minority of MPs who are unaffected by their actions. It is designed to introduce greater stability to procedures that are rubbing along unhappily and causing growing indignation. It would draw the sting of those complaints and build a practice that addresses the West Lothian question and introduces a new force for stability and fairness in the way in which we conduct our affairs.

6.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)

Although the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) conducted his contribution in a calm manner, the Conservative motion is another example of the brazen opportunism that guides the tunnel vision—perhaps through the Mersey tunnel as my hon. Friends have suggested—of Tory policy under their latest leader.

Let us be clear about the principle on which this Parliament is based and should be based in future. In the House, every Member of Parliament is equal. All Members can speak on all subjects. The suggestion to the contrary is divisive and dangerous, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Having equality for Members of Parliament at the centre is symbolic of our aspiration for all corners of the United Kingdom to be treated equally. It is an essential unifying part of our country. To say that one class of Member of Parliament must only vote on one class of issue is the slippery slope down which I doubt the Opposition truly want to go in the unlikely event that they ever get into government again.

David Burnside

In promoting the most pro-Union of policies that has ever been heard from a party that traditionally is not regarded as a pro-Union party, does the Minister agree that it is time he put up candidates in all parts of the United Kingdom, won more pro-Union Labour seats in Northern Ireland and separated himself from the separatist nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party?

Mr. Leslie

Clearly a political party can choose to stand wherever it wishes. The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed with his historic allies, the Conservative party, whom he feels unable to support tonight. I understand that he will side with Her Majesty's Government. In that, he is most welcome. Although some hon. Members mentioned their worries about the constitutional symmetry across the country, it is not simply a matter for Scotland, but is relevant to other parts of the country as well. The West Lothian question is just as much a west Belfast question. If we need to correct something for Scotland, which we do not, we also need to address it in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish Members of Parliament frequently voted on non-Northern Ireland business when the Assembly was up and functioning. Curiously, there was no objection from the Conservatives at the time. I suspect that their constitutional outrage is convenient and flexible, appearing only when they want it to.

Let us be honest about what we are discussing. The debate is little more than a cynical tactic aimed at the Higher Education Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith explained. It does not matter to the Conservatives that it affects Scotland, in both policy and financial terms. It is irrelevant to the Tories that Scottish Members of Parliament have a legitimate Scottish interest. If it affects UK revenue and UK expenditure, of course it is a UK concern. In trying to drive a wedge into the Bill, the Opposition have raised the red herring of the West Lothian question.

Let us consider the simple answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament backed devolution to Scotland. The UK Parliament chose to devolve some of its powers. Parliament is content, and English Members of Parliament are content, to live with devolution. We opted, of our own free will, to create the current devolution settlement. There is no question of any unwanted imposition from Scotland on the rest of the country, as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) seemed to suggest. That is the answer to the West Lothian question. English Members of Parliament, by an overwhelming majority, voted for, and continue to support, devolution to Scotland and the present constitutional settlement. The English people, too, supported Labour's manifesto at the last two general elections and are content with the constitutional settlement.

As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the West Lothian question is essentially illusory and the Conservatives have completely misconceived the matter. He spoke about the issue of whether devolution removes the need for special representation by Scotland here at Westminster. The boundary commission for Scotland is reviewing the number of constituencies in Scotland to achieve parity throughout the United Kingdom.

The UK Parliament retains the right to legislate on devolved matters and it retains overall sovereignty, so the West Lothian question is a red herring. In arguing their case, Conservative Members have stumbled into a terrible tangle of double standards, and there is an awful lot of Tory inconsistency. One almost has to admire the sheer effrontery and confected outrage in the arguments of Conservative Members. The Leader of the Opposition now says with unblinking gravitas that, as a point of high principle, he has instructed that not a single one of his Scottish MPs will be allowed to take part in the proceedings on the Higher Education Bill. He is withdrawing the massed ranks of his Scottish forces, all one of them—what a sweeping but completely transparent gesture.

Rather inconveniently, however, it appears that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has voted 37 times on non-Scottish-specific business, including, I reiterate, the Mersey Tunnels Bill. Yet the Conservatives have the cheek to say in their motion that it is the practice of the honourable Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale voluntarily to abstain from voting on such legislation". I suspect that it is not his practice, but perhaps he means that it will now be his practice.

There is a lot of Tory inconsistency here. What about the poll tax? It was imposed on Scotland when the vast majority of MPs there objected. The Tories had no qualms then. Where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) said, was the West Lothian question when the Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister responsible for local government, was the begetter of, and driving force behind, the poll tax? When recently asked about the poll tax, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a bold and brave experiment". That was clearly not the view of people in Scotland.

When we look at the list of English Conservative Front Benchers, we see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, represents an English, not a Welsh, constituency. To be fair, on a clear day, from the top of a hill, with a pair of binoculars, one can probably just about see into Wales from his constituency, so that is all right. The Tories are completely inconsistent.

Let us look at the array of alternatives suggested by the Conservatives. Some Members have said that we have a constitutional mess, and others that they support devolution. I suspect that the Conservatives' gut instinct is to scrap devolution altogether, and if that is the case, why do they not just come out and say so? They also want to force the Speaker to rip apart Bills—

David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 142, Noes 377.

Division No. 35]	[6:58 pm
AYES
Amess, David	Horam, John (Orpington)
Ancram, rh Michael	Howard, rh Michael
Arbuthnot, rh James	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Bacon, Richard	Jack, rh Michael
Baron, John (Billericay)	Jenkin, Bernard
Bellingham, Henry	Johnson, Boris (Henley)
Bercow, John	Key, Robert (Salisbury)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Blunt, Crispin	Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Boswell, Tim	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Lansley, Andrew
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)	Leigh, Edward
	Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Brady, Graham	Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Brazier, Julian	Lidington, David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lilley, rh Peter
Burns, Simon	Loughton, Tim
Burt, Alistair	Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Butterfill, Sir John	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Cash, William	Mackay, rh Andrew
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Maclean, rh David
	McLoughlin, Patrick
Chope, Christopher	Malins, Humfrey
Clappison, James	Mates, Michael
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Maude, rh Francis
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian
Collins, Tim	May, Mrs Theresa
Conway, Derek	Mercer, Patrick
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)
Cran, James (Beverley)
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Moss, Malcolm
	Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Djanogly, Jonathan	Norman, Archie
Dorrell, rh Stephen	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Duncan, Alan (Rutland)	Osborne, George (Tatton)
Duncan, Peter (Galloway)	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan Smith, rh Iain	Page, Richard
Fabricant, Michael	Paice, James
Fallon, Michael	Paterson, Owen
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)	Pickles, Eric
	Portillo, rh Michael
Flight, Howard	Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
Flook, Adrian	Randall, John
Forth, rh Eric	Redwood, rh John
Francois, Mark	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Garnier, Edward	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Roe, Mrs Marion
Goodman, Paul	Rosindell, Andrew
Gray, James (N Wilts)	Ruffley, David
Grayling, Chris	Selous, Andrew
Green, Damian (Ashford)	Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Greenway, John	Shepherd, Richard
Gummer, rh John	Simmonds, Mark
Hague, rh William	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Hammond, Philip	Soames, Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hayes, John (S Holland)	Spicer, Sir Michael
Heald, Oliver	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David	Spring, Richard
Hendry, Charles	Stanley, rh Sir John
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Steen, Anthony
Hogg, rh Douglas	Streeter, Gary

Swayne, Desmond	Watkinson, Angela
Swire, Hugo (E Devon)	Whittingdale, John
Syms, Robert	Wiggin, Bill
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Wilkinson, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wilshire, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tredinnick, David
Trend, Michael	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Young, rh Sir George
Tyrie, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Viggers, Peter	Mr. Peter Atkinson and Gregory Barker
Walter, Robert
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Chaytor, David
Ainger, Nick	Clapham, Michael
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)
Alexander, Douglas	Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Allan, Richard
Allen, Graham	Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)	Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)
	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary	Clelland, David
Atkins, Charlotte	Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)
Austin, John	Coffey, Ms Ann
Bailey, Adrian	Cohen, Harry
Baker, Norman	Coleman, Iain
Banks, Tony	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Barnes, Harry	Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)
Barron, rh Kevin	Cooper, Yvette
Beard, Nigel	Corbyn, Jeremy
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Cotter, Brian
Beith, rh A. J.	Cousins, Jim
Benn, rh Hilary	Cranston, Ross
Bennett, Andrew	Cruddas, Jon
Benton, Joe (Bootle)	Cryer, Ann (Keighley)
Berry, Roger	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Best, Harold	Cummings, John
Betts, Clive	Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)
Blackman, Liz
Blair, rh Tony	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Blizzard, Bob	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Borrow, David	Darling, rh Alistair
Bradshaw, Ben	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Davidson, Ian
Breed, Colin	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Brennan, Kevin	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.	Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)	Dawson, Hilton
	Dean, Mrs Janet
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Denham, rh John
Browne, Desmond	Dismore, Andrew
Bruce, Malcolm	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Buck, Ms Karen	Dobson, rh Frank
Burden, Richard	Donohoe, Brian H.
Burgon, Colin	Doran, Frank
Burnside, David	Doughty, Sue
Burstow, Paul	Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Cable, Dr. Vincent	Drew, David (Stroud)
Cairns, David	Drown, Ms Julia
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)	Efford, Clive
	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Ewing, Annabelle
Caplin, Ivor	Farrelly, Paul
Carmichael, Alistair	Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)
Caton, Martin	Fisher, Mark
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Challen, Colin	Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Follett, Barbara	King, Andy (Rugby)
Foster, rh Derek	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)
Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)	Kumar, Dr. Ashok
	Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Foulkes, rh George	Lamb, Norman
Francis, Dr. Hywel	Lammy, David
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)	Laws, David (Yeovil)
George, Andrew (St. Ives)	Laxton, Bob (Derby N)
George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)	Lazarowicz, Mark
Gerrard, Neil	Lepper, David
Gibson, Dr. Ian	Leslie, Christopher
Gilroy, Linda	Levitt, Tom (High Peak)
Godsiff, Roger	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Goggins, Paul	Liddell, rh Mrs Helen
Green, Matthew (Ludlow)	Linton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Love, Andrew
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
Hain, rh Peter	Luke, Iain (Dundee E)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McAvoy, Thomas
Hancock, Mike	McCabe, Stephen
Hanson, David	McCafferty, Chris
Harman, rh Ms Harriet	McDonagh, Siobhain
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	MacDonald, Calum
Harvey, Nick	McDonnell, John
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)	MacDougall, John
	McFall, John
Healey, John	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Heath, David	McIsaac, Shona
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McKechin, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	McKenna, Rosemary
Hendrick, Mark	Mackinlay, Andrew
Hepburn, Stephen	McNamara, Kevin
Heppell, John	McNulty, Tony
Hermon, Lady	MacShane, Denis
Hesford, Stephen	Mactaggart, Fiona
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia	McWilliam, John
Heyes, David	Mahmood, Khalid
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mallaber, Judy
Hinchliffe, David	Mandelson, rh Peter
Hodge, Margaret	Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)	Marsden. Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hoon, rh Geoffrey	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Hope, Phil (Corby)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Martlew, Eric
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Meacher, rh Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
	Merron, Gillian
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)	Milburn, rh Alan
	Miliband, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Moffatt, Laura
Hurst Alan (Braintree)	Mole, Chris
Hutton, rh John	Moonie, Dr. Lewis
Iddon, Dr. Brian	Moore, Michael
Illsley, Eric	Moran, Margaret
Ingram, rh Adam	Morgan, Julie
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Morley, Elliot
Jamieson, David	Morris, rh Estelle
Jenkins, Brian	Mountford, Kali
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Munn, Ms Meg
	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Oaten, Mark (Winchester)
Kaufman, rh Gerald	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Keeble, Ms Sally	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	O'Hara, Edward
Keen, Ann (Brentford)	Olner, Bill
Keetch, Paul	Öpik, Lembit
Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)	Organ, Diana
	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Owen, Albert

Palmer, Dr. Nick	Stevenson, George
Pearson, Ian	Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)
Perham, Linda
Picking, Anne	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pickthall, Colin	Stinchcombe, Paul
Pike, Peter (Burnley)	Stoate, Dr. Howard
Plaskitt, James	Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Pond, Chris (Gravesham)	Stringer, Graham
Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pound, Stephen	Stunell, Andrew
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
	Tami, Mark (Alyn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Prescott, rh John	Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
	Taylor. Matthew (Truro)
Primarolo, rh Dawn	Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Prosser, Gwyn	Teather, Sarah
Pugh, Dr. John	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Purchase, Ken	Thurso, John
Quinn, Lawrie	Tipping, Paddy
Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)	Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)
Raynsford, rh Nick	Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Reed, Andy (Loughborough)	Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)	Trickett, Jon
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)	Trimble, rh David
	Truswell, Paul
Robertson, Angus (Moray)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)	Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)
Rooney, Terry	Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Roy, Frank (Motherwell)	Walley, Ms Joan
Ruane, Chris	Ward, Claire
Ruddock, Joan	Wareing, Robert N.
Russell Bob (Colchester)	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)	Watts, David
	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
Sanders, Adrian	Weir, Michael
Sarwar, Mohammad	White, Brian
Savidge, Malcolm	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Sawford, Phil	Wicks, Malcolm
Sedgemore, Brian	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Sheridan, Jim	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Short, rh Clare	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)	Willis, Phil
Skinner, Dennis	Wills, Michael
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)	Winnick, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)
	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)	Wishart, Pete
	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Woodward, Shaun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Woolas, Phil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)
	Wright, David (Telford)
Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Soley, Clive	Wyatt, Derek
Southworth, Helen	Younger-Ross, Richard
Speller, rh John
Squire, Rachel	Tellers for the Noes:
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis	Vernon Coaker and Paul Clark
Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 141.

Division No. 36]	[7:16 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)
Ainger, Nick	Cooper, Yvette
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Alexander, Douglas	Cotter, Brian
Allan, Richard	Cousins, Jim
Allen, Graham	Cranston, Ross
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)	Cruddas, Jon
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Cryer, Ann (Keighley)
	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary	Cummings, John
Atkins, Charlotte	Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)
Austin, John
Bailey, Adrian	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Baker, Norman	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Banks, Tony	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Barnes, Harry	Darling, rh Alistair
Barron, rh Kevin	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Beard, Nigel	Davidson, Ian
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Beith, rh A. J.	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Benn, rh Hilary	Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bennett, Andrew	Dawson, Hilton
Benton, Joe (Bootle)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Berry, Roger	Denham, rh John
Best, Harold	Dismore, Andrew
Betts, Clive	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Blackman, Liz	Donohoe, Brian H.
Blears, Ms Hazel	Doran, Frank
Blizzard, Bob	Doughty, Sue
Borrow, David	Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Bradshaw, Ben	Drew, David (Stroud)
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Drown, Ms Julia
Breed, Colin	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Brennan, Kevin	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)	Efford, Clive
	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Farrelly, Paul
Browne, Desmond	Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)
Bruce, Malcolm	Fisher, Mark
Buck, Ms Karen	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Burden, Richard	Flynn, Paul (Newport W)
Burgon, Colin	Follett, Barbara
Burnside, David	Foster, rh Derek
Burstow, Paul	Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Cable, Dr. Vincent	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)
Cairns, David
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Foulkes, rh George
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Francis, Dr. Hywel
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)	George, Andrew (St. Ives)
	George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Gerrard, Neil
Caplin, Ivor	Gibson, Dr. Ian
Carmichael, Alistair	Gilroy, Linda
Caton, Martin	Godsiff, Roger
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Goggins, Paul
Challen, Colin	Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Chaytor, David	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clapham, Michael	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)	Hain, rh Peter
Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)	Hancock, Mike
Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)	Hanson, David
	Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)
Clelland, David	Harvey, Nick
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)	Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)
Coffey, Ms Ann
Cohen, Harry	Healey, John

Heath, David	Mackinlay, Andrew
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McNamara, Kevin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	McNulty, Tony
Hendrick, Mark	MacShane, Denis
Hepburn, Stephen	Mactaggart, Fiona
Heppell, John	McWilliam, John
Hermon, Lady	Mahmood, Khalid
Hesford, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Heyes, David	Mandelson, rh Peter
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Hodge, Margaret	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Hoon, rh Geoffrey
Hope, Phil (Corby)	Martlew, Eric
Hopkins, Kelvin	Meacher, rh Michael
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)	Merron, Gillian
	Milburn, rh Alan
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)	Miliband, David
	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Moffatt, Laura
Humble, Mrs Joan	Mole, Chris
Hurst, Alan (Braintree)	Moonie, Dr. Lewis
Hutton, rh John	Moore, Michael
Iddon, Dr. Brian	Moran, Margaret
Illsley, Eric	Morgan, Julie
Ingram, rh Adam	Morley, Elliot
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Morris, rh Estelle
Jamieson, David	Mountford, Kali
Jenkins, Brian	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	Munn, Ms Meg
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Kaufman, rh Gerald	O'Hara, Edward
Keeble, Ms Sally	Olner, Bill
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Öpik, Lembit
Keen, Ann (Brentford)	Organ, Diana
Keetch, Paul	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)	Owen, Albert
	Palmer, Dr. Nick
Kilfoyle, Peter	Pearson, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby)	Perham, Linda
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)	Picking, Anne
	Pickthall, Colin
Kumar, Dr. Ashok	Pike, Peter (Burnley)
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen	Plaskitt, James
Lamb, Norman	Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
Lammy, David	Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)
Laws, David (Yeovil)	Pound, Stephen
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Leslie, Christopher	Prescott, rh John
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)	Primarolo, rh Dawn
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Prosser, Gwyn
Liddell. rh Mrs Helen	Pugh, Dr. John
Linton, Martin	Purchase, Ken
Love, Andrew	Quinn, Lawrie
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Luke, Iain (Dundee E)	Raynsford, rh Nick
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
McAvoy, Thomas	Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)
McCabe, Stephen	Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)
McCafferty, Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
MacDonald, Calum
McDonnell, John	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
MacDougall, John
McFall, John	Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McIsaac, Shona	Rooney, Terry
McKechin, Ann	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McKenna, Rosemary	Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Ruane, Chris	Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Ruddock, Joan	Teather, Sarah
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Thurso, John
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)	Tipping, Paddy
	Todd. Mark (S Derbyshire)
Salter, Martin	Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Sanders, Adrian	Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Sarwar, Mohammad	Trickett, Jon
Savidge, Malcolm	Trimble, rh David
Sawford, Phil	Truswell, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Sheridan, Jim	Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Skinner, Dennis	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)	Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)
	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Walley, Ms Joan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Ward, Claire
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wareing, Robert N.
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
	Watts, David
Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
Soley, Clive	White, Brian
Southworth Helen	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Spellar, rh John	Wicks, Malcolm
Squire, Rachel	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Steinberg, Gerry	Willis, Phil
Stevenson, George	Wills, Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)	Winnick, David
	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Stinchcombe, Paul	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Stoate, Dr. Howard	Woodward, Shaun
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin	Woolas, Phil
Stringer, Graham	Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Wright, David (Telford)
Stunell, Andrew	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Wyatt, Derek
Tami, Mark (Alyn)	Younger-Ross, Richard
Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, David (NW Leics)	Vernon Coaker and Paul Clark
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

NOES
Amess, David	Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ancram, rh Michael	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Arbuthnot, rh James	Collins, Tim
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Conway, Derek
Bacon, Richard	Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Barker, Gregory
Baron, John (Billericay)	Djanogly, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry	Dorrell, rh Stephen
Bercow, John	Duncan, Alan (Rutland)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Duncan Smith, rh Iain
Blunt, Crispin	Ewing, Annabelle
Boswell, Tim	Fabricant, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Fallon, Michael
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)	Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)
Brady, Graham	Flook, Adrian
Brazier, Julian	Forth, rh Eric
Browning, Mrs Angela	Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Burns, Simon	Garnier, Edward
Burt, Alistair	Goodman, Paul
Butterfill. Sir John	Gray, James (N Wilts)
Cash, William	Grayling, Chris
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Green, Damian (Ashford)
	Greenway, John
Chope, Christopher	Grieve, Dominic
Clappison, James	Gummer, rh John

Hague, rh William	Randall, John
Hammond, Philip	Redwood, rh John
Hawkins, Nick	Robertson, Angus (Moray)
Hayes, John (S Holland)	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Heald, Oliver
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Hendry, Charles	Roe, Mrs Marion
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Rosindell, Andrew
Hogg, rh Douglas	Ruffley, David
Horam, John (Orpington)	Selous, Andrew
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Jack, rh Michael	Shepherd, Richard
Jenkin, Bernard	Simmonds, Mark
Johnson, Boris (Henley)	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Key, Robert (Salisbury)	Soames, Nicholas
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)	Spicer, Sir Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Spring, Richard
Lensley, Andrew	Stanley, rh Sir John
Leigh, Edward	Steen, Anthony
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)	Streeter, Gary
Liddell-Grainger, Ian	Swayne, Desmond
Lidington, David	Swire, Hugo (E Devon)
Lilley, rh Peter	Syms, Robert
Llwyd, Elfyn	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Loughton, Tim	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)	Taylor, John (Solihull)
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mackay, rh Andrew	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Maclean, rh David	Tredinnick, David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Trend, Michael
Malins, Humfrey	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Maude, rh Francis	Tyrie, Andrew
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian	Viggers, Peter
May, Mrs Theresa	Walter, Robert
Mercer, Patrick	Watkinson, Angela
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Weir, Michael
	Whittingdale, John
Moss, Malcolm	Wiggin, Bill
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Wilkinson, John
Osborne, George (Tatton)	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Ottaway, Richard	Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Paice, James	Wishart, Pete
Paterson, Owen	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Pickles, Eric	Young, rh Sir George
Portillo, rh Michael
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)	Tellers for the Noes:
	Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Francois
Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved:

That this House believes that Parliament is the Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that all Right honourable and honourable Members are equal in status and have a right to speak and vote on all matters brought before Parliament; and opposes any step that would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.