The West Lothian Question (Hansard, 19 May 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, the Government's position on the so-called West Lothian question was clearly stated during debates on the Scotland Act and has not been changed by the elections which took place on 6th May. We believe that the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it, an adjustment to the number of Members representing Scottish seats in another place and the development of Westminster procedures, as is presently being considered by the Procedure Committee in another place, provide between them as much of an Answer as the Question requires.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that ingenious reply. Does he agree that although the English appear to be acquiescent right now, once they start to realise how disadvantaged they will be under the new dispensation compared with the Scots they will rapidly, and justifiably, begin to become extremely resentful? Would not the simplest solution be to establish a convention whereby Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament automatically abstain from voting on purely English domestic matters, as was proposed, most recently, by Sir Teddy Taylor in the other place eight days ago?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, the point which was made during one of the debates on the Scotland Act was that during the period of the Stormont government this Parliament did not seem to be too concerned about the East. Antrim question. Therefore, the idea that a new constitutional anomaly is being introduced is totally without foundation. This Parliament has proved that it can handle constitutional innovation in a way that protects its integrity.

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, how can the noble Lord possibly justify a situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have an absolute say over the local government settlement in England but none whatever over his own constituents in Dunfermline? How can he also justify that the newly-appointed Minister of Transport will dictate, policy on the development of roads in England but will have no say whatever over her own constituents in Scotland?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, very easily. With reference to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mrs Helen Liddell, the noble Lord 300 must recognise that we are the Government of the United Kingdom and will use the talents of the UK to best effect to ensure that the best people are doing the right jobs.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, is it not a reflection of the native abilities of the Scots that they now have six seats in the Cabinet in addition to running their own affairs in Scotland?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, that may well be the case, but what happens to Scottish Office Ministers is a matter of some concern.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, have the Government considered what appears to be the least unsatisfactory solution, which is a combination of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Scottish Members not voting on matters that do not apply to Scotland and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster? Are the Government relieved that proposals for an English parliament are unlikely to find favour as the muddles and squabbles in the present devolved Parliament in Edinburgh are observed over the coming years?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, the noble Lord has an ability to foresee the future that I do not pretend to have. We made clear at the time of the debates on the Scotland Bill that an inevitable consequence of devolution in Scotland would be a proper adjustment to Scottish representation in the other place. That seems to me to be a fair and reasonable way forward. There are other considerations at work: the deliberations of the Procedure Committee of another place and how best our Parliament can adjust to the reality of devolution. What I hope to see in Scotland is a way forward that is based on recognising the diversity of the United Kingdom and getting parties to work together in the common interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that the West Lothian question does not apply to Wales?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, on the basis of geography at the very least, yes.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the best answer to the West Lothian question is devolution within England so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not decide every detail of local authority expenditure? Can we look forward to home rule for Yorkshire in the Government's future legislative programme?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to my original Answer, in which I drew attention to the Government's commitment to the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it. I believe that that is one of the ways 301 in which we can achieve a more symmetrical form of devolution within the United Kingdom, and it is to be welcomed.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, is it not a fact that some Members of your Lordships' House have stood for and been elected to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, they will be able to consider matters relating to Scotland? Is it not also a fact that those Members, including the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament, can come to England, enter your Lordships' House, join in all the hurdy-gurdy of party politics and take part in English matters? The Minister seems to find all these matters peculiarly easy. That is a simplicity which some of us do not quite follow. Will he admit that, at least in schoolboy language, it is unfair?

§ Lord Sewel
My Lords, not at all. It is true that this House provided the presiding officers for the three territorial assemblies and parliaments, and I rejoice in that. I believe that if Members of this House who are also members of these territorial parliaments decide to make a contribution to the deliberations of this House we should listen very carefully to what they say.

§ Lord Waddington
My Lords, before we—

Noble Lords
Order!