Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 9 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on House of Commons (Participation) Bill.
House of Commons (Participation) Bill
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on his success in the ballot, and on raising an important issue? I thought that I would speak at this point in light of the imputation of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown). It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that all Members who have spoken so far have recognised that the subject is important and requires more discussion, and the House is grateful to him for providing that opportunity. It was excellent that my hon. Friend opened the debate by putting the situation in its historical context and going through the history as carefully as he did. I know that the House will be grateful to him for that. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was characteristically honest when he said that Labour’s position is based on the party’s electoral interests. That was the basis of his remarks. We saw an example of that in the speech of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who cited many implausible scenarios that would scupper the Bill. He was clearly putting the issue in very full context. Towards the end of his remarks, he said that it was unlikely that the Bill would get a Second Reading. No doubt he and his colleagues will be proud that that is the result of their activities today. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that there is an imbalance in our constitution following devolution. Although devolution is well established and we support it, it raises an issue particularly as between England and Scotland that requires further consideration. At present Members representing Scottish seats can help to decide matters for England over which they have no say in their own constituencies, and Members representing English seats have no say in domestic matters in Scotland, which are largely decided by the Scottish Parliament. There is a lack of reciprocity. The hon. Member for Sherwood speaks of fearing two classes of Members in this place, but he ought to be prepared to observe that we are already in that situation. There are the Members who can decide matters for their constituents on domestic issues and those who cannot—they can just decide matters for other Members’ constituents. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also recognises that the Opposition have drawn attention to the issue since the Scotland Bill was first presented to the House. In the reasoned amendment to that Bill on its Second Reading, the imbalance was one of the points highlighted. Before the last election, the Bills on university top-up fees and foundation hospitals were passed only by the votes of Scottish MPs, even though both policies had been rejected by the Scottish Parliament and neither measure would apply there. Given the Prime Minister’s reduced House of Commons majority, he has been more dependent than ever on the votes of his Scottish Members of Parliament as he tries to push through measures that are often deeply unpopular in his own party. I agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood about one thing: there is a trend of power moving to the local from the national, and such devolution is worth while. But Labour’s approach to the so-called West Lothian question, or the English question, has been to pretend that it does not exist. It was summed up, as I mentioned before, in the words of the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irving, when he said in 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.”” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 1201.]" In an appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister brushed aside the concerns of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), by saying that he did not agree that there was a problem and that the debate on the subject had gone on for ever. I believe, and I think everyone who has spoken would agree, that the Prime Minister’s position is a dangerous one. His failure to acknowledge, let alone resolve, the West Lothian question raises fundamental questions of fairness, democratic accountability and legitimacy. It is right that those of us who care about both democracy and the Union should try to address the issue. I welcome the fact that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has also said that the issue needs to be considered, although he has not come up with a solution.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 457 c1816-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Devolution Eligibility Greater London Legislation Northern Ireland Members Parliamentary procedure Scotland Reform Wales Voting rights Taxation Regional government West Lothian question
- Legislation
- House of Commons (Participation) Bill 2006-07
- Act of Union 1707
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:19:09 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_383940
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_383940
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_383940