Constitutional Settlement

Lord Hughes of Woodside Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I join everyone who has expressed their thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for opening this debate. I was not sure when I saw this title whether it was an appropriate time to have this debate, but now I am convinced that it is. There are many people in this House who have a long and very honourable tradition of supporting and advocating devolution. I do not want to quarrel with them, but I want to try to look at the future and enter this caveat. History depends on one’s interpretation, and because I was in the other place between 1970 and 1979 I know that the impetus behind the very modest Scotland Assembly Bill did not come primarily because of the arguments of those who favoured devolution but because of the defeat of Alex Wilson in the Hamilton by-election and the rise in the number of nationalist MPs from one to 11. That was the impetus. For too long since then, the view has permeated the debate that if we cede a little bit more power to the Scottish Parliament, and give a little bit here and there, it will somehow satisfy the nationalist beast. I have said it before and I will say it again that anyone who believes that is naive enough to believe that if you feed a carnivore more and more meat, it will one day become a vegetarian.

That does not mean that we should ignore what is happening or not try to face up to the future. Of course, there is a need for a constitutional settlement, but it must be based on principle and purpose and not expediency. Of course, the federal solution has its attractions. It would immediately resolve the so-called West Lothian question; it would abolish the House of Commons, to be replaced by an English Parliament, so we would have English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments, each with equal status and authority. Of course, that would be fine, but there would still be a need for a federal Parliament to deal with international issues, defence issues, and so forth. But another important issue, not mentioned so far in this debate, is that given the disparity in the size and numbers in the populations and economics, as well as in the fiscal possibilities of each of the four countries, there would still have to be a mechanism to mitigate these financial issues. Someone would have to raise taxation nationally, and distribute it to bring out some equality of opportunity, and we would be back where we started. There is the argument about who is giving money where—and people constantly complain that the English are subsidising the Scots. Federalism would not remove that argument entirely.

There is also the possibility, although we do not know the dynamics of the situation, that you would land up with a federal Parliament where the majority of Members would represent English constituencies. I do not know how it would be elected. Would it be directly population controlled? There would have to be balancing and weights—and that is another debate. The possibility arises of people in Scotland electing members to the federal Parliament, none of whom were members of the majority party in the federal Parliament. This brings me back to the rather ludicrous proposition which was put at the time when there were no Tory MPs representing Scotland in the other place: namely, that the Tories had no mandate to govern in Scotland. Therefore, there are dangers inherent in these issues. However, I absolutely agree that they ought to be examined.

One of the problems that we have with our society today is the insistent and strident clamour for the instant solution—the instant fix. There is no time to think about things; they have to be done tomorrow. We are concerned about the next news headline. We also react to events and do not look far enough into the future. We are not looking at the long haul, yet that is what we need to do. We cannot look at a constitution as an add-on to democracy. A constitution is vital to democracy. A constitution offers all sorts of possibilities but it is not a mystical thing that can suddenly solve all our problems at a snap of the fingers. That is why we have to look at what will happen in the long run. We have to realise that the whole process will fail if we start by looking at solutions to a constitutional issue. What was the reason for having it in the first place? As has been said before, one of the reasons was the debacle of the coalition proposal for the House of Lords. Incidentally, one of the benefits of federation is that the House of Lords would disappear in its entirety as we would have a federal parliament. One of the difficulties is that we go along with these things without defining their purpose. The debacle happened because people were concerned about function, not result, and it is the result and the purpose which really matter. It is the purpose which really matters.

This is a valuable debate and I hope that we will take forward the details of it. However, we should not imagine for one second that the tensions in society will be resolved easily. There is no neat solution to our constitutional problems which can be written on one side of octavo-sized notepaper. However, that might be slightly better than a previous proposal which appeared to have been written on the back of an envelope.

I favour a royal commission over a constitutional convention for the following reason, which may be regarded as slightly controversial. A lot has been said in favour of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the deliberations of which led eventually to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. However, one of the major flaws of that process was that both the Scottish National Party and the Conservative Party refused to take part in it. Therefore, a whole spectrum of the debate was not considered in the discussions that took place. The other flaw, in my view, is that people come to a convention armed with their own views. No one who is involved in politics and is a member of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party can put their hand on their heart and say, “I went to the convention with a blank canvas. I had no views of my own”. I was involved in the convention for two years as chair of the Labour Party Scottish MPs so I know a bit about what went on there. As I say, one of the flaws of the convention was that people came to it with their own ideas. There was too much of people saying, “This is what I want”, and not enough of them listening to what other people wanted. Incidentally, one of the most ludicrous propositions put to that convention was that Scotland should have full control and ownership of Scottish nuclear power stations. I mildly asked whether that would include the historical costs. I was told, “We are not sure about that”. I also asked whether it would include the Scottish Parliament taking over the cost of decommissioning. I was told, “We can’t have that. For heaven’s sake, bring some sense to the discussions”. Therefore, a convention will not resolve issues unless all the political parties and civic society take part in it. However, everyone can submit their views to a royal commission, which can then be discussed. It is a matter of debate which is the best way forward. However, it cannot be done quickly—that is not a matter of debate.

I end by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and all who have taken part in this debate. The sense that has been spoken in it has been an eye-opener for me. I certainly hope that that will continue.