House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Mar 1993

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Is the Secretary of State-- [Interruption.] I do not need instruction, Madam Speaker, from the party that tried to sell out Scotland's water campaign. Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that he and the Prime Minister have laboured for a year to produce this constitutional charade? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Grand Committee is not the number of meetings it holds, but the fact that it does not have the power to decide anything? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Scottish Office is not the number of functions he has, but the fact that he is in charge of it without a democratic mandate from the Scottish people? Does he really believe that 50 propaganda offices around Scotland, peddling policies like the privatisation of Scotland's water, will endear the Scottish people to his bankrupt Union?

Mr. Lang : First, may I say how glad I was to see the hon. Gentleman in the Government Lobby last night? I am, however, grateful to him for not welcoming my announcement. I should have been deeply worried if he had welcomed it. The hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic mandate, but I remember that not so long ago he was shouting, "Scotland free by 93." Then he went to a general election, his representation in this House went down by 40 per cent. and his party now has three seats.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : My right hon. Friend will know that some of us have watched our party struggle for more than 20 years with the problem of coming to terms with the situation. Is he aware that those of us who were not attracted by Lady Thatcher's regime will find his proposals a move back in the direction of compromise, towards trying to satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people? Does he agree that this afternoon we have really seen the continuing battle between the Labour party and

Column 798

the Scottish National party for the soul of the Scottish electorate which, as far as those on the Opposition Benches are concerned, seems only to be represented by a minority of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, but I would not wish him to think that the package represents a compromise. It represents a firm commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and we shall not budge one inch down the slippery slope towards devolution. With the package I believe that we can show that Union need not mean uniformity and that the United Kingdom Parliament can adapt its procedures to suit the needs of all its component parts.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : They might be dancing in the streets of Raith this evening at the news, but certainly not anywhere else. The proposals will be treated with derision and disgust by the majority of the Scottish people, including a considerable number of Scottish Conservatives, according to a poll in The Scotsman this morning. Scotland deserves better than that--better than the ridiculous raft of proposals and better than the shabby, squalid manoeuvrings of the Scottish National party or the culture of political sectarianism that exists elsewhere. Why will not the Secretary of State answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)? Why will he not have the legendary courage that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to a few minutes ago? Why will he not put the proposals to the Scottish people in a multi-choice referendum?

Mr. Lang : I read in the newspapers today a poll that indicated strong support for the type of approach in our White Paper. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a lot of people in Scotland want what he calls home rule. I am indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), speaking with all the authority of the shadow Chancellor, who said last week :

"I think we are making a mistake if we just assume somehow there is huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland".

The hon. Gentleman asked for a multi-option referendum, but we had one on 9 April last year and it returned a Conservative Government.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Does my right hon. Friend realise that English Members are used to special treatment being given to Scotland and to Scottish Members in this House? He referred to the Act of Union and to the gross over-representaiton of Scottish Members here--20 per cent. more than is appropriate for English Members of Parliament. As we hear so much about democracy from Members on the Opposition Benches, would he increase the number of English Members by 100 so that there is a balance?

Mr. Lang : Decisions of that kind should be made by the House. But the House has continued to take the view that the treaty of Union should be honoured. That is the reason for the present

representation.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : The Secretary of State will not be surprised that right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench give a wholehearted welcome to this measure to strengthen the Union, especially as many families in Northern Ireland trace their roots to mother Scotland. At the end of the

Column 799

White Paper the Secretary of State enunciates two principles--that the Government will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it ; and that they utterly reject the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that those two principles are supported by all his Cabinet colleagues? If so, will he direct the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to them and remind his right hon. and learned Friend that an even greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland vote for the Union than is the case in Scotland?

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for hs welcome for the statements in my White Paper. He will appreciate that, as I am a territorial Minister, my responsibilities relate to Scotland, and my statement today is clearly directed towards Scotland. However, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did the other day, that the Government remain committed to the unity of the United Kingdom, as it affects Northern Ireland, so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland support it.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : I thank my right hon. Friend for doing nothing to undermine the key role that Scotland plays in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that Scotland and England have much to learn from each other? For example, England could learn lessons from the Scottish legal system, while Scotland could learn lessons from England's highly successful introduction of grant-maintained schools and water privatisation.

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for his confirmation of my expressed view that union need not mean uniformity.

Mr. Norman Hogg : (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : I should like to give a warm welcome to the Secretary of State's statement that the Europartenariat exhibition is to come to Scotland and to compliment the Minister for Industry, who, in Thessalonika last June, worked hard to that end. The exhibition will bring jobs to Scotland. However, I must ask the Secretary of State for an undertaking that if there are to be any inter- party discussions about his proposals and about changes in our Standing Orders he will refrain from taking part in any shabby negotiations with minority parties and other hole-in-the wall organisations, which have discredited him in the past 24 hours. I make that point in the hope that we shall get back to doing things properly, and away from arrangements such as those that so discredited the Government last night.

Mr. Lang : I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the decision to hold the Europartenariat in Glasgow in December. It does indeed flow from the visit of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has been working so hard to secure this outcome for Scotland.

Consultations regarding the amendment of Standing Orders will be conducted through the usual channels and

Column 800

in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman is a former deputy Chief Whip, and I myself am a former Whip, so neither of us is an amateur in these matters.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : I am sure that the taxpayers of Scotland will be very grateful that my right hon. Friend did not take the route towards having tax-raising powers in Scotland. I wonder whether he could move towards a system fairer to Scottish Members and taxpayers. I refer to the fact that the spending powers of his Department should be proportionate to those of the English and Welsh Departments. We ought not to have a situation in which a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money is spent in any part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The approach that the Government take in these matters is to secure a comparable level of service in all parts of the United Kingdom. Given the varying circumstances within the United Kingdom, it is inevitable that more resources are directed to some areas, be they Merseyside, East Anglia or the central belt of Scotland, than to others. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the important thing is to try to achieve a uniform standard of service, as far as possible. The formula for distributing resources to achieve that is reviewed regularly.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Is the Secretary of State aware that, in reality, his statement changes nothing in Scotland? The Scottish people remain as before, wholly at the mercy of a Tory majority in the House which they did not elect. Does he not understand that, despite the parliamentary cretinism shown by some on the Opposition Benches last night, he cannot count on continuing disarray and disunity on these Benches to see him safely through to the next general election? The Scottish people are beginning to understand that if the fight against Tory policies, the fight for socialist change and the fight for Scottish self-determination is ever to be won, it will not be won in the House but through mass extra- parliamentary action by the Scottish people back in Scotland.

Mr. Lang : Promises, promises. What is clear from the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that he has no right to claim to speak for the people of Scotland, any more than have the Scottish National party or the Liberal Democrats. We stood for election to a United Kingdom Parliament in April last year and the Conservative and Unionist party won that election.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is extending the number and use of forums where Scottish questions can be asked and debated without the presence of hon. Members representing England, Wales and Ireland? If that is to be the case, will he ensure, as a member of the Cabinet, that when matters concerning England, Ireland and Wales are debated in the House, Scottish Members will not be present? Otherwise, we shall have a constitutional problem.

Mr. Lang : My hon. Friend will be familiar with the experience that Scottish Members can have from time to time when they seek to intervene in health or environment questions on the Floor of the House only to be told by the Minister that they are matters for which the Scottish Office is answerable. This is something which cuts both ways. It

Column 801

is important in this Parliament that we arrange the mechanisms for delivering government to ensure that the varying and diverse interests of different parts of the United Kingdom are fully accommodated. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : The Secretary of State trumpets that the White Paper and his statement address the real problem of open government and giving information. Why, then, did he choose today of all days to smuggle through the House, by a planted question from one of his hon. Friends, the announcement about the petroleum engineering directorate? Does he not realise that it is not a matter of information being given that is at the root of the problem, but the Government's total insensitivity to the problems facing the people of Scotland? If he really wants to strengthen the Union he must begin from the ground up, by strengthening local government, rather than weakening it and by taking on the Scottish nationalists and not getting into bed with them. Above all else, he must stop pandering to them with some of the nonsense that he has in the White Paper.

Mr. Lang : Far from trying to smuggle in the oil jobs, I am delighted to be able to proclaim that announcement, as I have done today. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is in Aberdeen holding a press conference to announce the precise details. I hope the hon. Gentleman can find it in his heart, as a Member representing Aberdeen, to welcome the announcement, which is of great value to his constituents.

Of course we are keen to reform and strengthen local government and we will bring forward proposals on that. As to relations with the Scottish National party, I hope that those on the hon. Member's Front Bench are listening to what he said.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Scotland have always wanted more say over their own affairs? There is only one party that is willing to give parents more say over the education of their children, council house tenants more say in the running of their estates and taxpayers more say in the spending of their own income. Is it not paradoxical that those who call for a multi-option referendum today were, on 9 April, promising constitutional change without a referendum?

Mr. Lang : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not put it better.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : We have heard much from the whingeing English about the preferential treatment given to the Scots. Could I ask the Secretary of State why preferential treatment, or even-handed treatment, was not given to the Scots two weeks ago when a statutory instrument went through the House on the opening of betting shops in Scotland? The Government side of that Committee was nine Anglos and a Scottish Minister. Not one member of the Back-Bench committee for Scotland was allowed on it.

Mr. Lang : That is a matter for the Selection Committee and I am sure that it will note the hon. Gentleman's point, with which I have some sympathy.

Column 802

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reaffirmation of the fundamental importance of the Union will be widely welcomed in Wales?

Mr. Lang : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that the interests of Wales will also be taken into account in considering these matters further.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that this is not going to be taken as much of a stocktaking for a nation which has voted consistently and overwhelmingly for the establishment of its own parliament within the United Kingdom? Does he appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had it wrong when he said that the most important right that we have in Parliament is the right to ask questions? The most important right that we have in Parliament is to vote and if these reforms are serious surely the right hon. Gentleman should have the courage to submit any legislation on the future of the water industry in Scotland to a vote in the Scottish Grand Committee, elected by the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang : I am glad that the hon. Member recognises the importance of the vote in our democratic system. I will do nothing to diminish the importance of the vote ; nor will I do anything to diminish or dissipate the power of that vote here in the House of Commons, where it matters most.

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for reminding us that the quisling SNP has been reduced to "three in 93". May I suggest that it might be reduced to "none in 2001". That might be appropriate. On the question of partnership, I cannot agree with the Secretary of State. I wonder if he might address this. This is not a partnership that he is talking about but an unequal and unrepresentative fix that he is attempting to obtain. I share his concern-- and I hope that he sees that--for the Union. I wish to see the continuing Union of the United Kingdom, but I am concerned that the present set-up may diminish it and make it an even more devalued arrangement.

In terms of accountability, I am glad that the Secretary of State said that he would not reduce the power of the vote. May I ask him to put together a Scottish Grand Committee that reflects the voting power of the people of Scotland and then allow the legislation that he and I discussed to be judged by a representative committee that reflects the people's voting pattern in Scotland? That is why people will reject this. Does he not realise that, so long as he uses his English colleagues' Tory majority--

Madam Speaker : Question, please.

Mr. Connarty : I am asking a question. Does he not realise that he will never get the credibility of the Scottish people for what he is trying to sell?

Mr. Lang : I hope that the hon. Member is wrong about the SNP having no representatives in 2001. I hope that we shall achieve that result long before that time. The route that the hon. Member is suggesting for the Scottish Grand Committee would mean either that some Members of Parliament, notably from his own party, would have to be disqualified from the Scottish Grand Committee or that English Back Benchers would have to be brought in. We had English Back Benchers on the Committee in the past,

Column 803

and the Labour party was against that. For some incomprehensible reason, those of my hon. Friends who served on the Scottish Grand Committee were no longer keen to remain on it, so we now have all Scottish MPs on the Scottish Grand Committee, and I think that that is generally recognised as sensible.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen) : The Secretary of State can wriggle all he likes, but the whole House heard the Prime Minister commit Scotland's water to be privatised. Does that careless and casual announcement by the Prime Minister not indicate his contempt, not only for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but for the Scottish people?

Mr. Lang : I heard what my right hon. Friend said and the hon. Gentleman heard what he said and he did not give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman indicates. He certainly spoke of the strength, the value and the qualities of privatisation and that is demonstrated by a large number of privatisations that have taken place in the past. it is not, however, part of my statement today.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : It is a fact that a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, is spent in Scotland, as, indeed, it is in Northern Ireland and in Wales. It is part of the price which I gladly pay for maintaining the Union. We should not fail to recognise the special needs of Scotland in that respect. I would suggest one item of public expenditure that should be given to a public body in Scotland to bring it up to the standards of England. I refer of course to the Scottish Rugby Union.

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, despite the barb in the tail of his question. The fact is that, in a sense, England is playing at home in this Parliament ; and as my hon. Friend will know and as Twickenham demonstrated, that gives some advantages.

Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : If the Secretary of State does not already know it, he will soon be aware that his proposals will be greeted with universal contempt throughout Scotland. They amount to a tawdry little collection of half measures and non-events ; they mean nothing to the people of Scotland, and will give them no more say over their own affairs, which is what they clearly voted for in the general election last year.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the confidence in his views to put these matters to a referendum, will he at least allow a full debate in the House on the matters, to ensure that the points that the Scottish people sent us here to make are clearly put across to him in a way that there has been a failure to do hitherto? We want a Scottish parliament : we will settle for nothing less.

Mr. Lang : The suitability of the changes that I have proposed today will be shown by whether the hon. Gentleman's party takes advantage of them in due course. Debates are not a matter for me, but Standing Orders will have to be amended and the subject will be debated at that time.

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : On the transfer of Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. to the Scottish Office : will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the employees of that company that there will be no reduction

Column 804

in their pay and conditions or in the quality of their pension plans? A number of the employees are worried about that and would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give them a categorical guarantee now.

Mr. Lang : We have no plans to make any changes in that respect.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Secretary of State agree that an occasion such as this prompts the thought among many that we enjoy exceedingly good fortune, in that the secessionist movement in Scotland is so honourably eminent but so poorly represented in this place--by this lot? Will he at least concede that there is a widespread belief in Scotland that we live in a highly centralised multinational state, which is more and more firmly embedded in an over- centralised European union? Why not settle the argument among federalists, unionists and separatists by holding a referendum?

Mr. Lang : We see the best way of resisting centralisation as devolving power to the people. That is what we are seeking to do by setting up local enterprise companies and hospital trusts, by privatisation, by council house ownership, by reducing taxation and by a range of other means --developing the citizens charter, which permeates many of the ideas in the White Paper, for instance.

Mr. Tom Clarke : I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing a comprehensive series of questions--that certainly goes for our side--on the vague statement that the Secretary of State has made. The right hon. Gentleman has removed confusion and introduced confusion. He removed it by publicly thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchanan (Mr. Salmond) and the SNP for supporting the Government in the Lobbies last night, so no one is in any doubt about what took place then. He introduced confusion by appearing to be in conflict with the Prime Minister on the issue of water privatisation. The Prime Minister's statement was quite clear ; what is not clear is whether the Secretary of State's consultation is a charade. The House must return to that important matter before too long.

This document, for which we have had to wait 11 months, offers little to the people of Scotland. It offers no real democracy ; it offers devolution of power but not responsibility or accountability to the people of Scotland. It falls far short of the clearly expressed views of the Scottish people as recorded in April of last year.

The Government have ignored the opinions of the Scottish people. It is interesting that the document was published in a blue cover, the colour of the Tory party, whose supporters amount to a small minority of the people of Scotland--a minority becoming smaller still because of the Government's attitude. They have rejected the real democracy to which the Scottish people are committed but the Government clearly are not.

Mr. Lang : I think that the hon. Gentleman's initial response showed that he agrees with and supports quite a number of these proposals. He talks of conflict. If he is looking for conflict, he should look to the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has said, as quoted in the Courier last December :

Column 805

"I acknowledge there are too many Scots still sceptical of the value of a Scottish Parliament in bringing better government". That clearly differs from the hon. Gentleman's view.

The colour of the White Paper is the blue of Scotland [Interruption.] --the blue of Scotland in the Union. I believe that the presence of Scotland in the Union is a partnership for good.

Mr. Tom Clarke : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Scottish people who will have been following our proceedings this afternoon must be greatly concerned about the Government's thinking on water privatisation. We heard earlier from the Prime Minister that water privatisation would be good for Scotland and would be beneficial for the people of Scotland, as it has been for the people south of the border. When the Secretary of State was questioned, he appeared to suggest that his consultation exercise was still continuing. The people of Scotland are aware that water is of the utmost importance to them, as it is to every individual and family in the land. They are entitled to have the matter clarified, but it must be clarified quickly, now or this evening. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether, in the light of the confusion and differences in pronouncements between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the people of Scotland will receive the clear statement on that important issue to which they are entitled.

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker : Order. I must deal with one point of order at a time.

It seems to me that the hon. Member is attempting to pursue a policy matter on which the Chair cannot pronounce. His remarks will have been heard by the occupants of the Government Front Bench. [ Hon. Members :-- "On a point of order, Madam Speaker."] One at a time, please.

Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that meetings of Standing Committees of the House studying legislation upstairs--I am thinking particularly of statutory instruments-- may be attended by any hon. Member? Will you further confirm that the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) were wrong and out of order? I attended the Committee about which he was speaking, using the rules of the House to do so, which demonstrates how well Scots rules are covered in this place.

Several hon. Members : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must allow me to answer one point of order at a time.

Mr. Robert Hughes : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When responding to a question from me, the Secretary of State suggested that I might like to welcome the fact that some jobs would be going to Aberdeen. I am not in a position to say yea or nay, since the relevant information is not available to me, although apparently it is to be made available by way of a planted question.

There is no point the Secretary of State referring to the opening of a new Department of Trade and Industry petroleum office when hon. Members have no idea what

Column 806

s all about and are unable to question him about it. It is nonsense to refer to better communications when the Secretary of State behavein that manner. Madam Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair. If it is a point for the Secretary of State, the hon. Member must find other means of pursuing it.

Mr. Kynoch : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it an abuse of the House that copies of the White Paper, which appear to have been given to occupants of the Opposition Front Bench prior to the statement being made, should have been photocopied and given to Opposition Back Benchers-- [Interruption.] --and were clearly visible while my right hon. Friend was making his statement?

Madam Speaker : That is not a point of order for me.

Several hon. Members : On a point of order.

Madam Speaker : Just a moment, please. I can hear quite well.

Mr. McAllion : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The next business on the Order Paper is the presentation of a Bill by my hon.Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) designed "to provide for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament."

Given the hostility that was shown this afternoon by Opposition Members to the Secretary of State's announcement, do you agree that we should not waste any further time on Maastricht but instead should give over the whole of tomorrow to debating the question of holding a Scottish referendum, which seems the only way--

Madam Speaker : Order. Perhaps we should waste no more time on points of order, but let the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) introduce his Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are 11 Scottish Conservative Members and, on the basis of the questions that were asked following the statement, no fewer than five Conservative Back Benchers had the opportunity to ask questions. It is no criticism of you, Madam Speaker--I am aware that other hon. Members were not selected to put questions--but is it a reasonable balance on Scottish issues that virtually every Conservative Back Bencher should have an opportunity to ask a question, whereas a party with nine Members gets only one? May I ask for your consideration to achieve a more even balance in future?

Madam Speaker : I cannot take that any further without other opportunities for debate. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I deal as fairly and justly as I can with the entire House.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know the considerable interest that all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament take in the important statement that we have just heard. I appreciate that you allowed the period for questions to run on for some time and tried to encourage Members to ask just one concise question. I therefore have to ask whether it is in order to allow a Front-Bench spokesman to ramble on at length and be called twice on the same statement.

Madam Speaker : It is not for me to determine whether hon. Members ramble on or get directly to the point.

Column 807

[ Hon. Members :-- "On a point of order, Madam Speaker".] Order. Just a moment, I have not finished yet ; show me some courtesy. I am courteous to the House ; please be courteous to the Speaker of the House. It is in order for the Front-Bench spokesman to come back for two or three minutes, and that is often allowed.

Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in today's Scotsman, where he says that his party has drawn up plans to blow up water pipes. Is there any action that you can take to encourage that party and that hon. Member to desist from the language of terrorism?

Madam Speaker : That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), Madam Speaker. As you have a justifiably high reputation for defending the interests of Back Benchers, and given that both Ministers and shadow Ministers are for a majority of the time at the Dispatch Box when they wish to be--[ Hon. Members :-- "Where were you?"]--I was in the Chamber listening to the statement. Madam Speaker, whether or not it is in the rules, is it fair, when a number of hon. Members want to ask questions that are particularly important to them and their constituents, for shadow Secretaries of State to take up Back Benchers' time by asking two sets of questions on the same statement, whether it be today or at any other time?

Madam Speaker : Unless the House wishes to change what has been our custom, that will continue.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who mentioned me, did not have the courtesy to tell me that he would be doing so. You need not worry about making any such statement as he suggested, because the SNP would not be involved in any such activities as blowing up pipelines, or anything of that kind. All I can assure you is that I may well be going to night classes to learn plumbing.

Madam Speaker : That is interesting. I have a number of jobs at home, and I shall send a handwritten note to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brian Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) : The Secretary of State made reference in his statement to the fact that no nominations had been received from any Labour representative for the health boards or NHS trusts. That is wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman seriously misled the House.

Madam Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he has just said. As I understood it, the hon. Member is making an accusation against the Secretary of State that he seriously misled the House. Have I misunderstood? [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman making an accusation that the Secretary of State seriously misled the House?

Column 808

Mr. Donohoe : Inadvertently, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Lang : It may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that I was referring to communications that I sent to the leader of each party on the Opposition Benches. It may well be that individual Members have made individual submissions to my Department which I have not seen. I was referring to the party approaches.

Madam Speaker : I am very pleased to have that cleared up. Perhaps we can now make some progress.

Next Section

Home Page