House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jul 1993

Mr. Wallace : That is true. I shall illustrate that point in a moment by quoting a speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has identified the growing importance of the European Parliament. The identification of that importance seems to be at odds with doing absolutely nothing to enhance the role of Scotland in the European Parliament. It has been noted that the Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the names on this Bill. I shall certainly return to that, because the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) makes an important point.

My point is that the Conservative party, having reached an impasse or rock bottom in terms of its electoral success in Scotland, must now resort to electoral fixes to get some representation. Of course, that cannot be in the democratic interests of Scotland as a whole. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes. I recall the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which has been referred to on a number of occasions in this debate. The passage I remember the most is the part where he talked about Scottish Office Ministers being in the boiler room of the European debate. It conjured up a wonderful picture of the Parliamentary

Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in their boiler suits, stoking the furnace and, as usual, coming forward with little results.

On objective 1 status, success was won by the Minister for Industry when no Scottish Minister could attend such an important European Council meeting where Scotland's vital interests were at stake.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : It worked out okay.

Mr. Wallace : I accept that it worked out okay.

Mr. Robertson : It is a United Kingdom formula.

Mr. Wallace : It is the United Kingdom and I have no objections to what the Minister for Industry achieved, but it is significant that the Scottish Office could not send anyone to the meeting to enhance Scotland's case on an important issue for Scotland. It may be a matter for some debate, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will rule me out of order if I go down that line to say that the Minister for Industry succeeded in spite of rather than because of the absence of Scottish Office Ministers.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : I think that it was "because of".

Mr. Wallace : That may be an interesting debate, but I am sure that I will not be allowed to pursue it at any great length.

I turn to the St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State, which the hon. Member for Moray quoted. When the Home Office Minister asked for chapter and verse, it was clear that he had not paid any attention to the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Moray. For his benefit, I quote it again :

Column 204

"In this connection, I welcome the Maastricht Treaty for two reasons in particular. Firstly, because it strengthens the role of the European Parliament, where Scotland is directly represented. Scotland has 8 MEPs and while I may have my political differences with them, I am anxious to work in partnership with them to further Scotland's interests in Europe. As a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty, the elected European Parliament"--

this is the point referred to by the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), although I am not sure that he was so strong on it--

"will have more financial control over the unelected Commission, thus improving significantly the accountability of that key EC institution. This dramatic departure from past practice was the result of British ideas being taken on board by our European partners. That shows that Britain does have clout in the Community. It shows how that clout works for Scotland. And it also illustrates our desire to make the Community as a whole more accountable." Many of us support the enhanced importance of the role of the European Parliament. That role has been enhanced by the Maastricht treaty and many of us would like to see it enhanced even more by necessary democratic input to European affairs and the Community. At present, decisions affecting more aspects of our lives are made by the Council of Minister in secret meetings. We would like to see a much greater role for the European Parliament and, of course, we want the voice of Scotland to be more powerful in that Parliament. The Secretary of State for Scotland may have identified the strength and role of the European Parliament, but one assumes that if he were doing his job for Scotland, he would try to increase Scotland's representation in that Parliament when that possibility was on offer. Far from doing that, however, the right hon Gentleman is a sponsor of a Bill that will not increase Scotland's representation and role in that Parliament.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I, too, had noted that paragraph from my right hon. Friend's speech for use in my own speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting it on the record, because it answers the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who sought to convey to the House the idea that, in that speech, the Secretary of State had pledged himself to effecting an increase in Scottish representation. As that paragraph makes absolutely clear, however, my right hon. Friend pledged himself to work closely with Scotland's eight MEPs, even if he disagreed with them politically, for the benefit of Scotland. That was the undertaking that he sought to make and that is the undertaking that, uncharacteristically cunningly, the hon. Member for Monklands, West tried to convert into a promise to increase the representation of Scotland in the European Parliament.

That was plainly not what my right hon. Friend said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for putting my right hon. Friend's actual promise on the record.

Mr. Wallace : I remember when I used to appear before the second division of the Court of Session presided over by Lord Wheatley. Every time I made a point similar to that made by the Minister, Lord Wheatley would lean over, look over his glasses and say, "Is that your best point?" I must ask the Minister the same question, because his intervention did not amount to very much.

Column 205

The Secretary of State for Scotland made his speech on 23 November 1992, some three weeks before the Edinburgh summit at which it was agreed to increase the number of seats at the European Parliament. It is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the eight Scottish MEPs. For the Minister to seize on that and argue that that meant his right hon. Friend gave a commitment that Scotland should have only eight MEPs is disingenuous. I learnt that good word from the Social Democratic party.

In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman identified the importance of the European Parliament. He also said that it was important that Scotland was directly represented at it. When there was an opportunity to increase Scotland's representation, however, he did nothing. At least to the outside world, he did nothing ; he may have fought his battle in Cabinet and lost. There would be nothing unusual about that, because that seems to be his track record. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is a signatory to the Bill does not help Scotland's case, which was well put, for political reasons, by the hon. Member for Lewes. I accept that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the importance of the European Parliament.

The hon. Member for Moray also stressed the important role that that Parliament played in achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands and, in particular, extending that to Moray and Argyll and Bute. I pay tribute to the work of the MEP for the Highlands and Islands, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray would accept that that success was gained through cross-party support. When the votes were stacking up, the support offered by the Liberal Democrat group within the European Parliament was important. The fishing industry, agriculture, the manufacturing industry and the need for further investment and research are important issues to Scotland. Nowadays, those issues also have an important European dimension. Scotland should have a stronger voice to argue for those interests.

I should like to give the Minister another quote from the famous Government document--it has probably been consigned to most shelves--entitled "Scotland in the Union. A Partnership for Good." Chapter 5, under the heading, "Scotland in Europe," contained the following conclusion in paragraph 5.9, on page 22 :

"The European Community is involved in almost every aspect of Scottish life. It is vital that Scotland's voice should be heard in Europe and under the existing arrangements Scotland is strongly represented in Brussels. The Government have taken steps to complement and add to that strong representation to ensure that there is a multi-pronged approach for promoting Scotland's interests in Europe."

The Government may have done that and tried to get some representation on the Committee of the Regions, but what steps have they taken to add to Scotland's representation in the European Parliament? That paragraph concluded :

"As Europe continues to develop, the Government will keep under review Scotland's profile in Europe to ensure that it matches Scotland's needs."

One can only ask what kind of view the Secretary of State has of Scotland's needs.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members to criticise the Government for the fact that no member of the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench, when no representative of the Opposition Scottish Office team is present?

Column 206

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I was listening to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and he seemed to be making an adequate speech.

Mr. Wallace : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My speech is founded on a good Scottish base.

"Scotland in the Union--A Partnership for Good" is a recent publication from the Scottish Office and refers to the need to promote Scotland's profile. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Monklands, West has just re-entered the Chamber and perhaps I should explain to him why he has been greeted with cheers of support. Apart from being a recognition of the hon. Gentleman's natural demeanour and good humour, those cheers are in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who, just a moment ago, raised a point of order about what had happened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will now be able to sit at ease, perhaps until the call of nature

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is now beginning to wander a little. Perhaps he could get back to the amendment.

Mr. Wallace : I will wander no more. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will not wander for a while either.

Mr. Tom Clarke : The last time I recall getting a cheer like that was when the House debated a firm called Silent Night and reference was made to a millionaire, Mr. Tom Clarke, with whom I have no links.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware that much is set to happen tomorrow about local government and he will appreciate that, like himself, I have to reply to a long list of telephone calls from people who have told me what the Government will not tell hon. Members.

Mr. Wallace : In case there is any misunderstanding, I will not say anything further except to assure the hon. Member for Monklands, West that I had made no criticism of his absence. I fully understand the problems that he faces.

Dr. Godman : Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, in the next few years, the European Parliament and its Scottish representatives and other Members will play an increasingly important role in the development of the regional management of the fisheries? Does he agree that the growing hostility among many Norwegian fishing communities towards membership of the European Community is precisely due to the failure of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to initiate and establish a fair and reasonable common fisheries policy?

Mr. Wallace : I will answer that question with care, so that I do not get distracted into a debate on the common fisheries policy. We should have time in the House, however, to debate it at some length. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is right that fisheries is an important industry for Scotland. It has undoubtedly been subject to considerable upheaval recently. I sometimes fear that the cause of that can be laid at the doors of the Westminster Government rather than at those of the European institutions. As any fisherman will tell hon. Members, many of the edicts and regulations from the Commission or the Council of Ministers have a direct bearing on the future of the industry.

Column 207

I understand the concerns expressed by the Norwegians. The common fisheries policy is an obvious issue which a Scottish MEP or, for that matter, a representative from Cornwall, Devon, Wales or from the south coast of England--the hon. Member for Lewes has strong fishing interests represented at Newhaven and I am sure that his fishermen are interested in that policy--could raise in the European Parliament.

Fisheries is an important issue in the European Parliament and, given the proportional importance of that industry to Scotland, it is another good argument in favour of increasing Scotland's representation at that Parliament. In that way, Scotland's views could be heard. That does not mean that that need detract, however, from the work currently done by Scottish MEPs on behalf of our fishing interests.

We should consider some of the population and electorate figures, because they are part of the argument against giving Scotland an additional seat at the European Parliament. I have managed to get some statistical information, for which I thank the Library. At present, England has an electorate of 36,411,280 and has 66 MEPs ; Wales has an electorate of 2,222,624 and has four MEPs ; Scotland has an electorate of 3,931,429 and has eight MEPs ; and Northern Ireland, which elects Members by proportional representation, has an electorate of 1,141,466 with three MEPs.

5 pm

The average electorate in England is 551,686 ; in Wales, 555,656 ; in Scotland, 491,429 ; and in Northern Ireland 380,489. To shorten my speech, I shall take it as read that no one disputes that Northern Ireland should have an additional MEP--although, if a Northern Ireland Member were to arrive and engage in this debate, his contribution would be most welcome.

I shall simply consider the position of England, Wales and Scotland. It is proposed that England should have an additional five MEPs and Wales an additional one MEP. England's average electorate is 512,835 ; Wales's average electorate is 444,525 ; and Scotland's average electorate is 491,429-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has a piece of paper that gives different figures, but he will see that it says that option No. 1 is "England plus six". I have done my own arithmetical calculation for England plus five and Wales plus one. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but I shall stand corrected by any other hon. Member who can correct me during my speech--I have some time to go yet.

I welcome the fact that Wales will get an additional seat, but if the amendment were accepted it would create a more even distribution of seats, giving England an additional four rather than five, Wales an additional one, and Scotland an additional one. If I get the calculation wrong, it is no fault of the Library, as these are my calculations. England would have an average electorate of 520,161 ; Wales would have an average electorate of 444,525 ; and Scotland would have 436,825. That brings Scotland and Wales in line with each other, with a difference of less than 8,000. With such vast electorates, that is very little, so I hope that the argument for putting Scotland and Wales on a comparable basis will weigh with the Minister.

Column 208

When considering population, even on that basis, it is important to examine what happens in some other European countries. We would then find that Scotland and Wales are disproportionately

under-represented. The Library's research paper No. 93/70 gives the population per MEP. One assumes, therefore, that the electorate per MEP is less because the population includes people who are not electors because they are either too young, insane, Members of the House of Lords or in gaol --or all four. They could not be all four, because Members of the House of Lords could not be too young to vote, but they could be a combination of three of the four.

After the new MEPs have been added, Belgium will have a population of 400,000 per MEP, which would still be less than Scotland, even if Scotland were allocated another seat. Denmark would have 318,750 people per MEP, which would be considerably less than the average in Scotland. I could continue to quote such figures, but one could not argue that, on a population basis, Scotland would be over-represented by having an additional MEP.

Mrs. Ewing : This matter is of paramount importance. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Luxembourg, for instance, which has roughly the same population as Edinburgh, has six MEPs and an average electorate of only some 66,000? That amplifies the argument that the hon. Gentleman is so ably making.

Mr. Wallace : I was going to stop quoting such figures, but the hon. Lady has given me the encouragement to continue. For instance, Ireland has a population of 240,000 per MEP ; Greece has 400,000 ; and Portugal has 408,000. Again, they would all have less than Scotland even if Scotland had an extra seat. Further examples include the Netherlands, with 474,194 per MEP. As those figures refer to population, as opposed to electorate, they tend to understate my case. So the Government cannot come to the House and argue that, on the ground of population, Scotland is over-represented, when it is clear that, compared to other EC countries, that is far from the case.

The question of geography--the land mass covered--is also important. The area of England is 13,043,865 hectares ; Wales is 2,076,833 hectares ; Scotland is 7,879,340 hectares ; and Northern Ireland is 1,412,182 hectares. I do not wish to eleborate on the case of Northern Ireland, as I do not wish to take issue with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland who may join the debate later. The average size of electorate in England is 197,634 hectares ; in Wales it is 519,208 hectares ; and in Scotland it is a staggering 984,918 hectares.

I can go through that in much more detail, although I must unfortunately switch to square miles unless another hon. Member can translate square miles into hectares. The North East Scotland constituency covers an area of 4,873 square miles ; Mid-Scotland and Fife covers 2,140 square miles ; Lothian covers 407 square miles ; Strathclyde East covers 500 square miles ; Strathclyde West covers 794 square miles ; Glasgow a meagre 74 square miles ; South of Scotland covers 5,979 square miles ; and the Highlands and Islands covers 15,661 square miles.

Dr. Godman : The hon. Gentleman's statistics are baffling me. In his otherwise fine speech, he has made little or no mention of the role and functions of MEPs. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said, if the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the MEP will perforce come

Column 209

into greater contact with his or her constituents in terms of complaints that are taken to the European Parliament's ombudsman. A case can therefore be made for manageably sized constituencies because of the greater role put on MEPs by Maastricht. Amid the plethora of statistics that the hon. Gentleman has given, he has not mentioned MEPs' enhanced roles.

Mr. Wallace : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I overlooked that matter. I referred to the importance of the European Parliament and, by definition, the importance of the MEP's role, though I am happy to elaborate on that.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in regard to the increasing workload that will fall on MEPs. European legislation and the arms of the European Community are stretching into ever more aspects of our lives, and hon. Members need no reminding of the number of inquiries that we now receive relating to European issues. Populations have a great bearing on that. The greater the electorate, the greater the potential burden on the parliamentary representative, be it in relation to the European ombudsman or other issues.

Dr. Godman : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that--because of the massive European constituencies--if Maastricht is ratified and there are many complaints about maladministration and so on, we may have to act as referral agents for local MEPs?

Mr. Wallace : That is possible, and to some extent it already happens. I am happy to say that I have formed a good working relationship with the MEP who covers my constituency, and we have a mutual referral system. She often receives details and refers them to me or the local authority, and I receive details of European issues which I refer to her. I anticipate that happening increasingly. The burden will remain, even with a smaller electorate, although a smaller electorate might make matters more manageable.

Mrs. Ewing : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the enhanced facilities that now exist for communicating between the House of Commons and the European Parliament and between both of those and the Council and the Commission--directly by telephone and by faxing--make a great difference, there will have to be additional liaison between MEPs and MPs because of the increased interest that people have in the affairs of the European Parliament?

At least two major Scottish newspapers now have permanent representation in Brussels. The media generally are taking a greater interest in affairs there. That is heightening the awareness of people in European matters. The citizens of the United Kingdom are becoming alerted to the importance of the European legislative processes.

Mr. Wallace : The hon. lady makes a pertinent point. the fact that national newspapers are covering events in the European Parliament with greater thoroughness must make people more aware of what is happening there. That will undoubtedly result in people making greater demands on their MEPs and perhaps on their Westminster MPs. Indeed, hon. Members throughout the Committee will have noticed over the years an increasing volume of correspondence attributed to European matters. Those matters have involved, for example, motor bikes, driving licence conditions for Community coaches and the common fisheries policy.

Column 210

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred to populations. That in turn concerns the sizes of constituencies. After all, the bigger the constituency, the more chance there is of MEPs having to cover a wider diversity of interests, to the point where virtually every subject could arise.

I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes to refer to the South of Scotland, which is an extremely large seat. I note that several hon. Members who represent that area are in the Committee today, including the hon. Member for East Lothian. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was in his place and will no doubt be back, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). They represent divers parts of Scotland, but all within the same South of Scotland seat. I fought that constituency in 1979, unfortunately unsuccessfully.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Shame.

Mr. Wallace : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that word of sympathy, although, as the constituency was then known as Berwick and East Lothian, I do not think that he was so sympathetic at the time.

Mr. Home Robertson : I must admit that I did not vote for the hon. Gentleman.

5.15 pm

Mr. Wallace : That comes as no surprise.

During that, albeit brief, campaign, I learned a great deal about what goes on. I got my nomination papers in with about three minutes to spare, so late in the day had I been selected. I saved considerable public expense because the returning officer had already had the ballot papers printed and was biting his nails wondering whether I would make it in time.

I learned during that experience of the great diversity within that Euro- constituency, including the sheer difficulty of covering the whole area. During an election campaign, one is trying to cover a wide area in a short period compared with the time available when the European Parliament is sitting normally. I was fortunate to have a home base in Dumfriesshire, so, from the constituency point of view, it was useful to be 90 miles one way to Coldstream and 90 miles the other way to Stranraer, and one could travel easily to places such as Haddington or Killington in Ayr. That experience brought home to me just what a vast area was being covered.

Mr. Tom Clarke : Did the hon. Gentleman get to Prestonpans? Mr. Wallace : I passed through Prestonpans, but I do not think there were many Liberal votes to be won there, so I would not have spent a great deal of time there. I remember a meeting at which I was to talk to fishermen in Eyemouth, but I am afraid nobody turned up. I met some of them in a local hostelry and had a good discussion about the common fisheries policy.

One of the biggest meetings that I attended during that campaign centred on the issue of nuclear waste dumping, though perhaps that had what might be called more of a general academic interest to people living in, say, Carluke. I had almost forgotten that Carluke was in the then European patch that I was contesting--until about a year later, when a student I was tutoring in conveyancing law

Column 211

at Edinburgh university said, "You must be the guy I voted for in the European elections." I had forgotten that I had sought election in his home area.

I have made those points to illustrate how vast constituencies are. Not only are they difficult to manage, but they can give rise to many issues. If the Government are as insistent on the first-past-the-post system as they appear to be, we are in difficulty, because some of the constituencies are so large that it can be difficult to identify a community of interests.

That would apply even more to the new boundaries, with 71 rather than the present 66 seats. The average size in England would be 512, 835 hectares, and Wales and Scotland would be the figures I have given-- [Interruption.] I apologise to the Committee. I have referred to electorates rather than to areas. I must give the correct figures. We propose something different, but I fear that I cannot immediately find the figures. Suffice it to say that our proposal would be more manageable than the scheme before us.

There is a strong political case for Scotland being given an extra seat. I am not putting a nationalistic argument. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his famous St. Andrews speech :

"I have talked already of Scots being one of the people of Europe, as much part of the rich tapestry of the *XO

Mr. Rathbone : Hon. Members will recall that I doubted the validity of the numerical base for such arguments as the hon. Gentleman is pursuing. Even greater doubt is cast on that numerical base if the single additional Scottish Member were elected for the whole of Scotland, whatever basis of voting might be suggested. It would mean the establishment of a constituency embracing all of Scotland. Any points that the hon. Gentleman is now making about the difficulties of getting around any part of Scotland would be that much greater. Will he explain how those two points are happily married?

Mr. Wallace : With pleasure. As the hon. Gentleman will be quick to appreciate, we are not comparing like with like, because I have been basing my argument, as we must, on the first-past-the-post system which the Government have proposed.

Much play is made of the Member of the European Parliament's identity with the community that he represents. In a seat such as the south of Scotland, there is huge diversity of communities. They undoubtedly have things in common--they celebrate St. Andrew's day on 30 November, and the nights around Burns night on 25 January and they have a good time. We all cheer for the same side at Murrayfield and Hampden park.

There are also other common factors that are much more important and deeply ingrained in the Scottish culture. A Member of the European Parliament deals with a multiplicity of interests. If we were to allocate one seat to Scotland using a proportional system, we would be elevating another principle--fair representation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes would warm to that proposal, not least because it would achieve some representation for his party in Scotland.

Column 212

There is a community of identity in Scotland. But clearly, if one were to have the best of all worlds, we would do away with the first-past-the-post system and have a proper system of fair representation. [Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to hear the encouraging support from Labour Members. I shall not go into too much detail on that issue now, but I hope that we will debate it on another occasion.

I quoted earlier from the famous St. Andrews speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which I suspect has been over-quoted, as it did not amount to much.

Mr. Tom Clarke : It is overrated.

Mr. Wallace : That is a better way to describe it, particularly as it promised so much and has failed to deliver.

In that speech, the Secretary of State advanced one or two good arguments-- on which the hon. Member for Lewes elaborated--on the political value of having an extra seat for Scotland. I hope that I have made it clear that the European Parliament has an increasingly important role which means that there is an additional work load for Members of the European Parliament.

If there is an opportunity to reduce that work load through a much better distribution of seats in Scotland to deal with issues that are peculiarly Scottish and have a specific and Scottish dimension, it should be taken. In comparison with other European Community countries, Scotland is not over- represented.

Vast areas will need to be covered. An additional Scottish seat elected under the first-past-the-post system would allow some steps to be taken towards achieving a manageable work load. It would be no means eliminate some of the greater travel distances, but nevertheless it would help to achieve that aim. For those compelling reasons, I cannot understand how the Minister can say that he is not going to give Scotland another seat. The speeches of hon. Members representing the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Conservative party, and the Liberal Democrats show that there is great cross-party consensus which should be welcomed and encouraged. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the arguments I have advanced.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has made a speech of stunning length--40 to 50 minutes, which seemed like only four or five hours. He held the House captivated throughout his speech. If he ever feels like publishing it, I am sure that it would sell well in the travelogue section of any of the bookshops in Scotland. One of the details which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention and of which I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), was that the shoreline of Argyll is longer than the shoreline of France. The hon. Gentleman should have remembered and mentioned that when making such a detailed speech.

I have no intention of referring to the speech allegedly made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on St. Andrew's day. Like 99.999 per cent. of the Scottish people, I was totally unaware that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made a speech on St. Andrew's day. Now that I am aware of it, I have no intention of reading the speech.

Column 213

Mr. Wallace : The speech was made in St. Andrews on 23 November, not on St. Andrew's day.

Mr. McAllion : That explains the matter. I was perplexed when I heard that the Secretary of State had made a St. Andrew's day speech on 23 November, as I had always believed that St. Andrew's day was on 30 November. I thought that perhaps I was wrong. I shall not refer to the speech because, if I remember rightly, the Secretary of State for Scotland is the same man who claimed that the Conservative party had won the general election in Scotland on the basis that it received one in four of the votes cast in 11 out of the 72 seats that were at stake. The speeches of anyone who is as out of touch with reality as the Secretary of State should not be listened to or accorded respect.

I am pleased with the group of amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other political parties in Scotland. As a founder member and stalwart supporter of Scotland United I was delighted to see the cross-party co-operation that led to the parliamentary leaders of the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats putting their names to the same amendments and being so nice to each other during the debate. It gladdened my old heart to see such cross-party co- operation and restored my faith in the fact that, even at this late hour, Scotland may yet rescue something from the debris of previous general elections, eventually get their act together and perhaps force the Tories into retreat. I certainly hope so.

Earlier in the debate, the complete lack of participation from anyone from the Conservative party in Scotland was noticeable. Not only Scottish Office Ministers, but Back Benchers, have yet to attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Morris, to try to participate in the debate and explain why they are opposed to Scotland's being given an additional seat and additional representation in the European Parliament. We had to rely on an hon. Member from the other extremity of the United Kingdom--as he described it--to argue the case for Scotland to be given additional representation.

What struck me about the hon. Gentleman's argument was that he said that he believed that everyone in the Chamber would be in favour of the proper operation of parliamentary democracy, but that it was important, within that process, for the voice of the political minority to be heard. I found that argument strange coming from a representative of the Conservative party as that party is the political minority in Scotland. Not only is the Conservative party given a voice in the proper operation of Scottish democracy : it dominates Scottish democracy. It runs every aspect of Scotland on the basis of only a handful of votes cast in its favour and a handful of seats.

The latest opinion poll in Scotland gives the Conservative party 16 per cent. support among Scottish people-- [Laughter.] However, it is still able to make key decisions about how Scotland will be represented elsewhere. I see that Conservative Members laugh at my reference to the fact that the Conservative party has only 16 per cent. support in Scotland. A spokesperson for the Conservative party went on record as saying that he was delighted that his party had attained 16 per cent. of the opinion poll ratings in Scotland because it represented a marked improvement.

I was interested in some aspects of the argument of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She left the

Column 214

Chamber as soon as I got to my feet--the Scottish National party must now be opposed to cross-party co-operation, as it skedaddles as soon as a Labour Member rises from his seat. The hon. Lady advanced the argument about the British state. It is important, particularly for Conservative Members, to understand what we mean when we talk of the British state and say that the British state is not a country or a nation.

As the hon. Lady correctly said, the British state is a multinational state. It consists not of one nation or one country, but three different nations and three different countries--Scotland, Wales and England. I clearly remember at the last Labour party conference in Scotland when we debated whether Labour should stand and organise in Northern Ireland. The biggest cheer of the day was reserved for one of the delegates who took the platform and, in a short speech, simply said that he did not think that the British state should be in Northern Ireland, never mind the Labour party. He received a tremendous reception.

I do not think that the British state should be in England, never mind in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the British state should be in Scotland, Wales, or, indeed, Northern Ireland. We need a new, democratic deal to bind together the different nations that make up the United Kingdom, not the present system which is supported by the Conservative party and by no other political party in this country which supports the status quo.

I could not agree with the hon. Lady when she tried to answer that, because we are part of a multinational state, Scotland should be treated as an equal partner with England and be given--as she put it--full and equal representation with England at the European Parliament. As I understand it, England currently has 71 Members of the European Parliament. If the amendments are defeated, it will have 76 Members of the European Parliament. If the hon. Lady is to be taken at her word, she is arguing for Scotland to have 76 Members of the European Parliament, which seems slightly absurd as we only have 72 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. The Scottish National party seems to be arguing that we should have 76 Members at European level.

If anyone read The Scotsman this morning--I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, read it every morning of your life--he would have seen an article which was critical of Euro Members of Parliament. It attacked them for living off their expenses and consultancies, and the rich pickings that they can make during the five years of their tenancy in the European Parliament. I did not necessarily agree with the article, but it expressed a view that is held by some people.

The author is a member of the Conservative party. Indeed, he was a candidate in recent general elections. Naturally, like the majority of Conservative candidates in Scotland, he was defeated. I refer to Mr. Peter Clarke, who writes for The Scotsman. If the views that he expressed were in any way correct--if it were true that Scotland should have not eight but 76 Euro-Members of Parliament living off the fat pickings in Europe--it would be a rather strange world. It is surprising that the hon. Lady should advance such an argument. 5.30 pm

It was surprising also to hear the hon. Lady argue that the answer is for Scotland to have independence, that only with independence shall we be able to determine for

Next Section

Home Page