| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is an honest man, and he is acknowledging the root of Labour's proposals. The Labour party does not like the fact that it is unable to govern in Scotland, where it gets the majority of the vote. But I ask the hon. Gentleman to contemplate what he is saying. If it is the Labour party's policy that we should have a Government who represent the majority in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, how will his right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield be able to govern England as leader of a Labour Government-- something that I think is unlikely--who do not have a majority of seats in England? That way lies the break-up of the United Kingdom, and the hon. Gentleman should have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): As a Member representing an English constituency in Yorkshire, may I invite the Secretary of State to get off at Doncaster when he brings the Prime Minister by the nose to Scotland, to defend the Government's policies to the people of Yorkshire? I am not sure if the Secretary of State realises quite the constitutional innovation he is proposing. He proposes to turn Parliament--or rather, those on the Government Front Bench--into a kind of travelling circus which moves to other parts of the UK to discuss parliamentary and political problems.
We heard this morning an excellent address from the President of the United States, who represents the union of America. America has 52 state legislatures or parliaments with tax-raising powers. If it is good enough for the United States and most other modern democracies, why cannot the people of Scotland have their own legislature?
Mr. Forsyth:
Scotland is a country, not a county. That is the difference between Scotland and Yorkshire. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman brought that matter up, because, for a while, the hon. Member for Hamilton--in an attempt to answer the West Lothian question--was telling us that Labour would introduce parliaments in Yorkshire and other counties. But that idea was swiftly abandoned in favour of quangos in the counties of England, and the answer to the West Lothian question was lost. We look forward to hearing tomorrow from the hon. Member for Hamilton what the answer to the West Lothian question now is.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye):
Let us return to the acid test. If the Secretary of State's revised
Mr. Forsyth:
No, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is fair-minded, and I would ask him to reflect upon the point I made. If we had a Labour Government with a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee, they would be able to do everything that they could do in a Scottish Parliament and more. They could call senior Ministers to account, and could have a Budget for Scotland.
The proposals which the hon. Gentleman supports for a Scottish Parliament would give the Scottish Parliament no say in the most important thing that a Parliament does. This House was established to be able to control and raise revenue. Revenue would still be determined in Westminster under the proposals from the constitutional convention. Scotland's voice in Westminster would be diminished, and therefore our ability to defend Scotland's interests and to hold Ministers to account would be undermined.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill):
For the sake of absolute clarity, will the Secretary of State describe exactly how he intends to implement the voucher scheme?
In what way is that more democratic than allowing a Scottish Parliament with elected members sent by the people of Scotland to decide how nursery provision should be paid for?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Lady has not got the message. Our idea of devolution is taking power from the Government and devolving it downwards to local government and to individuals. Nursery vouchers are about empowering people, while the Labour party wants politicians to decide what is good for people. Nursery vouchers are about giving people the money to allow them to choose for themselves, rather than having them do what they are told by their local authority. That is the sort of devolution that matters--devolution to people, not to politicians.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a part of the United Kingdom in which Unionism is manifestly even stronger than it is in Eastwood, and that is Northern Ireland? Will he forget about his fixation with our proposal for a moment and explain exactly why the Government are proposing an assembly for Northern Ireland, which will have control over legislation and administration, with no reduction in the number of Members representing Northern Ireland here, or no reduction in their powers, while all he is suggesting for Scotland is a beefed-up Grand Committee?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman is making a comparison with Stormont, but he will know that such a proposal would mean reducing the number of Members of Parliament representing Scotland from 72 to 40--
Mr. Foulkes:
The right hon. Gentleman has it wrong.
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. He is very articulate. He must let the Minister answer.
Mr. Forsyth:
I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition would find the argument of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I must call the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)--the only hon. Member who has been rising to ask a question, but who has not yet asked one.
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North):
Does the Secretary of State really understand the length and depth of commitment behind the case for the devolution of power? It is not just a matter of the past 17 years: it was included in Keir Hardie's first manifesto, as well as the first manifesto of the Labour party in Scotland and, incidentally--[Interruption.]--this will be of interest to Unionists--at precisely the time that Gladstone was suggesting that he might give the Irish devolved powers. Had that happened, they might still be in the Union.
In that context, the right hon. Gentleman failed to deal with two problems. He dealt with scrutiny and accountability, and I welcome any step forward on those--I also welcome what he said today--but he failed to deal with the real question of power and of whether the
Government are prepared to devolve the power of decision making on purely Scottish affairs to Scotland within the general sovereignty of Westminster. Is he prepared to countenance any devolution of power, rather than accountability? If he is not, and has not today, he might as well not bother putting forward any more proposals.
Mr. Forsyth:
I am not a federalist and I am not a Unionist--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am a Unionist. [Interruption.] I think that the House knew what I meant to say. I am not a federalist, and I am not a nationalist. I am a Unionist, so I am not in a position to help the hon. Gentleman.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on one thing on behalf of his constituents, and it is a serious matter. The other day, more than 3,000 jobs came to his constituency, which desperately needed them after the closure of Ravenscraig. They came as a result of a major inward investment project. Scotland was competing with the Welsh, and Wales was a possible site because of the proximity of various glass-making factories.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a point of principle about ministerial statements. It may be within your recollection that, an hour ago, the Secretary of State for Social Security was asked a specific question about tax and long-term care benefits. In reply, he said he could not give the figure for which he was asked, because that was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My point of order is this, and it results directly from the Secretary of State's statement. In the eighth part of that statement, he said that benefits from long-term care insurance would be tax free. Should not Ministers who make undertakings in their opening remarks be responsible for the explanation and putting on the financial tag, rather than leaving it to another Minister and saying that they will write about it at some time in the future? That is a matter of principle.
Madam Speaker:
It is not for me to comment on ministerial statements--[Interruption.] I am being prompted by Ministers to give the figure. It is not for me, as Speaker, to give the figures. Ministers are responsible for the comments they make at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may well pursue the matter with the Minister and get the correct reply recorded in Hansard.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |