| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I have no objection to Ministers attending
meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is taking on some of the appurtenances of a travelling circus. When visiting other cities and towns, Back Benchers should have access to the normal office facilities that are readily available in this place and in Edinburgh. The record so far is not good and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers in the Scottish Office will take that on board. In terms of access to telephones and other facilities, that complaint needs to be examined by the Leader of the House and his colleagues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate and that long interventions do not help.
Mr. Newton: Despite your wise advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is the sort of issue that I always undertake to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friends will also consider it. We have imposed quite a demanding task on the House authorities who have to arrange these meetings and the facilities that are required. To that extent, I am sure that they are feeling their way, but no one would want to dismiss out of hand the hon. Gentleman's point, especially about telephone access. It is obviously difficult to see how full-scale office facilities can be organised on quite the basis that he suggested.
The new paragraph to be added to Standing Order No. 94E will allow the Scottish Grand Committee to debate the principle of a Scottish Bill at Third Reading as well as at Second Reading. The procedure to be followed is broadly similar to that for Second Reading, with which the Committee is familiar. What is envisaged is that, after its Report stage, a Bill will be referred again to the Committee for a debate of up to one and a half hours, which, again, may take place in Scotland. A longer debate can be arranged if that is thought desirable. The Question on Third Reading would then be decided by the House without further debate, as a "forthwith".
The Government are taking the opportunity afforded by this debate to propose three other minor and sensible amendments to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 94D allows a maximum of 45 minutes for a ministerial statement that is made to facilitate the questioning of a Minister about some aspect of his responsibilities. We are proposing to provide additional flexibility by giving the Committee power to fix a different time limit if the circumstances of a Committee sitting make that appropriate. That could, for example, allow the Lord Advocate, or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for agriculture, forestry and the environment, to make a short statement and be questioned for, say, 15 minutes immediately after the normal Question Time. That would usefully extend the "flexibility", to use that word again, of the ways in which the Committee can operate.
We propose to amend Standing Order No. 94H to make it clear that the half-hour Adjournment debate, which normally starts at 1 o'clock, can begin earlier than that if the other business to be taken at that sitting has already been completed. [Interruption.] I am not pretending that these proposals are earth shattering--they are tidying-up proposals. In that case, the Adjournment debate will not be interrupted at 1 o'clock and will be concluded
30 minutes after it has begun. That reflects the clear intention of the Standing Order and is, I think in everyone's view, obviously sensible.
Finally, we propose to amend Standing Order No. 91 on Special Standing Committees, which provides for three morning sittings for taking oral evidence, so that a Scottish Special Standing Committee that is taking evidence in Scotland is not restricted to holding morning sittings only. That allows the Special Standing Committee to make more efficient use of its time by, for example, meeting in the morning and the afternoon of the same day. The Special Standing Committee that considered last Session's Children (Scotland) Bill was given that flexibility on an ad hoc basis and found it useful. We are now trying to incorporate that in the Standing Order.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has just said, the procedural motions that the Leader of the House has moved are as welcome as the Government's fisheries policies, which have just been defeated. The Leader of the House drew the short straw this evening because, far from having the support that he suggested, the procedural changes please, I think, no one. Certainly, they do not satisfy the official Opposition or find favour with the minority parties.
I am not sure about the Government's Back Benchers, but the people of Scotland are not impressed by the changes. In many ways, that is not surprising, given the way in which those changes have come about. The way in which they saw the light of day and were launched is completely contrary to the way in which the Leader of the House believes that we should proceed when we consider constitutional changes. Clearly, he adopts a different style from that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Leader of the House likes to consult, to discuss issues and to find a common basis for a way forward. That has simply not been the case in relation to these changes.
The reason for that is clear: the procedural changes are a product of panic on the part of Ministers. The reason for that is also clear. For 16 years, Conservative Ministers have derided Opposition Members for saying that constitutional change was needed in relation to Scotland. Ministers have been telling us that all was well and that the present arrangements were satisfactory. At the last election, we all, I think, remember the Prime Minister and others issuing alarmist warnings about the consequences of devolution and telling us how good the constitutional position was then--and now--yet we are now going to have some change.
As everyone knows, in November, the Prime Minister gave what was considered to be an important, exclusive interview to The Independent. That was another of those occasions where we had to wonder who had been in government for the past 16 years. These days, it is increasingly a feature of Ministers that, when a problem arises, they say that something should be done: recently, we have been told that something should be done about crime, knives and education standards. They say that something should be done about a problem as if they were
in opposition, and have suddenly discovered the problem and a rod with which to beat the Government. They talk like that rather than like Ministers who have been in government for 16 years, because they want the public to forget that they have run out of excuses. That is the style at present and that was the Prime Minister's style when he gave that interview reported in The Independent.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister seemed to have discovered a problem in relation to the Scots. In the article, he said:
That about-turn by the Prime Minister in acknowledging that the problem exists might be welcomed if he had shown any understanding of what the democratic deficit amounts to. Unfortunately, if one continues reading the article in The Independent, one begins to wonder if he understands anything at all about that problem. He claims in the interview:
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
Does the hon. Lady agree with the proposition that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in it, and would she extend that proposition to the English Grand Committee, for which, as will be familiar to her, there are provisions in Standing Orders?
Mrs. Taylor:
There is no future in the Government's proposal because it does not deal with basic needs. The solution to what the Secretary of State wants and to the problem that exists is to have a properly devolved Scottish Parliament. We make no bones, and have been utterly consistent, about that. We said it at the last election and we will say it at the next one.
Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood):
Is the hon. Lady saying that if there were an incoming Labour Government, they would immediately reverse the proposals now before the House?
"People in Scotland, who often feel cut off from parliamentary debate in London want better access to government."
That does not quite sound like what he was saying at the last election. He went on:
"the Scots feel that Westminster is a long way off".
His comments in that interview were made not because he had discovered a new problem but because, at last, he was acknowledging a problem that everyone, apart from Ministers, knew existed and that he had denied existed, even during the last election.
"We"--
the Government--
"have made quite significant moves on Scotland . . . I have changed the basis on which the honours list is determined".
If that is a signal of what fundamental, significant change means to the Prime Minister, it illustrates simply how far his education is lacking with regard to the problems that Scottish people face.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |