| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): The hon. Gentleman's argument has often been deployed by the Secretary of State in defence of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the proposals are inadequate under a Conservative Government because, although the Committee may vote in one way, the House can overturn that vote. Curiously, he seems to argue that the proposals can work only if we have a Labour Government. Is that the best argument that a Conservative Back Bencher can advance in support of these proposals?
Mr. Stewart: I am not arguing that for a moment. Assuming that a Labour Government would want to introduce a Scottish Parliament, I asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury what a Labour Government would do in the several years between an election and introducing a Scottish Parliament, but I received no answer whatever. The proposals are entirely workable under a Conservative or Labour Government, but what would a Labour Government achieve with a Scottish Parliament that they could not achieve with these proposals if they had a majority in this House? At some stage, Opposition Front Benchers must answer that question.
I emphasise the importance of extra question periods, which would have an inherently greater advantage than set-piece debates. Set-piece debates tend to be predictable--
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
This is one of them.
Mr. Stewart:
Except when I am speaking, but I shall not go down that path. Moreover, they do not provide much opportunity for Back Benchers because such a high proportion of time is inevitably taken up by the two Front Bench spokesmen at the beginning and end of such debates. The key feature of the new proposals is the increase in the proportion of time devoted to questions.
Will my right hon. Friend answer three points of detail? First, do the proposals increase Scottish Members' opportunities to enact private Members' Bills, which, on the Floor of the House, could be stopped for reasons unrelated to the merits of the Bill? I hope that he can reassure all Back Benchers that he will consider that matter positively.
Secondly, may I support the point about facilities made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If the proposals are to work, it must be accepted that facilities such as telephones and fax machines are not for the personal convenience of Members but because our constituents, who might normally expect to find us in our constituencies on a Monday morning, may want to be in touch with us urgently about the kind of important issue to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.
Thirdly, on the timing of Committee meetings, my right hon. Friend should not regard 10.30 am as a sacrosanct starting time as the Committee now travels to different
parts of Scotland. It would be sensible to have a different starting time depending on precisely where the Committee meets.
Dr. Godman:
Another problem that the Leader of the House has not examined is that, when we attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland, we cannot be here when Ministers make important statements. That happened on Monday, when a number of us wanted to be here to ask questions of the Prime Minister about the Madrid debacle. We were denied that opportunity because we were in Glasgow.
Mr. Stewart:
That is undoubtedly a potential problem. It is less of a problem if the Committee meets in Glasgow, which has a regular air service, but if we meet in other areas of Scotland where the air service is less frequent, those problems can arise and the authorities should deal with them in a practical way.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East):
I am grateful to note that the amendments to the Standing Orders have at least restored the confidence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which I thought was rather strange. He then had the common sense to add "only a little".
I find them so sadly lacking in imagination and divergent thinking that I wonder whether they come from the pen of the Secretary of State for Scotland at all. He was the Minister who gave us "Reservicing Britain", which led to compulsory competitive tendering, and has caused great harm to local government services. He was also the Minister who gave us the poll tax. At least that was inspired--mad, but inspired--whereas these proposals are not at all inspired.
As I go round the line of route with some of my guests, I show them the Magna Carta and explain that, at that time, the people of the country--at least, the lords--had to be consulted by the king before he passed vital Acts of Parliament. I also point out that, although they were consulted, they could rarely persuade the king not to do his own will at bidding.
Those are the kind of Standing Orders that we have before us. The Government wheel Scottish Members around to the Scottish Grand Committee at various locations, where they are consulted, but then pay no attention to what they say. I have heard much criticism of members of local government for not consulting in that way. The Standing Orders are not intended to change the fundamental flaw in the United Kingdom's democratic system, which is that the majority of Scottish people reject the Government's policies, but they will be put through through either the present ritual in the Scottish Grand Committee or the extended ritual set down in the Standing Orders.
A former Prime Minister talked about his preference for "talk, talk" rather than "war, war". [Hon. Members: "Jaw, jaw."] "Jaw, jaw" is a different phrase, but it has the same meaning: better to talk, therefore to avoid conflict.
The Standing Orders will show the people of Scotland again and again the pointlessness of the Scottish Grand Committee and therefore underline the fact that they must go to war with the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements if they are to achieve real progress and democracy for Scotland.
On that basis, I welcome the fact that the more people see the flaws in the Standing Orders and how the Scottish Grand Committee operates, even with the extended changes, the more they will see how pointless it is to have a Scottish Grand Committee in a United Kingdom Parliament that then uses the voting power of English Members to deny the views put forward by the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland.
All parties, apart from the Conservative party, will normally speak against the Government's position but, ultimately, the Government will bring the matter down to the House of Commons.
Mr. Michael Forsyth:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in Scotland? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) refused to answer the question; will the hon. Gentleman answer it?
Mr. Connarty:
My argument is that any process of democratic arrangement should be one where the majority of the people, in a position where there is subsidiarity and devolved government, make the decision on those items that relate to the Scottish--[Interruption.] I do not believe that the Scottish Grand Committee is the right place to make that type of decision. We wish to see a Scottish devolved Parliament with the proper devolution of subsidiary powers--in the Scottish context, of those things that the Scottish people wish to be controlled by that Parliament.
There will be consultation, but we shall not have the right to persuade the Government to change their route. The argument made again and again is that the Committee may discuss non-controversial Bills--we have probably set out along that road--such as the health and safety at raves Act or the Licensing Scotland (Amendment) Bill. However, let us consider what the effect would be if a Bill were controversial.
We would be able to have a Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It would then be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee, with an inbuilt majority for the Government. If it went back to the later stage, as was explained to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire points of principle could not be raised again on Third Reading.
Obviously, the measure is a sham. It is a way of taking us to various venues, and I welcome any chance to debate with the Government at any time anywhere, but it will not prevent the Scottish people from concluding that the majority of the people of Scotland, through their representatives in the House, cannot influence the Government's decisions on what they would call controversial issues.
That is what is wrong with the measure. There is no acceptance in any of the Standing Orders that the majority of the Scottish people reject the Conservative Government's policies on what they call controversial matters. Controversial matters cannot be voted down; nor, at any Committee stage in a Scottish Standing Committee, can controversial amendments be passed on the basis of the majority of the Scottish people's wishes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |