Previous SectionIndexHome Page


The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady also makes no secret of the fact that she wishes to see independence in Scotland. That, of course, would have a profound effect on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that she is wrong about that. That is one of the distinct political differences between us that will no doubt be debated for some time to come. On the earlier point, I think that, constitutionally, she is wrong.

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): Has my right hon. Friend noted that this important announcement was greeted seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? It was immediately denounced by a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament and most of the rest of them laughed. Does not that show what an incoherent shambles the Scottish Labour party is in?

The Prime Minister: One of the advantages of having the House televised is that people in Scotland will have seen precisely how Opposition Back Benchers--not Front Benchers; on this occasion I am pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour--behave on a matter of great sensitivity and interest to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde): Obviously, the people of Scotland will welcome back the Stone of Destiny, which has been a bone of contention for many years. However, I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for every 1,000th person unemployed in Scotland, he gets a bagpiper, and we take that stone and march from one end of the country to the other with at least 200 unemployed bagpipers who have suffered under this Government. Perhaps that will be the stepping stone to a Labour Government and then a Scottish parliament, one which represents and looks after the interests of the people, not a token artefact; real stones for building houses, that is what our people want.

The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman call the Stone of Destiny a token artefact. That is his view of the Stone of Destiny, and that will be well noted in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman will know that unemployment has been falling consistently in Scotland primarily because of inward investment into Scotland that would not have taken place but for the Government's policies. I suggest that when we have that piper, all the people in Scotland who have new jobs--good jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with a proper career--follow that piper, instead of the people

3 Jul 1996 : Column 977

who were in jobs that were kept there only by Government subsidy, jobs with no future, which was the position before 1979.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will welcome the return of the stone to Scotland? They will also welcome the commitment that the stone will play a part in future coronation services. My right hon. Friend obviously recognises that it is symbolic of Scotland's part in the Union. Does he agree that there is no chance of him taking steps that will damage the Union, unlike Opposition Members?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implies, the stone is the property of the Crown and will be returned to the coronation chair to take its place in the ceremony of the crowning of any future sovereign, who would be King of England and, of course, Scotland. To that extent, it symbolises the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that the property of Her Majesty the Queen should be placed wherever in Her Majesty's kingdom is deemed most appropriate.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Was this gesture prompted by political motives, or will it be seen in future years as the first in a series of generous gestures to countries in and outwith the multinational state of the United Kingdom? Are we likely to see the return of the Elgin marbles, for example?

The Prime Minister: This gesture was prompted by the 700th anniversary of the stone's removal from Scotland, and I believe it appropriate for it to return to Scotland for those particular reasons. That is not likely to be followed in totally different circumstances by the return of artefacts such as the Elgin marbles. That is not the case.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the wisdom and the symbolism of what he has announced today. After we have listened to some of the comments of Labour Back Benchers who have ridiculed this step, is it not worth reminding the House that the stone was forcibly removed from the abbey by Scottish nationalists on Christmas morning 1950? Surely that shows the forceful power that is attached to the symbolism of the stone. Its return now should surely be seen as a sign of unity, not one of dissension and ridicule.

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the case and that that is the way in which this will be viewed by most people, especially those who will have been somewhat shocked by the behaviour of some hon. Members this afternoon.

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

3 Jul 1996 : Column 978

Points of Order

3.47 pm

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of your strictures just yesterday about the use of foul and abusive language in the Chamber, I should like to hear your views on the foul and abusive term used by the Secretary of State for Scotland--the disparaging, racist term of pigmy, which will have caused great offence to many people. Not being tall, dark and handsome himself, one would have thought that he would have taken more care in the use of the word, which was intended and was always used as a disparaging reference to a proud, independent African people who live in southern and central Africa. The use of the term pigmy in that offensive way is racist, and I hope that you will cause the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw it.

Madam Speaker: I heard the word used and the context in which it was used. Had I thought it unparliamentary at the time, I would have asked the Member concerned to withdraw it, as I always do. I remind the House that the English language is very rich, and I simply caution all hon. Members--whether they are Front Benchers or Back Benchers--to make full use of the wonderful language that we have been given. I also remind all hon. Members of the very wise words of "Erskine May":


We should take that to heart.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to The Herald, the Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to bring his devolution plans before the Scottish Grand Committee. He issued a personal invitation to my right hon. Friend to take the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) at this week's Dumfries meeting and face the questions from his own Scottish Members of Parliament. Throwing down the challenge, the Secretary of State said, "Let's hear from the organ grinder, not his monkey."

The Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee would not, in fact, allow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to attend a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee as a member, or to speak at such a meeting. Is it not remarkably arrogant of the Secretary of State to consider the Committee that he touts around Scotland to be his private fiefdom, in which he can invite whomever he likes to come along and speak? Will you make it clear, Madam Speaker, that he has no such power, and also that my right hon. Friend could not have attended?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth) rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has not simply raised a point of order; he has raised a matter of debate, because he has answered the point that he put to me. Standing Order No. 94A lays down that the Scottish Grand Committee shall be made up of


3 Jul 1996 : Column 979

    In addition, Ministers of the Crown who are Members of Parliament but not members of the Grand Committee may take part in its deliberations. Consequently, Members of Parliament who, like the Leader of the Opposition, neither represent Scottish constituencies nor are Ministers of the Crown may not on this occasion take their places in the body of the kirk.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) obviously gave you notice of his point of order. If he had raised it with me, I could have told him that what I actually said was that, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to attend the Scottish Grand Committee, I would be quite prepared to present a proposal to amend the Standing Orders in order to make that possible. Those are the words that I used, and my offer remains open. It is significant that no Opposition Members have taken it up.

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no more points of order on this matter. I have given a correct ruling, which the House now understands.


Next Section

IndexHome Page