| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.39 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I thank the Minister of State for his good wishes on my appointment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to our Opposition positions. I was a little puzzled by the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend about a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and the Standing Orders being different. The Welsh Grand Committee has met today with no Conservative presence--although the Standing Orders allow for it--because the Government decided in the Committee of Selection to make sure that no Conservative was allowed to take up the place available. I am not sure that his answer held water, although we shall leave that matter for now.
In light of current political affairs in Scotland, the motion might appear innocuous--that is what the Minister said--but it is important that we have this chance to debate it, because there are political implications of a constitutional nature which go far beyond the idea of good housekeeping. I must concede that, given the current state of parliamentary representation in Scotland--and therefore on the Scottish Grand Committee--I would find it hard to insist that the official Opposition should retain the right to nominate motions for the Adjournment when we have no Member entitled to take part in the debates. However, deeper constitutional implications must be considered.
The Scottish Grand Committee is, after all, a Committee of this House and of the United Kingdom Parliament, in which we are the official Opposition. For the moment, that constitutional reality cannot be given practical effect in the Scottish Grand Committee--hence the motion. I would like an assurance from the Government that when we win back parliamentary representation in Scotland at by-elections--as we can confidently expect in the nature of things--the motion will be reviewed and reconsidered to reflect the fact that the official Opposition are represented once more within the Grand Committee.
Without such assurances, today's motion would be a dangerous slide away from the constitutional framework within which this United Kingdom and Parliament have operated. It would undermine the Union and could be seen as the first step on a slippery slope toward the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McLeish:
I am trying to share the optimistic note struck by the right hon. Gentleman about the Conservatives winning by-elections in Scotland. Paragraph 2 of the motion allows for the Standing Orders to be considered and amended, and his point will be taken care of by that provision.
Mr. Ancram:
I am grateful for that assurance, and I take it that it goes further than the "maybe" that is implied. I hope that, if we were to win a by-election, the Minister would accept my argument. He is nodding, for which I am grateful.
I am dismayed to find that the number of sittings of the Grand Committee is to be reduced from 12 to eight. Contradicting the Government's much-vaunted concern for Scottish affairs, we see a continuation of a pattern that seeks to downgrade the consideration of Scottish issues in this House. There is now less time for Scottish questions and fewer Grand Committee debates. What next? With the Government increasingly determined to close down the opportunity to scrutinise Scottish affairs or bring them to account, I fear that we can expect more motions of this kind.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether this is the beginning of the dismantling of the Grand Committee, even before the people of Scotland have had the chance to declare on the question of the future governance of Scotland. What are the Government's intentions for the Grand Committee? When Scotland says no in the referendum, do they intend to review those intentions? Why will they not await the outcome of the referendum before making these moves? Do they cynically believe that downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee will increase the pressure for a yes vote? I can tell them that, if they do, they will be mistaken.
What are the Government's long-term intentions for retaining a strong voice for Scotland within this Parliament to ensure cohesion within the United Kingdom? We are becoming accustomed to the disdain with which the Government treat both Parliament and the spirit of democratic accountability. Even today in another Grand Committee, the voice of democratic opposition to Welsh devolution has been deliberately excluded, contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders.
The Government may believe that, because of their majority, they can do what they like, but they tamper with constitutional proprieties, at great risk to the careful
balance of democratic accountability that is essential to the working of our democracy. That the voice of dissent is heard and that the structures for hearing it are cherished are central tenets of democracy. Anything that undermines those structures undermines democracy, and the Government should be careful that--in their arrogance--they do not destroy precious and hard-won rights.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart):
For the right hon. Gentleman--the Minister who took the poll tax legislation through the House--to talk to us about accountability and democracy in Scotland is outrageous.
Mr. Ancram:
The hon. Gentleman may recall that he was leading for the Opposition at that time and he had every opportunity to voice his dissent.
Mr. Maxton:
On a guillotine motion.
Mr. Ancram:
I am talking about a reduction of opportunities to voice dissent. I remind him that the guillotine came very late in the Bill, after much discussion--largely by the hon. Gentleman.
The motion is, in practice, hard to resist, but nevertheless raises serious concerns. One swallow does not a summer make and the motion is one of a line of swallows, beginning with the deliberate gagging of debate on significant democratic and constitutional issues during consideration of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. It is part of a pattern that is profoundly disturbing to those of us who cherish our democratic principles.
It may be that this gagging of dissent and curtailing of debate--the Government's blustering approach--are part of a strategy to force through constitutional reforms such as devolution in which the Government have lost confidence in their own arguments and proposals. If so, it is even more cynical and even less acceptable.
Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) presents a somewhat confused perspective on devolution. If, on a Monday, he is in Belfast, he argues passionately for devolution. If, on a Tuesday, he is in Glasgow or Cardiff, he argues against political devolution. If he returns to Belfast, he becomes once again a keen advocate of devolution. He is a little confused on the matter, and as a Member who departed Scotland not long after the introduction of the poll tax, he ought to be circumspect when talking about constitutional change. I believe that the poll tax was the beginning of the end for the Conservatives in Scotland. If he were to accept my argument on proportional representation, he might find that there were Conservative Members in a Scottish Parliament.
I hope that the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee take place mainly in London and Edinburgh--if we are not to meet in Greenock, Wemyss Bay or
Gourock. If we must meet in Inverness--a favourite town of mine, where my wife and I have spent frequent weekends in the spring, summer and autumn--can my hon. Friend the Minister avoid holding such meetings in the depths of winter? Following the last meeting, some of us had enormous difficulty in returning south from that delightful highland town. May I ask also who is to chair these meetings? Such information ought to be given to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |