| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Godman: No, not to five minutes--to 15 minutes, say. That would make matters more equitable for Back Benchers.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay particular heed to my request that the meetings be shared between London and Edinburgh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman, and relieve the Minister of a responsibility that he does not hold, to say that the chairmanship of the Scottish Grand Committee is a matter for Madam Speaker.
4.50 pm
Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West): The Liberal Democrats are happy to support the motion. We have had amicable discussions with the Scottish National party and the Government about the allocation of days, which we believe has been done fairly. We believe in collaborative politics to get things done, but we shall certainly oppose the Government vigorously, as I am sure the SNP will, and call them to account at the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. It is reasonable to have fewer meetings, because there is likely to be a great deal of Scottish business if the Scottish home rule Bill is introduced; obviously, if it is not, we can think again.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was sensible not to push his case for inclusion in the Grand Committee too far. There is a clear distinction between
Scotland, where the three main United Kingdom parties and the SNP contest elections vigorously, and Northern Ireland, where the politics is different and none of the three largest United Kingdom parties has any representation.
It is sensible to support the Government's proposals. If the Conservatives have no members of the Committee, it is foolish to suggest that they should have any say in its agenda; they seem to have accepted that argument. If there is an argument that the Conservatives should be added on, because they were in some way badly treated in the general election, it should be noted that it is my experience and that of other hon. Members who won seats from them that, in addition to getting support for our party and, we hope, for us, we got support from the other two non-Conservative parties because the electors wanted to defeat the Conservative candidate.
That was clearly the predominant feeling: the voters wanted the Conservative out. In my case, I got support from people who normally voted for Labour or for the SNP, and in my constituency those two parties' votes were lower than--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Although I have allowed a certain latitude up to now, I need to draw his attention, and that of the House, to the terms of the motion, which is about the meetings and not about the issue on which he is now speaking.
Mr. Gorrie:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to argue why I felt that it was right that the Conservatives should not have the opportunity to dictate what the Committee should debate. I am sorry if I strayed from the point.
If the Conservatives accepted the logic behind proportional representation, they would have a much better case for better treatment. They do not support proportional representation and benefited from the existing electoral system for more than 18 years; they ruled the country with minority support, and now the game has gone against them. If one is losing, one cannot bite off somebody's ear.
Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside):
I am somewhat reluctant to participate in this debate, as one of the people whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has in his sights as a by-election possibility. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has raised the possibility of biting in the boxing ring, I am even more reluctant to speak.
The motion is clearly a technical one, and I am glad that the Government are not proposing any inappropriate exceptions to what we would expect to happen as a result
of the general election outcome on 1 May. We certainly agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the settlement on Government and Opposition days is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
It is encouraging to know that we will not be subjected in the Scottish Grand Committee to listening to some of the things to which we have had to listen in the House from the Conservatives since 1 May. I went along to the other place to observe part of the debate on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, and the arguments were a little more coherently expressed by the Conservatives there--who included some of my constituents--than by the Conservatives in the House of Commons.
I would not be expected to complain about nothing in a debate such as this, as nothing is ever perfect in the House. The Standing Orders applying to the Scottish Grand Committee say that the largest Opposition party is defined by the number of seats. On proportional representation, there is cross-party consensus among the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Edinburgh, West and me, and we should reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party polled 22.1 per cent. of the vote in Scotland in the general election, compared with 13.1 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. We should bear that in mind when we settle the roles of the Opposition parties in handling scrutiny of Government business.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Devizes that my party certainly does not intend to sit back and ease off on scrutiny of the Government, their legislative proposals or the matters that they bring before the Scottish Grand Committee. That Committee is a forum in which we have the opportunity to keep a close eye on what the Government propose for Scotland.
Mr. Ancram:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but does it not therefore disturb him that the number of days on which he will be able to exercise that scrutiny is being diminished from 12 to eight?
Mr. Swinney:
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) expressed concern about the time available for Scottish questions in the House on a monthly basis. The number of days is limited in comparison with the previous Session, but we accept the Government's argument that the amount of Scottish legislation to be introduced has to be borne in mind in the timetabling of events.
On the subject of timetabling, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde made some remarks on the length of speeches which were no doubt fair. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I remember that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland made an extensive speech on one occasion that prevented members of my party from participating in a debate, thus denying the House and the Grand Committee the opportunity to hear all sides of the argument.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
It was of course the Conservatives who made the Scottish Grand Committee what it is today: a forum for questions and debate that brings the Government of both Scotland and the United Kingdom closer to the people of Scotland. It was Ian Lang who introduced a Question Time for Scottish Ministers and opportunities for ministerial statements, expanded the consideration of primary and secondary legislation, and enhanced the scope for general debates, including Adjournment debates at the end of each sitting. It was Michael Forsyth who extended the scope of Question Time to any Minister, including even the Prime Minister, and enabled the Scottish legislative programme to be expanded by taking the Second and Third Readings of non-controversial Bills in Grand Committee.
Most relevant to this debate, it was my noble Friend Lord Younger who made the Committee the exclusive preserve of Scottish Members in 1981. That is what makes the Grand Committee the true heir to the Scottish Parliament that was prorogued in 1707. Then the Scottish Parliament elected 16 peers and 45 Members of Parliament from among its membership to be incorporated into the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster.
We therefore have no dispute with the substance of the proposed changes in Standing Orders for the Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee is the United Kingdom Parliament's Committee of Scots for Scots. It would not be appropriate for the official Opposition to specify subjects for debates, as envisaged in the current Standing Orders, until we have regained representation on the Committee.
That is not to say that we have no concerns. Changes to the Standing Orders specifically to exclude the official Opposition are unnecessary. We would have been happy to give a commitment of forbearance until such time as there were Scottish Conservative Members once again, but this trust-me Government wish to leave nothing to trust. Yet again, we find something of the high-handed rather than the high-minded in the actions of new Labour. We have no choice but to trust them to be true to their word, if and when circumstances change.
What of the future of the Scottish Grand Committee? Each and every one of the changes made under the Conservatives was welcomed. Before the proposals in the motion, the Committee played an increasingly important role, dealing with more legislation than ever before and being able to summon the most powerful in the kingdom to account: the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain excise duty on whisky; the Secretary of State for Defence to justify the threat of Labour's defence review to Scottish regiments and jobs; and even the Prime Minister to give account of his conduct of Government.
To judge from recent Welsh events, Government Back Benchers would be wise to pause before asking such questions. The Government machine was never more geared to the Scottish interest and to the Scottish dimension. That was never to have been the last word on the Committee's future. Michael Forsyth was always interested in developing its powers and function.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |