| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman's arguments nudge remarkably close to those advanced by the former Member for Eastwood at the Conservative conference at the weekend. He suggested that if the Union was unsustainable--after 1 May, I think that we all agree on that--the arguments for independence were unassailable.
Mr. Jenkin: I am not here to answer for the former Member for Eastwood. I am asking the Government questions, which is the Opposition's job.
I doubt whether the Government have asked the questions that I put forward. They do not want to know. The Minister paid lip service to continuing the work of the Scottish Grand Committee; but, with fewer sitting days and meetings mostly at Westminster, it is clear that the Government want the Scottish Grand Committee to go to sleep as quietly as possible.
What is their political purpose in downgrading the Scottish Grand Committee, now of all times, long before a Scottish Parliament has become a certainty, let alone assumed certain shape or form? What better forum could there be for the discussion of Scotland's future at this time than the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Government even have the comfort of a controlling majority? Is Scottish democracy to be mothballed for the convenience of the Mandelson publicity machine? What sort of preparation is that for Scotland's democratic future?
The truth behind the motion is that the Committee's success is an embarrassment to the advocates of devolution; for if the Grand Committee continues to develop its role, what need for a Scottish Parliament, except to levy a tartan tax and to promote nationalism by stealth? That is what the motion is really about. It surprises me little that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) spoke with such enthusiasm for it.
Whenever people complain--I am coming to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)--that the Grand Committee could not have challenged the ultimate authority of Westminster, I wonder whether they realise what they imply. There is no way that a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh can be established by an Act of this Parliament that cannot be subsequently amended by this Parliament. That is the basis of our constitution, based as it is on the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. We had that from the Prime Minister's lips when he explained that ultimate sovereignty rested with him as an English Member.
The Secretary of State knows that that is true, but then I respect him as a Unionist, albeit a misguided one. The case made by some of his more enthusiastic colleagues suggests that they do not know it. There should more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the question, not fewer meetings. That is the danger of establishing a Scottish Parliament based on the Claim of Right, instead of enhancing the Committee's powers.
Mr. Maxton:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No one should dispute the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their future, but to choose to express that right through elections to a separate Scottish Parliament is to encourage denial of the very basis of the Union of the Crowns and of the Parliaments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during his first time as a Front-Bench spokesman, but the thread connecting the motion with his remarks is very thin and I suspect that it is getting ever thinner. I ask him to move back within the terms of the motion.
Mr. Jenkin:
The Scottish Grand Committee could serve an ever larger role, expressing the will of the Scottish people but at the heart of the Westminster system. We want Scotland to be at the heart of Britain, not progressively isolated from the mainstream of the discussions that are so vital to Scotland's interests. A Scottish Parliament, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee, could never cross-examine the United Kingdom Prime Minister as an equal.
Mr. McLeish:
With permission, I wish to add some concluding remarks.
I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not want the debate to range wide and far, but it has in some respects. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) is a clear illustration of a reality that the Conservatives simply fail to grasp.
The Grand Committee was compared to a possible Scottish Parliament. We have heard it described as the real heir to the Parliament that existed before the union of the Parliaments in 1707. To be extraordinarily charitable, that is simply wide of the mark. If the election result on 1 May told us nothing more, it said that the Scots want a measure of constitutional change. There are certainly differences of opinion over what form that should take, but the overriding issue was settled--change had to be on the agenda. Unless and until Conservative Members start to appreciate that, they will make no progress in Scotland or in this House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin:
It is extremely revealing that the hon. Gentleman feels that his devolution proposals have
Mr. McLeish:
What must astonish right hon. and hon. Members is that since 1 May, we have not had a hint of humility, a crumb of contrition or a smattering of any sorrow for the plight that the Conservative party faces in Scotland. That is a matter for the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches. In my own way, I am always trying to be helpful, but no matter the level of help offered, nothing seems to be taken on board.
To return to the Scottish Grand Committee, which is the focus of this debate, the motion is not a downgrading of the Committee. As I said earlier, we are endorsing the fact that the previous Government made progress in taking the Grand Committee to other parts of Scotland. We are continuing to have the meetings.
Mr. McLeish:
We believe that, on the central question of strengthening accountability and democracy in Scotland, we are taking a much bigger step. That is why, through the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, we want to make substantial progress on that aspect of accountability and to strengthen the government of Scotland.
At the start, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked what would happen if there were a Conservative win in a by-election, however ridiculous that might seem at present. First, the Conservative Member would automatically become a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. Secondly, the Standing Orders could be amended. I use the word "could" because, in a sense, the motion allows that possibility, but what is equally interesting is that Standing Order No. 99--again, devised by the Opposition when they were in government--states:
Mr. Ancram:
This is a matter of some seriousness. Perhaps we are reading the Standing Order differently. As I read it, the requirement for three Members relates to the largest and next largest Opposition parties, which under the current motion, which is being amended, exclude the Leader of the Opposition's party. As I pointed out earlier, once a member of the official Opposition is back in the Scottish Grand Committee, I hope that the Minister will review the Standing Order to restore the status quo.
Mr. McLeish:
Our interpretation is right--it is about three Members being elected. I have given the assurance that, if a Conservative Member is elected, we will review the position. On the other hand, the Standing Orders were
The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned our attempt to gag. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, it is important--to be fair, the Opposition have been measured in accepting the reality of 1 May--to point out that the Opposition have no case to argue and we have no case to answer on the decisions that we have made and that are contained in the change in the Standing Order that is before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a point about cohesion, democratic debate and accountability. It becomes a little wearing listening to Opposition Members talking about those when, during their 18 years in government, they often paid lip service to anything that could be described as accountability. My hon. Friends have made some telling points in that regard during our brief debate.
The right hon. Member for Devizes also said that the new, limited-in-number Conservative Opposition are the custodians of everything democratic in the House. Suffice it to say that the House simply will not wear that, and it certainly will not be worn the length and breadth of Scotland.
Pessimism and cynicism are not part of our agenda for change in Scotland. The changes that we are making to the Standing Orders for the Scottish Grand Committee are purposeful and reasonable in the circumstances and will continue to allow the Committee to undertake the work that it has been doing. My hon. Friends made other points about the future of democratic debate. Apart from on the Conservative Benches, that has been secured in terms of the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), we want to consider weather, seasons and geography when we consider having Scottish Grand Committees in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party can each select
two debates. Where those might be held is very much a matter for them, in discussions with the Government. That is a fair point.
"For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member".
The Standing Order goes on to confirm that three Members--in this case, Conservative Members--would have to be elected, to trigger the review of the situation. It is unhelpful for the Government to be criticised for merely using what has been put in a Standing Order that was written and agreed by the Opposition when in government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |