| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Do he and his colleagues hold identical reservations in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the departments that will be created there?
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Has the hon. Gentleman read the "Declaration of Hamden" in which the Scottish Conservatives said recently that they were more autonomous than other political parties in Scotland, and accused the Labour party of being control freaks from London? Has the control freakery being displayed by the hon. Gentleman been cleared with Mr. David McLetchie, as it seems to ca' the feet from the "Declaration of Hamden"?
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for teaching me lessons about politics, particularly Conservative politics. This is not a point about control freakery or, in the end, a point about Scotland. This is a point about the possible reaction of English electors. It has been the constant pursuit of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who used to be the hon. Member for West Lothian, to ensure that our arrangements do not unnecessarily precipitate tensions in the Union. I beg the Minister to attend to that matter.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) rose--
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) rose--
Mr. Letwin: No, I will not take further interventions, as I want to move on to my main point. Very well, I give way.
Mr. Connarty: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that he does not want any measure to
be enacted by Parliament that would generate tensions, when he is clearly attempting from the Dispatch Box to drive wedges, not just between the people of England and of Scotland, but between the Conservative party in the House and the Conservative party in Scotland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that, may I remind him and the House that we are discussing the transitional arrangements. Remarks ought to be confined to that.
Mr. Letwin: I am amazed at your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and at the fact that you have not reminded us of that before. I was trying to move on to my main point, but I thought that I should give way to the hon. Gentleman--perhaps mistakenly.
I am by no means trying to stoke up tensions. As a profound Unionist, I genuinely believe that there is much to be gained from trying to placate those feelings. I shall leave it at that.
What is revealed in this set of orders--in particular in what the Minister calls the finance order, but perhaps more clearly in the appropriations order--is the extraordinary state of our constitution. That is no fault of the Minister or his Government. It has been the case for years.
Betwixt the two extremes--tax, which we vet seriously, and efficiency and value for money, which we vet seriously through the CAG and PAC, notwithstanding my remarks about the Scottish Parliament--lie appropriations. In some Parliaments or the equivalent--for example, in the United States--appropriations are taken seriously. There are appropriations committees which look seriously into what is being appropriated and what the money is to be spent on. They debate the measures arduously, line by line, over many weeks. The equivalent of our Ministers pay great attention to that. The Government agencies spend an enormous amount of time trying to find out whether their proposed expenditure will be approved by Senate and House committees.
If we inspect the appropriations order, which follows the traditional pattern, we find vast sums described in the most general terms, as is traditional in our practice. The sums are staggering. In total, we are dealing with some £14 billion worth, as I think the Minister will confirm.
The description in article 2 on page 3 shows expenditure by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Ministers on market support, agriculture in special areas including crofting, structural measures, compensation to sheep producers and animal health, agricultural education, advisory, research and development services, botanical and scientific services--I shall not bore the House by reading the whole list.
It is an enormous, amorphous collection--all, undoubtedly, marvellous stuff--but no one in the House has the slightest idea what the money is going on. Nor is it intended that we should have such an idea, because this is a set of appropriations that follows the grand tradition of very broad, very general approvals.
Mr. McLeish:
There are always two arguments about any particular point. In a sense, that confirms the need, and the reason, for a devolved settlement for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland and for a voice
No one in the Chamber is responsible for the fact that we have little time for the debate, but that confirms that a Scottish Parliament with powerful appropriations and control procedures will be taken seriously on the question of budgeting and finance. There will be a powerful role for the Parliament vis-a-vis the new Executive. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a reason for devolution, not for holding it back?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not want the debate to widen any further. That is what it is starting to do, so will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the matter before us?
Mr. Letwin:
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respond briefly to the Minister.
This is not a question about devolution, either way. I welcome, of course, the Minister's remarks about the way that the Scottish Parliament, following the transitional orders, will go about the business of appropriation. If the Parliament establishes such procedures, that will be a constitutional advance. I am arguing that, as the order shows us clearly, we in this House also need to adopt such procedures.
We do not currently have such procedures. The order is one of the most remarkable and unusual testimonies to that, because we do not frequently consider such orders. We do not have to consider them, because we do not normally have the need, which has been occasioned by the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The annual estimates that come before us fulfil exactly no purpose whatever, as everyone knows perfectly well what will be the outcome and no one does any serious investigation.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is marvellous how the Scottish Parliament, even before it has been established, is already teaching lessons to this place, about how it should go about conducting its business?
Mr. Letwin:
The hon. Gentleman deserves a lollipop for an ingenious point. I very much hope that he is right. We shall see, but if the Scottish Parliament is teaching us lessons, let us learn them.
I want to make a particular point in respect of paragraph 2 of the finance order. Paragraph 2(2) on page 4 contains a remarkable constitutional point. I do not know whether I have correctly understood it. I have asked someone learned in the law about it, and I have received a not entirely clear answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up this matter in his closing remarks. Paragraph 2(2) states:
I refer to paragraph 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will give me due credit for being precisely on the topic of the order. In sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 3 there is what appears to be an extraordinary outcome. In sub-paragraph (2) we are told:
The combined effect of those two sub-paragraphs appears to be that the direction of moneys--which, before one looks at the order, seems to be determined by the order--will be subject to being redetermined by "any other subordinate legislation", under a certain section. That is extraordinary, is it not? It may be normal, but we do not know.
"If any question arises . . . as to whether or to what extent a function of the Secretary of State is a relevant function for the purposes of this Order that question shall"--
this is the bit that I am concerned with--
"be determined by the Secretary of State, and his determination shall be final and conclusive."
In other words, the order tells us that the question "whether" something should be done by the Secretary of State will be determined by the Secretary of State, and he
will be the final arbiter. That strikes me as an odd provision, constitutionally speaking. I do not know whether the provision has good precedent; it probably has, or it would not appear in the order. If it has, perhaps we should be examining that precedent. It seems odd that such a judgment could be made and not be open to any kind of scrutiny or appeal.
"A provision of any enactment which requires or authorises the payment of any sum into the Consolidated Fund shall have effect in relation to any relevant function as if it required or authorised that sum to be paid into the Fund instead."
In sub-paragraph (3) we are told:
"Paragraph (2) . . . is subject to any other provision made by or under this Order, or any other subordinate legislation"
under a certain section.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |