| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: Surely the hon. Gentleman himself has half-answered the question. It is unlikely in practice that limiting votes on English and Welsh issues to English and Welsh MPs would affect the viability of the United Kingdom Government. That is a good reason not to go down the road to the federalism of which the Secretary of State does not approve. However, on those occasions on which such a situation could arise, the Government would, in any event, be inherently weak, and the fact that they might be shorter-lived as a result probably does not matter for the sake of making sure that the Union is maintained, and that the people of England and Wales consider that they have been treated fairly as a result of the way in which devolution works north of the border.
Mr. Chisholm: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is proposing a federal solution, and he should think of its consequences.
The settlement, as agreed by legislation in the House, is based on a fundamental distinction between devolved and reserved areas. As a consequence, all Members of the House have a vote in reserved areas. The fundamental principle of the settlement is power sharing, and we should remember that that is at the centre of what we are discussing.
I noticed that, at the start of the debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that the language of devolution was inconsistent with the centralising instincts of Downing street. I do not know anything about the instincts of Downing street, but I do know that, in the past few years, Downing street has handed over more power than any other Government did in this or any other century. That is the reality of the decentralisation of power. Now, on the brink of a new century, we are moving forward to a century of power sharing--by contrast with the 19th century and most of the 20th century, which were centuries of nationalism.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Tayside has left the Chamber, because my fundamental reason for objecting to the ideology of the Scottish National party is that it is rooted in the nationalism of the past, whereas we are moving on the tide of history towards the power sharing of the new century.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
The hon. Gentleman has three times used the term "power sharing". Would he care to give the House his definition of that? He seemed to be mixing it up with divesting the House of its power, and I do not think that power sharing is exactly as he envisages it.
Mr. Chisholm:
I was going to speak about power sharing. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State summed it up in the word "symmetrical". He said that the House should be concerned with the reserved areas although it could at times, if it wished, discuss areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, whereas the Parliament and Assembly should concentrate on their devolved areas, although they could sometimes discuss the reserved areas.
That is the partnership that the new settlement is all about. We all know that that is how it will work. Power over health policy and education policy in Scotland lies with the Scottish Parliament; power over social security policy and defence policy and other areas lies in this place. I hope that that partnership will extend to all levels of the political process--to the devolved bodies and to the constituencies. I hope that, sooner rather than later, individual MPs and MSPs will get used to focusing on their specific areas. I am sure that that is already happening--that Members of the Scottish Parliament are dealing with constituents who come to them about health or education, whereas Members of this Parliament are dealing with constituents who come to them about social security or immigration.
That separation of powers also underlies many of the suggestions in the report. When I first thought about the subject, I shared many of the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)--who, in his submissions to the Procedure Committee, said that his first instinct was that there should not be a Scottish Grand Committee, a Scottish Affairs Committee or Scottish questions because devolved areas only would
have been discussed in them. If that had happened, or if those areas had been discussed substantially at all, I would certainly not have supported the continuation of those bodies. However, the report and the Government's words show that it is intended that those bodies should focus not on devolved areas but on reserved areas as they affect Scotland. That is the massive role--I hope that Welsh Members will forgive me if I focus on Scotland--that Scottish Members of Parliament will continue to play in the House.
Often, the media do not seem to understand that massive areas of policy affecting Scotland--social security, Treasury matters, defence, foreign affairs, and many others--are still being decided in this House, and that, increasingly, Scottish Members will devote themselves to and focus on those issues. The work of the Secretary of State and the different Committees should all be seen in the light of that general point.
As the first paragraph of the memorandum of understanding says, the Secretary of State is speaking for Scottish interests in all those reserved areas, and part of that work--which is not understood by many people outside the House, including the media--is the crucial work of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Committees. So much of the work of Government takes place in those Committees. It is crucial that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present to argue for Scotland in the same way as Scottish Office Ministers used to do in the past.
Mr. Alexander:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that has bedevilled many of the debates on these issues has been the basic failure of people to understand that the mandate of Members representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster is derived not from the Scottish Parliament, but directly from their election by the Scottish people at general elections? In the light of that, it is reasonable, defensible and attractive to have a situation where powers can be shared within Parliaments, because within defined and limited areas, Parliaments have competencies. There are reserved areas--the areas that are dealt with by Westminster Members, whose mandate for them is derived directly from the Scottish people. Equally, Members of the Scottish Parliament have a mandate derived from the Scottish people in respect of devolved areas of government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Interventions should be brief. They are not a chance to make another speech.
Mr. Chisholm:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. I hope that over time, members of the public will come to have that understanding.
Having dealt with the Secretary of State, the next contentious issue is the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not see that as problematic. It seems only natural for Scottish Members to want to express an interest in reserved areas as they affect Scotland. I have dealt with the position of the Scottish National party, but I was surprised to see the SNP changing its mind. The hon. Member for North Tayside gave the example of the fuel duty escalator. At some point he might welcome a Scottish Grand Committee, where that issue could be discussed in relation to Scotland.
On a lighter note, the hon. Member for North Tayside said that before the general election, Scottish Grand Committees had been successful only in helping to obliterate the Conservative party in Scotland. That is also an argument in their favour.
Theoretically, there might be more contention in relation to Scottish questions and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. When those involved are dealing with reserved matters, they can tread on the toes of other Secretaries of State and other Select Committees. Basically, that is a fact of life that we must accept in the new settlement. I think that there can be negotiations within Westminster so that the Secretary of State and the Committees can take an interest in the various reserved areas.
Mr. Swinney:
Does the hon. Gentleman think that a report of a Select Committee would be more effective in changing the Government's mind in a particular policy area than a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Chisholm:
I do not see why we have to make an exclusive decision about that. Clearly the Select Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee would have different roles. I am a great supporter of Select Committees and of the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. Equally, however, a Grand Committee can express a view.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley):
I want to be succinct because I feel that as a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, it is more appropriate to listen and afterwards to read the report of the debate.
I shall touch on two matters that came through to the Committee, and certainly to me, but do not come through in the rather dry report that is before us. The feeling came through quite clearly--I salute my ancestors, who were almost all Scottish and Macdonalds, a comment that has probably started the war again--that the role of a Scottish Member in Westminster following devolution had dramatically diminished. One had the feeling that some Scottish Members were wondering what on earth they would do with their time. That feeling is exacerbated by the over-representation of Scottish Members in the House. I understand that that will be righted in two elections' time, and I regret that it will not happen earlier.
It seemed to me that various approaches to the problem were possible. The over-representation could be reduced. The tight boundaries on discussion in this House of matters before the junior Parliament, if I may put it that way, could be broadened. I use local government in England as an example, although I accept that it is a tenuous example.
Local government in England comes under heavy scrutiny in the House. That presents an opportunity. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs suggested a joint Select Committee between the two Parliaments, and consideration should be given to that proposal in the Procedure Committee.
The Committee's immediate response was to examine whether the procedures could be reduced to meet the diminished role. There was considerable debate and we agreed--rightly, I think--that the Select Committees should continue. They have a definite role. However, we were clear--some of us emphatically so--that the Scottish Grand Committee should go. As one can imagine, there was quite a squawk, and we are hearing the reverberations from some hon. Members this evening.
Consequently, it was decided to try a "suck it and see" approach, and to ask for the matter to be laid to one side for a time, to be tested. It is with considerable regret that I note that the Government take the same position--test and see--without actually testing it. I hope that they will think about the issue more carefully and recognise that the Committee carefully adopted a similar posture to that of the Government, but intended to use the opportunity to test whether we needed the Grand Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |