| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.19 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee. He spoke today with directness and honesty. Those who do not serve with him on a Committee may not see the hon. Gentleman's diligence and energy, hard work and output, to which, in spite of political differences, I and everyone else pay tribute.
We have just heard from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) an equally honest account of how he sees things. To my mind, he has just spelled out to the House a recipe for tearing the United Kingdom asunder. He directly challenged the role of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House of Commons, with which the Procedure Committee's report dealt in detail. If we go down the route of excluding Scottish Members of Parliament, not only will it damage relations between us within the United Kingdom, but it will leave England immensely impoverished. That is because all of us bring to debates and deliberations on legislation in this place our experiences, and the experiences of our constituencies and of our regions.
In this House, Madam Speaker, like previous Speakers, lays down clear rules for calling on Members of Parliament to participate in questions and debates according, among other things, to what she believes they have to contribute from their experience.
On Tuesday, when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in the House on the terrible rail tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, those who were called to put questions to him had some interest in the matter, such as the Chairman of the Select Committee. Only those with some interest were called. We have a history of that.
On 19 May, one Home Office Minister was answering questions about the Government's proposals on the right to elect for trial by jury. Hon Members were called from both sides. A number of hon. Members suggested that any restriction on that right was a tremendous infringement of civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), a Scottish Member of Parliament, rose to say that the Scottish people have never really had that right, that it is a matter for the prosecution. If Madam Speaker had not called my hon Friend, on what, as a consequence of the Procedure Committee's report, might be considered a wholly English issue, the House would have been immeasurably impoverished and ill-informed, or would certainly not have had that information.
I have a children's hospital in my constituency and, when the problems arose in Bristol, I, like, I am sure, other hon. Members in a similar situation to me, obtained a briefing from the local consultant on whether there was a likelihood of anything similar arising. I was informed why, without prejudging the final outcome, it was unlikely that anything similar would arise.
If we are saying that the right of a Member of Parliament from one part of the United Kingdom, be it Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, to inform a debate and--to come directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley--even to vote, to avoid a problem and a pitfall into which people may be blindly walking, should be removed, that would be bad for the people of England as well as for the way in which we legislate in this place.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries)
rose--
Mr. Griffiths:
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I give way first to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Grieve:
The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. Is it not a fact that I, as a Member of Parliament for the United Kingdom, with, as it happens, a great interest in conservation in the highlands and in the Cairngorm area, which I know well, can no longer intervene on the question of the Cairngorm funicular because that is one of the consequences of devolution? It may be a loss, but is there not a measure of unfairness when the reverse is not the case--and an unfairness which is likely to grow unless the issue is addressed, possibly incrementally, but certainly now?
Mr. Griffiths:
I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House in the previous Parliament.
Mr. Griffiths:
I have a point to make to the hon. Member for Mole Valley, but before I do so I shall honour my word to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Brown:
I thank my hon. Friend, and perhaps I can add to his argument. He is fully aware of the location of my constituency. The point being made in the Chamber, which has been made in the past, concerns restricting the voting power of Scottish Members. As important as the health care offered by Dumfries and Galloway health board in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency is that provided in Cumbria, because about--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. An intervention must be brief. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member who has perhaps made a small speech during an intervention, but that cannot be allowed.
Mr. Griffiths:
My hon. Friend was making a valuable point.
Mr. Griffiths:
I will give way to the hon. Member for Mole Valley, but I shall perhaps provoke him a little further by giving an example that comes to mind because of something that was said about the problem of English Members of Parliament--or, indeed, Scottish Members of Parliament--not being able to vote on the reform of local government in Scotland, but being able to vote on such reform in England. We may learn in two scenarios: the Scottish Parliament may make mistakes, which we will want to inform the House of and avoid; equally, we may want to participate in reforms of local government that are carried out by the House and which we will then want to commend to our colleagues up in Scotland. This is not a clear-cut issue in terms of participation or voting.
Sir Paul Beresford:
There is an opposite to that. I, and many of my hon. Friends, have experience of local government in England, but we are not able to contribute to any debate on the reform of local government in Scotland--unless, perhaps, this House has more far-reaching effects on its junior Parliament than are presently envisaged or allowed.
Mr. Griffiths:
I can be more direct with the hon. Gentleman than I was with the hon. Member for
On page 139, the report raises several issues under the heading "Post Devolution Concerns", and the hon. Member for Mole Valley touched on one of them--the electoral change that may be needed in Scotland in respect of boundaries. I am concerned about one aspect of that. Let me concede at the outset that there may be a case for considering how many electors in cities such as Edinburgh, which are comparable to cities elsewhere in the United Kingdom, should elect a Member of Parliament. However, the biggest discrepancies can occur in rural areas--the smallest electorates in Scotland live in the islands, for example--and we shall have to be very careful. The biggest seat in Scotland--Ross, Skye and Inverness, West--covers 3,500 sq m of territory and has an electorate of some 55,500.
Sir Paul Beresford:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths:
No, because other hon. Members want to speak.
If one wants to adjust that boundary and have a bigger electorate, does one go north to Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, where there are already 3,200 sq m to be covered, or south to Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which covers 3,300 sq m and has an electorate of 65,500--closer to the English average of just under 70,000? The biggest English seats are all more than half that size. Indeed, the biggest English seat is well under half the size; the second biggest is less than 1,000 sq m and, therefore, less than a third of the size. Those seats sit together. Hexham, which is the second biggest--Penrith and The Border is the other--has an electorate of 59,000. In recognition of the fact that the Member of Parliament representing that seat has to cover such a large area, his electorate is 15 per cent. lower than the English average.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |