| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 870—continued
David Hamilton (Midlothian): As one who has not been here long and knew beforehand that there would probably be a reduction of MPs, I do not have a problem with the proposal. However, I find it unbelievable that at a time when the boundary commission is recommending that I go coterminous with my council, it is also recommended that 16 MSPs are mirrored against me. The commission has to put in place a mechanism before that happens. My colleagues are right that the proposal must be right for everybody in Scotland, which is not the case at present.
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is proposing a paper exercise that will not take into account the actual operation of boundaries one way or the other. I return to the point that there will inevitably be a period following the next election for this place and the 2007 Scottish Parliament election when, with the best will in the world, there cannot be coterminosity. I believe that that is the appropriate time for the independent commission to sit.
Mr. John Baron (Billericay): Will the Secretary of State now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) about what hard evidence exists to suggest that 20 Ministers are required to do the job that five used to do prior to devolution? Is it simply a case of jobs for the boys?
Mrs. Liddell: That is a matter for the First Minister and for the Scottish Parliament, but everyone on the Labour Benches remembers what a Tory Scottish Office did to Scotland—not least of which was the poll tax. It is not numbers that matter but quality and commitment to Scotland.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): I very much applaud my right hon. Friend's bold stance on stability for the Scottish Parliament, which I firmly believe is required. Coterminosity is extremely important. However, the boundary commission's proposals for the south of Scotland would give us one MP and four first-past-the post elected MSPs. Although I acknowledge my
right hon. Friend's point that the commission's considerations will go beyond 2007, there could be a six-year gap in which coterminosity does not exist. The simplest way out of the problem would be for my right hon. Friend to accept the boundary commission's proposals but to implement them only at the next but one general election in England and Wales.
Mrs. Liddell: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views on the matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with his position. However, I have to be bound by the recommendations of the independent boundary commission and I cannot say when I shall receive its report. I can only state that it must be made before December 2006. I do not want falsely to raise my hon. Friend's hopes, but I believe that it may be possible to implement the commission's recommendations prior to the next general election.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater): The Secretary of State says that she wants to narrow down changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Will that stop Scottish National party Members or other Members from proposing changes that would amend it? Is she not stifling Parliament's ability to make decisions should there be a need for major changes when the commission has produced its recommendations?
Mrs. Liddell: The Scotland Act arose from the Scottish constitutional convention, which achieved broad consensus across civic Scotland, involving political parties, the churches, voluntary organisations and the trade unions. The Scottish Conservative party
decided not to be part of that constitutional convention—as indeed did the Scottish National party. The Scottish Parliament grew out of that consensus. I shall seek to build on that consensus. That is what the Scottish people wanted and they are entitled to have what they want. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may slap his thigh in pantomime fashion as much as he wants but we have the support of the Scottish people—his party does not.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): We are keeping the best until last.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made great efforts to explain that there will be a trial period between the next general election and the report of the commission, when we shall have to go back to the Scotland Act in order to implement the commission's recommendations. May I make another suggestion? Could we have a trial period after the next general election so that we can see how the Act is working? Why do we not leave the Act alone so that it can work as it was supposed to do?
Mrs. Liddell: I am unclear as to my hon. Friend's recommendation. I think that he is recommending the ultimate in instability—reducing the number of MSPs and then restoring the number to 129 after a certain period. It is clear from the responses to the consultation exercise that stability is the key thing that people want. I would have thought that, three and a half years into a constitutional settlement which changes a 300-year-old arrangement, the one thing that we want to achieve is stability. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be a recipe for instability.
Points of Order
5.4 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time, the Prime Minister alluded to developments in the fisheries negotiations in Europe. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, been made aware of whether the Government intend to report to the House before it rises as to the conduct of those negotiations? Given that the earliest date that the House may be able to debate any decisions arising from the negotiations is in mid-January, some weeks after draconian cuts may be introduced, what is the procedural position when the House has to debate in retrospect measures that could bring ruination for many coastal communities in the country?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I cannot speculate on the future situation; but as to the present, I have received no notification of the intention of a Minister to report to the House.
Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, there has been some concern recently about names being improperly recorded at the Telling Desks during a vote. The most recent example is that I have been recorded in Hansard on 16 December in column 654 as voting for the Hunting Bill, when purely because I will be one of the Chairmen of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, I had to abstain on that occasion in accordance with precedent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you please ensure that this mistake is corrected, so that my constituents and the press know that I did not vote on that Bill because of my duty to the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady's comment will be noted. I agree with her that it is extremely important for those hon. Members who take on the responsibility of chairing Committees and therefore abide by certain rules that prevent them from voting in connection with the Bills that those Committees are considering that their position is not abused either by inaccuracies in recording their votes or, indeed, in reporting that they have voted when they have not. I hope that that will be put right and that it will not happen again in future.
Orders of the Day
INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to income tax on employment income, pension income and social security income.—[Dan Norris.]
REGULATORY REFORM
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
Licensing
- That the draft Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th December 2002, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Programme)(No. 2)
5.6 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
- That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 12th December 2002 and pursuant to the Programme Order of 26th November 2002 relating to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Clauses 1 to 4), proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) by the times specified in the Table—
| Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| Clause 1 | two and a half hours after the commencement of any proceedings on a motion relating to the Resolution |
| Clause 2 | five hours after the commencement of such proceedings |
| Clause 3 | five and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings |
| Clause 4 | six hours after the commencement of such proceedings |
The motion proposes a split of time between the clauses. Clause 1, on the power to order referendums, should be concluded two hours after the start of the debate. Clause 2, on the referendum question, should be concluded five hours after the start. Clause 3, on the entitlement to vote, should be concluded five and a half hours after the start, and clause 4, on the referendum period, should be concluded six hours after the start. That indicates that we will probably still be at it a little after 11 o'clock this evening.
That allocation of time has been based, broadly, on the subject matter of each clause and the number of amendments currently tabled to each clause. The split seems to us to be broadly right, allowing about 40 per cent. of the time to consider clause 1—one of the most important clauses in the Bill—about the same proportion of time to consider clause 2, which deals with the referendum question and which has obviously generated a lot of interest, while ensuring that the Committee of the whole House has time to consider the other issues raised by clauses 3 and 4. That is a sensible allocation of time, which should allow full and proper scrutiny of all those issues.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |