PROCEDURE

HC Deb 29 April 1968 vol 763 cc939-62

10.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)

I beg to move, That the Orders [25th April] relating to Procedure be discharged. This is not a wholly Scottish Motion, although it contains Scottish elements. It arises exactly in the same circumstances and on the same date as the previous Motion. I know it to be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).

In the procedure debate on 14th November, 1967, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council forecast a proposal to appoint a Select Committee on Procedure with very narrow terms of reference, the basis of which would be to consider whether we could usefully modify the year to the best advantage in our work in the House, that is to say, whether we were having our Recesses out of proportion, whether some were too long and some too short, whether we had enough terms, whether we had enough Recesses and whether—although this is difficult—we could relate our House year to the calendar year.

These were the questions that he felt that the Committee ought to consider, and it was for this reason that he recommended it to the House, and the House appreciated that this would be a useful exercise for the Committee. I should point out that it is a fact that the Select Committee has been working very hard over two Sessions. The last Session was one and a half times the size of a normal Session. We all paid tribute to the Committee at the time. It was for that reason that a rather smaller Committee was chosen on this occasion with a specific task.

I would like to suggest to the House that this task should be completed at the earliest possible moment. I would not like the terms of reference of this Committee to be expanded, so that we do not get a reply to what is an urgent question as soon as possible. I said earlier that more than half the Session has gone by. If we do clog the Committee up with too many questions and too much detail, we may not get an answer this Session, and most hon. Members would deplore that. I am not certain that if we were to consider any other questions, the size of the Committee would be the correct one.

The House will recollect that the previous Select Committee was rather larger. In considering this matter the House should have regard to an expeditious reply to the particular task set the Committee in the Lord President's speech of 14th November.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

I apologise if I misheard my right hon. Friend, but did he say that the question was whether the House year should be the same as a calendar year? The actual wording is the financial year, and this opens up a rather broader set of considerations. Does he think that this should be considered by the Select Committee?

Mr. Silkin

The questions of the House year and the calendar year, or the House year and the financial year, are all considerations which, in my view, the Committee ought to take into account. I would hope that it would arrive at the best solution for the good of the House and country.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I am inclined to support this Motion and to press the Deputy Leader for some assurances about how he sees the rôle of the Committee on Procedure in future. When he says that half the Session has gone by, that is very true. Whenever I or other hon. Members with particular interests on certain procedures upon which they feel there should be review press the matter we are told by the Government that it is important that the Committee on Procedure deals with the point, that we must get an answer now about this question.

That is all very well, but we have been sitting this Session since October and there has been no Select Committee on Procedure sitting during this time. It could have been dealing with this matter and gone on to some of the other matters which various Members would like to see referred to it. The particular question which I am anxious should be referred to it, in addition to that which the Deputy Leader has announced, is a review of Scottish procedure. I have raised this before, when I was a member of the previous Committee. I thought that it should have the opportunity to review this. Again, I was told that it had such a crowded agenda—at that time its agenda was open-ended—that this could not be considered.

I would hope that the Government would consider the setting up of a subcommittee to consider Scottish procedure, and that this would not therefore clog up the work of the main Committee. There is ample precedent for setting up a sub-committee of a Select Committee, whose membership need not necessarily be taken entirely from the main Committee. One does not necessarily need to increase the size of the main Committee in order to set up a separate working party on a particular question.

May I just outline why I think the Government should consider establishing a sub-committee to look at Scottish procedure. There is growing uneasiness about the manner in which Scotland is governed, an uneasiness which is reflected and which is manifest both in election results, opinion polls, and, indeed, in the Scottish Press generally.

The Secretary of State for Scotland over the years has had further responsibilities added to him by successive Governments. Every time there is a plea for more devolution of power to Scotland, they say, "We will have another Under-Secretary of State" and hand over the powers in another field to the Scottish Office. There is talk, indeed, of handing over Board of Trade matters to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

This has gone on for so long that we now have a situation in which the Secretary of State for Scotland has executive responsibility equivalent to more than half a dozen Ministers in England. Therefore, when it comes to putting Questions to the Government, whereas the English hon. Member has the opportunity of putting Questions on different days of different weeks to different Ministers, hon. Members from Scotland have to save up their Questions relating to the interests of their constituents for the one occasion in five weeks when they are entitled to two Oral Questions to the Secretary of State.

Over the years this has put Scottish hon. Members in an invidious and inferior position in trying to question the actions of the Executive as they affect the livelihood of their constituents. It is my view—and I express it only as an opinion—that the Scottish Grand Committee could be used more effectively, and that we could have additional Question sessions in it. This is a point which I would like the sub-committee to consider as a practical proposal. The sub-committee should give consideration to the rôle of the Scottish Grand Committee itself. I think that it ought to meet on a more regular basis.

Apart from dealing with legislation, which it does very well, the Scottish Grand Committee only meets on between six and eight occasions every year for debates lasting two and a half hours. I am sorry if other hon. Members have not done their homework on this, but I have and there is not a single instance in the last few years where the Scottish Grand Committee has met on more than eight occasions in a year, though it is popularly thought in Scotland that it is a Committee working year in and year out.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

But would the hon. Member not agree that the Scottish Standing Committee meets about 40 times a year, and that the composition of the Scottish Committee is often the same as that of the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Steel

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I said that apart from legislation, which the Scottish Grand Committee does very well—and that, of course, covers the Scottish Standing Committee—it only meets between six and eight times a year.

We are having a debate tomorrow, for instance, on storm damage in Scotland, and that will be one of the eight debates. I should like to declare a constituency interest in this matter. The Stationery Office has just published an excellent and detailed Report on the Scottish Borders. It outlines a programme of development which would cost about £50 million between now and 1980 This is a very important Report, and I have requested a debate on it in the Scottish Grand Committee, but I am asking for one-eighth of the debates in so doing. I hope that a debate will take place on this Report, but if it does not it will be because the Scottish Grand Committee does not meet sufficiently frequently to enable debates of this kind to take place.

There is another matter which the subcommittee ought to consider—the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee. We have already had arguments on both sides in the previous debate which surely illustrated that there is something here which ought at least to be examined. The case for altering the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee should be examined and some conclusion arrived at. I take the view that it is right and proper that the Scottish Grand Committee should consist of the 71 representatives from the Scottish constituencies, and nobody else.

I cannot for the life of me see how it is that matters which exclusively affect Scottish constituencies should in any way be affected by the views of hon. Members who are not responsible to the Scottish electorate. If the argument is raised, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), who is always ready to leap to the defence of the status quo, argued, that this could mean an embarrassing situation for a Government who might not have a majority in the Scottish Committee but had a majority on the Floor of the House, I would say that it must be many years since we had a Division in the Scottish Grand Committee on anything except legislation. I do not think that there have been Divisions on the Estimates or on the general debates. This, therefore, is a theoretical objection.

Mr. Dewar rose—

Mr. Steel

Let me finish the argument. Even supposing that it happened and the Government were defeated—and it could happen—would this be a bad thing? Would it not be a good thing that it should be shown that the Government of the day did not appear to command the support of the representatives of the people of Scotland and that the Standing Order should be so altered that if something failed to get through in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government would have to get it through on the Floor of the House with its English majority to steamroller it through? It would be an excellent thing to show up such a procedure. This is a matter which should be investigated by such a Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Dewar

Is the hon. Member suggesting that English Members be excluded from the Scottish Grand Committee only on subject days, or also on Second Readings?

Mr. Steel

I am suggesting that if the House has given approval for a Bill to be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee for a Second Reading, the Second Reading should take place and should be debated among the 71 Scottish Members and no one else. The House could object to this on the formal Motion when it came forward. It is not true, therefore, to say that the Government would lose all control over legislation.

Another point to be considered is where the Committee meets. I take the view—I think that it was the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) who raised this—that there is a very good case for the Committee meeting on at least some occasions in Edinburgh. I say this not because I think that it would be a Government gimmick, but because it would bring the Government nearer the people. There is a great feeling in Scotland that, somehow, the whole processes of Government are remote from Scotland and that everything goes on down here in London.

I see no reason why we should not encourage more Members of Parliament to spend more time in Scotland or why we should ferry civil servants from Edinburgh to London for debates, instead of keeping them in Edinburgh and bringing the Members instead to Scotland for debates.

I believe, too, that we could move ahead of the House. Although this may be more controversial, I see no reason why we should not involve the Scottish television networks in televising our proceedings and bringing the whole processes of our discussion much nearer home. When I published a booklet recently on this subject it received varied comment in different sections of the Press. One comment on this proposal, however, which came from one or two quite distinguished newspapers, was that the Scottish Grand Committee was a bit of a joke anyway and that to move it to Edinburgh would be quite useless. This would show the whole thing up. If it did, again so much the better.

If the result of having the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh was to convince the people of Scotland either that they should change some of their representatives or that the Committee was useless and should be replaced by a more powerful body, that would be something which I would very much welcome.

There are various points that I should like the Government to consider. There is a question whether there is not a case for setting up a Select Committee of the House to investigate the workings of the Scottish Office. This, again, is a matter which we have raised before. When the Committee on Agriculture was set up, it had no power to investigate the Scottish Agriculture Department. When the Committee on Education was set up, eventually, under pressure, it was agreed that its powers should be extended to cover the Scottish Education Department.

There is, however, a case for having a Select Committee of the House, composed of Scottish Members, able to meet in Edinburgh and to bring before it not just Ministers and Under-Secretaries of State, but the civil servants as well, and to question them on the administration and effective operations of the Scottish Office.

It was rumoured in some Scottish papers in February, and March and in The Guardian in the last few days, that the Government are thinking seriously of this proposal. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to give us an inkling about this tonight.

I would like to go further than any of these proposals, but we are confined in this debate to considering proposals within the present constitutional framework of the House of Commons. The Government should not imply that everything in the Scottish garden is lovely, because that is not the thinking of the people of Scotland. We should use the present constitutional procedures to get improvements in the government of Scotland, and that is why I would like this to be considered.

In answer to a Question, the previous Leader of the House said to me on the Floor of the House that there was a case for setting up a Committee on Procedure to do all the things I have been proposing. It is not good enough to say that some time we might get round to it.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. George Willis (Edinburgh, East)

Although I do not agree with some of the things he said, by and large I am in agreement with the hon. Member's approach to this question. This is not the occasion on which to discuss the wide question of Scottish government. What is raised is whether or no, in discussing procedure, we can devise a more democratic instrument in the present set-up to reflect the wishes of the people of Scotland. This is something we should continually be doing in this House through the Committee on Procedure.

When I look back, I find that since I have been in this House we have made considerable changes. I am not suggesting that they have been sufficient, or have gone far enough. When I came the Scottish Grand Committee did not have subject days or Estimates days but only Second Readings, and there were Committees on Bills. In 1948, we had the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), which gave us the opportunity to discuss Estimates. Later, as a result of the Committee on Procedure's work, we added the right to have two subject motions each Session, which would give the right to discuss matters such as the suggested Border Plan, and the right to set up Standing Committees. This has been done. There is now a second Standing Committee.

We have had to examine this for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I raised some of these questions in debates on Scottish devolution 20 years ago. We proposed that more should be done to strengthen the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not want to discuss the merits of meeting in Edinburgh. I am not certain whether it is good or bad, although I have suggested it in the past. The first to suggest it was the late Mr. Tom Johnston, the Secretary of State, who enunciated the idea. Nevertheless, there are things which can still be done within the framework of the Scottish Grand Committee. There is the business of Questions, about which there are difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), although he criticised us rather fluently about this, knows some of the difficulties and that we have often considered this and have met representatives of the Committee on Procedure about Questions in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Therefore, there is a case for considering procedures. There is also a case for considering the composition, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said. He gave a very flowery description of the great contribution made by English Members in the Scottish Committee. I have never heard so much nonsense in all my life.

What happens? As soon as an hon. Member is elected to this House, either as a member of the Opposition or on this side of the House, he is put on the Scottish Committee if English Members are wanted. There is no honour about it. It is a chore that English Members do not like. Let us be quite honest about this and dismiss the humbug my hon. Friend has been talking about the great contribution—

Mr. David Steel

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that appointment to the Scottish Grand Committee is sometimes held out by the Whips as punishment for naughty boys?

Mr. Willis

I do not know what goes on in the Whips' offices. On one or two occasions there have been English Members who have made contributions, but by and large they have contributed nothing. The point that I made in the earlier debate was that when there was no necessity for balancing up by introducing Scottish Members, and even where the bounds were not easily reached without English Members, which was the point made by the hon. Gentleman, we ought nevertheless to look at it. But where there is no need to have English Members, I cannot see why it becomes necessary. The effect of having an English Member, for instance, on the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, which affects every Scottish constituency, is that a representative of a Scottish constituency is kept off in order to put somebody on the Committee who could not care two-pence about it. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) nods and shakes his head, but it is what happens. It is a practice of the House, and when my hon. Friend has been in the House for ten or fifteen years he will know that.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

My right hon. Friend perhaps recalls that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) especially asked to be put on the Scottish Grand Committee on the last occasion when they met. He made an excellent speech. He was very concerned with the Bill we were discussing and its possible implications for his part of the United Kingdom. He made a contribution. Had he been debarred from the Committee he would have had a legitimate complaint. Surely this is a position we wish to maintain?

Mr. Willis

I am debarred from a number of Committees which I would like to be on, but I have to make representations to a member of the Committee to express my point of view. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman who attended the Committee, he made a valuable contribution, but I am not certain that contribution could not have been made by the lawyers on the Committee from our own ranks. Some hon. Members are kept off Committees when they would like to be on them.

Mr. Lawson

By Statute.

Mr. Willis

By limitation of the numbers on the Committee. I do not wish to go into the matter of who is debarred and the reasons for that, but nevertheless they are debarred. I am suggesting that in the case I raised on the previous Amendment the membership should be restricted to Scottish Members when there is a clamour, and Scottish Members who ought to be on the Committee are sometimes kept off.

I think that the membership of the Scottish Grand Committee should be looked at, and the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman should be examined. Either we believe in democracy, or we do not. Either we are bureaucrats or we are democrats. One of the dangers today is that democracy looks like disappearing, because increasingly we have centralised government, whichever party is in power. They extend their powers over increasing sectors of our lives. Socially, industrially, economically—the Government are entering into almost every sector, not because they want to but because the people demand it. We ought to ask ourselves whether our democratic machinery is measuring up to the changes, and we do not do enough of this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out quite rightly the enormous number of ad hoc bodies which we create. They are responsible to the Secretary of State, but how do we get at them? It must not be forgotten that we have a job to do as well. No one is criticising, but one must point out what is happening and, as I have been saying for 20 years, we have to ask ourselves whether we are measuring up democratically. Is there a feeling of frustration and a feeling of not knowing who is who? Do people say that "they" do this, without knowing who "they" are?

That is what is happening in the country today and, in a small measure, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to examine the whole basis of the Scottish Grand Committee to see whether anything can be done to improve matters is a useful one. It ought to be taken seriously by the Government.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I want to address myself to the need for a Select Committee to examine the workings of the Scottish Office. However, before I come to that, I want to make the general point that this House and, through it, the country should be much better informed about the way in which Government decisions are reached, about the information upon which they are reached, and about the pressures which lead to them.

It is obvious that hon. Members of this House are among the last to be consulted. All sorts of bodies are consulted before legislation is drafted, but not hon. Members. It can be argued that this is a proper process and that hon. Members should be kept at arm's length from the Government. But if we follow that through, we should take drastic measures that they have some power. I agree with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that they do not have power. But if they do not have power to criticise or thwart the Government, at least they should be brought in earlier into the decision making process and should know more about it.

If I may give three examples, we were told that sanctions against Rhodesia would work in a matter of weeks. They did not. We were told that this country would get into the Common Market. The Prime Minister told us that we would not take "No" for an answer. We have not got in. In both those cases, were the Ministers concerned badly advised, or are they the results of political mistakes of their own? I have not the advice open to Ministers but it seems I was right on such matters and they were wrong.

Mr. Lawson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing a Select Committee on Scotland. Except for the Select Committee and a possible debate on a sub-committee to examine the procedures of the Scottish Grand Committee, there is nothing about the Select Committee meeting in Edinburgh. Is it in order to go on discussing this all night?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Mr. Speaker allowed a rather wider scope than the precise terms of the Order. I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is getting a little wide of the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Grimond

I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I am entitled to give examples of why a Select Committee is necessary, and we are entitled to say why a sub-committee is necessary and why its powers should be broader than those suggested to us by the Deputy Leader of the House.

My last example is that it does not appear that any contingency planning was made in the Treasury for devaluation. These matters should be examined in relation to the structure of government in general.

The Scottish Office is one of the most complicated offices in the whole field of government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pointed out, its duties and its relationship to this House and to the Scottish Grand Committee have grown up piecemeal over the years. I agree that it is high time we had an investigation into whether this relationship is right, whether the division of work in the Scottish Office is right and whether the Scottish Office is equipped with the people, who are able to take the type of decisions which it is supposed to be taking. These are all proper subjects for a sub-committee to examine.

There is one further matter of great importance. What is the relationship of the Scottish Office to the rest of the Government? It is inconceivable that some of the measures which have lately been brought in, such as the Transport Bill and the Selective Employment Tax, could have been brought in if the Scottish Office had real influence with the Government. In Scotland there is a great body of opinion in favour of devolution, and the people of Scotland should be informed about the facts of life in Scotland as much as possible.

Yet every hon. Member knows that it is difficult to find out the basic statistics about Scotland. On these grounds, it is extremely important that Scottish Members should press upon the Government the necessity for setting up such a subcommittee, and it should examine the functioning and structure of the Scottish Office, the statistics relating to Scotland and the relationship of the Scottish Office to the rest of the Government.

I appreciate that it is late in the Session, but, after all, this is the fault of the Government. This is one of the very few debates that we have in which the structure of government can be examined, and when we get this opportunity we are fully entitled to put on record what we regard as the needs of the situation. If the Government are not prepared to do what we request in this Session, perhaps they will do so next Session.

We should like to know whether the Government intend to set up a committee to sit in Edinburgh. We should also like to know whether such a committee, if set up, would be entitled to examine any increase in the powers of Scottish Members over their own business. The question whether English Members should be on the Scottish Grand Committee is an important matter which I do not intend to go into at this time of night, but I often feel that the Government leader on the Scottish Grand Committee should be entitled to cast five or 10 votes and that would be that. But if this were known in Scotland I do not think it would do the Scottish Grand Committee much good. This is a matter on which people in Scotland ought to be much better informed than they are.

I hope these points will be scrutinised by the Government. It would be out of order to examine the case for devolution at this moment, but we must at least take note of the desire in Scotland for better and more democratic government—government which is nearer to them and which they can influence. If we are to have a serious debate about devolution the people of Scotland must be told more about the facts of government than are available at present.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

I should like to start by considering the Motion that was withdrawn and then re-submitted on a slightly different subject, and to consider the actual terms of reference specified on the Order Paper.

I think it is a little regrettable if the Government get into the habit of only appointing a Select Committee on Procedure when they want it to do a specific job for the Government. This attitude that the Select Committee on Procedure exists to consider one type of task but not to consider broader issues and not to consider general problems put before the House is a great mistake.

When I first came to this House I was put on this Committee, much to my pleasure, for which I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, or his predecessor. Nevertheless, I was surprised to find that when one attended one of these Committees the Chairman was nominated by the Government. I do not criticise this, in the sense that he was a good Chairman, but I object to the idea, when one is given specific points to consider, that if there is real difficulty something like a Whip is applied in the Committee.

This type of approach is not in keeping with the spirit in which the Deputy Leader of the House and the past Leader of the House approached the question of Parliamentary reform. I appreciate the point that we would not have got much Parliamentary reform but for goading from the Front Bench, but there are times when the House could be given its head and a great deal of useful matters might be considered.

I should like to have seen a Select Committee on Procedure appointed last October with no restrictive terms of reference. We want a system by which 25 or 30 Members of the House signing a Motion could get a Select Committee on Procedure to look at something in which they were interested. That Committee would report, and it would be a matter for the House and the Government to determine their attitude and reply to the question. I do not think it satisfactory that our procedure should be exclusively in the control of the Government in terms of what they do or do not allow the Committee to look at. Had the procedure that I have suggested been adopted, we would not need, by twisting the forms of order, to make tonight into a debate on Scottish government. We would simply have 25 or so Members sign a request that the Select Committee on Procedure look at the matter. If it did look at the matter, it would not go into the merits, but the procedural complications, and, when it reported, the House would have the matter before it for discussion.

On the terms of reference, I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to ask about the meaning of the term "financial year", because I gather that he gives it a narrower meaning than I had hoped. I should have liked the Committee to look at the whole question of our control over finance and public expenditure. It seems shockingly inadequate or virtually non-existent, especially when we get a situation where, under the Plowden Committee's new arrangements, the Treasury's financial year is a five-year rolling programme which moves forward year by year, while the procedures of the House are still working on a 19th century annual budgeting basis totally incompatible With that of the Treasury. It is not surprising that we get into a state of total ignorance about the levels of public expenditure and that our chances of controlling it are so remote. I think that if the financial year is the same as the calendar year it will help to meet this problem.

There is, to my mind, a vast amount of enthusiasm for Parliamentary reform which such a Select Committee could consider. I think, therefore, it is a pity that we have it appointed towards the end of the Session and with highly restrictive terms of reference.

On the two Amendments that were added, I agree that Question Time, although it was considered by the past Committee on Procedure, might be reconsidered, because new problems are steadily arising.

I agree with a lot that has been said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I do not think that it is right to suggest the setting up of a rather packed sub-Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and his colleagues for nominating me for the sub-committee, without consulting me, but the setting up of a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Procedure should be a matter for that Select Committee to decide. I agree that such a sub-committee should be comprised of Members both in favour of and against any change. I do not want procedural implications. It is for the Government and the House to take their separate standpoints.

There is still enough interest in Parliamentary reform to keep up the momentum that the Deputy Leader of the House and the past Leader of the House established in this matter. I am deeply concerned that this enthusiasm for reform will run into the sand if we get Select Committees set up for a few months on what are trivial points compared with the careful scrutiny and control of the Government, with which we are concerned.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Aberdeen, South)

A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) remarked that I was over-quick in jumping to the defence of the status quo. I hope that he will not be alarmed when I jump to his support in this discusson. Perhaps that is not so peculiar or out of line as it sounds, because Liberals are a remnant of the past, if not of the status quo, so this would not be breaking the rules.

There was a lot of sense in what the hon. Member said, and I support a large number of points he made. I agree with what he and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said about a Select Committee. We should have one looking at the way in which Scottish government is run, but I would sound a note of caution. We could hear the argument, once committees were set up on agriculture, fuel and power and a large number of Ministry subjects covered by the Scottish Office, that we should have a whole series of Scottish Select Committees covering those fields rather than one covering the whole gamut.

On the matter of Question Time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said, there is a strong prima facie case. That should be thrown open to public discussion, but it should be looked at carefully.

I think there is self-evident unease about government in Scotland and discontent, although we are perhaps a little over-anxious to assume that in some way we uniquely suffer from that unease and discontent. We find it in many parts of the United Kingdom at the moment. I am not talking only in political terms, but in constitutional terms. Talking about alienation of the people and that they are removed from and not involved in government is not a peculiarly Scottish complaint. But let us investigate it. I am not sure that this Committee would be the right vehicle for that, not because of what my hon. Friend said about its composition, but because it has to be done on a broader and very much more intensive scale.

I do not want tonight to go into the argument which has been hovering around the debate as to what extent English Members should be allowed in the Scottish Grand Committee. I think the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles was trying to have his cake and to eat it when he suggested that if English Members wanted to stop something going to the Committee there would be the unfortunate result that they could do so in this House. That seemed to vitiate the kind of move the hon. Member advocated. If we move in this direction too rapidly, although obviously this is something which we should discuss, we would be writing a prescription for anarchy. I have no objection to a Committee which investigates at an objective level. That is excellent, but if we do it with the Scottish Grand Committee we could contrive a situation in which we might have a completely different political complexion from that in the House as a whole and we might invite a head on clash. I am not sure that that would be a desirable situation. This is obviously the kind of thing which should be discussed. If we could have a broadly based Committee prepared to go into this in depth, I would be in favour.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles suggested that deliberations should be moved to Edinburgh. This may be tinkering with the situation. It might have a passing popularity, but if it is thought that it would remove the discontent about which the Liberals talk so eloquently, I think it a misapprehension.

Mr. David Steel

I have never argued that that in itself would remove the discontent. The hon. Member knows that I should like to see a Scottish Parliament. But this proposal at least would be an improvement on the present system by bringing Government nearer home.

Mr. Dewar

I do not think that it would be an improvement. There is an important argument about devolution and a Scottish Parliament, but too many people talk glibly about a Scottish Parliament without deciding what they mean by such a Parliament and what should be its powers. This is an argument which we must settle among ourselves and soon, but there is no point in trying to go for some shadowy halfway stage which offers no improvement. We must make up our minds on the question of reform and settle the issue in the immediate future, once and for all.

Mr. Willis

Does my hon. Friend subscribe to the view which was expressed in favour of a Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh—that the affairs of the people ought to be discussed as near as possible to the people?

Mr. Dewar

My right hon. Friend overvalues the importance of physical proximity. I do not think that the citizens of Glasgow feel closer to Glasgow Corporation, or the citizens of Aberdeen feel closer to Aberdeen Corporation, merely because town council and the city chamber are within the centre of the geographical boundaries called Glasgow and Aberdeen. There is much more to it than that.

In broad terms, I support the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles when he calls for investigation and discussion. It can do no harm in this case, although I am not sure that it will lead to the important improvements for which he hopes. At best it could produce interesting ideas and possibly some constructive ideas, and that I welcome. My objection to the kind of debate which we have had tonight is that it has not all been constructive. I hope that no one will take it amiss if I say that some of the speeches have been made very much with the discontent in Scotland in mind about which we have been talking and with the idea of adding fuel to it.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

This is a very interesting debate. One of the most interesting points about it is that it has occurred because of an accident. The Deputy Leader of the House explained that a certain disturbance took place in the House on Thursday and that as a result the business had to be entirely re-examined, and we have had this Motion. From the debate the Deputy Leader of the House will realise that there is strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and that he has seen only the tip of the iceberg.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). Indeed, I would probably go further than he went. When are we to have a serious attempt to modernise the Government of Scotland? I have here a pamphlet which was distributed from Transport House. I will not weary the House by quoting from it, but it was in our election manifesto that we stood for the modernisation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is going wide even of the Amendment in talking about modernising the Government of Scotland. He must relate his speech to the Amendment or to the Motion.

Mr. Hughes

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was coming to that. It was a preface. I am arguing that in his Amendment the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is asking for the modernisation of Government. That is why he wants a sub-committee. Far from over-estimating his case, he moderately under-estimated it. He referred to the eight meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee which have considered matters affecting Scotland.

How absurd it is that, under our present procedure, we cannot in the Scottish Grand Committee discuss a matter which is agitating the minds of Scottish people more than any other social issue, namely, the serious question of crime in Scotland. What opportunity has the Scottish Grand Committee to consider this, perhaps the greatest social problem of our time?

Mr. Dewar

A week on Thursday.

Mr. Hughes

Exactly—and how much time shall we have a week on Thursday? One morning. There will be two long opening speeches from the front bench on either side, there will be two long speeches in winding up, and nearly all the unfortunate Members sandwiched in between will be disappointed. It is a travesty of debate, a travesty of consideration of a great social issue. If we were realists, we should meet in Edinburgh, spending two days discussing the problem in as much detail as the Scottish Press is now discussing it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)

The subject has been discussed at reasonable length on the Floor of the House twice since Christmas, I think—certainly once at considerable length only two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, but in a most superficial way. We never get to grips with it. I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State Questions, he says, "We are considering it", and that is the last we hear for another five or ten weeks.

Mr. Buchan

I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood. I am referring not to Question Time but to debate, two debates, on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Hughes

I cannot recollect any adequate debate on crime in Scotland during all the time I have been a Member of the House. I have heard small debates, which begin at half-past 10 and usually finish at one o'clock, in which many hon. Members do not have a chance to put the point of view of their constituents. The absurdity is shown by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has to do. How can he possibly present the question of crime to the House when he has, for example, to consider agriculture as well? How often has agriculture been adequately discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee during the time I have been a Member? Ministers read out their briefs for the benefit of the Press. The spokesman for the Opposition does the same. As for the debate, if my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) comes along, the rest of hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies have little or no chance.

We do not have adequate consideration of the problems of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) does not agree that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Edinburgh. I do. If the Grand Committee were just to put its toes in the water to find the temperature, even if we met for a couple of days during the Recess, it would show the people of Scotland that we were there on the spot. I do not see why we could not have a week in the Long Recess discussing Motions on subjects affecting the people of Scotland, with two or three days in the Easter Recess and two or three days in the Christmas Recess. That would not satisfy or appease the Scottish Nationalists. They would characterise me as a reformist, whereas I am really a revolutionary.

Without interfering too much with the machinery of the House of Commons, and without interfering with the mumbo-jumbo of the House, we could meet in Edinburgh to discuss matters like crime, the problems of education, the problems of the future organisation of industry, and so on in such a way that the people of Scotland would realise that we were not lost in Westminster and their problems were being adequately considered.

Look at our experiences in the past six months—the Sewerage (Scotland) Bill, when we discussed the pollution of Scottish rivers in a Committee room overlooking the banks of the Thames, and then the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill. The more we look at it, the more we realise that if we are to modernise this Government we need immediately to set up a Select Committee mercilessly to cross-examine leading civil servants in Scotland and the Ministers, because I believe that the nationalist movement is not a romantic or sentimental movement. It is a demand by common-sense people for the reorganisation of democratic Government to make it more businesslike and more effective, and to express the will of the people.

Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the un-hon. member who jumped from the Public Gallery did a public service in forcing this debate upon us. I hope that these words of wisdom will not be lost on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who I know is receptive to new ideas, and that he will realise that if he comes forward with a Motion which will give us an opportunity of a much more searching examination of Scotland he will be doing a service to the House, the people and Scottish Members.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin

With the leave of the House, I would remind the House that the way in which the Motion is worded is the only means we could envisage to enable the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to raise and other hon. Members to raise their points.

I must confess that I had not realised quite what sort of debate we should have. There were moments when I thought that I was in the Scottish Grand Committee, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was talking about crime in Scotland, education and Scottish industry. It was only when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) dragged us back to earth with a discussion on Rhodesia and the Common Market that I realised that we were on a procedural Motion.

I do not want to go very much into the merits or demerits of devolution, Scottish Grand Committees, the growth of nationalism or any other allied subject. For one thing, I am the only non-Scot to have spoken in the debate, as far as I can see, and I have enough regard for my life not to intervene too much on such subjects. Furthermore, not every Scot, apparently, agrees with every other Scot. Indeed, there are even people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire who do not necessarily agree with him.

What I think has emerged from this evening's debate is not only that Scottish but also English and Welsh Members are very much concerned with the procedure of the House, perhaps more so than at any other time for 30 years. There is a great deal to be said for a hard-working Select Committee on procedure.

This is a deliberate act on the part of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles did not do themselves sufficient justice. The previous Select Committee on Procedure was extremely hard-working—the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would say too hard-working in some respects.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

Not too hard-working; misdirected.

Mr. Silkin

At any rate, it was energetic. It was felt that a short rest might not be a bad thing, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are very much seized of this enormous interest in procedure and, now that our second wind has been obtained, we might consider further a rather bigger and much wider Select Committee on Procedure which would deal with the matters which have been raised.

Obviously, I am not in a position at this moment—it is a matter for the House—to give an assurance that at the next Session these matters will form part of the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure, which can itself decide what it wants to discuss, as it did in the last three Sessions. However, we have learned a great deal tonight and cer- tainly Scottish procedure is a matter which the Select Committee might consider. So are a Scottish Question Time and English Question Time.

However, I hope that in the next Session a new slightly bigger Select Committee on Procedure will be allowed to consider many topics rather than the narrow matter which we gave it.

Mr. David Steel

Is the right hon. Gentleman's mind open to the possibility, which was the basis of my argument, that we should not leave the item of Scottish procedure among the other things which the Select Committee might discuss, but that it should be specifically made a subject for a sub-committee, which is a reasonable way to deal with it?

Mr. Silkin

I am not directing a closed mind to that possibility, but it is something which the Select Committee might consider. After all, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has proliferated, if that is the word, and this is one subject among others for which there might be a sub-committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said that the Select Committee should not be given a purely specific task, but should be allowed to wander wide. I agree, but on this occasion there is tremendous advantage to every hon. and right hon. Gentleman, because we all know that in the modern world the Parliamentary year has become a little disorganised, a little out of synchronisation. Because of this, the sooner the whole of this matter is considered, the better.

We have paid tribute to the reforming zeal of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I should like to pay tribute to the reforming zeal of so many hon. Members. I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would like me to pay tribute to the accident which caused this debate. It has been a very instructive debate and perhaps it is an interesting comment on our procedure that, the debate having taken place, I should now ask the House for permission to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.