§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)Last night, for the second day running, Liberal Whips blocked the motion calling for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday to discuss the important matter of education. Is it right that a single cry of "Object" is sufficient to scupper an important meeting when Standing Order No. 94(3) states that the question on the motion should be put forthwith and that to support an objection there must be 20 hon. Members, which the Liberals certainly could not muster, rising in their places? Did the fault lie with the Government, who had not bothered to make the motion exempted business?
Many of us are astonished by the Liberal decision. I understood that Liberal Members supported the principle of meeting in Edinburgh, but obviously commitment for them is no more than a matter of convenience or, specifically in this case, inconvenience. I notice that the Government have left the motion on today's Order Paper, below the line, which presumably means that the matter cannot be considered by the House tonight. The rumours are that the Government have now no intention to hold this debate before the House rises for Christmas.
Standing Order No. 94(3) states that a motion must be laid by a Minister of the Crown. Presumably the Government could lay such a motion, exempt it and insist on the meeting. If they refuse to do that, is there any way in which those interested in the proper discussion of Scottish business can advance this matter? It would be sad if the Liberal party's achievement was to leave parliamentarians as one of the few groups in Scotland who have not had a formal opportunity to debate the Government's misconceived, unpopular plans for the management of our schools.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that I need any help, but I shall listen.
§ Mr. ForthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that at least two Liberal Members in Scotland have constituencies close to Edinburgh? Can you inform the House whether they would find it difficult to find their way from their constituencies to Edinburgh for a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on Monday?
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one should be surprised at this because it arose last year. We said that five working days' notice of meetings of this importance of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh were simply not enough—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Time presses in an important day. It will be legitimate for hon. Members who wish to comment on this matter to raise it in general in the debate later tonight. Nothing out of order occurred last night. It is perfectly in order for one objection to block such a motion if it is taken after 10 o'clock.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I genuinely seek your assistance in this. Scottish Members are worried about the way in which the Government inform us when these Committees will meet. Three weeks ago at Business Questions I asked that 951 we should have a Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the vital matter of education and the information came back subsequently with only five working days' notice. Although those of us who already have engagements in Scotland are prepared to cancel them to meet and discuss this vital issue, is there some way that you can ensure that information is forthcoming in advance to enable Scottish Members to attend these vital meetings?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have many responsibilities, but—
§ Mr. KirkwoodFurther to that point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. The matter cannot be debated now. It is up to the Government to table a motion. I cannot allow a debate on this now.
§ Mr. SpeakerWell, the right hon. Gentleman is a former Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. MillanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify one matter for us? Will you confirm that what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, was accurate and that if the Government had tabled the necessary motion to exempt the business, the matter could have been considered under Standing Order No. 94, in which case a single voice of objection would have been insufficient to block the motion? Government good faith and competence is involved in this.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the business had been exempted that would have been in order and it would equally be in order to table the motion again.