3. Mr. Doran askedthe Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
§ 9. Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)I have no proposals for setting up a Scottish Assembly.
§ Mr. DoranGiven that during the recent election campaign the Conservative party gave a commitment to enter into discussions on the future government of Scotland if there was evidence of a demand for an Assembly, and given that the Scottish electorate answered that question clearly—76 per cent. voted in favour of parties that favoured devolution—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House when those discussions will begin and what form they will take?
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Gentleman's premise is surprising, particularly as he comes from a part of Scotland that voted overwhelmingly against the Scottish 356 Assembly when the referendum took place. lie should be more aware than most people that in the Grampian region, from which he comes, feelings have always been expressed in a manner adverse to the concept of a Scottish Assembly because of the damaging consequences that it is perceived it would have on Aberdeen and on the north-east region of Scotland as a whole.
§ Mr. ClarkeDoes the Secretary of State recall that the superficial negotiations that took place with COSLA over rate support grant led to a one-and-a-half hour debate in the House and that the decision then taken has an input and influence upon every family and household in Scotland? Is that accountability? Why does the Secretary of State not adhere to his personal views on these matters? Why does he not honour Lord Home's intervention in the referendum and, above all, why does he not respect the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland as expressed on 11 June?
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the time spent on Scottish rate support grant orders is exactly the time spent on English rate support grant orders. Why the hon. Gentleman should conclude that this is an unsatisfactory amount of time in respect of Scotland but not in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom I find difficult to comprehend.
Mr. ArnoldWill my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that he is opposed to devolution?
§ Mr. RifkindI have always expressed, and still express, the view that any form of devolution that proposes within a unitary state a devolved system of government for one part of the United Kingdom without any consequential changes for other parts of the United Kingdom is profoundly unworkable and is likely to lead to severe strains of an undesirable kind.
§ Mr. FoulkesIs the Secretary of State aware that since the election, now that they are free to say exactly what they believe, Councillors Struan Stevenson, Murray Tosh and, above all, his close confidant Brian Meek have all said that they strongly favour a Scottish Assembly? I know that deep down the Secretary of State for Scotland also supports a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, will he now show that he has some conviction, some guts and some sincerity and give some indication that at the very least he will set up some sort of group to examine the possibility of a Scottish Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland?
§ Mr. RifkindI recall that almost 750,000 people in Scotland voted for the Conservative party. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is able to identify three people who share his views on devolution is unlikely to persuade me of his argument.
§ Mr. SalmondI am interested in the fact that the Secretary of State spoke confidently for the Grampian region, given that there are twice as many SNP Members of Parliament as Tory Members of Parliament in the region. Given that the Conservative party in Scotland stood on a separate manifesto, which was separately tested and separately rejected, how can he possibly maintain that the Government have a mandate to impose their policies on an unwilling country? Does he believe that if the Labour party were less confused on the mandate issue he would have more difficulty in sustaining what is in truth an untenable position?
§ Mr. RifkindI remind the hon. Gentleman, first, that the Conservative party received more votes in Grampian region than any other Scottish party, and, secondly, that the Conservative party in Scotland fought and won the general election on a United Kingdom manifesto.
§ Sir Hector MonroHas my right hon. and learned Friend made any calculation of the reduction in the numbers of Scottish Members of Parliament if there were an Assembly? Would there not be severe casualties in the Labour party in the central belt? Is it not rather odd that the Opposition are calling for a Scottish Assembly, yet supporting a Welshman as their leader in Westminster?
§ Mr. RifkindNot only would the creation of an Assembly of the kind proposed by the Labour party inevitably lead to a reduction in Scottish representation in the House of Commons, but one is entitled to assume that the achievement of what could be called Scottish home rule would lead inevitably to an expectation and requirement for English home rule. [Interruption.] Opposition Members express puzzlement about that. If they believe that English Members would be prepared to allow Scottish Members to continue to vote on English domestic legislation when they were no longer able to influence Scottish legislation, they have a profound misunderstanding of the concept of a democratic system of government.
§ Mr. DewarWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I am genuinely puzzled by his reference to his personal position and the fact that he has always thought it wrong to have a one-off Scottish solution for devolution? I understand that he voted for and supported the devolution settlement in 1978, which was, of course, a one-off Scottish solution. Will he clarify that point? I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman largely jusified his retreat on devolution on the ground that it was unwanted in Scotland. If he is not convinced —as I understand that he is not—by the results of the general election, what evidence is he prepared to accept of Scotland's wish for reform in the structure of government? Does he agree that his presence at the Dispatch Box, blandly denying the reality of Scottish opinion and blandly defying what Scotland wants, is bad for the House and for the country?
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Gentleman fought the last election as a member of a party seeking to try to achieve a United Kingdom Government. While 5 million Scots returned 10 Conservative Members of Parliament, 16 million Englishmen in the south of England returned only three Labour Members of Parliament. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Labour Government, if it had been elected, would have had no mandate in the South of England? I also remember that—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask hon. Members to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.
§ Mr. RifkindI also remember that when these matters——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Secretary of State is answering the question.
§ Mr. RifkindI remember also that when these matters were last discussed, the hon. Gentleman admitted that if devolution ever took place he assumed that there would 358 indeed be consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. He might like to discuss that with the leader of his party.