Select Committee on Scottish Affairs

HC Deb 20 December 1988 vol 144 cc336-94

Mr. Speaker

I repeat what I said earlier. I have selected all the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the discussions that took place earlier, will you summon to the House the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to tell us whether he expects an early debate on the recommendations? That would help all of us who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker

That is not within my authority.

7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

I beg to move, That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2); welcomes the continued scrutiny of the Scottish Office by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the extent to which other select committees have been and will continue to be able within their orders of reference to take evidence from the Scottish Office and associated public bodies on matters arising in Scotland, and to report thereon; and notes that other Parliamentary means exist for the consideration of Scottish affairs, including the Scottish Grand Committee, particularly in its consideration of Matters relating to Scotland and Estimates for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible. As the House appreciates, a long and tortuous process has brought us to the motion today. If it is passed, it will endorse the Committee of Selection's view that, despite Standing Order No. 130, there is no generally acceptable basis on which to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. When we began negotiations through the usual channels about setting up this Select Committee we realised that there could be difficulties. I hoped that the discussions would bring us to a solution. However, the only commonly shared point of view about the Committee is that there should be a debate about it.

The Committee of Selection is formally responsible, under Standing Orders, for acting on behalf of the House in nominating members for all departmental Select Committees. That was a deliberate decision of the House when the departmental Select Committee system was set up in 1979, and it followed a recommendation of the Procedure Committee.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and his colleagues on the Committee for the way in which they carry out their duties. My hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to explain how the Committee set about its task on this occasion.

As the House will recall, the usual channels have also been involved in discussions about the Scottish Affairs Select Committee—not to make nominations, but in support of the Committee of Selection by seeking to find a generally acceptable basis on which names could be put forward. That is what I have been trying to achieve. It was unfortunate, but not unprecedented, that it was not possible to do so. Between 1972 and 1979, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee lapsed after some years of activity. For most of that period the Opposition were in government. They did not set up the Committee, despite the fact that fundamental issues relating to Scotland were being discussed at that time.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

On what basis is the Leader of the House saying that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs lapsed? There were two Select Committees, which were not running concurrently from one Session to another. There was one in the 1960s dealing with Scottish steel and one in 1972 and 1973 dealing with Scottish land use. To say that the Committee lapsed is wrong. There were two such Committees.

Mr. Wakeham

No Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was set up between 1972 and 1979.

Given how long the discussions continued, the House will, I hope, find it useful if I remind hon. Members briefly of their course. At the outset, it was agreed through the usual channels that the size of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be reduced from the maximum provided for by Standing Orders—from 13 to nine. That was in order to maintain the convention that there should be a Government majority on the Committee and to enable that majority to be made up of hon. Members representing Scottish seats only.

On 12 November last, the Committee of Selection accordingly tabled a motion nominating the Conservative and minor party members on that basis. The names of the Labour Committee members were not available at that stage. They were added on 19 November. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, then received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) saying that he was not willing to serve on the Committee. Standing Order No. 104 says that a Member making a nomination shall try to ascertain whether each Member nominated will give his attendance on the committee". Following receipt of my hon. Friend's letter, the Committee of Selection amended its motion to remove his name, leaving just eight. The choice facing the Committee of Selection was to set up a Committee which did not reflect the Government's majority in the House or to nominate at least one of my hon. Friends representing a non-Scottish seat.

In any event, the Committee agreed a special report on 9 December which said that it found itself unable to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee which in its opinion would have the support of the House and that it proposed to take no further action on the matter unless instructed by the House to do so.

Following a debate on 13 January, a motion to take note of the special report was approved by 198 votes to 160. Only during that debate, particularly during the encouraging and flexible speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), did it become apparent that both sides of the House recognised and accepted the unitary nature of our Parliament and that there might be an agreed basis on which to nominate a Select Committee, the members of which did not represent exclusively Scottish constituencies.

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he argues in that way in respect of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is purely investigatory and not part of the legislative process, but accepts exclusively Scottish Members on the Scottish Grand Committee which is part of the legislative process? Are we not simply listening to humbug from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Wakeham

I am discussing the position as it is. I shall discuss many points during my speech and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will understand my position better when I have finished.

I was referring to the flexible speech made by the hon. Member for Garscadden in the debate on 13 January. It seemed that there might be an agreed basis upon which we could nominate a Select Committee, the members of which did not represent exclusively Scottish constituencies. There were further discussions through the usual channels and I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley on 10 March saying that I believed that progress could be made in setting up the Committee.

Events took a further turn when, on 21 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley replied to me saying that he had reported to the Committee of Selection that he had been unable to find any colleague representing a Scottish constituency who was willing to serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The Committee of Selection had agreed that he should inform me that in its view it was unable to make progress.

Notwithstanding that, I had further discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies to find out why they were not prepared to serve and to see whether there might be a way of meeting their concerns. I was told that because of their consistent attendance at Standing Committees considering Scottish legislation, in addition to their other duties in the House, they did not believe that they could give sufficient time to the work of a Select Committee. In the light of that—[Interruption.] The House should be reminded of the events.

In the light of that, I considered whether there was any scope for flexibility in the work of the Scottish Standing Committee so that my right hon. and hon. Friends might be readier to undertake Select Committee work. Therefore, I set out a proposal in two parts, which on 19 May, during business questions, I outlined in response to a question from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

The first part of my proposal was that the Committee should include some Members for English constituencies but that there should also be a place on the Committee for both the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party. The second part of my proposal was that there should be greater flexibility over the minimum number of Members for Scottish constituencies who would be required to serve on a Scottish Standing Committee.

I am sorry to say that this two-part proposal was not acceptable to the main Opposition party. After I had held further discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the Committee of Selection agreed on 29 June a further special report. The report said that the Committee had concluded that there was no generally acceptable basis for names to be produced to complete nominations to the Scottish Select Committee.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I remind the Leader of the House that on the morning after the last general election his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland commented on the results in Scotland and said that it would be business as usual; the fact that there were only 10 Conservative Members with Scottish constituencies made no difference. It is quite clear that this is not business as usual. What has happened? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland been unable to deliver business as usual?

Mr. Wakeham

The Government's legislative programme for Scotland is going extremely well. The Scottish Office is performing very well indeed in the interests of Scotland, so it is business as usual.

It will be clear from this account that some of the difficulties have arisen because the positions of various participants in these discussions have changed at different times. I make no complaint about that. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to change their minds, in the same way as anybody else, but it has meant that the opportunities that may have existed at certain times to set up the Committee have been missed. I regret that, but I accept the position.

The three amendments to the original motion still seek to set up the Select Committee. The essence of both the official Opposition and the Scottish National party. amendments is that they call on the Committee of Selection to nominate the Select Committee without giving it any unequivocal guidance on how it should do that. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate the Select Committee on the basis, roughly, of the proportion of the popular vote gained by each party in Scotland. I disagree with all three amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Is it more important, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, for the Select Committee to obey the convention that the Select Committee should reflect the composition of the whole House, or for us to obey Standing Order No. 130, which says that a Select Committee "shall" be established?

Mr. Wakeham

I believe that the Select Committee should be set up in accordance with the generally acceptable conventions of the House. I should have welcomed the fact that it had been set up.

However, let me deal with Standing Orders. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that this debate is not being held in accordance with Standing Orders. The debate that ended at 7 o'clock was not held in accordance with Standing Orders. The debate that we are to have on Thursday will not be in accordance with Standing Orders. The House has resolved to deal otherwise with these matters. It is a total non-point to say that the House must set up a Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 130, if the House resolves to do something else. That is the purpose of my motion. All the business of the House is in accordance with Standing Orders unless the House resolves to do something different. My motion recognises that it is not possible to comply with Standing Order No. 130. If the House approves it, my motion will be perfectly in order.

The Social and Liberal Democrats' amendment would result in a Committee that would not reflect the Government's majority, as the other Select Committees do, in this unitary Parliament. That basic convention was agreed at the start of the discussions and I do not believe that we should reject it now.

The other two amendments seem to me to place the Committee of Selection in the position either of nominating my right hon. and hon. Friends for Scottish constituencies, regardless of their refusal to serve, or of nominating colleagues on this side of the House exclusively from non-Scottish constituencies. I do not believe that the House would find either course acceptable.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

The Leader of the House is giving us a history lesson or a catalogue of failures by the usual channels. May I ask him to clarify what he said earlier? Is he saying that Standing Orders do not really matter—that when it suits the Government they want them but if it does not suit the Government they forget them? What are Standing Orders for? There are rules for conducting our business.

Mr. Wakeham

I am sure that this is not the place for me to give a tutorial on the workings of the House of Commons, but I am very willing to try. The Standing Orders of the House are the basis on which the House proceeds unless the House resolves to do something different. The House is continually resolving to do something different—sometimes at the Opposition's request. For example, the debate that terminated at 7 o'clock was for the benefit of the Opposition, as a result of discussions through the usual channels. This debate is not in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, Mr. Speaker kindly said that he had selected the three amendments that have been set down for debate. Had the Standing Orders of the House not been varied, that would probably not have been possible. Standing Orders are the basis on which we proceed unless we resolve to do something different.

The proposals of the official Opposition and the Scottish National party are unacceptable for two reasons. The first proposal would introduce press-ganging into our procedures for nominating Select Committees. The second, strictly non-Scottish option, although correct in procedural terms, goes against our traditions, both by providing that a majority of Members in a Committee dealing with Scottish affairs should come from non-Scottish seats and by its failure to contain a representative for a Scottish seat from the party in government.

Even if the official Opposition and the Scottish National party claim today that they would agree to the last course, I think that the House would be well advised to be cautious. The acceptance by the Scottish National party of the principle of a unitary Parliament has consistently been uncertain, to say the least. Although the official Opposition have said for some months that they accept the principle that this is a unitary Parliament, they still complain when Members for English constituencies take part in Scottish Question Time. Whatever their reasons, having considered the options, the Committee of Selection advised the House that in the circumstances it could find no generally acceptable basis on which to complete nominations to the Committee. For the reasons I have given, I share its conclusion.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Is the Leader of the House not prepared to accept that the purpose of Select Committees is to ensure that major Departments of state are brought to account before the House for their actions? Is he saying that when the Government decide that it is not convenient for a matter to be brought to the attention of the House it will not happen? What will happen when that principle is extended to other Departments?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman has intervened at precisely the right moment in my speech. In the first part of my speech I have sought to suggest that it is for the Government to determine whether there is a generally acceptable basis for setting up the Select Committee, and it is for the House to decide whether to support my motion. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the scrutiny of the work of the Scottish Office by Select Committees. The work of the Scottish Office continues to be the subject of inquiries by Select Committees.

The Public Accounts Committee has carried out five inquiries to which the Scottish Office gave evidence. They include a review of Scottish new towns, the report of the Scottish Development Agency on the private sector, a report on financial support for the fishing industry and, most recently, a report on the quality of clinical care in the National Health Service.

Scottish Office officials and Ministers have given evidence to a number of departmental Select Committees, including the Select Committee on Agriculture, the Select Committee on Transport and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The House will recall that the report of the Select Committee on Energy on the privatisation of electricity which we debated on the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill last week contained recommendations directly concerned with privatisation in Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

The Leader of the House must accept that the argument that he is propounding is not good enough. It is not sufficient to suggest that other Select Committees can examine Scottish affairs in detail. The Department of Energy, in its report on privatisation, stated that it could not look in sufficient detail at the Scottish dimension which merited a separate report. It is just not good enough. The Minister is using an argument that would apply to every other Department. Why should Scotland be singled out as different?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not understand why the hon. Lady is quarrelling with me. I share her regret that it is not possible to set up the Select Committee. I am pointing out to the House that the Scottish Office is still subject to considerable scrutiny by Select Committees of the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

The Leader of the House is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. Does he accept that, although there is a Select Committee on Defence, there are numerous overlapping reports of the Public Accounts Committee on defence matters? His argument is an argument for having no Select Committee on Defence and for abolishing all other specialised Select Committees. It is nonsense and he should know better.

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I regret that it is not possible to set up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but I am pointing out that it is possible for other Select Committees to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Office. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for a minute he will realise that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

Will the Leader of the House give us his opinion about whether the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs would be competent to look into the affairs of the Scottish Office in view of the fact that the Government are increasingly treating Scotland as a colony?

Mr. Wakeham

That is not a matter for me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is still a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but he had better discuss that with his colleagues if he considers it a sensible way to proceed.

Since it is not any part of the Government's position to seek to limit Select Committee inquiries into Scottish matters, we welcome the fact that the Scottish Office continues to be the subject of scrutiny by hon. Members in Select Committees. We are also using the other parliamentary ways in which Scottish matters can be addressed by the House as they have been for many years, for example, by considering Scottish Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Hon. Members have suggested that, in recognising that it is not possible to find a generally acceptable way for nominating a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, we are contravening Standing Order No. 130 which states that such a Select Committee shall be appointed. But Standing Orders are a creation of the House, and are made for the House. It is not the other way around. As I have already said, it is commonplace to agree to motions varying the Standing Orders where that is for the general convenience in arranging business. For example, at the beginning of this Session, the House approved without debate or Division a motion varying the arrangements in Standing Order No. 13 for private Members' time. There is nothing new or revolutionary in the House determining that on a specific matter we should proceed differently from the way set out in Standing Orders.

We should reflect very carefully on the question of ordering hon. Members to serve on Select Committees so that Standing Orders may be fulfilled. Certainly the House has the power to do so, but I do not believe that it would wish to use it. Generally each hon. Member can decide for himself how he carries out his parliamentary duties. The House will consider it only fair that my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish seats should have the same rights as other hon. Members. I, regret their unwillingness to serve on the Select Committee, but I respect it. No doubt one or more of them will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in the debate. The House may also wish to reflect on the harm it would do to the reputation of our Select Committees if they were made up of hon. Members who had been dragooned into serving on them.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Will the Leader of the House reflect on the irony that we are talking about press-ganging and ordering when the Government Whips have no difficulty in getting hon. Members with no great interest in Scottish affairs to attend Scottish Question Time and other occasions such as this debate, yet those hon. Members are not interested in the hard work of scrutinising the Scottish Office? The Leader of the House cannot talk about press-ganging—[Interruption.j

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham

If the hon. Gentleman's example of dragooning and bullying in the Government Whips' Office is reflected on his side of the House, it has not been very successful recently. I can assure him that that does not happen in the Government Whips' Office.

Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

I wish to inform my right hon. Friend that I am here because I want to be here and not because any Whip asked me to be here.

Mr. Wakeham

If I may say so in the House of Commons in this unitary Parliament, we are delighted to see my hon. Friend here.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

Does my hon. Friend remember when he was Patronage Secretary? Will he remind the House how many Scottish Labour Members stopped people in England having the right to shop on Sundays and prevented us from changing our absurd Sunday trading laws which they do not have to put up with in Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend tempts me but I shall not follow that route.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Before the Leader of the House concludes, does he recognise that he is embarking on a profoundly undemocratic argument? He is saying that because Conservative Members decline to serve they have a right to veto the Select Committee over the majority of elected Members representing Scotland who have a duty to scrutinise the work of the Government.

Mr. Wakeham

I am saying that there is no generally acceptable way. It would be just as farcical for us to set up a Scottish Select Committee if the Labour party refused to serve on it as it would be if Government Members refused to serve on it.

Between 1983 and 1987 I spent quite a lot of time setting up Select Committees. I was most anxious to ensure that they should be set up with representatives from all parts of the House. I remember having debates late at night because there was a strong feeling that Members representing Ulster were not being properly treated and we defeated the nominations of the Committee of Selection. Over the years I have spent a considerable time ensuring that the chairmanships of the Select Committees were allocated on a fair basis between all Members of the House, as the previous Patronage Secretary did.

Therefore, I reiterate that if Opposition parties were not prepared to serve on a Select Committee I cannot see how that Select Committee would be of very much use to the House of Commons.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wakeham

No. I have given way very generously all around the House. I have spent more time sitting on my seat than standing up and I must conclude.

The motion reflects the belief that I have said I share with the Committee of Selection that there is no generally acceptable basis on which to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Acknowledging that fact does not undermine the Government's support for the departmental Select Committee system. We remain as committed to it as we were when my predecessor invited the House to approve the establishment of departmental Select Committees in 1979. The motion is simply a recognition of the current position and I commend it to the House.

7.29 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

The speech made by the Leader of the House was a travesty and created the impression that everyone was out of step apart from "our Johnnie" and that the poor man had been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to establish a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has done his best to ensure that the Committee has not been established. If he had possessed the political will to establish it, it would have been set up months ago. It is no good him thrashing around trying to blame everyone else; the fault lies with him and his colleagues in the Government.

The democratic decision of the Scottish people reduced the number of Scottish Tory Members of Parliament to a rump of 10 out of 72. No one can deny that that caused the Government problems, such as trying to find Members of ministerial calibre for the Scottish Office. Living evidence of that problem is sitting on the Front Bench tonight. It means that five Scottish Tories were left to serve on the Committee. No one can deny that that caused the Government problems, but there were many possible solutions. One would have been to set up a Select Committee that did not have a majority of Government members but reflected the outcome of the 1987 election in Scotland. We understand that that was rejected by the Prime Minister herself. That having happened, the Labour party quite naturally expected the five Scottish Tory Members of Parliament who were not Ministers to serve on the Committee, but that did not prove to be the case. Apparently they have better things to do than scrutinise the activities of the Scottish Office and monitor the effects of Government policies on the Scottish people.

When we were forced to do so by the Government we reluctantly made it clear that we were prepared to allow Tory Members representing English seats to make up Tory numbers on the Committee, especially as at least 16 of them were born and, in some cases, brought up in Scotland. This was made clear to the Leader of the House in private discussions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and me in the debate on 13 January 1988. Since then, the Leader of the House has made no effort to bring the Committee into being. He keeps asserting, "In a unitary Parliament hon. Members from either side of the House are entitled to serve on any Committee." If that is what he and his colleagues believe, what are they waiting for? They should set up the Committee with hon. Members who are willing to serve on it.

It was preposterous to hear a former Tory Chief Whip speak out against press ganging. The Government have been willing to twist arms, make promises of health spending in constituencies and press any gang to pass some of their policies, yet they will not twist arms to set up the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

The Government cannot expect us to believe that Tory Members representing English constituencies are not interested in Scotland because the record shows that more than 130 of them have asked oral questions about Scotland or taken part in Scottish debates. A number of them do so quite regularly, so why does not the Leader of the House ask some of them to serve on the Committee in addition to any Scottish Tory Members who are willing to do so? The answer is that he and the rest of the Cabinet do not want a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which would take embarrasing evidence even though its Tory majority might prevent it from producing embarrassing or damaging reports. Such a Committee could be highly inconvenient to the Government—an inconvenience that they do not want.

The Scottish Office is a major Department of state. Like other Departments, its activities should be scrutinised continually and systematically by a departmental Select Committee; no other arrangements will be able to do that job properly. The Leader of the House suggested that the Public Accounts Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee could deal with these issues, but that was rejected in 1978 by the Select Committee on Procedure, which recommended the establishment of departmental Select Committees. It said that we should no longer rest content with an incomplete and unsystematic scrutiny of the activities of the Executive merely as a result of historical accident or sporadic pressures. The Government are proposing just that—a historical accident in response to sporadic pressures from Scottish Tory Members.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's proposals are practical nonsense? In my role as Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, I am only too well aware of Committees' heavy work load. No matter how well meaning the Committees may be, they will be unable to deal with Scottish affairs, nor should they. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a scandalous ploy to prevent disastrous Scottish Ministers from being further exposed to Select Committee scrutiny?

Mr. Dobson

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many Select Committees do not possess a single Scottish hon. Member, so no local knowledge will be fed into the Committee's scrutiny.

The debate is not about obscure aspects of parliamentary procedure but goes to the heart of the exercise of power in a democratic society—the concept of government by consent. The Government are proposing to use their majority to set aside obligations that have become inconvenient. For years, Tories have ignored or, worse still, obstructed the wish of Scottish people for a devolved form of government that will be seen to reflect more quickly and closely their needs and desires as democratically expressed in the ballot box. Not content with that, the Government are proposing to do away with existing arrangements designed to secure that at least the Scottish Office must reflect the concerns of those whom the Scottish people have elected.

I urge everyone in the House to treat what is happening tonight with the utmost seriousness. The parliamentary system will be brought into disrepute if we allow the Government to get away with what they propose, which is fraudulent, deceitful and dangerous. It is fraudulent because before the 1979 election the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), told the Scottish people that the Tories would come up with their own devolution proposals and that in the meantime a Scottish Select Committee would be set up.

After the election and the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978, and following pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee was set up in parallel with other departmental Select Committees. In the words of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the present Secretary of State for Defence, it would act as an effective watchdog on the programme and policies of the Scottish Office. What price that watchdog now?

At the time of the devolution referendum, the present Secretary of State for Scotland was so dissatisfied with arrangements for the government of Scotland that he campaigned in favour of the Labour party's proposal for a Scottish assembly. After the 1979 election, in the debate on the repeal of the Scotland Act—he can turn about face pretty quickly—he commended improvements in the Select Committee system as making a major contribution towards improving the government of Scotland. Surely he is not now saying that not setting up the Select Committee will make a major contributon to improving the government of Scotland.

After the 1987 election, despite the few Scottish Tory Members, the Secretary of State said that it would be "business as usual." Opposition Members are saying that part of the usual business is the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of what proposals the Labour party now favours for devolved government in Scotland? How many seats should be removed to facilitate that?

Mr. Dobson

That cretinous interruption came from someone who is supposed to be one of the leading intellectuals in the Tory party.

For a year now, we in the Labour party have been pressing for the establishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is important to the people of Scotland and to their elected representatives, but it is just as important to those from other parts of Britain who believe in democratic institutions.

The Government propose to set aside the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because it is politically inconvenient. It might cause embarrassment by, say, investigating the workings of the poll tax in Scotland—we agree that that would be embarrassing—but one of the most important functions of a freely elected Parliament is to be just that—an inconvenience to the Government. That is what we are here for. If the Government get away with swallowing up one inconvenient Select Committee, they will soon develop an appetite for Select Committees and swallow up others.

Tonight we see the naked use of power for the short-term party political advantage of the Tory party. The Government have taken Lord Hailsham's words about an elective dictatorship not as a warning but as a model. Such attitudes are dangerous in any circumstances, but they are doubly dangerous when they involve disdainful treatment of the elected representatives of the Scottish people who already feel badly and distantly governed.

Any Government—in particular, a Government led by a woman—should remember the words of Sylvia Pankhurst, "Coercion is not Government". Increasingly the people of Scotland feel coerced rather than governed. I remind the Government that it is the duty of all democratic Governments to carry the people with them. More important, I remind all hon. Members that it is the duty of all freely elected Parliaments to fashion instruments which control Governments, subject them to public scrutiny, and ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard and heeded. Whatever its shortcomings, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is one of those instruments. That is why Opposition Members would be failing in their most fundamental duty not only to the people of Scotland but to all our fellow citizens if we did not resist the Government's motion.

7.41 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

The House will not be surprised to note that I am speaking in this debate. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said. He said that the practices that are being put forward are fraudulent, deceitful and dangerous. There was nothing fraudulent, deceitful or dangerous about the letter that I wrote in 1985 about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I clearly wrote out my views at the time, and they have not changed since then. The hon. Gentleman said also that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would be inconvenient to the Government. In some quarters, my actions since 1985 would be construed as being inconvenient to the Government. Without any doubt, over a long period, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has attempted to establish the Committee. His motion is a recognition of the facts that we face.

As my right hon. Friend said, this is not the first time that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not been set up. There does not appear to be any record of why the Committee was not set up in the 1972 period, other than that it was difficult to find hon. Members who were willing to serve on it. It is interesting to note that that occurred with hardly any parliamentary comment.

Mr. Sillars

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to give wrong information to the House? I served on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1972.

Mr. Speaker

Provided that it is in order, I cannot be responsible for what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Walker

If the hon. Gentleman were a little less impetuous, he would have noted that I was talking about 1972–73, when he did not serve.

Mr. Sillars

The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Mr. Walker

I have done my homework. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see what homework I have done and what information I have.

I was one of those who, in 1979, desperately wanted a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to scrutinise the Government and to do its job effectively and properly. I was one of the most disappointed hon. Members when I found that the Committee was not conducting itself in a manner that would be beneficial to Scotland. My remarks do not reflect on the early stages of the Committee. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were Chairmen of that Committee. It was a good, effective Committee, and I was proud to be a member of it. I am sorry to say that it did not continue in that vein.

It is interesting to note that, over the period 1979–80 to 1986–87, the Committee submitted 14 reports to the Scottish Office. Any Committee that prepares reports has a right to expect the Government to take note of them and, if required, to take action. Sadly, Committees that present reports that do not reflect the evidence that they received can expect scant attention from Ministers. That was my view in 1985, and it is still my view this evening.

Hon. Members hear a lot from the Scottish National party. In the period from 1979 to 1987, the Scottish National party refused to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. On 26 November 1979, the SNP was given the offer to serve. The record states: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) has given the House his explanation. I spoke to the Leader of the SNP, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Every opportunity was given to the SNP to have a Member on the Scottish Select Committee. Apparently it did not wish to have one."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1059.]

Mr. Robert Hughes

The Government still went ahead and appointed the Select Committee, despite the objection to serve. Perhaps we should do that on this occasion.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I was talking about one possible member of the SNP. The point that I was making was one of principle rather than practice. If SNP Members —it reflects the humbug that we get from them—believe that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee was and is so important, why was it not important in 1979 and 1983? That is where the humbug is coming from. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor on the Committee. I would serve tomorrow on a Committee of which either hon. Gentleman was a chairman.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a long-established neighbour of the hon. Gentleman. As it has been announced that I was the Chairman-designate of the Select Committee that was to be set up, the hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that he would not serve on any Committee of which I was a chairman.

Mr. Speaker

Let the hon. Member answer that.

Mr. Walker

I regard the hon. Gentleman as one of my friends in the Opposition. Nothing that I say this evening reflects in any way on his integrity. I hope that he will accept that I cannot accept the kind of guarantees that we were supposed to get from the Labour party in the past and that it was unable to deliver. Its inability to deliver guarantees makes me extremely cautious about what is likely to happen. My remarks are no reflection on the hon. Gentleman or his integrity. His integrity has never been in doubt. It is important that we get this into the correct perspective.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)

My hon. Friend talked of humbug from the Opposition. Does he recall that I was honoured to be called to sit on the Standing Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and does he remember the reception I had from Opposition Members who now suggest that they welcome Members representing English constituencies with an interest in Scottish matters sitting on Scottish Committees?

Mr. Walker

That was a helpful intervention and later I shall draw the attention of the House to these matters. That is the nub and the hub of everything that we are discussing this evening. Either we accept that this is a unitary Parliament or we do not.

It is important that all hon. Members understand the SNP's position between 1979 and 1987. Neither of the then SNP Members, Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart, served on any Select Committee of any kind. Neither of those gentlemen attended Standing Committees at anything like the rate of my Scottish colleagues and I. I have all the figures if anyone is interested. Gordon Wilson, who represented Dundee, East, attended 105 Standing Committees between 1979 and 1983 whereas I attended 228. Donald Stewart, who represented Western Isles, attended 51, fewer than anyone else. In the 1983–87 Parliament, Gordon Wilson had 71 attendances in Standing Committee whereas I had 148 and Donald Stewart had 20. In addition, I attended 79 Select Committee meetings during the 1979–83 Parliament and 64 during the 1983–87 Parliament. Therefore, any SNP Member who suggests that Scottish Conservative Members are not doing their job or pulling their weight is talking humbug and hypocrisy.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

I am interested to hear how busy the hon. Gentleman has been. Certainly he has been busy since 1987. According to the Register of Members' Interests, he has been to Hong Kong and Peking twice, he has spent 18 days in Brazil and six days or more in China. He has three directorships and is an adviser to three other groups. Have not his business interests and gallivanting round the world more to do with his lack of interest in serving on a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and in doing what his Conservative constituents would like him to do, namely, look after the interests of Scottish Conservatives, and, God knows, there are not many of those?

Mr. Walker

That is a stupid and offensive attack. My visits were made during the recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] If the hon. Gentleman cares to note the companies which sponsored my visits to these different parts—[Interruption.] It is all on the record. He will see that I was acting in an unpaid capacity to assist them in their sales programme. [Laughter.] I would have thought that all hon. Members should be doing that. If the hon. Gentleman further examines my entry he will find that the advice and help I give to the organisations listed, such as the Scouts, the Air Cadets and the British Gliding Association, is given free. There is no charge.

I now turn to the Labour party—and Opposition Members should stop laughing, They may find that this is not so funny. In 1979 the Labour party had views on the establishment of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but those views were not unanimous. Not every Labour Member wanted the Committee to be set up. Willie Hamilton had this to say: I also have doubts because of the unwarranted assumption that there are in the House— and I measure my words—120 Back Bench Members who will apply themselves diligently to the hard work entailed in serving on Select Committees…it is important to understand that there are reservations among Back Bench Members about the effectiveness of this package."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 98.] The Labour party is constantly reminding the House of the difficulties that we in the Conservative party have in staffing Scottish business of whatever kind. The same Labour Members have no hesitation in becoming involved and active in matters which could be construed as being purely English business.

I am sure that the Water Bill is important and I have no objection to Members from all parts of the United Kingdom taking an interest. That is to be recommended and I am strongly in favour of it. But Opposition Members apparently say one thing when Scottish matters are affected and another when they are not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At 8.6 pm, as is shown in column 381 of the report of our debate on the Water Bill, on 7 December, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) spoke for 10 minutes. He was concerned about the Council for the Protection of Rural England. [Laughter.]

I draw the attention of the House to early-day motions 155, 172 and 191 standing in my name and those of some colleagues on The Union and the Unitary Parliament. Scottish Labour Members complain that English and Welsh Conservative Members who table Scottish questions are behaving badly and out of order, yet it is apparently in order for Scottish Labour Members to table questions on Northern Ireland, where the Labour party holds no seats. Early-day motion 172 states clearly that 37 questions were tabled for oral answer by Northern Ireland Ministers and that 27 of the questions were tabled by hon. Members representing English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I am desperate to try to save some time because the hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. No Labour Member is suggesting that English Members should not take an interest in the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. We are anxious that they should because we then might get the Committee. As the Secretary of State, with his careful attention to language, will appreciate, we have never argued that English Members with a genuine interest in Scottish affairs should be banned from Scottish questions. This is an important point and I want to get it over to the House. We have made it clear that we object to the clearly orchestrated campaign where hon. Members have been abrasive, provocative and irritating for the sake of it. have no interest in what is going on and when the whole escapade has been conducted like some public school dormitary jape.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman talks about orchestration. I have been doing a little research and had a lot of research done on the Order Papers for the past two weeks and I can deal effectively with the hon. Gentleman's point. On Tuesday 20 December six Scottish Labour Members had questions tabled to the Department of Education and Science. More important, 12 Scottish Labour Members have questions tabled to the Department of Transport for Monday 16 January and seven of them are fascinated by the Channel tunnel.

If one looks at them carefully, one will see that a number of them are identical in every word. Where is the orchestration? I, frankly, support them in doing that and I am not being critical. I am responding to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who opened for the Opposition. He mentioned those aspects and I just happened to have the information handy in case he did.

There have been questions recently on North East Shipbuilders. The north-east, of course, is the north-east of England and, quite properly, a number of Scottish Members participated. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked questions.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

rose—

Mr. Walker

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

I accept that the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows that North East Shipbuilders have an interest in Dundee. I make no complaint about that. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that, of the three hon. Members who asked questions, the hon. Member for Dundee, East was the only one with a direct interest.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

rose—

Mr. Walker

I shall give way in a moment.

We have heard a lot about what is right and what is wrong. What I would say to Opposition Members is that it is my view that I have achieved more in this Parliament for Scotland, while not serving on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, than I have achieved in all the months and years that I have spent as a member of that Committee. During this Parliament, with the assistance of Opposition Members, I have been instrumental in placing the Scotch Whisky Act 1988 on the statute book. With the assistance of Opposition Members, I have played a part in saving the search and rescue helicopter flight at Leuchars.

Dr. Godman

rose—

Mr. Walker

I shall give way in a moment as it is important that I finish this point. Also, with the assistance of Opposition Members, I have been instrumental in getting a reprieve for the Dundee dental college. My view is that I have used my time more effectively and efficiently than I could ever have done as a member of a Committee whose reports would not have been considered by the Ministers who received them.

Dr. Godman

With regard to the early-day motion on the North East Shipbuilders, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have a direct constituency interest in the continuity of that shipyard, because, if the Government had not betrayed the workers of Sunderland—in that the Ministers prevented that yard from winning an order from Cuba for 10 ships—the engines for those 10 ships would very likely have been built at Clark Kincaid of East Hamilton street, Greenock.

Mr. Walker

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention, because it helps me make the point to which I was coming.

Dr. Godman

It is bringing the hon. Gentleman back to the truth.

Mr. Walker

Members on the Government side of the House who represent English constituencies have many direct interests in Scottish constituencies and business. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about his involvement in northern England affairs. I wish to encourage that as that is how I see this unitary Parliament functioning and working.

What I find interesting about the debate is that we do not get the same heated interest in Northern Ireland, which there should be if all the factors discussed this evening were agreed. They are not, of course, but if they were, Northern Ireland would have the same case for having a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs.

However, we all know that there are differences, which may be part of the problem in the way that we try to run our parliamentary system. This is not the evening when I wish to speak at length on that, because that is not the reason why we are here. I believe that the time is long overdue for us to talk seriously about how we should run our unitary parliamentary system in all parts of the United Kingdom. If we do not, the danger is that for short-term party political opportunism—I shall not put it any higher than that—a unitary Parliament, and all of us who believe in a unitary parliamentary system, could be at grave risk. We may differ on the solutions, but I believe that it is important that we should get down to serious talking about it instead of constantly flaunting, for short-term political gains, slogans that have nothing to do with the realities of passing legislation through the House, and we should act in a way that is good for the responsible government of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

8.6 pm

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The motion is a sad one. I regret to say that the Leader of the House presented a very undignified and pathetic figure when he sought to justify it. The motion refers to the Committee of Selection, but we all know that the failure to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs lies with the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. It has nothing to do with the Committee of Selection which, by and large, takes the names offered to it by the Whips. Although I am sure that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, tried hard, the fact is that the failure lies with the Government. I am certain that if the Government had had the will, we could have had a solution.

Much has been said by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), about the Select Committee system. Some hon. Members say and believe that Select Committees are a distraction which takes hon. Members away from more important work. The hon. Gentleman quoted our old friend Willie Hamilton. Some people believe that the dignity and importance of the Chamber would diminish once a Select Committee was set up. What the hon. Gentleman said was half true, which is the problem with the hon. Gentleman. He makes half true statements. I do not quarrel with the statements quoted from Hansard of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, as he then was, Mr. Willie Hamilton, who was arguing against the entire Select Committee system. However, he was not arguing that there should not be a committee on Scottish affairs. The hon. Gentleman should not attempt to twist words.

I do not hold the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe that Select Committees are important. I served as a member of the Select Committee in the incarnation of both the Select Committees on Scottish Affairs. First, it was set up specifically to consider land use. I am reminded that in the 1960s there was a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which considered especially steel. The Select Committee system has a long history. Committees have been sporadic. They have been set up to consider specific matters at different times and then have disappeared. It is not a question of the system lapsing. There never was any continuity until we had the Select Committee system set up by Norman St. John-Stevas, as he then was.

Secondly, I sat on the Select Committee as an ordinary member when it was a regular, growing concern. I was proud—I still am—to have succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as Chairman. I found the Committee and its work most useful. I believe that, while Government Departments in general have been appalling in their responses to the criticisms of Select Committees, the fact is that the Scottish Office has been one of the better Departments of state in responding to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Paradoxically, it has often been a minority report of Opposition Back Benchers on the Committee that it has taken up, and has rejected Government Back Benchers' majority reports. The hon. Member for Tayside, North made some sour comments about the Government and the Scottish Office not following the views of the Select Committee. He tried again to twist matters slightly.

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

Is it not correct that sometimes the Select Committee took up a subject on representations that it received from Ministers—especially Ministers in the Scottish Office—and sometimes Ministers representing United Kingdom Departments, for example, the Department of Trade and Industry? Therefore, the purpose of the Select Committee was not only to monitor the work of the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers but was sometimes to give the Secretary of State for Scotland support in the various Cabinet sub-committees when they were taking decisions on the future of certain Scottish affairs.

Mr. Hughes

I am happy to concur. The general view, and sometimes received wisdom, was that the Select Committee was always a bear garden, with everyone fighting with one another, constantly with daggers drawn against the Scottish Office, but that was not true. I do not know why there was a sudden sea change by Scottish Office Ministers towards the idea of a Select Committee. On all the Scottish Select Committees there had always been useful co-operation and discussion between the Government and Chairmen on valuable points.

I accept that the work of the Select Committees appeared, on occasions, to disappear. But even if recommendations are not acted upon, it is important that we get the best information so that we can conduct our political debate. Debating in ignorance does not do democracy any good. Evidence is useful. I do not deny that there have been difficulties. Scottish politics is a vibrant body. It sometimes seems like a cockpit, with all of us trying to scratch one another's eyes out.

Scottish Members are a comparatively small number of Members of Parliament and we constantly meet through television, radio and the press or in the House and have a go at one another— and why not? Scottish politics are probably more adversarial than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing. What is wrong with vigorous debate? Why can we not vigorously debate without personal animosity? Sometimes animosity arises, but this form of politics is good for the system and I do not understand why we cannot continue it. It is said that the vigorous way in which we conduct our democracy makes it difficult to step back and take an objective look in the way that Select Committees are supposed to do. Select Committees were able to do that in the past, without blunting the thrust of their investigations or of questions.

None of the difficulties is insuperable. If the Government had the good will, they should be able to introduce this system. The failure of Conservative Back Benchers in particular, especially those representing Scottish seats, to serve as members of the Committee shows their lack of self-confidence in themselves and their party. That Scottish Office Ministers are afraid to face questions shows an amazing lack of confidence.

We are told ad nauseam in advertisements on television and in glossy material how good the Government are and what marvellous work they are doing in Scotland. Then we hear the plaintive cry, "What a shame that that is not understood in Scotland." We understand what the Government are doing. There is an excellent set of Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench, but we hear the plaintive cry that they are misunderstood and that we do not appreciate their work. We are told that St. Andrew's House is an efficient, tightly run ship. If all that is true, what do Scottish Office Ministers have to hide? Why cannot they allow their actions to be open to public scrutiny? They should be so pleased with themselves that they trample over us trying to get on a Select Committee. Such a system should have been set up long ago. The Government could have provided the Select Committee with the necessary Members.

Leaving aside the dragooning point, I accept that one cannot compel a Member to do anything that he does not want to do. But the Government always find their way when they want something done. There are the blandishments and the offers of knighthoods—there is hope yet for the hon. Member for Tayside, North. The Government could have gone further.

I accept that some of the strident views put in the Scottish press did not help our cause. I was one of those who, from the beginning, was prepared to accept Members from English seats sitting on a Scottish Select Committee. It is important that they should look at what we do and that we should learn from their experience. I do not believe that the Scots have the arrogance to say that everything they do in Scotland is right and that they know better than anyone else. We have much to teach the United Kingdom about politics. That is why we take part in United Kingdom debates. We should not be frightened of English Members—even if they are English rather than Scots representing English seats—serving on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I should welcome that because it is important to set up such a Committee.

In an intervention, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said that the Scottish Grand Committee no longer had added Members on it and was made up only of Scots. During his absence, there was a slight change. A trade-off was made so that the Scottish Grand Committee was composed entirely of Scottish Members but there were to be no votes. That was wrong. We should not rely on the exclusiveness of Scottish Members on the basis of not voting.

Mr. Sillars

Have there been no votes on the Scottish Grand Committee when it has been composed solely of Scottish Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hughes

I recollect that there has been one vote. That was the general deal done, but there is nothing in Standing Orders to say so. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that there have been few votes in the Scottish Grand Committee since it was composed solely of Scottish Members. But that was a minor aside. Scottish exclusivity does not give the whole picture and is not always wholly good.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. In private conversations he made a helpful suggestion which he has empowered me to mention. We are all anxious to have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs up and running. My hon. Friend has suggested that, if we cannot get an agreement on a Select Committee which runs every week and every year, perhaps the Government would consider setting up a Special Committee on Scottish Affairs, as existed in the past, to look at a particular issue and, if that works, we could go on to another Special Committee. I support my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion entirely.

I hope that the Leader of the House will think again, even at this stage. I am not pleading with him, because I will not plead with anyone on this matter. I ask him in the interests of his party and Government and of democracy and the people of Scotland to withdraw the motion and consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East. If he does, he will have done a great service to the House of Commons.

8.17 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I wish that the reasonable approach of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) had been available on the Labour Front Bench a year ago. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) put some Opposition Members to flight by bringing out statistics which proved the humbug of their case. I shall put my view on how I saw matters last year.

After the 1987 election I expected to be a member of the Select Committee. On returning from the recess in October 1987, I reluctantly gave up my place on the Defence Select Committee —a place which I had achieved after many years of waiting and which I had enjoyed. That shows that I believed that I would be wanted for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and would have to forgo something that it had taken me a long time to achieve. I was happy that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) was to be the Chairman.

Problems began to arise when on 12 November the Committee of Selection tabled the list of Members for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Members were available from the Conservative and minority parties but not from the Labour party. If the Labour party had got itself organised and made its Members available, the Committee might well have been set up on 12 November, ready to go and off, but it had not. The following week, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, as he has already explained, declined his place and made the interesting discovery that there was a right to refuse to serve should one so wish.

By the time that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had arranged the names of Labour Members, the Committee of Selection was not in a position to set up the Select Committee because insufficient Conservative Members were available. During that crucial time in November, the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) played their hand badly. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made it clear that on no account would the Labour party put up with any English Members on the Committee.

Mr. Ian Bruce

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made an impassioned plea about accepting hon. Members from English constituencies on the Select Committee. It is strange that before joining the Standing Committee which considered the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, I was told that a story had been put into the mouths of reporters on the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. The same gentleman who accused me of having no interest in Scottish affairs was an English Member who had no interest in Scotland. The story did not appear. It went on the spike after the reporters checked their facts and learned of my experience in Scottish education.

Sir Hector Monro

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he is a little ahead of my story. I am still dealing with November 1987 when the hon. Member for Garscadden tried to dictate to the Scottish Tory party, through the press and individually, saying that he would not approve of topping up unless it was with Members of Parliament who suited his view. I found that unacceptable. The Labour Front Bench spokesmen made it plain that they would accept only certain Tory Members to serve on a Select Committee. Their attitude did more than anything else to make me and my hon. Friends feel that the Labour party's attitude would make a Scottish Affairs Select Committee intolerable. Let me make it clear that until that happened I anticipated our having a Select Committee.

The Opposition's attitude has run true to form in business in the House and in Committee, including their refusal last April to co-operate, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained earlier, on a deal that would have allowed an additional English Tory Member on the Standing Committee, an arrangement by which we could have set up a Select Committee. The Labour party has fallen flat on its face on so many opportunities that it ill behoves it to come to the House groaning away and complaining that it is all our fault that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

We are also worried about the usual channels. We all know that the House could not operate without them. The Whips on both sides of the House and the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have to co-operate if the business of the House is not to grind to a halt. Everybody knows that it is only too easy to find ways of making business in the House intolerable if hon. Members wish to do so. Unless we accept discipline and honour agreements made through the usual channels, everything becomes difficult to manage and it is the country that loses.

Time and again the Opposition have failed to deliver agreements. Last week, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), whom I am sorry to see has departed, made a lengthy speech on the Transport (Scotland) Bill after 11.45 pm. That was in order and no one could prevent him from doing so, but that was contrary to an agreement made through the usual channels that the business would end at 11.45 pm. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman arranged their closing speeches for that time. No wonder the House falls into disarray when that sort of thing occurs. We then had an interesting speech lasting 45 minutes from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. However, that shows how important it is that we have discipline within and between parties if we are to proceed in a correct and efficient manner.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)

I have a specific question to ask the hon. Gentleman who has courteously given way. Since he is extolling the various virtues of the House and telling us that there must be discipline and so on, is he telling the House that, with regard to serving on a Select Committee, he is on strike?

Sir Hector Monro

The hon. Gentleman should not try to bring his profession into the House. I am not used to taking such action.

In a Select Committee, where there will obviously be a small majority, discipline must prevail if it is to work satisfactorily. Nothing that I have seen in the Chamber or in Standing Committee has given me any encouragement to think that the Opposition will behave with such discipline in the Select Committee.

When I joined the Select Committee in the 1983 Parliament it was different from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North described. It was already at daggers drawn. It seemed an astonishing way of trying to interview and monitor the Scottish Office or to come to any unanimous report. Such an approach to the Select Committee was disappointing.

One has only to look at the reports on Scott Lithgow and Ravenscraig and Gartcosh—hon. Members may remember that I voted against the Government on that issue. We reached a unanimous view only on the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the fisheries protection reports. Otherwise, party lines were here, there and everywhere. That is no way to monitor effectively a Government Department. Fighting and voting on party lines time and again is no good. There was none of the cut and thrust of constructive debate that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North would like; amendments were purely party-political, with voting this way and that. It was a thoroughly disappointing operation in which to be involved.

The Opposition's attitude to discipline and to the usual channels which must operate it during the efforts to appoint a Select Committee in November and December 1987 and their likely attitude to the Select Committee if it were set up leads one to believe that the most satisfactory way forward, enabling hon. Members to spend as much time as possible on Scottish affairs in a united way throughout the House, is to support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House so that we can get on with business rather than listen to the Opposition groaning away on this issue which does not have the importance that they like to suggest.

8.28 pm

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)

It would appear that the House is about to administer the last rites to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Its death knell has sounded and the Government will see to it by trundling in their voting machine at the end of the debate, claiming authority while closing their eyes and ears to the fact that in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom the majority of people do not support them. So much for democracy. So much for this place, the so-called mother of Parliaments. That makes it a sham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, after the last election the Secretary of State for Scotland, leading a Conservative band of nine Members, said that it would be business as usual. But here we are, witnessing the lack of political will to set up a Select Committee.

I believe that the Committee of Selection should note the sensible suggestion that the composition of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee should reflect the number of Scottish seats held by the various political parties. That is what our amendment proposes. It would mean a Committee of five Labour Members, three Conservatives—which is a mite generous —two Social and Liberal Democrats and one Scottish National party member.

The assumption that that would not work is both ridiculous and insulting. On 13 January, referring to a former Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said: We were spending hours and hours indulging in what were often pure party-political battles." —[Official Report, 13 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 408.] Times have changed, as the Conservative party in Scotland knows only too well. I believe that a Scottish Select Committee constituted on the lines that I have suggested would work, particularly if it included the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and myself. There would be less of the alleged skulduggery and more feminine common sense.

A Select Committee does not legislate; neither does the Scottish Grand Committee. It has no Government majority. I find nothing more shameful than the spectacle of the Scottish Grand Committee sitting and talking in Edinburgh and then having to travel 400 miles to enact legislation down here. The fact that it is a convention of the House to have a Government majority on the Select Committee is not an acceptable excuse. This Government are all-powerful, and perfectly capable of changing or ignoring our conventions. But of course they will not do so, because they obviously do not want a Scottish Select Committee to have powers to call for persons, including Ministers, or to call for papers and records, to ensure effective scrutiny of the Scottish Office and Scottish public affairs. They do not want an in-depth look at the Government in Scotland who are plunging around like a rogue elephant and leaving a trail of destruction in their wake.

There has been no scrutiny of the consequences of the repeated reorganisations and restructuring of the Health Service, when it has been proved that the Government are incapable of good management. Their man management is deplorable, because they are unable to build on what is good and always end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

There has been no scrutiny of the Scottish Education Department and the morale of the teaching profession. Worst of all, there has been no scrutiny of the damage being done to our Scottish universities. Of course a Scottish Select Committee is not allowed to look at that aspect of our higher education. It is shameful and disgraceful, and so the destruction goes on.

I understand that five of the Scottish Tory Members attended Oxford or Cambridge, so it is not surprising that they care nothing for, and understand nothing of, our universities north of the border. The misguided interference of the University Grants Committee and those bred in a different academic tradition shows real hostility to Scottish intellectual needs, achievements and aspirations. The so-called rationalisation of resources at the behest of the UGC betrays a complete inability to understand the purpose of a university in Scotland, or the town and gown relationship. In Scotland a university is a community institution. The UGC, however, sees it as departments or cost centres dotted around the country, on which it bases its allocation of funds. All in Scotland have suffered, none more so than Aberdeen university as it approaches its 500th anniversary, and the latest blow has been the announcement of the closure of its music department.

We have no Scottish Affairs Committee and no Scottish Members on the Education Select Committee. What hope is there?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

None.

Mrs. Michie

None. Is the intention to reconstitute all Select Committees to reflect Scottish affairs? I do not know why we are having this debate. I believe that it is a farce.

Scottish Question Time has also become a farce because many of us are not called. We who try to represent our constituencies find that the time is taken up by people who know nothing about Scotland. All along the line we have been betrayed, and in the recent past we have been betrayed by two Prime Ministers. First, there was Lord Home of the Hirsel. In Scots "the Hirsel" means a place where sheep are kept. The night before the devolution referendum Lord Home promised the Scots that if they voted no they would get a better deal. In more recent times the present Prime Minister has done exactly the same.

Now Scotland knows that it has been betrayed again and again. The refusal to set up a Select Committee is another slap in the face for Scotland, my country. The Government should be warned that, through their continued arrogance and their dismissive attitude to Scottish political sensitivities and aspirations, they will bear the responsibility for breaking up the United Kingdom.

8.37 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)

I am not sure quite to whom the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred when she talked about universities, but I assure her that I was born and educated at St. Andrew's and also taught there. I did, however, agree with her on at least one point: she was right in saying that it is extremely inconvenient for Scottish Grand Committee meetings to take place in Edinburgh. The sooner that they are moved to London the better.

The hon. Lady referred to the role of the Government in the debate. That was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and I shall return to it later. First, let me refer to two earlier speeches by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a constructive and sensible speech, wholly different in tone from all the previous Opposition speeches on the issue. Let me say to Labour Members that if that speech had been made on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party shortly after the general election they would have a Scottish Select Committee.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not in his place, although I do not criticise him for having had to slip out briefly, but for him to refer to the many constructive interventions of my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies at Scottish Question Time and then to pray that in aid, asking them to serve on the Scottish Select Committee, is the height of humbug and hypocrisy. Every time any of my hon. Friends gets up, there is a kind of tribal yowling from the Opposition Benches.

It is absolutely clear that Opposition Members resent in principle interventions in Scottish debates by my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies. By contrast, I often enjoy the contributions of English Opposition Members to debates on Scottish affairs— occasionally they provide illuminating shafts of light. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras possibly lacked brilliant sparkle this evening; but his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did not. After the conclave at the SOGAT retreat just after the Govan by-election, the hon. Member for Copeland said of the conditions then prevailing among Scottish Labour Members: The jocks are running about like headless chickens. No doubt we shall hear some squawking from them, headless or no.

Of more direct relevance to the debate was the excellent recent statement by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope we can all agree to congratulate him on it. He said that the current debate and recent opinion polls about independence for Scotland were merely a talking point among the chattering classes. I hope that I have the unanimous support of Labour Members from Scottish constituencies in applauding that statement. The Leader of the Opposition holds many views with which I disagree, but I have always thought that on the Scottish question he is at heart the soundest of chaps.

If it is true that the debate about Scottish independence is merely a talking point for the chattering classes, how much more true that is about this debate, which perhaps is not even a talking point. It is, however, important, because of the point of principle that has been established for the future by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The existence or otherwise of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not in itself a matter of great importance. My view, about that have always been clear and on the record—

Mr. Salmond

I have been reading the Scottish insert in the Conservative manifesto of 1983 for the election at which the hon. Gentleman stood. It reads: We are concerned at all times to improve the quality of government in Scotland. To this end, we have set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has done much useful work in Scotland and at Westminster. The hon. Gentleman stood for election on that manifesto; has he changed his mind?

Mr. Stewart

Conditions changed somewhat between 1983 and 1987—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North in his excellent speech—

Mr. Bill Walker

Just to get the record straight, the early years of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee were successful—I made that clear in my speech. My reason for wanting things to change did not begin until 1985.

Mr. Stewart

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his position so clearly. He makes a valid point. My views on the matter were clearly and correctly reported in the Glasgow Herald as long ago as 28 July 1987, on the front page under the headline: Scottish Committee should go, says Tory". The Herald rightly quoted me as saying that the Scottish Select Committee should be abolished as a complete irrelevance and waste of time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made an interesting response. The Glasgow Herald reported that my statement met with scorn from the shadow Scottish Secretary: it would be ludicrous to suggest that the Scottish Office … should escape the attention of a select committee said the hon. Member for Garscadden. It struck me then that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in believing what he said, were going to make the classic error of confusing the improbable with the impossible, especially as Labour Members were going around at that time claiming that they had won the election and held a mandate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly referred to the usual channels, but at the time in question the usual channels in Scotland had been abolished by the hon. Member for Garscadden, who proudly told the Scottish press that on his instructions Scottish Labour Members would not meet or discuss anything with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) because he represented an English constituency. Labour Members failed to realise what was happening; they failed to realise my hon. Friend's determination and the real concerns of other Conservative Members. They showed an inability to count— with the exception of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who suggested his own formula for setting up a Select Committee, a Committee of five. I am open to correction, but I understand that that was rejected out of hand by the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues—

Mr. Lambie

The hon. Gentleman knows, as do all other former members of the Select Committee, that during the whole of my period as a member of it I said that it was too big—we were up to about 13. I continually made representations for a much smaller Committee. So what the hon. Gentleman said was nothing new—it was a continuation of a consistent policy which was usually honoured.

Mr. Stewart

I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the chance to make that point. He was right to say that he was consistent, and he speaks with the experience of having been the Committee's Chairman. It is a pity that his suggestion was ruled out of court by his hon. Friends.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the position taken by Scottish Labour Members in November and December last year and to their refusal to accept the idea of English Conservative Members which was advanced so reasonably by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North tonight, the hon. Member for Garscadden shook his head—I see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) shaking his head, too. But the record is clear, and I refer Opposition Members to it. On 22 October 1987, speaking on behalf of the Scottish parliamentary Labour group—I take it—the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said this to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: the only options before the Government and the House are to give the Committee a Labour majority, which would reflect the balance of parties in Scotland, to reduce the membership of the Committee to three members, or to import English Tory Members to sit on it, which would be as unacceptable to them as to us. May we have an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House that neither of the second two options would be accepted and put before the House?" —[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 941.] That seems clear enough to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was right in referring to the record when he concluded, in essence, that the Labour party blew it. As the House knows, the Government went ahead anyway, and nominated the five Scottish Conservative Back Benchers to the Committee of Selection, including myself.

I must say that I did not realise the importance of Standing Order No. 104—nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries—which was so successfully invoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, who had obviously studied the Standing Orders in greater detail than I had. He has, of course, established an important principle, which will, no doubt, be referred to by many hon. Members in future. The principle is that there is no compulsion on any hon. Member to serve on a Select Committee—or, I assume, on any other Committee of the House.

Dr. Reid

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The important principle that has been established this evening—if the hon. Gentleman can drag himself away for a moment from the transcendental minutiae that seemed to make up the bulk of his speech—has been established by the Leader of the House. He told us, in effect, that if Members of the Government party refused to serve, as is their right, on any Select Committee. the Government would be legitimately justified in refusing to establish that Select Committee, thereby avoiding any scrutiny of Government business. That has been established tonight and it will have implications far wider than for Scotland alone; it will have implications for the good government of the whole of the United Kingdom and for the democratic scrutiny of Parliament.

Mr. Stewart

The important point that I am making—I accept that it may not refer to Standing Committees— is that it has been established that no hon. Member is under any compulsion to serve on a Select Committee. I shall now deal with the Government's role in the matter, which has been referred to constantly by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland quoted the statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made after the last election, that it would be business as usual. However, the point is that the Select Committee is the business not of the Secretary of State but of Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be winding up the debate this evening, but that is because the Scottish Office obviously has a general interest in the Select Committee and in matters relating to Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm to the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland has no responsibility whatever in relation to the setting up of the Select Committee.

Reference has been made to the Whips and the business managers, who are, of course, in constant communication with hon. Members. However, there is no compulsion that they, or anyone else, can put on hon. Members who do not want to serve on a Select Committee. Many of the criticisms that have been laid at the Government's door tonight are wholly misplaced because the Government did not have, and do not have, the power to compel Back Benchers who do not wish to serve on the Select Committee to do so.

I now want to make one or two points about my own view of the Select Committee. I asked myself whether there would be any benefit to the people of Eastwood if I served on the Scottish Affairs Committee. The answer to that was, fairly unequivocally, that there would be no benefit that I could discern to my constituents from spending time on the Scottish Affairs Committee. The second question was whether there was any chance that the Scottish Affairs Committee would do a reasonable job. The Opposition might be reasonably objective in accepting that we do not live in a perfect world, so it might get on reasonably well. I referred to that possibility in my speech in the last debate on this subject and I referred to the possibility of concrete, bankable assurances on that. Of course, none was forthcoming. I have never thought that there was a reasonable chance, in the present political climate and in the light of the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, that the Scottish Affairs Committee, if it was established, would do a reasonable and objective job.

Labour Members have largely brought this situation on themselves. They delight in referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his supporters—of whom I am one—as quislings and traitors. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is on record as using the term "quisling" from the Opposition Front Bench, and I was described on a radio broadcast in which I took part with an Opposition Member as a traitor. If that is Opposition Members' attitude, they will not get the co-operation that they need to set up the Scottish Affairs Committee. The comeuppance for that attitude, and for using the language of nationalism, was their by-election defeat in Govan. I hope that relations between the parties will be reasonable throughout this Parliament, but it must be said that the Labour party in Scotland has brought the end of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on itself.

8.55 pm

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

The speech of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was not designed to create good relations between the Labour and the Conservative parties or, indeed, between any two groups of people.

It is difficult to contain one's anger at the way in which Scottish affairs are being treated. Apart from the two opening speeches, all the speeches made so far have been made by hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that the three Conservative Back Benchers present—the hon. Members for Eastwood, for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—have a perverted sense of pleasure at the way in which they are frustrating the political will of the people of Scotland.

I have been in the House for nearly 18 years. I have known countless Leaders of the House, but I have never seen one in a weaker position than the present Leader of the House as he sought to defend his position. In effect, he was saying that five Tory Back Benchers can stop 62 Opposition Members of all political parties who represent Scottish constituencies from carrying out effectively the task for which they were elected.

I make no apology for repeating a warning that I gave not long after the last general election. Democracy is a fragile thing, and it has been seriously damaged by the attitude displayed in this debate. I came here tonight innocently believing that we were searching for a solution to the problem of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I was absolutely wrong. The purpose of the debate has been not only to kill off but to bury the possibility of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I suppose that I should not be surprised at that.

Before I expound my argument, I want to register my protest that the debate is to be wound up by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, although it is not a protest against him personally. It is ludicrous that a Minister of State at the Department that is the subject of complaints about its failing to be examined should try to justify why that Department should not be examined. There is no place in this debate for a Scottish Office Minister, and this really ought not to be allowed to happen. It is a further insult to the integrity of the House.

There is a deliberate attempt to diminish the role and responsibility of the Scottish Office. That is why in the last Session, major amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984 were contained in English legislation. That is why amendments in relation to educational provision in Scotland were contained in English legislation. That is why the proposals to privatise the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are contained in a United Kingdom Bill. It is much more sinister than just having insufficient Scottish Tory Back-Bench Members. If the role of the Scottish Office continues to diminish, it will no longer be worth examining.

There has also been an attempt, either deliberately or unconsciously, to deceive. The Leader of the House and his colleagues talked about the non-existence of Select Committees on Scottish Affairs between 1973 and 1979. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know about this, he must have been inadequately briefed. In those days a Select Committee was set up to consider a specific matter. In the 1960s, in response to a demand from the House of Commons, a Select Committee was set up to consider the steel industry in Scotland. A similar Committee was set up in 1972–73 to consider land use in Scotland. Those Committees were different from the Select Committees that we have now, which examine the work of a specific Department.

I can say with some pleasure that the Leader of the House is a good personal friend of mine, but it will be a sad reflection on him if he tries to persuade the country that a Government with such a large majority cannot find enough Back-Bench Members to form a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman can introduce all sorts of legislation against the wishes of the people of Scotland. That is dead easy for him. He can say, "That is all ABC stuff, but do not ask me to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because I cannot do it." He is the weakest Leader of the House in the weakest position that I have ever seen. I am sorry to criticise him in his absence, but that is not my fault. After presenting that picture to the House, he cannot be a proud man tonight.

It was odious to hear the Leader of the House, followed by the hon. Members for Tayside, North and for Dumfries, compare the position of Scotland with that of Northern Ireland. It sounded like a warning to us. We should not allow those remarks to pass unchallenged. Tomorrow when we read Hansard and in the days and weeks ahead we must consider why those remarks were made and their likely effect on Scottish politics.

The SNP, the other parties in Scotland, The Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald, Scottish Television and the BBC have all had great fun saying that the Labour party is being ignored. But tonight the SNP and the Social and Liberal Democrats are being ignored, too. We are all being ignored, and that is what has caused the tension in Scotland.

Our fragile democracy could easily be snapped by the attitude we have seen displayed. There is a way out but I admit that it is a compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was kind enough to refer to a proposition that I wish to put. I am grateful that the Leader of the House has returned in time to hear it.

The way out of the dilemma is to return to the original Select Committee system. The Leader of the House needs only to put a motion on the Order Paper suggesting that a Select Committee should be set up to consider a specific subject. My goodness, there is no shortage of subjects. There is the Hughes report on the future of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency. Nothing is more important for the industrial future of Scotland.

Mr. Hughes put his suggestions to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Scotland trailed along on his coat tails. He did not know anything about the document until he boarded the train at Waverley station, and the first time he saw it was when it was handed to him in No. 10. If that is the treatment given to the Secretary of State, it is time we looked at the proposals in the Hughes report and the effect they will have on the SDA, HIDB and the Training Agency.

I am sure that the SNP would want to examine its proposition on an independent Scotland in Europe. No attempt was made to examine that subject in "Left, Right and Centre" on Scottish Television on Friday night.

There is the issue involving the massive American hospital to be built on Clydebank. It will be a blood transfusion centre provided out of NHS funds. There has been no inquiry into that.

There are plenty of subjects in need of discussion and the Leader of the House should suggest that a special Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be set up to consider one of them. We would see how that Committee got on and we could then move on to another subject.

I plead with the Leader of the House not to close the hook. He will win the vote, but he will lose the argument. In losing the argument, he may well lose Scotland and that could raise problems that even he does not begin to comprehend.

9.7 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

It has been an interesting debate so far and I wish to contribute to it by talking about the basic principles that my hon. Friends and I believe are at stake. The first principle is how the House deals with Scottish business and the second is how the House responds to the aspirations and political desires of the Scottish people and how it meets their expectations.

Those two principles are closely entwined. If we ignore one, we ignore the other. The integrity of both cannot be ignored because, ultimately, we know that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland. It is demonstrated by their political will and democratic voice. There is a long legal tradition in Scotland that sovereignty lies with the people. That may come as a shock to the Leader of the House, but it is well worth bearing in mind in view of some of the comments made earlier.

The SNP amendment emphasises the importance of the conduct of business in this place and how it responds to the political circumstances in Scotland.

I was distressed at the way in which the Leader of the House introduced the motion. It seems to us that he was finding a way of riding roughshod over the Standing Orders of this establishment. It seems strange to have Standing Orders if one then proceeds to disregard them. The Leader of the House seemed to be trying to ditch Standing Order No. 130 as quickly as he ditched the possibility of having a nuclear disposal site in his constituency just before the last general election.

It is important that the Leader of the House should take into account the way in which his remarks will be perceived in Scotland, not just by hon. Members but by journalists and the people who read their newspapers.

The Leader of the House should read the article in The Scotsman today. It is interesting because it talks about the way in which Scottish business is conducted here and how people perceive it. The article refers to the many interventions by English Members of Parliament during Scottish business since the last general election. The article says: If they want to question the Secretary of State for Scotland, that, they say, is their right; Scots can question the Home Secretary, after all. If they decide not to form a Scottish Select Committee, that's also the right of the dominant Commons party. And if they decide to change the rules on the make-up of the committee debating Scottish Bills, well, that, too, is up to them and not the Opposition. The article refers to the increasingly vociferous and unashamed interventions by English Members, to the impact that that is having on Scottish business and how the Opposition parties feel about it. The final paragraph in the article says: Those issues have certainly contributed to a feeling among some Opposition back-benchers, not all of them Scottish, that 'all bets are off' and that attempts to push business later into the night, obstruct business and shun the usual niceties of parliamentary life are legitimate. It is the arrogance that we see on the Conservative Benches that has led to such a response by the people of Scotland, the Members of Parliament who represent them and the journalists who watch our proceedings. The arrogance that is being displayed tonight on the Conservative Benches is the continuation of a process that is alienating an increasing number of people from what is claimed to be the democratic process. That must worry all those who believe in democracy. As for our scrutiny of Scottish business, I must remind hon. Members of the major issues for which the Scottish Office is responsible. It is responsible for health, social work, education and local government. Policy changes are taking place in all those major areas and large sums of money are involved. These matters must be scrutinised. It is not sufficient, as the Leader of the House said, to suggest that that scrutiny can be dealt with by other procedures that are available to the House.

There used to be a Scottish Question Time once every three weeks. It is now once every six weeks. [Interruption.] I am corrected. It is once every four weeks. It just seems like six weeks. That has diminished our opportunities to question the Government. Very few Scottish Members are lucky enough to be successful in the ballot. Other Members, who have no genuine interest in Scottish affairs, put down questions and prevent hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies from speaking.

It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is shaking his head. He was quoted in The Scotsman on Friday as being quite proud of the fact that he had sent a circular to some of his hon. Friends with constituencies south of the border encouraging them to submit questions to the Table Office that could be asked during Scottish Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is totally unashamed and unrepentant, and it suggests that Members with English constituencies cannot have a genuine interest in Scottish affairs.

The Scottish Grand Committee meets rarely. It meets once or twice in Scotland, and in July there is a mad rush when the Committee tries to deal with Scottish Estimates twice a week. That is hardly an effective way of scrutinising the Government's proposals for Scotland. General debates on Scotland are very short. English Members are now being added to the Committees on Bills that consider Scottish legislation. I had always understood that Standing Committees that consider legislation that relates specifically to Scotland should consist of Scottish Members. Even that right is being further eroded. It is not sufficient to suggest that other Select Committees can fill the vacancies that have been caused by the Government's abdication of their responsibilities.

I refer the Leader of the House again to the third report of the Select Committee on Energy. The introduction to the report refers to this Session's legislation and says: In the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we have felt it our duty to examine the Government's plans for the Scottish electricity industry. However we have not probed the purely Scottish dimension in the depth which would have justified a full and separate Scottish report. Scottish matters are dealt with in this report, but generic references should largely be understood as relating to the ESI in England and Wales. That Select Committee, which is the exception rather than the rule, stated that, although it tried seriously to look at the Scottish electricity supply industry, it could not do justice to considering that issue. Therefore, we do not believe that other Select Committees will fill the gap. Nor did the Leader of the House suggest that Scottish hon. Members should be appointed to all those Select Committees to ensure that we can participate in them. I give him fair warning that many of us will be looking to participate in those Select Committees whether he likes it or not.

We are deeply concerned about the offence being delivered to the democratic process in Scotland. Essentially, we now have a governor-general with a few flunkeys in Scotland. Perhaps the failure to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will go down in history as the revolt of the flunkeys. We now have no scrutiny over a man who is operating as a governor-general in Scotland. The real issue is the lack of the Government's mandate in Scotland. At the last general election the people of Scotland spoke very clearly. They delivered to the House 62 Opposition Members and only 10 Conservative Members. That was a clear mandate from the people of Scotland that they do not wish for the Government's policies. To add insult to injury the Government are now denying us the right to scrutiny.

The arrogance that the Government have displayed, not only during this debate but throughout the continuing sad saga of attempts to establish the Select Committee, has created the strength of unity among the Opposition parties which will make life a great deal more difficult for the Government. I welcome that strength of unity of purpose on the Opposition Benches. We are not prepared to see the democratic political aspirations of the people of Scotland pushed around any longer. We are demanding our rights as an Opposition to ensure that there is a Select Committee. It will be a serious misjudgment on the part of the Government if they think that they can get away with it. The people of Scotland will speak again. If the Government have had difficulty with five Back Benchers, they should think of the difficulties that they will have with none.

9.17 pm

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), the leader of the Scottish National party, will forgive me if I do not immediately follow the points that she has raised. We have been debating this matter in the Chamber and through the usual channels for more than a year now. It represents, first, a serious failure on the part of the Government to secure support for their policies in Scotland in the general election and thus being unable to return sufficient Members to the House of Commons properly to discharge the Government's duties in the House, and, secondly, it represents a failure on the part of the usual channels, in which the Leader of the House is a very important figure, to secure adherence to the Standing Orders of the House. That is a very serious matter to which I will return later.

Those of us who have served on Select Committees have greatly benefited from that experience. I have no doubt that serving on a Select Committee gives a focus to the work of Back Benchers and gives purpose to membership of the House that is not easily replaced. It is regrettable that Scottish Back Benchers have lost that opportunity. When I came to the House in 1979 my only opportunity as a Back Bencher to learn about the workings of government was through serving on a Select Committee.

The Scottish Select Committee has been a success. I heard the Minister of State talking on Radio 4 this morning and shedding crocodile tears because there would not be a Select Committee on Scottish affairs, saying what a wonderful job it had done and that it had been indirectly responsible for setting up Locate in Scotland. He rightly said that it was indirectly responsible, and I was pleased to serve on that Select Committee. Now that he is a Minister he does not want himself or the workings of the Department scrutinised. If he did, he would have persuaded Government Back Benchers to serve on the Committee.

A few Back Benchers have held the Government to ransom and ensured that no Select Committee has been set up. The rump of three out of the rump of 10 are telling the Government what will happen with regard to the functions of the House. We heard the usual speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), recounting his past glories and claiming some for the present Session, which I found intriguing. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a disgraceful speech. The hon. Gentleman used to be a distinguished figure in Scottish industry —that is what is said in the manifesto—and was a Minister, but he has become the youngest pensioner and has been sent to the Council of Europe, which is a sort of Saga tours for the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I play an important role in the Council of Europe by looking after the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie); we cannot rely on the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to do so.

Mr. Hogg

No one could be responsible for my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie).

I cannot be unkind about the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because he is the last of the decent Tories. He could enhance his reputation by voting with us tonight.

The Leader of the House gave undertakings, which can be checked in Hansard, about everything that will be done to set up the Committee. In a debate on 27 October 1987, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that she foresaw the establishment of a Committee. In that regard, the Leader of the House said: I look forward to hearing their more detailed proposals for constructive guidance to the Committee of Selection, and I hope that we may soon see the Select Committee established. I share their regret that it has not been possible to appoint it."—[Official Report, 13 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 400.] Since that time, flexible proposals have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The Leader of the House cannot be pleased that his reputation has suffered because of the pig-headed obstinacy displayed by Tory Back Benchers. We understand that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) have experienced difficulty in serving on Select Committees because they have both been unwell, but there is no excuse for the other three hon. Gentlemen, and it is unacceptable that they should refuse to serve. All that we have heard from them tonight has been so much cant. They have been dishonest with the House and have not said that they do not want to serve on the Committee. This will further erode respect for the Tory party in Scotland, which will be fortunate to have a single hon. Member returned at the next election. I am not as concerned about that as I am about the loss of respect for Parliament and its institutions. Those who are refusing to serve should think before they continue their action.

I hope that the Leader of the House and the usual channels listened carefully to the major contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). What he said was important, and I hope that the Government are big enough to take it on board.

9.24 pm

Sir Marcus Fox (Shipley)

In spite of the increasing popularity of English hon. Members among Opposition Members, I intervene only as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Nothing has changed since the debate that I introduced on 13 January. Obviously, it is not necessary for me to go over the same ground. I am glad that my Committee has not been criticised during this debate. Hon. Members understand that the established conventions are maintained unless instructed by the House to do otherwise.

After listening to every word in the debate and considering what has taken place, I have noticed a shift in ground. The idea that one or two English Members may be acceptable was a runner, but, somehow, the idea that all five Conservative Members should be drawn from England was not acceptable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For a start, there were no volunteers. [Interruption.] I shall let hon. Members into a secret. We use conscription for Committees that consider Bills. In my time, there has never been conscription or press-ganging for Select Committees. That would be a retrograde step.

All my Committee's efforts have failed. The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who sit on the Committee and., I am quite sure, shadow my activities, will confirm that. In November 1977, we set up 14 out of 15 Committees. We would have loved to have set up all 15. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not to be set up because it would be inconvenient. That is surprising. Most, if not all, Select Committees are inconvenient to Government. That is what they are there for.

Mr. Salmond

Why did the Committee of Selection follow the unwritten conventions of the House in relation to the balance of the Select Committee? It paid no attention to Standing Order No. 130. There were at least 50 Opposition volunteers who would have happily sat on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Sir Marcus Fox

The hon. Gentleman might direct his attention to other Standing Orders. Our most important remit is that the Government shall have a majority on all Committees. That is paramount. [Interruption.] We do not want to introduce an element of fear. We have debated that point before. We are a unitary Parliament, and there is no instruction on my Committee to take account of the fact that there are far more Opposition Members for membership of the Select Committee.

Mr. Salmond

Why?

Sir Marcus Fox

I will discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman on some other occasion.

Any fair-minded person would accept that the Leader of the House gave a fair report of what took place. It is certainly my intention to vote for the motion.

9.28 pm

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Profound democratic and constitutional issues are before us. More important is the issue of our failure to produce what all hon. Members seem to desire. That will be a mystery to the people not only of Scotland but of the United Kingdom. Not one hon. Member has said that we should not set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Every hon. Member whom I have heard tonight has suggested that such a Committee is profoundly to be desired. We have a Government with one of the largest majorities in modern times. The Leader of the House, not in his role as a Government Minister but as a guardian of the House., said, "I have failed." The right hon. Gentleman should take that as a personal failure.

I shall not go into the history of Select Committees, but we invented Select Committees in the 14th century. The Select Committees of the 20th century are not of the same calibre, nor is the power of Government. I must disagree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). In Scotland we have an elected dictator, not a governor-general.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

He is not elected.

Mr. Douglas

He is elected by the people of Edinburgh, Pentlands.

Mr. Harry Ewing

rose—

Mr. Douglas

Forgive me, but I wish to be brief. We have an elected dictator and the power of the Scottish Office is not diminishing, but increasing. The arrogance of the Scottish Office is increasing because it is not constrained.

Select Committees have few powers. The House gives them powers to call for persons, papers and records. Their sole purpose is to report to the House on the workings of the Government. Is this great Government with their massive majority going to suggest in 1988 going on 1989 that all the other Departments of state can be investigated except the Scottish Office?

Mr. Bill Walker

What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Douglas

The people of Northern Ireland are capable of speaking for themselves. We are dealing with Scotland. We have a unitary Parliament, but it has designed devolution. We have devolution of administration and of the executive, and we have historic devolution of legal powers. Are the Government suggesting that every Department but the one which the House and the Government have decided is to be devolved can be investigated?

This is an issue, not for Scotland, but for this House and democracy. That is why the Leader of the House is making a farce of himself by not replying to the debate. This is not a job for a ministerial lackey. It is a job for the Leader of the House. If he does not reply to the debate, he is not doing his job. If the Minister replies, it will be tantamount to Casanova preaching chastity. It is said that the Scottish Office is not to be investigated. He will say that we should not have this organ of investigation.

Although we have spoken about Scottish affairs, this Parliament had better take note that if the Government can display such arrogance towards Scotland, next they will display the same arrogance towards the rest of the United Kingdom.

9.33 pm

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Despite the giggling bravado from Conservative Members, all hon. Members know that this is an auspicious occasion and that after tonight nothing will ever be the same again.

In view of the hour, I have thrown my notes aside. I want to give one quotation from perhaps the greatest of all Scots, Hugh MacDiarmid. I was searching earlier in the Library for a new descriptive way of talking about a cynical, arrogant, complacent, comprador which is the Scottish Conservative party, the best of which sits on the Front Bench and the worst of which we have heard from so verbosely tonight. I found that description in a wonderful poem of Hugh MacDiarmid called "Hosting of Heroes." He discusses the great heroes of Scottish history and then says:

• "What have we to-day?
• Dingy parades of vermin!
• Details of the English army
• In clothes the colour of excrement,
• Or processions like that in Edinburgh
• In honour of Sir Walter Scott's centenary,
• A funeral trickle of Bailies and Lawyers,
• Members of the Leith Water Board, …
• God! What a crawl of cockroaches!"

Hugh MacDiarmid said it—no one could say it better.

9.35 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I start by declaring something of an interest, because I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for some two years. I have no doubt about its worth as an institution and as a means of scrutinising the activities of Government. I genuinely do not recognise the jaundiced account that we have heard of its activities from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. Gentlemen.

I can remember, for example, a lengthy and contentious inquiry into the attraction of inward investment to Scotland, and the inquiry into the provision of Civil Service jobs. On a perhaps lesser level politically, but I believe of great importance, was the pressure that the Committee was able to mount in a quick hearing on the future of the BBC Scottish symphony orchestra. It is genuinely sad that we do not have a Select Committee operating as it should in Scotland.

I have listened with great care to the Government's case. Ministers have presented themselves —or some of them have—as men of reason, but they are in an unfortunate situation despite their best efforts. When I shared a radio studio with the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) this morning, he made it clear that it was everyone's fault but the Government's. I find that a completely unconvincing posture—it just will not do.

It is not a technical matter or one of interest only to the barrack room lawyers that always abound in the House. It is a matter of fundamental importance for the machinery of government and how we scrutinise our legislation. The Executive should be challenged and tested, and, if we cannot do that effectively, we shall be all the poorer for it. I feel strongly that there is presently no Government Department where that is more important than in the Scottish Office. It is not partisan to say that there is probably no Department of state that has a thinner claim to widespread popular support or approval, or whose policies are seen on a wider scale and range of opinion as being insensitive and inappropriate. We really should take seriously our duties to the people of Scotland, to the electorate and to the business of the House.

The Minister of State said this morning that it was not the responsibility of the Government. Of course, I understand his theoretical point about how the system works. However, we all know that it has everything to do with the Government and the usual channels, and how we operate in the House. I take it ill to hear the accusation made that the reason why we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is the inflexibility of myself or my hon. Friends or our general attitude. It is a thoroughly unpleasant charge, and the dreary version of the facts that has been rehearsed ad longum in a number of speeches does not bear even an approximate relationship to the facts, as I remember them.

Of course, I do not hide the fact that we would have preferred a Select Committee that was set up on the basis of the involvement of the Scottish Tory Back Benchers. I believe that the House would have been astonished if that had not been our preference. However, at an early stage, without being indiscreet or revealing what I should not about the usual channels, it became clear that there was a problem with Scottish Tory Back Benchers. Therefore, we made it clear that we would be prepared to consider a topping-up operation with hon. Members who represented English seats, but who had a genuine interest in Scottish affairs, or who were prepared to cultivate that interest. I can honestly say that the only time I, at least consciously, stood in the way of a proposed deal or was in any sense difficult—I believe it was with complete justification—was when it was suggested to me that I should buy the involvement of the Tory Members on the Select Committee by doing a deal that would reduce the number of Tories serving on Standing Committees. Clearly, it was unacceptable. I do not believe that the Leader of the House would for a moment have expected me to accept that deal.

We have been left with the Minister's regrets. The one, simple reason why we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is that Conservative Members will not serve. That is not a matter of regret. It is a cause for concern and condemnation. Given the present state of Scottish politics, it amounts—I say this in cold blood—to a dereliction of duty.

Even if we accept that there were misunderstandings at some point—if there were, they must have come from confused reports about what was happening in the usual channels and about the Labour party's attitude—they have been removed in debates and public statements over a period. If the Minister of State is right in representing the Government's position if he did this morning and if the Leader of the House genuinely regrets that there is no Select Committee, there is now no impediment, except the reluctance and prejudice of Conservative Members to serve on that Committee.

If the Scottish Members will not serve, there is a case for saying that other Members should be prepared to come forward. I do not want to rehearse the argument about what has been happening at Scottish Question Time. I repeat a fundamental point that I made in an intervention. We do not argue that hon. Members have no right to table questions at Scottish Question Time; we say that that right should be used responsibly and not abused as it has been recently. If we are asked to believe that the enthusiasm is not whipped up and is genuine, why is it so difficult to get Members to come forward and sit on the Select Committee?

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was the only hon. Member to mention that we shall now have lengthy, contentious Standing Committees looking at opting-out powers for Scottish schools and other such matters and they will have on them probably five added English Back Benchers to preserve the Government's majority. It may be that I am overcynical in thinking that they have been "persuaded"—I use that as a technical term used by the Whips —to serve. Perhaps they are genuine volunteers. On whichever basis, it suggests that if there were a will among Conservative Members, even among Ministers, we could have a Scottish Select Committee. Opposition Members—I think that I speak for all parties— believe that that should happen.

The trouble is that the Government have connived and there are serious implications for the whole Select Committee system. An inconvenient Committee has been shuffled into limbo and —I say this in the presence of the much respected Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—it is a dangerous precedent which is not in the interests of the House. It is a sad history that sums up all that is wrong with the present Government and the way in which they use the parliamentary process. It has become a niggling formality, discharged in a perfunctory fashion. Political debate is all too often reduced to a flat statement of intent which allows no compromise. The situation is made all the worse when the machinery to challenge the Executive's power is virtually scrapped. That clearly was not the intention of the House when Standing Order No. 130 was approved and included the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I say advisedly that there are points of principle at stake. The Opposition are deeply unhappy about the way in which the Government have conducted this business.

There have been robust exchanges in the debate—sometimes good-natured, sometimes not so good-natured. I may say many things about the hon. Member for Eastwood—that he is unhelpful, unrepresentative and inadequate—but I would not want to call him a quisling or a traitor. However robust the exchanges, they should not deceive anyone about the depth of feelings on these issues.

I am astonished that, given the heat of the argument and the central position that the matter holds in Scottish political debate, the Secretary of State should have chosen not to take part in the debate. It is a major error of judgment on his part.

I recognise that Ministers will have the votes in the Lobby. That is the harsh reality which we have had to live with for some considerable time. But we want to mark our dismay and disgust about what has been happening. We shall do it by voting in the Lobbies, but that is not enough. We shall pursue the matter in the months ahead.

There was an interesting exchange with you, Mr. Speaker, during points of order earlier in which you seemed to confirm my impression that the Government motion contains no instruction to the Committee of Selection to cease its efforts to set up a Select Committee which still clearly exists under the Standing Orders of the House. I want to make it clear that we shall fight for the cause and continue to press for the establishment of that Committee using the fact that it still exists in a state of suspended animation, but ought properly be brought to life.

The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) was constructive and helpful. There are undoubtedly pressing matters of debate and interest in Scotland where the intense questioning and information—gathering methods of the Select Committee would be particularly valuable and we do not intend to lose sight of that.

I said that we should mark our disapproval in some way tonight. It will probably not come as a great surprise to hon. Members that I have no wish to embarrass or disrupt the House. That would be largely counter-productive and too easily misrepresented. I have no inclination to challenge in any way the authority of the Chair. You, Mr. Speaker, represent the House, and the House is the victim of the way in which the Select Committee system is being treated by the Government.

What I shall do is to ask Scottish colleagues, and Scottish colleagues alone, not to listen to the self-justification and special pleading to come. We do not believe that we can let the matter pass without expressing our dismay at the Government's course of action—their shabby and deplorable determination to undermine the proper scrutiny of Scottish business. I shall not sit and listen to any litany of excuses and I shall invite my colleagues, irrespective of their party, to go with me now from this place and not listen.

9.47 pm

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang)

We are witnessing another own goal, just as this evening's debate has been an own goal, which not even the long reach of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) could have saved. The whole issue has been one more own goal in the lengthening history of such mishaps that we have seen befall the Opposition since June 1987.

It is plain from the facts revealed by my hon. Friends that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could have been set up had Opposition Members been more reasonable in the earlier stages of negotiations. The hon. Member for Garscadden, alas no longer with us, spoke of misunderstandings, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, the Opposition's intractable attitudes were all too clear in the matters that he described.

This is a short but important debate. I should have thought that it would have been a relief to Opposition Members that at last they had a subject on which all in the Scottish Labour party could have agreed, because there is little that unites them these days. But even that fragile unity would probably have been undermined when I said that I share their regret that we have not succeeded in setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I share their wish that it had been possible to set up such a Committee, but, as my hon. Friends' speeches have revealed, the fault for that does not lie on one side of the House alone.

It is important to emphasise—I am glad to confirm this to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood—that the manning of Select Committees is a matter for the House, not for the Government. That is fundamental to this issue. The Opposition's amendment is factually inaccurate on that point.

As a Minister at the Scottish Office, and on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends who are also Ministers there, I emphasise that it is pity that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has not been set up. We would have welcomed it as one more form of scrutiny of Scottish affairs. I believe that we have a good story to tell in Scotland, with our policies on housing, education, industry, local government and, indeed, inward investment.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—alas, also no longer with us to hear the answer to his questions—talked of dictatorship, and in the next breath urged the Government to use their majority to force through the kind of decision that would suit him. I emphasise to him and to other Opposition Members, who I hope will at least read the report of our debate in Hansard tomorrow, that it was the present Government who established the set of 12 departmental Select Committees—precisely because we think it right that Back Benchers should have an opportunity to carry out a check on the activities of the Executive. It was this Government who brought forward the proposals to which the House gave its approval.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on what by general agreement was an excellent speech. It was well rehearsed and well argued, and it scored one bullseye after another. Let me say candidly that I disagree with my hon. Friend's attitude to the Select Committee proposals, as I have told him in the past. But it is a travesty to suggest that his attitude to that calls into question his sense of duty to Scotland. His record of dedicated and consistent work—in Committee, in the Chamber and elsewhere —is beyond question. Whether on behalf of his constituents' interests or those of Scotland—or, indeed, such important United Kingdom interests as defence, on which he is an active participant—his application has been exemplary, and his commitment and breadth of experience have been of value to the House. Nevertheless, I think that it would have been better to add the Select Committee work to his other commitments, and to try to steer it in what could have been productive and useful directions.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the humbug on the Opposition Benches. I offer him another example. Much has been said today about the importance of scrutiny of the Executive, in the Scottish Office particularly, for which a Select Committee would be appropriate. But, if a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is so important now, why was no such Committee set up between 1974 and 1979 when Labour was in office? We had individual Select Committees in the years of the Conservative Government in the 1970s, but no Select Committee scrutiny was thought necessary by the Labour party during the havoc that they were wreaking on the country during their five years of government.

Mr. Dobson

Does the Minister also recognise that there were no other departmental Committees at that time? The proposal for such Committees came from an all-party Select Committee on procedure and was duly endorsed by the House on an all-party—not a Government—basis in 1979. All that the Minister is saying about what happened before 1979 is irrelevant to the argument that he is trying to put forward.

Mr. Lang

The hon. Gentleman underlines my point. By illustrating that there were no Select Committees in 1974–79, he compounds the felony. The fact remains that the last Labour Government did not set up Select Committees to study Departments, but as soon as the Conservative Government came into office we undertook, and fulfilled, the commitment to set up 12 departmental Select Committees, including one to scrutinise Scottish affairs.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

My hon. Friend has missed one step in the argument. The Labour Government refused to allow the Select Committee report to be debated. It was not debated until the Government changed. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who subsequently became Leader of the Labour party, as Leader of the House would not allow the report to be debated because he did not wish the House to have the opportunity to vote to set up a Select Committee.

Mr. Lang

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose authoritative knowledge of such matters is beyond question. It reminds me of the occasion when the Labour Government presented the Boundary Commission report to the House and then used their own majority to vote it down. We know the Labour party's attitude to constitutional matters.

I was surprised that the Scottish National party chose to participate in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North pointed out, it was a supreme example of humbug in 1979, refusing as it did to take part in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made no attempt to answer that point in her intervention. The Scottish National party has come to this Parliament to destroy Scotland's place in it, so it has no locus in a debate on extending Scottish involvement in its processes.

I can understand the anxieties that my hon. Friends must have felt about the intentions of Opposition Members towards the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. For a Select Committee to be effective it should seek to be non-partisan in its approach, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so rightly pointed out in his sensible speech. It is a pity that he is not here to hear me compliment him on it. A Select Committee should be a forum for exploring matters in depth and for seeking to inform debate elsewhere, as the Scottish Committee did well in the early years of its existence, when it examined important issues such as inward investment and Civil Service job dispersal. It should not be one more platform for adversarial politics, which it rapidly became.

The Opposition amendment displays a complete failure to grasp this important point. It speaks of the importance of a Select Committee because of the damaging and unpopular policies being followed by Scottish Office Ministers". That is not what Select Committees are all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood rightly said that a Select Committee would have been set up had the attitude of Opposition Members been more like what it was in the early 1979–83 Parliament and not what we have witnessed during the past few weeks. The Opposition amendment shows the increasingly high-handed and intolerant attitudes of Scottish Labour Members since the general election last year. In the past 18 months they have shown themselves to be at best impatient with, and at worst intolerant of, all due parliamentary processes.

We have seen Front Bench spokesmen filibustering on the money resolution on the Transport Bill; the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) invading and disrupting a Standing Committee on the Housing Bill in the last Parliament; and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) damaging the Mace, the symbol of the authority of the Crown in Parliament. We have seen Opposition Members suspended for abusing the procedures of the House; we have seen them seeking to restrict freedom of speech for other hon. Members participating in Scottish business. Only last night, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) caused business to be suspended—not for the first time. That is what the Opposition have done in the past 18 months and that is the measure of their respect for parliamentary procedures.

It is no wonder that my hon. Friends have increasingly taken the view that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would be a pointless exercise—

Mr. Dobson

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about upholding the Standing Orders of the House, why is he a member of a Government who have failed to carry them out ever since the last election, by not setting up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee as required under the Standing Orders?

Mr. Lang

The hon. Gentleman was here when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave the answer to precisely that point at the beginning of this debate.

Now Opposition Members talk increasingly about new devices and machinations, about conventions and shadow Select Committees in which, presumably, they will discuss the weather in Iceland or environmental conditions in the Himalayas. Because they cannot win the political arguments they have started to blame the political machinery. If their case about the Committee was to carry conviction they should have shown greater sensitivity to the procedures of the House and greater commitment to the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not as if there is any lack of procedures for scrutinising the Scottish Office. There is the Public Accounts Committee and there are the activities of the other Select Committees—

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lang

No, because I am short of time.

There are other Select Committees to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State have given evidence. All those opportunities exist, and there are the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee, with matter day debates and estimates debates. There are, therefore, opportunities for Scottish affairs to be scrutinised.

Despite what Opposition Members have said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Committee of Selection have done their utmost to achieve a solution to the problem. No one could have done more to negotiate a solution on the setting up of the Scottish Affairs Committee. It is plain—and tonight's debate confirms it—that a solution is not available. We in the Scottish Office would have welcomed the setting up of such a Committee. Although there is no shortage of other forms of scrutiny, the opportunity for close and detailed examination of specific aspects of activity would have been welcome. It is a matter not for the Government but for the House. The motion recognises that the House has not succeeded in finding a way through. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: condemns in the strongest possible terms the failure of the Government to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the irresponsible approach of Conservative Right honourable and honourable Members who have abdicated all responsibility for a Committee which is of particular importance to Scotland because of the damaging and unpopular policies being followed by the Scottish Office Ministers; and instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate sufficient members to allow the House to establish the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs under Standing Order No. 130.".—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 285.

Division No. 22]	[10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cryer, Bob
Allen, Graham	Cummings, John
Alton, David	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Anderson, Donald	Cunningham, Dr John
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dalyell, Tam
Armstrong, Hilary	Darling, Alistair
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Dewar, Donald
Barron, Kevin	Dixon, Don
Battle, John	Dobson, Frank
Beckett, Margaret	Doran, Frank
Bell, Stuart	Douglas, Dick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Duffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Bermingham, Gerald	Eadie, Alexander
Bidwell, Sydney	Eastham, Ken
Blair, Tony	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Blunkett, David	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Boateng, Paul	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Boyes, Roland	Fatchett, Derek
Bradley, Keith	Fearn, Ronald
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Fisher, Mark
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Flynn, Paul
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Buchan, Norman	Foster, Derek
Buckley, George J.	Foulkes, George
Caborn, Richard	Fraser, John
Callaghan, Jim	Fyfe, Maria
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Galbraith, Sam
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Galloway, George
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Canavan, Dennis	Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	George, Bruce
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Clay, Bob	Gordon, Mildred
Clelland, David	Gould, Bryan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Graham, Thomas
Cohen, Harry	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Coleman, Donald	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Grocott, Bruce
Corbett, Robin	Hardy, Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy	Haynes, Frank
Cousins, Jim	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Cox, Tom	Heller, Eric S.
Crowther, Stan	Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David	O'Brien, William
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	O'Neill, Martin
Holland, Stuart	Patchett, Terry
Home Robertson, John	Pendry, Tom
Hood, Jimmy	Pike, Peter L.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Prescott, John
Howells, Geraint	Primarolo, Dawn
Hoyle, Doug	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Radice, Giles
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Randall, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Reid, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Richardson, Jo
Illsley, Eric	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Ingram, Adam	Robertson, George
Janner, Greville	Robinson, Geoffrey
Johnston, Sir Russell	Rogers, Allan
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Rooker, Jeff
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Rowlands, Ted
Kennedy, Charles	Ruddock, Joan
Kilfedder, James	Salmond, Alex
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Sedgemore, Brian
Kirkwood, Archy	Sheerman, Barry
Lambie, David	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lamond, James	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Leadbitter, Ted	Short, Clare
Leighton, Ron	Sillars, Jim
Lewis, Terry	Skinner, Dennis
Litherland, Robert	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Livsey, Richard	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Snape, Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Soley, Clive
Loyden, Eddie	Spearing, Nigel
McAllion, John	Steel, Rt Hon David
McAvoy, Thomas	Steinberg, Gerry
Macdonald, Calum A.	Stott, Roger
McFall, John	Strang, Gavin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Straw, Jack
McKelvey, William	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McLeish, Henry	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McTaggart, Bob	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
McWilliam, John	Turner, Dennis
Madden, Max	Vaz, Keith
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Wall, Pat
Marek, Dr John	Wallace, James
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Walley, Joan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Wareing, Robert N.
Martlew, Eric	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Maxton, John	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Meacher, Michael	Wigley, Dafydd
Meale, Alan	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Michael, Alun	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Wilson, Brian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Winnick, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morgan, Rhodri	Worthington, Tony
Morley, Elliott	Wray, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mowlam, Marjorie	Tellers for the Ayes:
Mullin, Chris	Mr. Allen Adams and
Murphy, Paul	Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.
Nellist, Dave

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Alexander, Richard	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Baldry, Tony
Amess, David	Batiste, Spencer
Amos, Alan	Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Arbuthnot, James	Bellingham, Henry
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bendall, Vivian
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Ashby, David	Bevan, David Gilroy
Aspinwall, Jack	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Atkins, Robert	Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Atkinson, David	Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gow, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gower, Sir Raymond
Boswell, Tim	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bottomley, Peter	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Gregory, Conal
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bowis, John	Grist, Ian
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Ground, Patrick
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Grylls, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brazier, Julian	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Bright, Graham	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Britten, Rt Hon Leon	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hannam, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hawkins, Christopher
Buck, Sir Antony	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Budgen, Nicholas	Heddle, John
Burns, Simon	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butcher, John	Hind, Kenneth
Butler, Chris	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Butterfill, John	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Carrington, Matthew	Hunter, Andrew
Carttiss, Michael	Irvine, Michael
Cash, William	Irving, Charles
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Jessel, Toby
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Jones, Robert B (Harts W)
Chapman, Sydney	Kirkhope, Timothy
Chope, Christopher	Knapman, Roger
Churchill, Mr	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Knowles, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Knox, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Lang, Ian
Colvin, Michael	Latham, Michael
Conway, Derek	Lawrence, Ivan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Lee, John (Pendle)
Cope, Rt Hon John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Cormack, Patrick	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Couchman, James	Lightbown, David
Cran, James	Lilley, Peter
Curry, David	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lord, Michael
Day, Stephen	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Devlin, Tim	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Dicks, Terry	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Dorrell, Stephen	Maclean, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	McLoughlin, Patrick
Dover, Den	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Dunn, Bob	Madel, David
Durant, Tony	Major, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim	Malins, Humfrey
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Mans, Keith
Evennett, David	Maples, John
Fallon, Michael	Marland, Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Forman, Nigel	Maude, Hon Francis
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Forth, Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Fox, Sir Marcus	Mellor, David
Franks, Cecil	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Freeman, Roger	Miller, Sir Hal
French, Douglas	Mills, Iain
Fry, Peter	Miscampbell, Norman
Gale, Roger	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gardiner, George	Mitchell, Sir David
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moate, Roger
Gill, Christopher	Monro, Sir Hector
Glyn, Dr Alan	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Moore, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Moss, Malcolm	Squire, Robin
Neale, Gerrard	Stanbrook, Ivor
Needham, Richard	Steen, Anthony
Nelson, Anthony	Stern, Michael
Neubert, Michael	Stevens, Lewis
Nicholls, Patrick	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Stokes, Sir John
Norris, S.	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Sumberg, David
Oppenheim, Phillip	Summerson, Hugo
Page, Richard	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Paice, James	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Patnick, Irvine	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Portillo, Michael	Thorne, Neil
Powell, William (Corby)	Thornton, Malcolm
Price, Sir David	Thurnham, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Tracey, Richard
Rathbone, Tim	Tredinnick, David
Redwood, John	Trippier, David
Renton, Tim	Trotter, Neville
Rhodes James, Robert	Twinn, Dr Ian
Riddick, Graham	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Waldegrave, Hon William
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Walden, George
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Waller, Gary
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Ward, John
Rost, Peter	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Rowe, Andrew	Warren, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Watts, John
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wells, Bowen
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Wheeler, John
Sayeed, Jonathan	Whitney, Ray
Shaw, David (Dover)	Widdecombe, Ann
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wiggin, Jerry
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Wilshire, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wolfson, Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Wood, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Woodcock, Mike
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Yeo, Tim
Shersby, Michael	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sims, Roger	Younger, Rt Hon George
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Tellers for the Noes:
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Speller, Tony	Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [16 December], to put forthwith the Question on other amendments selected by him which were then moved.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: expresses its belief in the need for a Scottish Affairs Committee with powers to call for persons, papers and records to ensure effective scrutiny of the Scottish Office and Scottish public affairs; notes with total dismay the lack of sufficient Conservative honourable Members willing to accept nomination to a Scottish Select Committee constituted in accordance with the conventional ratio of honourable Members supporting the Government to honourable Members on the Opposition benches; and accordingly instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate honourable Members of the Committee in the following proportion: five Labour, three Conservatives, two Social and Liberal Democrats and one Scottish National Party.".—[Mr. Livsey.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 286.

Division No. 23]	[10.13 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Flannery, Martin
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Flynn, Paul
Allen, Graham	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Alton, David	Foster, Derek
Anderson, Donald	Foulkes, George
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fraser, John
Armstrong, Hilary	Fyfe, Maria
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Galbraith, Sam
Ashton, Joe	Galloway, George
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	George, Bruce
Barron, Kevin	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Battle, John	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Beckett, Margaret	Gordon, Mildred
Bell, Stuart	Gould, Bryan
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Graham, Thomas
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Bermingham, Gerald	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bidwell, Sydney	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Blair, Tony	Grocott, Bruce
Blunkett, David	Hardy, Peter
Boateng, Paul	Haynes, Frank
Boyes, Roland	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bradley, Keith	Heffer, Eric S.
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Henderson, Doug
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hinchliffe, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Holland, Stuart
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Home Robertson, John
Buchan, Norman	Hood, Jimmy
Buckley, George J.	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Caborn, Richard	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Callaghan, Jim	Hoyle, Doug
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Canavan, Dennis	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Illsley, Eric
Clay, Bob	Ingram, Adam
Clelland, David	Janner, Greville
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Johnston, Sir Russell
Cohen, Harry	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Coleman, Donald	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Kennedy, Charles
Corbett, Robin	Kilfedder, James
Corbyn, Jeremy	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Cousins, Jim	Kirkwood, Archy
Cox, Tom	Lambie, David
Crowther, Stan	Lamond, James
Cryer, Bob	Leadbitter, Ted
Cummings, John	Leighton, Ron
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lewis, Terry
Cunningham, Dr John	Litherland, Robert
Dalyell, Tam	Livsey, Richard
Darling, Alistair	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Loyden, Eddie
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McAllion, John
Dewar, Donald	McAvoy, Thomas
Dixon, Don	Macdonald, Calum A.
Dobson, Frank	McFall, John
Doran, Frank	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Douglas, Dick	McKelvey, William
Duffy, A. E. P.	McLeish, Henry
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McTaggart, Bob
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	McWilliam, John
Eadie, Alexander	Madden, Max
Eastham, Ken	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Marek, Dr John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Fatchett, Derek	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Fearn, Ronald	Martlew, Eric
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Maxton, John
Fisher, Mark	Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Michael, Alun	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Short, Clare
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Sillars, Jim
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Skinner, Dennis
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morgan, Rhodri	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Morley, Elliott	Snape, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Spearing, Nigel
Mowlam, Marjorie	Steel, Rt Hon David
Mullin, Chris	Steinberg, Gerry
Murphy, Paul	Strang, Gavin
Nellist, Dave	Straw, Jack
O'Brien, William	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Neill, Martin	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Patchett, Terry	Turner, Dennis
Pendry, Tom	Vaz, Keith
Pike, Peter L.	Wall, Pat
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Wallace, James
Prescott, John	Walley, Joan
Primarolo, Dawn	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Wareing, Robert N.
Radice, Giles	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Randall, Stuart	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Wigley, Dafydd
Reid, Dr John	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Richardson, Jo	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wilson, Brian
Robertson, George	Winnick, David
Robinson, Geoffrey	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Rogers, Allan	Worthington, Tony
Rooker, Jeff	Wray, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Rowlands, Ted
Ruddock, Joan	Tellers for the Ayes:
Salmond, Alex	Mr. Alex Carlile and
Sedgemore, Brian	Mr. Geraint Howells.
Sheerman, Barry

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Alexander, Richard	Browne, John (Winchester)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Amess, David	Buck, Sir Antony
Amos, Alan	Budgen, Nicholas
Arbuthnot, James	Burns, Simon
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Burt, Alistair
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Butcher, John
Ashby, David	Butler, Chris
Aspinwall, Jack	Butterfill, John
Atkins, Robert	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Atkinson, David	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Carrington, Matthew
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Carttiss, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Cash, William
Batiste, Spencer	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bellingham, Henry	Chapman, Sydney
Bendall, Vivian	Chope, Christopher
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Churchill, Mr
Bevan, David Gilroy	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Body, Sir Richard	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Colvin, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Conway, Derek
Boswell, Tim	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bottomley, Peter	Cope, Rt Hon John
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Cormack, Patrick
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Couchman, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Cran, James
Bowis, John	Curry, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Day, Stephen
Brazier, Julian	Devlin, Tim
Bright, Graham	Dickens, Geoffrey
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Dicks, Terry
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Maclean, David
Dover, Den	McLoughlin, Patrick
Dunn, Bob	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Durant, Tony	Madel, David
Dykes, Hugh	Major, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim	Malins, Humfrey
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Mans, Keith
Evennett, David	Maples, John
Favell, Tony	Marland, Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Marshall, David (Portsmouth S)
Forman, Nigel	Maude, Hon Francis
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Forth, Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Fox, Sir Marcus	Mellor, David
Franks, Cecil	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Freeman, Roger	Miller, Sir Hal
French, Douglas	Mills, Iain
Fry, Peter	Miscampbell, Norman
Gale, Roger	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gardiner, George	Mitchell, Sir David
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moate, Roger
Gill, Christopher	Monro, Sir Hector
Glyn, Dr Alan	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Moore, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Gow, Ian	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Moss, Malcolm
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Neale, Gerrard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Needham, Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Nelson, Anthony
Gregory, Conal	Neubert, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Nicholls, Patrick
Grist, Ian	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ground, Patrick	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Grylls, Michael	Norris, S.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Oppenheim, Philip
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Page, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith	Paice, James
Hannam, John	Patnick, Irvine
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Harris, David	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hawkins, Christopher	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Portillo, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Powell, William (Corby)
Heddle, John	Price, Sir David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Rathbone, Tim
Hind, Kenneth	Redwood, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Renton, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Rhodes James, Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Riddick, Graham
Hunter, Andrew	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Irvine, Michael	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Irving, Charles	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Jessel, Toby	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Knapman, Roger	Rost, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Rowe, Andrew
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knowles, Michael	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Knox, David	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lang, Ian	Shaw, David (Dover)
Latham, Michael	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lee, John (Pendle)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Shephard, Colin (Hereford)
Lightbown, David	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lilley, Peter	Shersby, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sims, Roger
Lord, Michael	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Speller, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor	Waldegrave, Hon William
Steen, Anthony	Walden, George
Stern, Michael	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Stevens, Lewis	Waller, Gary
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Ward, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stokes, Sir John	Warren, Kenneth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Watts, John
Sumberg, David	Wells, Bowen
Summerson, Hugo	Wheeler, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Whitney, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Widdecombe, Ann
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wiggin, Jerry
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wilshire, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Wolfson, Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Wood, Timothy
Thorne, Neil	Woodcock, Mike
Thornton, Malcolm	Yeo, Tim
Thurnham, Peter	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tracey, Richard	Younger, Rt Hon George
Tredinnick, David
Trippier, David	Tellers for the Noes:
Trotter, Neville	Mr. Tom Sackville and
Twinn, Dr Ian	Mr.Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment Proposed, to leave out from "recognises" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'that Standing Order No. 130 names the Scottish Office as a principal government department which falls to be examined by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and states that the committee shall be appointed; notes that the wording of Standing Order No. 130 is mandatory notes that the Committee of Selection has failed to fully implement the Standing Order; notes that the reasons for including the Scottish Office within the scope of Standing Order No.130 remain valid; notes that no other select committee or any other available body such as the Scottish Grand Committee provides the investigative weight of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs; notes that 67 Members for Scottish constituents are available to serve; and calls upon the Committee of Selection to implement the Standing Order forthwith.'.—[Mr. Wigley]

Question Put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 281

Division No. 24]	[10.27 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Buckley, George J.
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Caborn, Richard
Allen, Graham	Callaghan, Jim
Alton, David	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Anderson, Donald	Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Armstrong, Hilary	Canavan, Dennis
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ashton, Joe	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Clay, Bob
Battle, John	Clelland, David
Beckett, Margaret	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bell, Stuart	Cohen, Harry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Coleman, Donald
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bermingham, Gerald	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Bidwell, Sydney	Corbyn, Jeremy
Blair, Tony	Cousins, Jim
Blunkett, David	Cox, Tom
Boateng, Paul	Crowther, Stan
Boyes, Roland	Cryer, Bob
Bradley, Keith	Cummings, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Cunningham, Dr John
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Dalyell, Tam
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Darling, Alistair
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Buchan, Norman	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McKelvey, William
Dewar, Donald	McLeish, Henry
Dixon, Don	McTaggart, Bob
Dobson, Frank	McWilliam, John
Doran, Frank	Madden, Max
Douglas, Dick	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Duffy, A. E. P.	Marek, Dr John
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Eadie, Alexander	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Eastham, Ken	Martlew, Eric
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Maxton, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Meacher, Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Meale, Alan
Fatchett, Derek	Michael, Alun
Fearn, Ronald	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Fisher, Mark	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Flannery, Martin	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Flynn, Paul	Morgan, Rhodri
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Morley, Elliott
Foster, Derek	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Foulkes, George	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Fraser, John	Mowlam, Marjorie
Fyfe, Maria	Mullin, Chris
Galbraith, Sam	Murphy, Paul
Galloway, George	Nellist, Dave
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	O'Brien, William
George, Bruce	O'Neill, Martin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Patchett, Terry
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Pendry, Tom
Gordon, Mildred	Pike, Peter L.
Gould, Bryan	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Graham, Thomas	Prescott, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Primarolo, Dawn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Randall, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hardy, Peter	Reid, Dr John
Haynes, Frank	Richardson, Jo
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Heffer, Eric S.	Robertson, George
Henderson, Doug	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hinchliffe, David	Rooker, Jeff
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Home Robertson, John	Rowlands, Ted
Hood, Jimmy	Ruddock, Joan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Salmond, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Sedgemore, Brian
Howells, Geraint	Sheerman, Barry
Hoyle, Doug	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Short, Clare
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Sillars, Jim
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Illsley, Eric	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Ingram, Adam	Snape, Peter
Janner, Greville	Soley, Clive
Johnston, Sir Russell	Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Steinberg, Gerry
Kennedy, Charles	Strang, Gavin
Kilfedder, James	Straw, Jack
Kirkwood, Archy	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lambie, David	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lamond, James	Turner, Dennis
Leadbitter, Ted	Vaz, Keith
Leighton, Ron	Wall, Pat
Lewis, Terry	Wallace, James
Litherland, Robert	Walley, Joan
Livsey, Richard	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Wareing, Robert N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Loyden, Eddie	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McAllion, John	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
McAvoy, Thomas	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Macdonald, Calum A.	Wilson, Brian
McFall, John	Winnick, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Wise, Mrs Audrey

Worthington, Tony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wray, Jimmy	Mr. Dafydd Wigley and
Young, David (Bolton SE)	Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Dickens, Geoffrey
Alexander, Richard	Dicks, Terry
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Dorrell, Stephen
Amess, David	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Amos, Alan	Dover, Den
Arbuthnot, James	Dunn, Bob
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Durant, Tony
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Dykes, Hugh
Ashby, David	Eggar, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Atkins, Robert	Evennett, David
Atkinson, David	Fallon, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Favell, Tony
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Baldry, Tony	Fishburn, John Dudley
Batiste, Spencer	Fookes, Miss Janet
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Forman, Nigel
Bellingham, Henry	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bendall, Vivian	Forth, Eric
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fox, Sir Marcus
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Franks, Cecil
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Freeman, Roger
Body, Sir Richard	French, Douglas
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fry, Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gale, Roger
Boswell, Tim	Gardiner, George
Bottomley, Peter	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gill, Christopher
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bowis, John	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Gow, Ian
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Gower, Sir Raymond
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Brazier, Julian	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bright, Graham	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Gregory, Conal
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Grist, Ian
Browne, John (Winchester)	Ground, Patrick
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Grylls, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Budgen, Nicholas	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Burns, Simon	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Burt, Alistair	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher, John	Hannam, John
Butler, Chris	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Butterfill, John	Harris, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hawkins, Christopher
Carrington, Matthew	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carttiss, Michael	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cash, William	Heddle, John
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hind, Kenneth
Chapman, Sydney	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Chope, Christopher	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Churchill, Mr	Hunter, Andrew
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Irvine, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Irving, Charles
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Kirkhope, Timothy
Colvin, Michael	Knapman, Roger
Conway, Derek	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Cope Rt Hon John	Knowles, Michael
Cormack, Patrick	Knox, David
Couchman, James	Lang, Ian
Cran, James	Latham, Michael
Curry, David	Lawrence, Ivan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Lee, John (Pendle)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Day, Stephen	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Devlin, Tim	Lightbown, David

Lilley, Peter	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lord, Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Shelton, William (Streatham)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Maclean, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Shersby, Michael
Madel, David	Sims, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Malins, Humfrey	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mans, Keith	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Maples, John	Speller, Tony
Marland, Paul	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Squire, Robin
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Maude, Hon Francis	Steen, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stern, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stevens, Lewis
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Miller, Sir Hal	Stokes, Sir John
Mills, Iain	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman	Sumberg, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Summerson, Hugo
Mitchell, Sir David	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Moate, Roger	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Monro, Sir Hector	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)	Thorne, Neil
Moss, Malcolm	Thornton, Malcolm
Neale, Gerrard	Thurnham, Peter
Nelson, Anthony	Tracey, Richard
Neubert, Michael	Tredinnick, David
Nicholls, Patrick	Trippier, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Trotter, Neville
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Norris, Steven	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Oppenheim, Phillip	Waldegrave, Hon William
Page, Richard	Walden, George
Paice, James	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Patnick, Irvine	Waller, Gary
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Ward, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Warren, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael	Watts, John
Powell, William (Corby)	Wells, Bowen
Price, Sir David	Wheeler, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Whitney, Ray
Rathbone, Tim	Widdecombe, Ann
Redwood, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Renton, Tim	Wilshire, David
Rhodes James, Robert	Wolfson, Mark
Riddick, Graham	Wood, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Woodcock, Mike
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Yeo, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Roe, Mrs Marion
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Tellers for the Noes:
Rost, Peter	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Rowe, Andrew	Mr. Tom Sackville
Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived

Main Question Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 224.

Division No. 25]	[10.41 pm
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan	Amess, David
Alexander, Richard	Amos, Alan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Fishburn, John Dudley
Ashby, David	Fookes, Miss Janet
Aspinwall, Jack	Forman, Nigel
Atkins, Robert	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Atkinson, David	Forth, Eric
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Baldry, Tony	Franks, Cecil
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Roger
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	French, Douglas
Bellingham, Henry	Fry, Peter
Bendall, Vivian	Gale, Roger
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Gardiner, George
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Gill, Christopher
Body, Sir Richard	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Boswell, Tim	Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Peter	Gower, Sir Raymond
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, John	Gregory, Conal
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Grist, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Ground, Patrick
Brazier, Julian	Grylls, Michael
Bright, Graham	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Browne, John (Winchester)	Hannam, John
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Buck, Sir Antony	Harris, David
Budgen, Nicholas	Hawkins, Christopher
Burns, Simon	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Burt, Alistair	Heddle, John
Butcher, John	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butler, Chris	Hind, Kenneth
Butterfill, John	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hunter, Andrew
Carrington, Matthew	Irvine, Michael
Carttiss, Michael	Irving, Charles
Cash, William	Jessel, Toby
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Kirkhope, Timothy
Chapman, Sydney	Knapman, Roger
Chope, Christopher	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Churchill, Mr	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Knowles, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Knox, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Lang, Ian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Latham, Michael
Colvin, Michael	Lawrence, Ivan
Conway, Derek	Lee, John (Pendle)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Cope, Rt Hon John	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Cormack, Patrick	Lightbown, David
Couchman, James	Lilley, Peter
Cran, James	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Curry, David	Lord, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Davis, David (Booth ferry)	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Devlin, Tim	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Maclean, David
Dicks, Terry	McLoughlin, Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Major, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den	Malins, Humfrey
Dunn, Bob	Mans, Keith
Durant, Tony	Maples, John
Dykes, Hugh	Marland, Paul
Eggar, Tim	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Evennett, David	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Favell, Tony	Maude, Hon Francis

Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Shersby, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Sims, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Miller, Sir Hal	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mills, Iain	Speller, Tony
Miscampbell, Norman	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mitchell, Sir David	Squire, Robin
Moate, Roger	Stanbrook, Ivor
Monro, Sir Hector	Steen, Anthony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Stern, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John	Stevens, Lewis
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Moss, Malcolm	Stokes, Sir John
Neale, Gerrard	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony	Sumberg, David
Neubert, Michael	Summerson, Hugo
Nicholls, Patrick	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Norris, Steven	Temple-Morris, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Oppeheim, Phillip	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Page, Richard	Thorne, Neil
Paice, James	Thornton, Malcolm
Patnick, Irvine	Thurnham, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Tracey, Richard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Tredinnick, David
Porter, David (Waveney)	Trippier, David
Portillo, Michael	Trotter, Neville
Powell, William (Corby)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Price, Sir David	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Rathbone, Tim	Waldegrave, Hon William
Redwood, John	Walden, George
Renton, Tim	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Rhodes James, Robert	Waller, Gary
Riddick, Graham	Ward, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Warren, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Watts, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Wells, Bowen
Roe, Mrs Marion	Wheeler, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Whitney, Ray
Rost, Peter	Widdecombe, Ann
Rowe, Andrew	Wiggin, Jerry
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Wilshire, David
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wolfson, Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Wood, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan	Woodcock, Mike
Shaw, David (Dover)	Yeo, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Younger, Rt Hon George
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Mr. David Heathcoat-Amery
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	and Mr. Michael Fallon.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Boateng, Paul
Allen, Graham	Boyes, Roland
Alton, David	Bradley, Keith
Anderson, Donald	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Armstrong, Hilary	Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ashton, Joe	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Buchan, Norman
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Buckley, George J.
Barron, Kevin	Caborn, Richard
Battle, John	Callaghan, Jim
Beckett, Margaret	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Bell, Stuart	Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Canavan, Dennis
Bermingham, Gerald	Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Blair, Tony	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Blunkett, David	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clay, Bob	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Clelland, David	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Kennedy, Charles
Cohen, Harry	Kilfedder, James
Coleman, Donald	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Kirkwood, Archy
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Lambie, David
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lamond, James
Cousins, Jim	Leadbitter, Ted
Cox, Tom	Leighton, Ron
Crowther, Stan	Lewis, Terry
Cryer, Bob	Litherland, Robert
Cummings, John	Livsey, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cunningham, Dr John	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dalyell, Tam	Loyden, Eddie
Darling, Alistair	McAllion, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McAvoy, Thomas
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Macdonald, Calum A.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McFall, John
Dewar, Donald	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Dixon, Don	McKelvey, William
Dobson, Frank	McLeish, Henry
Doran, Frank	McTaggart, Bob
Douglas, Dick	McWilliam, John
Duffy, A. E. P.	Madden, Max
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Eadie, Alexander	Marek, Dr John
Eastham, Ken	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Martlew, Eric
Fatchett, Derek	Maxton, John
Fearn, Ronald	Meacher, Michael
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Meale, Alan
Fisher, Mark	Michael, Alun
Flannery, Martin	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Flynn, Paul	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Foster, Derek	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Foulkes, George	Morgan, Rhodri
Fraser, John	Morley, Elliott
Fyfe, Maria	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Galbraith, Sam	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Galloway, George	Mowlam, Marjorie
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Mullin, Chris
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Murphy, Paul
George, Bruce	Nellist, Dave
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	O'Brien, William
Godman, Dr Norman A.	O'Neill, Martin
Gordon, Mildred	Patchett, Terry
Gould, Bryan	Pendry, Tom
Graham, Thomas	Pike, Peter L.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Primarolo, Dawn
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Grocott, Bruce	Randall, Stuart
Hardy, Peter	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Haynes, Frank	Reid, Dr John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Richardson, Jo
Heffer, Eric S.	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Henderson, Doug	Robertson, George
Hinchliffe, David	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Rogers, Allan
Holland, Stuart	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Home Robertson, John	Rowlands, Ted
Hood, Jimmy	Ruddock, Joan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Salmond, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Sedgemore, Brian
Howells, Geraint	Sheerman, Barry
Hoyle, Doug	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Short, Clare
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Sillars, Jim
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Smith Andrew (Oxford E)
Illsley, Eric	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Ingram, Adam	Snape, Peter
Janner, Greville	Soley, Clive
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Spearing, Nigel

Steel, Rt Hon David	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Steinberg, Gerry	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Stott, Roger	Wigley, Dafydd
Strang, Gavin	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Straw, Jack	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Wilson, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Winnick, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Turner, Dennis	Worthington, Tony
Vaz, Keith	Wray, Jimmy
Wall, Pat	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Wallace, James
Walley, Joan	Tellers for the Noes:
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)	Mr. Allen Adams and
Wareing, Robert N.	Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2); welcomes the continued scrutiny of the Scottish Office by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the extent to which other select committees have been and will continue to be able within their orders of reference to take evidence from the Scottish Office and associated public bodies on matters arising in Scotland, and to report thereon; and notes that other Parliamentary means exist for the consideration of Scottish affairs, including the Scottish Grand Committee, particularly in its consideration of Matters relating to Scotland and Estimates for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.

10.53 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that in tonight's debate the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to me. He did not give me notice that he intended to do so, but I have given him notice that I intend to raise this point of order. I understand that he used a phrase which went something like this: "Jocks running around like headless chickens," and attributed it to me. I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that, if I had referred to those events, I would have used much more colourful language. I ask him to accept that he has no evidence for attributing that phrase to me, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that I was mistaken, and I wish to withdraw my reference to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), with apologies.