Constitutional Convention (Hansard, 18 October 1989)

§ 1. Mr. Home Robertson
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government will now give further consideration to participating in the Scottish constitutional convention.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I see that a certain loyal junior Minister has been trying to use the constitutional debate as an alibi for the latest of the Government's economic failures in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scottish constitutional convention is expressing the positive aspirations of the people of Scotland in a way in which this minority Administration never can and never will? Can we have a bit less of the Secretary of State's ministerial whingeing and will he face up to the clear demand from the people of Scotland for home rule within the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The so-called constitutional convention is not having quite the major impact on Scottish opinion that the hon. Gentleman would like to believe. I understand that during the recent Scottish quiz "Super Scot", when the contestants were asked who were the two leaders of the convention, one participant responded that they were my hon. Friends the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). That suggests that the impact is not of the order that the hon. Gentleman would like.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Is not the structure of the Scottish constitutional convention such that there is no way in which it can arrive at anything other than the answers that were required by those setting it up? In other words, it was never an attempt to have open discussion on the future of government in Scotland, but was for one, narrow, particular and nationalist issue only.

§ Mr. Rifkind
My hon. Friend is correct. It is now evident that the so-called convention is not making an impact on Scottish opinion, and that is not surprising because it is essentially an organisation entirely dominated by the Labour party, with different hats—those of the parliamentary Labour party, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or 126 a number of other individuals whose Labour sympathies are well known. Therefore, it is not surprising that they should reach a measure of agreement.

§ Mrs. Ray Michie
We should pursue this point. Is it riot the case that the Secretary of State and now the deputy Prime Minister both believe that the Tory party and the Government should listen to what people are saying? Will the Secretary of State now listen to what the majority of the Scottish people say about their wish to look after their own affairs—a fundamental right which should not be denied to the Scottish nation by any so-called democratic Government?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I am surprised that the hon. Lady wishes to give the impression that she is a great enthusiast for the convention, because her party has made it clear that it will have no truck with the convention unless it agrees to proportional representation for a future Scottish assembly. The deputy leader of the Labour party described proportional representation, on only 5 October this year, as being a reduction, not an extension, of democracy. He said that proportional representation would provide unrepresentative, small centre parties with disproportionate power, which would give them the opportunity to play cuckoos in the nest of the Labour Government. I know that the hon. Lady might wish to present herself as a flowering contribution to parliamentary debate, but there is little prospect of the convention meeting her party's fundamental requirement in respect of this matter.

Mr. Andy Stewart
Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the suggestions made by Jim Ross, the secretary of the campaign for a Scottish assembly on the fact that it would levy all the taxes set by Westminster and pass the remainder over? What effect would this have on public expenditure in Scotland?

§ Mr. Rifkind
That was an extraordinary proposal because it implied that the assembly, despite all the protestations to the contrary, would have no tax-raising power of its own but would depend entirely on the block grant system. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will be well aware, even if some of his hon. Friends are not, that one could not fund the sort of expenditure that he and his hon. Friends have advocated as necessary in Scotland through such a system. Only by additional tax-raising powers could the assembly fund such expenditure. Therefore, these proposals would be crucially debilitating to Scottish health, education and housing and to the whole Scottish programme.

§ Mr. Dewar
Is there not a strong case for the sort of reform that the convention is considering? The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has attempted to suggest that the Intel Corporation's decision to go to Ireland was based on the fear of constitutional change in Scotland. Did the Secretary of State hear the interview on Radio Scotland in which the chairman of the Russell Corporation, an American company which is coming to Scotland—which we welcome—dismissed that outlandish theory?
Is there not a case for constitutional change? Was it not indefensible for the Under-Secretary of State to take such a line and, in effect, to impugn Scotland's attractions as a home for inward investment, even when the Intel Corporation specifically repudiated what he had said? Will 127 the Secretary of State ensure that in future his colleague does not again put his partisan responsibilities as chairman of the Scottish Conservative party above his ministerial duty? Better still, will he remove him from one of his posts, given his apparent inability to distinguish between his two roles?

§ Mr. Rifkind
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have taken the trouble to read what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said about the matter. The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, has shown extraordinary negligence in making such public allegations. My hon. Friend did not say that Intel would not come to Scotland for the reason that the hon. Gentleman suggested. He said: Southern Ireland, with its low rate of corporation tax does offer an attractive long term, low-tax investment environment. After a decade of Conservative tax cutting budgets, we can match that attraction. In Scotland, however, we suffer the ever present threat of the creation of a high spending and high taxing Scottish Assembly. That is not only my hon. Friend's view and it is not only my view. It is the view of many within the Scottish business community. The hon. Gentleman should recall the conclusion of the report in the Scottish Business Insider, which was that Opposition parties have to convince indigenous companies of their financial reasoning and find an effective method of conveying the same message to potential inward investors. So far—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that we shall have briefer questions leading to shorter answers. We have spent a long time on Question No. 1.