Scottish Business

HC Deb 19 December 1995 vol 268 cc1410-35 7.35 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I beg to move, That—

(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows: line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';

line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';

line 33, at the end, add—

'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.'; (2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows: line 8, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 9 and insert 'Scotland';

line 19, leave out from 'No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert 'Member except the Minister of the Crown';

line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert 'Members';

line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member'; (3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows: line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';

line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert 'so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';

line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';

line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';

line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';

line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer'; (4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:

'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.

(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:

Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.

(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.

(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.'; (5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:

line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';

line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,'; (6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and (7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows: line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';

line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'. The motion gives effect to two of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in the House on the eve of St. Andrew's day for strengthening the role of the Scottish Grand Committee in considering Scottish legislation and in calling Ministers to account. There is little that I need to add to the full explanation that my right hon. Friend gave on that occasion. I shall deal first with the two principal amendments to the Standing Orders.

The new paragraph that is to be added to Standing Order No. 94A will allow any Minister, and not just Ministers representing Scottish constituencies, to attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland as well as at Westminster, to take part in the Committee's proceedings and move motions but not to vote or to be counted in the quorum. Consequential amendments will enable the Committee to hear ministerial statements and transact other business relating to the Scottish aspects of the work of other Departments as well as the Scottish Office.

As my right hon. Friend said, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to take part in the Committee's debates in Scotland next year, and I am sure that other Ministers who have responsibility for significant areas of policy will be keen to follow suit.

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

I have no objection to Ministers attending meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is taking on some of the appurtenances of a travelling circus. When visiting other cities and towns, Back Benchers should have access to the normal office facilities that are readily available in this place and in Edinburgh. The record so far is not good and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers in the Scottish Office will take that on board. In terms of access to telephones and other facilities, that complaint needs to be examined by the Leader of the House and his colleagues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate and that long interventions do not help.

Mr. Newton

Despite your wise advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is the sort of issue that I always undertake to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friends will also consider it. We have imposed quite a demanding task on the House authorities who have to arrange these meetings and the facilities that are required. To that extent, I am sure that they are feeling their way, but no one would want to dismiss out of hand the hon. Gentleman's point, especially about telephone access. It is obviously difficult to see how full-scale office facilities can be organised on quite the basis that he suggested.

The new paragraph to be added to Standing Order No. 94E will allow the Scottish Grand Committee to debate the principle of a Scottish Bill at Third Reading as well as at Second Reading. The procedure to be followed is broadly similar to that for Second Reading, with which the Committee is familiar. What is envisaged is that, after its Report stage, a Bill will be referred again to the Committee for a debate of up to one and a half hours, which, again, may take place in Scotland. A longer debate can be arranged if that is thought desirable. The Question on Third Reading would then be decided by the House without further debate, as a "forthwith".

The Government are taking the opportunity afforded by this debate to propose three other minor and sensible amendments to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 94D allows a maximum of 45 minutes for a ministerial statement that is made to facilitate the questioning of a Minister about some aspect of his responsibilities. We are proposing to provide additional flexibility by giving the Committee power to fix a different time limit if the circumstances of a Committee sitting make that appropriate. That could, for example, allow the Lord Advocate, or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for agriculture, forestry and the environment, to make a short statement and be questioned for, say, 15 minutes immediately after the normal Question Time. That would usefully extend the "flexibility", to use that word again, of the ways in which the Committee can operate.

We propose to amend Standing Order No. 94H to make it clear that the half-hour Adjournment debate, which normally starts at 1 o'clock, can begin earlier than that if the other business to be taken at that sitting has already been completed. [Interruption.] I am not pretending that these proposals are earth shattering—they are tidying-up proposals. In that case, the Adjournment debate will not be interrupted at 1 o'clock and will be concluded 30 minutes after it has begun. That reflects the clear intention of the Standing Order and is, I think in everyone's view, obviously sensible.

Finally, we propose to amend Standing Order No. 91 on Special Standing Committees, which provides for three morning sittings for taking oral evidence, so that a Scottish Special Standing Committee that is taking evidence in Scotland is not restricted to holding morning sittings only. That allows the Special Standing Committee to make more efficient use of its time by, for example, meeting in the morning and the afternoon of the same day. The Special Standing Committee that considered last Session's Children (Scotland) Bill was given that flexibility on an ad hoc basis and found it useful. We are now trying to incorporate that in the Standing Order.

The remaining amendments are consequential. The whole package is overwhelmingly sensible. I know that it has been widely welcomed in Scotland and I commend it to the House.

7.42 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has just said, the procedural motions that the Leader of the House has moved are as welcome as the Government's fisheries policies, which have just been defeated. The Leader of the House drew the short straw this evening because, far from having the support that he suggested, the procedural changes please, I think, no one. Certainly, they do not satisfy the official Opposition or find favour with the minority parties.

I am not sure about the Government's Back Benchers, but the people of Scotland are not impressed by the changes. In many ways, that is not surprising, given the way in which those changes have come about. The way in which they saw the light of day and were launched is completely contrary to the way in which the Leader of the House believes that we should proceed when we consider constitutional changes. Clearly, he adopts a different style from that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Leader of the House likes to consult, to discuss issues and to find a common basis for a way forward. That has simply not been the case in relation to these changes.

The reason for that is clear: the procedural changes are a product of panic on the part of Ministers. The reason for that is also clear. For 16 years, Conservative Ministers have derided Opposition Members for saying that constitutional change was needed in relation to Scotland. Ministers have been telling us that all was well and that the present arrangements were satisfactory. At the last election, we all, I think, remember the Prime Minister and others issuing alarmist warnings about the consequences of devolution and telling us how good the constitutional position was then—and now—yet we are now going to have some change.

As everyone knows, in November, the Prime Minister gave what was considered to be an important, exclusive interview to The Independent. That was another of those occasions where we had to wonder who had been in government for the past 16 years. These days, it is increasingly a feature of Ministers that, when a problem arises, they say that something should be done: recently, we have been told that something should be done about crime, knives and education standards. They say that something should be done about a problem as if they were in opposition, and have suddenly discovered the problem and a rod with which to beat the Government. They talk like that rather than like Ministers who have been in government for 16 years, because they want the public to forget that they have run out of excuses. That is the style at present and that was the Prime Minister's style when he gave that interview reported in The Independent.

Suddenly, the Prime Minister seemed to have discovered a problem in relation to the Scots. In the article, he said:

People in Scotland, who often feel cut off from parliamentary debate in London want better access to government. That does not quite sound like what he was saying at the last election. He went on:

the Scots feel that Westminster is a long way off". His comments in that interview were made not because he had discovered a new problem but because, at last, he was acknowledging a problem that everyone, apart from Ministers, knew existed and that he had denied existed, even during the last election.

That about-turn by the Prime Minister in acknowledging that the problem exists might be welcomed if he had shown any understanding of what the democratic deficit amounts to. Unfortunately, if one continues reading the article in The Independent, one begins to wonder if he understands anything at all about that problem. He claims in the interview:

"We"—

the Government—

have made quite significant moves on Scotland … I have changed the basis on which the honours list is determined". If that is a signal of what fundamental, significant change means to the Prime Minister, it illustrates simply how far his education is lacking with regard to the problems that Scottish people face.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

Does the hon. Lady agree with the proposition that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in it, and would she extend that proposition to the English Grand Committee, for which, as will be familiar to her, there are provisions in Standing Orders?

Mrs. Taylor

There is no future in the Government's proposal because it does not deal with basic needs. The solution to what the Secretary of State wants and to the problem that exists is to have a properly devolved Scottish Parliament. We make no bones, and have been utterly consistent, about that. We said it at the last election and we will say it at the next one.

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)

Is the hon. Lady saying that if there were an incoming Labour Government, they would immediately reverse the proposals now before the House?

Mrs. Taylor

If there were an incoming Labour Government, which there will be, we shall have a Scottish Parliament—and I am glad to have the chance to repeat that statement from the Dispatch Box. Instead, we have before us some half-baked suggestions by Ministers who have been trying to cobble together at the last minute a smokescreen to suggest that they are actually doing something. But the Government are not fooling anyone.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

The hon. Lady referred to comments supposedly made by the Prime Minister before the general election, but, at that time, was she herself not saying that there would be a Labour Government after that election?

Mrs. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman speaks as a member of a party that stands at something like 13 per cent. in the opinion polls in Scotland, and that did about as well as that in the most recent local elections there. I do not think that we should take too many lectures about what is likely to happen from people with that amount of support in Scotland. Moreover, I quoted not what the Prime Minister allegedly said but from his interview in The Independent. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen the article, I shall be happy to send him a copy later.

Against that background—the panic action and the sudden acceptance of a problem, the about-turn by the Prime Minister—a statement was made to the House on 29 November. It was strong on hype but weak on substance. We were told beforehand that the statement would be very significant, and would be what the Scottish people wanted, but when it came to the point it all fell flat. The fact that this evening the Leader of the House has been able to summarise in so few words the changes being introduced shows that there is not much substance in them.

As the Leader of the House explained, any House of Commons Minister will be allowed to go to the Scottish Grand Committee—the "awayday feature", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) called it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify two matters arising from that fact.

First, I understand that the Government Scottish Whip has not invariably been a Scottish Member. In that case, would such a Whip be allowed on the Floor of the Committee? Secondly, and more important, the right hon. Gentleman says that Ministers "may" attend the Scottish Grand Committee, but who will decide whether they do attend? Will the Committee have the power to summon a Minister and insist that he appear before it, or can the Minister decide to delegate the appearance to a junior? For example, if a deregulation issue is on the agenda, will the Deputy Prime Minister attend, or will he say that someone else will attend in his stead?

There are more outstanding questions. The Leader of the House has mentioned only non-controversial Bills; he has not covered controversial legislation. The Government are not creating something dramatically different but simply extending the talking-shop facility of the Scottish Grand Committee. They are not by any means opening the way for Scottish people to have more control over the decisions now made by Scottish Office Ministers.

I am sure that the Leader of the House is not really comfortable with the proposals that he has had to make, any more than he is happy with the way in which those decisions were reached. I should have thought that he might be worried about the precedent of introducing procedural change into the House without consultation. It certainly goes against the grain of all that he has told us on other issues.

If the Government were serious about tackling the problems with which the procedural motions are supposed to deal, Ministers should have been considering the remarkable achievement of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which achieved a consensus on a way forward, and which involved different political parties, elected members from Westminster and from local authorities, and people from outside politics. Surely that is the way forward, and Ministers should have thought about it before trying to bounce ideas on to the House.

The approach of the Scottish Constitutional Convention provides a good example of the necessary pre-legislative consultation that I think we should all be considering if we want to improve the quality of legislation in general. If the Government were serious about recognising the constitutional problems that Scotland and the rest of Britain face, Ministers would have followed the line laid out by the constitutional convention, and would not have bounced their half-baked ideas on to this Parliament or the Scottish people.

7.55 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I suppose that we expected a pretty churlish response from the Opposition spokesmen to this important evolution of the procedures of the House, involving the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) could not even bring herself to welcome something that is already getting a mounting press in Scotland. Representatives of the press and the other media are now coming to the meetings, and are beginning to understand that what the Secretary of State has proposed is really a major step forward in bringing Government to the people of Scotland.

The media are also beginning to understand that the panic is in the ranks of the Opposition—the panic that we have got it right. The Lady mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but that is made up of only two parties, and it seemed to spend most of the weeks in which it met squabbling. It has never answered the questions that really matter. That is why the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is becoming more tetchy and rattled week by week, as his plans for an Assembly are being rumbled.

The hon. Gentleman will not receive any confidence from the Scottish people until he is prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, or anywhere else, and answer the West Lothian question: how many Members of Parliament would the Labour party have in Scotland, and how would they arrange voting on measures for which not the Scottish Assembly but the Westminster Parliament is responsible? In recent weeks the hon. Gentleman has made no effort to answer the question that has been asked not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by many other members of the Conservative party in Scotland. He must wake up—

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro

The hon. Gentleman must answer the question.

Mr. Robertson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro

I shall give way only if the hon. Gentleman promises to answer the question. Will he do so? I see that he will not, so I shall not give way. That is too bad. He may have the chance to speak later, when he winds up for the Opposition. Really good ideas are coming forward, with the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland and carrying out many useful tasks, so that the people can see us and can meet Ministers, including English Ministers, who come to address the Committee.

I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister one or two practical questions that he may be prepared to think about. He is right to say that the House authorities have moved heaven and earth to ease any difficulties, whether we meet in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness or anywhere else—which I am glad to do. I know that the usual channels have used their best endeavours to ensure that there is light voting on days when the Committee meets far from the central belt. If we meet in Inverness—as we shall, and I shall be glad to do so—Back Benchers, and indeed Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, may have to go there on Sunday night. We cannot guarantee to be on parade at 10.30 on Monday morning unless we do that, especially in winter when the weather in Scotland can be bad.

I should therefore like my right hon. Friend to consider integrating the work of the House of Commons more closely with that of the Scottish Grand Committee so that, if possible, we meet on a Monday on which there is light business in Westminster so that we can return with our motor cars or whatever to our home bases and start out again. This is an important practical point which we must try to work at if we are to improve the logistics of meeting in various venues in Scotland, which I believe is an excellent idea. Another minor but important point is that we should be able to simplify our travelling, hotel and incidental expenses, for which we currently have to apply to different parts of the House of Commons for completion.

I have been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee for many years, including the days when we had to make up the numbers to have a majority. The steps we have now taken to deal with non-controversial legislation are quite excellent. More importantly, we shall be able to get more business through the House via the Scottish Grand Committee than if we had to go through the full procedure of Second Reading on the Floor of the House, Standing Committee, and so on. All in all, Scotland can look forward to additional constructive legislation, particularly legislation relating to some of the Law Commission reports which often have to be put aside because there is no time to debate them in the House of Commons.

I believe that we are right to bring forward these amendments to the Standing Orders, and I warmly support them. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the practical ways in which he can assist Members of Parliament to attend the Scottish Grand Committee with greater facility than is possible at present.

8.8 pm

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an important point about the facilities—or lack of them—that we shall have when we move around the country. The lack of facilities is not the fault of the local authorities, each and every one of which has given excellent hospitality. It is not always easy for a local authority or a town hall to rearrange its facilities to suit 72 Members of Parliament and other staff.

Lord Provost Thomas Dingwall should be congratulated, as every officer at the city chambers gave us every facility. The Lord Provost laid on lunch at his expense, not only for hon. Members but for all the back-up staff, including the Hansard staff and the badge messengers. That was appreciated. Nonetheless, if we have to travel the length and breadth of the country—I have no objection to that—it must be recognised that we also have to look after our constituents. The phone often rings on a Sunday night and hon. Members are asked to chase up urgent matters on the Monday, and I had that experience before I went to Edinburgh. In those circumstances, an hon. Member must be able to get to a phone or a fax while he is at the Scottish Grand Committee if he is to assist in an immigration problem or to help during an eviction.

Dr. Godman

The council officials—including the Lord Provost—were very kind and hospitable, but precisely the problem that my hon. Friend is now outlining prompted my complaint. I, too, was dealing with an urgent constituency matter and I had to wait eight minutes for a Scottish Office official to finish using the telephone.

Mr. Martin

My hon. Friend again makes an important point. If Scottish Members are to be tied up in the Committee until 1.30 pm on a Monday, we must have the back-up facilities to allow us to get on with the work that our constituents expect us to do. Parking facilities are also important, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider these matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, raised a very important point. The amendment to the Standing Orders states:

Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum. I am not trying to put obstacles in the way of the Leader of the House, but the House is saying that we, as Scottish Members, have the Grand Committee exclusively for us. However, the amendment states that the Conservative Whip will be allowed to sit in the body of the hall. I do not think that that should be the case. I take the view that, as there are a few Scottish Tory Back-Bench Members left, they should pick their Whip for the Grand Committee.

We have a Member from the Scottish National party in the Chamber now, and I have stated my views about nationalism. I despise the terms English and Scottish and, while I am proud of my culture, I hope that I would never express that in a way that discriminates against people. I do not want to have a go at English Members of Parliament, but my complaint does not relate to a person's nationality.

Members representing Scottish seats should be in the Scottish Grand Committee, while Members representing English, Welsh or Irish seats should not. I do not think that the Conservative Whip should be within the body of the hall because his job is different from that of a Government Minister. The Whip's job is to rustle up votes and to tell people to stop speaking.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

indicated dissent.

Mr. Martin

The Secretary of State shakes his head, and suggests that that is not the Whip's purpose. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State has good intentions and I accept that in this case his intentions are good as he wants to improve the facility. But once we put the matter into black and white, someone will be able to come along later and see it as an abuse.

What happens when we leave the House and some other people take our places? If there are no Tory Back-Bench Members left in Scotland at that time, somebody may suggest that half a dozen Tory Whips—who will have nothing else to do with their time—should join the Committee debates, make speeches and put down motions. I know that the intention of the amendment is to get Ministers of the Crown to come along to the Committee and make statements so that we can scrutinise the work that they are doing. But the amendment is open to abuse. I mean no disrespect to the present Whip, but he does not represent a Scottish seat and I would hope that the amendment will not allow him into the body of the hall.

The Leader of the House should consider the provision which allows a Minister of the Crown who is not a Minister of this House but of the other place to make statements. I must ask that once those Ministers and Ministers of the Crown who are not members of the Scottish Grand Committee have finished their business in the Committee, they should take no further part in the proceedings. A Minister can come along and take part in the proceedings of the Committee, but we know that Ministers normally say or do nothing other than deal with the matter for which they are responsible. May we have an assurance that once a Minister has finished that part of his business—for example, ministerial questions—he will take no further part in the proceedings of the Grand Committee?

8.9 pm

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whose leading and valued role as Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee is, in the main, much appreciated.

In welcoming these changes to our Standing Orders, I draw attention to comments that I and other Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidates made at the time of the last general election, when we suggested that a new Conservative Government should increase the importance and activities of the Grand Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might like to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave us a commitment to that effect at the time. He had clearly looked ahead even before the general election.

We also considered the role of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee; I and other colleagues offered a commitment to its reinstatement—and that is what has taken place since 1992. Under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) it has played a valuable role in the affairs of Scotland, as evidenced by some of the excellent reports it has drawn up on drugs, enterprise companies and other subjects.

I welcome the fact, too, that the Committee will move around the country. It is important to let people throughout Scotland witness the Government's activities. I have noted that meetings held in Edinburgh and Glasgow are usually quite well attended, but I was disappointed to find that Labour Members did not turn up in large numbers in Aberdeen. It seems to me that Labour Members tend to concentrate on central belt issues instead of recognising Scotland's wider needs. If we stick with the policy of moving around, perhaps we shall eventually get the point through to them.

I agree with the hon. Members for Springburn and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about facilities. We really must have telephones and faxes at the various venues.

The amendments to Standing Orders refer also to the Grand Committee dealing with Bills. Last year, Second Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill was taken in the Committee, whereupon a Special Standing Committee was set up to examine the details. These proposals follow on from that and open the door to further progress; Third Readings will be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee—that will be most welcome to all hon. Members.

On 29 November the Secretary of State said that a timetable of our sittings would be established, and one has since been drawn up for eight meetings to consider Government business. I understand that a timetable for four Opposition motions is being prepared as well. That, too, is welcome. It is important to set dates in advance so as to allow hon. Members to make arrangements around them. I can see no reference in the motions to this aspect of the matter, however. Perhaps the Minister will give it some consideration in winding up the debate.

The Special Standing Committee procedure is to be used again for the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. That is most welcome. The Committee is due to come to Ayr not long hence to discuss raves and drug misuse.

Above all, I welcome the intention to invite United Kingdom Ministers whose departmental remits include responsibilities for Scottish affairs. I agree with the hon. Member for Springburn that such Ministers should have no voting rights in the Grand Committee, as is well established under our rules, but it will be beneficial to invite Ministers from the Department of Transport, the Department of Social Security and—given that so many people work for the defence industry in Scotland—from the Ministry of Defence. That will boost Scottish involvement in our national affairs. It will be particularly pleasing to see the Prime Minister in the Committee. That will be a reminder that he is Prime Minister not just of the United Kingdom but of each of its nation states.

On a more generous note, perhaps we should recognise that the Leader of the Opposition might have an important part to play. We should open up the doors to him on future occasions if he can come in his role as Leader of the Opposition—a role I hope he will continue to play for many years to come.

Mr. Newton

Does my hon. Friend envisage, in the world picture that he is painting, that the Leader of the Opposition would have to answer some questions?

Mr. Gallie

No, but it would only be fair to allow him to ask questions. I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is rather uninformed about Scottish matters, and it would do him the world of good to spend some time in the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman recently attended a dinner—Opposition Members might have called it an elitist dinner—addressed also by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The right hon. Member for Sedgefield made a speech at the dinner; its major sponsors, Global Video, placed an advertisement in the programme containing the words:

Wouldn't you rather be at home watching a video? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that message to heart when he considers some of the Opposition's madcap ideas for imposing a tax-raising Assembly on Scotland. The people of Scotland certainly do not want a tartan tax. The idea is being pushed by the hon. Member for Hamilton, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield should travel up to Scotland a bit more to learn that the Scottish people do not want the option that he is attempting to force on them.

8.17 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I was interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), but I really do hope that we will not start head counting at Monday morning meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. That might bring the whole process into some disrepute. To that extent I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and I disagreed with all his other suggestions as well.

I welcome these changes—as far as they go. It is certainly an improvement to be given notice of the dates for well into the new year. This has always been a difficulty for the minority parties. Discussions are held through the usual channels, but latterly they have become rather clogged up. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has cut through all that. He has set a timetable up to the summer, which everyone will welcome. Of course there are difficulties in travelling, but as long as the logistics can be sorted out there will be benefits. The Committee's deliberations will be taken to different parts of Scotland, which I welcome. The changes will give us more time and opportunity to consider some of the questions that are to the fore of public life north of the border.

The Leader of the House is a reasonable and enlightened man.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

I was just saying the same about the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kirkwood

That is the end of both our careers.

The Leader of the House has not been in charge of the Government's programme throughout their term of office but, after 16 years, to introduce these changes as the answer to the constitutional deficit north of the border is inadequate. To describe them as inadequate is an understatement of some proportion. They do not measure up to what needs to be done.

If there is one thing that illustrates my point better than any other, it is the way in which the Government treat the different but very real problems of the Province of Northern Ireland. There is no suggestion that they will tinker with Standing Orders or that a Grand Committee will meet in Enniskillen, Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland. That is in stark contrast to the way in which they are coping with the situation in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson

Standing Order No. 99 states that there should be a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It has two subsections. However, the Government's response to the situation in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is not to beef up that Committee up with another five pages of amendments and the possibility of UK or Scottish Ministers going over there but to create a legislative assembly for Northern Ireland with 90 members and full legislative powers. People understand that distinction and the contrast and hypocrisy in the Government's position.

Mr. Kirkwood

I hope that whoever will reply to the debate will address that point.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

indicated assent.

Mr. Kirkwood

I am pleased that the Secretary of State will deal with that point, which is in many people's minds and deserves an answer.

Are these changes all that we will get? Is this the beginning of a continuing process? If it is, my hon. Friends and I are interested in engaging in it; but if this is all that we are to get for all time, it is completely inadequate and does not begin to measure up to the possibilities for constitutional reform north of the border.

There are other questions about the detail of the changes that need to be addressed. Will this end the difficult process, which we have experienced more and more in recent years, of small Scottish sections being added to principally English Bills? As a legal practitioner in a previous incarnation, I know that the situation was becoming impossible even before 1983 when I was elected. It has worsened since. Will the Secretary of State comment on that matter of continuing concern? Will the changes provide more time for effective scrutiny and deal with the important question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who hoped, as I do, that the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission will get a better hearing under this process than previously? If that proves to be so, it will be a significant advantage.

It is not clear who will control the access of UK and English Ministers, Prime Ministers and Chancellors who will come to give us the benefit of their views. Will that be entirely under the control of the Government or will we be able to negotiate it through the usual channels? Will the Committee be able to vote to require or request—or, indeed, reject—the attendance of a UK Minister? The process and the arrangements that will have to be made for that are not clear.

I welcome the fact that we will be able to return to questions of principle on Third Reading of Bills. Does that mean that we will be able to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, at that stage? At present, we would not be in order if we discussed something that was not in the Bill on Third Reading. If we will now be able to discuss matters of principle, that gives us the opportunity to consider things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading in a way that we cannot at the moment. I would value some advice on that.

Mr. Newton

It may help if I say a brief, off-the-cuff word about that. As always, it is up to the occupant of the Chair to decide what is in or out of order in a speech. That is the basic point. I would not envisage anything being in order in a Third Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that would be out of order in such a debate in the House. I guess that a passing reference to regretting that something was not in the Bill might be in order but that an attempt to have an elaborate discussion on it would not be. Those are the normal rules of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood

I hope that the Leader of the House will give that further and better consideration. If the suggestion enshrined in the proposals is to mean anything and we are to have discussion in principle of the contents of the Bill on Third Reading, I do not understand how the situation that he has described could obtain.

Mr. Newton

I do not wish to make a huge issue of this, but we are talking about a Third Reading debate and the opportunity to have it in the Scottish Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Apart from that, it is no different.

Mr. Kirkwood

The Third Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill, for example, took 20 minutes. If we are to take proper advantage of the new procedure we should be able to discuss things in principle on Third Reading. Obviously, this is a matter for the occupant of the Chair in any particular circumstance, but I believe that it is out of order to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading. If we are to discuss things in principle, we should be able to do precisely that. There is confusion about that in my mind, if in no one else's. Perhaps the Leader of the House could give the matter further consideration.

The initiative, if that is not an overstatement of the amendments to Standing Orders, is a recognition by the Government that things need to change north of the border. If the Secretary of State is saying that the proposals are a first step to trying to do things better—to improve the quality of Scottish legislation, to provide more time, to have more effective scrutiny, better public access and more publicity for what we are doing north of the border—then we are signed up for it and we support it. If he does not take the initiative forward and it is not the start of a process of change, then what is before us tonight is not, by itself, worth having.

8.28 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made some general points with which he would not expect me to agree, but he has asked some interesting questions about how the proposed procedures would work.

This is a short and largely technical debate. I take the view already expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that these are sensible, practical changes. They are changes within the framework of the Union.

I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that to defend the Union—at the last general election, or, for that matter, at previous ones—is not to say that the Union is cast permanently in stone in respect of its institutions. That is an absurd position to take.

Conservative Governments introduced the Scottish Office and the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At some stage, the hon. Member for Dewsbury or her colleagues must answer the key question about their attitude to the proposals: what could a Labour Government do with their Scottish Parliament that they could not do with these proposals, given a Labour majority in this House, except increase taxes in Scotland? Under Labour's proposals, the advantage of directly questioning major Ministers such as the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence would be lost.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman's argument has often been deployed by the Secretary of State in defence of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the proposals are inadequate under a Conservative Government because, although the Committee may vote in one way, the House can overturn that vote. Curiously, he seems to argue that the proposals can work only if we have a Labour Government. Is that the best argument that a Conservative Back Bencher can advance in support of these proposals?

Mr. Stewart

I am not arguing that for a moment. Assuming that a Labour Government would want to introduce a Scottish Parliament, I asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury what a Labour Government would do in the several years between an election and introducing a Scottish Parliament, but I received no answer whatever. The proposals are entirely workable under a Conservative or Labour Government, but what would a Labour Government achieve with a Scottish Parliament that they could not achieve with these proposals if they had a majority in this House? At some stage, Opposition Front Benchers must answer that question.

I emphasise the importance of extra question periods, which would have an inherently greater advantage than set-piece debates. Set-piece debates tend to be predictable—

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

This is one of them.

Mr. Stewart

Except when I am speaking, but I shall not go down that path. Moreover, they do not provide much opportunity for Back Benchers because such a high proportion of time is inevitably taken up by the two Front Bench spokesmen at the beginning and end of such debates. The key feature of the new proposals is the increase in the proportion of time devoted to questions.

Will my right hon. Friend answer three points of detail? First, do the proposals increase Scottish Members' opportunities to enact private Members' Bills, which, on the Floor of the House, could be stopped for reasons unrelated to the merits of the Bill? I hope that he can reassure all Back Benchers that he will consider that matter positively.

Secondly, may I support the point about facilities made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If the proposals are to work, it must be accepted that facilities such as telephones and fax machines are not for the personal convenience of Members but because our constituents, who might normally expect to find us in our constituencies on a Monday morning, may want to be in touch with us urgently about the kind of important issue to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.

Thirdly, on the timing of Committee meetings, my right hon. Friend should not regard 10.30 am as a sacrosanct starting time as the Committee now travels to different parts of Scotland. It would be sensible to have a different starting time depending on precisely where the Committee meets.

Dr. Godman

Another problem that the Leader of the House has not examined is that, when we attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland, we cannot be here when Ministers make important statements. That happened on Monday, when a number of us wanted to be here to ask questions of the Prime Minister about the Madrid debacle. We were denied that opportunity because we were in Glasgow.

Mr. Stewart

That is undoubtedly a potential problem. It is less of a problem if the Committee meets in Glasgow, which has a regular air service, but if we meet in other areas of Scotland where the air service is less frequent, those problems can arise and the authorities should deal with them in a practical way.

I welcome these sensible and practical proposals. However, the debate has revealed that a number of detailed questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be answered to ensure that the proposals are made as practicable and workable as possible.

8.35 pm

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

I am grateful to note that the amendments to the Standing Orders have at least restored the confidence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which I thought was rather strange. He then had the common sense to add "only a little".

I find them so sadly lacking in imagination and divergent thinking that I wonder whether they come from the pen of the Secretary of State for Scotland at all. He was the Minister who gave us "Reservicing Britain", which led to compulsory competitive tendering, and has caused great harm to local government services. He was also the Minister who gave us the poll tax. At least that was inspired—mad, but inspired—whereas these proposals are not at all inspired.

As I go round the line of route with some of my guests, I show them the Magna Carta and explain that, at that time, the people of the country—at least, the lords—had to be consulted by the king before he passed vital Acts of Parliament. I also point out that, although they were consulted, they could rarely persuade the king not to do his own will at bidding.

Those are the kind of Standing Orders that we have before us. The Government wheel Scottish Members around to the Scottish Grand Committee at various locations, where they are consulted, but then pay no attention to what they say. I have heard much criticism of members of local government for not consulting in that way. The Standing Orders are not intended to change the fundamental flaw in the United Kingdom's democratic system, which is that the majority of Scottish people reject the Government's policies, but they will be put through through either the present ritual in the Scottish Grand Committee or the extended ritual set down in the Standing Orders.

A former Prime Minister talked about his preference for "talk, talk" rather than "war, war". [HON. MEMBERS: "Jaw, jaw."] "Jaw, jaw" is a different phrase, but it has the same meaning: better to talk, therefore to avoid conflict.

The Standing Orders will show the people of Scotland again and again the pointlessness of the Scottish Grand Committee and therefore underline the fact that they must go to war with the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements if they are to achieve real progress and democracy for Scotland.

On that basis, I welcome the fact that the more people see the flaws in the Standing Orders and how the Scottish Grand Committee operates, even with the extended changes, the more they will see how pointless it is to have a Scottish Grand Committee in a United Kingdom Parliament that then uses the voting power of English Members to deny the views put forward by the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland.

All parties, apart from the Conservative party, will normally speak against the Government's position but, ultimately, the Government will bring the matter down to the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in Scotland? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) refused to answer the question; will the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Connarty

My argument is that any process of democratic arrangement should be one where the majority of the people, in a position where there is subsidiarity and devolved government, make the decision on those items that relate to the Scottish—[Interruption.] I do not believe that the Scottish Grand Committee is the right place to make that type of decision. We wish to see a Scottish devolved Parliament with the proper devolution of subsidiary powers—in the Scottish context, of those things that the Scottish people wish to be controlled by that Parliament.

There will be consultation, but we shall not have the right to persuade the Government to change their route. The argument made again and again is that the Committee may discuss non-controversial Bills—we have probably set out along that road—such as the health and safety at raves Act or the Licensing Scotland (Amendment) Bill. However, let us consider what the effect would be if a Bill were controversial.

We would be able to have a Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It would then be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee, with an inbuilt majority for the Government. If it went back to the later stage, as was explained to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire points of principle could not be raised again on Third Reading.

Obviously, the measure is a sham. It is a way of taking us to various venues, and I welcome any chance to debate with the Government at any time anywhere, but it will not prevent the Scottish people from concluding that the majority of the people of Scotland, through their representatives in the House, cannot influence the Government's decisions on what they would call controversial issues.

That is what is wrong with the measure. There is no acceptance in any of the Standing Orders that the majority of the Scottish people reject the Conservative Government's policies on what they call controversial matters. Controversial matters cannot be voted down; nor, at any Committee stage in a Scottish Standing Committee, can controversial amendments be passed on the basis of the majority of the Scottish people's wishes. We witnessed that, although we tried our best, during the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which has been cited as an Act that did everything. It had a Special Standing Committee, which took evidence, but when the Government did not wish to accept controversial amendments in Committee, they voted them down. Then they brought the Bill to the Floor of the House, and voted down any further amendments. When they did not like amendments that were passed in the House of Lords, they brought the Bill back again, and used their majority in the Chamber to vote down those amendments.

That is why I think it is important to realise that the Standing Orders will do one thing, and only one thing, for Scottish democracy. It will be exhibited again and again, through the use of those procedures, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to sell the people of Scotland an insufficient change to the constitutional arrangements for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I welcome the measures on that basis. The more they expose the Government's flaws and lack of democracy, the more people will demand a Scottish devolved Parliament under the Labour Government after the general election.

8.42 pm

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel like Banquo's ghost who has just arrived at the feast. Forgive me if I do not join in the very modest celebration that is going on.

The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about those measures representing evolution. It is evolution of a gey shilpit cratur. I noticed that the Leader of the House believed that the measures would be widely welcomed in Scotland, but he means that they will be widely ignored in Scotland. There is no big deal in any of that.

It is typical of the Westminster system that the debate was opened by two Members of Parliament representing English constituencies, and the measures have about that much relevance to Scotland. I have heard more in the Chamber offered to the south sea island of Tuvalu than I have heard offered to Scotland. At least Tuvalu will get independence; we only have the load of old rubbish presented to us tonight.

There is a proposition that England and Wales Ministers can come and attend the Scottish Grand Committee. It probably serves them right, but it may be important, because English Ministers have a habit of overruling the wishes of the Scottish Office. I have seen that all too often in agriculture and fishing—if I can mention fishing to the Minister, who will be rather sensitive about that subject.

I ask the Minister: what budgets have been given for those meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland? Who will pay for the security of all those bigwigs who arrive on an awayday ticket to Scotland every so often? Will that be a burden on local authorities? Who will pay for that?

The changes are minor changes to the Scottish Grand Committee. If they had been made at any time in the past 30 years, no one would have noticed. To my mind, it is simply deckchair shuffling time on The Titanic, while the orchestra plays "Land of Hope and Glory", but I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that, as a ruse, it will not work.

The changes will allow the Prime Minister or other bigwigs to join the Scottish Grand Committee travelling circus, and that is no big deal for Scotland. They might persuade the Prime Minister or some of the other England and Wales Ministers to concentrate on Scottish affairs for a morning, and perhaps that would be some limited good.

In reality, the Scottish Grand Committee has no powers. It is simply a talking shop, based on a technicality. It can merely decide that it has or has not decided that it has decided that it has met, and it is about that much use to the whole of Scotland. It is no substitute for a Parliament, or for the real return of decision-making power to the Scottish people.

I will agree this far with what I heard in some of the speeches. When the Scottish people see exactly what worth and what good the Westminster system is to them, we shall obtain the result that is the only true future for our nation, which is true independence, when the Scottish people can decide their own future through their own democratically elected Parliament. The measures are trivial, betraying a trivial approach to Scotland's needs. They will pass, but they will not do.

All I can say is, if this is the union—

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We have got all night right now, laddie.

Mr. Welsh

Not really. It does not take long to reply to this load of old rubbish, which the hon. Gentleman accepts is good enough for his country, but I certainly do not and will not.

If this is the union at its sparkling best, I am indeed happy for the future of Scotland.

8.46 pm

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

I promise that I shall be very brief.

Mr. Galbraith

Ten minutes: it is getting good and depressing here.

Dr. Godman

I begin by asking a question. [Interruption.] It is a serious question. Has Greenock been ruled out for the staging of a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee? I should like the Trade and Industry Minister to be there, answering questions concerning the shipbuilding industry and other maritime industries. I should also like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), tonight about the placing of a certain contract for the construction of a fisheries research vessel, but that does not fall within the framework of the amendments.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

It should be a Scottish shipyard.

Dr. Godman

I am happy to know that Fergusons will build that ship. It is a Scottish fisheries research vessel, and it should be built in a premier yard in Scotland—Fergusons of Port Glasgow.

I also draw attention to the fact that, if we are to attend those frequent meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in different towns and cities, that prevents us from coming to this place to hear important statements from the Dispatch Box. I for one wanted to be here yesterday to hear the Prime Minister speak, and I got here as quickly as I could, just in time for the tail end of that statement. That simply is not good enough for Scots Members.

I ask the Secretary of State, a serious question. Where there is a clash, would it be possible to consider a ministerial statement being made later in the day, or postponed until the following day?

The lack of facilities has been mentioned. In that regard, I offer my compliments to the councils of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow for the fine hospitality that they extended to us. It was interesting to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) finally making it to the lord provost's chair. I do not believe that he ever sat in that chair when he was a councillor in Glasgow, although he deserved to sit in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

I for one would welcome the opportunity to cross-examine our premier Law Officer on Lockerbie, and just what the heck is happening to the pursuit of the people alleged to have committed the murders on that terrible day in December 1988. We also need to challenge him on other issues, such as the operation of Acts of Parliament that seek to give greater protection to children when they give evidence in our courts of law. When Ministers attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, they should come by invitation of the members of the Committee. Its meetings should not be used as a travelling press conference, as one was recently by the Secretary of State, when about 16 journalists were present to hear his less than informative speech on spending.

Speaking as a federalist, I believe that the only answer in the long run is to have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Parliament, an English Parliament and a Northern Ireland Parliament. The Scottish Grand Committee is a talking shop; it has taken on the characteristics of a travelling talking shop. Some of us will be lucky—or unlucky—and it will come to our constituencies; owing to the size of our majorities, some of us will, I suspect, be excluded from that privilege.

8.50 pm

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

It is appropriate for the Scottish team to have a few words at the end of the debate. I know that we are not allowed to mention the people in the Galleries this evening, but if I were allowed to do so, I would be able to say that on a rainy, wet night in London, the Strangers Gallery contained three people—exactly the same number as are present in the Press Gallery.

What does that say for the argument that the measure will bring Scottish affairs back to the nation? My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) say that they have been so captivated by our brief debate that they intend to make at least a couple of visits to the Scottish Grand Committee—in Stornoway, Ayr, Stirling, Eyemouth, Unst and who knows where. If the Scottish Whip gets his way, it may even go to Dalkeith.

I should make it clear for the purpose of certain hon. Members who do not seem to have noticed what is happening that we do not intend to vote against the provisions this evening. Any extra debates in Scotland are to be welcomed. The opportunity to cross-examine some Ministers north of the border may be useful. I can imagine no better way of reducing Tory party support in Scotland from 13 per cent. to single figures than to bring up the Secretary of State for Defence to go around and defend his policies.

We were told only a few weeks ago that the measure was the big rabbit that the Secretary of State was going to pull out of his hat to try to grab some headlines from the Scottish Constitutional Convention launch. The big white rabbit was to be the big white Prime Minister appearing in an unknown location in Scotland.

As people across Scotland have seen, the reality is an admission that the Government have got their policy on Scotland and the constitution wrong for 16 years. I know that behind the Secretary of State for Scotland are diehard Unionists who have held to that line for 16 years and who must be deeply worried about the way in which the argument has been thrown away; in its place, in the vacuum that the right hon. Gentleman has created, is a pathetic substitute for what the Scottish people want.

The Prime Minister admits that there is a fault and a flaw. The Prime Minister admits failure on the constitution; all we have is some pretty tawdry window dressing. The Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Scottish Office in a blaze of glory; he discards the ideas of his predecessors, and tells us that he has the answer. But with exactly the same arrogant contempt for public opinion in Scotland, he tells the Scottish people that he has made up his mind, and that this is his choice, and his alone.

That will never be acceptable to the Scottish people, 87 per cent. of whom reject the Conservative party, leaving the party in splendid—and now mobile—isolation. The people of Scotland will not be fobbed off by a few Cabinet Ministers who choose to wander around Scotland, making a case that has, until now, persuaded nobody.

As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, the Scottish people are intelligent enough, and aware enough, to see the Government's argument in all its stark hypocrisy. In Northern Ireland and for Northern Ireland, the Government say in the framework document that what is required is not to beef up clause 99 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or to beef up the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but a full-scale, legislative Assembly for Northern Ireland. Some 90 members are to be suggested for that legislative Assembly. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is telling the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to shut up and stop his endless prattling. The Under-Secretary of State may gain some glory in his brief parliamentary career for making more sedentary interventions than anyone else.

Mr. Home Robertson

Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be funded by an orange tax?

Mr. Robertson

I shall not rise to that bait.

On a serious point, the framework document makes it clear that the sources of funding for the Northern Ireland Assembly are open to negotiation. Nothing has been ruled out by Her Majesty's Government for Northern Ireland, although they have ruled out everything for Scotland. A party of government that is down to 13 per cent. in Scotland—to the bottom of the barrel—should act with a little humility. There may have come a time, even for this Secretary of State for Scotland—who foisted the poll tax on Scotland, whence it went to the rest of the country—to listen to the Scottish people who so decisively reject him. Instead of coming up with wheezes and public relations gimmicks that he is willing to parade in the streets of Scotland without any dignity, he should take heed of the work being done in the consensus-based forum of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

We cannot vote for what the Scottish people want, because the Scottish Parliament is not on offer tonight, but in the next 15 months there will be an election and the Scottish people will be able to choose what they want. They will be able to vote for the Scottish Parliament for which they have asked for all these years; we shall deliver it, and Scotland will be the better for it.

8.57 pm

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

The Scottish people will certainly not want to have anything to do with the tartan tax proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—just as the Leader of the Opposition wanted nothing to do with it. If the hon. Gentleman is correct that the proposals are such a bad idea, is it not significant that he and his colleagues will once again sit on their hands and decline to vote against them tonight? Labour Members decried the tax cuts in much the same way, but when it comes to the crunch they cannot vote against the proposals, because they knew that they are popular.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) at least had the good grace to recognise that this is an opportunity for us to perform our work in Scotland more effectively and to improve legislation for Scotland. This week's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Glasgow was a marvellous example of how it is possible for hon. Members from different political parties to put their differences aside and discuss serious issues, such as drugs, and take forward the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not recognise that.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about panic. If she wants panic, she should have seen her leader on his day trip to Scotland. He started the day by assuring us that there would be no tartan tax unless it were in the Labour manifesto—and he gave an assurance that it would not be. By the end of the day—after some fancy footwork on the part of the hon. Member for Hamilton—the Leader of the Opposition supported the hon. Gentleman in his call for a tartan tax. At least, I think that was the Leader of the Opposition's position. The Scottish people will have nothing to do with a tax-raising Parliament.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked me if this is the end. No, it is not. When I made my statement to the House, I said that I was open to positive suggestions. At least the hon. Gentleman has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the Constitutional Convention's proposals would mean the end of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is still living in cloud cuckoo land, where he thinks he can have his cake and eat it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) welcomed the proposals, and I am grateful for his support. The hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of proper facilities. I am relieved to learn that not everyone in the Labour party has sharp suits and mobile telephones—although I must admit that the hon. Member for Springburn has a sharp suit. But it is a serious point, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.

The hon. Member for Springburn also referred to the presence of the Whip. Far be it from me to make a plea on behalf of the Whips, but the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) intervened during the Scottish Grand Committee hearing in Edinburgh to complain about his inability to talk to the usual channels. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Springburn remembers that, but perhaps he should have a word with his hon. Friend, who does not seem to have the right line from the Whips Office.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire welcomed the changes. He asked me whether there would be more opportunities to deal with Scottish legislation in the Grand Committee. I hope there will, and that measures that would otherwise have to wait their turn as private Members' business can be considered in the Grand Committee. That would demand some restraint, and co-operation through the usual channels, but there is a real chance that we could achieve that goal. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that opportunity, and I welcome his support.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about Ministers from Departments other than the Scottish Office appearing before the Scottish Grand Committee. It is obviously for the Government to decide who should answer particular debates. However, the nature of the subjects chosen for debate should select which Minister will respond.

For example, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for railways and roads appeared before the Scottish Grand Committee during its consideration of the Fort William sleeper service. That is an obvious example of a Minister from the relevant Department appearing before the Committee. I am sure that Department of Transport officials found it very useful briefing the Minister for that debate.

I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He asked a key question which the hon. Member for Hamilton has not yet answered: if we are able to take legislation through the Grand Committee and hold members of the Executive to account in Scotland, what could a Scottish Parliament with a majority of Labour Members do under a Labour Government that could not be done in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mrs. Ann Taylor

It could make decisions.

Mr. Forsyth

I appreciate that any Labour Government would find making decisions very difficult. However, a Scottish Grand Committee with a Labour majority under a Labour Government would be able to do everything that a Scottish Parliament could do, except one thing: raise a tartan tax, and make the Scots pay more income tax than the English. A Scottish Parliament would not be able to hold the Prime Minister and Ministers to account in the way that the Scottish Grand Committee can. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood is absolutely correct to make that point, and to draw attention to the fact that hon. Members will be able to ask more questions in the Committee. I take his point about times, and that matter will be settled through the usual channels. I appreciate his comments about private Members' business, but I ask him to take on board the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I think that we will have a real chance to take through uncontroversial measures, which would not otherwise not be available to us, as Government measures.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) talked about my unpopular policies in Scotland. They were so unpopular that I twice defeated the hon. Gentleman at the ballot box in Stirling before he ran off to Falkirk.

The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) brought the pantomime scene to our proceedings a little early, by giving us the analogy of the Titanic. If he was comparing our position to that, he must have been the iceberg. I can only assume that there is a lot more below the surface than was apparent from his contribution to the debate.

Mr. Welsh

I remind the Minister that I also used the analogy of Banquo's ghost, who led to the denouement of the play by reminding the criminals of their crime.

Mr. Forsyth

I am delighted that, after all his rude comments about the English, the hon. Gentleman still acknowledges the importance of Shakespeare as a good English poet and playwright.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked whether the Scottish Grand Committee would be able to come to Greenock. Obviously, it is a matter for the House authorities to consider possible venues, but I understand that the Opposition have suggested Ayr. As there may be a particular problem with the date in Ayr, if the hon. Gentleman has a word with his hon. Friend, that might be a possibility. As to the choice of subjects, the Opposition have their allotted days.

The measure is a positive step forward. It gives Scottish Members the opportunity to demonstrate to their electors their commitment to good government in Scotland. It provides an opportunity for the Opposition to hold the Government to account for their policies—I shall not place too much emphasis on that. Although the Opposition have a ragbag of confused people proposing a tartan tax on the people of Scotland, they clearly have to sort out their own act before holding the Government to account. The proposals represent an opportunity, and I commend them to the House.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 December].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:

• line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';
• line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';
• line 33, at the end, add—

'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.'; (2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows: line 8, leave out from `to' to the end of line 9 and insert `Scotland';

line 19, leave out from `No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert `Member except the Minister of the Crown';

line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';

line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert `Members';

line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member'; (3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:

• line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
• line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';
• line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
• line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert `so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';
• line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';
• line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';
• line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
• line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';
• line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';

(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs: '(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed: Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House. (8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon: Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith. (9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day. (10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.'; (5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows: line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';

line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,'; (6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and (7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:

• line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';
• line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.