§ 1. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)If he will make a statement on the operation of the substantive liaison arrangements between the Government and the Scottish Executive. [91598]
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid)Liaison arrangements will be set out in concordats which will guide working relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive on a range of matters.
§ Mr. FabricantI wonder whether, when the Secretary of State says that the arrangements "will be" set out in concordats, he means that the concordats do not exist. Is that why there is so much confusion between his powers and those of the First Minister? Is that why, in the past two weeks, there have been so many turf wars between him and the Scottish First Minister?
§ Dr. ReidThe concordats will be published once they have been agreed by the Scottish Executive and the Government. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concordats do exist. They are there to promote concord between the two Parliaments in their working relationships.
I am very sorry that the Opposition, including the Scottish National party and the Tories, have failed in their 20-year struggle to stop devolution, but the Scottish Parliament has been established; there is now a partnership of Parliaments; and it will succeed to the benefit of the Scottish people.
§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)Does my right hon. Friend agree that if changes are to be made to the way 102 in which Parliament operates they should be made on a considered basis, not on the basis of a narrow, populist appeal to English nationalism?
§ Dr. ReidYes. As my hon. Friend knows, those of us who have promoted the devolution settlement have spent most of our political life arguing for the unity of the United Kingdom and against the separatists and their narrow brand of nationalism. Unfortunately, the mirror image of that narrow brand of Scottish nationalism seems to be creeping into the leadership of the Conservative party, which is fanning the flames of English nationalism.
Of course, in the wake of the devolution settlement, we shall have to change the superstructure. We are considering how we deal with matters in this House. Of course we shall reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. Of course we shall consider, once the Parliament and devolved legislatures have settled in, the role of the Secretary of State.
However, the one area that we should be very careful about tampering with is the essence of the unity of the United Kingdom, and that is ensuring that every Member of Parliament in this House is equal and stays equal.
§ Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)In the annual report published by the Government yesterday there is a reference to unease at devolution. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of that unease is occurring because of an apparent turf war between his new Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive? Does he maintain, as he did at last week's Scottish Affairs Committee, that this is an entirely media-inspired turf war, or does he think that it is about time that politicians at all levels reversed the tanks off one other's lawns?
§ Dr. ReidThe unease that was referred to in the report—I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read the report, not just the media reports of it—was the potential unease among those people who might see the most radical constitutional steps for three centuries taking place and wonder whether Scotland might fall under the hands of the incompetent narrow nationalists who sit on the Benches behind him. I can assure him that he can be well at ease on that basis. We have no intention—nor have the Scottish people—of allowing Scotland to be divorced from the United Kingdom.
As regards the relationships between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a partnership of Parliaments. They are united by the Labour Government leading here at Westminster and the Labour-led Administration in partnership in Holyrood.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)When my right hon. Friend next meets a member of the Scottish Executive, will he express his support for the stated intention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) to go on fighting against all forms of small-minded nationalism for as long as it takes? When he meets the First Minister, will he pass on some advice—that there is nothing like the prospect of a reshuffle to concentrate the loyalty of all and sundry?
§ Dr. ReidI can assure my hon. Friend that nothing is further from my mind than a reshuffle. As regards the 103 recent speculation, I think that we would all be wise to remember exactly what is happening. For nearly two decades, there has been an alliance of forces against the devolution settlement. That settlement is the partnership of Parliaments. When we hear the names of Forsyth, Tebbit, Hague and the SNP, we recall that they have spent most of the last 20 years arguing against the establishment of one part of that settlement: the Scottish Parliament. They have utterly failed to stop that, and they are now directing their attack towards the other half of the settlement: Scottish partnership in the United Kingdom at the UK parliamentary level. We will not allow them to succeed in that attack, nor will the Scottish people. The partnership of Parliaments will succeed.
§ Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)In his liaison role with the Scottish Executive, will the Secretary of State discuss the remarks made yesterday by the First Minister's official spokesman to the effect that the other Ministers in the Scottish Executive are unproven and unqualified? Does he agree that Scotland would be better served by less spin of that kind and a little more action?
§ Dr. ReidMatters concerning Scottish Ministers are for the Scottish Parliament. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how the Scottish people would be better served. Instead of the leader and parliamentary leader of his party putting in no appearance in this House, voting on nothing in this House, and asking no questions in this House, even during the period when the Scottish Parliament has not been sitting, SNP Members should stop taking money from a Parliament in which they do not believe, for what they are not doing.
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)Although it is recognised that some issues relating to the economy and infrastructure are the legitimate business both of Members of this Parliament and of Members of the Scottish Parliament, what guidance has been given to my right hon. Friend's colleagues in government regarding representations that might be made by SMPs in relation to such matters as the Child Support Agency and immigration, which should be jealously guarded as the locus and jurisdiction of Members of the Parliament here at Westminster, and should not be the business of SMPs—[HON. MEMBERS: "SMPs?"]—Members of the Scottish Parliament? Can my right hon. Friend clarify the line of responsibility and tell us what advice has been given to his colleagues in government concerning their response to such representations?
§ Dr. ReidAs I said earlier, there is genuinely a partnership of Parliaments. It is the most radical constitutional settlement for 300 years. There is no route map for it, and no textbook that we can consult. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the First Minister and I are already involved in discussions to see that there is a symmetry of conventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that both sides have equal rights and responsibilities. I am sorry that we have to explain such things in words of one syllable to those on the Opposition Front Bench. The rights and responsibilities of each Parliament will be respected. I am sure that we will work for the ultimate benefit of the Scottish people, because I believe that the partnership not only gives them 104 more control over their own affairs in Scotland, but solidifies their partnership in the United Kingdom in a way that has never been done before.
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)May I assure the Secretary of State that when it comes to concord, we certainly desire it? Is it not the case, however, that the concord between him and the First Minister over the past few weeks has been somewhat subsonic? Has not the only means of communication between the Secretary of State and the First Minister been through the parliamentary Labour party—not a source of brotherly love and affection? Why are no concordats in place now, when the relationship should be up and running? Is the Secretary of State privy, for instance, to the internal paper round of the Scottish Executive? If not, is he not effectively cut out of all contact with decision making, save that which the First Minister wishes to give him? Is it not time to get away from the turf wars and lay some proper and open foundations for the relationship?
§ Dr. ReidLast week, apparently, Mr. McLetchie—who purports to lead the rump of the Conservative party in Scotland and is doing his best to disrupt the link between Scotland and the Union, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—claimed that I was too powerful. The claim from the Opposition today is that I am not powerful enough. Once they have sorted out their line on my status, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.
On the concordats, the reason for the delay, as I explained in great detail to the Select Committee, is that they are inextricably linked to the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is not between one Administration—the Scottish Executive—and the Government. It is between all devolved Administrations and all Departments of Government—including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the proposed devolved Assembly there. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that there has been some difficulty in recent weeks in reaching the final decision on the Irish situation. That is the main reason for the delay. There is no conspiracy.
I would merely make one further point. The hon. Gentleman and the SNP like to dwell on personalities, which is a sure sign that they have nothing whatever to say on policy, and the longer they deal in soap-opera politics, the more obvious to the Scottish people that fact will become.