| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dewar: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not want to go into a long digression about the current polls in Scotland. I think that the polls have a lot of shaking down to do in the next year. [Interruption.] I do not intend to be diverted from my argument, but let me say that I do not take very seriously, for instance, a poll that showed support for the Liberal Democrats at 2 per cent. That does not strike me as likely.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: It was all in my constituency.
Mr. Dewar: I note the hon. Gentleman's becoming modesty. He clearly hopes that the whole 2 per cent. will be at Lochaber. [Interruption.] I am sorry; that was the wrong constituency. It could have been a tragedy.
There have been three polls recently. One showed the SNP to be 5 per cent. ahead of Labour on one question--a question that was clearly important, but it was just one question, against the background of a high satisfaction rating for the Labour Government. The other two polls, on the same question, showed Labour to be 5 and 12 per cent. ahead respectively. There is much work to be done, and we all take these matters seriously. The SNP, wisely, says that it is not counting its chickens and that it, too, will work hard. I look forward to that, but I urge caution.
Let me turn to a more important issue: the issue that we are debating. The right hon. Member for Devizes asked me whether I considered the West Lothian question to be an absolute problem--a fundamental problem. I think that it could be a fundamental problem if it was mishandled and became a shibboleth. We do not want to turn this into a crisis, but I think that, on balance, it is advantageous to proceed with the scheme. I meet many of those who voted no in the referendum. I have talked to a number of those people, who have said, "We did not like certain aspects of the scheme--on balance we were against it--but we are now determined to make it work, and to get the best that we can out of it". The approach in the House of Commons should be on those broad lines: that would be sensible, and in all our interests.
Mr. Dewar:
I think that this is called revisiting one's past.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
As one of the few who opposed devolution when it was proposed by both main parties, let me ask the Secretary of State a genuine and serious question. If he thinks there is a problem, what on earth is wrong with asking an independent group to conduct an inquiry now? If a problem may arise, what is wrong with accepting the new clause? Who will be angry? Will Labour Members be angry? Will Conservative Members be angry? Will SNP Members be angry? If it is possible that a big problem will arise, what is wrong with accepting the new clause and trying to find a solution?
Mr. Dewar:
As the years go by, I am consistently amazed at the hon. Gentleman's ability to ask--with the simplicity and naivety of a child--"What would be the difficulty?" He knows full well what the difficulty would be, and how it would be interpreted. I have observed the hon. Gentleman for 20 years on the European question. I have never doubted his sincerity, but I have reservations about his sense of proportion and his starting point, and on this occasion I do not think that I can indulge him.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
What were the other occasions?
Mr. Dewar:
I remember meeting the hon. Gentleman in the Cloisters shortly after his translation to the south of England. I vividly recall his explaining that his whole idea was to establish a reputation as a Southend nationalist.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
Southend, East.
Mr. Dewar:
If I ever visit Southend and find the hon. Gentleman digging a large trench, I shall know that Southend is about to float off as a tax haven.
This discussion is becoming ludicrously overblown. Let me return to the point, and--comparatively briefly--deal with an argument that I, at least, am taking seriously. I hope that most of the points that I have made so far are being taken seriously as well.
I find it interesting watching the Conservative party try to deal with this problem. The hon. Member for--is it Rushcliffe?
Mr. Dewar:
Oh, Gainsborough. Sorry. [Hon. Members: "Rushcliffe is Ken Clarke."] Yes. Never mind. It is just as well that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is away: I suspect that the comparison would not have pleased him.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in a sense put it briskly. He said that there were only two possibilities. He said that there was a problem--he started from that point--and said that the only thing that the Conservatives could do was lump it or hope that there was total independence for Scotland. I do not believe that that view is shared by many Conservative Members.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, whom I now have at least in my mind's eye, if not physically before me, argued that federalism was not the answer. He did not want a federal solution, but did look back to the sort of in-out solution that Gladstone rejected in the 1890s in the Irish debates. However, the right hon. Members for South Norfolk and for Skipton and Ripon, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and Hykeham--
Mr. Dewar:
Precision again. Those three respected and experienced members of the Conservative parliamentary party all argued, at least to varying degrees, that federalism was the solution to this problem. It is clear that there is quite a lot not only of disunity, but of thinking going on. It will be interesting to see whether and how that develops, but, for the reasons that I have explained, Labour Members do not start with the same analysis of the seriousness of the issue, in terms of its being a major problem. Therefore, we will have to hold our fire.
There have been many attempts at this. Obviously, an English Grand Committee would not necessarily be satisfactory. Some people may have thought--I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South Norfolk did so--about the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which is an interesting visitor from the past and has not met for 20 years. It consists of all English Members of Parliament plus five. I could never imagine what the plus five were going to do, but it has not met for 20 years. That perhaps makes the point, which was made in another context by Labour Members, that there is a different level of interest in these matters in England.
There is a suggestion that, in the parliamentary party, there are people who are so alarmed by what they see as an anomaly that they want to drive towards a federal solution, but I am not sure that, in England, they would take the same view among the population generally about the difficulty of the situation, particularly as the worries
and stories about the effect and impact of the Scottish vote will not be self-evident, because it does not exist in the form that is being suggested.
Mr. MacGregor:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar:
Yes, but this is the last time that I shall do so.
Mr. MacGregor:
Is not the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman has put forward various sops that have no equivalents to the Scottish Parliament, and why, over the past 20 years, the Labour party has failed to address the matter, that the only logical and real equivalents to a Scottish Parliament that deal with the West Lothian question are not, on the whole, in most cases, favourable to the Labour party?
Mr. Dewar:
I do not want necessarily want to get into that argument, because the right hon. Gentleman and I would simply have a stand-off on it. I made passing reference to what we have done in terms of the voting system in the Scottish Parliament. We had an annus mirabilis in 1997. We received 46 per cent. of the vote. We are going to have to receive 50 per cent., or as near as damn it, to form a majority Administration, so to say that Labour Members are always interested just in self-interest, and that self-interest and party interest always overrule judgment on constitutional issues is hard to maintain. Therefore, he is being uncharacteristically ungracious to us, but I can see that I will have to leave him to harbour his sinister and dark, dark thoughts about our motives.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |