WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH 2000

RT HON DR JOHN REID MP AND MR IAN GORDON

  20. Certainly it looks as if the Scottish Office, with the amount of evidence on the 21st July, gave for some very impressive reading. Maybe people reading that in hindsight would find themselves a bit embarrassed by some of the fears that they had at that time because they seem not to have borne fruit. Relating to the Scottish Parliament itself, you did say that it might illustrate ways of proceeding by which the House of Commons could benefit and you said, "if we find that they are doing things more effectively up in Scotland then we will think about doing them here". Has the Scottish Parliament developed any ways of operating which, you feel, might usefully be implemented at Westminster?
  (Dr Reid) Well, as a general statement, that might be part of what we look at in the review of procedures and so on. There are certainly certain things that the Scottish Parliament has introduced up there, like the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency, which I think other parts of the United Kingdom can learn from. I think there are potential learning curves out of the joint action committees. As regards the actual procedures of the Scottish Parliament, I think it is too early to say, quite frankly, because they themselves are working out their procedures continually. I think we should all keep in mind that this Parliament is only nine or ten months in, whereas this one here has had about 700 years to get things right. Up in Scotland they have only had nine or ten months in Holyrood, so I understand the level of expectation, but I think it is too early to learn lessons. I think they themselves want to settle in first, but we might have a quick look at that in the first joint review. The only other comment I would make is in relation to your comment about some of the attitudes displayed during our last meeting and, yes, we have got to get away from the days when we regard anyone who is not in the Scottish Parliament as an enemy of the Scottish Parliament, and I think that particularly ironic when the accusation was being levelled at people who had fought all their life for a Scottish Parliament by people who had never supported a devolved Parliament, but that was the reality of what we are going through. I think that is settling down now and if we can all confine ourselves to dealing with Scottish politics rather than intervening in the London Mayoral elections when we would not thank them for coming up and intervening in our elections, I think we would all get on a lot better, but there we are.

  21. I just wondered if there was not a lesson that we might have learnt in the last twelve months the other way round, something that Westminster benefits from that the Scottish Parliament does not, the existence of a second chamber, a revising chamber. I just draw one example to your attention where over a contentious and unpopular issue, the second chamber in the Westminster Parliament has enabled the Government to take the opportunity to delay and think again the issue of section 28. I wonder if the Scottish Parliament might have benefitted from that second chance to get it right.
  (Dr Reid) The ingenuity with which you introduce completely irrelevant subjects impresses me, Mr Swayne, but since the Chairman regards it as relevant, I will try to respond to you.

  22. It is very relevant in Scotland, Secretary of State.
  (Dr Reid) The burden of your question I take to be about the second chamber rather than the particular issue which highlighted it. The reason we do not need a second chamber in Scotland of course is that it is not a sovereign parliament. The reason we need a second chamber at Westminster is that Parliament is sovereign and therefore if there was no second chamber you and I and others in the House of Commons could blithely decree that the term of this parliament was 30 years or until the retirement of me or you, whatever is the earlier. So we would have an unrestrained elected dictatorship and therefore we need a second chamber. I take the view, and I know you do not, if you are going to have a second chamber it should be based on some sort of merit rather than just who your father happened to be, but that is neither here nor there, what is important is that you need a second chamber to constrain the potentially unrestrained rights of the first chamber. That is not the case in Scotland, you have a Parliament which has been set up under an Act so whatever the subject on which they may wish to reflect or not, I think a second chamber does not really help in the Scottish context.

  23. I have offered the Secretary of State, Mr Chairman, three opportunities to involve himself in section 28 this morning and he has avoided every one, and I do not blame him. Can I move on—
  (Dr Reid) Can I just explain why? Because it is a matter for the Scottish Executive. It is as simple as that. The Scottish Executive have the power and the responsibility to deal with this issue and I certainly am not going to second-guess the Scottish Executive on a matter which is within the control of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Nothing else should be read into that. I also say that as someone who, if I dared to mention anything to do with the weather in Holyrood, is accused of being involved in a turf war. So I am certainly not going to get into the position where I am giving any indications at this Committee that I am second-guessing the First Minister of the Executive of the Scottish Parliament.

  24. It is, nevertheless, an issue which spans the United Kingdom and it has been dealt with in both Parliaments.
  (Dr Reid) Yes, I have my view on our position in the United Kingdom, that is to say that I think the Government is absolutely right.

  25. Can I now move the Secretary of State, Chairman, on to the thorny issue of what has been characterised as the West Lothian problem? Certainly members of this Committee are aware that the Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies have quite enough work to do. The issue will really come to life—at the moment it is very much an academic issue—if particular circumstances pertain whereby, let us say, an unpopular and contentious issue is settled in England on a purely English matter on a number of votes smaller than the number of Scottish Members of Parliament who effectively decide that issue. It may be many years before such an issue arises but, nevertheless, there are a number of policies which political parties are offering on this question, and one is to create a new class, a second class, of MP with differential voting rights. Would it not be better to consider the possibility of the arrangements which used to pertain with Stormont, whereby Members of Parliament who represent Scottish seats adopted a convention, a self-denying ordinance, not to vote on contentious English matters for which those matters had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and on which they would have no locus to argue for their own constituencies? Would that not be a better way of defusing this potential thorn in the side of the United Kingdom than arriving at some kind of formalised arrangement which treated Members of Parliament with Scottish seats as second class?
  (Dr Reid) First of all, I am glad for your recognition that it may be some years away before the Labour majority is reduced to less than 71. I myself do not favour that. I do not favour anything which by convention or design creates different classes of Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament. I think the United Kingdom Parliament is the symbol of unity of the United Kingdom, it is the sovereign body, and I think we would all be better served to make sure that every MP here is equal in rights and privileges, not least because if you were to set up, say, a second group of MPs by convention for Scotland, you would have to set up a third one for Wales because they do not have the same devolved responsibilities to their Parliament. You would, almost inevitably, have to set up a fourth one for London, because although there are no legislative powers passed to London there are huge executive powers for instance over transport, so would you then have to have a convention which said that no London MP could become Minister of Transport? So you would end up—and I think this is the logic of, plucking him out of the air, William Hague's position—with such differentiation and fragmentation of the United Kingdom Parliament that it will become a symbol of disunity and not unity. So I have never favoured that. On the other hand, if you are saying to me, "Will we learn as we go along on this experiment which is now taking flesh in reality of decentralisation to our major capital city, two of the nations, possibly a third of the four nations of the United Kingdom?", I will say, "Yes, we will." "Are we making changes?" Yes, we are. We have curtailed already Scottish Question Time, we are carrying on in the interim, we constantly keep under review the Scottish Grand Committee, we are reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament here. I have said myself there will come a time if we get the settlement bedded in when we should look at the roles of the territorial secretaries of state and so on, and I do not think that is a list which is closed. I think we will look at the experience but we should not regard a lack of absolute symmetry on all these issues as being the weakness of the British constitution. The strength of the British constitution is that it has been able to incorporate within it anomalies and unsymmetrical arrangements for centuries because it has not been a written one, it has been flexible, so we have been able, if you like, to express the wishes of the British people at different stages of our history in different forms with the maximum flexibility. If we approach it with that general open attitude, I think we will find that we can cope with these problems. There does not have to be an algebraic equation which is equal on every side to make the British constitution work. Everyone internationally who has tried that ends up in a bigger mess than we have done historically. We have got through on practical grounds, not because it is beautiful, not because it is fine poetry of a constitution, not because it is an Einsteinian equation; we have got through because it works and it holds the United Kingdom together.

  Chairman: A number of members want to come in on some of those points.

  26. You have touched on the point that from your perspective all Members of Parliament are equal and therefore if someone puts a decision to the UK Parliament then it is up to the UK Parliament to make the decision on that question. Is not the message from Scotland and its experience that if you are unhappy with the decisions taken at that level, the way to avoid that problem is to get the decision taken at another level in another organisation?
  (Dr Reid) I am not quite sure what the message from Scotland is. Apparently some people in there think that when you are doing that, you should then run it by referenda rather than by democratically elected people. There are all sorts of messages coming from Scotland.

  27. In a sense the people of Scotland are frustrated by the decisions which have been taken by the Parliament and therefore have set up an institution and now London is going that way. There are frustrations in England—
  (Dr Reid) Yes, devolution came about for some positive reasons and some negative reasons, and one of the negative reasons was that Britain was the most over-centralised state in Western Europe and people felt alienated from politics, not just because of centralisation but for other reasons. One of the reasons for devolution was to bring decision-making closer to the people. Another reason for devolution in Scotland's case was that the amount of scrutiny necessary for Scottish legislation, because historically of the way it had been incorporated into the Union, was so great that it was estimated that we needed another body to do that properly. In other words, there was an excess of work and burdens on Scottish MPs. Now we have reduced that somewhat, it is a nonsense to say that Scottish MPs have nothing to do but there are people with an agenda who wish to say that. Yes, I think it is fair to say that one of the ways you therefore get rid of this anomaly is as the process of devolution occurs throughout the United Kingdom—it starts in Scotland, it starts in Wales, it perhaps, we all hope, goes to Northern Ireland, it is going to a major city, the Government have made it plain that if there is an overwhelming demand for it, as there was in Scotland, we have an open mind for extending it not only to cities but other regions. So, yes, decentralisation, empowerment of people, is a good thing. It is not an easy thing, Sir Robert; it is not an easy thing. Democracy is not easy, democracy means discussion, argument, disagreement, different points of view, and anyone who involves themselves in empowering and decentralising knows that in advance. Those who are writing very surprised editorials that this should be the case do so because presumably they did not understand in the first place what was involved in it. We all have to learn from it. Politicians, parties have to learn from it, as well as state officials and structures, and we will all make mistakes and we will learn from them.

  28. Secretary of State, it is these categories rather than different classes of MPs that my colleague, Mr Swayne, was talking about. If I look at what he is saying and what I believe some people would like to see, which is Scottish Members not taking part in issues which are seen as being relevant to England, can I say that where my constituency is geographically located, for example, many of my constituents depend upon Cumbria as an area where they access health provision in terms of hospitals and also it is an area where they access further education. I firmly believe it is in my best interests not only to observe but to take part in the debate and vote on what is happening within England as well, so it is not about the constituency as such but it is about my constituents. I believe there is a genuine need and a desire that what currently happens continues to happen.
  (Dr Reid) I appreciate your point of view. All I would say in respect of Mr Swayne, if you divide it into Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the reality is that 80 per cent of the representatives in this Parliament are English. I think that is true to say. It is of that order, 75 to 80 per cent. The English know themselves they have the overwhelming voting power in this Parliament and part of the reason for devolution is to say to the minority nations in the United Kingdom that you are part of a real partnership and in order to illustrate that that is the case we will pass to you within your own territory substantial areas of self-government. We believe that is good for government, it is good in terms of the people involved in it, but it is of course harder than running a completely centralised state. This Government could have sat, as I said, with a huge majority and run everything from this Palace of Westminster but chose not to do that; chose, because we thought it was a decent and democratic thing to do, to pass power out to Cardiff, to Holyrood in Edinburgh, and if they wish it to Belfast and other areas, and then said, "When you get it there, we will give up power, we will create an electoral system which says that Labour will no longer dominate." I cannot think of any government which has previously given up so much power as this Labour Government has. I genuinely cannot. Maybe the Meiji Revolution in Japan in 1868 where the feudal class sold out for pensions and handed it over to the giant companies which had just been formed, but I cannot remember any government handing out so much power, and certainly not in Britain, as this Government has done, and doing it in the full knowledge that it would make life difficult for itself. That is in the nature of devolution.

  29. Secretary of State, a very brief question. I was in Dulwich College yesterday and I was surprised that the majority of students there raised the question of over-representation of Members of Parliament for Scotland in Westminster, and I was also surprised that none of them raised the issue of voting on English matters by Scottish MPs. The question they asked was they were concerned about the over-representation of Scottish MPs. What is your view on this?
  (Dr Reid) The reality is that we have more MPs per head of population than England has. That is certainly true. The reasons for that are historic, it was a matter of the Act of Union and so on. It is now appropriate, now that we have our own Scottish Parliament, that that anomaly be remedied. I accept, as does the Government, that the next Boundary Commission, and this is specified in the Scotland Act, will look at making sure Scottish representation is on the same basis as England. That means we will fall—I cannot predict, because it is up to the Boundary Commission—probably from 72 to somewhere between 57 and 60. As you know, it is written in the Scotland Act that when that happens, the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament will fall as well.

  Mr Swayne: I just wanted to say to you, Mr Chairman, to reassure members of the Committee that I have not expressed any opinion on this matter at all. I merely asked the question.

  Chairman: Questions are not necessarily always the opinions of the members. It is right to point that out.

  30. On that last matter you raised, Secretary of State, who will be responsible for taking forward a review of the Scotland Act in time to look at the working of the Scottish Parliament now to see if it can continue to survive with that reduced number of Members of the Scottish Parliament? Because they have obviously set up their Committee structures and their way of working with the current numbers there, and if the Boundary Commission is to dramatically reduce the size of that Scottish Parliament, is there a mechanism or procedure whereby that can be looked at again in time to avoid damage being done to their working?
  (Dr Reid) This Parliament has set up our procedures on exactly the same assumption, including this Committee; they are set up on the foregoing number. So there are not any particular difficulties that would be faced by one parliament which are not faced by another. As far as looking over all our procedures and how they are going, that would be, within the British Government, my Department's responsibility. I presume one of the committees which would be looking at these issues is the Joint Ministerial Committee. The Scotland Act makes it quite clear that MPs and MSPs will be reduced.

  31. So it will require an amendment to the Scotland Act in time if that was necessary?
  (Dr Reid) Theoretically, yes, but what I would not want is for you to take that answer as indicating to the wider public that I do not want to see a reduction in Scottish MPs.

  32. But if there was a desire to decouple, the Act would have to be amended quite soon?
  (Dr Reid) I presume so.
  (Mr Gordon) It would have to be amended, yes.

  33. This is not a question, Secretary of State, but it is an opinion. As the only Member of Parliament present who served through 18 years of opposition when the Conservative Government was in power and the number of Conservative MPs in Scotland kept declining until there were none left, it was a source of tremendous annoyance to most of us to see measures and policies being carried out by the votes of Members of Parliament from England on matters affecting Scotland, but we accepted it, we realised it was the democratic will of the electorate at the time. I do not see, with the present situation, now the boot is on the other foot, it should not be accepted without any problem by the people who do not like now what happened for years. That is democracy, after all.
  (Dr Reid) I hear what you say. I would just say that it is much better now because even if all the Scots did not vote, Labour has such a huge majority due to the will of the people that the votes would still be carried. That was not always the case in the previous Government but it is for this one.

  34. We have exhausted all our questions to you, are there any final remarks either you and or Mr Gordon would like to make to us?
  (Dr Reid) No. I would just like to say thank you for the constructive role you have played in the way in which you have conducted the inquiry into poverty and the other relationships you have had with the Scottish Parliament in moving forward which I thought, as I said at the beginning, was one of the speediest and most effective transitions of government for a long, long time. Thank you for the courtesy you have shown me here and I hope that when we meet in the future we can begin to examine, as you have already, what I call the outputs, the delivery issues, rather than just the processes which I think have settled in very well.

  Chairman: Thank you for those remarks, Secretary of State. As far as poverty is concerned, it is the desire and the hope of the Committee that we will publish our report before the summer recess, and your evidence earlier will be very helpful in that respect. We do hope, and it is our intention, to make a number of meaningful recommendations which, again, we hope will be listened to by the Government. It is as always a great pleasure for the Committee to have you before us. We do welcome your appearances and we hope to see you on another occasion in the future. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr Gordon, for your attendance this morning.