Scottish Democracy

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

I beg to move, That this House notes the undemocratic influence and power of transnational and multinational companies in the economic life of Scotland and the deliberate erosion of the rights of Scottish workers by the imposition of legal shackles on trade unions and on their ability to defend workers' living standards by industrial action and collective strength; further notes the weakening of democratic life in Scotland by the centralisation of power and decision-making in unelected quangos, such as the Scottish Enterprise network of companies, Scottish Homes and NHS trusts; condemns the dismantling of local government democracy proposed in the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill currently before the House; censures the Government for the continuing denial of a directly-elected Scottish Parliament, for which huge majorities of Scottish electors have voted in successive elections; recognises that the future of Scottish democracy depends upon giving effect to the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide for themselves how and by whom they are governed; and therefore calls for the holding of a multi-option referendum in which people living in Scotland can decide democratically the form of government best suited to their needs. I welcome at least four of Scotland's five Tory Back-Bench Members to the debate and I am delighted that they are taking such an interest in the future of Scottish democracy. If the debate serves no other purpose than to instruct the Scottish Tories on the Conservative Benches, it will have been very useful.

§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

I find the hon. Gentleman's words puzzling. Scottish Tory Members have a very good record of attending Scottish Grand Committees and the like. I do not understand the point that he is trying to make. Perhaps he could clarify the matter.

§ Mr. McAllion

The hon. Member would have done better to wait to hear what I was going to say before making that intervention. If he is more patient and allows me to develop even one line of my argument, he might get on better in this debate.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. McAllion

We seem to have evidence that Conservative Members are organising a filibuster before I can even start the debate.

§ Mr. Bill Walker

I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of Scottish Conservative Members present. Perhaps he would care to look behind him and along the Opposition Benches and note the number of hon. Members supporting him.

§ Mr. McAllion

If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard me welcoming the large presence of Scottish Tory Back-Benchers. I am delighted to see them here and I hope that they will listen attentively as they may learn something, which may not merely be in their interests, but will be of benefit to their constituents for whom I am much more concerned.

For the third time, may I begin by saying that the debate focuses on two related questions. The first is what has become known in Scotland as the national question—the right of Scotland to self-determination and self-government. The second question is that of democracy and the idea that in a nation—no one in the House can deny that 30 Scotland is a nation—the people must not merely have their say, but have their way. Those two questions are completely inseparable. In the words of the song, You can't have one without the other. The reality to date is that Scotland does not have self-government and cannot be described as a democracy. I do not say that merely through personal convictions because such convictions are not always in touch with reality, as membership of the House should prove to any hon. Member. I say so because the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly—by three to one—in a democratic election to assert their sovereignty and to set up their own parliament in Scotland. The fact that they are still being denied that parliament nearly two years on by a Government for whom they did not vote makes a mockery of the Government's claim to be democratic. As the Government are sustained in office by this House, it also makes a mockery of its claim to be democratic. Indeed, it makes a mockery of its claim to be the mother of western democracies.

I therefore make no apology for raising the question of Scottish democracy in this debate, although I know that many people, including many Scots, will be deeply suspicious of the nationalist side of the debate. After a weekend when we witnessed the worst excesses of nationalism—when taken to its ethnic extremes—in Sarajevo, I can understand why people might think that way. They are right to feel a general and deep unease about those who beat the nationalist drum and who, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), think with their blood.

We are learning to our great cost in Europe today just how evil extreme nationalism can be, not only in the nationalist wars in Yugoslavia, but the resurgent nationalism in Germany, which is reviving racism and even nazism there, as well as the election in this country of an extreme British nationalist, against a background of rising racist attacks on Asian minorities in our cities, often by people who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and claim to be British nationalists. In Scotland, there is the disturbing emergence of Scotland Watch and Settler Watch. It does not matter whether they do it consciously or otherwise; they are stoking the fires of anti-English sentiment and resentment in our country.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that there can be no toleration of the kind of nationalism that defines us by emphasising the difference between us and them. There should be no tolerance in the House for those who attempt to define us in Scotland by emphasising the difference between us and English Members who represent other constituencies. If I refer to Scotland, the Scottish nation or Scottish people, I am simply referring to those who have chosen to settle and live in Scotland, irrespective of their ethnic, religious or national background.

As a direct descendant of immigrants to Scotland from Ireland in the previous century, I recognise more than most that Scottish culture is not threatened in any sense by immigration from outside. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. It is greatly enriched and strengthened by immigrants from other countries. The Scottish author, William McIlvanney, never said a truer word when he said that the Scots are a mongrel people and all the better for it.

Long may we continue to be a mongrel people, because our mongrel nature is one of our great national strengths. Having said that, we are none the less a nation. The right 31 hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) described Scotland as one of the oldest historic nations in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is not only one of the most experienced, but one of the wisest Members of the House. His words should be listened to.

We should never lose sight, especially in the Opposition, of the positive side of our nationalism and that of other countries. For example, few socialists would quarrel with the aspiration of the Palestinian people to national self-determination. Even fewer did not or would not support the nationalist struggles in Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua and elsewhere in the third world against the domination by American imperialism. Few hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would not accept the legitimacy of the nationalist goal of a united Ireland, so long as it is pursued by democratic means and is brought about by the democratic consent of the people north and south in Ireland.

The point that I am trying to make is that nationalism can be, and often is, a progressive and liberating force in the modern world. I believe that Scottish nationalism is and can be such a force if it is properly channelled. Indeed, for most of this century, the cause of Scottish nationalism has been the cause of the Scottish Labour movement. Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party, was a lifelong advocate of Scottish home rule. John McLean, who, perhaps, was Scotland's foremost revolutionary socialist, campaigned all his life for what he called the Scottish socialist workers' republic. Red Clydeside's Jimmy Maxton fought for what he described as the Scottish socialist commonwealth.

In the general election of 1918, the Labour party in Scotland drew up its election manifesto, which had only three distinctively Scottish commitments. The first was the prohibition of alcohol. The second was proportional representation. The third was a Scottish parliament. It is interesting to note that, more than 75 years on, some of us are still campaigning for at least two of those three commitments.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)

Which two?

§ Mr. McAllion

It certainly is not the prohibition of alcohol. I speak as the secretary of the all-party Scotch whisky group when I say that.

Although Labour subsequently dropped its commitment to Scottish home rule in the 1950s and 1960s, it eventually returned to it, placing it at the very heart of its "Agenda for Scotland" through our support for a claim of right for Scotland and for the Scottish Convention scheme for a Scottish parliament. Opposition Members do not hesitate to proclaim Scotland's right to self-determination and to home rule and its own parliament. These are basic democratic demands, supported by a minimum of three out of four Scottish voters. I believe that the potential exists for a common agenda for three of Scotland's four major constitutional parties; I hope that, by the end of the debate, Conservative Members will have been convinced as well.

There is plenty to form the basis of a democratic critique of Scottish government: God knows enough is wrong with it nowadays. The current housing crisis, for instance, is related to the lack of democracy in Scotland. Homelessness is now at record levels, having increased by a staggering 145 per cent. in the 1980s. According to reports in this 32 morning's Scottish press, in just four areas some 8,500 women are not only homeless but hidden out of sight, not recognised as homeless. God knows what the national figure is.

The first national housing condition survey, completed in 1992, revealed that no fewer than 423,000 Scottish dwellings were affected by damp, severe condensation, mould or, in some cases, a combination of all three. We all know areas in our constituencies which are euphemistically described as "areas of low demand". Housing in such areas consists of damp-ridden boxes and unemployment is at 40, 50 or even 60 per cent; crime and vandalism are rife; the streets are not safe for mothers to walk or children to play in; and drug abuse is common, with hedges and stairwells littered with discarded syringes. Those areas are little better than hellholes, but people cannot escape from them: they have no alternative accommodation because of the housing crisis.

That is a national disgrace, but we have not the democratic means to do anything about it. Not so long ago, locally elected councils were responsible for Scotland's housing. Those councils were accountable to their electorate; if local people were not satisfied with their performance, they could vote them out at regular elections. Now, every local housing scene is dominated by the quango Scottish Homes, whose financial muscle cannot be matched by individual councils. In 1993–94, Scottish Homes has a massive £372 million to invest in housing; with resources on such a scale, it will call the shots. Without an agreement with Scottish Homes to bring part of that £372 million into its area, no council can really be in the housing business.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some 42 strategic agreements have been made with local authorities and that two more are about to be made? In the vast majority of cases—if not all—local authorities have nomination rights in relation to Scottish Homes housing.

§ Mr. McAllion

The Minister should have been patient and waited until I had finished. I was pointing out that councils were not in the housing business unless they had secured such agreements.

Locally elected councils had to negotiate their agreements with Scottish Homes and in those negotiations all the muscle, power and influence were on one side. Councils are now being forced to submit to a housing agenda that is increasingly being set by the unelected Scottish Homes agency—an agenda whose priority is more home ownership, tenure change and encouragement of the private sector at the expense of the public sector. That agenda largely ignores those who are trapped in the worst housing, who have the fewest private resources and who are least able to look after themselves. That has arisen because housing in Scotland is dominated by non-elected quangos such as Scottish Homes at the expense of the input of elected local authorities, which used to be the main players on the housing scene before Scottish Homes.

That is true also of the Scottish Enterprise network, which has brought into being a whole new family of quangos in the form of local enterprise companies throughout Scotland. Their influence on economic development, training, business support and development grants completely dwarfs local council planning and 33 economic development departments. In my own area, Scottish Enterprise Tayside has an annual budget of about £25 million to spend on local economic development, compared with a combined budget for Tayside regional council's planning and economic development departments of less than £4 million.

To whom are Scottish Enterprise and other agencies accountable? Certainly not to the people of Tayside, local councils or Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies. They are accountable only to the Secretary of State for Scotland—and that must and does lead to abuses. In the past few weeks in my local enterprise company, two senior members were forced to resign because of a conflict of interest between their role as private business men and as heads of what is essentially a public agency. That situation cannot be tolerated and it should be snuffed out as soon as possible.

The same argument can be made in respect of national health service trusts, the new water boards and the host of new quangos that have come into existence under the present leadership of the Conservative party in Scotland. They are a law unto themselves and to their master—the Secretary of State for Scotland. Little wonder that he is prepared to defend quangos—as he did earlier today. They are in effect his own flesh and blood. He forms quangos, packs their membership with Conservative party supporters and sets their agendas—and the quangos do his bidding. The Secretary of State and the quangos are running Scotland without the democratic consent of the Scottish people. Although the people of Scotland fund those quangos, they have no say in them and are treated with contempt.

Many other aspects of Scottish life are equally intolerable.

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

To emphasise the rottenness of quango appointments I should point out the appointment to the chairmanship of Inverclyde Royal hospital trust of a local employer who pays among the lowest wages in the whole Inverclyde area. Surely that augurs badly for the people who give their best service to patients of the Inverclyde Royal hospital group.

§ Mr. McAllion

My hon. Friend makes a fair point and that is not an isolated example. The Secretary of State for Scotland recently visited Dundee, but not in his ministerial capacity. In fact, he did not even advise my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that he was to visit the constituency. The right hon. Gentleman did so in his role as a member of the Conservative party, to raise funds for his party at a secret dinner held at the Invercastle hotel in Dundee—to which was invited the chairman of the Dundee NHS trust, as a Conservative party supporter, together with the chairman-designate of Scottish Enterprise Tayside.

§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)

Sleaze.

§ Mr. McAllion

That is exactly right. We are concerned with the country being run democratically and it is not democratic for Scotland to be run by people appointed purely on the basis that they give money to the Conservative party—which was roundly defeated in the last local and general elections.

In the past month, we have seen how Westminster-style democracy deals with Scottish affairs. A Government who 34 had been defeated in the polls in Scotland introduced a Bill on local government which relates exclusively to Scotland and the people who live there. Members of Parliament who were elected to represent Scottish interests voted overwhelmingly against that Bill. The House simply shrugged off what Scotland thinks about Scottish legislation and voted to give the Bill a Second Reading. Indeed, it ensured that in the Committee stage there would be a built-in Government majority, against the wishes of the Scottish people.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

The hon. Gentleman may have been in the House on 18 November last year when the leader of the Labour party made a complaint about English Conservatives being put on to the Committee which considered that Bill. He was certainly in the House last Tuesday when the Scottish spokesperson of the Labour party defended the right of English Tories to sit on the Committee. Which leader does the hon. Gentleman follow in that argument?

§ Mr. McAllion

This is a serious debate. It is unfortunate that it has to be dragged down into the gutter by the interventions of the hon. Gentleman. I am making a serious speech about the future of democracy. If the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise the national interest when it stares him in the face, he would do better renaming his party. It certainly does not act in Scotland's national interest.

§ Mr. Bill Walker

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, for one, do not doubt the integrity of his view. I do not agree with it, as he knows, but I do not doubt his integrity. Will he clarify an important point of principle and detail? If a future Labour Government did not have a majority of Members in England, would it be right and proper for that Government to pass legislation affecting England which was opposed by the majority?

§ Mr. McAllion

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Labour is committed to a radical rehaul of the constitutional set-up in the United Kingdom. The start of that will be the establishment of a Scottish parliament with direct responsibility for Scottish affairs. Inevitably, the establishment of that Scottish parliament must change the very nature of this House. It is only a matter of time until we have a Welsh parliament and either regional assemblies or an English parliament—as the English people might decide under a federal constitution for the United Kingdom. That is the future and the way forward for the House. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that it is the way forward for everyone in this country.

In the handling of the local government Bill by the Westminster Parliament we saw how Westminster-style democracy turns a minority view in Scotland into Government diktat. We saw it discount and disable the views of the democratic majority in Scotland. Yet we are asked to accept that that deeply undemocratic process is in our best interests and represents, in the Government's words, "A Partnership for Good".

Conservative Members argue that theirs is the democratic way while, at the same time, arguing that the democratic views of the Scottish people ultimately do not count in Scottish legislation. They argue that the role of Scotland in the partnership must always be defined for us by a bigger partner. They argue that democracy in Scotland means being governed by those whom we did not elect.

35 When they make those arguments, they stand on the verge of George Orwell's nightmare world of doublethink. Conservative Members are asked to hold two contradictory views simultaneously. If Conservative Members are not worried about the internal contradictions of their claims to be democratic in a Scottish sense, they should be. Everyone else is beginning to recognise just how unsustainable is the Tory position on Scottish democracy.

I am often struck by the religious fervour with which defenders of the current Union argue their case. It is almost as if Tories believe that history and God are on their side. That came across clearly in the most recent Government White Paper "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good". In the introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister speaks about his faith in a Union which has lasted almost 300 years. The Secretary of State for Scotland waxes eloquent about the joys of a single market which has transcended almost three centuries.

The White Paper is almost awestruck when it speaks about the approaching 400th anniversary of the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland. There is about the document an air of historical inevitability—almost of destiny. It is almost as if 1707 is as important to Scottish Unionists as 1690 is to Ulster Unionists. Yet nothing in life is inevitable. The only constant factor in history is change—states come and go and unions come and go. In 1984, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was one of two world super-powers that bestrode the globe; it no longer exists.

§ Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I hope to develop later if I am able to make my speech. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Union has survived for 300 years due to its ability to change. It is a dynamic force; the Union of 1994 is not the same one as that of 1707. It has changed to meet changing circumstances and will continue to do so. That is why it lasts.

§ Mr. McAllion

The hon. Gentleman has already admitted the case for change in the Union that exists in Scotland. The significant aspect of the Conservative party's attitude to the Union over most of the past 300 years has been its refusal to countenance any substantial changes in the Union. The hon. Gentleman is not guilty of that—I am pleased that he has joined us in our calls for changes to the existing Union and no longer tries to defend the Unionist status quo, as his hon. Friends do.

It is important for Conservative Members to understand that unions come and go. Not long ago, Yugoslavia was a powerful unitary state. Now, it has descended into the nationalists' nightmare in Bosnia, about which we are all concerned. As old unions have gone, new ones have come into existence. The European Union was designed by the Maastricht treaty and came into existence this year. In the spring of this year, the new democratic and non-racist South African Union will come into force. The lesson to be learnt from such developments is that nothing is permanent or sacrosanct about unions, including the United Kingdom.

The fact that the United Kingdom has existed for nearly 300 years is no argument or reason for the Union to continue. Recent history suggests that, as we approach the end of the 20th century, those political unions that are unsustainable are multinational, but based on a unitary 36 state that makes no allowance for that multinational dimension. Such unions are highly centralised and authoritarian, without local autonomy. Those unions are essentially undemocratic, where words such as "subsidiarity" and "decentralisation" are regarded as dirty. The United Kingdom has become like those unions under successive Tory Governments since 1979.

If the Union is in danger today, it is because of the activities, not of Opposition Members, but of Conservative Members. Those who would defend the Union argue that such arguments are merely constitutional points and that, ultimately, there is an economic case for defending the existing Union. They say that the Scottish economy is inextricably linked to the United Kingdom economy and it would be impossible to change that. Such arguments are essentially political. They try to underscore the importance of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom, and part of a much larger and more powerful economy, but they merely state the obvious.

Those who advance such arguments might as well say that the Scottish economy is inextricably linked to the European or global economy. Economic interdependence, not independence, is the watchword at the end of the 20th century. What happens in the rest of this island, the rest of the continent and the rest of the world matters greatly and has a powerful effect on the people of Scotland.

Scotland cannot step outside history and live in splendid tartan isolation, although some hon. Members want to see that happen. It needs to belong to a range of multinational entities and to a radically reformed, federal, decentralised and democratic United Kingdom. Scotland should belong to a different sort of European Union, which is genuinely democratic and has at its heart the interests of the peoples of Europe, not multinational companies. Scotland should belong to a United Nations that is an effective force for peace, not merely an observer of wars, as it has become on too many occasions.

Scottish sovereignty is not something which Scotland can keep exclusively to itself. We need to pool our sovereignty with other nations where it is in our common interest to do so. However, the decision to pool that sovereignty must be a Scottish decision. We must decide how much of our sovereignty we are prepared to pool and decide with which other countries we wish to place that sovereignty and how much we shall keep to ourselves. The present Union is unacceptable because we are not allowed to make that decision. We are denied the opportunity to decide how much sovereignty we share with the other nations of the United Kingdom. That is why the Union is profoundly undemocratic and why it is ultimately doomed until it learns to transform itself into the decentralised, democratic and reformed Union to which I have referred and which the Labour party intends to implement after the next election. The debate is a matter of the utmost importance to the people who live in Scotland for those reasons and also because of the questions that it asks about the democratic credentials of the Westminster parliamentary system. It is not just a dry, constitutional matter.

An article appeared in the New Statesman 18 months to two years ago. It was about life on the battle front—the derelict housing schemes on the edge of Glasgow—and described the life of a man who was separated from his wife. It said: last night's meal was potatoes mashed with half an onion, and a tin of peas. In the fridge, there is a can of lager and some long-life milk … He can afford to heat only one room in the flat, 37 so the bedroom remains unused. He sleeps on the sofa under a foam duvet, his coat serving as a pillow. In any case, he sleeps very little … The TV plays all night; at five in the morning, he falls asleep in front of women's golf or motorcycle racing in Florida sunshine. He is too demoralised even to get undressed. There is no hot water: a splash of cold tap water in a bathroom where the breath hangs in a mushroom of vapour. Far too many of our countrymen are forced to live in such conditions in this day and age. That is partly to do with global and economic issues which are beyond Scotland's control, but it is partly because Scotland does not have the democratic means of changing those conditions. We live in a country which is rich in resources and which has enough wealth to ensure that none of our citizens has to live in such conditions.

§ Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain how that person managed to watch golf from Florida at 5 o'clock in the morning? Would not that mean that he had a satellite dish? He obviously had a television set. How many such things did one have in the average household of some years ago?

§ Mr. McAllion

That is not the point. The hon. Gentleman may have satellite television, but I have not and I can watch golf from Florida at 5 o'clock in the morning if I choose to do so. The general description of the person living in that derelict scheme should have caused the hon. Gentleman concern and he should have been worried that some of his fellow citizens are living in such conditions. Something should be done about it by the people who represent Scotland in the House.

§ Dr. Godman

Before my hon. Friend ends his fine speech, may I point out that in speaking as an honest apologist for the Union, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kinoch) is part of a long tradition? At the time of the Union, when Daniel Defoe was acting as a secret agent for the English Government, he said that it was a marriage of convenience, not of the heart. Conservative Members are part of that tradition.

§ Mr. McAllion

That is a good point. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is certainly not a secret agent, but an open agent of the party which governs in Scotland. People do not have to live in the conditions that I have described in this modern age in a wealthy country such as ours. Part of the reason for those conditions is that we have lost the democratic means by which we can do something about them. Restoring the democratic means to the Scottish people is and should be the first priority of every Member who represents a Scottish constituency.

I refer hon. Members to the last few lines of the motion, which recognises that the future of Scottish democracy depends upon giving effect to the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide for themselves how and by whom they are governed; and therefore calls for the holding of a multi-option referendum in which the people living in Scotland can decide democratically the form of government best suited to their needs. Everyone in Scotland should unite behind that theme. If we are genuine democrats, we have nothing to fear from the democratic decision of the Scottish people. Those who run away from that decision are those who fear the judgment of the Scottish people at the ballot box.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I are in complete agreement about one matter—we do not support the prohibition of alcohol. Having said that, I must now say where and why I disagree with him on other issues. I have always made it clear to him that I do not doubt the integrity with which he holds his views, but I believe sincerely that were his views to be examined critically and positively by the Scottish people they would be rejected. I hope to be able to tell him why.

First, the hon. Gentleman talked about the Scots and, to use his words, the people who live in Scotland, from wherever they came. As he must know, with his name and background, his family came from one of the other islands off the coast of Europe. I speak as one whose family, as far as one can trace, has always lived in Scotland. In fact, I think that I am the first member of my family to have married a non-Scot—my wife is English, but that does not mean that her view of the well-being of Scotland is any less honest than that of the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. McAllion

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I am also married to an English woman and she, like me, is a citizen of Scotland and entitled to participate fully in Scottish democracy.

§ Mr. Walker

I can say that she participates with credit and distinction.

If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was saying that the Scots—the people who live in Scotland—are not properly or adequately represented in this unitary Parliament. He was referring to the Scots who live north of the border. Less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live in Scotland—no one can deny that; it is a statement of fact. Eighty-three per cent. of the people who live in these islands live in England. How do the Scots in Scotland regard their representation in this place?

The Scots form less than 9 per cent. of the population, but constitute more than 12 per cent. of the total number of Members of Parliament. In all modern Cabinets—certainly those in the post-war years—the Scots have always enjoyed about 20 per cent. or more of Cabinet posts. In the present Cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, who is in charge of English legal matters and law, is a Scot. I wonder what would happen if we were to have an Englishman appointed as Lord Advocate—I can just see the reaction in Scotland. However, we have a distinguished Scot, the Lord Chancellor, in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Transport is a native Scot, as are the Secretary of State for Defence and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is here today. In other words, four of the 22 members of the Cabinet are Scots and, until recently, there were five Scots. As for Labour, if by some misfortune we were to have a Labour Government after the next election, there is no question but that the Scots would hold more than 20 per cent. of the posts.

By my reckoning, we have more hon. Members representing Scotland than we should have on a percentage basis of the population and, despite constituting only 9 per cent. of the population, the Scots have more than 9 per cent. of non-Cabinet positions of all levels.

§ Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central)

The hon. Gentleman clearly received a pocket calculator as a Christmas present and has only just discovered how to use 39 it. In view of his percentage calculations, would he like to comment on the fact that, at the previous election, his party received about 25 per cent. of the vote and took 16 per cent. of the seats but 100 per cent. of the power? What lesson can we learn from that?

§ Mr. Walker

I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend say that—he is my friend because he is my pair, when the arrangements are working. Clearly, he has not heard me arguing my case before. I have always argued—consistently, I hope—that Scotland and Scottish interests are well looked after in this place because we have always enjoyed more than our percentage share of posts and influence. It is not only in this place—

§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

rose—

§ Mr. Salmond

rose—

§ Mr. Walker

I am answering my hon. Friend—at least, I hope that he will one day be my friend again so that we can get away from this place from time to time.

I have always argued—consistently, I hope—that in the spheres of science, arts and education, among others, the Scots have always enjoyed more than 9 per cent. of the key positions within the United Kingdom establishments.

§ Mr. Salmond

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is not always the case. He is saying that the individual success of individual Scots will do some national good. Did the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence is a Scot help Rosyth last year?

§ Mr. Walker

In the short term, the answer is yes. I do not wish to digress and talk about Rosyth, but I am happy to debate the details with the hon. Member at any time. I think that I know more about the case than he does, but in the short term the answer is yes.

I was developing my argument—

§ Mr. Connarty

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting an intervention. Instead of talking about personalities and the few people who make a difference, will he instead talk about the subject of today's debate which is about the lack of democracy in Scotland, the fact that the positions of power in Scotland are given to adherents of the Government's politics and the fact that they are, as it were, chosen by the Secretary of State, not by the people of Scotland?

§ Mr. Walker

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I hope to develop my argument and deal with that point later. I shall not duck the issue, unlike the hon. Member for Dundee, East who failed to answer my question about what the next Labour Government would do. I try to answer questions, which sometimes upsets people. I occasionally upset my friends, but I try to answer so that the following week I do not have to try to remember what I said. It is best to answer honestly and objectively.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to give way. I wish to follow the question put by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). He asked whether the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence is a Scot was of advantage to Rosyth. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said yes. Does that mean that had the 40 Secretary of State for Defence been an Englishman it would have been of benefit to Tynemouth or that had he been a Welshman it would have been of benefit to some establishment in Wales?

§ Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman constantly talks about his being reasonable and moderate and other lovely adjectives. Let me put it this way: has he ever been a member of a body, at whatever level, in which common interest did not assist in decision making? It is true in golf clubs; it is true in Cabinets; it is true everywhere else. I got into terrible trouble before for suggesting what a good thing it was to have more than one Scot in the Cabinet. I believe that it is a massive advantage to Scotland to have Members representing Scottish constituencies in the Cabinet in addition to the Secretary of State. That is true in defence and in other sectors.

I wish to develop that argument with regard to Scotland's interests. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party's objective was to create a Scottish parliament, a Welsh parliament, and regional parliaments in England. Is that correct?

§ Mr. McAllion

What happens in England is a matter for the people of England. I would not dare to tell them how to run their domestic affairs and I do not think that they should tell us in Scotland how to run our domestic affairs.

§ Mr. Walker

I asked the hon. Gentleman about the policy and the likely practice of the next Labour Government. I will now discuss that, because I believe that it has some importance and significance for the basis of his argument. As I understand it, it is the policy of the next Labour Government to give the Scots their parliament, and to get that measure through the House on the basis that England will have regional assemblies. That is, as I understand it, the logic of the Labour party's case. Let me discuss that, because it is important to consider the situation.

We would have a number of regional assemblies in England—I do not know how many, but let us assume that there are five. That is not an unrealistic assumption. With 83 per cent. of the population, there could be as many as eight, but let us assume that there are five or six. Let us assume that there are six regional assemblies in England, one in Scotland and one in Wales, giving a total of eight. The views of Scotland would constitute one eighth of the views to be listened to at the centre, because the centre would be under the federal structure that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. There would still be a federal structure in the United Kingdom, in London, in whatever form, and therefore Scotland would have a one eighth contribution instead of the approximately one fifth contribution—at its worst—that it enjoys now.

Currently, there is a Scottish Secretary of State and at least one other Scottish member of the Cabinet, and they take decisions that affect the whole of the United Kingdom. That would change if the Labour party's proposals were implemented. We would adopt a system in which Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies would represent the same numbers of constituents as Members of Parliament with constituencies elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so that Scotland would lose its parliamentary representation and its power. Scotland would have less influence under the new system, because it would not be an equal.

41 I shall put it to the hon. Gentleman in simple language. I have listened to him argue his case and it has always seemed to me that he recognises that Scotland has less than 9 per cent. of the population, but he reckons that it has 50 per cent. of the equity in the United Kingdom. That, I think, is generally his view—that Scotland should have an equal say and an equal voice.

§ Mr. Gallie

I think that a point that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised with my hon. Friend should not go unchallenged. The hon. Member suggested to my hon. Friend that he was not interested in English affairs. However, if I recall correctly, he voted during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which dealt with many English matters. He voted, I understand, during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage (Hybrid) Act 1993, which was about Welsh affairs. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East is suggesting that he is not interested in other parts of the Union, it is not represented, to my mind, in his voting record.

§ Mr. Walker

I thank my hon. Friend. Yes; it seems to me that Opposition Members are trying to have their cake and eat it. They are trying to claim that, because they will have that representation and their own parliament in Edinburgh, they will continue to have the same power and influence as they currently enjoy under the Westminster situation.

That case will be put to the Scottish people. I believe that, in whatever form it is put, they will reject the proposals. When we voted in Scotland on the question of the Scotland Act 1978, it was fairly clear that, when the matter came out into the public domain, the people of Scotland thought, "Hold on a minute; we do not want to pay for a talking shop simply because it will be there." One third of them rejected it; one third said, "Yes, we will support it"; but, critically, one third did not bother to vote. The people who did not vote "didnae care", and they "didnae care" because they had been told that if they absented themselves that would be the equivalent of a no vote. On the basis that that was how it was sold to the people during the referendum campaign, at least two thirds of the Scottish people either did not care or opposed the proposals. I reckon that one could add them together.

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the so-called "democratic deficit" and what it appears to have done, but he glibly proceeds to discuss "pooling sovereignty". It is wonderful the way in which we pull out of the sky lovely phrases to suit any circumstances. What is meant by "pooling sovereignty"? My views about the constitution are well known to everyone and I will not describe them today, but I took my stand because I have strong views about the so-called "pooling of sovereignty".

The hon. Gentleman glibly uses it as a throw-away line. It is not that simple, as the hon. Gentleman should know, because it impinges on all other activities; I agree with him about that. Wealth generation, job creation, the way in which we deal with dampness in housing and all such matters have much to do with our economic performance—and when I say, "our economic performance", I make no apologies for saying that I mean the United Kingdom's economic performance.

I believe, sincerely, that the Union has benefited the Scots and the English out of all proportion to the sum of the two parts coming together. It is much greater than that. 42 That is why I think that when we speak about the "pooling of sovereignty", we must examine carefully what we are prepared to give or not to give.

The hon. Gentleman glibly skated around that. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), an Englishman—I do not hold that against him—spoke about a "marriage of convenience". He is obviously a student of history. If he is, he will know that many marriages of convenience have produced surprising results—very good results. If it was a marriage of convenience, using his description, he and others cannot deny that the ability to move anywhere in the United Kingdom seeking jobs, following one's career whether one is an artisan or a politician—in the hon. Gentleman's case, a politician—has been of enormous benefit to the people of the Clyde, because they have him as their hon. Member and, obviously, that has been a great benefit to him and to them. At least, being generous to him, I assume that it is. Therefore, he must accept that the Union, however it came about, has been of considerable benefit to him and to his constituents.

The economy is often critical to discussion of this subject. Has Scotland benefited from the Union? First, I will discuss Scotch whisky, about which I know that I will not get any argument from the hon. Member for Dundee, East. Has the Scotch whisky industry benefited from the Union? Yes, it has, because the Union created a substantial marketplace, a home market from which it was possible to expand into a world market that is the envy of many other industries. It is to the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has argued that point many times.

We want a good home base so that the export markets can be maximised. The home base for which we have always asked is the United Kingdom home base. When we argue on behalf of the home base, we are not talking about the consumption of Scotch whisky in Scotland alone. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that the Union has been beneficial for the home base of the Scotch whisky industry.

How about the economy generally? Between 1979 and 1991, the Scottish economy grew on average by 1.7 per cent.

§ Mr. Watson

Did the hon. Gentleman get a calculator for Christmas?

§ Mr. Walker

I have a calculator, but I did not get it this Christmas.

By comparison—this is an important point—the economy grew on average by less than 1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. I do not pick those years by accident; they are the years of a Labour Administration. It is possible that under the enlightened Labour Administration to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East looks forward, the Scottish economy could fare worse. It is a possibility, because that is what happened before; I do not put it any higher than that. What about living standards in Scotland? Gross domestic product per head increased by 30 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. That was brought about through the Union.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East and his hon. Friends talk about the "political deficit". What they are really talking about is the fact that the Labour party cannot get its hands on the levers of power. They are not talking about democracy. I do not doubt the integrity of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, as he knows. I was, therefore, astonished 43 that his right hon. and hon. Friends had managed to buy him off. How have they done it? What quango post have they given him? What have they promised him? What job has he been given? How has he been bought? Immediately following the general election, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—

§ Mr. McAllion

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not bought off with the price of Kevin Kelly's resignation.

§ Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman has obviously been shut up somehow and told to line up with the rest of the troops, so he has stopped rocking the boat so violently. His approach to the problems of the Scottish democratic deficit is the Scotland United approach, which he does not deny. That is not the approach of Labour Front-Bench Members. We have at least managed to ascertain that their views are different from the hon. Gentleman's. When the hon. Gentleman says that he is speaking on behalf of the Opposition—excluding the narrow nationalists and the Liberal Democrat nationalists—he is actually speaking on behalf of his friends in Scotland United. Labour Front-Bench Members have a different view.

That fact does not surprise me. Labour Front-Bench Members think, "Gosh, we shall have a lot of Scots in the next Cabinet." They do not want to rock the boat because people in England may say, "Hold on! There are too many Scots in key positions." That is the backlash that one gets if one attempts to push too hard the business of "We poor Scots are downtrodden and we do not get things our way." Some 83 per cent. of the population of these islands live in England. A backlash would not, therefore, be in the best interests of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, of the House or of the Scottish people.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East talks about dire threats caused by the views taken by people such as myself. I am well aware of the risks and hazards of the road ahead; that is why I have spent so much of my life in politics and in Parliament trying to address that. I have put forward ideas which, as is the case with the hon. Gentleman, have not always been well received by Front-Bench colleagues. However, one has to look carefully at the risks of the route that one proposes. I have never accepted that the Union is cast in concrete or that it cannot be modified. That is why I have suggested changes.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to appointments to non-elected bodies. I have been asked to address that point and I do not want somebody to say, "You have not addressed that point, Mr. Walker." We must be careful about excluding anyone from statutory bodies. My personal view is that there should be fewer statutory bodies, but I believe that as long as the bodies exist, we must be careful not to say, "You cannot be a member of a statutory body because you are a trade unionist" or, "You cannot be a member of a statutory body because you are a business man."

There have been two resignations from Scottish Enterprise Tayside. The chairman-designate properly took the view that there was a conflict of interests. It was not a conflict of interests that would have damaged the interests of the people of Tayside, but the chairman-designate honestly believed that, as chairman of a company, he could not be seen to be promoting the interests of other companies. He was probably right. However, if we are to 44 get the best people for the jobs—that is all that we should look for—we should not exclude someone because his trade union interests will inevitably conflict with others.

§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the point at this stage. Everyone on Tayside was sickened to hear that James Miller had decided not to accept the chairmanship of Scottish Enterprise Tayside. He was eminently suited to taking on that task. Our objection was on the basis that he was appointed without any consultation. He was appointed by Scottish Enterprise Tayside, which is directly answerable to Scottish Enterprise, which is, in turn, directly answerable to the Secretary of State. That is a rather convoluted formula.

When the Secretary of State for Employment announced the formation of the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies, I, as a member of the Select Committee on Employment, pointed out the problem to him, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) will recall. We raised the conundrum with the Secretary of State. There must be a conflict of interests when the head of one company takes decisions about promoting other companies, which will affect his company. That is bound to happen.

§ Mr. Walker

Any director of a company who accepts an appointment to a quango must understand that there is a real possibility that he will face a conflict of interests. I accept that, and I equally accept that a trade unionist would be put in the same position. That is not a reason for condemning such individuals and it is not a reason for excluding them.

Like the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I was bitterly disappointed by the resignation of the chairman-designate because I thought that he was eminently suited to the position. He was the ideal chap to follow Bill Low, a constituent of mine who did a good job.

That shows that those of us who are involved in political life should be careful when we comment on who should be a member of a quango. Quangos should be open to the best people, whoever they are and wherever they come from. The system for appointments must ensure that interests are declared. We have largely achieved that—we have certainly done so in the House, where the Register of Members' Interests is available for public inspection.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East raised that subject in the debate. Although it is an important subject, this is neither the right context nor the right debate in which to raise such a matter.

§ Mr. Ernie Ross

The other resignation has more alarming consequences for democracy in Scotland and needs to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The person who resigned was, in effect, a civil servant with business interests. That conflict led to his resignation. The Secretary of State needs to take account of that. Could hon. Members imagine the chief executive of Tayside region or of Dundee district council being allowed to be a business person? A conflict of interest would arise immediately. That needs to be dealt with. Will the hon. Member comment on that?

§ Mr. Walker

I have already publicly commented on the matter and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that.

45 People who are paid substantial salaries to be involved in the distribution of public assets should not allow themselves to get into a position where a conflict of interest could arise and affect their judgment. Hon. Members, councillors or anyone else in public office face such a problem in their public lives. Chief executives of regions, district councils or enterprise companies should not allow themselves to be put into a position where they could be considered to have a conflict of interest, which would raise doubts about their integrity. The integrity of those in charge of such organisations should never be in doubt.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East spoke of people being appointed to quangos. A quango will operate effectively only if it has the right mix of talents, which, I have always believed, requires trade union input. Under our democratic process, one must be prepared to accept that there should always be an avenue of expression for another view, even if one does not agree with it.

That is why I believe that it is good that the hon. Member for Dundee, East speaks on such matters in the House; it gives him the opportunity to express his concerns and doubts. If nothing else, he will persuade the Unionists sitting behind and in front of him that he is wrong and that people such as myself are perhaps more right than he is.

§ Several hon. Members

rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. One hour and 48 minutes are available for debate and no fewer than 10 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

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

I shall be brief.

May I join those who, earlier in the debate, sought to establish their credentials? I seem to be the first Member to speak tonight who is married to a Scot. It will interest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that I am the only Yorkshire-born Scots Member in the House, and I hope to be here for a long time. My wife could regard me as a foreigner, of course, but she also sees me as a fellow Scot.

I am grateful for, and readily acknowledge, the honest statements of the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) that the Union is subject to change. They would not deny that it is legitimate to examine and criticise the governance of a country and to suggest, by way of prescriptions, a better way of governing it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an excellent speech, although I have one or two reservations about it. I understand why he is critical of multinational companies and of their role in the Scottish economy, but I am sure that he will agree that some of them are a damn sight better than indigenous employers. A local employer in my constituency is to become chairman of the Inverclyde Royal hospital trust, but the wages he pays his employees are among the lowest in the region.

I am pleased to say that IBM is in my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) sometimes thinks that it is in his constituency. It is the biggest private employer, and gives good terms and conditions of employment.

BMW's takeover of Rover was announced last week. I wish that BMW were locating in my constituency, because I know from my knowledge of German industrial relations 46 that it would have to introduce a Scottish mitbestimmung. Workers at BMW plants in Scotland would be given formal, effective trade union representation. Moreover, employment directives passed in Brussels would be implemented in Greenock or wherever a company such as BMW decided to locate. There are advantages to multinationals, and I should love more to locate in my constituency.

It is right to question the way in which Scotland is governed. I am a federalist, and I want to see a federalist European Union with its foreign and security policies. I want Scotland to be a federal nation in a federal system. It is wrong that Scotland is part of a multinational state that is overwhelmingly determined and shaped by London—by metropolitan thinking and decision-making.

Soon, members of the Scottish Prison Officers Association, who do a first-class job, often in difficult circumstances, will have their right to industrial action removed. Prisons will be privatised under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is now in Committee. There are only two Scottish Members on that Committee, despite the fact that 40 per cent. of its content relates partially or exclusively to Scotland.

Tomorrow morning, the Committee will debate a legal concept that is new to Scotland—trespassory assembly. With his legal training, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will know more about it than me. He may smile, but I have already received representations from anglers, hill walkers and even Monro baggers, not that I am one myself, about clauses 44 to 55 of that largely English Bill. They have made those representations because the clauses are aimed at sorting out hunt saboteurs, new age travellers and those who organise raves. I have already asked the Minister at what point a rave becomes a ceilidh.

By and large, we do not face such problems in Scotland. I was talking to an old friend of mine, Jimmy Harvie, an 84-year-old ex-Glasgow bricklayer. He and his late lovely wife, Pearl, walked Scotland's hills for more than 60 years. People like Jimmy Harvie and other walkers, ramblers and fishermen are to be excluded from their favourite haunts. That is utterly scandalous, and those clauses should riot refer to Scottish pastimes at all. The average hill walker in Scotland is extremely fastidious—one does not find much litter on Schiehallion, Lochnagar, Ben Ledi or Ben Vorlich. People are careful on the hills in terms of protecting the environment.

As for fishermen, there should be public access to all our rivers. The rich perhaps should be dumped in the rivers—where the rivers are shallow, of course. There should not be the shackling by the new lairds who come in and buy up estates. Those people seem to have a curious idea of the existing law of trespass.

§ Mr. Gallie

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many small fishing clubs in Scotland with a membership who certainly are not rich? The members of those clubs stock the rivers and ensure that people can enjoy fishing. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that their rights on the river should not be acknowledged?

§ Dr. Godman

That is an important point. I am a member of two such clubs—the Port Glasgow club and the Newark angling club. Both clubs have many unemployed and retired members, and they are deeply concerned about the Government's plans for the management of Scotland's waterways. It is a complicated problem.

47 The Scottish element of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill should have formed an exclusive Scottish Bill, so that we could scrutinise and seek to amend it. It should not have been lumped in with an English Bill which is aimed at problems south of the border. That is an absurdity.

We have spent hours and hours talking about the abolition of the right to silence, but the right to silence is not affected in Scotland. That is an English matter. The right to silence remains in the police stations and the courts in Scotland, and that is how it should be. Scottish issues should not be lumped in with English issues on Standing Committees. It is disgraceful.

That is one reason why I will always argue for a Scottish Parliament. Those matters could be argued among Members who would be elected by a different electoral system. The one we have is a "rotten borough" kind of system.

Does the Minister agree that one element of a parliamentary democracy is the ease of access given to representatives of local communities for meetings with Ministers? If he does, when will he respond to invitations given to him by way of the editor of the Greenock Telegraph and representatives from the east end of Greenock to visit that area? Despite the valiant efforts of Inverclyde district council, the east end still suffers severe blight in terms of rotten, lousy, damp and cold houses which are lived in by people who simply do not have the financial means to escape that kind of housing imprisonment. Will the Minister come to the east end of Greenock to see that for himself?

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

I will accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Greenock, as I have done with all invitations from Opposition Members.

§ Dr. Godman

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I was too modest to mention it, but I sent my own invitation a couple of weeks ago. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted with his characteristic generosity.

The critics of radical change on the Government Benches seem to accept some form of stilted evolutionary change to the Union. Judging by what constituents of all ages say to me when I do my walkabouts—that is a horrible word—they are deeply disenchanted and discontented with the present system for the governance of Scotland. The overwhelming majority of people in Scotland would welcome the setting up of a multi-option referendum. We could then determine whether it is those who share my view who are closer to the hearts and minds of the people in Scotland, or the honest apologists for the Union on the Government Benches.

I have mentioned Defoe, that English secret agent from all those years ago. He talked about the Union as a marriage of convenience which would best suit English interests and, by and large, that still holds today. However, it will change. We are extremely fortunate that the secessionist movement in Scotland is so honourably peaceable. The change will come, and the best way to help bring it about is to set up a multi-option referendum.

§ Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

The motion before the House is wide, and I found it difficult to decide what aspect to address.

48 We have heard the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) talking about a multinational company within his constituency and the amount it contributes, presumably to the economy of his constituency. Yet the motion talks about the undemocratic influence and power of transnational and multinational companies in the economic life of Scotland". I have to tell the hon. Member for Dundee. East (Mr. McAllion) that I am happy that a significant amount is given by multinational and transnational oil companies to my area and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Without them, the economy of our area would be that much poorer. I find it strange that the hon. Member for Dundee, East uses those terms, as I know that his area also contains a significant number of multinational companies.

§ Mr. McAllion

The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Timex multinational company had a long association with Dundee. However, it ripped off its Dundee workers and walked away to make its profits elsewhere in the world. I warn the hon. Gentleman that multinational companies could do that in his constituency.

§ Mr. Kynoch

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman introduced Timex into the debate, as I was just about to refer to that company. I had hoped that the kind of industrial relations which were prevalent at Timex were behind us. I am not saying that it was the fault of one side or the other, because the faults clearly lay with employers and employees.

I can remember what industrial relations were like before the Government came to power in 1979, and I clearly remember the coal strike of the late 1970s. Pickets were standing at our factory gates when we had no grievance with any of our suppliers, but they prevented coal from being delivered to our company, and therefore affected the output and the economy of the area.

Thankfully, the Conservative Government came to power with a clear remit to reform union relations and to ensure that greater flexibility and accountability were given to employees, so that they could work in peace and harmony with their employers.

I am sorry to say that that did not work at Timex. The so-called picket line, which I understood was legally meant to consist of no more than five or six people, was supplemented by a demonstration of several hundred people. That was taking full advantage of the law, and it made a mockery of the law. I hope that, as time goes on, that can be clarified and tightened. Multinational and transnational companies can contribute a significant amount to the economy of Scotland, and I will return to that subject.

I would like to talk about some of the quangos which have been referred to in the motion. There is a direct reference to NHS trusts, and to the Scottish Enterprise network of companies". I worked closely with the Scottish Development Agency when I was in the textile trade, and I continued to do so when it became Scottish Enterprise and set up local enterprise companies. I subsequently became one of the founder directors of Moray, Badennoch and Strathspey local enterprise company. We welcomed a trade union representative on the board of that company, as well as representatives from local government and businesses throughout the area.

49 That board reflected the geographical spread of local companies. That great strength had been lacking under the previous SDA set-up, because, in the north-east corner of Scotland, it was felt that the SDA was a Glasgow-based organisation. Although it had a regional office in Aberdeen, it was geared towards oil, and it was felt that the indigenous industries were a second thought to the SDA. By devolving the functions of the SDA and incorporating the training agency, the local enterprise companies democratised a system that did a lot of good for Scotland at the time.

I pay tribute to the significant benefits given to local people by Grampian Enterprise and the subcontractor in my area, the Kincardine and Deeside enterprise trust. The people who sit on the board of Grampian Enterprise give of their best and of their experience to ensure the balanced delivery of services in Grampian. It is insulting for those people that they are dismissed as Government placemen by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, because I know that they give of their time willingly, and without any recompense, to the benefit of the region.

I sat on the board of a local enterprise company, and I know what happened when a conflict of interest arose. The directors simply declared their interest, and either left the room or stayed to answer the relevant questions of other board members, without participating in the debate. That is the normal practice when any conflict of interest arises.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East has also described national health trusts as another Government quango. In the run-up to the award of trust status to the Aberdeen Royal hospitals NHS trust, I was politically unique in the north-east, because I supported the bid. I know that Opposition Members, of whichever party, were against it, and I suspect that certain of my colleagues had great reservations.

That trust, however, has provided greater flexibility and greater accountability in the delivery of health care in the area. It has meant that the delivery of health care has been brought closer and is more appropriate to the people. It offers more flexibility than was available in directly managed units.

According to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, that so-called quango is destroying democracy in Scotland, but it is worth considering what it has achieved in its first year of operation, 1992–93. According to the trust's annual report: A record number of patients were treated in 1992–93 over 2,500 more in-patients were treated over 8,900 more out-patients attendances over 1,900 more day cases over 800 more operations. The Trust has waiting time guarantees for in-patients of 12 months, and less for specific procedures. Those figures prove that trust status has been successful. It has been welcomed by local people.

§ Mr. Gallie

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that South Ayrshire Trust, which is adjacent to my constituency, can boast of similar rates of success. The chairman of that trust, who has done a remarkable job, was certainly not seen as a friend of the Conservative party in the past. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a perfect response to the challenge from Opposition Members who constantly carp about Conservative appointees?

§ Mr. Kynoch

I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend. I am well aware that trust members are appointed because of the experience that they bring to their local 50 areas. Those representatives may be trade unionists, employers, employees, male, female and members of whatever political party, as long as they can contribute to the well-being of the trust. I believe that is absolutely right.

It is important to remember that half of any NHS trust board is made up of medically qualified people. Non-executive members from outside the medical profession do not make up the majority on any trust board.

When the Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust was established, it was argued that it would be opposed from within and that there would be appalling employee-employer relations. It was argued that it would lead to the downfall of the NHS in the north-east, but the exact opposite has occurred. In the first year of its operation, the trust has improved employee-employer relations through an effective staff board, which discusses staffing issues. I can quote a specific example of such an improvement from the trust's annual report, which says of junior doctors' hours of work: Staff at all levels—medical, nursing and para-medical—have helped in the substantial efforts made to reduce Junior Doctors' hours. That objective of the Conservative party has been brought about by the trust through partnership rather than conflict.

The trust should not be knocked by the Opposition as a quango, because it has already made significant developments in the delivery of clinical care. Bone marrow transplantations are now available in Aberdeen and that specialist form of medicine has been greatly welcomed. The trust has also taken delivery of a new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, which is better known as an MRI scanner. The trust also offers a local lithotripsy service, provided by a mobile unit, to get rid of kidney stones.

All those benefits have been brought about by a so-called quango, which has also increased the number of cardiac operations, which is pertinent to the Scottish population because of the incidence of heart disease. I do not believe that we should knock trust status; we should welcome it because of the benefits that it has brought to the health service.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Dundee, East also believes that that quango is more remote from the people than the old system of health care, but he should take note of what the trust's annual report has said about bringing health services closer to patients. It stated: Over the year we cared for 82,245 in-patients and 388,001 out-patients. All users of our services are encouraged to tell us what they think of our services—whether good or bad Those people were encouraged to comment on the delivery of services and the trust received just 440 formal complaints. That means that fewer than one in 1,000 patients made a complaint. Something must be going right with that quango. I believe that those benefits demonstrate the advantages of flexibility within the NHS and of involving local people in the running of the health service.

The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East also refers to local government reform. We are currently considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in Committee. I am amused when I hear Opposition Members claim that that reform will diminish the power of local democracy in Scotland. In recent weeks I have read a number of newspaper articles about the Labour-controlled council of Monklands. It is alleged that the council operates in a fashion that is far from democratic. Apparently, at the end of last week, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) 51 at long last entered the debate and is now asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to investigate some of the allegations. I think that that is right and that we should try to achieve the democratic delivery of local services.

§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Is the hon. Gentleman also asking the Secretary of State to institute an inquiry, or is he simply leaving it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? Does he associate the name of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), with Westminster council in the same way as he so glibly associates my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East with Monklands council?

§ Mr. Kynoch

I shall not be drawn down that path because we are discussing the future of democracy in Scotland. Unless we intend to take over the future of Westminster, we must contain our comments to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, makes my point clear.

In my part of Scotland, the population desperately wants single-tier authorities as soon as possible. Although there are queries about some of the proposed boundaries, such fine detail will soon be debated fully in Committee. People want to rationalise and reduce the overheads of local government and bring local democracy closer to the people.

As I said on Second Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, it is interesting to note that all the Opposition parties advocate single-tier authorities. But the big difference is that they also want a Scottish parliament, which would be an extra and more costly tier. According to 1994–95 figures, Government-supported spending per capita in Scotland is some 34 per cent. higher than in England. Perhaps I should say that quietly as the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary has an English constituency and might be upset to learn that. Scotland gets 26 per cent. more than Wales. I must therefore assume that, if we had a Scottish parliament as the Opposition advocate, such spending would not be allowed to continue and Scotland would have to make up the shortfall.

I hope that the Scottish electorate is aware of the Opposition parties' proposals on local government reform and a Scottish parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to the number of Opposition Members with aspirations for a Cabinet position, who would then have to decide whether to sit in a Scottish Cabinet or a Cabinet in London. That might cause some interesting problems for the Opposition.

The motion does not make its point. I feel proud and positive about many aspects of government, trusts, Scottish Enterprise and LECs, which have made a positive contribution towards Scotland's economy.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on initiating the debate. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have a balanced debate if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) takes advantage of the limited 52 time available to us. He spoke for 34 minutes and then disappeared. That is unreasonable behaviour. I hope to speak for less than 10 minutes.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East began by saying that people "must have their say and their way". He pointed out that the Scottish people had voted three to one in favour of some form of Scottish self-government. He did not, however, feel it necessary to mention that it was wrong for Labour to have 68 per cent. of Scottish seats in exchange for 39 per cent. of the vote. We do not have a fair voting system so that people can have their say and their way.

§ Mr. McAllion

I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As vice-chairman of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, I am a long-term supporter of proportional representation both for a Scottish parliament and at the level of the United Kingdom.

§