To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the proposals for constitutional reform approved by the Scottish Constitutional Convention; and if he will make a statement.

The so-called convention's proposals would lead to more government and more taxes being foisted on Scots. This would not be in Scotland's interest.

Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland set their minds against any discussions with the leaders of the Scottish Constitutional Convention? Why are they ignoring the claim of right—and the right—of the Scottish people to determine the arrangements for their own government? Would not it be better to enter negotiations now so that a parliament could be achieved within the United Kingdom, thus strengthening the union?

The hon. Member ignores the fact that the so-called convention either avoids or disagrees on every difficult decision that it faces. I will give him an example. Last week a Labour campaign for electoral success was set up to stop proportional representation. The campaign is under the leadership of Mr. Eric Milligan, Mr. Pat Lalley and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who are arguably—or perhaps unarguably—the three most important and powerful men in the Scottish Labour movement. The response from the Liberal Democrats appeared in today's Glasgow Herald, when the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) contended that Labour was the most conservative force in Scottish politics—the dinosaur where messages take a long time to reach the brain. I have every hope and expectation that the plans of the so-called convention will meet the same fate as the dinosaur.

Is the Minister aware that, although there may be differences of view about the voting system, there is absolutely no difference of view between the Liberal Democrats and all members of the Labour party that we need a Scottish assembly to deal with Scottish business, that in denying the Scottish people that assembly, the present minority Government are standing against the wishes of the Scottish people, and that that verdict will be given not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom at the next election, when the Minister will once again return to the Back Benches, but on the Opposition side?

On the last point, the hon. Member cannot have read the recent Scottish opinion poll, which put the Conservative vote at 30 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a good base on which we will build further. On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, many people, when asked, will say that a Scottish assembly seems a good idea, but every time the hard questions are asked—how it would work, how it would relate to the United Kingdom, and what role the Secretary of State would play—there are no satisfactory answers.

May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to dismiss too lightly the concept of constitutional change within the United Kingdom in terms of Scottish interests? Many United Kingdom taxpayers would like equality of financing as between England, Scotland and Wales—and equality of representation in this House. Scottish taxpayers could meet the full cost of the new assembly if they wished, but I believe that when the figure became known, the case for keeping things as they are would be unanswerable.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point and raises a question that the so-called convention has not satisfactorily answered. My hon. Friend is also right to remind the House that identifiable expenditure per head is 23 per cent. greater for Scotland than for England.

If the Minister wants to ask hard questions, why does he not do so in a referendum offering a choice between the convention's scheme, independence in Europe, and the status quo? Does not the Government's refusal to do so owe much to the fact that they know that in an independent Scotland no Minister with responsibility for industry would stand idly by and watch the destruction of the Scottish steel industry while enormous potential remains in the North sea market?

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is sounding a little less confident than usual. The last Labour Government put specific legislative proposals to a referendum, but no specific proposals now exist to be put to a referendum or otherwise considered. The real test of who governs the United Kingdom is which party wins the largest number of seats in the United Kingdom Parliament. I am sure that at the next general election that will continue to be the Conservative and Unionist party.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the convention fails to meet its own criteria? One is that the new assembly should be accountable, and it fails that test. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does my hon. Friend further agree that the failure to address the Goshen-Barnett formula and also the number of Members of Parliament required to represent Scotland in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Order. I believe that the hon. Member was merely casting his eyes down.

I do not need to read this, Mr. Speaker. The convention also fails to address the 'Tam' West Lothian question. Until those three matters have been addressed, the convention will be neither credible nor accountable, and none of its measures would ever get through this Parliament.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on each of the three points that he made. The convention fails to address any important questions, including those to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Will the Minister acknowledge that debate on those matters has not taken place because the Conservative party and the Government refuse to accept the legitimate demands of the Scottish people to play a constructive role in responding to them? If the Minister believes that certain issues should now be addressed, will the Government start to participate in the convention and make constructive proposals? Is it right for the Minister to continue abusing the convention when even the Confederation of British Industry and business interests in Scotland acknowledge that Scotland will have its own parliament and that they will need to work with it?

The convention is an entirely self-appointed body. As regards business opinion, I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 20 of The Scotsman today, where a leading multinational industrialist gives his views, under the heading, Silicon Glen chief warns of devolution 'suicide'". He pointed out what the reaction of multinational business, which has such an important role in the Scottish economy, would be if any of these absurd proposals ever showed any likelihood of being implemented.

No one on the Opposition side of the House would grudge the Minister, or any Conservative, their apparent joy in the fact that almost a third of the people in Scotland might vote for them in a forthcoming election. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are dodging the issue again, just as they have dodged the issue—and their responsibility to Scotland—by failing to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? The people of Scotland know precisely what is going on in the House and they will not accept that situation. The Government should not be afraid to put the matter to the test. We argue that if we are fighting a war to protect some sort of democracy, the call for democracy in Scotland has to be answered—and it will only be answered when the people of Scotland get the opportunity, in a referendum, to decide how Scotland is to be governed.

The Government will put their policies to the test at the next general election, when the people of the United Kingdom will decide.

The Minister can no longer pretend that the Scottish Constitutional Convention has no democratic credibility in Scotland when he and the Conservative party have none whatever. The Government do not have democratic backing from the Scottish people for any of their proposals. Is it not time, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, that the Tory party came into the convention and discussed the proper way forward as regards constitutional change in Scotland so that a Scottish parliament can be established, which would give the people of Scotland the right to decide their own affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware that the Conservative party's stubborn refusal to accept the Scottish people's demands for that change is putting the union itself at risk?

If that is true, it is surprising that the Conservative vote is going up in the opinion polls. I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the convention started out as a so-called broad front of all those against the unionist position. The Scottish National party left fairly quickly, the Greens left more recently, and now it sounds as though the Liberal Democrats may be leaving, despite the fact that their position in the opinion polls suggests that they would probably remain members of almost anything that would have them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I shall be seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I am grateful for the information, but it is not legitimate to raise this matter since it was not the hon. Member's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] I am sorry. In that case, I withdraw my comment. I am glad to know that the hot. Gentleman will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.