| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Scottish Devolution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Betts.]
3.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar) rose--
Mr. Dewar: That is a good question. Where are they? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will recognise that we do not have to ask that question about Scottish Conservative Members or ask fake questions about annunciator screens to make the point that, apart from a few refugees in England, there are no Scottish Conservative Members. Perhaps that will concentrate his mind a little on the seriousness of his party's plight and the difficulties that the Conservatives face in Scotland without a single Member of Parliament.
We published the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" last week. I was a little overwhelmed by the strength of the welcome that it received. It is widely recognised that it is not just another document produced by The Stationery Office. There are inevitably many White Papers, but this is the first on Scotland that anyone can remember which has sold and continues to sell as fast as it can be printed. I do not like airs and graces and I am not a great hand at pomposity, although I occasionally try to rise to the occasion. I can say only that people are fascinated by their own history and want to be part of it. There is a genuine feeling that history is in the making in Scotland and in the House, where the authority lies for giving devolution a fair wind.
The White Paper is not a theoretical text. Rather, it is intended to be a profoundly practical document, setting out what the Scottish Parliament will be like once it is in being and explaining the steps by which it will be established. It is a clear statement of what the Government intend to do, and our aim has been to make the detail of our proposals as accessible as possible. In that sense, I hope that we have succeeded. We want as many people as possible in Scotland to understand what the Scottish Parliament can add to their quality of life. We want them to be in possession of the facts and familiar with the arguments, so that on 11 September they will be in a good position to make what can fairly be described as an historic choice.
The House will accept that it is important to see the Government's commitment to a Scottish Parliament as not simply a commitment to Scotland, but an essential part of our wider commitment to modernising the constitution of the United Kingdom. If people are apathetic about government--and I fear that it is often the case--and sometimes even cynical, it is because the institutions of government have lost touch with the people they serve. In general political terms, we believe that there is a pressing priority to do something about that. We want to change that atmosphere and that perception. We want to modernise the constitution of the United Kingdom and make it fit the 21st century.
In previous exchanges in the House, I have stressed that we propose devolution and reform within the United Kingdom. Let me take the opportunity to do so once
again. We accept that sovereignty within a devolved system lies with the United Kingdom Parliament. That sovereignty can be exercised in a number of different ways. The choice that we are asking Parliament to make is to pass some of its practical day-to-day power to a directly elected Scottish Parliament representing the people of Scotland. I recognise that, of course, that cannot be done without the consent of a majority of Members of this Parliament, representing every part of the country. It is my job not only to convince Scotland that the proposal is right, but to carry my hon. Friends and hon. Members from all parties in that cause.
I turn to the case for a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a strategic authority and elected mayor for London. I should say in passing that I greatly welcome the meeting of minds among Opposition Members on the question of an elected mayor for London. It is always a little difficult when one has been attacking something with great fury and one's new leader comes along and announces that he is in favour of it. I know that Opposition Members will adapt bravely to that. On this occasion, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is in the right.
All the changes are aimed at fundamentally involving people in decisions that matter to them. There is already government in Scotland; some people would say, a lot. My Department has nearly 12,000 civil servants. They do a good job, but we believe that the structure within which they operate could be more effective and could more effectively and directly reflect Scottish opinion. There is a great range of quangos, great and small, delivering different services and functions in almost every area of Scottish life. What is needed, and what we shall deliver, is a more effective democratic framework, connecting all those various institutions to the people of Scotland.
The case for a Scottish Parliament is at the heart of such a process. It will strengthen democratic control, increase accountability, and above all bring decision making out of the shadows. As no doubt many hon. Members know--and I am learning--government works in ever-increasing mysterious ways. Discovering that is part of my daily life at the moment. There is a good deal to be said for bringing government closer to the people and ensuring that they are aware of exactly what it is about.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Dewar:
It is very early. The hon. Gentleman is very persistent; this is his chance.
Mr. Bruce:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is always courteous. I should like to ask a genuine question--I am trying not to be party political.
The Secretary of State will know that, in generating regulation and law in the European Union, we try to bring things together, so that one can trade across countries, and laws are similar. Why is it right now to say to a Scottish Parliament, "Please, go off in a different direction"? After all, that is the whole purpose of having a separate Parliament. In this place, we tend to legislate for England, for Wales and for Scotland, but the legislation is basically the same. Although I would like changes, surely a Scottish Parliament is the wrong way of going about it.
Mr. Dewar:
I am genuinely glad that the hon. Gentleman has deserted partisan politics to ask a genuine
Mr. Bruce:
They come together.
Mr. Dewar:
No, there is no necessary convergence built in, either. Of course, there are many areas--and many areas in the legislation that we propose in the White Paper--where we leave matters on a United Kingdom basis because we believe that that is right. There are, for example, important level playing fields for commerce and industry, and for a whole range of issues such as company law reform, labour legislation and monopolies and mergers--there is a mass of them--but in many other areas, such as housing, education and a raft of structural facets of life, there is a very distinct tradition in Scotland. The institutional framework within which Scots live is distinct and different. The whole point about the Union was that it was a coming together of nations in one partnership, but that distinction was maintained by the preservation of Scottish legislation.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that, in any particular area or for any proposal, there is not necessarily a virtue in being different for the sake of being different, but there are many areas in which it is right that the law should recognise the different and continuing traditions, attitudes and cultures that we have in the northern part of the United Kingdom. Putting those under direct democratic control in Scotland is the point of the whole exercise.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to snuff out--that is a bad expression to use, because it suggests sudden change--that difference, gently and over time, he and I are fundamentally opposed. I believe that differences enrich cultural societies and nation states, even though they remain as one. I do not want to see those differences, as a matter of policy, eroded and elided. I do not glory in those differences--that is a little too jingoistic--but they are a positive advantage to the whole country. It is right that we should recognise the separate traditions in the structures of the United Kingdom, and that is one of the principal reasons why I started--many years ago--to support a form of devolution.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Perhaps this is a convenient moment to put to my right hon. Friend a question that bothers the Law Society of Scotland. How will the devolution of criminal law and procedure, in paragraph 2.4 of the White Paper, dovetail with the reservation to the United Kingdom of drugs, firearms, road traffic, immigration law, the activities of the security services in the detection of crime, and offences under the Companies Acts, in paragraph 3.3? I understand that my right hon. Friend has been given notice of the question by the Law Society of Scotland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |