House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Jul 1997 (pt 18)

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Squire: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady, who is clearly eager to stand for the Scottish Parliament.

Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, although it is not up to her to read my mind.

31 Jul 1997 : Column 492

I listened carefully to what she said. How will the proposals in the White Paper give my constituents in Epping Forest in Essex a greater say? That is what the hon. Lady suggested. It is a reasonable suggestion, but I do not see how the White Paper will increase my constituents' say.

Ms Squire: The hon. Lady demonstrates the blinkered tunnel vision so characteristic of Conservative Members. The White Paper is the first step in a process of constitutional change that will give a much greater voice to the constituents of Epping Forest, Elgin and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: "How?"] Because it is the start of constitutional change in the way in which this country is governed. Five years as an hon. Member in this House have convinced me that, if there is one thing that I want to change, it is how the system of government has been allowed, over the past 18 years, so blatantly to ignore the voice of the majority of people throughout the United Kingdom.

Sir Robert Smith: One direct way in which constituents in Epping Forest and other English constituencies will benefit is that, once a Scottish Parliament has been set up, all the time taken in the House to scrutinise purely Scottish legislation will be freed up, so that we can scrutinise other legislation. I share the hon. Lady's optimism that the White Paper is the thin end of the wedge, and I hope that we shall see a federal system for the United Kingdom in the long run.

Ms Squire: I cannot not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentiment, but I should have thought that some hon. Members representing English constituencies might welcome not having to pack the Benches, as they have over the past 18 years of Conservative rule, to force through legislation that related solely to Scotland, against the wishes of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Squire: I shall continue my speech. The hon. Gentleman might then grasp why I am so much in favour of the proposals for a Scottish Parliament and of wider constitutional change.

I want a style and system of government that gives a much greater voice to those whose voices have too often been ignored by our political process: the unemployed; people on low incomes; and low-paid part-time workers, especially women. I became involved in politics because of my anger at the injustice whereby those who worked hard all their lives were given little recognition or reward for doing so, because they did not happen to speak with the right accent, live in the right part of town, or know the right people to have opportunities and doors opened to them.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Squire: No--

Mr. Swayne: Do, do.

Ms Squire: No, I wish to continue. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way later, I may do so.

31 Jul 1997 : Column 493

In particular, I have been angered by the way in which the contribution that women--both paid and unpaid carers--make to our society has been ignored by our parliamentary system and government. Many of my hon. Friends have sought to speak out and to make the voices heard of those who have often been ignored. We see these people every week, every month, in our surgeries--people who are at the end of their tether and have come to us desperately hoping that we can deal with their grievances.

However, for every person who comes to us, there are another 100 whose voices will never be heard. Many of my constituents are disfranchised by our present system of government in many ways. They do not have the contacts, the knowledge, the networks that would enable them to get something done about grievances that affect them and their families. They may feel deeply that they have been treated unfairly, but pressure in their everyday lives means that their complaints are often ignoredand they get absolutely nowhere--for example, the 25 families who recently contacted me with their complaints about maternity services in Fife.

I see a Scottish Parliament as part of a beginning of constitutional change, which will empower the many, not the few. It will make politicians more accessible and more accountable to those whom they are elected to represent.

Mr. Grieve: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly--I have heard this from other hon. Members on the Government Benches--the advantages derived from Scottish devolution will be an example of what will happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as she spoke about it in the English context. Surely, if we are to have mature consideration of the total package, it would be wise for the House to know what mystery the Government have in store for England, as the remaining part of the United Kingdom to be dealt with, so that we can take an objective view of whether the proposals have any validity. One of the things to which we on the Opposition Benches object so much is that questions will be put to the Scottish and Welsh people in September, without their having any more idea than we have of what the total package will be.

Ms Squire: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware of the different aspects of constitutional change that the majority of people in the United Kingdom elected the Government to carry out. The majority of people in the United Kingdom believed that politicians had lost touch with the reality of people's everyday lives. I want a system of government that increases participation and involvement, and enables far more people to make their voices heard.

I support a Scottish Parliament because it will change the face of politics. I support the White Paper, as it deals with the fact that, although Scotland has its own legislation, it has no legislature of its own. A Scottish Parliament will benefit the people of Scotland, because it will be able to legislate in the areas that are raised most frequently in our surgeries--such as housing, education, jobs and health. It will give the people of Scotland a much greater say over how public money is spent. It will, I hope, end for ever the situation that we have endured for so many years, in which a Secretary of State for Scotland and four Ministers, although voted in by a minority, have total control over how they spend £14.5 billion.

31 Jul 1997 : Column 494

Any tax-raising power would be exercised only after debate and majority agreement. I am in no doubt that Scots who combined individual rights with collective responsibility would be more than willing to contribute more to the public purse if they were quite clear that that money would be spent on caring for the elderly, on providing more nursery provision and on increasing health services and housing.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Squire: No. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet more than once already.

A Scottish Parliament will enable much better accountability of public spending and easier and more detailed scrutiny by the public themselves.

A Scottish Parliament will help to change the face of politics. Although it is encouraging that there are now more than 100 women Members of Parliament in this place, I would certainly support a Scottish Parliament in which there was 50:50 representation and a much greater cross-section of all aspects of society. I want to see a Scottish Parliament that is far more open to those from ethnic minorities and to those with disabilities. I want to see a Scottish Parliament whose benches are full not only of social workers, lawyers and teachers, but of people who have been business men, sales representatives, cleaners, carers and caretakers--a broad cross-section of our society.

I want to see a Scottish Parliament that breaks the mould of the aggressive, confrontational, egotistical point-scoring that this place has symbolised for so long; a Parliament that promotes and encourages serious and informed debate on the issues that affect people's everyday lives. I want to see a system of government that closes the gap between what happens in this place and what directly affects the people of the United Kingdom and their families. I also want to see a Scottish Parliament that provides the facilities so that people can combine a political role with their responsibility to their families and to the community as a whole. I want to see a parliamentary building that is accessible to disabled people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Royal high school in Edinburgh does not meet that need.

Given the lobbying that is under way for the site of a Scottish Parliament, I should like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that Dunfermline was the ancient capital of Scotland for several centuries, and that we have a rather empty former naval base, thanks to the actions of the previous Government, which would give people an opportunity, literally, to sail to and from work every morning if their Parliament were located there.

I certainly want to see a Parliament that breaks the hierarchical and patronising mould of what all too often goes on in this place--it is a Parliament that still tends to say that people, if elected, should put themselves on some kind of pedestal and act at best as some kind of benefactor.

I quote Richard Tawney, an English economic historian, who sums up clearly the reasons why I want to see constitutional change:

"In the transition to political democracy, this country . . . underwent . . . no inner conversion. She accepted it as a convenience, like an improved system of telephones . . . She changed her political garments, but not her heart. She carried into