| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): All the issues in the hon. Gentleman's list appear to be devolved. I do not understand their relevance to this Parliament.
Mr. Salmond: Then the hon. Gentleman has not been following Scottish affairs with his usual intimate knowledge. Take hepatitis C, for example. He should know that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament voted for compensation for hepatitis C sufferers, but that compensation is being blocked by the Westminster Department.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point, however, because I am about to go on to give one detailed example from the list of how things are not working at present. What is happening, in my view, is that many UK Departments that still have residual responsibilities affecting Scotland are focusing on English responsibilities and treating themselves as English Departments. In December 2002, an interesting article by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert was published in the Fraser of Allander Institute paper. They examined the Department of Trade and Industry in enormous detail, looking particularly at the development of the
knowledge economy, including the Innovation sub-programme, which is a £211 million reserved programme, and expenditure on research councils, which represents a £1.8 billion programme. They show that in relation to such UK responsibilities the DTI focuses on English expenditure, and conclude that the Link and Faraday programmes are not operating fully to the benefit of Scottish firms.I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point, because I can give similar examples for each of the subject areas that I raised. UK Departments with residual Scottish responsibilities are not operating as UK Departments, and the Scotland Office in its previous manifestation did absolutely nothing to counterbalance how Scotland is losing out in those circumstances. If it could not work as a full-time Department with a full-time Secretary of State, how on earth is it expected to do that job as a part-time Department with a part-time Secretary of State? It is truly amazing. Having attended every Scotland questions since the last election, I am still unable to understand how the Department can have increased its staff from 73 in 1999 to a projected 130 full-time equivalents this year and nearly doubled its budget to accompany that increase in staff. What on earth have all those people been doing during that time? I agree with the new Secretary of State for Scotland that it is far better to charge Ministers in the Scottish Executive with the responsibility of representing Scottish interests by building the relationship with their UK counterparts and arguing their case directly, without having to go through—to use his word—the obstruction of a Scotland Office operating on a full-time or a part-time basis.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how Scotland's interests can be better served by taking away Scotland's voice in the Cabinet, given that his preferred option of an independent Scotland is further away than ever because the majority of the Scottish electorate do not want independence? In view of the reality of the situation, how can he justify scrapping Scotland's voice in the Cabinet?
Mr. Salmond: That is a bold statement from a member of a party that has just had its worst result in Scotland since 1931, at 34 per cent. of the vote. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not dwell too much on recent election results in Scotland.
I am trying to detail, subject by subject, how the Scotland Office has failed to represent Scotland's interests. In each of the areas that I listed, which are UK responsibilities with residual Scottish responsibilities, the Scotland Office has failed to deliver. If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) or the Minister can detail one triumph of the Scotland Office in representing Scottish interests in the Cabinet over the years, I will be amazed. I represent a fishing constituency, and I should have thought that the recent fishing crisis in Scotland might be one matter on which a Cabinet Minister would have made a decisive intervention to represent Scottish interests, but the Minister concerned did absolutely zilch for the fishing communities of Scotland. The Scotland Office's failure to deliver shows either that there is something deeply
wrong with the people who occupy those positions or there is something conceptually wrong with a Scotland Office that, in the Secretary of State's words, operates as a barrier to representing Scotland's interests.Scotland currently gets the worst of all worlds. Scotland and Wales appear to have privileged access, but in reality, have second-class service and status. The Observer is normally a balanced newspaper, and Andrew Rawnsley—journalist of the year—is usually an erudite commentator. However, 10 days ago, he wrote a piece that I can describe only as near racist. It was full of comments such as "whingeing in the hillsides from Scotland and Wales". He also believed that members of my party were arguing for retaining the Scotland Office; he got that bit wrong. However, the article shows the way in which even the most reasoned commentators can be led into an outpouring of bile because they believe that Scotland and Wales have privileged status and access. The reality, which the facts support, is that we suffer from second-class status and second-class government. I shall allow substantial time for the Under-Secretary to reply. There is much to explain about what is happening.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): The hon. Gentleman is approaching the close of his remarks. If my memory serves me correctly, he said at the beginning that he would provide some answers. Yet we are 15 minutes into his speech and I am waiting to hear some answers and about what his party would do.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should pay closer attention. I said that I agreed with the argument that the Secretary of State for Scotland expressed in the Scottish Affairs Committee. He argued that, rather than have the Scotland Office as an obstacle to contact between Scottish Ministers and their United Kingdom equivalents, it should get out of the way. He wants to do that on a part-time basis, whereas I believe that if the logic applies to some issues, it applies to them all. Responsibility should be given to Scottish Ministers; that is where it should lie.
The Scotland Office has been a failure as a full-time Office. I believe that it will also fail as a part-time Office. The clear and obvious solution to the devolution conundrum is to give the Scottish Parliament the financial power and authority to raise and spend revenue. We would then not have to hold such opaque debates about who is responsible for what.
When the Under-Secretary replies, I am sure that she will answer some simple questions about what happens in the Scotland Office, which is part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. If there is a policy disagreement between Lord Falconer and the new Secretary of State for Scotland, from whom do the civil servants take their guidance? Why did not Lord Falconer consult the Scottish legal Minister on the initiative on the constitutional court, which could impinge on the integrity of Scots law? Why is there no contact between Scottish Ministers and their counterparts in the UK? Why cannot Scotland have the normal status that is afforded to most nations and the self-respect and efficient government that comes from raising and spending one's own revenue?
6.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The answer to the last question is that the Scottish people do not want that. First, I offer my formal congratulations to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate. He does not often venture into the Adjournment zone—he has secured three Adjournment debates in the Parliament. It is therefore gratifying that he has been successful this evening. I believe that that is the last time in my remarks that I shall be nice to him.
I was somewhat disappointed that, in spite of the fact that I had a preview of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he addressed the detail of very little. He highlighted some of the examples that he was allegedly going to raise and I shall deal with them shortly. However, we all know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. Every comment made by him, his party and his colleagues from Wales is predicated on the simple fact that they do not accept the devolution settlement. His clear agenda is to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. He does not want a smart, successful Scotland within the UK; he wants Scotland to lose its seat at the top table, to lose its seat in Cabinet and to lose its seat at the heart of Government in the United Kingdom.
Let us carry out a reality check. Let us see exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants. I admit he is an honourable man. He says that he wants
- "all of the powers held by London over Scotland . . . transferred to our democratic Scots Parliament in Edinburgh".
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that it was my party, along with the Liberal Democrats and other political parties and movements in Scotland, that delivered a Scottish Parliament to the people of Scotland, with their endorsement. Even when it came to what the hon. Gentleman describes as an incremental step, the Scottish National party could not take part in coalition-building, which continued for so many years. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on the Opposition Front Bench. The only other group in Scotland that did not see the value of devolution at that time was, of course, the Conservative party.
According to various analyses, there is very little support for independence in Scotland. From 1997 onwards, there has been increasing support for the option that is closest to the current devolution settlement—a Parliament in the United Kingdom with tax-raising powers.
It would be foolish of me to say that the Government need not continue to play their part in explaining what devolution means to the people of Scotland—and, dare I say, to some of our colleagues south of the border. If that means speaking to journalists such as Andrew Rawnsley, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in doing so. Such discussion is at the core of the Scotland Office's activity. I think that the Labour party is in tune with the Scottish people when it comes to the benefits of a devolved Scotland, and it is on that basis that we have developed a Scotland Office that works within the politics of devolution.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained a few weeks ago, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, now that devolution has bedded down successfully the time has come to encourage even more direct communication between Whitehall and the Scottish Executive. That is not a new development; it is a continuation of a process that has been going on since July 1999. It is a credit to all concerned that the transition between a centralised United Kingdom and a decentralised system in the UK has occurred so smoothly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |