| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I get the sense that the Minister is continually trying to come back to driving the system into a uniform framework for the whole country. Is there not an argument for diversity and for much greater involvement of local decision-making in seeing what is most appropriate to the area concerned? In passing, I note that it sounded as though we were recreating Avon and Humberside.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I thought that I was doing precisely what he would wish. I thoroughly support the idea of diverse decision-making. The discussions on the planning Green Paper gave the strong message that different considerations should apply in different regions. Different structures and different policies might well apply. The most obvious example can be seen in relation to housing. The problem in many parts of the North East and North West is low demand and abandonment of housing. The problem in most parts of the South East and South West is entirely the reverse.
We need a regional framework in terms of both policy and the relationship between regional bodies and the bodies below them. We are therefore seeking to deliver that which the noble Lord, Lord King, seeks—the necessary diversity and structures to reflect the problems facing different parts of the country. We are trying to deliver that which he thinks is appropriate.
I move from the basic structure to the planning gain point. The difficulty with a planning gain policy which is applied differentially across the country and leads to
uncertainty about outcome is that there will be either delay, lack of gain or a complete choking-off of development. However, I do not accept that the merit system is a tax. Although planning gain itself involves the developer's payment of money or a particular benefit to the community, no one calls that a tax. The merit system is simply a method of seeking to identify what should be paid in a much more certain way.The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned a number of developments in the tariff proposal. I do not disagree with any of the reservations he mentioned and I do not think that any of them are inconsistent with anything said in the planning Green Paper. Although it is an important issue which has created considerable controversy, it has made it possible for the community to gain appropriate benefits from sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord King, said that there is a critical need to develop proper parliamentary procedure in the consideration of major infrastructure projects. There is no point in my rehearsing the problems with the type of inquiry used in relation to Terminal 5 and Sizewell B. However, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, rightly said, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, among other projects, provides a different precedent.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was a major planning issue and was supported by the then Conservative government. As I understand it, however, votes on the issue were not whipped and the proposal was approved with considerable majorities. Although it is a matter for Parliament, I do not think that it would be appropriate for parliamentary procedure in relation to such important matters to be whipped. I also agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with in a one-hour debate in each House before they are approved. We need to develop a procedure that allows proper consideration of the issues.
However, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link case seems to establish perfectly satisfactorily that Parliament is both willing and able to deal with the issues involved in such major infrastructure projects. Although those projects are very few and far between, surely it must be better for Parliament to be involved in deciding them than to continue with the current procedure. The current procedure operates as follows. In the case of Terminal 5, for example, an application for planning permission was made to the London borough of Hillingdon, as per usual. Understandably, the application was called in by the Secretary of State. There was then a planning inquiry of the type we have discussed. Thereafter, not only did the Secretary of State not refer the matter to Parliament but, because he had a quasi-judicial role, he had to operate at arm's length when making the decision.
If we can develop a parliamentary procedure that allows both proper consideration of the issues and the community involved to express its view, then the nation's superior democratic body should be able to
decide the very few cases—national issues—such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Terminals 4 and 5 and Sizewell B. Our proposals contain such a framework.There is not, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, agreement on all the details, but we are utterly determined to make the planning system work so that it delivers sustainable development and earns the confidence of the community. We shall certainly listen to what has been said today. I hope that I have explained our basic thought on the issues. I suspect that the devil will be in the detail, but we shall listen carefully to what is being said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I quickly ask—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we really do not have time for interventions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a timed debate, and time is up.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for replying so comprehensively, and in his own inimitable and well-respected fashion, to our debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and expert contributions. I, too, look forward to our continuing discussions on planning. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Scottish Parliament (Referendum) Bill [HL]
8.6 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is intended to test Scottish opinion as to whether the Scottish Parliament is achieving its aims and whether its people believe that Scotland would be better governed from Westminster. I must declare an interest. I am a great supporter of the Union. I am also a resident of Scotland and have been for half of my life, albeit that I was born and brought up in England. All three of my children were born in Scotland.
I love my adopted country, its countryside and its people, but I know that there is a growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament is not fulfilling the role that it was intended to do. Indeed, I have yet to meet anyone from any walk of life who approves of how the Scottish Parliament is conducting its affairs. The large postbag that I have received in support of the Bill's objectives supports this view. Neither must it be forgotten that, since the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, neither House has had any opportunity to look
at the success or otherwise of the Scottish Parliament. With that in mind, I believe it appropriate to test Scottish opinion.I deeply regret that Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is no longer with us as I feel certain that he would feel even more strongly about this Bill. I also regret that the original First Minister, Donald Dewar, is no longer with us either; I believe that he would be horrified at what is going on at the moment. He so eloquently set out the aims of the Scottish Parliament in his opening Address on 13th May 1999:
- "We will make mistakes . . . but we will never lose sight of what brought us here; striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal".
Few people voted in the referendum or to elect the first Members of the Scottish Parliament. The turnout was under 60 per cent and in some areas as little as 40 per cent. Less than 45 per cent of these said "Yes" to a Scottish Parliament. I believe that voter apathy is one of the most troubling and worrying aspects of modern political life. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I were running a public company with shareholders, we would require at least a 75 per cent majority to approve a change to our constitution. The figures that I have just quoted show that they fall a very long way short.
I am aware that there are many who question what right I may have, as an elected hereditary Peer at Westminster, to introduce such a Bill and at so early a stage in the existence of the Scottish Parliament. I do so because I believe that the Scottish Parliament is like a runaway train without a guard and because I believe that Scotland, once a great nation, would be better governed with greater value for its people, and at a fraction of the cost, than it currently is from Edinburgh. To those who support the continued existence of the Parliament, despite its flagrant defects, I say, "If you are true democrats, you will not deny the Scottish electorate the right to express its wishes".
I would like to point out just some of the costs that are currently faced by the Scottish people. First, the Scottish Parliament building. Several years ago a turnkey project offered the Scottish Parliament a new building at the Port of Leith completed and delivered for £32 million. Coincidentally, my great great grandfather was once the elected Member for Leith. This was to be next door to the Scottish Office on land donated by Forth Ports—I must declare another interest as a very small shareholder in Forth Ports—as a gift to the nation and the building, based on a European regional model, to include press buildings.
The plan was rejected as it was not considered prestigious enough. Many people have asked why the Old Royal Infirmary building could not have been adapted, and at a fraction of the cost of the new building. But the Scottish Executive wanted new premises originally estimated at £40 million. After realising, however, long after the project got under way, what they had ordered was not big enough, this rose to a staggering £280 million. Now, according to
the Edinburgh press, MSPs are already quibbling about the quality of the furniture. I am reliably informed that the final bill will end up nearer £500 million; I repeat, £500 million.On 21st March this year, ignoring massive public opposition, when one poll revealed 99 per cent of voters believed their politicians should not receive any more money, the Scottish Parliament awarded themselves a 13.5 per cent pay rise. One national newspaper ran a headline, "Obscene". Expenses for each Member are now running at around £50,000 a year. Yet only a few months ago, nurses were forced by these same Members to accept a pay rise of just 3.5 per cent. Indeed, the increase in salary that the Scottish Members awarded themselves equates to the annual pay for many public sector workers. My socialist instincts find this offensive in the extreme.
People were dismayed that the last First Minister resigned his office after 10 months in the job with a mammoth pension for life. What message does that send out to the people of Scotland, especially the young?
There are currently 38 NDPBs—"non-departmental public bodies"—to quote a politically correct definition. Most of us know them as "quangos" or "task forces". They lurk, unelected and unaccountable, behind the Scottish Executive. The cost to the people of Scotland?—8,478 people are so employed spending over £2 billion funded by the Scottish taxpayer.
The number of civil servants has also climbed—from 12,873 in 1997 to more than 13,700 today. Staff costs have increased by £18 million. There are now 50 press officers, nearly double the 1997 figure and five times the number of spin doctors than there were two years ago. Publishing glossy books has increased 75 per cent in the last three years to £2.5 million.
During the past year the Scottish Executive managed to spend its way through £236,000 on taxi fares and £586,000 on 22 ministerial cars; another source of great indignation for the people of Scotland. When one considers that the total running costs for the Scottish Parliament for the year ending 31st March was £35.1 million, this represents a very hefty bill for what the comedian Billy Connolly referred to as "a wee pretendy parliament".
Yet only recently The Fraser of Allander Institute issued the warning that Scotland's economy is set to grow at less than half the rate of the United Kingdom in the next year. Is this really what the people of Scotland want? I do not believe that it is. If one of the aims of the Scottish Parliament was to take on some of the responsibilities of local government, surely it would be reasonable to expect a moderation in costs? It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why, following an 18-month inquiry, council tax band changes have been proposed which will land some house owners with increases of up to 61 per cent.
All kinds of strategies, packages and initiatives have poured forth. Along with legislation that almost beggars belief. For example, the ban on hunting, which was forced through by 83 individuals, some of them
not directly elected, most of them completely ignorant of the argument. The worrying reality is that 65 Members can impose any legal measure they want upon the Scottish electorate. This instils a real sense of fear into many people, particularly as there is no revising chamber to carry out any of the necessary checks and balances on the Executive. Where, given this situation, is democracy?It must not be forgotten that when we were debating the Scotland Act many of us were concerned about the lack of a second chamber and we were assured that the Scottish Executive's committee framework would act as a safeguard. The Rural Affairs Committee recommended that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, was unworkable, yet it has now received Royal Assent. I believe it is appalling that the Executive can so blatantly disregard the recommendations of its committees.
I turn now to the Bill to ban fur farming. What a scandalous waste of time and taxpayers' money to ban an activity that does not even exist in Scotland, and has not, for at least 10 years. Yet the export of live animals for slaughter overseas continues unabated from Scotland, with all the misery and suffering this inflicts on these hapless creatures. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, labelled by many as the "Land Theft Bill", is another vastly unpopular measure, with potentially devastating results on the people and countryside of Scotland. Do we really want to follow in Mr Mugabe's footsteps? I think not.
More than 1 million people voted in a national referendum to keep Section 28—more people than voted for the governing party in the Scottish Parliament. Yet those million people were branded as "bigots" and the Executive arbitrarily went ahead and repealed Section 28, regardless of such strong public feeling.
Many of your Lordships might reasonably ask, "But surely the Parliament must have done something right"? If one were looking for redeeming policies, two possible candidates could be the introduction of free universal care for the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees for students. Unlike the Parliament's other legislation, at least the intention in both measures was good. Alas, the implementation is an empty sham. Care for the elderly will cost at least £125 million a year; after the first two years, the Scottish Executive has no idea where the money will come from. It will be forced to pillage other public services, robbing Peter to pay Paul. As for the so-called abolition of student fees, for the majority of students they have simply been replaced by graduate endowments requiring them to repay £2,000 after graduation when their income reaches the modest threshold of £10,000. Most Scottish students no more enjoy free tuition than people with a mortgage acquire a free house.
So where should the focus and the money be better spent? Surely not on making criminals of parents who smack their children, but on providing police officers, nurses, doctors and teachers. That is what I believe the late Donald Dewar meant when he said,
- "striving to do right by the people of Scotland, respecting their priorities".
The problem that all this poses to England is that our Government are committed to introducing more regional assemblies. In fact, eight further regional chambers in each of the English regions are due to be introduced over the next three years. The Government have allocated a budget of £15 million. Given the Scottish experience, I feel confident that noble Lords will agree that this is a very modest sum. Every time that we have an extra layer of government, it is obviously going to cost. Is it right to impose on the people such a form of government that is to be expensively housed, along with all of the added costs of civil servants, taxis, cars, telephones and so on? The idea of £500 million buildings springing up in Newcastle, York and all points south would be appalling and would further alienate the electorate.
This is a very expensive way to finance the "political third eleven" to strut and to preen themselves. That disillusionment is now being expressed by those who are best placed to judge the effects of devolution on Scotland's prosperity—the crucial wealth creators. A survey in the current issue of Scottish Business Insider magazine, conducted among the chief executives and financial directors of 500 of the leading companies in Scotland, shows that almost half believe that the Parliament should be abolished—an increase of 15 per cent in just three months. In the words of a very famous cook and a much-loved Scottish personality, "If it was a recipe, I would throw it out and start again".
When people throw up their arms in despair, asking the question, "What can I do?", the answer is, I believe, contained in the Bill. I know that it will be welcomed by all those who voted "No" for a Scottish Parliament but it will also be much welcomed by many who voted "Yes" as well as by many who did not bother to vote at all.
I also ask those who insist that the Parliament is successful, representative and popular to have the courage of their convictions and empower the people of Scotland to prove that this is the case. If the Parliament is really wanted, then they should welcome a referendum, which would presumably result in a landslide endorsement of devolution. I have made it clear how I would vote; if the majority of Scots feel differently, let them have the opportunity to say so. All that I am attempting to do is to give the Scottish people a voice. I believe that the Bill is a democratic way of doing so.
I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill a safe passage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Palmer.)
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made a powerful speech. However, as the evening wears on, he may discover that the Scottish Parliament has some supporters and that the picture is not quite as black as he has
portrayed. However, his initiative has two great merits. First, it affords us the opportunity to say something about Scotland, which, in these post-devolution days, is a little difficult to do in the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, it allows us to explore the constitutional value and consequences of holding referendums.As to the purposes of the Bill, I can say only that if it gets into Committee I will bring forward two amendments. The first will provide for a referendum after five years following enactment, not six months, as the noble Lord proposed. The second will meet the recommendations that are set out in the sixteenth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That will provide for an order to be made under Clause 2(2) to be a statutory instrument—the Bill currently does not contain such a provision. That is a matter for Committee but I give notice now that I shall take those steps if the Bill reaches Committee.
I am in favour of referendums on proposed constitutional changes of importance. It was right to hold a referendum confirming our membership of Europe and on devolution in Scotland and Wales in 1979 and it was right to re-run those referendums in 1997. It will be right to hold a referendum on whether or not we adopt the euro. The Government were right to insist on a referendum in Scotland following the general election in 1997. The Scotland Act was a massive change to the constitution. Billy Connolly said that it was a small parliament; he is clearly something of a comedian but he does not know much about the constitution. How the people are governed and the arrangements for government should, in a mature democracy, be a matter for the people.
I do not believe that we should put non-constitutional issues to a referendum. So far, central government have always confined referendums to constitutional matters. The trigger for referendums is in the hands of governments, and therein lies a weakness. They choose the issues, the questions, the timing and who will be consulted in the referendum. When the five conditions on the euro are deemed to be met, the sixth unwritten condition will kick into place. That sixth condition is, "Can we win?". All governments take that approach, as we know. I am now 64 years of age and I am sure that noble Lords will consider such cynicism very distressing in one so young. Referendums can become "neverendums", as has been the experience in Canada with the Quebec secessionist issues.
Those are our worries about referendums. In an ideal democracy, it would be possible for the people to trigger a constitutional referendum. That could perhaps be founded on a parliamentary petition that was properly constituted and signed by a fixed percentage of electors. However, that is as unlikely as a referendum on an Act of Parliament setting up an elected Upper House. However, that is another matter; I should return to the noble Lord's Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, wants to hold his referendum six months after his Bill is enacted. That is too soon. Likewise, it is too early—and, I believe,
inappropriate—for the Constitution Committee of this House to be looking at devolution. Constitutional changes of such a profound nature take time to bed down and there have been many early problems that have taken time to resolve. I believe that five years would be about right, if we were to do that at all.The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is right to make a referendum a statutory requirement and at a fixed time. That has the merit of removing it, to some degree, from the machinations of government.
The Parliament in Scotland has not, I regret to say, proved to be the settled will of the Scottish people. The late and much missed John Smith said that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people. I believe that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people—he was absolutely right. However, the Parliament that we, in this Parliament, constructed is not the settled will and has settled nothing. For a start, the official opposition—the Scottish National Party—does not accept the settlement. It persists in demands for separation. I deplore that, but it is a fact.
Now it happens that the SNP is currently badly led. Mr John Swinney has none of Alec Salmond's political skills. He lacks presence on the political landscape and his judgment is poor. His recent return to a fundamentalist position on separation makes it very unlikely that he will head up the next Scottish Administration. The SNP never wins elections—I suppose that that is the good news—because the Scots are not separatists. However, prudent politicians—"prudent" is today's buzzword—must assume that the official opposition will some day win an election. We must remember that there is no precedent in this country for an official opposition failing to win in perpetuity. An SNP victory in the Scottish elections next year would trigger a referendum on separation and the end of the partnership with Westminster. It would destabilise the whole devolution package.
The new Scottish Parliament has done many good things and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, did not list them. However, some of the things it has done have been unpopular and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned Section 28. I support the reform of Section 28 but I accept what the noble Lord says about the reaction of opinion in Scotland.
We have been faced with much criticism about the huge and escalating cost of the new parliament building. But most worrying of all is the perceived central belt bias in policy making which has contributed to disappointment. The Parliament must learn that there is not one Scotland: there is Highland Scotland, Lowland Scotland, industrial Scotland, Scotland of the Gaels, Scotland of the Northern Isles and Scotland of the new Scots who have settled there. It is a very diverse place and there is much more to it than just the conurbations at either end of the M8 corridor.
We have had problems but I believe that Jack McConnell is the best First Minister we have. Much more than that, he appears to me to have what it takes. He shows firmness in decision-making; his appointments to ministerial office have been well
received; and he has a sound grasp of the job, its parameters and its constraints. He is a tough, effective politician whom I supported when as a young man he was appointed General Secretary of the Scottish Labour Party—not an easy job. He proved his worth then and nothing since has caused me to change or revise my judgment.I do not know where the Bill will go but I do not believe that we will ever see a referendum. However, I believe that if there were to be a referendum the Scottish people would reaffirm their commitment to devolution. At this moment in our national life it has to be given the benefit of the doubt. If we must revisit the issue, it should be some years hence because my argument is that all of this is much too soon.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, a huge debt of gratitude in that we can discuss Scotland today. It is odd that here we are in the United Kingdom Parliament, but week in and week out it is impossible to discuss issues relating to Scotland. That is to the detriment of the standing of Parliament. We should have some method of doing so. At least another place has Scottish Questions but I do not know what one can table in this House. Perhaps I could ask the Ministry of Defence why it has removed the military guard from Edinburgh Castle, but I suppose that that might be said to be related to tourism and thus be devolved. That is a pity and I hope that the Minister will believe that there should be a way in which occasionally we can have a Scottish debate in this House. That is why the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is so satisfactory. It has given us an opportunity to speak about Scotland.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, who cut such a fine figure and who was such a successful Lord High Commissioner, that this occasion may be too soon. On the other hand, if we can point the Scottish Parliament in a more productive direction, the sooner we do so, the better. I hope that from tomorrow onwards, the comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will be prescribed reading for every Member of the Scottish Parliament.
Originally, I was opposed to the Scottish Parliament. I believed in administrative devolution, as was carried out significantly by the Scottish Office for many years, but I felt that it was too soon for a Parliament. However, the referendum having called for a Parliament and the Bill having been passed by both Houses of Parliament, I am in favour of retaining it but making it work more efficiently.
We have had 1,000 days of the Scottish Parliament and I believe that most Scots will say that it has been a sorry disappointment. Therefore, today's debate will be a valuable wake-up call, ensuring that the Members in Edinburgh realise that occasionally other people have a view different from theirs. Indeed, last week the Scotsman published a survey of the top businesses in Scotland. Forty-eight per cent voted to scrap the Scottish Parliament. They believed that it had become
another layer of bureaucracy, expensive and lacking leadership. Yesterday's Scotsman contained an interesting article by the Meat and Livestock Commission and farming agencies in general stating that in Scotland it was difficult to run devolved policies relating to agriculture which were different from those in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. It stated that there was not the required degree of co-operation for it to be successful.We are approaching decisions by Westminster on the composition of the Westminster and Edinburgh Parliaments. The number of Scotland's Westminster Members of Parliament will fall from 72 to 59, as recommended by the Boundary Commission. Each constituency will then have approximately 69,000 people as opposed to the present 54,000. Under the 1998 Act, which was agreed in both Houses, when that happens, the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament will automatically fall from 129 to 106. Our eyes were open and we knew what would happen. If Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish were still with us, he would now be having a field day.
Do not let us automatically believe that the MSPs can retain their 129 Members, which is what they seem to be setting out to do. And do not fool me into thinking that either group—Members of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament—will be overworked. The pre-devolution Westminster MP could manage his work, plus all the difficulties of travelling to and from Scotland. If 72 Members of Parliament could look after Scotland, surely 106 can do so in future.
As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogg, the pre-legislative consultative committee system set up by the Scottish Parliament has proved disappointing. It has recommended major changes to legislation and opposed the hunting Bill and many changes to land reform legislation, but those sailed through the Scottish Parliament as though the committees did not exist. I believe that the votes were cast as a result of prejudice and not on the merits of the cases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, I am concerned that we are becoming a central-belt Parliament and not one that represents the whole of Scotland, particularly the rural areas.
In addition, and as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, surely it is not right to increase salaries by 13.5 per cent, even if recommended by an independent body. Politics have to come into Parliament from time to time and politically it was not an astute move to increase to £48,228 Members' salaries when inflation was low—credit to the Government for that. When I came to Parliament many years ago, Members were paid £1,750 and received nothing for secretaries. Now salaries are approaching £100,000 with secretarial allowances. That really is going far too far.
I cannot understand—this is an important point which is discussed at length in Scotland all the time—why, with a Parliament of 129 Members, we need 21 Ministers plus four in London. That is 25 Ministers to run Scotland when pre-devolution and pre-Parliament
both the Labour and Conservative parties were running on seven Ministers with no problems at all, plus the travelling difficulties from Scotland to London. It is a tremendous expense involving extra private offices, staff, accommodation, motorcars and so forth. No wonder the people of Scotland blink and say, "How on earth can we in this comparatively small country with a small population afford to have a top-heavy Parliament such as that foisted on us at the present time?".The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly mentioned the cost of the new building—in round figures, people speak of £300 million—for 106 Members and their secretaries. Who was responsible for that? Who oversaw it? Was it Members of the Scottish Parliament? Was it the civil servants? Who in the early days agreed to go down the road of acquiring the most complicated and expensive building imaginable for a small number of Scottish Members of Parliament? Of course we want a prestigious building, and it is in a good part of Edinburgh. But the complicated design and the quality and standard that seems to be required of the furnishings has got totally out of hand. I am astonished and gloomy that the cost eventually has to come out of the block grant at the expense of far more important matters such as health, education and roads.
Of course there are disappointments. I have mentioned roads, and I refer now to the A75 from Stranraer to Carlisle. From the point of view of Northern Ireland we desperately need that road to be of the highest standard for the freightliners that continually run along it. Yet nothing has been done to that road since 1997 that was not in the pipeline at that date. We have got nowhere when it comes to joining up the gap between the M6 at Carlisle and the M6 in Scotland. The gap is around five to seven miles where it is still dual carriageway. Nothing has been done in that regard.
Section 28 was mentioned. That has now gone through Parliament. There has been misuse of the good causes of the Lottery Fund for land purchase. That money was allocated differently before the 1997 election. Chaos in examination results is another issue. But even more serious is the year-by-year increase in local council taxes. They go up far above inflation and the councils say, "We are forced to make such increases by the Scottish Parliament. It makes us do things which we feel are unnecessary". But taxes continue to go up and it is a real strain on those living in Scotland.
I look to my right, rather sadly, at the Liberal Democrats. They went into partnership with the Labour Government when the MSPs won the election for the Scottish Parliament. Yet they have three Ministers who seem to have no influence whatever. Socialist legislation continues to be introduced year after year. We had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would try to reduce socialist legislation and make some impact on Scotland. I do not know what Gladstone or Haldane or some of the other great Liberals would think of the things going on in the Scottish Parliament. What would they have thought of
compulsory land purchase in Scotland? What would they think of many of the aspects of the hunting Bill? I know it was a free vote and many Liberal Democrats did not vote for the Bill—indeed they voted against it—but if that party had real influence, that Bill might never have reached the Floor of the House, considering what happened in the pre-legislative committee.So the Liberal Democrats have a great deal to answer for in not using their influence in the Scottish Parliament. Why do they not stand up to the First Minister and say, "If you will not listen to us, we will vote against you"? The Scottish Parliament would then lose important legislation. They seem to flow like sheep through the Parliament, supporting the socialists year in and year out. I shall be interested to hear from their Front-Bench spokesman as to when they are going to perk up and put a bit of spunk in the Scottish Parliament. When are they going to do some opposing?
The sad part is that the Parliament is going ahead on essential belt-and-braces legislation all the time, and we Scots in the peripheral areas are feeling great dissatisfaction in what is being provided at such enormous cost. If we do not get a referendum—I appreciate the problems of taking a Private Member's Bill through both Houses at this time of year—the best thing the Scottish people can do at the next general election in Scotland is to show how much they disapprove of what they have had so far.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord finished his speech with an appeal to democracy. Up till then he was rather ignoring it. However, I listened to his criticism of the Liberal Democrats with interest; I did not feel it was entirely unbiased.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is correct when he says that we had no discussion in this House. But if he wanted discussion surely the way to do that was to table a Question. Perhaps that should have been done earlier. But it is a mistake to put forward immediately a Bill for a referendum.
However, I listened to his impassioned speech. It was a good speech, though I felt it missed out certain factors—many good factors in fact. Certainly there have been snags. But it is astonishing how well this entirely new body has done. It is a great pity that nearly all the senior politicians in all parties chose to stay in Westminster. We could have done with more of them in the Scottish Parliament.
One of the great issues for discussion and criticism is the building. But the fact is that that was arranged by the Westminster Parliament. It was organised by that great body, the Scottish Office, before the Scottish Parliament was elected. That was quite wrong. If it had waited and let the Scottish Parliament decide, we might not have had such a prestigious building, but we would have seen a lot of common sense. They were hung with the thing. Whether they handled it well or badly, the fact is that the project originated with the
Secretary of State—the late lamented and much respected Donald Dewar and his department. That has been one of the major focuses of criticism, and rightly so.The noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned the pay rise. That is always a subject of criticism, but when it is recommended by an independent body it is a strong factor, and even the noble Lord admitted that. We cannot criticise it. There had to be an increase in the staff, which can always be criticised. But I do not believe it has been all that bad. The fact is that the Scottish Parliament has worked within its budget. It has not sold us up the river with enormous extravagance. I could continue.
The hunting Bill was mentioned. But let us wait and see what this Parliament makes of that issue in England and Wales. I believe that there will also be great trouble when it comes to putting it into practice. I hope that we can put that right, but it is a fact that many people feel passionately about hunting. I do not feel one way or the other about it. I believe that people should be allowed to hunt if they want to so long as they are not cruel. But many people do not use reason in relation to that subject, and that would apply in our British Parliament as well. Therefore, a whole series of matters can be raised.
Land reform is being discussed much more sensibly. It is true that access to much of the land in Scotland has been removed for many Scottish people, and not by Scots. Therefore, a genuine concern arises in relation to that matter. I, along with the noble Lord next to me, am a countryman and I do not altogether like the urban influence. However, we must admit that Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen contain the majority of the people in Scotland. We must accept that.
I agree that there have been snags, but I also believe that many good things have come about. I hope that noble Lords who have already spoken have been in the Scottish Parliament and have listened to the debates. I attended once or twice and was rather taken with the atmosphere. I considered it to be rather good.
In relation to what the people of Scotland think, of course polls go up and down. The results depend very much on the question that is put to the people. That is especially the case with regard to polls run by the Scotsman, which I would not say was one of the great or valuable newspapers.
But what do people say? I have assembled some of the comments. The National Union of Students of Scotland say:
- "In its short existence, the Scottish Parliament has made significant improvements to the well-being of students and has the potential to do even more".
Then we go on to more practical bodies. The National Farmers Union says:
- "The vital role of Scotland's farmers has been recognised today in the strategy for Scottish agriculture published by the Scottish Executive".
- "The Scottish Executive through the strategy, is committing itself to a route to a better future for agriculture".
- "For the first time, Government has recognised the vital role of Scottish farmers as being key to a whole range of other businesses and sectors which make up the rural economy".
- "The Executive's agricultural strategy is a welcome review of the priorities and direction of agriculture in post devolution Scotland".
- "Both Mr Morrison and Mr Smith"—
- "declared themselves content with what had been achieved in Brussels, with the chief executive paying tribute to Mr Finnie's 'gritty determination'".
- "welcomed the basic principles of the [Land Reform] Bill. The Chief Executive . . . said: 'The trust is pleased to see that the access proposals in the bill reflect the recommendations of the Access Forum. The proposed right of responsible access to land and water acknowledges Scotland's long tradition of access to the countryside'".
Turning to newspapers—I once worked for the Scotsman but now do not approve of it so much—the Glasgow Herald said:
- "Police numbers are at a historic high, the Drug Enforcement Agency is up and running, and efforts are now in hand to make courts more consumer friendly for witnesses and jurors".
- "The Scottish Executive's land reform bill . . . is a radical document".
- "The Lib Dems have played a significant part in producing Scottish solutions for Scottish problems, most notably with the graduate endowment package replacing tuition fees, and free personal and nursing care for the elderly".
- "The Land Reform Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be drawn up [in Scotland]".
- "A Charter for the most extensive redistribution of land ownership in generations was published yesterday".
Then we go to the Sunday Mail and an article by Selina Scott:
- "I didn't hear anybody complaining when the Scottish Parliament agreed to pay for free care for Scotland's elderly, despite the fact senior citizens south of the border didn't receive similar payments. Nor has there been an outcry because Holyrood has decided more money should be spent on health in Scotland than the rest of the UK. There hasn't been a squeak about the way Scotland funds student loans which, unlike England, don't have to be repaid until the students have jobs.
- These are genuine benefits of the new Parliament and have come about as a direct result of devolution".
There is much more, but I want to quote one specific thing; that is, the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland. Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible, received great credit for his handling of it. Certainly it was infinitely more competent than the handling of the outbreak in England. It was more competent because Scotland is a good unit. When one looks at Europe and sees the regional governments in Bavaria and elsewhere in Germany all playing a part, the question of a unit which is cohesive is very important. The Scottish Parliament has worked to a large extent. There have been snags, but I consider that this Bill is wholly inappropriate and harmful to a body which is developing reasonably hopefully. That is enough for me because I believe in its purpose.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for introducing this Bill and for giving us all a chance to air our views, even though they may, as my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld says, go no further. My views have always remained the same, and I am no convert, as my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish claimed to be. Since the union of the Crowns in 1603, with King James VI of Scotland succeeding his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, through his grandmother, Princess Margaret Tudor, who was Elizabeth I's aunt and Henry VIII's eldest sister, we have enjoyed the same monarchy. However, even with a Scottish King in London, things did not go well for Scotland with the separate Parliaments of Edinburgh and Westminster. It may have been fine for England, but it was not so for Scotland, with the South Sea Bubble and economic disasters all round us.
My great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a Member of the Edinburgh Parliament at that time. He spoke of the venality of the Scottish Members of Parliament and of the lack of money to spend on Scotland. He felt very strongly that the only way for Scotland to survive was to have a united Parliament with England. Alas, he died three years before that happened, but his son and grandson went on to become Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. And for nearly 300 years everything worked rather well.
On 17th June 1998 on the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament Bill, I said:
- "The main problems are, of course, financial, because a new parliament, with the appropriate buildings, infrastructure and salaries of the members as well as their supporters, will all cost money".—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1653.]
We have heard from noble Lords about the venality of the Scottish Parliament today, of which my great great great great great grandfather complained 300 years ago. What many noble Lords foretold in the Second Reading debate four years ago—of the expense to Scotland of the whole enterprise—has now
come true. Are we any better off for it? A correspondent in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser noted this week that with a closed list representation it was no longer even democratic. He pointed out its failings and thought that the only course might be to throw rotten eggs. That seems to me rather extreme.The trouble really is the expense, which the rest of us have to support. It is all chiefs and no Indians and far too many layers of government, each one more expensive than the last. There are the councils, the Scottish Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, and the European Union.
I was delighted last year to visit the Scottish Parliament, and to see it in action. I was most impressed, as I would expect to be, with my noble friend Lord Steel. Otherwise, I found it an interesting and informative experience. The Chamber was hardly more than half full. If it was not a full session, where were all the other members? If it was, do we need another hugely expensive new building, the Scottish Dome.
Although I dislike the word, I fear I must admit to being a pragmatist. What I mean is, that in any situation you must start from where you actually are, and go on from there. What anyway was the point of a Scottish Parliament? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said,
- "We are also about building a more decentralised plural society in which real power is dispersed and the political process becomes more accessible to all citizens".
Well then, perhaps we should be a bit more devolved still. Perhaps we should cut Scotland in half, north of the Forth and Clyde, leaving the Scottish Parliament where it is. The new £4 billion pound building, with its £400,000 rose gardens and landscaping, would make a splendid new hospital of which we have great need in Scotland.
The rest of Scotland which goes on for quite a long way, could then become Caledonia and the Isles. My late noble friend Lord Thurso and my noble friend Lord Burton and I fought a notable battle to split the enormous unitary local council authority which goes from Inverness to Wick into two more manageable bodies. We pointed out that the whole area was the size of Belgium, and that the roads were not good. We lost, but not I think before I had quoted a story of a fisherman at Kinlochbervie where my husband some years ago had a small netting station. He said that he was thinking of going south for his holidays that year. My husband, knowing how far north Kinlochbervie was, said, "Perhaps you might be thinking of Inverness". "Oh no", he replied shocked, "Not so far south as that".
Caledonia and the Isles could have a small parliament, sitting perhaps in Perth, or Abernethy, or even Dunkeld, all ancient capitals of the kingdom. Members would only be paid expenses, not a salary, which would fall if there was more legislation, and rise
when legislation was repealed. Because of this, sessions could be infrequent, and much could be devolved back to the local councils.We would be supported by a large national lottery, tickets being sold abroad, by all the Scotsmen who live around the world, with our share of the block grant, and revenues from North Sea oil, whisky and tourism. We would also make tax advantages to encourage wealthy people to come and live there, bringing their money with them. We would have the airports of Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee as well as the smaller ones, and a direct continental ferry from Rosyth. It would truly be devolved government with the political process being accessible to all citizens. And it would be much cheaper and possibly more fun.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, quite rightly, spoke of some of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not believe that even he would deny that it is self-evident that there is considerable disappointment across Scotland at the present time at the way that the eagerly-awaited Parliament has performed so far. However, the remedy proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in this Bill does not appear to me to be a good idea at all. I am one of those who have always believed in devolution but I voted "no" in the original referendum.
Anyone who has been involved in local government at a time of reorganisation knows that, even at that level, it takes a while for a changed system to bed down. Elected members and officials have to learn to operate new roles and, above all, the local public have to find out how to use the new system, individually and collectively, to their advantage. All that takes time and hard work by everyone involved.
The creation in Scotland of an entirely new Parliament, new people elected on a new electoral system and new ways of arriving at the laws within which we live, is a far greater change than any local government reorganisation. Few of the elected MSPs had ever legislated before. The committee system and the relationship of the Executive to Back-Benchers was new and hitherto untried in the United Kingdom. The civil servants were unused to their much more visible and exposed roles. The public and countless non-governmental groups in Scotland had a totally unfamiliar system to which to relate.
Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is still early days for the Scottish Parliament, and that he should be a little more patient. Having said that, damaging and avoidable mistakes are being made. It seems to me that the biggest has been the headlong rush into huge commitments and complex legislation so early in the life of the Parliament.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that it may have been sensible to have delayed the commissioning of the new parliament building until MSPs could assess what site would suit their purpose best, precisely what accommodation was
needed and until there was a system of cost control in place. A year or two more in temporary accommodation would have done no harm. The reputation-damaging tenfold rise in the cost would have been avoided.In beginning to legislate, a gentle start on simple but much needed Bills would have been wise. The Scottish Law Commission had some ready and some were indeed successfully taken in hand. But the huge, complex, and extremely controversial, land reform Bill is a very different matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, said that the Liberal Democrats have no influence. The Bill is being taken through by Mr Jim Wallace as lead Minister, the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister. It contains—I am not speaking about the access provisions—almost Soviet-style compulsory purchase measures. The crofters apart, virtually everyone who works in the rural Highlands is astonished and somewhat horrified—notably of course the ghillies, the gamekeepers, the foresters and the stalkers who see their jobs disappearing, and, to top it, lottery funding is being used to chase them out.
Investment in the development of the rural Highlands is already much reduced. As the compulsory purchase proposals for lowland areas become more fully appreciated, the damage and the anger will increase, particularly, I suspect, in the Borders.
This must be a mistake. A vociferous few may still wail about the Highland clearances of the 17th and the 18th centuries, but modern Scots have plenty of good sense. They know a modern Scotland needs rural as well as urban prosperity and that inward investment matters everywhere.
Instead of rushing into this most damaging and illiberal measure, would Mr Wallace not have done well to wait a while, so that all the implications could be properly considered and a better and less old-fashioned way forward emerge?
I understand that one of the problems of legislating, which may have been a problem in the case of this Bill, is that the Parliament's committees—committees even more important in the Scots system than in the Westminster system—are not working in the consensual way that is required. It seems that the Scottish National Party members find it necessary, for whatever reason, to carry on their opposition role even where it is not appropriate in the Parliament's particular system.
Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, says, we do still live in a democracy. At the end of the day, the people who will cure these ills and bring success to the Parliament are of course the electorate of Scotland. They must resist the fashion of cynicism; they must participate in every way that they can; they must express their wishes; above all, they must watch closely what the political parties and individual MSPs are up to; and at election they must vote accordingly. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, far from promoting this Bill, should encourage that. I suggest that, without delay, he should withdraw the Bill.
9.12 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I should like to say a few words under the auspices of the Bill about some constitutional issues which concern me.
I noticed the first matter when we passed legislation in Westminster that affected devolved matters in Scotland. The way that it was done was rather cunning. We amended the part of a pre-devolution Act that affected Scotland. It was the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 1(3) amends Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. That is a rather odd thing to do. It is a back-door way of legislating for Scotland. It should not happen. One does not know where one stands. If we are to have devolution, it should be done properly.
The second matter that worries me is that we should remember that we are still the sovereign Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament ought more properly to be called an assembly, because it has only devolved powers. It can produce primary legislation, but only in certain areas devolved to it, and those powers may be taken back at any time. It is not a separate, sovereign Parliament. I am concerned when it does things that would not be passed by this sovereign Parliament, because philosophically they are contrary to how we behave in a basically capitalist economy.
I am of course thinking of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, to which several noble Lords have already referred, which is passing through the Scottish Parliament, and the community right to buy, which has just been mentioned, provided in Section 43. Someone told me that that was ridiculous because it was unclear. Section 43(1) states that the community right to buy,
- "may be exercised when the owner of the land . . . is deemed to have given . . . notice . . . that a transfer is proposed".
Are we in this sovereign Parliament happy that a subsidiary body is passing legislation that will allow communities to expropriate land from the children of perfectly legitimate landowners? Do we really want to go that far? Such matters should be debated at this level rather than there. Tinkering with land tenure is one thing, but compulsory purchase in a new and socialist form is entirely another.
There is then the question of who will pay for all that. Perhaps the lottery will fund some of the initial purchase, but who will continue to run things? Most Scottish estates—the power is bound to be exercised for them in the initial days—run at a huge loss, so there will be a running cost to the Exchequer. At present, the Barnett formula gives about a 20 per cent per capita advantage to Scotland for money raised by taxation. I should imagine that that formula will be quickly revised, because I do not envisage people in England and Wales being happy to fund wonderfully grandiose and expensive schemes in Scotland.
The next thing that worries me is that the procedures are being ignored. A lot of assurances were made about how the unicameral Chamber would operate. Legislation was first to be published in draft for public consultation; there would be pre-legislative committees to scrutinise it; only then would Parliament act like a second Chamber. In other words, it would be more like this House—with less political motivation and more effort to ensure that Bills were correct.
That is not happening at all. It is a highly politicised Chamber that is overruling the findings of pre-legislative scrutiny committees, such as the Rural Affairs Committee in the case of the Watson Bill. That also occurred in relation to some of the provisions of the Land Reform Bill. A good example is that the crofters' right to buy fishing rights contiguous to crofting land was inserted only when it reached the Parliament—it never went out for public consultation. That has environmental consequences because attempts to keep up the river environment and the riparian environment along the rivers are funded by private money. Although Scottish fisheries boards can raise a levy, it does not cover all the work that needs to be done. So there are problems with regard to future funding. Such things have not been properly considered, which worries me.
The trouble is that there are no checks and balances in the Scottish Parliament. As is the case with this Parliament, there is no constitutional court to which to take an issue; nor is there a second Chamber. That is extremely dangerous. We ought to remember that a democratic parliament is not there to force the will of the majority on a minority; it is there to protect the rights of all citizens equally. The majority does not have the right to interfere with a minority just because it is the majority. In fact, very few governments are ever elected by a majority of the electorate. They may have a majority among people who turned out to vote, but not of the total electorate.
I am coming to an end, but I turn briefly to another matter that has been raised. I suspect that the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament will change. At present, there is no home for the centre and centre-right vote, which I am sure will emerge as the true Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, rather than there being two socialist parties fighting it out. That vote exists; but until that happens the position is difficult.
This referendum Bill should not matter, because if the devolution experiment—sorry, devolution—has been so successful, there should be no fear about the result of such a referendum. It should endorse what is happening. I cannot see what is the danger therein. On the other hand, some people may consider such a referendum to be their last chance to hang on to some stability and to retain some of their assets. I suspect that the result of such a referendum might well shock a few people.
9.19 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, as we have heard tonight, it is customary to congratulate the
noble Lord on securing the debate. However, when I saw the matter listed in the Minutes of Proceedings I did not know whether to laugh or cry. I thought: "Here we go again". However, on reflection I decided that the noble Lord was performing a service because it would give us an opportunity to air some home truths. Indeed, on reading the report in the Herald last Friday, I was amused by his comment:
- "My worst nightmare has been that no one will turn up"—
- "Then people would say, 'Yes, he really is barking'".
Before I continue, perhaps I may answer one or two of the points made earlier. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, complained about the fact that he could not ask any questions about Scotland in this Chamber. That is not true. There are massive reserve powers to this place. The noble Lord could table Questions on the constitution, on defence, on foreign affairs, on electricity, coal, oil, gas, or on nuclear energy, on employment, on financial and economic affairs, and on social security. Indeed, there is a huge gamut of subjects upon which he could ask questions.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned the fact that the Chamber in the Scottish Parliament was half full when she paid it a visit. How many times has the Chamber in the other place been less than half full? During my 14 years in the House of Commons there were very few Members of Parliament in the Chamber on many occasions.
The noble Baroness seems also to object to the rose gardens being created around the new building and the cost involved. But how much did the fig trees in Portcullis House cost? I wonder whether anyone complained about them? I give way to the noble Earl.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page