GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND (Hansard, 8 April 1970)

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better government of Scotland. This is the fourth occasion in the lifetime of this Parliament that my Liberal colleagues and I have sought leave to introduce a Bill concerning the constitution of Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) introduced a Government of Scotland Bill in 1966, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party introduced a Federal Government Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) introduced a Bill to provide for a referendum of the Scottish people.

The Bill I seek to introduce this afternoon is substantially based on the evidence which the Scottish Liberal Party has given to the Commission on the Constitution, evidence on which The Scotsman has commented in these terms: In style, as in content, the Scottish Liberal Party's pamphlet is perhaps the best offering yet made to the Crowther Commission. It is well written, clear and free from jargon. It provides evidence that Scotland is a nation, that it is misgoverned and that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present system. It is obvious in all parts of the House and by the setting up of the Crowther Commission that there is general concern in the country, particularly among politicians, about the growth in the power of government against the capacity of the elected representatives of the people to check that growth. What is a general proposition for the United Kingdom as a whole is more acutely seen in the government of Scotland, where the growth in administration and in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland has led to a decreasingly responsible form of government in Scotland. Indeed, the very solution put forward by successive Conservative and Labour Governments to add to the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and perhaps give him an occasional extra Under-Secretary, merely means that there is still more administration in Edinburgh without a proper capacity for controlling it.

552 There is further considerable concern. I have noticed that on occasions English and Welsh Members, when the House sits late at night on the Report stage of a Scottish Bill, are somewhat reluctant to stay to pass votes on matters like the Sewerage (Scotland), Bill which went through the House in 1968. I hope, therefore, that they will be anxious to support my Measure.

Scotland has its distinct identity of law, Church, education, history and culture. In 1967, National Opinion Polls asked this question throughout Great Britain: Was the Government out of touch with people outside the London area? It was interesting to note the replies to this question. In the United Kingdom as a whole 45 per cent. answered "Yes" and 38 per cent. "No". In Scotland, the answer was 60 per cent. "Yes" and only 30 per cent. "No". The feeling of the Scottish people is, therefore, quite different from that of the other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not just another region.

The Bill proposes to establish a Parliament in Scotland of 71 Members. Each existing parliamentary constituency would send one Member to Westminster and one to a Scottish Parliament. This Scottish Parliament would do three things. First, it would deal exclusively with all Scottish legislation. Secondly, it would establish control over a Scottish Executive or Government to deal with those matters already administered by St. Andrews House and further matters that we would propose to add to the present responsibilities of the Scottish Administration. Third, it would, as a body, be able to make representations to the Westminster Parliament for changes either in the Government of Scotland Act, or the Act of Union of 1707.

My party has been quite clear over many years that we wish to see a federal structure in Britain, and that remains our approach, but this present proposal avoids the need for protracted constitutional wrangling at the outset. We want to introduce immediately the first phase of this federalism, and, therefore, we propose that the Scottish Parliament should be given a block grant immediately of about 553 £1,500 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The answer to the cries of surprise is that that is the present Government expenditure in Scotland. It represents 11 per cent. of the United Kingdom Government expenditure.

My Bill would also propose to establish a joint exchequer board between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament to negotiate the transfer of the power of domestic taxation to the Government of Scotland. We believe that taxes such as S.E.T., however justified they may be in the London area, are complete nonsense, and against the interests of, for example, the Highlands of Scotland.

§ Mr. Steel

My Bill proposes to establish a political focus in Scotland, and also a constitutional forum. There are many able Scottish men and women at present unable to serve in this House of Commons who would be willing and available to serve in such a body in Scotland.

Finally, I submit that my proposal is in the mainstream of public opinion in Scotland. The Church of Scotland, in its evidence to the Crowther Commission, has already called for a Scottish Parliament for internal Scottish affairs. In May last year the Scottish Daily Express held an opinion poll in which it asked people whether they favoured home rule for Scotland. The answer was, "Yes", 48 per cent. and "No", 42 per cent. Those wanting home rule were asked, 'Do you want a totally independent Scotland?" The result was that 37 per cent. said "Yes", while 63 per cent. preferred a Scottish Parliament with control over domestic issues, which is what my Bill proposes.

554 The latest sounding of public opinion, in a National Opinion Poll in December conducted for the Scottish Plebiscite Society, showed that 23 per cent. of the people wished an independent Scottish Parliament, 44 per cent. an internal Scottish Parliament such as we propose, and 23 per cent. were in favour of the status quo. Thus, I claim that my Bill would give expression to the sovereign wishes of the Scottish people.

The Labour Party, at its Scottish conference last week, defended the status quo, which is surprising for a body which has set up the Constitutional Commission. The Conservative Party has yet to decide whether to adopt the interesting proposals of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and his Committee, but even if it does it will not provide for any Scottish control over Scottish affairs, apart from some stages of legislation. The Scottish National Party advocates a minority policy, and while I as a Border Member would welcome further opportunities for employment in that area, Customs officers are not precisely what I have in mind.

The Bill would provide for an immediate, sensible reform of the government of Scotland and for machinery for Britain to advance towards a full federal structure.