Devolution (Hansard, 11 February 1976)

§ 1. Mr. Gourlay
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received with reference to the White Paper on Devolution.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing)
Since the publication of the White Paper on 27th November 1975, I have received 142 letters from organisations and members of the public commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland.

§ Mr. Gourlay
Amongst those letters, has my hon. Friend received one from the Scottish National Party explaining the phrase "the gradual approach to independence"? Will he confirm that the Oxford Dictionary gives exactly the same meaning to both "independence" and "separatism"?

§ Mr. Ewing
I confirm my hon. Friend's assertion that the Oxford Dictionary describes "independence" and "separatism" as one and the same thing. But perhaps I should correct his quotation. I understand from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the SNP now adopts a gradual approach to separatism. The fact that I have not received a letter about it from the SNP is probably due to the fact that its members are having difficulty in understanding it themselves. No doubt they will write to me when they decide what it means.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
Whilst appreciating the sort of black humour of the Under-Secretary of State's remarks, may I ask whether he accepts that in Scotland Chambers' is the preferable dictionary to both the shorter and longer Oxford Dictionary? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the election results in Scotland speak for themselves, in terms of the dissatisfaction of the Scottish people, from all points of view, with the White Paper on Devolution?

§ Mr. Ewing
If the election results in Scotland are to speak for themselves, I 417 think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will say "goodbye" to at least two of his colleagues in the next election. He may well appreciate my black humour, but I assure him that I do not reciprocate the feeling; I do not appreciate his black humour. If the SNP seeks to don new clothes and hopes that under the cloak of independence it will be more receptive to the people of Scotland than under the cloak of separatism, it is in for a rude awakening.

§ Mr. Sillars
Do the Government still stand by the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in a parliamentary answer in December, in which he said that it remained impracticable to devolve industrial powers to the Scottish Assembly?

§ Mr. Ewing
The Government stand by the view that the White Paper is a discussion document. It is being discussed now. If the SNP does not want to discuss it, that does not mean that no one else wants to. It is being discussed, and we are receiving representations from a wide range of bodies to which we sent letters on 27th November asking for their comments.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Does the hon. Gentlemdan agree that 142 letters from various organisations is a pretty disappointing response? I accept the possibility that the figure is so small because many people are afraid that the Government are fairly fixed in their views. Will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the sponsoring by the Government of an all-party conference in Scotland to examine thoroughly the many divergent Scottish points of view on this issue?

§ Mr. Ewing
There are two sides to this question. The hon. Gentleman may well consider 142 letters to be disappointing. It would be disappointing if that were the whole picture, but the picture is completed only by my advising the House that of the 800,000 copies of the potted version of the White Paper distributed to post offices in Scotland, 500,000 have already been taken out. I am sure that the understanding that the Scottish people have gained from that potted version is reflected in the small number of letters that we have received.

§ Mr. Sproat
Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues not to be rattled 418 or over-influenced by the result of the East Kilbride election, which can in any case be regarded as a normal result when any Government are trying to steer through a bad patch? Will he, rather, direct attention to the North-East of Scotland, where, in two recent by-elections, the SNP has been hammered into the ground by the Tories on an anti-Assembly ticket?

§ Mr. Ewing
I hope that I do not sound offensive to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Sproat) when I say that with friends like I have I do not need enemies.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have given a good run on Question No. 1. I know that it is harder for Celts, but one supplementary question by each Member called to ask one will enable me to call many more hon. Members to put supplementaries.

§ 4. Mr. Crawford
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on devolution from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
The Council has been invited to comment on the White Paper of 27th November 1975 and has indicated that it hopes to do so shortly.

§ Mr. Crawford
Is the Minister aware that when the Scottish Council sends him its views on the Scottish Assembly—and it will be sooner rather than later—it is likely that it will at last come round to the view that we should stop the centralisation of industrial decision-making and adopt full control over trade and industry, and the Scottish Development Agency?

§ Mr. Ewing
I am reminded that the last time the hon. Gentlman said that he was making a statement on behalf of the Scottish Council, the Council came out the next day with a categorical denial. Therefore, I do not place much credence on the ability of the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of the Scottish Council.

§ Mr. Canavan
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the Scottish Council's view on the desirability of decentralisation of industry and commerce, and also the fact that the Council's recent report shows that of all the non-governmental office jobs transferred out of London in the past 12 419 years less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. came to Scotland? Will he give an assurance about the steps that the Government intend to take to see that devolution is accompanied by a massive decentralisation, to ensure that more jobs come to Scotland from London and the South-East?

§ Mr. Ewing
My hon. Friend should be aware of the fact that even while we are discussing political devolution, the Government are involved in a massive dispersal operation comprising thousands of Civil Service jobs—[Interruption.] Glasgow is part of Scotland. To date, 31,000 Civil Service jobs have been dispersed. The people of Scotland will look at that dispersal programme against the background of the SNP's policy of separatism. No wonder the SNP is running scared from the idea of separatism and is trying to assume the cloak of independence.

§ Mr. Younger
Is the Minister aware that the common factor in every one of the Scottish Council's views, over many years, has been the refusal to contemplate any benefits to the Scottish economy flowing from Scottish separation from the rest of Britain?

§ Mr. Ewing
I am very much aware of that view, expressed by the Scottish Council over the years.

§ Mr. James Lamond
Does my hon. Friend not regard the existence of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), together with the other institutions established in Scotland to develop the economy, as an indication of the advantageous position in which Scotland finds itself relative to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is this not due in no small measure to the work done by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Ewing
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The work done by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State in attracting industry to Scotland is often forgotten. If the House is interested in the statement made over the years by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), it may like to know it was during my right hon. Friend's term of office in 1969 that the Scottish Council issued a statement saying that because of the Labour Government's regional policies it was able to attract an industry a day 420 to Scotland. That is eloquent testimony to my right hon. Friend's record.

§ Mr. Rifkind
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal to transfer industrial and economic powers from the Secretary of State to the Scottish Assembly to such an extent as would jeopardise the future existence of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland would be met with great hostility in Scotland? Does he accept that the office, if not the present incumbent, should continue for many years to come?

§ Mr. Ewing
I believe that both the office and the present incumbent should continue for a great many years. We have a commitment, which is welcomed by the vast majority of people in Scotland, to ensure that whatever Government are in power there will be a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet—a Minister who will be Scotland's voice there. That commitment will be kept.