---

Draft Legislative Programme

Unfortunately, it is down to timing. If only the hon. Gentleman had not been called before me then perhaps more Members might have flooded into the Chamber to hear this climax of the debate. To be called provocative by him is one of the great phrases that makes me miss this place. It is the pot calling the kettle black, and it is extraordinary to hear it from the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have such enormous affection. The Government say that the constitutional reform Bill will be a centrepiece of their legislative programme. It will not surprise the Minister to learn that I want to devote a few remarks to that Bill and the Green Paper, and to say how it could be substantially improved. Last week, I was sitting at the British-Irish Council. Some 20 people were around the table representing two sovereign Governments, three devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and three island groups. Out of those 20, two were members of the Labour party—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There were no members of the Conservative party, although the Secretary of State used to be. There were also no members of the Liberal Democrats. That was the result of a self-denying ordinance, as it were, because uniquely the Liberal Democrats have turned down Administration in three Parliaments in the space of the past two months. They turned down the chance of sharing Government and sharing power in Scotland. They then turned down the chance of sharing power in Wales, and I understand—at least I read in the papers—that they turned down a role in Government in this place as well. That has resulted in the unique phenomenon of a political party denying itself a role in the British-Irish Council. None the less, the point remains that out of 20 people representing the various Governments around these islands, only two were members of the governing party in this place; none were members of the Conservative party; and none were members of the Liberal Democrats—in other words, the three parties that dominate this Chamber are in a tiny minority in terms of the configuration of the political geography that has arrived around these islands. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for some hon. Members in this place to understand, but there have been changes in government: in Northern Ireland, where a Government have come into being; in Scotland, where simultaneously I am in government and in opposition, which is an interesting process; and in Wales, where there has been a fundamental change in the configuration of the Government. That is a huge change in the political geography of these islands, and I saw nothing in the Government’s Green Paper which persuaded me that they have caught up with that reality. For example, way back in 1999 it was envisaged that there would be an organisation of joint ministerial committees to enable the Westminster Government, Ministers and Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, hopefully, the Assembly in Northern Ireland to engage in dialogue on issues of mutual concern. Those joint ministerial committees, certainly in plenary session, have not met since 2002. In terms of the sub-committees, which are part of that process, only one strand of four sub-committees has met over the past five years, and that is the sub-committee on Europe. An arrangement that was brought into being—presumably, I suppose, because it envisaged a situation in which the same party would not be in government in Westminster as was in government in Scotland or Wales—has fallen into total disrepair. It is important that that instrument, or something like it, is brought back into being very quickly. It is disappointing that the Government Green Paper does not address the nature and evolution of the constitutional changes that have already happened and the mechanisms to cope with them. Other matters are also not addressed in the Green Paper. There is no mention of the British-Irish Council and its potential development. There is no mention of the Act of Settlement, despite the Green Paper’s explicit desire to break down barriers to inclusion within ““British society””. There is no mention of the repeal of that Act, which has institutionalised discrimination against many sections of our current society—incidentally, the Scottish Parliament on one occasion unanimously suggested that that Act should be consigned to the dustbin of history. The Green Paper is also almost silent on the West Lothian question and the disquiet felt by many English MPs and a considerable number of people in England at the absence of a forum in which to address specifically English matters and legislation. I do not think that that will be adequately coped with by a system of regional Select Committees. As I have said, there is nothing on the practical mechanisms for improving the functioning of devolved arrangements. It appears that the UK Government want a new relationship between Government and citizen but that that does not extend to examining the relationships between central and devolved Government. There is a huge constitutional conservatism in the Green Paper. Let me illustrate that by quoting a few phrases. It is stated in paragraph 122:"““Parliament stands at the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom…a major symbol of what it means to be British””." The principle that"““devolution does not cede sovereignty””" is also restated. Yet only recently a quite different view was held by many concerned people in Scotland. A statement of 30 March 1989 declares:"““We, gathered…do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all of our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount””." That was signed by every Labour MP with one exception: Tam Dalyell. It was signed by the current Prime Minister. Since then, there has almost been a retrenchment into a constitutional conservatism with the window-dressing of change. Regardless of where Members stand on the future of the constitution, it is absurd that the UK Government wish to have a ““national conversation”” when only they are seen as having total and complete certainty that the current constitutional position is the right one, maintained as"““the apex of the political system, the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom…a major symbol of what it means to be British””." It is odd that measures which are presumably designed to empower the citizen make an assumption about the attitudes of those citizens and almost ignore the substantial political changes that are taking place. That is exemplified by the configuration of the British-Irish Council. There is throughout the Green Paper an obsession to forge a sense of Britishness as a conceptual framework for legislative changes to follow. That is highlighted as a key objective. That concept is fundamentally out of date. It more reflects a sense of confusion in respect of what might be politically advantageous for a Scottish Prime Minister seeking electoral success in England than the reality of modern Scotland and modern Wales—and even, to some extent, modern Northern Ireland. I do not agree that the Prime Minister should try to mask his Scottishness in order to convince England of his worth. I have a much higher view of English voters. I think that the Prime Minister will win or lose the next UK general election not on his nationality, but on his policies. The difficulty he faces is in getting to grips with the fact that we now have a multi-identity state. In Scotland, there is a resurgent Scottish identity and, crucially, that identity includes diversity. A very interesting study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year, conducted by the universities of St. Andrews and Stirling, surveyed attitudes toward Scottishness of young Asian Scots. The study showed that young Asian Scots felt more Scottish than their white counterparts, because they felt that Scottishness was an inclusive identity. I doubt whether another society in western Europe could make that claim at the present moment. It is an important finding, which got relatively little publicity in the Scottish press. I am certain that if the finding had been otherwise, it would have got major publicity. It is a finding that makes me proud to be Scottish, and which should give the UK Government cause to reflect on the dangers of looking for identity that does not allow reflective diversity. Some of what is in the Green Paper seems to suggest that the Government are moving down that road. The Prime Minister’s attempt to contrive a new-found sense of Britishness is deeply misguided. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that, after some time of trying, he has been unsuccessful thus far in his attempt. I have no doubt that if anyone in these islands is able to buck the trends that have been taking place in Scotland and elsewhere for a generation and more, it is the current Prime Minister. However, this quest for Britishness—at the very time when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are moving on a perhaps different path and exploring new avenues of expression, government and society—seems to me backward-looking and misguided. I want to draw a contrast between the approach of the Green Paper—which should have been consultative, as Green Papers usually are—and that of the Scottish Government’s forthcoming White Paper. Rather than dictating the answers, my Government will champion the natural evolution of Scottish democracy, and consider sincerely and openly the spectrum of powers that will inevitably flow from this place to the Scottish Parliament. Let me welcome in particular the indication from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) this evening that he is in favour of a referendum at some point to advance such arguments. I do not know whether that was inadvertent, but it is substantial progress in terms of the dialogue taking place in Scotland. So we will approach our White Paper on the constitution with the conviction that our case for an independent Scotland is the right one, but that the process will also involve genuinely listening to other people’s ideas. The Prime Minister has fundamentally misunderstood the situation. Much of Scotland is relaxed about its identity and its future. It is a country comfortable with the inevitability of further constitutional change—change that is bound to repatriate further powers to Scotland. My submission this evening is that Scotland has moved on, Wales is moving on, and Northern Ireland is moving on; it is time that England moved on, as well.