Chapter 1
Events Prior to 1 May 1997
The 1979 Referendum
1.1 Earlier proposals for a Scottish Assembly nearly came
to fruition in 1979 when the UK administration held a referendum
to offer this constitutional change to the Scottish electorate.
The outcome of the March 1979 vote was controversial; not least
because a clause had been inserted during the Parliamentary
proceedings of the Scotland Act on the initiative of a Labour
backbencher, George Cunningham MP. This clause provided that
unless 40% of all those entitled to vote voted in favour the
Government had to lay an Order before Parliament which, if passed,
would repeal the Act.
1.2 The referendum saw a narrow majority of those who voted
in favour of the devolution proposals but some parts of Scotland
voted against and, with a turnout of only 62.9%, the ‘Yes’
vote fell considerably short of the required 40% of the electorate.
The Labour Government accordingly tabled an Order repealing
the Scotland Act 1978 although Parliament did not vote on the
Order until after the change of Government in May 1979. The
experience of 1979 may have played some part in the subsequent
determination of the incoming Labour administration in 1997
to ensure that its devolution proposals, including a building
for the Parliament, were irreversibly established. This has
been asserted as being the reasoning behind the Secretary of
State’s swift move to secure a site for the Parliament
so quickly after the success of the 1997 referendum. So far
as I am aware there is no written record of a conclusion to
this effect by Donald Dewar. If, however, this did influence
his thinking it was erroneous.1
The Conservative Party in Scotland recognised immediately after
the 1997 referendum that a Scottish Parliament was going to
be set up and ceased its hostility towards it. Furthermore,
the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom had privately appreciated
that it had virtually no prospect of winning the General Election
after 1997 and had no plans to repeal the Scotland Act 1998.
If he had so chosen, Donald Dewar could have proceeded in a
more leisurely fashion with the selection of a site for the
Scottish Parliament without putting the Government’s devolution
proposals in their entirety at risk.
Scottish Constitutional
Convention
1.3 In the period following the 1979 referendum a number
of pressure groups were formed which were influential in keeping
the issue of constitutional change in front of the public and
the political parties during the period of the Conservative
administrations. One such group was the Campaign for a Scottish
Assembly. This "gathering of notables"2
produced a report in 1988 A Claim of Right for Scotland
which asserted the right of the people of Scotland to decide
on their own constitution. A key recommendation of the report
was that a convention should be brought into being to draw up
a blueprint for a Scottish Assembly or parliamentary body.
1.4 Accordingly, a body calling itself the Scottish Constitutional
Convention was set up and held its first meeting in March 1989.
Although the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party declined
to participate, the Convention included members of the other
main political parties, local authorities, trade unions, churches
and other organisations. The joint chairs of the Convention
were Lord Ewing of Kirkford and Sir David Steel, and its Executive
was chaired by Canon Kenyon Wright. The Convention’s final
report, Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right,
was presented on St Andrew’s Day 1995.
1.5 The report proposed the key elements of the constitutional
changes that would form the backbone of the subsequent White
Paper. The proposals were for a Parliament of 129 members, elected
under an additional member system; a power to vary the basic
rate of income tax by up to 3p in the pound; and substantial
devolution of legislative and executive functions to a Scottish
Parliament and an Executive formed from it. The report made
only one reference to the accommodation that might be required
by the proposed legislature. Under a chapter headed "What
price accountability?" the Convention’s report stated:
‘The cost of Scottish democracy will certainly be no
more than the current cost of government in Scotland. A building
is waiting ready on Edinburgh’s Calton Hill. The Parliament
will have the power to set about replacing many of the undemocratic,
accountable and expensive quangos which blight Scottish political
life.’3
1.6 Convention confirmed that in its deliberations there
had been little concern attached to the ultimate home for the
proposed Parliament.4
Some assumptions had, however, been made from the beginning;
such as that the Parliament would be located in the capital
city, Edinburgh, and that being so, the Old Royal High School
(which had been earmarked to accommodate the Assembly had the
1979 referendum been successful) would provide a suitable location.
It was stated to the Inquiry that the Old Royal High School
building had been part of "the journey of devolution".5
In his evidence Mr Henry McLeish, Minister of State for Home
Affairs and Devolution, also suggested that, against some of
the other daunting priorities at that time, the Parliament building
itself was not a major consideration prior to 1997.
Labour’s 1997 Manifesto
1.7 The Labour Party manifesto for the 1997 General Election
included a pledge to enact as soon as possible after the election
legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote
in referendums on devolution proposals to be set out in White
Papers. Those referendums were to take place not later than
the autumn of 1997. For Scotland the manifesto proposed the
"creation of a parliament with law-making powers, firmly
based on the agreement reached in the Scottish Constitutional
Convention". There was a further manifesto commitment,
subject to the outcome of the referendum, to introduce in the
first year of the (UK) Parliament legislation on the substantive
devolution proposals.6
The White Paper that would set out the detail of these proposals
would require to be a wide ranging document addressing those
matters to be reserved to Westminster, the structure of government
in Scotland, relations within the UK and with the European Union,
local government, as well as tax raising powers, financial,
electoral and parliamentary arrangements.7
1.8 As with the Convention’s proposals, in the scheme
of the Labour party manifesto the accommodation arrangements
for the new Parliament was not mentioned at all.
Briefing for Incoming Ministers
1.9 The Inquiry had it confirmed that it has been the long-standing
practice of the Civil Service to anticipate the various potential
outcomes of General Elections and to undertake a detailed scrutiny
of political manifestos with a view to identifying how parties’
policies could be implemented. The Permanent Under Secretary
of the Scottish Office at the time, Sir Russell Hillhouse, spoke
of the tasks and pressures facing officials in evidence to the
Inquiry:
"What always happens when an election is declared is
that, throughout the government machine, senior civil servants
get together and prepare briefing for incoming Ministers of
both main parties. In fact, usually these days, work is done
for other parties as well. This normally takes the form of
a fairly lengthy incoming brief, divided into subjects, which
picks up all the main points in the manifesto, and which also
briefs them on all the running issues which they will encounter
as soon as they step in the door, or which may turn up in
the first two or three weeks.
In the case of Labour in 1997… we did have this very,
very major commitment which would affect the Scottish Office,
and which had very acute time constraints. Therefore, for
devolution in 1997, we made rather special efforts and we
did identify, in good time, small teams of capable officials
whom we could put together as soon as the election campaign
began in earnest, and who would have to work up quite detailed
papers in order to get early decisions from our Ministers,
which they could then try to work through the Cabinet process,
since it was clear to us that one would have to produce a
White Paper, fully cleared, explaining the Government’s
plans for a Scottish Parliament, well in advance of a referendum
date. The referendum, in turn, would have to take place in
time to clear the way for the introduction of a Bill –
assuming the referendum was won – and all that meant
a very tight timetable indeed."8
1.10 On taking office on 2 May 1997 the incoming Labour
Ministers were presented with such a briefing which had been
prepared under the direction of Mr Robert Gordon, who was then
Head of Constitution Group. One part of that briefing addressed
the accommodation needs of the Scottish Parliament and stated:
"New Parliament House (the former Old Royal High School)
is available under the City of Edinburgh Council’s ownership
and we assume that Ministers will want that to be the Parliament
building. While the Debating Chamber appears to be suitable
the condition of the structure is unknown and the building’s
interior is very inflexible. However, use of the building
would avoid a potentially difficult debate about alternative
sites and it is likely, in the short term at least, to be
cheaper than purpose built new accommodation." 9
1.11 Mr Gordon suggested to the Inquiry that the content of
the briefing on these matters would have involved contributions
from staff in Accommodation Division, Estate Services and possibly
the Building Directorate. He also assumed that the City of Edinburgh
Council might have been consulted in connection with references
to New Parliament House.10
The Inquiry has uncovered no evidence, either in documentation
or in oral testimony, to suggest that Scottish Office officials
had any expectation prior to May 1997 that an incoming Labour
Government would do other than consider the Old Royal High School
building as the preferred home for the proposed Scottish Parliament.
|
