 | 'Can we have an assurance that the contents of the White Paper on the powers of the Scottish parliament will be influenced more by the by our men of mettle in the Scottish Office than our man of Straw in the Home Office?.' Dennis Canavan, Labour MP for Falkirk West, to devolution minister Henry McLeish, in the House of Commons, 16 th July 1997. |  |
The Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, officially confirmed that the Government is looking at a number of options, including retaining the converted former Royal High School in Edinburgh, to house the new parliament if Scots vote for it in the forthcoming referendum. He would not be drawn on who would be expected to fund it.
However, it is understood that the cost, which has not been revealed, is likely to have to be met by the Scottish Office.
Setting up a Scottish Parliament is currently estimated by the Scottish Office to cost between £18-£25 million with a further £5 million for the referendum but any new Parliament building would add substantially to that.
He added that the Government was looking for a balance "of value for money combined with effective government and an effective working environment" for the building chosen for the parliament.
The new Scottish Office building in Victoria Quay cost £60 million. One of the sites earmarked for a Parliament building is next to it.
The former Royal High School on Calton Hill is considered the least likely option as it does not have suitable office accommodation.
A new site is understood to be favourite although the total cost, which would tens of millions, may make it politically unattractive.
At Scottish Questions, Mr Dewar said although they were considering a range of options, no decision had been taken except that the Parliament would be in Edinburgh.
John Greenway, Tory MP for Ryedale, told the Scottish Secretary: "From what you have told the House, can we take it that you do intend to build a new parliament building for Scotland - in which case can we have a categorical assurance now that it will be paid for out of Scottish block grant and not by taxpayers in England?"
Mr Dewar did reply directly saying: "There will be expenditure on a new parliament building whether it be in the Royal High School refurbished or on a new site."
"Obviously that is an a integral part of the proposals we are making."
In a stormy session, the Scottish front bench came under fire from one of their own MPs over reports that an "English lobby" in the Cabinet had watered down the White Paper.
Dennis Canavan, MP for Falkirk West, asked devolution minister Henry McLeish, to cheers and laughter from Opposition benches: "Can we have an assurance that the contents of the White Paper on the powers of the Scottish parliament will be influenced more by the by our men of mettle in the Scottish Office than our man of straw in the Home Office?"
Jack Straw, the Home Secretary is believed to be the leading figure in the "English lobby".
Mr McLeish replied: "It is widely known that in the Scottish Office we are indeed men of mettle and I can reassure you that we will be producing a very substantial and detailed White Paper which will ensure a very full debate."
The tax issue was raised by Tory constitutional spokesman Michael Ancram who asked Mr Dewar whether it was right that Scotland's block grant would be reduced by £450 million if the Scottish Parliament lowered income tax by 3p in the pound.
The Scottish Secretary replied: "Of course if we reduce taxes, then that will have an impact obviously on the subvention from the United Kingdom Exchequer."
"It would be quite extraordinary if it did not."
SNP Leader Alex Salmond asked Mr Dewar: "Do you recall being the co-author and signatory of the Claim of Right, asserting the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine a form of government best suited to their needs.
"Do you still believe in these things and will they be reflected in the White Paper or has the Home Secretary told you to change your mind?"
Mr Dewar replied: "Of course I signed the Claim of Right. I was pleased to do that, proud to do that almost, and I don't regret having done so.
"The fallacy in what you put to me is that you make the rather arrogant assumption that that right to the Scottish people had to be exercised in a particular way. That's not the position in my view. It was a right they could exercise as they thought fit.
Return to home page