Devolution in Scotland

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room.

On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on.

Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule. The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years.

I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few.

The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I sometimes find myself watching Holyrood TV, and most of what happens after the electronic voting is endless people checking whether they have voted—wanting to clarify whether the machine has worked. Given that there are 120-odd Members in Holyrood and 650-odd Members in this place, I am not entirely sure that that is the best plan for Westminster voting.

[Patricia Ferguson]

My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament. What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all.

[John Lamont]

I think the recollection that the hon. Lady and I will have of our time in the Scottish Parliament was of voting physically, albeit electronically, together in the Scottish Parliament Chamber. The difference now, of course, is that some Members of the Scottish Parliament are voting in the Chamber, while others are voting at home, sitting at their kitchen table, by pressing a button. That is where the connectivity issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) arise, and that is why it is important that we maintain physical voting in this place.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I think the hon. Lady has made a good point. She may be up against it if she is trying to talk to those on the Opposition Benches about modernisation in any fashion, but when, during the pandemic, Members were forced to go through the Lobby when they were unwell, that affected Members throughout the House. I think—and I shall say more about this later—that there are always places where legislatures can learn from each other.

[Patricia Ferguson]

It is undoubtedly true that we have to learn from one another, and from international examples too. If I can give one example that I would like colleagues to learn from, it is that electronic voting has a place, and a place from which I think this House could benefit greatly.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Ferguson]

Before I give way, may I just say that I really did not imagine that that one line would create such a response?

[David Davis]

I cannot really comment on electronic voting, but I was going to make a comment in the other direction—about learning in both directions. I believe that Donald Dewar, in his heroic struggle to bring about devolution, wanted a strong Scottish Parliament, in terms of privilege, in terms of the right to summon Ministers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Ferguson]

I think we have to realise that the Parliament in Scotland is very much smaller than this Parliament, which makes a great difference to many of the ways in which it operates. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is much easier to speak to a Minister there than it is here. It is a regular occurrence. There is a saying in the Scottish Parliament: you only have to sit in the Garden Lobby for half an hour, and every other parliamentarian will have passed you by at one point or another. That is a huge advantage, and it is one of the aspects of the Scottish Parliament that I personally preferred: we did have that access, not just to Ministers but to other colleagues across parties, and we could develop relationships that enabled us to work in a cross-party way very easily with them. That, I think, was a great thing. I also think that the Scottish Parliament has, perhaps, a better balance of power between Members and the Government, but we have to accept that the scale is an influencing factor at the very least.

I would not suggest for a moment that the years from 2007 onwards—when the SNP first formed a Government through a deal with the Tories, when they then formed a majority Government, and even when they were in coalition with the Greens—have been a complete failure, but there has been a great deal of wasted time and opportunity.

[Stephen Gethins]

Is the hon. Member aware that in that 2007 Parliament, the Labour party voted with the SNP more often than the Conservatives did?

[Patricia Ferguson]

The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber.

I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say.

Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places.

As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will

“never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.”

In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Ferguson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that it is only because BAE Systems won the contract with Norway that it is able to give work to Ferguson Marine, which is owned by the Scottish Government, to keep it going? At the time, the Scottish Government were saying, “We will not have anything to do with defence procurement.” The irony of that is appalling, given that people’s jobs are at stake.

[Dr Arthur]

Yes, I do. It is fantastic that the contracts came from Norway to the UK, and they will keep households in jobs for many years to come. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in that workforce and the whole supply chain, but the very, very quiet thank you from the Scottish Government was utterly shameful.

It is time for a new Government who will not just set ambitious targets, but deliver them and improve the lives of people in Scotland. People will not be surprised to hear that I think that new Government should be led by Anas Sarwar.

I want to make one last point. We have spoken about parent and child Parliaments, and about levels of government. There is nothing that we can do here today to improve the relationship between the Scottish Government and councils in Scotland, but when we talk about the issues in Scotland, we have to remember that there is not a hierarchy of councillors, MSPs and MPs. We are all elected by the same people, we are all equal and we are all here to serve those people. If we use that kind of language more in our constituencies, residents will come with us on the argument about empowering our councils to make a real difference in our communities. That is the devolution that Scotland needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

We are focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland. We constantly have constitutional questions and questions about second-order concerns from the Opposition Benches, but we will resolutely focus on jobs and pay in Scotland, as we were elected to do.

My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Falkirk and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) laid at the SNP’s door the charge, which I agree with, that the SNP is much more interested in devolution to Scotland than devolution inside Scotland. I argue that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the SNP is yet to acquire, so interested is it in centralising power in its own hands in Edinburgh.

Devolution in Scotland has always been about ensuring that our distinctive voice is heard in the United Kingdom, and this Government have continued in that vein since taking office. We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government to be one based on delivery and partnership, but the question now is about how Scotland’s two Governments, together with our local communities, can best seize the opportunities granted by artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and the digital industries. Despite the insistence of Opposition Members, we cannot do that through division or constant constitutional wrangling.

We heard from Opposition Members that they would like to return to the days—the 14 years—when the SNP and the Tories had a symbiotic relationship in which each served the other’s political ends because they were locked in a dance of grievance, rather than having a focus on delivery.

Our approach as a Labour Government is different. We say that we may not agree on everything between different levels of Government, but we can and must agree on more, enough to make a difference to the people we serve. We have already seen results from having a Labour Government with Scots at its beating heart: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, with a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; a new industrial strategy to ensure Scotland takes advantage of the jobs of the future; GB Energy, with investment to drive the clean energy revolution; up to 60,000 clean energy jobs in Scotland by 2030, an increase of 40,000 from 2023; £200 million secured for the industrial future of Grangemouth; a historic deal worth £10 billion to supply Norway with Type 26 frigates; a trade deal with India that is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year; the highest settlement for the Scottish Government in the devolution era; and a £292 million Pride in Place investment to regenerate Scottish communities. That is what delivery looks like.

Let us contrast that with the record of the SNP, which was so poignantly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). There is much about Scotland’s economy to be proud of, but we on the Labour Benches are under no illusions: it has underperformed, and has particularly underperformed in the service of working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out so eloquently. If Scotland’s growth in the past decade had even matched the sluggish growth of the UK as a whole, our economy would be nearly £10 billion larger today. That is a decade of lost opportunity, lost jobs and lost potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was right that we should differentiate failures of devolution from failures that sit squarely at the SNP’s door. We need a new approach, one that involves Scotland’s cities and regions and local government, but the SNP’s desire for highly centralised power instead of responsive and active local government in Scotland has led to the accountability crisis we have already discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) have done a fantastic job of explaining the role and desires of local government.

[Patricia Ferguson]

It is very interesting to hear my hon. Friend outline so succinctly how Scotland could be better served if the UK Labour Government’s policies were copied elsewhere. I believe that symbols can sometimes be very important, so does she agree that the fact that there are more Labour Scottish Ministers sitting on the Front Bench than there are SNP Members attending this debate says a lot about people’s priorities, and about the priorities of this Government compared with those of the SNP?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At the last election, we promised to maximise Scotland’s influence, and this is what that looks like.

The calls we have heard from leaders across Scotland are clear. Local government leaders are not just asking for money, but for powers—powers over skills, transport and growth—to unlock the full potential of their regions. They are really asking for genuine accountability to the people they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have both highlighted, there are problems with accountability and scrutiny in how the Committee system in Holyrood has evolved away from the desires of those who founded the Scottish Parliament. They have warned that Committees that were intended to be the backbone of scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament are too often dominated by the governing party, and lack the independence needed to really hold the Executive to account. Their view—which, as founding Members of the Scottish Parliament, carries much weight—is that without stronger and more robust Committees, devolution cannot deliver as the architects of the Scotland Act intended.

As has been said many times this afternoon, devolution was never meant to be an end in itself. It was always supposed to be a means to improve lives, not with division, but through co-operation. If we can focus on our common purpose across this House and between all levels of Government—if we focus on stronger growth and fairer opportunities—Scotland can truly be at the heart of UK prosperity.

[Jamie Stone]

Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement.



I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did.

I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that.

[Jamie Stone]

Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man.