§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding in Scotland of a poll with respect to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.I recognise that up to now the holding of referenda or polls in Great Britain has never been an accepted practice. However, we live in changing times, and it is important that we as politicians recognise that fact. The changes which we see are not only economic; they are political, too. This seems to have been recognised by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In certain aspects of our political life, in the light of changes, different lines of policy and different approaches are required, and we have witnessed considerable changes of mind by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on various matters of policy which they previously propounded.
A few years ago, few people in this country, and probably fewer in the House, were in favour of the principle of a poll to decide whether Britain should become a member of the Common Market. But times change, and attitudes alter. The great Opposition party in the House today has nailed its banner to the mast, saying that if it becomes the Government it will renegotiate the terms and hold a referendum in Britain to determine the attitude of the electors to the renegotiated terms. The present Prime Minister has not agreed to the principle of a referendum on Britain's membership of the Common Market, but he has accepted the principle of a referendum for Northern Ireland.
Once the principle has been conceded and accepted, it is difficult to deny the right of the people of Scotland to express a view by referendum on whether they should have a Scottish Parliament. It is obvious to every hon. Member, and it is also becoming evident to the people outside, that the power of Members of Parliament is gradually receding. They do not have the influence they once had. At the same time the power of the Prime Minister is increasing to an ever greater degree, and it will continue to do so when 430 the Common Market countries become stronger and, more important, as unity grows within the EEC.
This will be to the detriment of our parliamentary system of government. It would presuppose that, in view of the diminution of the influence of Parliament, there is a need for a fundamental change in our parliamentary system of government. This, I think, should give hon. Members food for thought. It is the belief of many in Scotland that through our going into the Common Market there has been a violation of the principles and the intent of the Treaty of Union. Not only has that happened in respect of the Common Market but the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, now in Committee, also violates the spirit of that treaty. The taking of Scotland into the Common Market as a part of the United Kingdom and not as a nation in its own right brings about considerable disadvantages to my country. It cannot be justified in any circumstances.
Take steel as a good example. Most of the basing or uplifting points are in central England. That will mean considerable transport charges to bring raw steel to many of the old-established steel-using industries in Scotland, and it will act as a deterrent to any industries which use steel as a raw material against setting up factories in Scotland. The industrialists will, naturally, seek to establish their new concerns as close to the basing point as possible. Scotland as a region, not as a nation, will be dependent upon the generosity of the Common Market countries as to how it will be given regional incentives. It will have no claim as of right but it will be given assistance according to the generosity or otherwise of the Common Market countries. Everyone must surely agree that the greater the distance from the administrative centre of control the greater the difficulties of getting decisions made.
Look what has happened about Scottish oil. The Public Accounts Committee has reported that both this and the previous Government have to be condemned for their mismanagement of the affair, and it is the contention of many in Scotland, including me, that if Scotland had a Parliament of its own it would never have made such a blunder which now requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce new measures to 431 rectify the wrongs of the two past Governments.
Time and the rules of order do not permit me to go deeper into these questions now. I have been asked, however, why I have brought the measure before the House now. It is because the people of Scotland, irrespective of party, cannot at a General Election, due to the many facts and issues that occupy their time, make a decision on whether or not we should have a Scottish Parliament. It is true that many members of the Conservative Party, amongst them the Foreign Secretary, and many members of the Labour Party, amongst them myself at least, believe that there should be a degree of devolution for Scotland. Yet, at a General Election the question is bypassed because of the many other issues which present themselves. At a by-election, however, a different story unfolds, and it is then possible to get a true and clear picture of the views of the people of Scotland. There has been an election in Dundee. Neither of the two great parties can take much satisfaction from it. Most of the people in Dundee voted for candidates who were in favour of a Scottish Government, and I make bold to say that there were considerable numbers who voted Labour and Conservative but favoured a Scottish Parliament.
It has been suggested that the violation of the Treaty of Union could be justified on the ground that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. But I contend that all Parliaments bind future Parliaments until Parliament itself rescinds the law or treaty which has been passed previously. The Treaty of Union has not been rescinded by any Parliament of the United Kingdom, and its contents have been violated and broken by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That is tantamount to breaking the law, and is something that every hon. Member should deeply abhor. We cannot decry others for breaking the law if we are prepared to break a sacred treaty of union in this place.
My Bill is very short and to the point. It asks three definite questions of the Scottish electors: do they wish to have a Parliament with full powers? Do they wish to have a Parliament with partial powers? Do they wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom? It is a simple 432 measure which I trust and hope hon. Members will provide with an opportunity for debate so that we can achieve a consensus to see whether or not we should now agree at least to giving the people of Scotland an opportunity to raise their voices in favour of or against a Parliament in Scotland.
§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Member opposing the Bill?
§ Mr. LawsonYes, Mr. Speaker, I am. It was not my intention originally to speak against the Bill but my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter), for whom I have great affection, talked so much rubbish and, in so many ways, such dangerous rubbish that I feel obliged to say a word against the Bill.
I dispute, for example, the contention that Scotland has suffered at the hands of London over the years. His reference to the steel industry might be answered in this way. The industry is centred in my constituency, and it was a fact that the steel owners in Scotland, the great Colville concern, which was the Scottish steel industry, were committed against the strip mill development which subsequently came to Motherwell. A London Government under a Conservative Prime Minister intervened and more or less instructed—and certainly involved or inveigled—Colville to build a strip mill in the Lanarkshire area. If there had been a Government in Edinburgh there could be no doubt that the steel industry—Colville—which was against a development of that sort would never have had that development in Scotland.
I have said on many occasions that the Scots have unfortunately over the years suffered from the Scots. It was the Scots who depopulated the Highlands; it was the Scots lairds who turned so much of that great region into sheep areas and deer forests.
We should recognise that it was not until the union of Parliaments that Glasgow became an area of any worth from a trading point of view. When we had the union of Parliaments we had access to what was until then the English Empire, and the Scots profited very much from that English Empire. They built over a considerable period of time on the 433 basis of the English Empire, and they almost ran that English Empire, which subsequently became the British Commonwealth and Empire. We had a great deal to do with the running of the Empire.
You yourself, Mr. Speaker, came to Scotland and in Scotland had an excellent education which has enabled you to render so much service.
There are a number of disadvantages inherent in my hon. Friend's proposal but let me take only one of them. Think of the situation which would confront the ordinary working-class fellow in Scotland, the ordinary keen football supporter, if he had to get a passport to come down to Wembley. If it is argued that passports would not be necessary, that the English would be quite happy to have us come here, I say that that would depend on the English, not upon us.
Finally and seriously, to my mind government by referenda is a primitive method of government. It was tried many years ago in the trade union movement. What we found in the trade union movement was that on the basis of referenda members were regularly passing
§ votes to raise benefits which came to themselves and passing votes to reduce the contributions they made. The kind of government which we need to have in these complex days, these involved governmental machinery days, is government where the many issues can be weighed, and, the many involved issues having been weighed, we can come to decisions as wise as possible. Referenda are appeals to passion, appeals to prejudice and feeling, not judgment.
§ Since for a long time we have claimed as one of the characteristics of the Scots that when we come to Parliament we exercise judgment, I say that it would be a very bad thing, a very stupid thing, and against the national interest, even to begin to think in terms of a referendum on this question. Therefore, I am opposed to permission being given to bring in such a Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business:
§ The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 82.
435| Division No. 79.] | AYES | [4.14 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hooson, Emlyn | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Ashley, Jack | Hunter, Adam | Rankin, John |
| Baxter, William | Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Rost, Peter |
| Biffen, John | Jessel, Toby | Sandelson, Neville |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Spence, John |
| Carmichael, Neil | Kelley, Richard | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Lambie, David | Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Lamond, James | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy |
| Driberg, Tom | Le Marchant, Spencer | Tope, Graham |
| Eadie, Alex | Lipton, Marcus | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Machin, George | Weitzman, David |
| Ewing, Harry | Miller, Dr. M. S. | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Freeson, Reginald | Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) | |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gray, Hamish | Oakes, Gordon | Mr. David Steel and |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Palmer, Arthur | Mr. Donald Stewart. |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Pardoe, John | |
| NOES | ||
| Astor, John | Dalyell, Tam | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Dixon, Piers | Jopling, Michael |
| Bell, Ronald | Doig, Peter | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine |
| Benyon, W. | Drayson, G. B. | King, Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Boscawen, Hn. Robert | Farr, John | Kinsey, J. R. |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Kitson, Timothy |
| Bray, Ronald | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Knox, David |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Fox, Marcus | Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Goodhew, Victor | Loveridge, John |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Green, Alan | Luce, R. N. |
| Burden, F. A. | Grieve, Percy | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | McCrindle, R. A. |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Clegg, Walter | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hawkins, Paul | Monks, Mrs. Connie |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hayhoe, Barney | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Crawshaw, Richar | Hornby, Richard | Murton, Oscar |
| Crouch, David | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Neave, Airey | Simeons, Charles | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Sinclair, Sir George | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Parker, John (Dagenham) | Small, William | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Percival, Ian | Soref, Harold | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Raison, Timothy | Tapsell, Peter | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Redmond, Robert | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) | |
| Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) | Trew, Peter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard | Mr. George Lawson and |
| Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) | Vickers, Dame Joan | Mr. William Hannan. |
| Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) | Waddington, David |
§ Question accordingly negatived.