DEVOLUTION AND INDEPENDENCE (Hansard, 19 March 1976)

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
I beg to move. That this House considers that a referendum should be held in Scotland, England and Wales, simultaneously but separately in the three countries of the United Kingdom, on the question of devolution and independence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) for bringing his remarks quickly to a close so that 1876 I may have some time to say a few words on what I regard as a most important motion. It is obvious that the issue of a referendum on the devolution question is something about which we shall hear a great deal in the future.
There is a growing demand in various parts of the United Kingdom for a referendum. I was interested to note that today's Western Mail—a paper which circulates in South Wales, which has been against the idea of a referendum and very much in favour of devolution—said that it was now coming out in favour of a referendum. It said: We now believe, in short, that there should be a referendum. The fact that we have taken this different view of the balance of advantage and disadvantage in holding such a referendum does not mean that any or all of the dangers inherent in such a course evaporate. I am in favour of a referendum, held simultaneously but separately in the three countries of the United Kingdom. The reason why I want this is that what is being proposed at the moment is one of the most fundamental constitutional changes that we have ever known.

§ Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)
About time too.

§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. Member may be right. But the people of this country have a right to decide, first, whether there should be a change, secondly, what the nature of the change should be and, third, whether there should be any question at any time of any constituent part of the United Kingdom separating from it.
We held a referendum on the Common Market issue. I was opposed initially to a referendum. I had to be persuaded by colleagues that it was necessary. I was opposed to our continuing in the Common Market. But, whether I like it or not, the people of this country, on the basis of a two-to-one majority, agreed that we should stay in the Common Market.
What I fear is that, if there are nationalist forces in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, which manage to get a majority of seats in the Assemblies, they can then begin to argue for a policy of separation when, in fact, the people of those countries may have voted for the nationalists in protest against the other political parties and not because they were in favour of separation.

§ Mr. Henderson
I know that the hon. Gentleman has very little time and it would be unfair to put too many points to him, but when he uses the words "simultaneously in England, Scotland and Wales" is he implying that the people of England should have the right to veto the rights of the Scottish people if they voted democratically for independence?

§ Mr. Heffer
No, I am not. If the people of Scotland, by a majority, decided that there should be separation, I should not want to have an Irish situation. If the people of Scotland, by an overwhelming majority, or a majority, wished to separate, I should want them to be allowed to separate. But a position could develop which would build up trouble for us along the lines that I have been suggesting. People could argue in favour of separation merely because they had a majority of seats in an Assembly in either Scotland or in Wales.

§ Mr. Henderson
Why have a referendum in England?

§ Mr. Heffer
The people of England have as much right to a say as have the people in any other part of the United Kingdom. The people of England might, contrary to my advice, say that they wanted the Scots and the Welsh to be separated from England. I should regard that as most deplorable, but if they decided that that was what they wanted I should abide by that decision as well.
The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to have democracy for his own part of the United Kingdom alone and deny it to the rest of us. We are as entitled to our point of view on the questions of devolution and separatism as are any other parts of the United Kingdom—especially in view of the fact that in the whole of my life I have never heard anyone in England question the right of a person to a job because he came from Scotland or Wales. In this House a considerable number of hon. Members from Scotland and Wales represent English constituencies. The question of country of origin never arises at any time.
I want now to turn to the serious argument whether we should have a referendum and whether it is against the interests of parliamentary democracy. I had to 1878 be convinced on the question of the Common Market referendum because I felt that it might, and probably would, weaken parliamentary democracy. After the Common Market referendum, I am now of the view that a referendum does not weaken parliamentary democracy, as long as it is not put forward in the form of a plebiscite and when there is genuine discussion and it is on a consultative basis, as in the case of the Common Market referendum.
In Switzerland there are regular referenda, and Switzerland also has a parliamentary democracy. Believe it or not, Australia once had a referendum on whether the Communist Party should be banned. There were no Communist Party representatives in the Australian Parliament, but there was a tremendous campaign on the issue. The people of Australia were sufficiently democratic and intelligent to say "We are not having any bans on any political parties" and turned it down by a majority vote.
We have to have confidence in our people, and I believe that this is an issue in which we need confidence in our people. What is more, this is a growing demand. The Western Mail obviously is reflecting the demand in Wales——

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
The Western Mail is very much at the end of the process. The district councils, county councils and the great leading bodies of Welsh opinion have come out demanding a referendum.

§ Mr. Heffer
I am glad that my point has been underlined by my hon. Friend. It is clear that there is a growing demand in other parts of the United Kingdom as well. In March, The Guardian also asked for a referendum. It said: The Guardian advocated a multi-choice referendum for Scotland, linked, perhaps, with a referendum on a more limited formulation in Wales back in October. Since then it has attracted a formidable body of support, sometimes on the more restricted basis of a single question, sometimes on the basis of the fourfold question we initially recommended. Last week the Economist newspaper advocated a multi-choice referendum using questions almost identical with our own. Serious newspapers are demanding a referendum. The organisation of the Welsh councils is demanding a referendum. Increasingly, the Government will be forced to reconsider this question of a 1879 referendum before we finally make a choice in this matter.
Contrary to what some Scot Nationalists have been peddling in Scotland, I am not opposed to devolution. I believe that we have to have some form of devolution. But I am much opposed to the separation of any part of this United Kingdom. There are strong feelings, and in the last analysis the people must make the decision——

§ Mr. Henderson
The people of Scotland.

§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is a typical nationalist. He can think only in terms of Scotland. He cannot think about the whole United Kingdom. I believe in the whole United Kingdom. I believe that the majority of the people believe in the United Kingdom. However, I also believe that there are minorities in all three countries who argue for separatism and who are strict nationalists.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerning themselves very closely with this question of a referendum. I believe that they must come up with this before the legislation is finally put to the House. After such a decision is made by the people, the legislation can be put to the House, even in its present form. I do not object to that. It should be in whatever form the people want.
On a constitutional question of such magnitude concerning the future of our country as a whole, the people must decide, and no one else. We must not be led into positions purely for political expediency. That is what has happened up to now, and it has to stop. On this occasion the people have to be given the chance, as they were on the Common Market issue, to make the final decision, especially about separation. I stress again that the people of this country do not want to see the break-up of our economic and political unity. If we are to solve our problems, we must retain that unity.
I believe passionately that the Scots and the Welsh have their historical and cultural backgrounds and their historical differences——