Constitutional Change (Hansard, 21 February 1996)

§ Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for consultation of the people by referendum before the implementation of any constitutional change approved by Parliament. My Bill seeks to address the public concern that may be expressed if some of constitutional proposals that are currently being discussed within the United Kingdom and the European Union were to be accepted. At the outset, I make it clear that my Bill is not a device to maintain the status quo; nor is it a device to frustrate Parliament.

I sincerely believe that the United Kingdom's constitution and Parliament have served the people of these islands well. In particular, Scotland and the Scottish people have been well served by the constitution and by Parliament. Sometimes that arrangement is called sovereignty—the right to make one's own democratic decisions.

I acknowledge that the constitution's great strength is that it is not cast in stone. In fact, since 1707, it has changed to meet the needs of the times. In other words, it has evolved, and the people have accepted the evolution. Only during the past 20-plus years might change have occurred in some instances by default rather than by consent. That is important, because consent is at the heart of the United Kingdom constitution and it is vital to the way in which we are governed. If Parliament deliberately or inadvertently ignores that, it does so at its peril.

The single-Member constituency is a cornerstone of the discussion. Once elected, the Member represents all the people of that constituency. Another cornerstone is the Member's right to ask questions and to have them answered. That, coupled with parliamentary privilege, means that Members can, through questions, debates or motions, address problems that are brought to them by their constituents, and all of this is free. There is no cost to the constituent. Any change that affects those cornerstones should have the consent of the people. My Bill seeks to ensure that that will happen.

Members of Parliament have the least hold on the constitution during their time in Parliament. They can make changes, which can be reversed the following year or the following month if Parliament so decides. What we cannot do is bind future Parliaments, which is why I said that Members have the least hold on the constitution or sovereignty during their period in Parliament. The freehold of the constitution belongs to the people, so if Parliament wishes to make permanent, constitutional change, it must have the consent of the people. Only the people can give away our grandchildren's inheritance—the constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliament.

Many who propose referendums do so because they see them as a means of obtaining consent before Parliament decides. The main problem with such a proposal is the difficulty in framing the question to be put to the people. Secondly, there is the problem of the complexity of the change and the difficulty that it creates for public debate. My Bill will ensure that any change proposed is fully debated by Parliament, and only after Parliament has decided and a Bill has completed its passage through both Houses will the matter be put to the people. That means a straight yes or no. Do the electors accept or reject Parliament's proposed change?

367 During the passage of any constitutional Bill, the proposers—probably the Government of the day—will have to tell the millions who voted for them what Members of Parliament will or will not be able to do if their proposal becomes law. They will quite properly have to explain the impact of their proposals on the ability of the House to influence future matters of great importance to the people. Sovereignty or the constitution is not some theoretical abstract matter. It is a living thing that impacts on everyone living in the United Kingdom. It influences tax decisions, spending decisions and unemployment levels, all of which will be argued in Parliament during the passage of any Bill for constitutional change, be it change for devolved assemblies, for example, to Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, or for European Union federal matters.

I remind the House that my Bill is not a novel proposal. It was tested and tried during the referendum on entry to the European Economic Community. It was used again during the referendum on the Scotland Bill. Consequently, the precedents are there. My Bill ensures that full, frank and open debate on constitutional change is held in Parliament against a background of the knowledge that the proposals, when agreed, will be put to the people in a referendum, thus ensuring that consent will occur before sovereignty or the constitution is changed. Change by default will cease, and the risks of constitutional unrest following unwanted change will have been banished.