§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of referendums to be held throughout the United Kingdom when constitutional change affecting one part of the United Kingdom is proposed.My Bill gives Scottish, Welsh and English Labour Members of Parliament their first opportunity to back or reject the Labour leader's latest new idea—that at least two questions are needed in any referendum on Scottish devolution. He was forced to concede the need for two questions in any referendum by the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's campaign on the tartan tax.That campaign has brought home to Scotland the dangers of such a tax. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated that Scotland would lose jobs and investment if it had to pay for devolution through a tartan tax, and has single-handedly forced the Labour leader to accept that Scots do not want to pay higher taxes than English people. The Labour leader has had to retreat, and I believe that my Bill demonstrates the ludicrous nature of his and Labour's current position.
I do not want my Bill to be implemented, because I believe in the Union; but I would like it to be discussed by Labour, Liberal, Conservative, Scottish nationalist and Welsh nationalist Members of Parliament in Committee, so that the ridiculousness of the Labour leader's proposals can be exposed in debate.
My Bill shows the British people why new Labour means new dangers, but, if Labour Members really have confidence in the two-question referendum, my Bill offers them the opportunity to vote for their leader's policy today. I suspect that Labour Members will not vote for their leader's policy, because it has been criticised by Labour Members, Liberal Members and Scottish Constitutional Convention members. Even the political editor of The Scotsman complained about being misled by Labour.
Under any Bill on Scottish devolution, a three-month timetable would be impossible. My Bill would, for example, promote a proper discussion of the issues, instead of a complete fraud on the United Kingdom electorates, who are being told that the issues are so simple that 300 years of union can be broken in three months, and that 85 per cent. of the people affected will not be given a say or a vote.
My Bill is contingent on a decision being made by any future Government to hold referendums on Scottish and Welsh assemblies. I hope that that will never happen. However, my Bill would ensure that, in the event of a referendum in Wales or Scotland on constitutional changes, those changes would also be put in referendums to English people for their views. My Bill does not provide for an English Parliament or for English regional assemblies, as we in England know that such bodies are unpopular, unnecessary and a complete waste of money, and would damage jobs and inward investment.
My Bill envisages that at least five questions in each of two referendums would be needed in each country. Why does the Labour party think that there should be only two questions? I hope that it can count further than two, because 179 the implications of devolution are much more important than the two simple questions that the Labour leader has proposed. Additional questions undoubtedly need to be asked. The first two questions are clear: "Do you want a Scottish assembly?" and "Are you prepared to pay a 3 per cent. tartan tax that might have to go higher than 3 per cent?", but there are three other important questions.
If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should Scottish Members have the same rights at Westminster as English Members—the West Lothian question, as it is being put by the Member who represents West Lothian, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the number of Scottish Members at Westminster be reduced from 72 to 55? If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the public expenditure allocation formula be the same per head of population for all parts of the UK? [Interruption.] I hear many hon. Members saying that, yes, those three questions need to be put, as well as the other two questions. Those three questions should be put to English voters, as well as to Scottish and Welsh voters.
My Bill then deals with the eligibility to vote—it makes provision for who may vote in the referendum. Here I have to ask a personal a question of the House. Why should my Scottish wife, who was born in Scotland and who maintains strong family connections with Scotland, be banned from voting in any referendum in Scotland, whereas an Englishman resident in Scotland for a short period would be entitled to a vote? It would be ludicrous not to allow Scottish people living in England, in Europe and in other countries a vote.
My Bill would provide for fully costed proposals. The Government of the day who initiate the referendums would have to have those proposals costed and approved by the National Audit Office, and passed by the UK Parliament as appropriate for public consultation. There would also be discussion in a Special Standing Committee. How often I have heard Labour Members say that they want Special Standing Committees to hear witnesses and to take evidence before their Bills are considered in the House of Commons. Why should there not be a Special Standing Committee to consider any proposal for referendums in the UK, or any proposals for devolution?
The proposals would have to be formulated in detail, so that the consultation could take place properly. There would have to be detailed discussion of the powers that the Scottish Assembly would have in relation to local authorities. Scottish, Welsh and English local authorities would need to be consulted in the context of the consultation document that would have to be issued by the Special Standing Committee.
The Bill would enable all local authorities to face those problems, and would make English Labour Members think about the implications for their constituencies and local authorities of devolution policies and constitutional change. Scottish local authorities would have to face the inevitable tensions that would arise between them and a Scottish Assembly that would seek to control their purse strings and exert a squeeze on cash.
Labour Members tell us that they want consultation. Let them provide for that in any changes they propose for a Scottish Assembly. The Bill would provide an 180 independent body to oversee such referendums, and would allocate finance for "Yes" and "No" campaigns. The five key questions must be properly put, in a referendum that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. It is essential for everybody in the United Kingdom to have an opportunity to express a view on any changes in the United Kingdom.
The Bill would enable English, Scottish and Welsh Labour Members to face the problems of devolution. I am offering an opportunity to Labour Members to decide whether they want to back their leader by voting to make his policy their policy. Under the Bill, they would have to face all the problems associated with any devolution proposals.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)There is a temptation to ignore the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but in view of some of the issues that he has raised, his Bill should be opposed. It represents an unexpected development in enthusiasm in the Conservative party for referendums and constitutional change. After all, the Conservatives have been in government for 17 years, and there have been many proposals for a constitutional referendum in Scotland. However, until now, there has been a distinct lack of support in the Conservative party for such proposals.
Scotland has had a stomachful of rigged referendums. In recent history—in 1979—there was a referendum in Scotland which had in it a 40 per cent. rule, a device so undemocratic that it has no precedent in developed European democracies. If it had been employed in France, that country would never have signed the Maastricht treaty; if it had been applied in Greenland, that country would still be part of the European Union. If it had been used in American presidential elections, not a single President would have been elected this century. If the 40 per cent. rule had been employed in United Kingdom elections, we would not have had a Government elected for the past 30 years. That is probably the best argument for having such a rule.
The hon. Member for Dover should understand that, after the rigged referendum in 1979, there is no enthusiasm in Scotland for going through the process again. The rigging that the hon. Gentleman proposes is to apply the referendum not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. In 1991, when the Baltic states were having referendums on independence, some of the last-ditch apparatchiks of the old Soviet Union argued that the referendums should apply throughout the Soviet Union. International opinion, and even the Conservative party laughed that out of court as a totally undemocratic device.
It is argued that devolution is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Member's case fails, because he believes that independence is affected by the same argument. Independence is a matter not for Scots but for those who live in Scotland and have a stake and an interest in the country. Devolution is entirely different.
The hon. Member for Dover looks confused, so perhaps I can explain it to him. If he wanted to change the rules of Dover bowling club, he would go along to the annual meeting and try to convince a majority of other members. That is like devolution. However, if he wanted to leave Dover bowling club, he would simply tear up his 181 membership card, because that is a matter for him and him alone. The hon. Gentleman should learn to distinguish between devolution and independence.
Some argue that it is up to the people of Scotland to propose devolution, and for the House to take a view on it. Until recently, that view was generally held in Scotland.
However, over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland that, if we were to have another referendum, it would have to be a genuine referendum and to contain all the options for constitutional change on the ballot paper. Although that position was opposed in the previous Parliament by the Labour party, it was adopted immediately after the last election by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who was then leader of the Labour party in Scotland.
The House should understand that, in Scotland, there is not a majority in favour of devolution. The various opinions in Scotland are balanced. It is true that the smallest body of opinion supports no change at all. The most recent opinion poll on this matter was in The Scotsman last month, and showed that 44 per cent. of the population were for devolution, that 33 per cent. were for independence, and that 20 per cent. were for the position favoured by the hon. Member for Dover, which is no change at all. If we are to have another referendum in Scotland, all those three options must be on the ballot paper and available for people to choose.
People in Scotland are not interested in a rigged referendum—such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Dover, or that proposed by the leader of the Labour party, which excludes independence from the ballot paper. If we have a referendum, let us have a genuine one, with all the options available.
Over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland on the issue of Scottish sovereignty. The agreement was that, whatever our constitutional future might be, Scots had the right to determine that future. That was the agreement that the opposition parties signed in a democracy declaration in front of 25,000 Scots at the European summit in December 1992.
The Labour party has reneged on that concept, and replaced Scottish sovereignty with Blair sovereignty. But many of us in Scotland are still interested in and will argue for it. We resent Scottish politics, the claim on Scotland and our nation's constitutional future being used as a plaything in this House or in the politics of England.
The hon. Member for Dover was entirely wrong when he argued that the change in Labour's position was due to the campaign waged by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change in Labour's position was caused by the Prime Minister's campaign in middle England—his thumping-the-Union-Jack campaign, fighting on an anti-Frog, anti-Scottish platform and wrapping himself in the flag. As The Guardian said last Monday:
Sources close to the Labour leader said his tough stance on devolution will play well in the home counties.It does not matter whether it is the Prime Minister fighting his little England campaign, the Labour party leader fighting his middle England campaign, or the hon. Member for Dover with his southern England perspective: people in Scotland want the case for their constitutional future to be debated and decided in Scotland on its own merits. In Scotland, we will determine that future—without the help or interference of the hon. Member for Dover. That is why I ask the House to reject this Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 139.
183| Division No. 180] | [3.47 pm |
| AYES | |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Thomason, Roy |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Whittingdale, John |
| Wilkinson, John | |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Wilshire, David |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) | Mr. John Marshall and Mr. Graham Riddick. |
| Shaw, David (Dover) |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Heppell, John |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence |
| Alton, David | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) |
| Barron, Kevin | Home Robertson, John |
| Bayley, Hugh | Hood, Jimmy |
| Beggs, Roy | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Byers, Stephen | Hutton, John |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Illsley, Eric |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Campbell-Savours, D N | Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Cann, Jamie | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Chidgey, David | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Clapham, Michael | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Khabra, Piara S |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Connarty, Michael | Lewis, Terry |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Corston, Jean | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Loyden, Eddie |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Cunningham, Roseanna | McAllion, John |
| Dafis, Cynog | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Davidson, Ian | McFall, John |
| Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) | McKelvey, William |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Dewar, Donald | McNamara, Kevin |
| Dobson, Frank | MacShane, Denis |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Mahon, Alice |
| Eastham, Ken | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Etherington, Bill | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Martin, Michael J (Springburn) |
| Flynn, Paul | Martlew, Eric |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Meale, Alan |
| Foulkes, George | Michael, Alun |
| Fyfe, Maria | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Galbraith, Sam | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Gapes, Mike | Miller, Andrew |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Morley, Elliot |
| Grocott, Bruce | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Gunnell, John | Mullin, Chris |
| Hain, Peter | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Hall, Mike | Olner, Bill |
| Hanson, David | Pike, Peter L |
| Harvey, Nick | Pope, Greg |
| Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Radice, Giles | Touhig, Don |
| Rendel, David | Trickett, Jon |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Tyler, Paul |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) | Wallace, James |
| Rooney, Terry | Walley, Joan |
| Salmond, Alex | Wareing, Robert N |
| Wigley, Dafydd | |
| Sheerman, Barry | Winnick, David |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Wray, Jimmy |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Soley, Clive | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Spellar, John | |
| Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Steel, Rt Hon Sir David | Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh. |
| Steinberg, Gerry |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a rerun of that vote, as it is clear that many Labour Members were unaware that they were voting against their leader's policy on referendums in Scotland and Wales?
§ Madam SpeakerThat is a matter for argument, not a point of order.