| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: The answer to the latter point is no. As the hon. Lady is obviously aware, the Advertising Standards Authority report is the subject of an appeal by the Department of Social Security, which takes the view that the report failed to recognise the way in which the benefits system operates.
BILL PRESENTED
European Communities (Amendment)
Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mrs. Teresa Gorman, presented a Bill to amend sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 to return full and unfettered powers to the United Kingdom Parliament over all legislation enacted by the European Communities which has had, has or would otherwise have legal effect in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 112].
The Constitution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Madam Speaker:
Because of the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I have had to limit speeches--other than those from Front Benchers, of course--to 10 minutes throughout the debate.
3.59 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Last summer, the other place had a two-day debate on the constitution. It was a worthwhile and constructive occasion, and I hope that today will prove to be so as well.
We have no written constitution in this country--it evolves. It has changed in this Parliament, and it will change in the future. I agreed with the leader of the Labour party, when he said last week:
We have given a new role to the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees; we have devolved powers to schools and hospitals; and we have reformed procedures in this House and increased Government accountability to Select Committees. I am in favour of more change. We have agreed to set up a Northern Ireland Grand Committee similar to those for Scotland and Wales.
I favour further reform of the procedures in this House. We have set out our proposals to ensure that new legislation is better considered, with a two-year parliamentary programme and more draft legislation for consultation. As the two Houses are complementary, I see a case for similar examination of the other place. We will continue the process of improving public services, because we wish to give people more choice and opportunity.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister:
I want to make progress--I shall give way a little later.
All that change has been gradual; it is sensible, and it has been thought through before it has been produced. We on this side of the House have always advocated a Europe of nations. Labour's plans would undermine the strength of the nation state. Like many on the continent, Labour seems to be advocating a Europe of the regions, but England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not regions--they are four nations within a united kingdom. A Europe of the regions would be the sure way to enable a bureaucracy to bypass national Governments. It is the wrong way forward, and it is not for us.
That is only one reason--it is by no means the principal reason--why I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister:
If the right hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, I undertake to give way later.
Mr. Benn:
It is on the European question.
The Prime Minister:
Oh, all right.
Mr. Benn:
May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in that capacity, what democratic justification there could be, in principle, for handing over his powers on public expenditure, taxation and interest rates to a central bank in Frankfurt, so that the responsibility that he now exercises--accountable to Parliament and the people--would no longer be exercised through the ballot box? Has he read the book of Genesis and of how Esau handed over his birthright for a mess of pottage, and has been remembered ever since as having made the biggest mistake of his life?
The Prime Minister:
I have, but I am not sure that I would draw a direct relationship between that story and the treaty of Rome, although the right hon. Gentleman might do so. There was a pained expression on the faces of the Labour Front Benchers as he asked his question. As he knows, if we had not obtained the opt-out that I obtained at Maastricht, we in this House would not have the option to make at some stage in the future the decision that the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to make.
Let me return to saying what I was about to turn to. I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland, or a toothless Welsh Assembly, or 10 regional assemblies, taking powers either from this House or from local government or from both--it is uncertain where they would come from. Nor do I favour unpicking the House of Lords, changing the voting system and ceding further powers from this House to Europe.
The Labour party has given in to the temptation to put party before country. [Interruption.] There is no nice way of expressing that, nor does there deserve to be. The plans drawn up by the Labour party, with the Liberal Democrats in tow, are a blueprint that would undermine the unity of the United Kingdom and erode the authority of this Parliament. As they stand, any Member of this House should be ashamed to endorse them.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
A moment ago, the Prime Minister recognised the nationality of Wales and Scotland, but the provisions that he suggested might be available for changing the government of those two countries were all encapsulated within this institution in London. Does that mean that, if the Conservative Government are elected to power, for however long they are in office, there will in effect be an English veto on any aspirations of Wales and Scotland to national autonomy, and that the only alternatives for Wales and Scotland are the status quo or full self-government?
The Prime Minister:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time the people of Wales had the opportunity to
The plan to set up an income-tax-raising parliament in Scotland, partly elected by proportional representation, on the bogus mandate of a referendum with two questions, before the legislation has even been considered, is deeply flawed. So is the plan to have an assembly in Wales without tax-raising powers, and a pre-legislative referendum with one question.
In essence, it is proposed that Parliament would be presented with what is little more than a public opinion poll and told to endorse it, however absurd examination of the subsequent proposals showed them to be; and if this Parliament exercised its constitutional right and radically changed the legislation, as well it might, there is no plan in the minds of the Labour party or the Liberal party for a subsequent referendum to discover whether that change would be acceptable. I believe that this is an abuse of the way in which constitutional change should be approached.
Mr. Tony Banks:
A moment ago, the Prime Minister talked about putting party before country. Is he not doing precisely that by keeping the whole country guessing about the date of the next general election? Is not that all about putting party before country? Does he not find it outrageous that one person should have the power to decide when the rest of the country will be allowed to vote? Would he support fixed-term Parliaments?
The Prime Minister:
A straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, and I will waste no more time on him.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart):
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister:
I will give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
We have in the House constitutional parties that favour separatism--an independent Scotland and an independent Wales. Devolution plans, for them at least--and for others--cloak separatist ambitions. The Labour and Liberal parties may well believe that they are buying off the separatists. I believe that they are selling out to the separatists. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Let me now consider their plans for Scotland.
Of the 129 members of a Scottish Parliament--
The Prime Minister:
Just a minute. Of its 129 members--[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister:
Of its 129 members, 56 would be placemen, drawn from lists approved by party leaders, with no accountability to constituents or responsibility for them. There would be gender quotas--a politically correct idea, which many people would find patronising.
"The idea that the British constitution should never change and evolve and develop is completely absurd."
I entirely agree with that--of course it is right--and I made precisely the same point myself when speaking in Wales. The point is not whether our constitution should change, but how it should change and at what pace it should change.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |