| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Which country?
Mr. Robertson: The people of Britain know that the Conservative party has nothing to offer them in terms of constitutional change. It wants to fracture the Union. It appears that the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to encourage the idea that theirs is the only alternative, but it is absolutely not. When the Prime Minister talks about evolutionary change, he means no change.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In terms of order, am I right in saying that it is traditional in the House--and the hon. Gentleman is always defending its traditions--for an hon. Member, after he refers specifically to another hon. Member, to give way to that hon. Member?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The rule is that the hon. Member who has the Floor has absolute discretion as to whether he gives way or not.
Mr. Robertson: How nice it is to see the hon. Gentleman, who preaches the secession of Scotland from the Union, cherishing the customs and conventions of the House of Commons. That tells us what is going on. I will not give way, as I have a couple of minutes to go and I have certain points that need to be made.
This Tory party, which fought against votes for women, now says no, no, no to what the people want and what they have voted for peacefully in Scotland and Wales time after time. This Tory party, which fought tooth and nail against the creation of the national health service, says that hereditary peers--voting Lords whose right to legislate owes nothing to the people and everything to historical accidents--should continue to make the laws of the land. This Tory party, which has resisted and challenged even equal pay for women, now tells us that the Scots and the Welsh can vote for separation, but not for a new revived union of nations in partnership and amity.
This Tory party and this Tory Prime Minister, who can see that the rest of the world is going down the route of decentralisation and devolved power closer to the people, have nothing to offer the people of this country but criticism, hysteria and fear.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
I should say in fairness to those hon. Members who do not attend regular Scottish debates that that was not one of the best speeches by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). What was remarkable about his speech was that he failed to answer the West Lothian question. He also failed to explain why it could be right that Scotland's people and Scotland's pensioners should have to pay an extra tartan tax so that failed Labour councillors can roost on Calton Hill and risk the integrity of the United Kingdom.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) promised us that he was committed to the idea of freedom of information, but information we got none. Questions we had, but answers we got none. The right hon. Gentleman not only failed to answer the West Lothian question, but it became apparent during his speech that he did not know what it was. I shall always cherish that moment when it suddenly dawned on him that it was about the functions of Scottish Members of Parliament in Scotland, as well as in England.
Those Scottish Members would have no say on health, education and housing, although they would be down here. Their sole purpose down here would be to act as Lobby fodder to enable the right hon. Gentleman to impose socialism--I should not have said that word--rather to impose his policies on England.
Mr. Forsyth:
I will not give way. A lot of points were made in the debate and I plan to answer all of them.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield was asked to tell us who will pay tartan tax. The hon. Member for Hamilton has told us that the same rules would apply, so we will certainly work on that. We must take it then that anyone who spends fewer than 183 days out of Scotland will be liable to pay the tartan tax.
Mr. Forsyth:
I do not intend to give way to anyone. I will answer the points raised in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman refused to say why it was necessary to gerrymander the voting system in a Scottish parliament to achieve a gender balance. The Opposition's proposition is that a Scottish Parliament would be made up half of men and half of women, which would be achieved by putting people on a party list system. As there would be 129 Members of that Parliament, I am not quite sure what would happen to the unfortunate 129th.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked why he was proposing a tax-raising Parliament with legislative powers for Scotland but merely a talking shop for Wales, which would have no tax-raising powers. We got no answer. The right hon. Gentleman and others were asked to explain why Labour wished to impose quangos and then to turn those quangos into assemblies for the 10 regions of England when there is no demand for such assemblies. Answer came there none.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield was asked where the money would come from, and he could not tell us. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has
made it clear that there is no extra money, over and above what the Government have planned. On our calculations, English regional assemblies would cost £270 million, and a Scottish Parliament would cost £77 million. From where will the money come? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield gave us no answer. However, we know where the money will come from--out of the health service and out of schools--to pay for those jobs for the boys, the buddies of Labour politicians.
Mr. Donohoe:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forsyth:
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield--who, for understandable reasons, could not stay to listen to all the speeches--because hon. Members made speeches that were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of what he said. Some of my hon. Friends thought that he had given a commitment, were he ever to form a Government, that any legislation on the constitution would be dealt with on the Floor in a Committee of the whole House. Others thought that he had not given such a commitment. I should be happy to give way to him, so that he can make the position clear.
There we have it. Even when we thought that the right hon. Gentleman had answered the question, he had not. When given an opportunity to answer, he refuses. It is quite extraordinary that any serious politician in the House could threaten to gerrymander our constitution by taking such business to an upstairs Committee Room. I wonder what people such as Mr. Crossman, Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Silverman--who sat on the Select Committee on the Procedure of Public Business--would think of him? They clearly expressed the right of any hon. Member
The right hon. Gentleman could not tell us why he believed that free legislative referendums were an appropriate procedure in the United Kingdom. If he ever walked through the door of No. 10, we would be faced with rule by plebiscite. Let us add up the number of promises for referendums officially made by Opposition Members. They are now committed to 13 referendums. Jimmy Goldsmith, look out--they are the people who should be calling themselves the Referendum party.
"to move that any Bill should be retained on the Floor of the House",
and said that,
"with the exceptions indicated, the Government would for their part make a practice of refraining from moving in that sense, and of opposing such a motion if moved from another quarter."
Roughly translated, that means that the sacred concept in the House is that we deal with constitutional matters on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the whole House. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield may pretend to be talking to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). However, if he is not interested enough even to uphold the procedures of the House, not only is he not fit to be Prime Minister, he is not fit for Opposition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |