---

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Dewar: I will not give way, as I have a lot of substantive points to make.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have a substantial case to make and I feel that if I give way over-indulgently--even to such an attractive option as a question from the hon. Gentleman--we might never make progress at all.

I hope that the House will forgive me for making one personal point. In campaigning on devolution, I am one of those who can look back over many years--indeed, back to the 1950s. I was campaigning then, I have been campaigning ever since and I remain committed to that cause.

When I came back to the House in 1978, after a sad misunderstanding with the electorate that kept me out for eight years, I found John Smith, one of my foundation friends, bearing the weight of the battle. As I look around me, it is odd to see that some things have not changed--my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for example, is still with characteristic persistence holding to his lonely course. Indeed, I suspect that there are some things that will never change.

I remember those days between 1976 and 1978 and the remarkable achievement of John and his colleagues in getting the Bill on to the statute book at a time when the Government were failing and there were enormous and complex political problems. Perhaps because of John Smith and because of the special nature of that argument, the term "unfinished business" has a special meaning and significance in Scottish politics.

As we start on what I hope will be the final stage of this great saga, I am very much aware of my responsibilities, of the work and the challenges that lie ahead and also of the optimism and expectation that certainly rest in Scotland and, I believe, in Wales, on the passage and progress of this legislation. There is a genuine mood for change and I hope that the House will be prepared to rise to it.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): The Secretary of State referred to the work done by the late John Smith.

21 May 1997 : Column 718

Will he recall and confirm that when that measure was taken through the House, the Bill was first and the referendum second? Is not that a precedent that he should follow now?

Mr. Dewar: I know that this is often said to postpone, but I shall be dealing with the order of events in a few minutes. If the right hon. Gentleman waits, he will receive an explanation that has some relevance to his experience and that, I hope, will appeal to him.

It is a mark of the changed times and of this Government's determination that I expect that we shall be able to publish the White Paper within a total time scale of around three months. I remember that the comparable time in the 1970s was almost three years. That difference reflects the changes in the opinions in my party--it certainly reflects changes in the popular mood in Scotland and in Wales and, I think, in the country as a whole, which I welcome.

As one sometimes loses the neatness of the scheme when one takes up interventions, let me remind the House of the order of events as we intend them. We start today with the Second Reading of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The remaining stages will take place the week after the Whit recess. As those who have read the Bill will realise, there is provision for secondary legislation, and the necessary orders will be published in draft in the same week as the remaining stages are taken.

As I explained, the White Paper will be ready well ahead of the referendum--before the House rises--allowing for a full statement in the House and discussion at that stage. The referendum will come in the autumn--certainly, before the major party conferences. The substantive legislation--that will be when we lock horns on the merits of the devolution package itself--will come before the end of the year. If that legislation has a successful passage, elections to the new Parliament will be held as soon as is practical after Royal Assent. We could have a Parliament in place in Scotland and Wales to welcome the new millennium, and that will be extremely popular and right.

I say unashamedly that this is a massive undertaking--moving from the aspirations of opposition to a defined scheme that is workable and efficient and is accepted and endorsed by Parliament and the people. I believe that we can hold to the timetable that I have outlined.

Mr. William Cash (Stone): May I put the United Kingdom question to the right hon. Gentleman? On the dismembering of the United Kingdom under the projected proposals in the Bill, does he agree that it is essential that the people of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, should have the right to give their verdict on the questions posed in the Bill?

Mr. Dewar: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents would thank him for landing them with that responsibility.

Mr. Cash: Oh, yes they would.

Mr. Dewar: I wonder; but I will not get into an "Oh, yes they would", "Oh, no they wouldn't" exchange with the hon. Gentleman, because if there is one thing about

21 May 1997 : Column 719

him that I admire, it is his staying power, and he might well best me in such a debate. I shall therefore return to the logic of the argument.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, and then move on for a considerable period.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting my reason for intervening. I take a great deal of interest in Welsh and Scottish affairs, and was born in Wales, as he will know. My difficulty, as I represent an English constituency, is in knowing whether I should support the Bill--which I might well do, because it provides for a test of opinion in Scotland--without knowing, as I cannot until he issues the papers, what powers the Scottish Parliament is to have and whether it will affect my English constituents, who will have to pay for it.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman belittles himself. I admire modesty, but on this occasion I detect a touch of false modesty. If he is saying that he does not understand the outline of the scheme and is unable to reach his own conclusion, that tells us something about his powers of decision rather than about the difficulties experienced by most people.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) rose--

Mr. Dewar: I shall take one more intervention, as it comes from the Welsh nationalists.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State. In an effort to be constructive, I want to mention one thing: he said earlier that the White Paper would be produced within three months, before we broke up for the summer. May I impress upon him the need for the White Paper to be available to the House before we break up for the summer, so that the matter can be fully debated by the Welsh Grand Committee--and no doubt the Scottish Grand Committee--as well as the whole House?

Mr. Dewar: It is certainly my intention that both the Welsh and the Scottish White Papers should be available before the House rises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be glad to have a word with the hon. Gentleman about that. There is nothing between us on that matter, at least, regardless of what may transpire in the future.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) rose--

Mr. Dewar: I am very sorry, but I shall get into trouble with the House if I take endless interventions. I might refer later to a group in which the hon. Gentleman is involved.

Mr. Shepherd rose--

Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman: he is beguiling.

Mr. Shepherd: I bless the right hon. Gentleman. I merely wanted clarification that the subsequent stages of the Bill, as a major constitutional measure, will be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dewar: That will certainly be the case. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am not an enemy of proper

21 May 1997 : Column 720

scrutiny and discussion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, will accept that. We shall see how we progress, but I certainly hope that we shall have a proper look at all the arguments in some detail.

I have made the point, and I spell it out again, that the Second Reading is on the Bill, not on devolution as such. The Bill makes no judgment on the issues and arguments surrounding devolution, but allows the final decision about endorsement to lie with the people.

I remind the House that referendums are not unprecedented: we had them in 1975 and 1979, on matters of fundamental constitutional change in both cases. We believe that there is a case, on such occasions and issues, for an inclusive process, gathering support across party political boundaries. What we seek--whether we get it is a matter for the people--is a broadly based consensus for change.

I want to deal briefly with the simple and basic question: why a referendum? I have already hinted at the answer that I shall give. Throughout the past year or two, we have consistently been challenged on the wisdom of introducing a Bill, on the basis that there was no consent for it.

The argument, which I understand, is that people vote at general elections for many reasons. It has often been put to me that the nice man who lives down on the corner may have voted Liberal Democrat for many reasons. Was it because he specifically endorsed proportional representation; because he wanted an enormously forward position on Europe; because he was an enthusiast for Scottish devolution; or, for example, because he simply could not stand the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats were an easy way of getting out of that dilemma? Many of my Tory friends, and I am not one to dispute it with them, found the last explanation the most plausible.

In those circumstances, I have a scintilla of sympathy with the argument that consent is open to challenge. Rather honourably, we decided to face up to that challenge--not shrug it off--and put it to the test in a referendum. That is what we are inviting the House to authorise. I shall come to pre-referendum and post-referendum tests later, but the House should have some sympathy with the general argument.

---