| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ancram: Is the Secretary of State therefore suggesting that he would accept an amendment to make that clear in the propositions themselves? If not, perhaps he would explain why not. We may table an amendment to that effect and see whether he will accept it.
The whole principle of what was being done in Northern Ireland was that the parties would come to an agreement that would be detailed in all respects and would be a matter not only for political parties but for two Governments, and that that would then be put to a referendum. That agreement would be reached--this is germane to the second point that I want to put to the Secretary of State--not by a simple majority but on the basis of what is called sufficiency of consensus.
Sufficiency of consensus was designed to ensure that any agreement that was to be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum would have the broad agreement of the representatives of both parts of the community. That is far wider and broader than a simple majority. The Secretary of State raised the subject of Northern Ireland, and I take him up on it.
The second concern of Conservative Members is that we are not talking about sufficiency of consensus, or even a simple majority of those able to vote in Scotland. Under the Bill, assent can be given by a simple majority of whoever bothers to vote in a referendum. If this referendum is to have any value, its outcome must be credible. The Secretary of State would not dissent from that. In his view, would a poll of 10, 20, 30, or 40 per cent. deliver a sufficiency of consensus? In terms of what I have been working on for the past four years, it would not.
The Secretary of State must be very conscious of the fact that, if any progress or process is to follow on a result emanating from such a referendum and move forward
with any chance of survival, it must be based on what would be accepted by the people of the United Kingdom as a whole as a credible outcome. He cannot duck the threshold question. What does he believe is the minimum level of voter participation in Scotland that would deliver credibility? I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, he thinks that anything under 50 per cent. could deliver it. I hope that the Government will deal with that in their reply.
We have discovered in this debate that the cost of the referendums--I am not entering into the next stage, the preparation for assemblies--is to come from the Consolidated Fund, which, as I understand it, is not a Scottish or Welsh block fund but a United Kingdom fund. All taxpayers in the United Kingdom therefore contribute to it. I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Bill is telling my constituents that they will not be allowed a say in the outcome of the referendum but that they will have to pay for it. Under the principle of no taxation without representation, I believe that that has constitutional significance that the Government should address.
Mr. O'Neill
: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain where funding was to have come from for the constitutional arrangements that he had hoped to set in place in Northern Ireland? Would the money have been taken from the Consolidated Fund or from the Northern Ireland block grant?
Mr. Ancram:
The cost of the Northern Ireland talks process, which is happening on the ground at the moment, is shared between the Northern Ireland block grant and the Irish Government, because they are the two main participants in the process. The hon. Gentleman's point has been answered in a way different from that which he expected.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is the seventh Member of Parliament for that constituency whom I have known, and she delivered a remarkable speech. The first Member for Aberdeen, South whom I knew was Priscilla, Lady Tweedsmuir. She, too, was a remarkable lady. The Secretary of State, who beat her in an election in Aberdeen, South, would concede that she was a most effective Member of Parliament. The constituency has had some remarkable Members and I suspect that my hon. Friend will follow in that remarkable line.
I take my hon. Friend up on one phrase. She said that she was concerned about the settled will--the settled will--of the Scottish people. I think that that is what has to be established.
There is something that puzzles me deeply. I do not understand why it was ever thought necessary to hold referendums before legislation.
I for one have made it quite clear to anyone who would listen that I would vote for the Second Reading of a Bill--any Bill--because the matter had to be discussed. I made it clear--I do not think that anyone in the Labour party dissented from this--that at the first sign of time-wasting by the Opposition, I would vote for a guillotine because it was no part of my business to disrupt the legislative programme of a Labour Government.
What therefore is the necessity for a pre-legislative referendum at all? If it is not to put pressure on Government Members, what on earth is it for?
I have been asked about the matter everywhere. At my reselection meeting for the Linlithgow constituency Labour party and elsewhere, I have repeatedly said that I would campaign ferociously for a referendum on the one meaningful question that a referendum can ask: "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997 or 1998 as passed by Parliament?"
That is a precise question that covers all the eventualities.
Given the size of the Government's majority, there may not be any eventualities; there may not be many changes. However, there is an assumption that in all the parliamentary discussions there will be no changes. The House of Commons cannot be taken for granted by implication.
Certain hard issues must be sorted out. I had the good fortune to be called to speak on Friday and drew attention to some of them.
There is only one to which I go back and ask my hon. Friends to ponder. The question was first put by John Lloyd. He called it the Bury, North question. It is a serious issue. How can the Labour Member who has won Bury, North--not a constituency over-endowed with wealth--by defeating Alistair Burt go on justifying to his constituents the fact that it takes fewer than 55,000 votes to send a Scottish Member to the House of Commons but more than 68,000 votes to elect an English Member? I think that I will omit the implications, particularly the public expenditure implications, of the so-called West Lothian question. It was dubbed that by Enoch Powell, not by me. We cannot assume that that subject will not be addressed in the parliamentary discussions.
That subject must be addressed somehow or other because, above all else, we are talking about something that the Government hope will last in perpetuity, and in the form in which it is proposed.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State thinks that I fall into the category of the "horribly familiar" or the "bastards", as he put it. However, presumably it is common ground among Labour Members that what is proposed should have at least a chance of lasting.
If the proposition is to have a chance of lasting, these awkward and difficult questions must be faced up to. The place to face up to them is the Floor of the House of Commons. If it is not done here, where else is it to be done? If it is not done, the whole proposition could be unstable. That would be deeply unsatisfactory and could lead to all sorts of sournesses.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire):
The hon. Gentleman has made the important point that, in my constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire the electorate is 68,000. In most Scottish constituencies, the average size is about
Mr. Dalyell:
I cannot agree or disagree off the top of my head because it is a complex matter. It would be incautious to make ex cathedra statements.
That kind of issue must be faced up to on the Floor of this House. We do not know how the parliamentary process will end. It might not end in the form proposed in the White Paper. If it does not end in that form, the referendum will be putting a proposal or a set of proposals that will be different or possibly significantly different from the final outcome. It depends what comes out of the parliamentary process.
Even at this 11th hour and 59th minute I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reflect on whether things could be done differently. There are two reasons for that, one of which I have tried to outline. This is the question of stability, and of endorsing something that can in no sense be interpreted as fraudulent. If we have a referendum on something that is different from what is finally proposed, the referendum is surely invalidated.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |