| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell: For reasons that I gave in Friday's debate, I make it clear that my personal vote on the second question would be yes.
Mr. O'Neill: Yes; and I think that my hon. Friend would not be wildly enthusiastic about the first question. Given his ability to campaign and to make his political presence felt, despite the loneliness of the cause that he might be pursuing, I suspect that we may cross swords, as we have done on other issues. Nevertheless, I do not think that that will affect our friendship, which has lasted the best part of 30 years.
The establishment of a Scottish Parliament will strengthen the Union, and show that it is possible to change our constitutional arrangements. It will also show other parts of the United Kingdom that it is possible to institute some form of decentralisation, and that decentralisation will not necessarily take the same form in every part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is a daunting prospect, not least because I follow the exemplary and entertaining speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Ms McKenna).
I am more than happy to pay the warmest tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Grant, who was the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire. Hon. Members will be aware of his distinguished 33-year record of service to the House, where he served as both a Front Bencher and a Back Bencher. He piloted through the House private Member's legislation, such as--most recently, in the 1996-97 Session--the Treasure Act 1996.
Today--which is the day of elections to the 1922 Committee executive--is an apt moment for Conservative Members to recall with affection Sir Anthony's wit, wisdom and many years of service on that executive. The House will not be surprised to hear that he was held in equally high regard and affection within his constituency, because of the prompt, courteous and effective way in which he dealt with constituents of all political views.
As one of my predecessors said, Cambridgeshire is "a county of villages". South Cambridgeshire is a most beautiful part of a most beautiful county. The southern part of Cambridge city and the countryside around it, which I have the honour to represent, combines natural beauty with economic and intellectual dynamism. It is a working countryside with a thriving agricultural sector, yet many new and innovative companies and industrial firms are finding a home there. It is overwhelmingly a small business economy, which is why, in the past five years, unemployment in South Cambridgeshire has been halved.
The proximity of Cambridge--as a centre for employment, based on scientific and technological advances--combines with a relatively unspoilt character to make South Cambridgeshire a magnet for new development. It is therefore no wonder that South Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing district in England, especially when one considers the opportunities of living in such beautiful villages as Grantchester, Orwell, Duxford and Dry Drayton. I could continue that list--perhaps I should, because other villages may be jealous--but I will spare the House a list of the many beautiful villages in South Cambridgeshire. They occupy, however, a position both geographically and economically advantageous.
I look forward to participating in many debates in the House, and I will do so on the basis of experiences from within a constituency that, in its understanding and its experience, has so much to offer.
In science, we have at Hinxton the human genome project which will lead to the largest genetic sequencing laboratory in Europe--indeed the world. In health,
in Addenbrooke's and Papworth hospitals we have two of the leading hospitals in the world. In agriculture, we have the plant breeding institute, which is the source of the well-known Maris plant varieties. In education, we have not only the colleges of Cambridge university, but two of the leading further education colleges.
It is a great honour to represent a constituency in which is blended the best of what is new--in science, in industry, in health and in education--with the best of our inheritance in environment and in history. Cambridgeshire, as Rupert Brooke wrote, is
I speak in this debate only too aware of the inheritance given to us in our United Kingdom. Most of us are, in a personal sense as well as in a constitutional and historical sense, products of the Union. For nearly three centuries, this House has been the representative institution of the people of Scotland just as much as of the people of England. We are intermingled, in history and in nationality. I am the grandson of Scots as well as of English. My inheritance is bound up with the Union, and I have every right to defend it.
It is ironic that the Government's first legislative initiative is to introduce proposals that, essentially, are those on which their predecessors foundered in 1979. I submit that the Bill is flawed, for several reasons. The House is being asked to approve or disapprove a popular vote on a major constitutional change before it has been given an opportunity to see the character of the proposals in detail.
The details within the proposals are likely to be deeply significant. Which powers are proposed to be transferred, and with what expenditure and tax revenues? What are the implications of two fiscal regimes within one economy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked? What would be the mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the Westminster Parliament and a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly?
We do not know in detail the character of the proposals; nor do we know whether those issues will be fully clarified before a referendum is held. Unfortunately, it would be only too characteristic of the Labour party to wish to proceed on the basis of generalities, without regard to all the practical issues.
I contend that it would also be wrong to proceed to a referendum on the basis of a White Paper alone. White Papers are proposals, but they are subject to many changes. I have had experience of writing White Papers, and I would never have been so rash as to assume that they would represent the last word, still less to seek to subject them to a popular vote before they had even been fully debated in the House.
That point brings me to a flaw that goes to the heart of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to seek to legitimise the Government's proposals in advance of their presentation to the House. Such a referendum is a constitutional aberration. As Mrs. Thatcher said, nothing should be permitted under our constitution which conflicts with the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. I suspect, however, that the Government will argue that a referendum would be a mandate for legislation. That is wholly wrong. If the Government wish to legitimise
constitutional change through a referendum--and there is a perfectly good case for doing so--it should be post-legislative, and not prior to legislation.
In 1975, the previous Labour Government undertook a referendum. The then Leader of the House admitted that the purpose of the referendum was to determine the policy of the Government, as
The flaws in the Bill are many, given that it is a Bill of relative simplicity. Its simplicity belies its significance or the impact of its failings.
The Bill fails to offer a vote to the people of England on an issue of great constitutional importance for the continuation and structure of the Union. It fails to provide for a vote for the many Scots and Welsh who have a legitimate interest in the future of their countries and of the Union, but who live in England and are not resident in Scotland or Wales. It provides no safeguard to ensure that the vote in the referendum would represent a sufficient majority of those eligible to vote. The Secretary of State for Scotland appealed on one occasion earlier in the debate to the precedent of 1979--unwisely from his point of view, I suspect, as that precedent would act against him.
We are therefore left with the proposition that a minority of the potential electorate in only two out of four parts of the Union may be invited to decide the future of the Union, without regard to the people of England or to the many Scots and Welsh people living in England. That would be deeply resented by those so excluded.
The people of South Cambridgeshire will not be indifferent to an outcome in which they are to be ruled by laws made by Scots and Welsh representatives, while their own representatives have no say over the same laws in Scotland and Wales. They will resent the introduction of a referendum as an apparent attempt to bind Parliament, and as a device that should be alien to our constitution.
We have heard much from Labour Members of their mandate. I fear that we shall hear them stretch the issue of a mandate beyond breaking point as a concept. They have already applied it to decisions going beyond the terms of their manifesto. They will no doubt apply it to their devolution proposals, on which so many questions were and are still to be resolved.
"the shire for Men who Understand"--
and, I should add promptly, for women too.
"Parliament, of course, cannot be bound by it."--[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 293.]
Is this proposed referendum, therefore, equally nothing but a device to decide Government policy? On the issue of a tax-varying power, perhaps it is, but the Government pretend otherwise, as they insist that all their Members must campaign for a "yes" vote. Ominously, the Secretary of State for Scotland is already talking of a final decision by the people, before the Bill has gone through the House. It is an unconstitutional pretence that a final decision can be made on an issue of such constitutional importance before the devolution proposals have even been presented to the House, let alone have passed into legislation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |