| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.52 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I congratulate my three hon. Friends--they form not a Holy Trinity, but certainly a trinity--who made their maiden speeches in this debate. They spoke with confidence and clarity, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing more from them. I also congratulate the Labour Members who made their maiden speeches today. They all spoke with great fluency, and I hope that we shall hear more from them, too.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)--in his criticisms of the Conservative party, or of what is left of it in the House and in the United Kingdom--rather reminded me of the sergeant-major who informed conscripts into the armed forces that, if they could not take the joke, they should not have joined up.
I do not think that the result of the general election was a joke, however, because I have been in the Chamber and I have listened to the debate. I have seen the size of the Labour majority--about which I do not complain unduly--and I have to accept it as a fact of political life. I have to exist as a Conservative Member in that new universe: which means that the Bill will receive its Second Reading; that it will pass, probably unamended, its Committee stage; that it will be sent to the other place; that it will return, again probably unamended, from the other place; and that, before long, it will receive Royal Assent. That is a political fact of life with which I must live.
The current facts of political life do not, however, mean that I should not contribute to the debate or that Conservative Members should not be heard. Our speeches may not change anything. Nevertheless, our job is to criticise and to oppose constructively. I hope that we will be listened to in that spirit.
The Secretary of State for Scotland accused me of being "horribly familiar". I am not quite sure whether he was criticising me for calling him "Donald", or for calling Tony "Tony", or whether he was saying that he recognised me from the previous Parliament. Whichever it was, I do not want to be rude to him, because I do not think that he was being rude to me. It would be very silly for a member of the Bar to be rude to a solicitor. All I wish the right hon. Gentleman to do is to retire soon and to spend more time with his practice so that he can benefit mine. He made a good speech and, if I may say so without ruining his reputation, he is a good man. If we have to have a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, we could not have a better one than him.
I want to make three brief points about the Bill which may come up for discussion later in Committee. The first relates to the composition of the electorate in the referendum which is dealt with in clauses 1(3) and 2(3), the first dealing with Scotland and the second with Wales. Although I can accept the administrative convenience of translating the local government electorate into the referendum electorate, it is puzzling that that will allow non-United Kingdom citizens--non-Welshmen and non-Scotsmen--to vote on what will be a massive change in the government of the United Kingdom.
The local government electors include European Union citizens. I have no particular problem about that, because if people happen to be European Union citizens who live in the borough of such and such and pay the local council tax, they should surely be entitled to express a view politically about their local government. Where we are deciding the future, however, not just of a local government area but of the future governance of Scotland and Wales, it is surely right that only United Kingdom citizens who are resident in those countries should vote in this great thing.
I go further. Is it not all the more peculiar that European Union citizens who are not United Kingdom citizens should be able to vote in the referendums in Scotland and in Wales when United Kingdom citizens who happen to be English residents are disfranchised, despite the fact that the referendums and the devolution Bills which will follow from them will gravely affect the United Kingdom, of which my constituency is a part just as much as Welsh and Scottish constituencies are? That is a point for note now and, I hope, for greater discussion later.
I make that point not out of xenophobia, but for the reasons I expressed earlier. I look at the matter in terms of family law. Both parties to a trial separation or to a divorce--the husband and the wife--have a say in the matter. Looking at the plans for the future of the United Kingdom, it seems that only the departing parties--I know that there are discussions about whether the break-up of the Union will result from the Government's plans--will be involved. I believe that the English and those resident in England have as much right to express a view in the referendum as the Scots and the Welsh do.
My second point concerns the date. It is not yet clear--it may become clear later today or tomorrow--whether the Scottish referendum will be held earlier than the Welsh referendum. It seems a more economic use of everybody's time and possibly cheaper to hold both referendums on the same day. My suspicion--I do not know whether any Welsh Members will be able to confirm it--is that there is less enthusiasm in Wales for an Assembly than there is in Scotland for a Scots
Parliament. It may be--perhaps I am being overly suspicious--that the Government think that if the referendum result in Scotland is announced two, three, or four weeks ahead of the Welsh referendum, the impetus from that will flow across to the benefit of the Government's case in Wales. If the case for a separate Welsh Assembly and a separate Scots Parliament is good, we might as well have the argument on one day and have the result quickly and efficiently.
My third point relates to clause 4--not clause IV of fond memory for the new Labour party, but clause 4 of the Bill. It is--I freely admit it--exactly the same as clause 4 in the Referendum Act 1975 and clause 10 in the Wales Act 1978 and the Scotland Act 1978. It prevents courts from entertaining
When there is a landslide result, there is clearly no point in fussing because the margin of error does not apply, but if there is a narrow results is it right for the courts to be blocked off to those with a genuine complaint? Perhaps the Attorney-General in England and Wales and the Lord Advocate in Scotland should act as a sieve to sift out frivolous applications. Bearing in mind the difficulties of establishing locus and whether it should be open only to an individual or open to groups of interested parties to raise a challenge, it might be worth while considering adding a Law Officer's function to allow legal challenges in certain circumstances.
That relates to the threshold question which has been much debated this evening. I do not want to delay the House by dealing with it further. No doubt the arguments will be addressed in Committee. Considering the result of the election, the Government should have no fears about the outcome of their proposed referendums. If they have any confidence in their case, they have nothing to fear from a threshold. If there is a low turnout--as is possible--and a modest majority in favour of or against the proposals, the perceived legitimacy of the result will be open to question. Those fears will be done away with if a threshold is included.
Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian):
I congratulate you on your new post, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches. I am sure that some of my new hon. Friends will go on to better things. I also enjoyed the confidence with which hon. Members from other parties have made their speeches. I particularly liked the comments of my old friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), with whom I worked in
I have waited a long time to speak today, but I have waited a long time to speak on this issue. I am delighted that the Gracious Speech mentioned the referendum. I am also delighted to congratulate the Scottish people on getting rid of the colonial rule that we have had from St. Andrew's house. It was nothing more than people who knew better than the natives. The natives have now told them what they really think of them.
We are not quite out of the woods yet. Some hon. Members seem to be hair splitting with a laser beam, demonstrating illogical political logic and wallowing in a quagmire of red tape like big political hippos--and they love it. They enjoy tearing this good idea to bits, hiding behind the defence of being Unionists, or some other thing. Within the movement for the devolution that Scotland and Wales want are people who want the Union to remain intact--not for it to remain as it is, but for the fundamentals of being in the Union to remain intact. If they do not agree with us, the demands will continue.
The people of Scotland feel that devolution is long overdue. I have been arguing for it for many long years--as a young miner and when I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland. On one occasion, we were sabotaged by a Mr. Cunningham. As far as I am concerned, he is persona non grata in Scotland. I hope that he never goes there again. The NUM kept the flame of freedom and democracy alight even when the rest of the Labour movement did not accept our proposals. Time and again, resolution after resolution, year in year out, we put them to Labour party conferences and to the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
The establishment of the Scottish Constitutional Convention was a great breakthrough. The STUC first attempted it in a very crude form by inviting people to discussions. Conservative Members and representatives of the Confederation of British Industry were among those who came to talk about how we could get the Scottish people what they wanted--a Parliament in Edinburgh. At the time, I was surprised when some people walked away, but now we have a convention that comprises an amalgamation of political parties, the trade union movement, the Churches and other interests. Many people kept alive their enthusiasm for a Scottish Parliament and were not too popular when they raised the matter time and again. Now we are firmly on the threshold of putting the matter to the people of Scotland and Wales.
I should like to see a Parliament in Edinburgh. I know that there are arguments about how it could be financed. There certainly would have been savings had we had a Parliament in Edinburgh. We definitely would not have had the poll tax and we undoubtedly would not have thrown away millions of pounds building a private hospital in Clydebank. Nor would we have all the quangos that were created to fuel the nepotism in the Conservative party in Scotland. We would have done away with all that and produced savings.
"any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by a Chief Counting Officer".
There will be no legal challenge to the result. That is fair enough, but what happens if the result is close or there is evidence--as there was at the recent general election--that some of the ballot papers have been improperly marked or stamped or there is some other genuine point that could be argued?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |