| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 pm
A further point of great concern to many Opposition Members relates to the United Kingdom. Our manifesto and all the utterances of the former Prime Minister put the issue of the Union, let alone the European Union, at the very heart of our campaign. I cannot understand why the shadow Cabinet has not decided to have a formal Whip on my amendment to clause 1, which would extend the referendum franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be entirely consistent with our manifesto and the policy of the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland):
If it is now the official policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that the franchise should be extended to the electorate of the UK
Mr. Cash:
Speaking as a Back Bencher, there is every reason why any referendum involving the dismembering of the United Kingdom should be referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. That has the merit of logic and common sense. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions, but with the encouraging proviso that Back Benchers are free to vote, according to the Whips, for my amendment if they so wish.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine):
In 1979, did the Conservative party take the same stance and say that the referendum should have involved the UK as a whole?
Mr. Cash:
I am delighted to be able to say that we are always making progress. I must add that the impact of a Bill of this importance, with its tax-varying powers, puts it in the category of the first constitutional status which I would regard as not dissimilar to the European referendum of 1975, which was dealt with by the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hon. Members should consider these important points affecting the United Kingdom question.
As I said, in 1975 there was a clear recognition that what was then the Referendum Bill, which was of similar importance to the internal domestic interests of the United Kingdom as this Bill is now, affected the United Kingdom as a whole. There was a national counting procedure because many Scots live and work in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. There are those who live in Scotland who qualify for a vote but who come from other parts of the world. The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies, injustice and contradictions.
Why, but for the draconian discipline imposed by the Prime Minister on his Members of Parliament, is there no resistance among Labour Members from the north-east and north-west as there was in 1977 and 1979 and who, under the terms of the Bill, will be profoundly damaged by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers? It would, in any event, damage the rest of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members of Parliament would lose most of their moral authority in the Westminster Parliament.
There are at present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. Some 30 years ago, the Kilbrandon commission on the constitution recommended that the number should be reduced and, indeed, one of my amendments proposes that it should be reduced to 45, which is, appropriately, the same number as when the Act of Union 1706 was passed. Furthermore, the Bill leaves in limbo the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, given his remarks today, is no doubt what he deserves. It is essential that it is clearly reaffirmed, just as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should also be reaffirmed in the Bill.
I noticed the Secretary of State for Wales making light of the fact that amendments had been tabled to preserve the Crown and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that the Bill does not go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom should not be sitting in this House as a Minister. We should repudiate any
possibility of the Bill being a trojan horse for reducing the component parts of the United Kingdom to provinces within the European Union and reaffirm the direct accountability, whether in Scotland or Wales, of Ministers of the Crown exclusively to the United Kingdom Parliament. These matters are all part and parcel of the United Kingdom question.
It is inconceivable that we can proceed with a Bill of this kind when it contains arrangements that are so vague that it is impossible for us to know what the role of the Secretary of State would be and the extent to which Ministers of the Crown would be responsible to this Parliament. Would they be responsible to a Scottish Parliament? What would be those Ministers' functions? The Bill leaves so many questions unanswered and puts the House in an impossible situation.
The amendments propose a solution to the problems that I have outlined and, indeed, to the West Lothian question. There is an answer to it, although it may not be very congenial to Scottish Members. I suggest that when matters arise in this Parliament that affect only those parts of the UK other than Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament shall, by Standing Orders of the United Kingdom Parliament, speak but not vote.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
That is highly unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Treasury has a relationship with spending Departments. One can imagine what would happen if the spending Departments were in the hands of one party and the Treasury in the hands of another--it is absolutely unreal.
Mr. Cash:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not the case, and for this very good reason. The West Lothian question, which is often attributed to him, but which, as he has generously acknowledged, was posed by Mr. Enoch Powell, goes to the very heart of the dismembering of the United Kingdom and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out repeatedly in his distinguished career, presents the House with the impossible contradictions inherent in the present situation. If the Bill proceeds, and if the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party do not carry forward their opposition to this Bill and the devolution Bill as they did before, we shall face not only the dismembering of the United Kingdom but the question that he has just put to me--and we are going to have to resolve it. It is not enough to say that it is unreal. The situation is real because it has arisen. It has been presented by the Government, not the Opposition.
Let me put it another way: how would Scottish and Welsh Members react--or, more to the point, how would Scottish and Welsh citizens react--if we set up an exclusively English Parliament but with a full complement of English Members who would continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters? That is the obverse of what the Bill is dealing with.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, particularly over the past 18 years, when Parliament was dominated by his party, legislation designated solely for Scotland was voted in by English Members, not by Members from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party,
Mr. Cash:
I take it that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they had no opportunity to speak or vote. They may have been outvoted--
Mrs. Ewing:
The hon. Gentleman said speak and not vote.
Mr. Cash:
I said speak and not vote in the new circumstances. My answer to the West Lothian question, which I pose as the United Kingdom question, is that after the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to propose changing our Standing Orders so that Scottish Members would be entitled to speak and not vote in the circumstances that I have described.
Mr. Cash:
I am delighted that the hon. Lady says that that is no problem, because it helps to relieve some of the difficulties inherent in the question posed so diligently in the past by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am certain that the Scottish and Welsh people would not want the situation to continue if we held pole position in the United Kingdom Parliament and they were constantly affected by our decisions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |