| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): The amendments deal with one of the most serious flaws in the Bill--the arbitrary restrictions and limitations on the franchise. I think that it is common ground that the question that needs to be addressed with regard to the referendum is how it is properly and effectively to establish, in the late John Smith's phrase, the "settled will" of the Scottish people and the Welsh people?
We therefore need answers from the Minister to the many questions that have been asked about the arbitrary definitions proposed in the Bill. Earlier today, we started with the question asked by the hon. Member for
Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)--the Gary McAllister question. That is a serious question, which cannot be brushed aside by some of the rather contemptuous observations that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
Indeed, that question has been reinforced by some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said that it was the reverse side of the Terry Butcher question. Behind it lies the real difficulty encountered by those who happen temporarily to be resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who are to be given no voice on a matter that touches not only on the government of Scotland and Wales but on the administration of the whole of the United Kingdom.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland moved Second Reading--he was here a moment ago and he may return--he treated the House to a little joke about peppery Scotsmen in Kuala Lumpur who still take an interest in the old country. I do not share his hilarity. Scotland and Wales have never been inward-looking nations, and the world has been enriched by the talent and energy of Scotsmen who have carried their work abroad. The Secretary of State may find them figures of fun, but I think that most of his constituents would take considerable pride in those people's achievements.
The amendments that we are discussing concern not peppery old chaps in Kuala Lumpur, however, but the rights of Scots and Welsh men and women living and working in our own country. The epitome of that point was put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for North Essex, and it was set out clearly in amendment No. 121, which deals with those who are temporarily away from their homes in Scotland because they are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. The Labour party likes to present its devolution proposals as patriotic, but I cannot begin to see any genuine patriotism in disfranchising those Scottish and Welsh soldiers who form some of the finest regiments in the British army.
Yet without any reciprocity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has pointed out, the Bill denies a say to many natives of Wales and Scotland, while giving a say to citizens of the European Union who happen to be residing temporarily in those countries. So in some cases there will be a vote for people born in Athens but not in Arbroath, a vote for people born in Samos but not in Stornaway, and a vote for those born in Grasse but not, alas, in Gorseinon. Many questions spring from those propositions and call for answers.
Why is the franchise to be determined by entitlement to vote in local government elections? Why should it not be entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections? What is the reasoning behind that? What considerations led the Government to that view? Why not establish a central register of electors for the precise purpose of establishing those who are to participate in the decision that will be taken as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland?
Why not have provisions to make obtaining the vote impossible for people newly arrived in Scotland who are only temporarily resident? Such people may have arrived only a couple of weeks before the due date but fulfil the qualifications and may be entitled to vote. Why not have a time limit? Why not say that the person concerned must
have been resident in Scotland or Wales for a period of three or six months so that they have a legitimate locus standi for taking part in the decision?
Mr. Cash:
My right hon. and learned Friend is delicately tripping around the amendments. I have been driven to notice that he has not referred to the lead amendment. What does he think about the proposal to extend the franchise to the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not minded to vote for it, why not?
Mr. Howard:
I know my hon. Friend far too well to think that I could get away without addressing his question. I promise that I shall come to it before I sit down.
I have asked some of the questions to which I hope that we shall get serious answers from the Minister before we are subjected to the arbitrary fall of the guillotine. It is a reflection of the mischief of the guillotine procedure that we have not been able to examine such serious questions in detail. We should have been able in Committee to canvass in detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of a franchise based on local government elections or parliamentary elections or a central register. There are serious arguments for and, no doubt, against each of those options. If the Government had not been so heavy-handed, we would have been able to address those questions fully and effectively and so come to a conclusion that would have enabled the outcome of the referendum to be seen much more genuinely, properly and effectively as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with amendment No. 121, which the Opposition Front-Bench team would certainly have supported had it come to a vote. I do not know whether the question to which it gives rise will go down in history as the Sevenoaks question, the Bosnian question or, indeed, the North Essex question, but it is important and deserves a comprehensive answer.
I have much sympathy with the thought that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to move amendment No. 2. I understand why he moved it and why I imagine that he will press it to a Division. We have given some consideration to the matter and do not think it right at this stage to support it. That does not mean that the proposals do not have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom which may warrant wider consideration in due course.
We have yet to see whether the Government will provide any sort of answer to the West Lothian question, or whether they will begin to address the over-representation of constituencies in Scotland. We have no idea whether the Government will take seriously the financial implications of their proposals, not least the question that will arise in due course of what would happen to the contribution made by the rest of the United Kingdom to the financing of services in Scotland if, however unlikely it may be, a Scottish Parliament decided to use its tax-varying powers to reduce the burden of taxation on the people of Scotland. Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the legislation. If satisfactory answers are not provided, we may well have to revisit the question whether those who reside in other parts of United Kingdom should have a say on the outcome of the proposals.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish):
I am delighted to respond to the debate and will certainly take up the challenge put forward by some Conservative Members on important issues. I am struck by the fact that we spent three hours on a previous motion on timetabling discussing our inability to have a debate. We have had 10 speeches, including some excellent contributions that were concisely put. Perhaps it is an exemplar of the way in which the House should conduct itself in other matters, and in respect of the rest of the Bill.
Mr. McLeish:
I shall not give way at this stage. As always, I shall allow interventions later.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |