---

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate in a debate that has been guillotined for the Minister to make such patronising general observations instead of responding to the questions that he has been asked?

The First Deputy Chairman: I must allow the Minister to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised an important issue. Things have moved on since the 1975 referendum. If hon. Members had gone to the Library, they would have found the relevant clause. Service voters can make a service declaration for an

3 Jun 1997 : Column 271

address in the United Kingdom. It may be their home address or another, for example, that of their parents--whatever would be their residence in the UK if they were not serving abroad.

Clearly, it is not possible this evening to specify answers for individuals without knowing personal circumstances. I confirm that service personnel who are resident in Scotland will not lose their votes by virtue of serving abroad. To be helpful, I shall spell out the current position in detail. There is no need for further provisions in the Bill because the facility already exists, and we guarantee that it will be exercised in respect of this referendum.

Mr. Fallon: I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for what he said. I would wish to study his words. Does he mean that a service man who has been posted from Scotland to Catterick and then from Catterick, as part of the brigade, to serve in Bosnia, will be deprived of his vote because originally he was resident in Catterick?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I would wish to respond to it specifically. My understanding is that the situation that he has outlined would be covered. We are talking about the residency issue in Scotland in terms of the declaration that would be made by service men and women who are not operating in their employment in Scotland. With the approval of the Committee, that is one of the issues with which I should like to deal specifically, and I certainly will.

Mr. Luff: When? The Minister is on his feet. Deal with the issue now.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised an interesting point on the Gary McAllister question.

Mr. Luff: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I have made the point.

Mr. Luff: When will you deal with the issue?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way. I ask hon. Members to cease interrupting while the Minister is addressing the Committee.

Mr. McLeish: When Ministers are trying to be helpful I think that some courtesy should be extended to them.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. McLeish: No, I am not giving way. I want to deal with the questions that have been asked. On the one hand, Members want answers, but, on the other, they want to continue to filibuster.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an interesting contribution on the so-called Gary McAllister question, a matter with which I wanted to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the Paul Lambert and John Collins questions. I can

3 Jun 1997 : Column 272

tell hon. Members, whether it entertains or worries them, that there will be a Paul Gascoigne factor. I am sure that he will have a vote in the referendum if the Bill passes through the House of Commons.

The purpose behind the large group of amendments that is before us is to change eligibility to vote in a variety of ways. Some amendments are designed to allow people who are resident in any part of the United Kingdom to vote in the referendum, while some amendments are designed to change the franchise from local government to parliamentary status. Others are designed to enable people with only a tenuous claim to Scottish or Welsh roots to vote. That procedure is usually reserved for filling football teams. Other amendments have been tabled with a view to requiring a pledge hand on heart for potential Scottish or Welsh residents that they will move to those countries. None of these amendments is acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No. I want to make some progress. I shall, however, allow the hon. Gentleman back into the debate later.

The questions whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly are primarily for the people in Scotland and Wales as they are most affected by devolution.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Would it be in order for the Minister to write to hon. Members with the details of the answers that he currently does not have time to give us? I am no clearer now than 20 minutes ago whether the Royal Scots in Colchester will get a vote in the referendum.

The First Deputy Chairman: Writing to Members is a matter for the Minister and not one for the Chair.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Cash: It is, Mr. Martin. It happens that I tabled the lead amendment. I have attempted to get the Minister to answer the question that I have posed. It is a convention of the House of Commons that a Minister is expected to deal with the question raised within the terms of the first amendment in the group. The Minister has not responded to it yet.

The First Deputy Chairman: Continual interventions will stop a Minister or any other Member from responding to questions. The Minister will not give way, and that is a Minister's privilege.

Mr. McLeish: My usual style, Mr. Martin, is to give way to interventions. I am trying to balance the fact that only eight minutes are available to me in which I might try to answer some of the questions asked against continual interventions that are of no particular substance.

I have answered the question of service registration. I think that it is sufficient to leave the matter there for the present. I shall be writing to those hon. Members who have raised the issue.

3 Jun 1997 : Column 273

Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would add to the electorate any person born in Scotland and Wales who is entitled to vote in a general election in any part of the United Kingdom. That would allow someone born of English parents who has lived all his life in England and has no connection with either Scotland or Wales to vote in a referendum because, by chance, he happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. Why should such a person have any more right to vote than, say, a Scot who is now living in England?

Amendments Nos. 148, 152, 160, 164 and new schedules 2 and 3 are attempts to set up a central register of electors for the referendum. That register would allow five additional groups to vote in the referendum. Members might wish to read the new schedules to learn exactly what hon. Members have in mind for their fair franchise. Perhaps those concerned would like to explain just how their fourth and fifth categories of voter would take their so-called oath of allegiance, promising to live permanently in Scotland. Would they have to take the oath standing on the Stone of Destiny? Would squads of Scots police pursue absconders south of the border and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to their hielan' hame? Hon. Members will have to do better than that if they want their amendments and new schedules to be taken seriously.

The key criterion for deciding who should vote, in terms of our proposals, must be residency. Many hon. Members have confirmed today that that is the sensible, logical and effective way in which to proceed. I accept that people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have a genuine interest. As hon. Members who have promoted the amendments have demonstrated by their own actions, eligibility to vote must depend on more than just interest.

The principle has been well established in previous referendums. For example, in 1973 the people of Northern Ireland voted on the constitutional status of that part of the UK. In 1975, people in all parts of the UK voted on continued membership of the EC. In 1979, the people of Scotland and Wales voted on the devolution plans of the time. On each occasion, the principle of residency was applied.

The Bill has, of course, been debated by the UK Parliament, as will be the Bills to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, subject to the outcomes of the referendums. These debates will provide ample opportunity for the interests of people in all parts of the UK to be taken into account through Members of the House of Commons. That seems to strike the right balance between seeking the consent of those most obviously affected by the proposals and ensuring that the interests of the UK as a whole are taken into account.

As an aside, looking ahead to a possible referendum on Europe, would hon. Members suggest that as the UK's membership has an effect stretching well beyond its borders, citizens of all other member states should be entitled to vote on UK membership?

Those who support amendment No. 121 have raised an important issue. Obviously, we want to ensure that service voters have the right to participate. I have tried to reassure the Committee that that is the case. As a courtesy, I want to explain in detail the current position so that hon. Members are left in no doubt that it is the reality. We shall ensure that it is operational when the referendum takes place.

3 Jun 1997 : Column 274

The current arrangements are apparently working well and it seems important that we should allow them to continue to do so.

Amendment No. 120 would, if accepted, stretch some of the points raised this evening even further. I do not seek to be frivolous in any way, but the amendment could allow someone born in, for example, Bolivia of Bolivian parents, who has never visited Scotland, to vote in the referendum merely because his granny was a Scot. What sort of fairness is that in relation to what we are attempting to do on franchise?

Obviously and understandably, Conservative Members have tried to range wide in our discussions today. However, the substantive Scotland and Wales Bills will come before us later in the Session. It is important to remember that, despite the timetabling motion, we shall have an opportunity to raise at a later stage some of the issues that have been highlighted by Conservative Members this evening. At present, we must remain within the strict terms of the timetable motion if we are to keep in order.

---