| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Garnier: To follow through his argument, could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the Welsh people have done to offend the Labour party, that they are not allowed a revenue-raising Assembly?
Mr. Canavan: I shall leave it to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies to put the case on behalf of their people.
I was saying that the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful--
Mr. Canavan:
I think that we are running out of time.
The Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority because it will have a budget of about £14 billion per annum. It will also have the power to legislate on matters such as housing and the national health service in Scotland, as well as education, tourism, and aspects of industry and the economy.
If the people of Scotland want to spend an extra 1p or 2p on income tax for a better national health service, or for better educational opportunities for their children, surely that should be their basic democratic right.
If the Scottish Parliament had no revenue-raising powers, it would be completely dependent on the revenue-raising powers and votes of this Parliament. It would have no fiscal autonomy or responsibility. So it is not very clever to separate the Parliament from its revenue-raising powers by asking two separate questions on, as I understand it, two separate ballot papers.
I still see no need for a referendum, especially after the mandate that we got from the people of Scotland and Wales at the general election. Even so, a single-question referendum is better than a two-question referendum, so even on the principle of the lesser of two evils, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has considerable merit. It does not exclude specific reference to tax-varying powers, but puts the matter in a single simple proposition, to be determined by the people of Scotland.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members will vote for the amendment, because if we do not have that wording, it would be outrageous to propose to the people of Scotland an Assembly without tax-raising powers.
For reasons that hon. Members well know, I oppose the principle of a Scottish Assembly, or Parliament, altogether. However, we can be sure of one thing--that a Parliament without tax-raising powers would be a disaster for Scotland and its people, and for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind the fact that Scotland is a nation in which people are conscious of their aims and objectives, if everything were going wrong in Scotland--all the hospitals and schools did not have enough resources, the road programme was not working, and so on--it would be blamed on the British Parliament in London, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament would be sitting there. That would simply stoke up the demand for independence and help to break up of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will avoid putting before the people of Scotland what might appear a nice option--a Parliament that will not cost them anything. The second advantage of specifying tax-raising powers would be to remind people that a Scottish Parliament would cost them a great deal of money.
Before the previous referendum, I found that one of the reasons for the move against devolution during the campaign was that people had not previously been aware of the full cost of the operation. It would have included not only the cost of all the new Members of Parliament and their offices, with all the expenses involved, but the substantial additional bureaucracy.
The third advantage of mentioning tax-raising powers is that it would allow a debate on how we support Scotland. I had the privilege many years ago--probably before most hon. Members were born--of being a Minister in the Scottish Office before I had to resign when the Prime Minister signed the treaty of Rome. Every year we had to negotiate a formula or grant whereby we got cash for Scotland. There was then a differential by
comparison with England of about 14 per cent.--a substantial amount. People in Scotland are not fully aware of the substantial additional funding they receive.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus):
Rubbish.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
It is not rubbish. I negotiated the figures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that although the nationalists have different views, the plain fact is that there is substantial additional funding.
Mr. Salmond:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
My final point will answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I know what it will be. As he was about to propose, the best question for the referendum would be to ask the people of Scotland whether they want to be fully independent. A referendum on devolution could lead to over-government, extra spending and huge waste and uncertainty.
There is no middle way between independence for Scotland and the present situation. Precious few powers are left in the assembly in Westminster. Hon. Members know well that we constantly make speeches about things over which we have no control. Hon. Members shout about the fishing industry when, effectively, all the power has gone. They complain about the cruelty involved in the export of live animals, but their power has gone. If we set up a new, separate Parliament in Scotland, in addition to the county and district councils and this Parliament, it will create a mess of over-government. It would be infinitely better for the people of Scotland if they were not misguided by misleading questions and made up their minds about whether Scotland as a separate nation should be independent. I therefore hope that the House will consider the amendment because it is more realistic, truthful and sensible. Irrespective of the question, I hope that the people of Scotland will have the common sense once again to reject this costly nonsense, which will do no good to them, to Scotland or to the United Kingdom. For the first time in many years, I support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Mr. Thomas Graham (West Renfrewshire):
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the Tories, 4,500 quango members ran Scotland at a cost of nearly £15 billion? Surely it is time for democratic control by elected members.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I will form a popular front with the hon. Gentleman to get rid of quangos and get back to democracy. Sadly, if he looks at the Labour manifesto, he will find that the new Government will create lots of new quangos that will cost more and employ a great deal more bureaucracy. If he and I can work together to fight quangos and support democracy, I will be glad to form a new popular front with him and the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Garnier:
Several questions must be asked about this part of the Bill. The questions raised by the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) are pertinent. It is a pity that the Government have ignored them.
The Government propose to impose pre-legislative referendums on the people of Scotland and Wales. People will be invited to discuss before the referendums many questions to which they will not be provided with answers. What will be the remit of the Scottish Parliament? What will be the constituencies? If it is to be elected by proportional representation, will it use a list system, a partial list system or the additional member system? What will be the pay, conditions and allowances of its Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked what it would cost. When and how often will it sit? What will be its hours? Will it sit one month out of 12 or will it be a full-time body? Will it be a condition of membership that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not also be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament? Will they also be allowed to be Members of the European Parliament? May they be members of district, regional or island councils? Will the tax raised by the Scottish Parliament go to the United Kingdom Treasury? Will it go to some new Scottish Treasury? Or will it go into some other basin into which to pour the largesse of the people of Scotland? Who will pay the tax, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked? What will happen to the Scottish grant that we have heard so much about? It is not good enough for those on the Treasury Bench to talk about the residence tax for the taxation system; it is a far more complicated matter than that. Will it be examined at any stage during the debate on the referendum?
The only sensible referendum question is that proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party, and that is to offer the Scottish people full independence or nothing. If they vote for--
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.--[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 20th May relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.--[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.--[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Ordered,
That the said committee do meet with any committee appointed by the Lords on Thursday 5th June at half-past Four o'clock.--[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |