Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

House of Commons, 4 June 1997.

REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I remind the Committee that we are also discussing the following amendments: No. 111, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax-varying'.

Part 1

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Last night, as we concluded our deliberations before the 10 o'clock Adjournment, I was discussing the questions that were being suggested by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The questions to be used in the referendum on Scotland have, as we all know, taken many forms in the past few months. The right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) went through so many twists and turns in reaching a conclusion as to what to present to the Scottish people that one could be forgiven for thinking that he was sitting on a sharp object. Or had ground control finally got in touch with Major Tom and shown him the blade of Excalibur? Whatever it was that brought the right hon. Gentleman to the present arrangement of two questions on one referendum, he was in danger of making the grand old Duke of York look decidedly decisive. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants one consolidated question asking electors whether they want a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland. He said that the taxation powers were critical for a Scottish Parliament to give it flexibility and accountability. Certainly, if I were in favour of a separate Scottish Parliament, I would not be content with a Parliament that could not vote its own budget—that is to offer a hungry man a plate, but no food. But that is precisely what the Welsh are to be offered by the Government. If I were a Welsh elector, I should throw it back in the Government's face. The Welsh are being insulted by the Government, as we all are by the Bill and the proposals for a referendum in Scotland and Wales that are set out in it.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Is not my hon. and learned Friend being unfair to the Government, in that they have made it clear that while they will ask in a referendum whether the Scottish people would like to have a tax-raising power in their Parliament, they also promised in the election campaign not to use that power and therefore to ignore whatever is said by the Scottish electors? Surely that is a strange thing for a Government who say that they want to be trusted by the people.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend is right, but then the Labour party is a strange thing. There are only two sensible ways to deal with the referendum—I touched on one of them last night. The first is to tell the people what the Government propose—to present the public with the scheme that they recommend. Provided that it has been set out before Parliament, discussed in both Houses, discussed on television and radio and in the press—argued over in all its three-dimensional glory—the public will know precisely what they are being offered. The public should be asked, "Do you or do you not approve of the proposal for a Scottish/Welsh Parliament contained in the Scotland/Wales Act 1997 or 1998?" I call that the Linlithgow question.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Given yesterday's debate and the persuasive case made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), would it not be more appropriate to refer to this as the Linlithgow solution?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It would be appropriate to call it the Linlithgow solution if I were the least bit confident that the Secretary of State for Scotland would accept his hon. Friend's solution, but he will not. The Government are not in listening mode. To talk now of White Papers—or is it a Bill? We have yet to discover. Such talk is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. To talk of proposals for "a Scottish Parliament" means nothing. Given the timetable motion, we can expect little room for discussion from the Government. The people are entitled to know now—before the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill becomes law—the details of the proposals. Without knowing the details, they are neither informed nor in a position to make a rational judgment. The second way to deal with the referendum is to ask people whether they want independence. That is the solution preferred by the Scottish nationalists. If the people say that they want independence, it will be up to the people of Scotland to decide on their own Parliament, to set out their own plans for their taxation system and, possibly, if they want to move outside the ambit of foreign and defence affairs dealt with from Whitehall, to settle their own treaties and international affairs. However, the Government have neither the brains nor the bravery to produce anything other than a total mess. We now watch them with amazement that the reputation they were entitled to expect on election by a vast majority is rapidly sifting away. I urge all hon. Members to watch them like hawks.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

There are many amendments in this group, but I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 111 and 112 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Putting the phrase "tax-varying powers" on the face of the Bill as well as on the ballot paper perpetuates a deception that was skilfully cultivated during the run-up to the election. That deception is that the only powers that the new Scottish Parliament will have are tax-varying powers, or that the only powers that matter that the new Scottish Parliament will have are tax-varying powers. That, of course, is not true. We cannot know precisely the total number of other powers that the new Scottish Parliament is likely to have, because we do not yet have the White Paper before us; but, from the very choice of the word "parliament" for the proposed new body and from the previous attempts to establish such a Parliament, we can deduce that the range of powers to be given to the new Parliament is quite considerable. First, as one would expect of any parliament, there is the power to make law. It is inevitable that when the Government come to consider the detail of their proposals, they will attempt to transfer some law making of some sort from this House to the new Scottish Parliament. Perhaps Scottish private legislation, or those curious Scottish orders that are referred to special commissioners, or some types of Scottish legislation at the later stages of consideration will be transferred or delegated to the new Scottish Parliament. If so, they will be formidable powers, affecting every citizen of Scotland and it may well be that those voting in the referendum will prefer those powers not to be exercised by a new Scottish Parliament. After all, Scotland already has plenty of government: a Scottish Office, local authorities and a large number of Members of Parliament. Indeed, until we reduced the layer of regional government, it could be argued that Scotland had more government than almost any other country in western Europe.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

An existing layer of government is the Scottish Office. How do Conservative Members plan to hold the Scottish Office accountable to the people it is meant to serve—the people of Scotland?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That neatly takes me on to the second power of the Scottish Parliament, which is its power to hold Ministers, the Scottish Office and Scottish public bodies to account. At the moment, that power is exercised through this House, where Scottish Office Ministers are held to account by all Members of Parliament, whether or not they sit for Scottish constituencies. The Conservative Government strengthened that accountability by ensuring that the Scottish Grand Committee could hold to account Ministers other than those representing the Scottish Office—a welcome innovation. However, some of the people who will vote in the referendum may feel that that power should not be exercised by the new Scottish Parliament. It would all depend on whether the exercise of that power was proportionate to the cost of the new machinery by means of which it was exercised, or whether it simply duplicated the existing arrangements that prevail in the House. Finally—

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

These questions cannot be answered in any form until another question is answered: to whom will the civil service be responsible? Will civil servants be responsible to the United Kingdom Government, as they are at present? To whom will they owe their prime loyalty? I hate to use the word "masters", because I do not believe that that is the appropriate relationship, yet, in some senses, it is the old problem of serving two masters. Are civil servants to be responsible to the Ministers in a Scottish Parliament? Until that question has been resolved, the issues that the hon. Gentleman properly raises cannot be resolved.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That must be right. It was certainly the case under the previous Government—I know that it seems to have changed now—that civil servants were ultimately responsible to the Crown. It has yet to be established how they will be able to serve two different Parliaments. That reinforces the case for spelling out in more detail in the Bill, in legislation and, if necessary, on the ballot paper what powers those who vote in the referendum in Scotland will be voting for.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I will, but I am conscious that others want to contribute.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I said yesterday that the role of the Secretary of State is also left in limbo. Does my hon. Friend accept not only that civil servants are servants of the Crown, but that, as the function of the Secretary of State is an indivisible function, that matter must be sorted out? As it is impossible for any one Secretary of State to be distinguished from others, the issue of the relationship between Ministers of the Crown and those who would be representatives in a Scottish Parliament, setting out their policy in that Parliament, will have to be sorted out.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

It certainly needs to be sorted out. It would also lead us down the path of exploring the relationship between the Secretary of State, who is accountable to the House, and whoever is chosen to be first Minister in the new Scottish Parliament. However, that might be outside the scope of the amendments that we are debating, so I will not take that path. The third power of Parliament is the power to grant or withhold supply. However legislation is framed, no system of parliamentary government is constructed without the prospect of granting supply to or withholding it from its Executive. Before any citizen, any resident of Scotland, comes to vote in a referendum this autumn, they will surely want to know exactly what type of supply may be controlled by the new Scottish Parliament and may be granted to or withheld from its Executive by that Parliament. That matter might affect the funding of every local authority, hospital, school, university and public service in Scotland. There may well be many people in remoter parts of Scotland who will not agree to the granting or withholding of that type of supply, exercised on the whim of a coalition in the new Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, that will, for example, dramatically reduce the moneys available to the councils of the Western Isles or the Shetland Islands. That is why the powers to be exercised by the new Scottish Parliament must be set out. If they are not to be set out in legislation before the referendum, we are entitled to say that they should be specifically set out on the face of the Bill, as proposed in the Government's narrow phrase "tax-varying powers" in clause 1, or on the ballot paper. If that is impossible, as a last resort it would be better than nothing that those powers be set out in some type of formal literature that is sent to every resident of Scotland before he or she votes in the referendum. That is a proposition which the Committee cannot discuss, because of the way in which the timetable motion has been drawn up. Unless the powers are specifically set out in legislation, and unless we can assure those who are voting that they know exactly what powers the new Scottish Parliament will have, we are driven back to the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which we should put before the House again. How can those who vote in a referendum—this autumn, perhaps—be sure what they are voting for, unless they see in detail the powers that the new Parliament will exercise? When the Minister of State winds up the debate, he should re-examine the phrase "tax-varying powers", and consider the deletion of the adjective "tax-varying". He should at least come clean with the Committee and say that the vote this autumn should be on the establishment and powers in toto of the new Scottish Parliament.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I want to reiterate the Liberal Democrat position on the Scottish referendum. The position is different in Wales, and our Welsh colleagues will make clear their position. First, we are against a referendum on Scotland. We believe that the proposal for a referendum was born from panic. The Labour leadership was put in a panic by the former Secretary of State for Scotland. Fortunately, the Scottish voters have a great deal more—if I may use two Scottish expressions—spunk and smeddum than the Labour leadership. They have rejected the attempts of the previous Secretary of State to frighten them and turn them against the idea of a Scottish Parliament. The Scottish voters have shown better sense than the Labour leadership. There is no need for a referendum. Our position is diametrically opposed to that of the Conservatives, who are against any form of democracy anywhere, especially in Scotland. We believe that the views of the Scots are clear and a referendum would be a waste of time. Secondly, we are against the second question. We consider it politically inept. However it is written, it will be read by many voters as, "You do want to have higher taxes, don't you?" Those of us who learnt Latin learnt a form of question which called for the answer no. This is such a question. It is written in such a way that people will tend to vote no. It does not state, "If you vote for higher taxes, you will get better schools, better hospitals and so on," which our party put forward in the general election. It merely asks in the abstract, "Would you like to vote for higher taxes?" We believe that that is inept. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made clear yesterday, the question puts on offer a proposition that no party is putting forward—that is, a Scottish Parliament without tax-raising powers. That is not on the political agenda, so it is wrong to offer it. It also demolishes any moral position that the Government may have for rejecting the nationalists' claim to have their question included in the referendum. Once one starts opening out the scope of the referendum, where does one stop? The second question is foolish and undermines the Government's position. I shall deal with some of the arguments that we have heard against a Parliament with tax-varying powers. The hon. Member for Linlithgow argued that the existence of borders created difficulties, but there is no problem if a citizen of Connecticut pays different taxes from a citizen of New York state, or if the citizens of two adjacent German Länder are taxed differently. The hon. Gentleman may say that America is a federal country—but that makes no difference to the principle. Denmark, a unitary country, has district, regional and national income taxes. The system works perfectly well; there is no rioting in the streets of Denmark of the kind we had here with the poll tax.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not ask the Scottish people whether they want a taxation system different from the one they have at the moment, even though, on his own evidence, there are at least five or six ways in which that could be interpreted?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We are saying that the tax-varying element of the Parliament is an integral part of the whole structure. Hence to ask a separate question about it is idiotic.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman proposes that a Scottish Parliament must, of necessity, control an entirely separate fiscal regime from the one applying to the rest of the UK. That seems to imply that a Scottish Parliament must, also of necessity, be economically independent from the United Kingdom Parliament.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I do not see why it should not be, but it is also possible to have a mixed system, which is what the Government seem to be proposing. We say that, without some control over the money, the Scottish Parliament proposal is fatally flawed.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

For some time, it has been Liberal party policy—I do not know whether it still is—to advocate a local income tax, so I can well understand a Scottish Parliament having the power to raise a local income tax that varied from region to region or from county to county. Does the hon. Gentleman, however, agree that the second question is meaningless because the people of Scotland will be invited to answer it with no idea of the true definition of "tax-varying powers"? At the moment, it is just a nice-sounding phrase with no detail behind it.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

By the time voting takes place, a White Paper will have been issued and debated at length. The citizens of Scotland are not all as stupid as English Conservative Members seem to think they are. It would be quite simple for them to say that they wanted a Parliament with some control over money. We are against asking a separate question at all; but if there is one, we shall campaign flat out for a double yes in the referendum, because tax-raising powers are essential. Conservative Members have raised the chimera that because of a slightly higher income tax in Scotland, people and companies would indulge in a mass emigration to England. That is rubbish. There are already in Scotland at least three pairs of adjacent local authorities the gulf between whose council tax D bands—the standard rate band—is greater than the gulf that would ensue from the imposition of an extra 3p tax on the mythical average taxpayer. Yet there is no mass emigration or immigration—

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

rose—

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No, really, I have had enough. The whole argument, like almost everything else the Conservatives have said in this debate, is false. Next, various Conservatives and the hon. Member for Linlithgow have argued that because Parliament might change a few commas and full stops between publication of the White Paper and the final passage of the Bill, the whole process will be null and void. That misses the point. The people of Scotland will not be swayed, when voting for or against a Scottish Parliament, merely because some power over railways or fisheries is or is not included. They will be voting on a gut feeling that they want a Scottish Parliament with control over its own affairs and its own money. Any minor changes made later by Parliament will in no way invalidate the decision of the people of Scotland. It is no wonder that many Scottish Conservatives want out. They want to run their own show. I invite Conservatives who have spoken repeatedly and prominently in these debates to come to Scotland to campaign for the no side in the referendum. Then all of us would be able to stay at home, and would romp home. Over 26 years, in four different councils, I have formed the view that in public life most of the people involved in the debate roughly understand the question, but they have different answers. The Conservative party has not begun to understand the question. It is on a different planet altogether. Many of us have used the well-known phrase about power corrupting. I have discovered in the past few days that the corruption of power is a lingering illness. The corruption carries on far longer than the power. The Conservatives must get their act together, because they are making a mockery of themselves, democracy and the House.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am pleased to reply to the debate on the amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) has it absolutely right. It is my style to try to be as helpful as I can to the Conservative Opposition. They are recovering slowly from 1 May, but are obviously going through a period of recuperation.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The Minister said that he agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), and that he was absolutely right. Does that mean that the Minister accepts the hon. Gentleman's amendment?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Obviously we are to have a continuation of the nit-picking exercise that was characteristic of the Opposition yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman will just sit still for a few minutes more, I shall respond. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is absolutely right that Conservative Members need to listen to what is happening in Scotland in relation to devolution and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. In my attempt to be continually helpful, I draw their attention to a poll in one of our national newspapers this morning. In fact there were two polls, but I shall deal first with the one on devolution. It appears that, in the most recent poll, the vote was 3:1 in support of a Scottish Parliament and 2:1 in support of it having tax-varying powers. Indeed, that poll is very encouraging. I remind the Conservative Opposition of another poll in the same national newspaper this morning, which suggested that, after popular support for the Conservatives reached the dizzy heights of 18 per cent. on 1 May, it has now plummeted to 9 per cent. I submit that the fundamental challenge for Conservative Members to get to grips with is that voters in Scotland want, by 3:1, to support a Scottish Parliament, but have given only 9 per cent. support to what used to be Her Majesty's Government's party in Scotland.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the Minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

In a moment. It is also important to identify who is saying what in the Conservative party about the referendum. In an excellent article in the Evening News today, pro-home rule Tory campaigner Christine Richards, ex-leader of the Tories on Edinburgh council, said: We cannot go on being arrogant and ignorant. That is in relation to the "I still won't budge on devolution" concept put forward in the House. I ask the Conservatives to think hard. It is becoming embarrassing for a Minister to try to help the Conservative party in Scotland to come to grips with its own reality.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In addition to speaking to the lady to whom my hon. Friend referred, perhaps some Opposition Members should speak to the likes of Councillor Brian Meek, who is arguing a good case for an independent Conservative party in Scotland.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

My hon. Friend is obviously trying to be as helpful as I am in relation to the recuperation of the Conservative party, but I fear that if I do not get on to the amendments, you, Mr. Lord, will bring me back into line.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister, because, as I think he is aware, I have tried to attend these debates from the beginning precisely because I should like to be educated, especially on the views of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament. I confess that although I may go there frequently, I understand my own ignorance on many points. There is no mention in anything that the Minister has said of the wider United Kingdom dimension. Can he not understand that one of the concerns that brings Conservative Members to address the House is the fact that unless the UK dimension is taken into account, simply going along because there may be wishes in Scotland or Wales will not produce a durable result that will both devolve government and preserve the Union?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The hon. Gentleman's comment in relation to the franchise was dealt with yesterday. However, there will be ample opportunity to debate the matter when the White Paper is published, during the campaign before the referendum and, if it is successful, during the passage of the substantive Bill. I am sure that that will provide the education that the hon. Gentleman seeks as well as giving Conservative Members the opportunity to participate and to make the views of their constituents known, whichever part of the United Kingdom they represent.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

My hon. Friend said that there would be ample opportunity to debate the matter. In the public print there has been some reference to the White Paper being published on 25 July. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it will be before the middle of July?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I can confirm that the Government want to publish the White Paper as soon as possible before the summer recess, and we have also confirmed that we want a debate on it when it is published.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I want to make some progress. Amendment Nos. 76 and 87 to 95 would have the effect of consulting the electorate in Scotland only on a single proposal for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. In effect, that would deny people in Scotland the opportunity to say whether they wanted their Parliament to have the power to vary tax. We, of course, firmly believe that a Scottish Parliament should have the power to vary tax. The Westminster Parliament and local authorities have such powers. We believe that the responsibility and discipline that come with having the power to vary tax are important. However, we believe that it is important that people in Scotland should be given the opportunity to express their views specifically on our tax-varying proposals. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked why we are consulting separately on our proposal for the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers and not on any other aspects of our proposals—why taxation? Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that taxation is significant. It is an issue on which most people have a view, and understandably so. It is only right that the views of the Scottish people on that issue are clear.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

When my hon. Friend refers to tax-raising powers, is he dealing with all kinds of taxes or just one kind of tax? Would VAT, corporation tax or capital gains tax be varied? Which tax is it?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The tax-varying power applicable to Scotland will be predicated on income tax. If hon. Members are so sure that the Scottish people want a Parliament with tax-varying powers, what harm can there be in asking them? We made it clear in our manifesto that we intended to consult them on that, and I can see no reason for failing to deliver on that pledge. Popular endorsement on that specific point will put the views of the people of Scotland beyond doubt and speed the passage of the subsequent legislation. I do not expect that the people of Scotland will want anything less for a Scottish Parliament. Again, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan sought reassurance that a second referendum would not be held once the main devolution legislation had received Royal Assent. I am happy to assure him that we have no such intention.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Is it the Minister's position, as was reported, that if—I am sure that he and I would both expect and hope that it would not arise—there was a yes, no vote, a Labour Government would bring in legislation to introduce a Scottish Parliament without tax powers, despite his knowing that that is less than what he believes to be in the best interests of the Scottish people?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

In the spirit of optimism pervading the Government, we believe that we shall have a yes, yes vote. To talk of any other would, in some respects, help what I was going to describe as the no, no campaign, but it is difficult to envisage a no, no campaign other than the one being generated from Westminster by the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan also raised the point, as did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), that there would be an opportunity to vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament and against it having tax-varying powers—the so-called yes, no vote. I have no doubt that we shall receive resounding support for our proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. We fully expect a yes, yes result and we are planning on that basis. The heart of a Parliament lies in its powers to legislate. Our proposals will ensure that legislation on Scottish affairs will be passed in Scotland by people elected in Scotland who understand and represent Scottish interests.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The point being made by me and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) went slightly further. We were pointing out that a two-question referendum brings forward an option of a Parliament without tax-varying powers, which is not supported by any substantial party in the whole of Scotland. Why is that option being presented when other options, such as the independence option, are clearly not?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The hon. Gentleman will obviously have an opportunity a bit later in the debate to discuss the multi-option referendum. Suffice it to say that we believe that the two questions are vital. We believe that tax-varying powers are an essential element of our proposals for devolution and we shall campaign vigorously to ensure that we have a yes, yes vote. The issue of a no, yes result was raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I have already explained why we are committed to consulting the people of Scotland separately on the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. There will be two ballot papers, one on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and one on whether it should have the power to vary tax. We are using two separate ballot papers after having consulted electoral practitioners who advised that their use would reduce the risk of spoilt ballot papers and would ease the process of the count. We do not expect a no, yes result in the referendum and we are certainly not planning for that. If an individual wants to vote in that way, he or she will be perfectly entitled to do so.

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

Who are these practitioners and what experience do they have of a two-ballot-paper referendum?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Officials have consulted widely on these issues. Indeed, there is an association—this was news to me—that brings together people who are experts in the field. I can reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of thought has gone into the matter. Amendment Nos.111 and 112 seek to amend the proposition on which the people in Scotland will be consulted—[Interruption.] It would be useful for Opposition Front-Bench Members to listen a bit, especially as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), one of the leading contenders for the leadership, is here. It seems to be the practice of Conservatives to go to Scotland and to lecture, lecture and lecture the people there on devolution. Listening does not seem to have been one of their activities over the past 18 years. Amendment Nos. 111 and 112 seek to amend the proposition on which the people in Scotland will be consulted, to refer to a Scottish Assembly and to remove the reference to tax-varying powers. We have already made it perfectly clear that we intend to consult the people in Scotland on our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and not on any other options. A number of questions were asked about the specific powers of a Scottish Parliament and about details of our proposals—indeed, those questions have dominated most of the contributions from Conservative Members.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister of State which will, I hope, be helpful. Given the misunderstanding that has obviously arisen over the past three weeks over whether there will be a Bill before the referendum or a White Paper before the referendum, given that the Minister has told us that a White Paper will be produced before the House rises for the summer and that there will be a chance to debate it, and given that the referendum will not take place until September, will he consider producing a draft Bill before the referendum takes place, so that the people in Scotland and the people in Wales will know the detail of what they are being asked to vote on?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I say with the greatest respect and courtesy that I can muster that Government Members are sick and tired of the fact that after 50 questions have been posed and 50 answers have been received, Front-Bench Conservative Members' contributions are just nit-picking over what is very, very obvious. I shall spell the matter out to the right hon. Gentleman. We have said that we shall publish a White Paper as soon as possible. We shall then seek to have the legislation passed through the House. We shall then move to a referendum in the autumn—

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Through both Houses?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I meant that the legislation would pass through this House and, of course, the Lords. That would mean that the legislation would receive Royal Assent by the time we rose for the summer recess. That has been made obvious and clear at every possible opportunity. I suggest again a helpful piece of advice. Unless the Conservative Opposition's comments become more relevant to the points that have been made, they are frankly not only doing themselves a disservice, but ignoring the Conservative party in Scotland, which is seeking a constructive way forward.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

The Minister of State has said something and I want to be clear about it. Clarity is important. He said first that there would be a White Paper, then he said that legislation would go through the House. I looked surprised because I did not know whether he was referring to the Bill or legislation following the White Paper. We need to get the order clear. Which comes first?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

In a sense, I should not dignify the questions that have been asked. I shall spell it out. We are moving to the publication of a White Paper, which will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. [Interruption.] I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would sit and listen instead of talking and talking. He asked a question, and he should let me answer it. We shall be seeking to get Royal Assent for the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill before the House rises for the summer recess. We shall then proceed to a referendum in the autumn. A successful completion of the referendum will mean a substantial Bill being prepared later this year.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am not giving way. A number of hon. Members want to speak. I have clarified the point, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have on numerous occasions.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Dictatorship.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Again, the Conservatives seem to learn absolutely nothing. They shout from sedentary positions, "Dictatorship, dictatorship, dictatorship."

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am not giving way. A number of questions were asked about the specific powers of a Scottish Parliament and particular details of the proposals. If hon. Members wish to engage in debate on the extent of a Scottish Parliament's powers, they should do so in the debate on the White Paper and during scrutiny of the main legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a specific point on the Barnett formula. That is obviously an important issue and one that will be addressed in the White Paper. Amendment No. 145 would provide for a referendum to be held in Scotland on the establishment and tax-raising rather than tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament. That assumes that a Scottish Parliament would never want to lower its taxation and suggests an ever-increasing spiral of taxation. It would be an absolute nonsense to tie the Parliament's hands in that way. A power to raise tax must be accompanied by a power to lower it. I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I listened with interest to the Minister's response. The debate has been useful and interesting because it has not simply highlighted a number of questions on the referendum, but allowed comments on the whole question of taxation powers of a Scottish Parliament. It is interesting to note that the Liberal Democrats' amendments have attracted a degree of all-party consensus, which hitherto has not been achieved in this Parliament. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has indicated some support. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—for different reasons, perhaps—found merits in the amendments. Indeed, so has the Scottish National party. I am sure that, when the House divides in a few minutes, such a grand coalition will be welcome. Some points have been raised about the powers that a Scottish Parliament would have. I wonder whether those taking part in the debate, especially Conservative Members who purport to speak with such knowledge, have read the report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, "Scotland's Parliament: Scotland's Right", which was published on St. Andrew's day in 1995 and answers many of the questions raised. With more civil service input and jargon, it will no doubt be reflected in greater detail in the White Paper when it duly finds the light of day.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I shall give way in a moment. The Government are not about to launch on the people of Scotland or the United Kingdom a complete bolt from the blue that that has not been previously trailed.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

How do we know?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The right hon. Gentleman asks how we know. It was made perfectly clear in the election manifestos of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats that proposals for a Scottish Parliament would be firmly rooted in and based on the workings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, let it be remembered, was not a creature of either the Labour party or the Scottish Liberal Democrats. It reflected a very broad consensus in Scotland, including local authorities, Churches, trade unions, ethnic groups and Scottish language groups—perhaps the broadest-based civic representation in Scotland this century.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, as a result of the convention, the logical consequence of a Scottish Parliament is the reduction in Scottish representation here at Westminster? That is something that the Government deny because it is not convenient for their party representation in the House. Their proposals amount to the gerrymandering of the British constitution in their favour. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his honesty.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, but what he said proves that he has not read the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The convention specifically did not address the issue of the number of seats at Westminster, because that is a matter for Westminster and not for the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Liberal Democrats endorse what the Kilbrandon commission said in 1970 or 1971 about the reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. The Labour party does not agree with that position, but there we differ. The Scottish Constitutional Convention made no recommendation one way or the other.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman said that the issue was a matter for Westminster. How can it be a matter only for Westminster unless we also sort out who at Westminster will decide it—the United Kingdom Members or the English Members?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It is self-evident that the composition of the House must be a matter for the House and all its Members. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider UK dimension and asked how English Members would have a chance to take part in that wider dimension. That is self-evident, too, if he gives it one moment's thought. When the Bill for a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly comes before the House, hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—will all have an opportunity to take part. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is constituted—albeit that my party believes that it is constituted unfairly because of the electoral system, but that is the system that we operate—on the arguments that were put before the electorate and determined on 1 May. The overwhelming majority of the British people from Scotland, England and Wales voted on 1 May for parties that were committed to substantial constitutional reform, including Parliaments for Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. The representatives of the people will make the decisions and scrutinise the Bill when it comes before the House.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Bill mentions the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention paper. Would it not have been helpful for the public if a version or précis of the paper had been attached to the Bill as a schedule, so that in our debate on the referendum this week all those who do not have the hon. Gentleman's learning could understand what he was on about?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Not only has he clearly not read the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposals, but he has clearly not read the Bill. The fact that he is only now coming alive to the issue shows that he has not examined the proposals. If the referendum happens, the ballot paper to be put before the electorate will say: Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament". Those proposals, as has been made clear, will be published in a White Paper. That issue was raised earlier at Prime Minister's questions. I recall the Prime Minister saying that the Bill would be published and I realised at the time that he was making a mistake. I do not know why he did not own up to the mistake. At an early stage in his premiership, he has forgotten the basic rule—when one is in a hole, stop digging and start climbing. Nevertheless, all of us who have followed the debate knew that he meant that a White Paper would be the basis for the referendum. The Minister has not answered the question about what could happen if there was a yes, no vote. I accept that we should approach the issue in a spirit of optimism, to use the Minister's words. He has been assured that my party will campaign, if amendment No. 87 is not successful, for a yes, yes outcome. The Herald vote today was a 2:1 yes—but only 53 per cent. were in favour of the tax-varying powers. For me, that is not a sufficient cushion of comfort. It puts us on notice that we shall have to argue for those powers. There is a good argument for those powers, but I believe that the Government are entering dangerous territory and taking a gamble. It would be better if the two questions were consolidated into one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West pointed out, there is no party in Scotland, and no body within the home rule movement in Scotland, that argues for the yes, no option that will appear on the ballot paper—a Scottish Parliament without tax-varying powers. A Government who believe sincerely that the best solution for the government of Scotland is a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers are taking a gamble in allowing the possibility—let us put it no higher than that for the time being—of an outcome involving a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers, for which the Government will say they are prepared to legislate—

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax-varying powers' and insert `constitutional status'.

or

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The amendment should be considered with amendments Nos. 72 to 77. Their effect is to provide for a multi-option referendum in Scotland, to give people the choice between independence, devolution and the status quo on a preferential voting system to allow people to vote 1, 2, 3. The bottom option would be knocked out, resulting in a clear winner. My contention is that this is the real referendum, if one is to be held at all. I must make it clear at the outset that if the Government had said that they had a mandate from the general election and therefore intended to proceed with their proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament, they would have had no argument from me about a multi-option referendum. It is legitimate to say that the general election is a mandate to move ahead with devolution proposals. That, however, is not what the Government have done. Instead, they have taken the position, as was made clear by the Secretary of State two weeks ago, that the general election did not provide a test of the constitutional options. It was not a sufficient test because other issues prevailed during the campaign. The issue on which the general election campaign in Scotland focused was the substantial urge to remove the Conservative party from every available seat, which the Scottish people were successful in doing in different ways in different constituencies. We all know that that was the key issue of the general election campaign in Scotland. If the Government believe that the general election did not decide the constitutional position and that therefore there must be a test of opinion, it is my position that that test of opinion must be fair and must make available to all the people the real options before the Scottish nation. I want to discuss three arguments. First, members of all parties in the House have at one time or another supported the concept of a multi-option referendum. Secondly, I shall point to the various international precedents, and the one United Kingdom precedent, for my position. Thirdly, I shall argue that it is such a referendum that has genuine popular assent and is supported by the people of Scotland. First, there is the argument that members of all parties have supported my position. It was certainly supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 23 April 1992, when he said not only that he supported the concept of a multi-option referendum but told the Scottish Trades Union Congress annual congress in Dundee that it should be "shouted from the rooftops". The Secretary of State has been having some fun with his Tory opposite number—at least, I think that that is what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) may become, although he is denying it; time will tell—about the various changes he has made in his position. The Secretary of State owes us an explanation of why the concept was to be "shouted from the rooftops" in 1992 but not even to be whispered in the Lobbies in 1997.

Ernie Ross (Labour, Dundee West)

We won.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That is one of the hon. Gentleman's more telling contributions to debates of late. If he had been listening, he would realise that I argued that if the Secretary of State had wanted to take the Labour party's election victory as a mandate to proceed with a devolution plan without further consultation, I would have accepted that as a legitimate position. But that is not the position of the Labour party. Its position is that there has to be a test of opinion. The amendment proposes a democratic and real test of opinion.

Tommy Graham (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if there was a multi-option referendum in which people could vote for independence, but the people of Scotland rejected that, the Scottish National party would disband and join the other political parties?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Like the Labour party did after the general elections in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992? All democratic parties accept the result of a referendum or election. If they lose, they do not disband. They try to win another referendum in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course. Democratic parties submit their position to the people and if they are defeated they try to find a better method of putting their arguments so that they can be successful in the future. What on earth is wrong with that? What is more interesting is why, in opposition, the Labour party supported the concept of putting independence on the ballot paper, yet in government finds that prospect too frightening.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Is the hon. Gentleman now telling the Committee that if he is not satisfied with the result of the referendum or the legislation that follows it he will campaign immediately for a further referendum?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No. The Scottish National party will campaign to win a general election, a referendum or an election to a Scottish Assembly at some point in the future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, having returned to the House, fully expects the Conservative party to return to power at the next general election. His may be a minority opinion, but I am sure that he holds it dear and clutches hope to his bosom. A multi-option referendum was supported by the late John Smith. As leader of the Labour party, he made it clear that the Labour party as a whole was campaigning in support of the concept. So in the past there has been substantial Labour party support for the idea. The organisation Scotland United was formed and predicated on the basis of a multi-option referendum, which it recognised as the one concept that in recent years had united the forces of constitutional change in Scotland. In its policy document, "What Price Democracy", published in 1992, it argued for a multi-option referendum, noting that one of the big problems with the 1979 referendum was the absence from the ballot paper of the independence option, which meant that a significant section of the Scottish population was denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred option. Many members of that organisation are on the Government Benches today. Not only is the concept supported by Labour Members but it was originally a Liberal party idea. In the late 1960s, Lord Steel introduced a Bill proposing a multi-option referendum. Liberal Members are fond of telling us that they have most of the good ideas and that other parties adopt them some time later. I see the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) nodding her assent. What they tell us less often is that by the time they have convinced the rest of us that they are a good idea, they have deserted the cause and no longer espouse their original policies. I hope that, given the Liberal antecedents of the case, Liberal Members will support the amendment. I have to accept that Tory support for our proposal is somewhat more recent. It was not evident when the Tories were in government, but at least one of the Tory leadership candidates, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), announced in Scotland at the weekend that he was in favour of a multi-option referendum. To be fair, some Back-Bench Tory Members have argued over a longer period that independence should appear on the ballot paper in a constitutional referendum in Scotland. Broad support for the concept has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties in the House. If we evaluate the amendment's chances of success, I comfort myself with the notion that the Secretary of State has held five positions on referendums on Scotland in the past five years. In 1992, when I debated with him as—

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Five?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am coming to all five. In the 1992 general election, when we debated as the two party leaders in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman was against any referendum. After the election, he moved, as I have already said, to support a multi-option referendum. Last year, when he was the Labour party Chief Whip, the proposal for a two-question referendum was first put forward and he adopted joint authorship of it. Some of us think that he was just covering fire for the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson); none the less, he was willing to accept responsibility for that notion. When the Labour party's Scottish executive decided to have two referendums with three questions, that was described by the Labour party hierarchy as a mature and sensible decision. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, as the then Chief Whip, also shared that opinion. That takes us to the fifth change of heart—the two-question referendum proposed in the Bill. All I am saying is that, having taken five positions in the past five years, surely it is not too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to move back to his 1992 position by accepting our amendment. I am sure that he will when he replies.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Wait breathlessly.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I shall do so. I am hoping for a sixth change of position because I know that, in his heart, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the amendment represents the right course to take. There are a number of international examples of referendums that have been put before people in a range of countries where three or more clear constitutional positions have been offered. However, perhaps the example that is of most interest to the Committee is the decision of the Attlee Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1946. There was to be a ballot in Newfoundland on its democratic status. Originally, a constitutional convention suggested that only two options should be allowed, but the Attlee Privy Council decided otherwise. Preecing's Contemporary Archive for 6 to 13 November 1946 states: Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue and they have therefore decided that confederation with Canada should be included as a third choice on the referendum paper. The Attlee Privy Council—a Labour Government with a landslide majority—had the democratic common sense to see that it would be unfair to exclude from a referendum ballot paper an option that was supported by many people in Newfoundland. As we know, it was that option that eventually, albeit narrowly, carried the day in Newfoundland. That is why it entered the Canadian Confederation. That example is both international and pertaining to the United Kingdom. I suggest that a multi-option referendum—a fair referendum—is the one that carries public support in Scotland. One opinion poll, which tested whether people wanted the option of independence to be included on the ballot paper of any referendum in Scotland, was published in The Sunday Times on 11 August 1996. It showed not only overwhelming support from the Scottish people—73 per cent.—for that idea, but majority support in every party for all the options of independence, devolution and the status quo to be included on the ballot paper. Of Labour supporters in Scotland, 81 per cent. suggested that that was the right thing to do. So there is public support for a fair ballot, but another factor should be recognised by the Committee and it is an argument that is not often put clearly. According to my memory and experience, there has not been a single recent public opinion poll that presented the three options of independence, devolution or the status quo and showed a majority in favour of devolution. In the vast majority of polls, devolution has been the preferred option, but, as far as I am aware, not a single opinion poll citing those three options has shown 50 per cent. or more in favour of devolution. One opinion poll during the general election campaign suggested that independence and devolution were tied with 35 per cent. support, with support for the status quo at 24 per cent. The ICM poll in The Scotsman suggested that there was substantial support for the status quo—that was more than the other polls suggested.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I apologise for indulging my curiosity, but is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position that any multi-choice referendum would be invalid unless one of the options received 50 per cent. support? Does it follow that the hon. Gentleman is Suggesting a transferable vote multi-choice option?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As I said in my introduction, and as the amendments state, people would mark 1, 2 or 3 in a preferential system. The option receiving the lowest number of votes in the first count would be knocked out and the votes redistributed, giving a winner with a substantial majority. It is often said by Labour Members that devolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people. As today's opinion poll showed, that claim would be justified only if the independence option were not offered. As far as I know, of recent polls that have offered independence, devolution and the preservation of the status quo, not one has shown a majority in favour of devolution. I think that The Sunday Times poll that I mentioned has the figures about right—it is a close thing between devolution and independence. The Conservative party would no doubt like to hang on to the ICM poll that showed substantial support—almost 30 per cent.—for the status quo. The truth is, we do not know what the result would be and the only way to find out is by putting the options fairly and squarely before the people of Scotland and allowing them to decide.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

We have discussed this before. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he would not choose to have a referendum with three options in which people could answer yes or no? One option could be: "Do you wish Scotland to remain a part of the Union or the United Kingdom?" Is he afraid that because the question is so clear, people may choose to say yes?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not think that anything could be clearer than the options that we propose in the amendments—whether people want no change to the constitutional arrangements, whether they want an independent Scottish Parliament or whether they want a devolved Scottish Parliament. Each option is given parity on the ballot paper and people are asked to judge. I would argue that that is a fair way to put the questions. But if the amendments are carried, if the Government want to address the issue of a multi-option referendum and if we want to reach agreement on a fair representation on the ballot paper, I am sure that that can be negotiated and arranged. The hon. Gentleman should look at what we have suggested and tell me why that is not a fair representation of the positions.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

Having taught modern studies in schools for a long time and having seen the problems faced by people at all levels—right up to those learning about government and political systems at A-level—in understanding a system where the votes are ranked between the first, second and third choices, with the consequential results of the single transferable vote, I think that the complexity involved is more likely to confuse than clarify.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Australia and southern Ireland managed to cope with the complex system of voting. Most people would argue that over the years they have managed to produce reasonable results in terms of forming Governments. To argue against a system of preferential voting that is used in many countries and say that people in Scotland would be unable to cope shows me that when the hon. Gentleman was a modern studies teacher he should have had more faith in his pupils and that he should now have more faith in the people of Scotland.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Has the hon. Gentleman addressed the question of the threshold majority that should be required? Does he agree that in 1978 the number of people who voted amounted to only, I think, 32 per cent.? Does he agree that that showed such a low interest that some threshold is required in relation to the present arrangements?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Not only have I addressed that issue, but I managed to devote a large part of my speech on the guillotine motion yesterday to that point. I told the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—he was not in the Chamber at the time—that I did not think it was a very powerful argument to advance when, on the basis of the total number of the electorate, the Conservative party received 12.5 per cent. of the votes at the election. On the basis of today's opinion poll, the Conservative party's percentage of the total electorate likely to vote in Scotland would be more like 6 per cent. The threshold argument is weak when advanced from the dizzy heights of 6 or 12.5 per cent. of the total electorate. The argument for a threshold—for a fancy franchise and a rigged ballot—is a poor one. It would be far better to allow, if I may use the Scottish parlance, a square go between the various constitutional options—far, far better to put them on the ballot paper in an honest and fair manner and let the people of Scotland decide. The people of Scotland should have the right to decide this matter. I have shared the irritation of many hon. Members at the nature of some of the contributions to this debate from Conservative Members, especially the argument that the people of England are going have to pay for this constitutional exercise in Scotland. If those hon. Members had been involved in the general election campaign in Scotland, perhaps they would have been surprised that one of the matters on which all the parties were agreed was the figures showing a substantial fiscal surplus in Scotland between 1979 and 1995. Those figures were first revealed in a Treasury answer on 13 January this year and all the political parties confirmed them, including the then Secretary of State for Scotland at a press conference.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Rubbish—absolute rubbish.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I hear his former parliamentary private secretary telling me that that is absolute rubbish. On 8 April 1997, The Herald ran the headline: Forsyth accepts that calculations show a net cash flow of £27,000 million to England. Given that, earlier today, Conservative Members suggested to the Prime Minister that if he was misquoted he should have corrected the record, perhaps the then Secretary of State for Scotland should have corrected the record if he felt that he was misquoted during the election campaign. My point is that it is deeply insulting to people in Scotland to conduct the argument on that basis.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

He does not dare.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I am more than generous in giving way to a range of hon. Members. I am not giving way because I want to refer to the nature and quality of the arguments. It is demeaning to argue for a threshold, for a fancy franchise, for a 40 per cent. rule or for a 50 per cent. rule—that is an assault on the democratic process. It is also demeaning and inaccurate of Conservative Members to show their contempt for Scotland and for Wales by the way in which they have addressed some of those arguments over the past 24 hours. All of us have a responsibility to find a method of reaching agreement and of holding a referendum. If we are to consult the people, if we are to offer them a fair chance to express their view and if it is a referendum that is required and not a general election, as has been argued, then surely the case for putting all the options clearly, fairly and squarely before the people on a ballot is unanswerable. Whatever the voting configurations are in the Lobbies later this evening, I know that, in their hearts, most hon. Members know that that is the right thing to do.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I shall be brief, because I have personal reservations about referendums in general. As many hon. Members will know, the referendum device was introduced into our constitution at the end of the 19th century by a man called A. V. Dicey, who openly admitted that he did so with the purpose of blocking home rule for Ireland. In parliamentary terms, he was successful because he did block home rule for Ireland at that time, but that success had grave consequences for the people of that island and for the people of this island with which we have been living ever since. Referendums in general are a conservative measure and are usually introduced by those who want to preserve the constitutional status quo and prevent change of any sort from being introduced by radical reformers. Indeed, promoters of referendums since Mr. Dicey have followed his example. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) claims credit for having secured the 1975 referendum, but he did not do it because he wanted Britain to go into the Common Market; rather he did it for the opposite purpose. Again, in 1979 the referendum on Scottish devolution was promoted by those who wanted to stop devolution—it was the last throw of the dice for those who wanted to stop a Scottish Parliament being set up. By use of the threshold argument, to which Conservative Members have referred, they were successful in stopping devolution at that time and Scotland has paid the price ever since. In general, therefore, I am not a natural supporter of referendums and I do not see the need to hold them, except in certain circumstances where they can be justified. I believe that referendums would have been justified in the circumstances that obtained in Scotland in the aftermath of the 1992 general election, when Scotland clearly voted for parties that had proposed a Scottish Parliament. Three out of four voters in Scotland voted for parties that were offering a Scottish Parliament, but all the voters got was five more years of the Tories, who refused to change the status quo. In those circumstances, it was important to unite the forces for change in Scotland around the one issue that could unite them—the holding of a multi-option referendum, to give the Scottish people the chance to say whether they wanted independence, devolution or the status quo. That campaign was unsuccessful. I am as sorry as anyone else that it was, but the fact that people supported it at that time is not necessarily a reason to expect them to support the holding of a referendum at this point in our history, because there are inherent weaknesses in the multi-option referendum. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) did not discuss the main weakness. It is argued that the majority of people in Scotland support devolution, but that is not necessarily the case. The 9 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland who support the Tories are not the only ones who support the status quo. Some members of the Labour party support the status quo. Some supporters of the Labour party support the status quo.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Name them.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I would be here all night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a joke. [Laughter.] The likelihood is that there would be a three-way split in any such vote. We do not know what the terms of that split would be—perhaps 40 per cent. for devolution, 30 per cent. for independence and 25 per cent. for the status quo. The idea that we should settle the issue by second choices does not encourage me much. If I had to vote in a multi-option referendum, I would put devolution first and independence second, but I would not want independence to be established in Scotland on the basis of my second choice or those of other people. People should positively vote for independence; and if independence is established, it should be established on the basis of a majority, not of second choices. Anything else is a weak position. I have great sympathy with the idea that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan expressed—that we have a mandate to establish a Scottish Parliament and we should get on with doing it. In fact, if I, not my right hon. Friend, were Secretary of State for Scotland, that is what we would be doing.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If the hon. Member cares to look at the results of The Herald poll on the second question published this morning, he will see that the proposed second question in the referendum can be carried with a majority only on the second choices of people who want independence for Scotland. Why is it all right to carry devolution on the second choices of those who want independence, but not to carry independence on the second choices of those who want devolution?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

The Government were given a mandate. The manifesto that the Labour party submitted to the Scottish people at the last general election said that, if elected, Labour would introduce a two-question referendum. The Government are honouring that mandate, and it is a bit much to say that we are being dishonourable by implementing the proposals that we submitted to the Scottish people in a general election, for which they then voted. It is a very honourable position for the Government to take. I accept that a yes, yes vote will depend on the support of Scottish National party supporters. I hope that they will understand that if they vote yes, yes we shall get, for the first time in nearly 300 years, a Parliament in Scotland, and that can be only to their advantage. I make no pretence that it will be otherwise. It will be to the advantage of the SNP to have a Parliament in Scotland because, obviously, they will receive far better representation in that Government, under a proportional system, than they possibly could in this Parliament under a first-past-the-post system, and I entirely welcome that. It would be open to a Scottish Parliament to decide to hold a referendum on whatever subject it wished. I accept that and I have no problem with it. However, at this stage in the fight for a Scottish Parliament, it is important to maximise the yes, yes vote. I am sure that the SNP will help.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say, and we are all heartened when a Government honour their manifesto pledges, but is he seriously suggesting that the people of Scotland would rise up and object if the current Government decided to go even further than their manifesto pledge and offer that third option? Does he think that, having been promised 250,000 jobs, people will object if, by chance, 255,000 jobs are created? That is effectively what he is saying. Is he really arguing that people will object if the Government exceed their manifesto commitment?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

The hon. Lady is asking me to agree that the Labour Government should implement the SNP manifesto now that the Labour Government have been elected. Of course that makes no sense. In fact, the SNP manifesto does not propose a multi-option referendum. During the general election, Charter 88 called a democracy day debate, in which all the candidates had to answer questions on democracy. The question came up about Labour's proposals for a two-question referendum, and the SNP candidate who stood against me gave an assurance from the platform during the election that, if elected, the SNP would hold a multi-option referendum and stand by the result. I took that to be SNP policy until today, when I examined the SNP general election manifesto. It shows a picture of Fergus Ewing—described as the "Cabinet Chief Secretary". [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is, but the manifesto said what would happen if the SNP had won the last general election in Scotland: After the election of a majority of SNP MPs, the SNP will immediately initiate negotiations for independence with the UK Government"— and with the European Parliament. At the conclusion of this period (which is likely to take between six and twelve months) the people of Scotland will be asked to approve the 'independence settlement' in a simple one question referendum. 5.15 pm So the commitment in the SNP manifesto was a simple one question referendum", and SNP Members should not say tonight that a two-question referendum is unfair and undemocratic when they have just fought a general election on the platform of a one-question referendum.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There is an exact parallel—that of a Labour Government receiving a mandate to pass devolution legislation and putting that, after parliamentary agreement, to the people in a post-legislative referendum. However, the Labour Government have not done that. They have said that the general election did not decide these issues, and Ministers argue that the people must be consulted. If the people are to be consulted, why not on independence?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

The hon. Gentleman argued earlier that if the Labour Government had simply set up a Scottish Parliament, he would have accepted that. He also said that if there is any test of opinion, it must be a fair test of opinion and it must be a multi-option referendum, yet he intended to test the opinion of the Scottish people in a one-question referendum if the SNP had won the last general election. It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of changing his position on the referendum issue when the SNP has changed its in the space of a month, since the general election.

Tommy Graham (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly every member of the Labour party in Scotland supported devolution but did not support separatism? We told the people of Scotland that we wanted a Scottish Parliament along the lines of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We did not hoodwink or kid the folk that we would lead them down the road of separatism. Why should we listen when the SNP tell us to follow its separatism policies, which we did not fight the general election on?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about a general election mandate, and part of the Labour Government's mandate was that they should go ahead with the two-question referendum. It was in the manifesto and was spoken about at all the public meetings in all the constituencies in Scotland by all the candidates. In fact, they were fiercely attacked by the SNP and by others for adopting such a position. In the event, the voters voted for us, and it should not be regarded as dishonourable or objectionable for the Labour Government to honour their manifesto commitment to introduce a referendum with two questions. I realised the dangers of the second question more than anything during the brief period that I spent on the Labour Front Bench. I believe that it is a very weak position to put the second question to the people in a referendum. If this Parliament were to hold a referendum throughout the United Kingdom seeking the right to vary taxation throughout the UK, I doubt that a majority of UK taxpayers would give Parliament the power to vary taxation in the way in which the Tories did in the last Parliament. We must overcome that difficulty. We have a fight on our hands to win two yes votes in the referendum in September. I do not mean this insultingly, but the Tory party in Parliament is irrelevant to the contest in September. We need to unite behind a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, and then the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the SNP will be even better placed to argue the case than they are at the moment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is a great honour for me to address the House for the first time, as the first elected Member for Vale of York. I hope that hon. Members will consider this a good opportunity for me to pay tribute to my predecessors, one of whom is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Another is the shadow Minister for local government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the third is my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the fourth is the former Member for Harrogate, Mr. Robert Banks. I hope that colleagues will not feel that I am insisting that it takes one woman to do the work of four men. My predecessors have paved the way for me to take over in a smooth transition as the first Member for Vale of York. In addition to his work as the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks did great work in north Yorkshire, especially among the farming community, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon in his previous capacity at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Hon. Members will recall that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has largely been in connection with racecourses throughout Great Britain, including Scotland and Wales, and not least in my own constituency of Thirsk. Sadly, the former hon. Member for Harrogate retired at the last election. He will be remembered for the sterling work that he did for his constituency, and for the work that he did as a man of great integrity in our relations with Sudan. I am a Scot by birth and a Scottish advocate by profession, albeit non-practising at present. I am proud to have had the benefit of a Yorkshire education. It may not be that of, say, Fettes college, but I am proud to have been educated at Harrogate college in north Yorkshire and subsequently at the university of Edinburgh. I am exceedingly attached to my Scottish roots, which I consider to be firmly established in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I shall say a few words about my constituency. The Vale of York is a special place with special people in it. I have referred to four of our number. My predecessors also include the present European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan. Other well-known residents of my home town, Thirsk, were Thomas Lord who, as hon. Members will recall, was the founding member of Lord's cricket ground, and Alf Wight—another Scot—perhaps better known for his contribution to animals as James Herriot. All those honourable people have made special contributions to the life of the Vale of York, as I hope to do in my capacity as the first elected Member. The geographic heart of my constituency is Helperby, but the population is based on the very pretty market towns of Bedale, Boroughbridge, Thirsk and Easingwold, as well as north York. I turn to the business in question. On amendment No. 71, I have great difficulty in understanding the need for such an amendment and in supporting it. I query the relevance of drawing on the experience of Newfoundland and Australia, unless the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is suggesting that the Scots who live there made a contribution there from which those of us now living in England can learn. I have a letter from a constituent who is extremely concerned that those of us Scots who are now resident in England will not have a vote in the referendum. He writes: I and tens of thousands of expatriate Scots, if not more, will not be enfranchised, nor would the expatriate Welsh. I hope that hon. Members will consider that no less relevant than the amendment. I have great difficulty in sharing the philosophy of the Government and other Opposition Members with whom I share a Bench. They conclude from the result of the general election that we have a mandate from the Scottish people and the Welsh people—albeit those who happen to live within the borders of Scotland and Wales—on the question of a referendum. In my humble experience in my first parliamentary term, we fight general elections not on constitutional issues, of which the Bill forms a part, but on domestic issues such as education—for example, assisted places such as those that were enjoyed by hon. Members at Fettes college—health and law and order. I shall look forward with great anticipation to the referendum campaign, to see whether there is a sufficient majority of the Scottish and Welsh people in favour of the referendum, before we proceed further. On clause 1, I am treading on new ground as a new Member, but I have serious reservations about substantive procedural points in the Bill being dealt with by Order in Council. Perhaps the Government could put me out of my misery by enlightening me. One of the reasons why I sought to be the first Member of Parliament for Vale of York was that I believe that there should be proper scrutiny in the House through primary legislation. As secondary legislation, an Order in Council is not an appropriate instrument for the consideration of issues of a constitutional nature. They should be dealt with on the Floor of the House, not in Committee, in the form of a primary Bill enabling us to scrutinise draft legislation. We can draw parallels with the European legislation that appears before the House as secondary legislation. I seek an explanation as to why the Government consider it appropriate to proceed by way of Order in Council, which I do not consider to be an appropriate instrument to use on this occasion. I believe that it infringes the heart of parliamentary sovereignty, which the Opposition hold dear. Returning to the Vale of York, I invite the Government to consider one point. Perhaps we could have a future referendum on how Scottish Power will transfer electricity. The Government will have to reach a view on whether a new line of pylons should be built in the Vale of York. It would be more appropriate to use any so-called windfall tax to put electricity wires underground, rather than carrying them in pylon form. Would the Government consider a referendum on the matter? Finally, if the outcome of a referendum in Scotland was clearly in favour of devolution, would the post of Secretary of State for Scotland disappear? Who in Parliament would take subsequent decisions?

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

It has been the tradition in the House to welcome maiden speeches, but I do so now out of more than perfunctory politeness. I do not think that I have ever met the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), but I warmly congratulate her on using her maiden speech to make pertinent observations on the topic in hand. When I came into the House, it was the tradition that every maiden speech was devoted to the subject being discussed on the Floor of the House. That, alas, has rather ceased to be the tradition. It is an old tradition to which the hon. Lady returned with something pertinent and worthwhile to say. It is not for me to judge the content of her contribution to the debate, but she should be applauded by all of us for having thought about the subject under discussion and for making a highly relevant contribution. Maiden speeches are not always welcome on guillotine motions, but no one can accuse her of not treating the guillotine properly or of abusing the time of the House. She also has a locus in this matter, in that she is a graduate of the university of Edinburgh. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to hearing her speak on many future occasions. I am tempted to break the habit of a lifetime and to vote for an SNP amendment, because it has the benefit of seeming transparency. Some of us believe that once an Assembly or Parliament is established, we shall be on a motorway with no exit to something that is indistinguishable either from federalism or from an independent Scottish state. For us, then, transparency has many attractions. It will however perhaps come as a relief to the leader of the SNP, my constituent, to discover that I will not be voting with his party this evening. I strongly believe that referendums should be about only concrete, definite proposals. It is wrong to have a general referendum on independence without knowing the exact terms of that independence. Independence involves divorce, and divorces can be messy. We are entitled to know the terms of the divorce settlement in the case of England and Scotland before we have a referendum on independence.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this on a number of occasions. It is why, under my party's proposals, the referendum would be held after a negotiated settlement once the exact terms of the proposals were available. The hon. Gentleman will understand that our amendment today cannot follow that line because it deals with a referendum that the Government want to hold in September. So the fault of holding the referendum before the legislation is the Government's, not mine.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

It would be silly of me to say that I did not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, given what I have said before. I just thought I would explain why I will not be in the Lobby with him, greatly tempted though I was.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I begin by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her excellent maiden speech. I hope that she will forgive me if I do not say more than that, much as I would like to expand on my compliments. The time left for this debate goes to show the absurdity of the straitjacket in which the Government have placed us. We have to vote at 6 o'clock on the most important single issue to be debated on this Bill. Many of the Back Benchers who would have liked to take part will not have had the chance to do so by then. Time is so limited that we are having to vote only on an amendment which is rather confusing and which would produce a confused result. I shall confine my brief remarks to amendments Nos. 97 and 99, the latter being the substantive one. It details a third question to put before the people of Scotland, taking up the wording that the Government have deployed for the other two questions: "I AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM I DO NOT AGREE THAT SCOTLAND SHOULD REMAIN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM". The great virtue of the amendment and the question is that there is nothing incompatible about a voter saying that he or she wants a Scottish Parliament and that he or she wants to affirm the unity of the United Kingdom. I have always made the preservation of the United Kingdom my greatest aim. That is why I took an active part in the devolution debates of the 1970s. I would argue from a rather different position this evening if Parliament were finely balanced and if it were likely that the Government could be defeated. But I accept that the Government's majority will not be overturned; I also accept that we are in a weak position following the general election, there being no Scottish Conservative Members. I therefore want to test the Government's resolve. The Secretary of State has often proclaimed his personal belief in the integrity of the United Kingdom. I must therefore ask him how the amendment can fail to strengthen his cause and the cause of others who believe in the United Kingdom. It merely gives those who go to the polls in September the opportunity to put a cross in a third box. Some people may say that they want a Parliament but not with tax-raising powers. They may also want to remain part of the United Kingdom. If 78 or 80 per cent. want to remain a part of it, as the recent general election seemed to show, such a vote would represent a massive positive affirmation. If, on the other hand, people voted in favour of Scotland not remaining part of the United Kingdom, I would deplore and regret that—but at least we would know where we were going. It is after all important to know that. That is why, on this one specific issue, I have always made common cause with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues, who wish to test support for independence. That is precisely what the amendment would do. I shall want to campaign vigorously on the issue. Indeed, any Member of the UK Parliament has the right to campaign in Scotland on the referendum and to support the idea of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. If we are successful, perhaps many of the dangers that we have forecast will be lessened—but setting up a Scottish Parliament on the basis of the referendum questions proposed in the Bill would leave the whole issue wide open. Many of those who vote for a Scottish Parliament in a two-question referendum will be those who support the SNP line, but there will be no way, as things stand, of knowing whether they support that line or the Government line. As the Secretary of State knows, I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament—but I want it to succeed and not to lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I therefore beg the Secretary of State even at this late stage to accept the logic of what I am saying and to introduce an amendment similar to mine in another place. We will not have the chance to vote on this question here tonight, a fact which I regret, but it is certainly right that the other place should examine the Bill in minute detail. It should not filibuster or hold up the Bill—it will not do so—and I hope that no accusations will be levelled at their lordships if they do examine the Bill in detail. I am not one to suggest that the Salisbury convention should be flouted or overturned; I do not think that it would be if, in another place, an amendment along these lines were accepted. The Commons would then have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the Lords in the said amendment. I ask the Secretary of State to take the initiative and to table an amendment along these lines in another place. That will give him the satisfaction of knowing that his devotion to the United Kingdom can be supported by a large majority of those who go to the polls in September.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It is always a pleasure to see another part of the Scottish diaspora appearing in the House. I do not know the hon. Lady personally, but I do know that she is the Member of the European Parliament for the constituency of Essex North and Suffolk South. It seems that her appetite for politics is insatiable. She certainly has a remarkable geographical range, and I congratulate her on her ambition. She made a good speech—there is no doubt about that. It was not made in a particularly distinctive Scottish accent, but that was possibly the impact of Harrogate in earlier and better years. The hon. Lady showed a very lively style and made many pertinent points, but I will take some slight revenge on her, because she made the mistake of asking a fairly technical question about Orders in Council. I can assure her that they will have to be considered by the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, and she will have every opportunity to take part in that debate. I must also tell the hon. Lady—here I visibly preen myself on behalf of the Government—that we have, of course, produced the Orders in Council in draft form, and they are in the Library now. Perhaps she will want to rush down there in just a few minutes to prepare her various recommendations and pleas about possible alterations, but I am sure that she will not—she is far too sensible. The Orders in Council are important, even though they might be described as crossing the t's and dotting the i's, as they deal with the small change to the mechanics of the referendum process. The hon. Lady is extremely welcome in the House. I suspect that I shall hear her on many occasions, particularly if she is pressed into service as a kind of bearer or bag carrier for whoever is unfortunate enough to be shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. She is obviously well qualified by her Scottish antecedents.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

My right hon. Friend mentioned the referendum process. As this will be the last opportunity to raise the issue on this clause, and possibly on clause 2, will he confirm that the results of the local counts will be publicly announced in Wales and Scotland as they were in 1979?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

My understanding is that the global result will be announced publicly, and that is the one that counts, as it is the ultimate decision-making total. We hope to be able to announce the Scottish count—I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot speak about the detail for Wales—on the night, which is a change from what happened in 1979.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

What about locally?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

We also expect the local government area counts to become available. That is right. I hope that that is of some help.

Ray Michie (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

rose—

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I recognise that the hon. Lady will want to talk to me about the problems of Argyll and Bute. We shall consult her constituents. Perhaps the modern miracle of a helicopter will have to be brought into play in order to achieve this, but it will not amount to "Apocalypse Now".

Ray Michie (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is a big problem. We shall not be able to afford to have helicopters flying at night unless the Secretary of State comes up with the funding.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I did say that it is an ambition. I am very well aware of the dangers of making of-the-cuff gifts, even to someone as charming as the hon. Lady—and that really was sucking up rather horribly. It is an ambition, but it depends on the practicalities. The House would see it as an advantage if it were possible to get the results as early as possible.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

No, I must press on, and I have some respect for hon. Members who may want to get in. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a persistent recidivist on questions of this matter. 5.45 pm I have some things in common with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I sometimes find it a little puzzling to recognise that he is a reasonable man, but I do so quite often. I believe very firmly that we should retain our connections with the rest of the United Kingdom—I speak here from a Scottish point of view—but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a helpful way to achieve that. The hon. Gentleman invites us to put another question on the ballot paper about Scotland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom. The word "integral" is open to many interpretations and might lead to some confusion. Anyway, it seems to me that his view is based to some extent on a misunderstanding: that in some way the devolution settlement would remove Scotland from being an integral part. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but inevitably the question would be seen as an alternative and not a buttressing question. It confuses the situation and it is not one that I would be prepared to endorse. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that my position—his may be different—is that if we have the good health of the United Kingdom in mind, we have to establish that the framework of government is responsive enough to adapt to changing conditions, and to give more direct access to government, not just in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. We do not see this as an isolated move on the part of the Government. Rather it is an important part of a package.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

rose—

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I recognise that it looks rude, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that I am not given to refusing information, but I must push on. This group of amendments would have the effect of providing a multi-option referendum of the kind described by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). This is a serious issue, and I do not underestimate the importance of the debate. The hon. Gentleman made his case in his usual compact style very fairly. I particularly appreciate his recognition that the preferred option, from the vast majority of tests of public opinion, has been a devolution option rather than an independence option. I hasten to say that I do not believe that that means that he cannot continue to ply his trade and push his wares, although I have a rather less optimistic view than he has of his likely success. My essential objection to a multi-option referendum is that it is using the referendum as a way to canvass a range of options. It is a snap poll. It is, in a sense—if one is being a little pejorative, although I do not mean to be—a beauty contest. That is not the stage that we are at, and I do not think that that should be the aim of the referendum. I will give an example, which I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will find persuasive. It is one that he gave me, but I did not recognise it until I heard the exchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is in favour of a multi-option referendum as a general principle, when it comes—if it ever does—to the point where he wishes to implement a specific constitutional scheme, he should put that to the people of Scotland in a single-question referendum to get it endorsed. My view is that we are at that stage now. We are trying to establish consent to a specific scheme and not merely to canvass competing options. If that scheme is rejected in the referendum—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment—I will make one exception—as I am attacking his party. [Interruption.] Well, disputing with his party, perfectly fairly. If we had a rejection in that referendum, obviously we might well be back to the canvassing of options, many of us in a somewhat puzzled and disappointed state. At this stage we have a plan. We have been challenged to establish consent and we are in the business of establishing consent. It seems to me, therefore, that the single-question option is indeed the right one.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The kernel of this point seems to be the publication of the White Paper so that we know in specific detail the contents of the Government's proposal. That is why the multi-option referendum is relevant now, and why a post-legislative referendum—post-independence—would be relevant at that stage. The kernel is the publication of the White Paper, and that is not evident from the debate today.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

There were some spirited exchanges on that subject earlier today and I seem to have been talking about it for some time—some might say interminably. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a referendum without a White Paper setting out the scheme would be a very odd exercise indeed. We have already made it clear that we intend to publish the White Paper before the House gets up for the summer recess. I hope that that would give plenty of opportunity for people to study it. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the essential differences between his position and mine—as, I believe, is Scotland at the end of the day. There is a misconception about the stage that we are at and what we are trying to achieve. It is the distinction, the endorsement of a specific proposal, that conditions and dictates the subject matter of the referendum. I recognise that that is a matter about which we will disagree, but it seems to be a sensible approach. With all respect to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I was not desperately impressed by some of his arguments, although he put them neatly, as I said. I well remember 28 April 1992: it was probably from the top of an open-top bus in George square in the driving rain, I suspect—at any event, I remember that period, but it was in the very different context of a Government who had been badly defeated in Scotland, who were clearly not listening to the opinion of the Scottish people and who, collectively, were as deaf as a post. In those circumstances, we thought that a test of public opinion of a more general sort had some merit, although we could not persuade the then Government of that. We are now in the very different circumstances that I have outlined, so my position is consistent and justified. I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman into international comparisons, although I am always intrigued by the hard work put in by the Scottish National party, looking at the most obscure—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted that.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Australia.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I know that the hon. Lady comes from Australia. She is so proud of her Australian roots that it is almost a pity that she left them. However, that is not a point that I would push because she entertains us greatly now that she is here. However, I was merely referring to Newfoundland. I remember two interesting passages in Greenland's constitution being illuminated recently by the hon. Gentleman. I should plead guilty because I can remember boring the House on one occasion with some interesting information about poll tax referendums in various obscure parts of Canada. We all do it on occasion, but it is not relevant. I have made the main points that I want to make about the context and the aim, and in the interests of the House I shall leave the matter there. The referendum is directly linked to delivery. I spent 20 years of my political life—perhaps more than that—arguing the pros and cons, the difficulties, advantages and opportunities of the matter. We have now got to the point where we can make progress. However, we need to settle the issue of content. The referendum is a good way to do that. I never quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, but can I say to him gently that we are cracking on at some speed with these matters. He may just have caught a note of dissent from the Conservative Benches on the timetable that we have adopted and the speed at which we are moving. That is because we are determined to maintain momentum and progress. It is very much a matter of action this day. If the Bill completes its progress successfully today and goes on to another place and, I hope, safely to the statute book, we will allow the people of Scotland to have their say and to endorse or not endorse—I cannot be blindly confident about the outcome. Clearly, the opinion polls in today's press are immensely encouraging. I agree that we have to work, but above all we must trust the people to reach the decision that they want. I very much hope that they will give us the momentum and moral authority to bring forward and complete one of the most exciting reforms in British constitutional history this century.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I understand the urgency with which the Secretary of State will bring forward the White Paper. It might be helpful if he were to consider attaching a draft Bill to it so that we could see all the details. I understand that that is something that the Government are considering doing in relation to certain White Papers and it might be useful on this occasion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on an excellent maiden speech. I am delighted that even if the Conservative party has no Scottish Members of Parliament we now have as many Scottish advocates as the Labour party and more than any other party. It was an excellent speech and we look forward to hearing many more from her. The Conservative party is in a difficult position because we agree with the principle that there should be a multi-option question, where three relevant questions should be posed. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, however, we have an amendment which goes much further than that and suggests that an order of preference should be built into that multi-option question. I do not often find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), but I do agree that to decide such constitutional matters on second or third preference is fairly dangerous. We support the principle because at present the Bill contains two questions—whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or not. Those who vote for a Scottish Parliament could do so for two very different reasons. The Government will campaign and vote for it because, as they have often said, they believe that it will buttress the Union. Nationalists in Scotland have made it clear that they will vote for it because they think that it will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. There are thus two completely different and opposite reasons for voting for the same option. That is a dangerous basis on which to say that there is a mandate to take this matter forward and then to take legislation forward. I clearly remember that after the last referendum we had arguments which lasted for a long time, which were rehearsed yesterday in the House, about non-voters and whether they should be taken as yes voters or no voters and what that meant in terms of the outcome. The idea that there could be a yes vote for a Scottish Parliament which could be based on the views of those who wish to maintain a United Kingdom and those who wish to break it up is a dangerous precedent. It is for that reason that I say that we would have supported the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Both had amendments which clearly would have enabled the Scottish people to decide between three options—independence, a devolved Parliament in Scotland, or the status quo. Those are the real questions that should be asked, but as they are not available to us in the amendment on which we are about to vote, the Opposition spokesmen will abstain.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have had an interesting debate, constrained by the time available, but none the less a number of important points have been made. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her maiden speech. She said that we must not think that she would replace all four of her predecessors. Having known her four predecessors and having listened to her excellent maiden speech, I am sure that she has a good chance of effectively replacing all four of her predecessors and we look forward to more contributions from her. I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) announce to the House that in principle Conservatives are in favour of the amendments and a multi-option referendum. That comes as a surprise to some of us. We have been waiting for the past 18 years to see some sign of that. None the less, we must accept that this is something of a breakthrough. It is the first indication during the past four weeks that Conservative Front-Bench Members have listened to the Scottish electorate's verdict. We now have it on the record that, in principle, the Conservative party is in favour of a multi-option referendum. It is rather weak to say that things should have been done differently. Preferential voting is widely used internationally. It is not confusing or difficult. There are, if necessary, other ways to do it. Newfoundland had two referendums in successive weeks. The French managed to find their way through a similar arrangement and elect a Government. If there are at least three positions, it is only fair to put them on the ballot paper. I welcome the Conservative party's conversion in principle, but I regret that that principle does not seem to want to take Conservative Members into the Lobby in a few minutes' time. The Secretary of State for Scotland criticises me for using international examples. He also criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). Given that he once told me that he did not obtain a passport until the age of 50, I regard my international examples as important and relevant to the debate. The Secretary of State said that we spoke on open-deck buses. I do not remember speaking with the Secretary of State on open-deck buses, but I do remember speaking with the Minister of State on an open-deck bus in front of 25,000 people in the Meadows in 1992, articulating the case for this sort of referendum in Scotland. I see the Minister nodding assent. The Secretary of State has given a number of reasons why what might have been relevant in 1992 is not relevant in 1997. The basic change is that in 1992 the Labour party was in opposition and in 1997 it is in government. The right hon. Member for Devizes is in a similar position. If our proposal is right in principle—if it is right to put forward all the constitutional options to the people of Scotland—surely the amendments, which are clear, are worth supporting in the Lobby. I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). If he examines amendments Nos. 72 to 77—all six are necessary in order to rearrange the ballot paper—I think that he will then find that the options are being put forward in a perfectly fair and reasonable way. I see as the crux of the debate the fact that the Government do not seem to have realised that they are offering a multi-option referendum. In their two questions, they are offering a multi-option referendum between the status quo, a Parliament with tax-varying powers and a Parliament without tax-varying powers. The difficulty with their multi-option referendum is that they offer the wrong options—the status quo has been widely discredited and a Parliament with no tax-varying powers is not supported by any substantial body of opinion. Would it not be fairer, more democratic and infinitely more satisfactory if the House were to find within itself the wisdom, just for once, to give Scots a genuine right of self-determination—the right to determine our future by making available to us all the constitutional options facing the nation? It cannot be said by any hon. Member that there is not significant support in Scotland for the concept and the objective of an independent country. That option, therefore, should be on the ballot paper, along with all the other constitutional options.

Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West)

On a point of order, Sir Alan. It arises out of the previous Division, and the conduct of Divisions in the House in the entirely unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves. According to "Erskine May", Under Standing Order No. 39, if the Speaker or the Chairman considers that a division is unnecessarily claimed, he may, after the lapse of two minutes, take the vote of the House or committee by calling upon the Members who support and those who challenge his decision successively to rise in their places; and he thereupon, as he may think fit, either declares the determination of the House or the committee or names tellers for a division. That provision allows votes to be taken without the ritual of going through the Division Lobbies. Although it has been used rarely in the past, in the present situation, when the results of Divisions are entirely predictable—the result of one was 400 to 45, and another looks likely to be similar—for the sake of efficient running of the House and use of Members' time, it would be reasonable for us to consider using that provision on certain occasions.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. Thank you for exercising your duties in the Chair so as to recognise the fact that the Division was not unnecessarily claimed, and was a very proper expression of opinion by hon. Members in the Committee. The procedure described should not be invoked as an alternative to a proper review of the voting system in the House, in the light of the new circumstances.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. If Labour Members are concerned about the time that we have to debate the measures before us, perhaps they should have thought twice about applying such a draconian guillotine.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. As someone who has been in the House for many years, I have the impression that the excellent procedure described by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was introduced to stop time being wasted when Members call vote after vote. That is certainly not the case today. Will you also bear in mind the fact that on an issue as vital as devolution, it is desperately important that the people of Scotland and Wales should be able to see for themselves how each Member voted? That would not be possible if the other procedure were used. Do you therefore agree that although it is an excellent procedure, which has to be used on occasion, it should happen only when there is deliberate time wasting?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for giving me notice, albeit short notice, that he intended to raise the matter. I think that Standing Order No. 40 was conceived with different circumstances in mind, and I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he would like to pursue his point, that might be better done through the Procedure Committee. Now, if the Committee is willing, we shall proceed to the next amendment.

REFERENDUM IN WALES

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 7, leave out `propositions' and insert 'options'.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

This bank of amendments allows us to shift the axis of the debate in Wales away from the rather sterile arguments about the status quo and whether we should have constitutional change, to a more intelligent and less confrontational level. Indeed, it would allow us to consult the people of Wales not only on whether they want change but on what kind of change they want. Such an approach is well within the spirit of inclusive politics that has been trumpeted by Welsh Office Ministers since the election, so their response to the debate will be an early sign of whether that new spirit of inclusive politics is meaningful. Once we lift the debate to a different level and concentrate on the powers that any Welsh body will have, we can have a mature discussion on the way ahead. Let me make it clear at this early stage in the debate that this is not simply a party political issue in Wales. There is a range of opinions within parties in Wales about the powers that an elected Welsh body should have. In the last Session of Parliament, the Government of Wales Bill—which called for an elected body with legislative and tax-varying powers—was given a First Reading and received support from all parties. The Bill was proposed by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and sponsored by his Labour colleagues the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). The Bill was also sponsored by the former hon. Member for Montgomery, Alex Carlile, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative former hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, Sir Robert Hicks, was a sponsor, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I on behalf of Plaid Cymru. That clearly showed that there was cross-party support for an elected body with legislative and tax-varying powers. From the opinion polls published in Wales in the run-up to the general election, it is clear to me that of those who favour constitutional change, a substantial majority favour legislative powers and a clear majority favour tax-varying powers. One of the features of this debate that is in marked contrast to the debates of the late 1970s is that sections of the Conservative party in Wales and in Scotland are rethinking their approach to the topic. There was a tradition in the Conservative party of having an open mind on this issue, but that was stifled during the Thatcher years. One can well understand the Conservatives' need for change in the aftermath of the Tory wipe-out in Wales and in Scotland, and it has been refreshing to read the comments from Sir Wyn Roberts in Wales and Malcolm Rifkind in Scotland. How different their approach is from the flat-earthers now occupying much of the Tory Benches.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was not in the interests of the people of Wales for the Government to have fixed the timetable motion so that the group of amendments starting with amendment No. 48—one of which was tabled in my name—has no chance of being debated? One of those amendments would have given the Welsh people the opportunity to vote for exactly the same tax-raising powers as the people of Scotland. It is a great pity that the Government felt that they could not explain why they will not give the Welsh people that option. Does the hon. Member agree that we should appeal to the Government to come out of their shell, be honest and tell the Welsh people why the powers to be offered to Scotland are not to be offered to Wales?

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has strong views on the matter, for raising it in that way. I agree with him, and a number of the amendments grouped with his were tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends. I invite him to look at the wording of amendment No. 68—to which I shall refer later—which may allow him to develop his argument in that context, even if his amendment has not been selected. All the amendments seek to do is to give the people of Wales an opportunity to be consulted on the real choices that face them and to enable the debate to be much more positive. We understand that the Labour party in Wales will want to campaign on its own proposals for an executive Assembly, but widening the options—as the amendments propose—would give the electors an opportunity to listen to all the arguments on constitutional change. 6.45 pm Within this group of amendments, there is the opportunity to support a multi-option referendum. That would be fair, because it would give the people of Wales an opportunity to vote for the programmes put forward by the four political parties in Wales at the last election. Why should the only choice facing the people of Wales be between the status quo and the Labour party's proposals? Why should the Conservative party's programme—which was so decisively rejected by the people of Wales at the general election—have priority on the ballot paper? Its position is preserved, and the people of Wales will yet again have an opportunity to reject the Conservative status quo option. In the circumstances, and given that hon. Members representing seats in Wales come from the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, why should not the option favoured by the Liberal Democrats and my party be on the ballot paper? In the spirit of inclusive politics, the Government should surely take that on board. The group of amendments gives us the opportunity to vote for a multi-option referendum. The hon. Member for Wrexham has stated that had there been sufficient time, there would have been an opportunity to consider other options, including legislative and tax-varying powers. We would have liked an opportunity to have such a debate because we could then have looked at all the available options. There are people in Wales who are asking why Wales should be treated differently from Scotland. Why are the Scots deemed to be mature enough to be allowed to vote for a Parliament with legislative and tax-varying powers, but, for some reason, the people of Wales are not? What difficulties might be created if a Welsh Assembly was established with only secondary, not primary, legislative powers? What would happen if the framework of legislation was set up here in Westminster by a Government of a different political complexion from that running the Assembly? There will be a straitjacket. Members of the Assembly could pass only secondary legislation on the back of primary legislation, which could have been imposed by a Conservative Government in Westminster. If the Assembly wanted to change primary legislation and invited Westminster to do so, what priority would be given in the administrative and legislative logjam at Westminster to legislation sought by a Welsh Assembly? These are questions which could have been answered if we had had an opportunity to widen the referendum question. The group of amendments does not allow us to have a vote specifically on legislative and tax-varying powers as a discrete option, but we may want to divide the Committee on the amendment that would allow Members to vote on the principle of widening the questions. I invite hon. Members to look at amendment No. 68, which proposes to remove the word "propositions" from clause 2(2) and replace it with the word "options". If the Committee supports that amendment, we will be content to leave it at that. In other words, the Committee would have voted for the principle of widening the options. In the spirit of inclusive politics, we would leave it to the Government to decide what second question they would want to add later—perhaps in another place. If the amendment is passed, the Government will need to look at the mood of the debate and the views coming from different parties to see whether there is a general demand for more questions to be included, and what kind of questions they should be. In the spirit of inclusive politics, the Secretary of State would want to consult other parties about the nature of those second or third questions. I hope that those hon. Members present who favour further questions—but who may not want to go all the way and support a multi-option referendum—will feel happy about supporting an amendment that simply looks at the principle. I think that the Secretary of State will realise that there is a strong argument in Wales on the issue of parity with Scotland. It is strong at not only an emotional but a rational level. People simply cannot see the difference between Wales and Scotland on the issue. I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the strength of opinion on the matter, and I know that he and his colleagues will want to carry support across the parties that have a positive attitude to the subject. This is the Government's opportunity to reach out to all shades of opinion in Wales and bring them into the debate in a positive and constructive way. We make this offer to the Government: if they accept the amendment and consult on the second and third question, they will have an opportunity for all shades of opinion to be reflected. I think that that is a reasonable offer.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

Thank you, Mr. Lord, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on a referendum that will decide how Wales is to be governed in the new millennium. I continue a long and proud tradition of Labour representation in the Gower constituency that goes back to 1906 when John Williams was elected as Gower's first Labour Member of Parliament. He was followed by D. R. Grenfell, supported by the South Wales Miners Federation, and then by Ifor Davies. I never knew either D. R. Grenfell or Ifor Davies, but there are a number of people still living in the constituency who remember them both with enormous respect and affection. I did, and do, know my immediate predecessor, Gareth Wardell. He was my Member of Parliament for 13 of the 15 years that he represented Gower in the House. Many of the hon. Members who served alongside Gareth during that time will know much better than I do the contribution that he made in this legislature. From speaking to his colleagues, in particular his fellow Welsh Members, I find that there is clearly enormous respect here for the work that he did, and especially for his willingness and ability to master detailed subjects. Alongside those parliamentary colleagues, people all over Wales have recognised and valued the tremendous job that Gareth did as Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, undauntedly leading investigations into all sorts of aspects of public life in Wales over the years. I know and will remember Gareth best as a superb constituency Member. As a local councillor, I would take constituents to his surgery when I felt that any case needed his involvement. I honestly cannot believe that the concern that he showed for those people or the attention that he gave to seeking solutions to their problems have been surpassed by any hon. Member. I know that Gareth's friends here will join the people of Gower in wishing him all the very best in his return to higher education as head of geography at Trinity college, Carmarthen. I know, partly because I was told it on the doorsteps so many times during April, that I have a very tough act to follow. I intend to do my very best. It is probably not common knowledge this far east, but in south-west Wales the residents of the city of Swansea are nicknamed Jacks, and people who live in Llanelli are called Turks. Most of my constituency lies between those two population centres, which has led some bar-room wits to describe us as half Jack and half Turk—or Jerks, for short. People who talk in that way make a big mistake, first, because such terminology can seriously damage the health in the area that I represent, but, more importantly, because the people of Gower may be many things—indeed, they are many, many things—but a bunch of Jerks they are not. It is a huge privilege to have been elected to represent so beautiful and diverse a constituency as Gower. I am acutely aware of the responsibility that I now carry as its Member of Parliament and I am conscious of the problems that I may well face in the years ahead because of that very diversity. The Gower constituency cannot be described by any stretch of the imagination as a single homogeneous entity. It snuggles around the south-west and north of Dylan Thomas's "ugly, lovely town" of Swansea, and provides the new unitary authority, the city and county of Swansea, with virtually all its rural population. On the face of it, being non-urban seems to be all that the various communities that make up Gower have in common. Starting in the south, Mumbles, where I live, is an old fishing village that developed into a seaside resort and has expanded to become part of Swansea suburbia. Mumbles is currently struggling to revitalise and renew itself, always seeking to conserve and treasure the best of what we have inherited from the past. To the west is the Gower peninsula, which most people think of when the Gower constituency is mentioned. It was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty in the country, and a wonderfully fascinating combination of coast, countryside and estuary for palaeontologists, archaeologists, historians, zoologists, botanists, oceanographers or holidaymakers. Even the peninsula itself can be divided at least into two. South Gower, with its glorious cliffs, caves and sandy beaches, is much more anglicised, even in place names and pronunciations. North Gower, on the Loughor estuary, is equally beautiful in its own way and still holds on to the Welsh language in villages such as Crofty, Llanmorlais and Penclawdd. Penclawdd is, of course, the home of Gower cockle gathering, with the only commercial cockle beds in the country where people can harvest all year, every year, because they refuse to use mechanical drags; they still hand-rake and gather, thereby ensuring a sustainable shell fishery that provides an environmental example for the whole of Europe. South Gower also provides a fine example for sustainable living and community action. Holtsfield is a remarkable collection of wooden chalets in a wonderful woodland setting, just outside the village of Bishopston, where more than 20 families are trying to live in harmony with their beautiful surroundings and the wider community. Unfortunately, a property development company has different ideas. It has bought the land and is seeking to evict those chalet dwellers, who are resisting with enormous resolve and imagination and who have the support of the vast majority of the rest of the population of Bishopston, which was wrongly thought of previously by many people as merely a dormitory village for Swansea commuters. Coming off the peninsula on the North Gower road, one enters Gowerton and begins to meet the community whose recent history is the history of coal, steel and tin. Like the rest of south Wales, it has suffered terribly from the economic decline of, especially, the past two decades. Villages such as Loughor, Pontybrenin, Penllergaer, Penyrheol, Garden Village and Grovesend have over the years melded together around the central village of Gorseinon, but their sense of identity as separate communities remains strong, as I found out during the election campaign when I accused someone from Loughor of living in Gorseinon. She gave me the strong impression that she would much rather have been described as a "Jerk" than as a resident of her neighbouring village. Those communities have learnt, often the hard way, the importance of solidarity to achieve common objectives and to enable fulfilment of individuals. They are strong, Welsh, socialist-minded villages where people and families look out for one another and are prepared fiercely to combat what they perceive as injustice. That is probably even more true of the separate settlements of Pontardulais, Garnswllt, Craig Cefn Parc, Pontlliw, Felindre and Clydach, all directly to the north of Swansea. The tragedy of those communities is that so much of the tremendous talent and quality that exist there has been undervalued and wasted for so long. Very few jobs have come in to replace those lost in mining and steel. Even the small number of manufacturing employers based in the constituency have been shedding jobs in recent years. The decline is reflected in the commercial centres of the larger villages. One has only to walk the main streets of Clydach, Gorseinon or Pontardulais and see the number of empty shops and charity shops to understand why the posters declaring "Britain is booming" that sprouted this spring seemed like a sick joke to people who live there. 7 pm The different parts of Gower vary enormously because of geology, geography, history and relative wealth, yet there is much that unites us wherever we live in Gower, as became clear to me during the general election campaign. First, in every part of the constituency there is still a sense of community, an acceptance that we are responsible one for another; a belief that there is such thing as society. Secondly, many of the concerns are the same in the different communities. In every part of Gower, there is equal concern for improving our schools and colleges, rebuilding our national health service, protecting our environment and providing jobs for our young people and the long-term unemployed. When we come to ask the people of Gower, and of the rest of Wales, to vote for the creation of a Welsh Assembly, those same concerns will still be at the top of those people's minds. I believe that there are enormously powerful constitutional and democratic arguments for making the Welsh Office accountable at last to the people of Wales. Those arguments are even stronger when we consider the might of the quangocracy that has grown up in Wales over the past decade and a half. However, I do not believe that it will be those arguments in the main that will win us the referendum in my constituency or across Wales. People will vote yes if they are persuaded that a democratic Welsh Assembly will provide a vehicle for creating a first-class education system for all our children; if they believe that our Assembly will play a central role in developing a national health service in Wales that can and will deliver quality treatment and care whenever they need it; if they are convinced that a Welsh Assembly can ensure that environmental protection will be at the heart of all policy-making in Wales in the new millennium; if we can show them that our Welsh Assembly—their Welsh Assembly—will be an engine for harnessing the skills and talents of the population of our country, to regenerate our economy and create decent jobs for our people. We must prove that democracy in the form of a Welsh Assembly is not merely a nice idea if we can afford it, but an essential, practical mechanism for improving the quality of life of the people of Wales. I am sure that we will. Tempting as is the amendment so eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), it is time for the Labour Government to carry out their pledge to offer the people of Wales the chance to vote to create the sort of Assembly described in our manifesto. It is time for the democratic debate to move on, to engage with the people of Wales. It is time for all of us who believe that extending democratic accountability in Wales can and will help deliver the goods on education, health, the environment and jobs to prepare ourselves for the task of campaigning to secure a massive yes vote in the autumn.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent maiden speech. It is a test of a maiden speech as to whether one can mention all the villages and communities in one's constituency. I know his constituency well, and he had a jolly good go. My paternal grandmother, a redoubtable Welsh speaker who hailed from Alltwen, took me to Penclawdd when I was three or four to pick cockles. That has been etched on my mind ever since. People still do that in almost the same way, but one no longer sees donkeys there. He has a wonderful constituency to which he paid good tribute, as he did to his redoubtable predecessor, Gareth Wardell, who did a superb job as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Amendment No. 68 deals with multi-options. In theory, it is very attractive. If Wales had a multi-option referendum, there would be four choices. First, there would be the Government's proposals. Secondly, we would have the Liberal Democrat proposals for legislative and tax-varying powers, and a more thorough system of proportional representation, although we hope that that may be proposed in the Government's White Paper. Certainly, we favour a federal solution for Wales, which is an entirely logical way of proceeding towards the unity of the United Kingdom and a successful legislature. Thirdly, there are Plaid Cymru's proposals for an independent Wales in Europe. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved his amendment well, and that option would appear on a multi-choice ballot paper. Finally, there is the status quo, which was wiped off the map in the general election. That view has been defeated. As we have heard, some members of the Conservative party in Wales are having a rapid rethink, going back to the drawing board and saying that perhaps, after all, there is a possibility of meaningful government in Wales with devolution. I believe that more still will do so before the referendum is put to the Welsh people. Clearly, this is a complex situation. We are trying to maximise support for a Welsh Assembly. Perhaps the choices should include a question asking people whether they favour a Welsh Assembly, and if so, what option they favour. It might be more logical to go about it that way. We did not have a constitutional convention in Wales, which I regret. I approached the Labour party five years ago on two occasions to ask whether it was possible. I know that the former Member for Montgomery, Alex Carlile, did the same. We did not have the benefit of what they had in Scotland to have a proper debate. It would have been helpful, because the debates on the Scottish referendum have shown that there is perhaps a greater unanimity of purpose. It is certainly not the Liberal Democrats' purpose in Wales to frustrate the Government's efforts to create a Welsh Assembly. Polls before the general election showed that the Liberal Democrat federal proposals for tax-varying and legislative powers were the most popular options among people who favour a Welsh Assembly.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman has more than once spoken of a federal situation. Will he spell out his idea of a federation? We know that Plaid Cymru's patriotism is based on resentment of the English. That is why it put forward the proposition of a Wales in Europe. It does not want a Wales in Britain. What is the Liberal Democrat policy on the federal idea?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is helpful. As 20 to 25 per cent. of the population of Wales originates from the other side of Offa's dyke, if we are to win the referendum, we must get everyone, of whatever origin, to support a yes vote. We should not go down the path that he offers. He asked what a true federal situation was. I can spell that out simply. In a federal Britain, the functions of the Welsh Office should reside with the people of Wales. That means that primary legislation that could affect those functions should be possible. Other functions in a federal Britain should be operated from a United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster. Those functions could be defence, macro-economic policy, foreign policy and other matters of wider impact. Other functions could operate on a European scale—for example, the environment, where problems of environmental degradation know no boundaries. All those scenarios are entirely logical. There are plenty of examples around the world, including Canada, Australia and the United States, of countries that operate successfully under a federal system.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

The hon. Gentleman said that one of the responsibilities of this Parliament would be macro-economic policy. Surely the Liberal Democrat party supports a federal Europe and a single currency. If that is the case, does he recognise that macro-economic policy in a federal Europe would be in the hands not of the United Kingdom Government but of the European central bank?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall leave those questions for the contenders in the Tory party leadership contest. The hon. Gentleman opens up a big debate, and I shall not be led down that path. In a multi-choice referendum, we could end up with just two questions such as, "Do you favour the status quo?" and, "Do you favour independence?" We hear Conservatives debating that situation ad infinitum, as if those were the only two choices that existed. Of course, there is a coalition of view elsewhere that we need a Welsh Assembly in order to achieve devolution. Such an Assembly is a much more constructive way of going forward and of achieving meaningful and effective government within Wales. I have some sympathy with the multi-option referendum. It has been referred to as a preferendum. It is inclusive. People could vote for their own options and still produce an overall majority in favour of a Welsh Assembly. However, people in Wales must be united, especially at this time. They require leadership. I and my party are determined not to let slip this opportunity. We must combine across party boundaries to secure a yes vote in the referendum. That referendum is coming soon—in September. We do not have time to consider the possibilities of a multi-option referendum. That would delay a straightforward vote on whether Wales needs an Assembly and whether people in general want it. We have to remember that, although many of us fervently back the creation of a Welsh Assembly, many aspects of constitutional reform do not interest all the people of Wales. People look on it as an academic exercise. They just know that they are in favour of devolution. The individual powers of such an assembly, which are important, have to be debated and defined within a Wales Bill. Those of us who have been waiting a long time for a Welsh senedd believe that it is better to proceed with one question. Although we have sympathy with a multi-option referendum, we must achieve a coalition of views in Wales if we are to win the referendum. Now is certainly not the time to hesitate, so we shall not impede the progress of the Bill. The people will decide. The options can be considered later when the Wales Bill goes through the House.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on a wonderful and excellent maiden speech. He reminded us not only of the constituency with which many of us are familiar in both campaigning and personal terms, but of the remarkable representation that he follows in the form of Gareth Wardell. I also knew Ifor Davies as a Member of Parliament and a Minister in the Welsh Office in the 1960s. My hon. Friend said that he had a hard act to follow. I think we all agree that he has made an excellent start. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved the amendment. I recently read some internal memos and documents from the late 1950s on the development of Welsh administration and on Welsh constitutional change. In minute after minute by Mr. Henry Brook, the then Minister for Welsh Affairs, derisory, insulting references were made to the Joneses wanting to keep up with the Macs. I find offensive the notion that we have to follow the Macs; that we cannot devise a set of constitutional arrangements that suit our requirements and meet the needs and aspirations of Welsh people; the carping belief that we must follow some other model, which may or may not be suitable to another part of the country. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn argued that because the Scots seek to do one thing, we have to follow them. That shows a curious inferiority complex. We should devise our own means and methods of constitutional change. The hon. Gentleman also observed that all the votes except the Tory votes added up to a vote for constitutional change. I would like to believe it, because it would mean that 78 per cent. of the electorate in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney voted for devolution. I do not believe that that is the case. So one should not invoke the argument that the result of the general election was a massive mandate for a Welsh Assembly. That is why we decided to hold a referendum, to test public opinion separately.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Given that the general election did not reflect the attitude of the people of Merthyr or elsewhere to the constitutional proposals that the Government may make in a White Paper in due course, how can the Government or the hon. Gentleman say that only one constitutional proposal, rather than the full range supported by the various parties at the election, can be put to the people of Wales?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

The vast majority of people in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney voted for a Labour Government. They did not vote for an option promoted by the nationalists, who polled only about 2,300 votes. So the notion that the nationalist option should be included on the ballot paper is not supported by the experience in my constituency or in the rest of Wales. I put it to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that I sense a degree of ambivalence even towards a Welsh Assembly within Welsh communities. While opinion has changed, my own political instinct—I speak only for my own communities, not for anyone else's—is that if the prospect of a tax-raising, legislative Parliament is actively promoted during the referendum campaign or in any other discussion, the anti vote will grow. There will be alienation and a feeling that the Assembly will not be a measure of devolution such as we have promised during the past X years. The prospect of a tax-raising Parliament would lead not to a stronger vote for devolution, but to a stronger no vote. In terms of practical politics, it would increase the scepticism, if not the opposition to the principle of devolution. I do not support the amendment. Two things have changed public opinion in the past 18 years. First, people have seen for 18 years an unrepresentative Government determining Welsh affairs. We have had Secretaries of State who did not understand, feel or appreciate Wales. They all made an effort, but most of them did not have a feeling for Wales and did not have the democratic mandate of the Welsh people to implement their policies. The second contributory factor that has shifted public opinion in favour of our devolution proposals is the growing revulsion for the quango state, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower so eloquently described. That state offends the instinctive democratic instincts of the Welsh people. They have found the huge number of political appointments increasingly offensive. Because of that, it is far more important than any option about tax-raising or legislative powers that our White Paper and our subsequent devolution Bill should include the power to bring to an end decisively the quango state. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench heed those remarks. I am concerned that we appear to be fudging the issue when we say that a Welsh Assembly may at some future date deal with the quango state. It was created by primary legislation passed by the House and it is the job of the Westminster Parliament to dismantle it. If we address that need directly in our White Paper and the devolution Bill, we shall appeal powerfully to the Welsh people. If they vote yes on that basis, they will know that they are voting for the dismantling of the quango state rather than for that possibility to be referred to a future Welsh Assembly. I stress again to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is vital that the White Paper states our intention to do that and that our Bill contains the necessary power to do so. Our rhetoric about the quango state must be matched by our legislative action in the autumn.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Would my hon. Friend care to carry his argument a little further? Many of the quangos were set up by a Labour Government. However, because the Conservatives could never win seats in local government, they distrusted it—they even went to the extent of abolishing the Greater London council—and they side-stepped Welsh local authorities and gave their powers to quangos. If those quangos were not dismantled prior to the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, I am extremely fearful about whether the powers that would normally have gone to local authorities would ever be given back to them. We would then get not devolution, but evolution upwards from local authorities.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As the basis of our appeal during the referendum campaign, our devolution Bill must guarantee not only the dismantling of the quango state but, wherever possible, the return of powers to local authorities, particularly from housing quangos. We must demonstrate that we shall legislate to dismantle the quango state, because I believe that the growing revulsion towards it has been a major factor in increasing the mood in favour of devolution. I sense that that feeling has grown in the past 18 years. Again, I stress to my colleagues on the Front Bench and elsewhere that we must make the right case for devolution. We must not make exaggerated claims about the Welsh Assembly. We must not talk about the huge number of jobs that may be created as a result of its creation, or those that may be lost if that Assembly is not established. The proper case for our devolution Bill is a fundamental democratic one, based on the need for appropriate Welsh administration. I accept that, in the past, we wanted such Welsh administration and that we set it up deliberately. When one looks at the minutes from the 1950s, there was little Welsh administration, but we built it up with the development of the Welsh Office and the increasing powers of the Secretary of State for Wales. Despite our belief that the Welsh Office should be better scrutinised by a Welsh Assembly, it is accountable, through the Secretary of State, to the House. The quango state is not similarly directly and effectively accountable. We have witnessed growth of a new administration at the Welsh Office and a host of non-departmental bodies, which constitute the quango state. It is their democratic control which will be vital to our campaign for devolution, and not any of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn about the tax-raising and legislative powers of our Parliament.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

Yesterday, our colleagues on the Front Bench stated that if we did not have a Welsh Assembly, thousands of our people would find themselves thrown on the dole. What evidence has my hon. Friend found to substantiate that claim?

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I do not have to take responsibility for the speeches of my colleagues, but I am sure that they will justify that claim. It is extremely important that we make the proper case for the Assembly which can be justified and which will not be received sceptically. The Assembly must not be seen just as another political creation. It must address the instinctive feelings and wishes of the Welsh people, who are against the growth of the quango state. We should appeal to the Welsh people on the need for a directly elected Assembly, which will oversee the dismantling of that state and scrutinise and deliberate on the key issues of the Welsh administration that has developed since the 1960s. We should not campaign on the options that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn wants to include on the ballot paper.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) because I want to address some of his arguments in due course. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his maiden speech. Members from all parts of the Committee were warmed by his comments about Gareth Wardell, who was an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman speak on many future occasions. One theme that the hon. Gentleman stressed in his speech is important to the debate on a multi-option referendum. He is right to say that if we have an elected Assembly or Parliament for Wales, it must be relevant to the people of Wales in their ordinary circumstances. As he said, it must be relevant to education policy, economic policy, jobs and the health service. It must be relevant to those policies, which have been at the heart of Welsh politics down the years. It is those services which, to some extent, have been undermined by the growth of the quango state to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred. Therefore, the question that arises in the context of the comments from the hon. Members for Gower and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is how we can make a difference to the prospects of the ordinary people of Wales, whether they live in Merthyr Tydfil, Gower or Caernarfon. It is our belief that, unless the Assembly or Parliament has adequate powers, it will not be possible to tackle the problems that arise. An example is education policy. We know that the Conservative party tried to privatise education in Wales. We know that from the way in which the Tories introduced nursery vouchers. If there were another Conservative Government, particularly led by one of the right-wing contenders—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I dislike interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing the amendments. The hon. Gentleman is talking in general terms about devolution, but we are talking about a referendum and the amendments related to it.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I shall show you, Mr. Martin, how my remarks are relevant. If we have an Assembly that has nominal responsibility for education, but no legislative power for it in Wales, the reality is that our educational framework will be determined in this Chamber. Unless we have the power in Wales to pass legislation, we may find that in five or 10 years, or whenever we have the misfortune to have a right-wing Tory Government again, we shall be in danger of seeing our legislative framework being determined here. The Assembly in Cardiff will be unable to make a difference, by protecting the people from the privatisation of primary or secondary education. That will be determined by legislative capability.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

rose—

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

No, I will not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman is busy going around the Welsh local authorities advocating the policies of his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench. He is persuading those representatives that Labour's proposal is important and will help those authorities. I am sure that his time will be well cut out for him. During his rounds, he can tell the people in the various local authorities in Cardiff, Rhondda and elsewhere how the educational framework may well veer again to the right unless the Assembly or Parliament has primary law-making powers. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with the model of a Parliament with primary law-making powers, as it would be a body relevant to the problems. 7.30 pm Our multi-option amendment deals with the central question of what the people of Wales want. A year ago, there was not to be a referendum; then, the leader of the Labour party decided, for whatever reason, that there would be one. It was meant to be an inclusive referendum to find out exactly what the people of Wales wanted. Apparently, that is something that cannot be determined at a general election—many other matters can be determined, but apparently not this issue. That being so, we must look at the four options being proposed by the various parties: the status quo, advocated by the Conservatives—or, at least, some Conservatives, as many Welsh Conservatives are thinking again about their party's position; the Assembly, without primary law-making powers, advocated by the Labour party; the federal model, advocated by the Liberal Democrats; and full self-government within Europe, advocated by Plaid Cymru. Apparently, the proportion of support for each of those four models cannot be judged from a general election result. That is the basis on which the Government are putting forward their proposals. What is the support, as far as can be told, for the various models? Based on the NOP and Beaufort polls in Wales last year, it appears that of those who are in favour of, or not against, the concept of an elected Assembly, 71 per cent. are in favour of legislative powers and 69 per cent. in favour of tax-varying powers. If that is true and the people of Wales want an Assembly that has those powers, why are the opportunities to vote for those models being denied in the referendum? If it is a consultative referendum to find out what the people of Wales want, why will they not be allowed a full range of choice? Through our amendment, which allows for a I, 2, 3, 4 vote on the four options, we could find out exactly what the people of Wales want. On that basis, it would then be possible to introduce relevant legislation.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

The central question is how to maximise support for a yes vote in the referendum. As a representative of a party that rather grandiosely and incorrectly describes itself as the party of Wales, the hon. Gentleman should accept that that is the central question. Does he accept that a multi-option referendum would engender confusion and deny that central goal?

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

As was explained in a previous debate, multi-option referendums have been run successfully in other countries. I do not think that the people of Wales have greater difficulty than the people of other countries in comprehending these matters. If it causes the hon. Gentleman a problem—and from what he said it clearly does—we could attack the issue from a different angle. We could have two questions: first, whether people want an Assembly, and secondly, whether people want legislative powers. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tabled an amendment along those lines. It is another way of reaching the same determination. If the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) has difficulty with a 1, 2, 3 transferable vote, it could be overcome in that way. The people of Scotland are being allowed a second question, but the people of Wales are being denied that second question on the legislative powers that we believe to be essential if the Assembly is to be successful.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Gentleman may find my remarks more friendly that he anticipates. Does he find it insulting that not only are the Scots to have two questions and the Welsh only one, but the Scots are to be allowed to vote a whole week or more before the Welsh? I understand that it is an attempt to use the Scottish vote to influence the Welsh.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Until we see the White Paper, we do not know the details of what will happen. However, one aspect of the Government's case is that it is necessary to differentiate between the arguments relevant to Scotland and those relevant to Wales. To that extent, it is a wise precaution to hold the vote on different days, so that there can be a focusing on the issue in the media—given that most of the mass media come from London and are seen in Wales and Scotland alike. If the people of Scotland are being offered a Parliament with law-making and tax-varying powers, which can develop considerable clout within the European Union, it is absolutely essential that Wales has the opportunity to develop those powers as well. The clout of Wales in the EU will be that much stronger if we have a Parliament that can have a credible voice in Brussels. Catalonia and the Lander governments in Germany have successfully developed their prospects within Europe and it is essential that Wales likewise has that opportunity. It is important that when the White Paper is published, we are able to understand exactly what the powers will be, because at the moment it is difficult to reach a decision. However, we know that there are various themes. The Secretary of State has said in the past that the status quo is no option.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

indicated assent.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I note the right hon. Gentleman's agreement. In the referendum proposed for Wales, the status quo is an option. It is the only option being offered other than the Government's policy. The options of Liberal Democrat policy and Plaid Cymru policy will not be offered. The option of a law-making Parliament, which is supported by many members of the Labour party, is not to be put to the people of Wales. Between now and the completion of the Bill's passage through the other place, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look for a vehicle to allow the people of Wales to be genuinely included in a decision-taking mechanism in the referendum. If that is not to be the case and if there is a yes vote, the right hon. Gentleman will have his Assembly and he can build on that. I respect that. But if there is a no vote, it will not be worth the paper it is written on, because the reason for it will be unclear. Was it because people did not want that much power, or was it because they wanted law-making powers and a strong Parliament? The former Welsh Minister, Sir Wyn Roberts, has said that he would vote yes if there was the option of tax-varying powers. Without that second question, a no result would be absolutely meaningless. The Secretary of State must address that aspect. This is a vital debate and it is important that we get it right.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his eloquent maiden speech. He was particularly eloquent in his tribute to his predecessor and in his attachment to his new constituency. We look forward to hearing further speeches from him. I listened to the debate with a certain amount of ambivalence as I heard the arguments in the Scottish debate being put slightly differently in this Welsh debate. It is interesting that in this debate, as in the other, I find myself sympathetic to the proposal to have more than two questions in the referendum. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). He, like me, finds it difficult to be precise in his reaction because without the White Paper we are not certain of the nature of the proposals that will be put to a referendum. I again make the plea that the White Paper is produced in good time. I make the same suggestion to the Secretary of State for Wales that I made to the Secretary of State for Scotland—that in accordance with declarations about future White Papers, he might consider attaching a draft of the Bill to his White Paper so that by the time of the referendum the people of Wales will have a full and clear idea of the detail of the issues. The referendum, as currently set out, contains two questions: whether there should be a Welsh Assembly and whether there should not be a Welsh Assembly. Having listened to this and previous debates, it is clear that various people will vote for a Welsh Assembly for very different reasons. The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that a no vote would be complex; I think that a yes vote would be even more complex. I suspect that some people, such as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), will support an Assembly because they believe that ultimately it will lead to an independent Wales. After all, that is the purpose of their party. They will see it as part of that process and will therefore vote for it. On the other hand, others will vote for a Welsh Assembly—I include the Secretary of State in their number, because I have listened closely to what he said in previous debates—because they believe that it will retain and, indeed, buttress the United Kingdom. Therefore, the so-called maximisation of the vote for an Assembly, referred to by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), will be constructed on two totally contrary purposes. To claim that that is an endorsement on which an Assembly can be built would be dangerous ground on which to build.

Allan Rogers (Labour, Rhondda)

Surely the right hon. Gentleman grasps the point that the issue of an independent Wales has been put in front of the electorate of Wales time after time after time by the Welsh nationalist party and the nationalists have never got more than or even as much as 10 per cent. of the vote. In the last general election, the people of Wales completely rejected the one policy on which the nationalist party stands, so what is the point of putting it in as an option in the referendum?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Doing so would at least underline whether people were voting for an Assembly because they wished it to lead to an independent Wales, or because they wished it not to lead to an independent Wales. That is a relevant question and the only way it can be answered is by having a multi-option question that sets out the issues fairly and firmly. Having said all that, however, I have to point out that because of the guillotine and the way in which it has affected the debate on the amendments, the amendment on which our vote is being sought this evening is not one that fulfils those criteria—it goes further and looks for order of preference to be part of the process. I repeat what I said in the previous debate: the idea that constitutional issues should be decided by second or third preferences would be a novel concept indeed and one that I certainly could not support. On that basis, I say that although I support the principle of the amendment and the reasons why it was tabled, neither I nor my Front-Bench colleagues can vote for the amendment and I cannot ask my Back-Bench colleagues to do so. Nevertheless, a relevant issue has been raised and the Government have to address it. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer the questions raised. If he does, it will be a first because none of his colleagues from either Wales or Scotland has done so in previous debates.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I begin my reply to this good debate by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent speech. It was a model maiden speech—confident, articulate and witty—and I was especially delighted to hear him because we are neighbours in the Swansea valley. We share a road in the socialist village of Trebanos and I was delighted to hear him use that term. I welcome him to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made several telling points and I share his desire to deal with the quango state. The White Paper will address that matter. However, we must not pre-empt the Welsh Assembly and its own obligations to deal with the matter.

Denzil Davies (Labour, Llanelli)

I was reading the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 16 May. He said that the Assembly will have powers to reform the quangos". —[Official Report, 16 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 350.] But having powers to reform the quangos is not the same as the devolution Bill reforming the quangos. Will the Minister give an assurance that the devolution Bill will itself reform many of the quangos and subsume them into the Assembly?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My right hon. Friend makes a similar point to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. The point is an important one, and it will be addressed by the White Paper. When the White Paper is published, they will see what the detailed proposals are. The issue of jobs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). I say frankly that, yes, I do believe that if we do not have a Welsh Assembly, jobs in Wales will be threatened, investment will be threatened and the strength of the Welsh economy will be threatened. Let me explain why. The Scots will get a Scottish Parliament; next year London will get the opportunity to vote for an elected authority; and the regions of England will follow within a matter of years thereafter—the north-east is already pressing hard for an elected authority. Is my hon. Friend really saying that Wales should be the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have a devolved form of government? In those circumstances—especially with the English getting regional economic development agencies—I believe that job prospects in Wales will be threatened if we do not have an Assembly. A Welsh Assembly will give us the power and the authority to reorganise the Welsh economy to protect jobs and, indeed, to increase employment and tackle unemployment.

Llew Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent)

My hon. Friend the Minister just said that if we do not have a Welsh Assembly, thousands of jobs will be threatened. First, in yesterday's press release from the Welsh Office, he was talking not about jobs being threatened, but about jobs being lost. Secondly, if we take his argument to its logical conclusion, is he also saying that we have LG investment because LG recognises the possibility of a Welsh Assembly in the near future?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

We got LG investment because the company knew that there was a Labour Government coming and knew that it wanted to be in a Wales ruled by that Labour Government. In a modern economy, inward investors will be attracted to Wales if there is an Assembly to assist with the development of our economic strategy.

Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West)

The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the point that the LG jobs might not have come to Wales if it had had a Welsh Assembly. He was entirely wrong. As someone who was involved in the decision to bring the LG jobs to Wales and who discussed at great length with LG executives their decision to bring the jobs to my constituency, I know that they knew, as did everyone else, that a Labour Government were almost certainly coming and that a Labour Government would bring a Welsh Assembly. They are entirely comfortable with the idea of being in Wales under a Welsh Assembly. The links between Korean investment in Wales, which stretch from Caernarfon to Merthyr to Cardiff and to Newport, are very strong and will be greatly strengthened when we have our own Assembly in Cardiff.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I take my hon. Friend's point. This is not simply an erudite constitutional matter, and these interventions have focused our attention on the fact that this debate is about jobs, health, schools and housing. If we get a measure of self-government in Wales, we will better be able to deal with all those issues. Let me now directly address the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). He effectively advanced the proposition that there should be what is called a preferendum and I respect his right to argue that case—indeed, given his party's policy, he has a duty to argue it. He did so constructively and in an inclusive spirit, which I acknowledge. However, I have to say that his policy at the general election was roundly defeated and that our policy won overwhelmingly. We are putting that policy in a confidence vote in the referendum, which will take place later this year. People in Wales do not want separatism; they do not want Wales to break away from the United Kingdom. We do not want more taxes; under the Tories, ordinary people in Wales have paid more taxes than ever before.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way on that specific point?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

On that point, yes.

John Marek (Labour, Wrexham)

It is an important point, so I ask my hon. Friend to give a concise and intellectual defence of the reasons why the people of Wales are not being offered the same choice that is being offered to the people of Scotland.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The defence is clear: we did not give in our election manifesto a commitment to give tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter. That commitment was given in the election manifesto to the people of Scotland. We are honouring our election manifesto in Wales, just as we are honouring it in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, Scotland is different from Wales, which is why there are different propositions for Scotland and Wales. People in Wales want the enormously powerful functions of the Welsh Office to be exercised by democratically elected people from Wales; that is our policy. The new Welsh Assembly will be a very powerful institution. No doubt it will evolve over the years. When, in 1964, James Griffiths was established as the first Secretary of State for Wales, it was not nearly as powerful a position as it is now, and no doubt there will be opportunity for it to evolve in future, but we need a Welsh Assembly to make it possible. I want to address the points made in the amendments tabled by, among others, the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Ynys Môn. There is great potential for confusion in what one might regard as a complex multiple choice examination paper, the "preferendum" that is suggested. It is quite possible that no single majority view will be expressed for any of the options. Where will that leave us, given the arguments and the momentum for devolution and decentralisation in Wales? It might leave us where the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and other Members want to leave us—with the devolution process delayed or abandoned. I urge hon. Members not to fall into that trap. Several technical questions have not been answered by the hon. Member for Caernarfon and his colleagues. Would the multiple choice referendum be conducted on a first-past-the-post basis, as they have suggested, or by single transferable vote? If it was conducted by single transferable vote, which would allow a majority view to be expressed after preferences had been transferred, it would be the first time ever that that electoral procedure or form of preference had been used in any referendum or election in Britain. The referendum in Wales on this vital principle should not get bogged down in a complicated voting arrangement tried out for the first time. We want the people of Wales to have a simple, straightforward and clear choice—yes or no: "Do you support the Government's policy, which we advocated in our manifesto, on which we received an overwhelming mandate to establish a Welsh Assembly, or do you not?" The greater the yes vote, the more authority the Welsh Assembly will have, and the bigger will be the mandate from the people to make progress in the House in the months to come. In those months, the negative, destructive, filibustering tactics that have been attempted by the Tories in the past few days will be used. We do not want to give them an opportunity to pursue them. On one of the ballot options that the hon. Member for Caernarfon has proposed—envisaging self-government within the European Union—it is not clear whether Wales would be a sovereign state or something different. If he proposes a full sovereign state of Wales in the European Union, that would require a treaty amendment, because it would enlarge the European Union. A unanimous vote by European Union members and a new intergovernmental conference would be needed. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman seriously wants us to go down that route simply to create a Welsh Assembly. We made a contract with the people on 1 May for a referendum in Wales to enable the people of Wales to express their precise view on this question. We spelt out exactly the terms of the question when we said that it would be on a Welsh Assembly, and we are now implementing that commitment, as we did our commitment regarding Scotland. We are keeping our promises. It may be novel, given the Governments of the past 18 years, for an incoming Government to keep their promises, but we are doing so and deserve credit for it. We are inviting the electorate to endorse a clear principle that they will support our policy for an elected Welsh Assembly.

Alan Williams (Labour, Swansea West)

How can my hon. Friend reconcile his argument that we are putting a specific proposal to the people of Wales with his argument that the Assembly might subsequently evolve? If he believes that it may evolve, why does not he give the Welsh public the option of choosing an evolved form?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I believe that my right hon. Friend, whom I respect as a colleague in the West Glamorgan area and for his role in Parliament in the Welsh group, is confusing two points. We shall outline in the White Paper our policy for a Welsh Assembly; that is what will be voted on. That is what will be legislated for in Parliament thereafter. I am simply making the obvious point that one cannot bind future Parliaments and that a future Welsh Assembly may be able to evolve in future. There is nothing contradictory in inviting the people of Wales to vote on the policy set out in the White Paper. I see that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales has finally turned up to the debate, very late in the day.

Ron Davies (Labour, Caerphilly)

He is canvassing.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

He is canvassing, is he, for extra votes? That displays the typical arrogance that the Tories have shown in the past few days for the mandate that we have received from the people of Wales, and which they definitely have not received. Indeed, the real opposition in Wales to the Government is sitting on the Liberal Democrat and nationalist Benches, because there is no opposition in Wales on the Tory Benches. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members who have spoken. I especially appreciate the constructive spirit in which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made his contribution, especially bearing it in mind that his grandmother is from Alltwen. She comes from very good stock, as it is in the Neath constituency. I hope that we can move forward together to get a massive yes vote in Wales for an elected Assembly in Wales, because Wales must not be left behind in a movement for democracy that is being unleashed throughout Britain. We have this historic opportunity to modernise our system of government, to bring power to the people of Wales and to decentralise decision making. The referendum and the Bill—in defeating the amendment, we shall carry through the Bill—will give us the opportunity to take forward the battle for democracy and get rid of 18 years of degenerate, corrupt Tory rule in Wales and strike forward on a new path of democratic devolution in Wales.

Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru, Ynys Môn)

I join the congratulations to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on his excellent maiden speech. I was proud of the fact that he mentioned the village of Garnswllt, where I was brought up and educated, so I am sure that he will be looking after the residents of Garnswllt very well, like his predecessor, Gareth Wardell. The Minister made heavy weather of technical arguments against more than one question. I find it rather strange—I put it no higher than that—that the people of Scotland are mature and grown up enough to consider that they might have to vote on two questions, but somehow the people of Wales are not that mature—that it would be too complicated for the people of Wales to have more than one question, but not too complicated for the people of Scotland. I also find it strange that the Minister should say that the people of Wales cannot be bothered with tax-raising Parliament, yet the people of Scotland can be. What is the difference? He seems to me to be making very heavy weather of it. I understand that he wants to advance the proposals made by the Labour party, and he is entitled to do so; the Government have a mandate on that. The Minister told the Committee—a point that I did not fully appreciate—that the people of Wales decisively rejected Plaid Cymru at the general election. They rejected the Conservatives decisively, yet the Conservative position is maintained on the ballot paper. The status quo is there. The Conservative option is being voted on. What is the problem in putting the option suggested by the Liberal Democrat party or Plaid Cymru? I find it strange that the Government cannot make the connection there, in the spirit of inclusive politics, to bring people together. The amendment does not tie the Government's hands by committing them to a multi-option referendum but enshrines the principle of options. The Government can consider what options might be appropriate, after consulting the people. There is no hard and fast reason why the referendum should be multi-option. The Minister said that a multi-option referendum would be different from the kind of question to be put to the people of Scotland. There was an opportunity, which the Government did not take, to debate questions similar to those being put to Scotland. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) provided that opportunity, but it was denied because of the guillotine. I ask the Government to recognise that there are strong feelings across all parties in Wales that we should consider all options. In order to gauge the strength of feeling in the Committee, we shall divide the Committee on the amendment.

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Clause 2 commits the Government to holding a referendum in Wales on the Government's proposals. Many people have talked about a referendum in the past, but the clause actually commits the Government to providing one. Before going any further, I want to pay tribute to the new Member for Gower (Mr. Caton)—[Interruption.]

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, for your protection. I was just going to say how good the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower was. I have a special interest in this because of my family history. My hon. Friend is my mother's and brother's Member of Parliament, as was Gareth Wardell before him. I knew from my hon. Friend's delivery of his speech that he is going to be a superb representative of the whole constituency of Gower—including my ancestral home of Cwmcile in the northern part of the constituency. It was there that my great-great-grandfather, Morgan Morgan, at the height of the Rebecca riots, shot—I am not sure whether he killed—Colonel Napier, the head of the Glamorgan yeomanry; aided by his mother, who struck with a frying pan one of the sergeants who had been sent to arrest him. The relevance of all this to proceedings on the clause is that it took place in the 1840s, when the people of Wales, in Gower and across west Wales—including the area from which the former Home Secretary comes—were rioting because of the way Wales was being run. At the time, Wales was run by the squires and their friends by means of a system of quangos, very much as it was, increasingly, during the past 18 years. The squires appointed the justices of the peace, the poor law guardians, and the turnpike trusts. It was against these trusts that the Rebecca rioters rebelled. Finally, there were the school boards. It was very much the squire and his pals—a squirearchy—and there was widespread rebellion. The Chartists were active in some of the industrial areas, such as Newport, and in the rural parts of west Wales including Cwmcile and the Gower area. The rebellions were specifically against the turnpike trusts and the imposition of taxes. What the rebels wanted was democracy. At that time, because Wales did not have a proper democratic franchise, it was run very much in the interests of the squires and the landowners, and, by and large, only the squires and their friends could vote. That is one of the reasons why, when the secret ballot was introduced, the tenants lost their fear of being evicted if they did not vote for the squire or his nominees to come to this place and represent them. Ever since then, Wales has voted against the Tory party. It has never forgotten the lesson that it was taught by people like my great-great-grandfather Morgan Morgan in the Gower constituency, and the spirit that they represented. My great-great-grandfather may have gone too far on that occasion, but the lesson of that period of rebellion in the 1830s and 1840s—of the Chartists and the Rebecca rioters—is very relevant to tonight's debate. During the past 18 years, the Tories have tried to turn the clock back and reproduce a Victorian society in which the squire and his pals—or, in this instance, the Tories and their pals, by means of quangos—took Wales away from what its people thought that they had gained by securing the secret ballot and the universal franchise. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower may not want to assault the captain of the Glamorgan yeomanry—indeed, the Glamorgan yeomanry no longer exists—but I know that he has done a very good job for all the people of Gower. I also know that, by supporting clause 2, we can do the job for which the Welsh people were looking in the 1840s. How do we achieve some form of democracy in Wales, and how do we ensure that the people of Wales can secure what they want by means of a democratic system? That does not mean shooting the Glamorgan yeomanry, and it does not mean riot, but it does mean using the ballot box and democratic procedures, and that can be done only if people respect the fact that there is a deep-rooted dislike of the Tory party in Welsh history. In that respect, there is a difference even between Wales and Scotland. Members of Parliament—perhaps they include you, Mr. Martin—may be old enough to remember a time when Scotland actually produced a Tory majority. That happened at the 1955 election. We have never done that in Wales: we have a very different history. We have not voted for the Tory party since the secret ballot was introduced, and, given the spirit of Wales, even if the ordinary people had been able to vote back in the 1830s and 1840s they would undoubtedly not have voted Tory then. It was only because of the phoney, funny franchise that operated at the time that occasionally the squire's pals would get in. Clause 2 is a way of putting right all the injustices that Wales has suffered because of its inability to secure a form of democracy that would give it some control over its domestic affairs. The clause will give Wales a chance to have its own Welsh Assembly. It does not commit the Government to establishing such an Assembly; it does something even better, because the Government are committed to two forms of direct democracy. The manifesto for which everyone in Wales voted so overwhelmingly on 1 May said that people could vote for the party that would bring them—among other things—a Welsh Assembly, subject to having the direct democratic right to veto that Assembly. After all, some people in Wales might be in favour of a Labour Government but against a Welsh Assembly. The manifesto said that those people could vote for Labour on 1 May, but could vote against the Government, given the right to veto a Labour proposal, in a direct referendum that would be held in the autumn. That is a very democratic action. That is what the Tories denied Wales back in the 1840s, and what they took away from Wales when they reduced local government powers by appointing all their pals to quangos during the 18 years which, thankfully, came to an end on 1 May. That is why I think that clause 2 is so important to the history of Wales, and to the relationship between Wales and this Parliament. It could be said that we have a unitary state, and that we should worry about all the anomalies that will be created if Wales and Scotland have separate Assemblies or Parliaments. We hear people express worries about the so-called West Lothian question, as though it were a reason for doing nothing to modernise the constitution. We have heard Opposition Members express, by implication, the view expressed by the Prime Minister when he referred to a thousand years of British history, suggesting that in some way the constitution of this country was immutable; but it has never been immutable, particularly when it comes to the relationship between England and the Celtic fringe. Over the centuries, there has always been a need for change in regard to the way in which we deal with relationships with the small Celtic countries—Ireland in the 19th century, and Scotland and Wales later in that century and, indeed, in the 20th. In our Parliament, we have always found it necessary to adjust the relationship between England and the other countries. England is, in that context, a very big country, comprising 82 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. As for the three small countries, or provinces, Scotland has 9 per cent. of the population, Wales 5 per cent. and Northern Ireland 3.5 per cent.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Could not the problem be solved by the establishment of three Grand Committees composed of Welsh, English and Scottish Members who would pass their own domestic legislation? Would that not avoid the extra expense, the constitutional problems and the West Lothian question?

Rhodri Morgan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive contribution, and for his acceptance of the principle of what I am saying. England is a big and a dominant country, containing well over three quarters of the UK population and of its Members of Parliament. It is a case of the elephant and the three Celtic fleas. Obviously, when people have fleas they scratch from time to time, and there is currently a desire to readjust the relationship between, in this instance, England and Scotland and Wales. Under the last Government, an attempt was made to readjust the relationship between England and Northern Ireland. That does not mean that the British constitution will collapse; if it did, the British constitution would have collapsed every time we readjusted the way in which we dealt with the affairs of Scotland, Wales, Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. I was very pleased by what the Prime Minister said about the Irish potato famine. He apologised to the people of Ireland for the part that the British Government had played in it, and that is very relevant to clause 2. Before the famine, everything was about expanding the United Kingdom constitution to take in first Wales, then Scotland, then the Republic of Ireland. The potato famine, however, was such a devastating experience for one particular Celtic country that its people never forgot it, and it eventually left this Parliament altogether. After the famine, the issue was no longer expanding to take over the rest of the British Isles—Wales, then Scotland and Ireland—but establishing new rights for the Celtic countries, with Secretaries of State for Scotland, then Ireland, the setting up of the Stormont Parliament in 1922 and the Republic of Ireland becoming an independent free state in the same year before leaving the Commonwealth and the Crown altogether in 1949. Since the famine, the readjustment has gone the other way. In general, it has worked to allow the Celtic countries of the United Kingdom to have more say in their own affairs, and clause 2, in two ways, gives more say to two of the Celtic countries for which this Parliament is responsible. It establishes the prospect of a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament, but establishes it via an additional hurdle that the legislation will have to cross by way of a direct vote by the people of Wales and Scotland in the autumn. This Parliament should not be frightened of that. During the past 150 years, every 30 or 40 years, there has been a major change in the relationship between England and the three Celtic countries, or, putting it another way, between this Parliament as a whole and the amount of respect that is given to the diversity of those three Celtic fleas. England is in the middle, with well over 80 per cent. of the total population, wealth and representation in the House of Commons. The Government have committed themselves to a very democratic measure, which I welcome. One could say that, in adjusting the relationship, the Celtic fringe countries are asking for more recognition of their diversity and tradition. For instance, there is the tradition that we in Wales do not vote Tory, and our commitment to helping to bring about the welfare state. Looking at it from a Welsh perspective, one could say that we are looking for a boyo-diversity treaty; a readjustment of the relationship between Wales, England and Scotland. In the spirit of asking for that boyo-diversity treaty, I hope that the House will give warm approval to clause 2.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Bill is short and simple and my contribution can be similarly brief. During the debate on the Scottish amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) took up a point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the provision of local information in Wales. We are discussing with the chief counting officers at county borough level the provision of information and our intention is that it will be released. But, if possible, we want the result to be declared nationally first. We are discussing how both those objectives can be accommodated and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. The Bill authorises the holding of referendums in Scotland and Wales as the first step in the Government's programme of radical constitutional reform. A mood for constitutional change is abroad in Scotland and Wales and the referendums will give people in each country the opportunity to express their views on the Government's devolution proposals. We promised them that opportunity and we now intend to deliver on that promise. We do not have to do this. Our election victory gave us a clear mandate for our policy to decentralise power to the people of Scotland and Wales. We could simply have proceeded with the necessary legislation, but we want to secure popular support for those policies, as our manifesto promised.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

The hon. Gentleman is just doing as he is told because the referendum policy was decided in London, not by Wales.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

When we have a serious contribution from a Welsh Conservative Member of Parliament, he might have a serious answer to such a question. We did not have to do this, but we decided that we wanted the authority of the people to support our legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is waiting for the Tory party leadership election result, will recognise that if and when we have a yes vote in Scotland and Wales, Parliament must respect that yes vote. Last time, some 30 days were spent on the devolution question—nearly 15 weeks of parliamentary time during which the then Conservative Opposition behaved in a typically destructive and negative fashion, filibustering through the night as best they could. We intend that Parliament will respect the mandate given by the people of Scotland and Wales in order to support the legislation that we will introduce.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I was there and my hon. Friend was not. There was serious discussion. People such as Enoch Powell on the one side and others of us on the other did not filibuster. I saw it at first hand.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The last thing that I would accuse my hon. Friend of doing is filibustering. I was talking about the Conservative Opposition. They would have done the same this time had they had the opportunity.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall give way in a minute. What we are proposing is sensible and the Government have chosen to introduce the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill first. That way there will be an efficient use of parliamentary time. There is a clear mandate from the people for the introduction of legislation and that is a sensible use of parliamentary procedure and time.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman, please, apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The hon. Gentleman was not here when we debated devolution. I was, as was the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The debates were serious. They showed true division on both sides of the House. Many Labour Members were deeply unhappy about devolution in Scotland and in Wales. The Labour Government of the day did not attempt to drive the Bill through like a steam roller. The hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for what he said.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend does not need any assistance from the Tory Benches to make his case. He is probably the most effective and admired Back Bencher in the House. I made no criticism of his role in that devolution debate.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. He referred to the outcome of the referendum. If, as he hopes, it is a success and he comes back to the House with a detailed devolution Bill, he has said that we should not thwart the will of the people of Wales and Scotland. To that extent, does he also accept that the detail of those Bills is important to the success of what comes about? Therefore, will he undertake not to try to do what the Government have done this time, which is to ram some tight guillotines through from day one?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.