With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'persons' and insert
'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
No. 120, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'were born in Scotland or who have a parent or grand-parent of Scottish birth and who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election if they were resident in Scotland and the persons who'.
No. 148, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
'are included in a central register to be established in accordance with Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] or who'.
No. 82, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'general'.
No. 238, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 83, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'and the citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Scotland.'.
No. 149, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
No. 225, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'who have been registered as local government electors in any Scottish local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
No. 236, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland in the previous twenty years'.
No. 121, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
'() Notwithstanding subsection (3) above, an Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are members of the forces (as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) or spouses of such
members, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—
No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'for Scotland'.
No. 213, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 151, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'local government area' and insert 'parliamentary constituency.'
No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Scotland', and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 152, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 191, in page 2, line 3, at end add
'and for each Parliamentary constituency publicly at the end of each count.'.
No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 141, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens'
No. 17, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'persons' and insert
'citizens of the United Kingdom'.
No. 160, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
'are included in a central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] or who'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to end of line 12 and insert
'a local government election in any electoral area in the United Kingdom'.
No. 239, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to 'in' in line 12 and insert 'a parliamentary election'.
No. 84, in page 2, line 11, leave out
'an election for a county council or county borough council'
and insert 'a general election'.
No. 217, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 85, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'and those citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Wales.'.
No. 161, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'.
No. 226, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'who have been registered as local government electors on any Welsh local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'.
No. 237, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Wales in the previous twenty years'.
No. 139, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 25.
No. 218, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 16, leave out
'county or county borough in Wales'
'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
No. 165, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'county or county borough' and insert 'parliamentary constituency'.
No. 219, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 164, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'and shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'.
No. 25, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
No. 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out
'county or county borough in Wales'
'local government area in the United Kingdom'.
New clause 11—Counting—
Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 133, in schedule 2, page 5, line 2, leave out 'IN WALES'.
Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
New schedule 2—Central register of electors for referendums (Scotland)—
A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.
Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:
New schedule 3—Central register of electors for referendums (Wales)—
A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum.
Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are:
Amendment No. 37, in title, line 1, leave out 'in Scotland'.
Amendment No. 38, in line 3, leave out 'in Wales'.
We are debating a first-class but a third-rate constitutional Bill which is being treated in an unprecedented manner; and we have been debating not so much a guillotine motion as a lethal injection.
The Leader of the House said that it was not a constitutional Bill—a statement which should in itself disqualify her from that office. The Bill is a constitutional Bill—a major constitutional Bill. Moreover, it includes tax-varying powers that go to the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament. As hon. Members have already said, debate on previous constitutional Bills has lasted for as long as 30 days, whereas we will be given as few as one or two days to debate this measure.
We are debating a Bill which has been conceived in a cuckoo's nest of a Cabinet that is controlled by a Scots cabal of Ministers of the Crown, representing the biggest takeover of the United Kingdom since the Union, in 1603, of the Crowns of Scotland and England. A quarter of all Ministers are Scots—19 of the 89 Ministers are Scots. I mentioned a Scots cabal, and I should explain that I define "cabal" as something representing conceit, arrogance, bombast, aggression and lies.
The plain fact is that the Bill represents the views that were expressed by the Prime Minister in the general election campaign and in the Labour party manifesto. However, his euphoria will be dashed—as was that of the Stuarts, in 1649, when Charles I lost his head because of his folly and his arrogance. It is worth remembering that, in its title, the Bill is a successor to the 1979 devolution legislation, which led to the fall of the Callaghan Government. It has been well said that, eventually, they shall reap as they have sown.
The Bill is a part of a policy that is inside out and upside down, with principles on the outside and precedents on the downside. It is an outrage that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill precedes the White Paper and the devolution Bill itself, and it is a deceit to say that it stands on its own. Even in 1975, Harold Wilson insisted on a White Paper before introducing legislation on a European referendum.
As I said to the Secretary of State for Scotland—although my remarks apply to Wales as much as to Scotland—on Second Reading, the Bill necessarily involves not so much the West Lothian question as the United Kingdom question.
Referendums should not be confined to Scotland and Wales; they should encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's tax-varying proposals, the electors of my constituency and all those of the United Kingdom, including those of England and Northern Ireland, are involved. That will be the case whether taxes are increased, decreased or varied. The Government promised that any tax-varying powers would be defined and limited, but that is not what the Bill or, indeed, the question on the ballot paper says. The question on the ballot paper is therefore a cruel fraud perpetrated on the voters.
A further point of great concern to many Opposition Members relates to the United Kingdom. Our manifesto and all the utterances of the former Prime Minister put the issue of the Union, let alone the European Union, at the very heart of our campaign. I cannot understand why the shadow Cabinet has not decided to have a formal Whip on my amendment to clause 1, which would extend the referendum franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be entirely consistent with our manifesto and the policy of the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.
If it is now the official policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that the franchise should be extended to the electorate of the UK as a whole, is it also its policy that any settlement in Northern Ireland would be submitted to a referendum of the UK as a whole?
Speaking as a Back Bencher, there is every reason why any referendum involving the dismembering of the United Kingdom should be referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. That has the merit of logic and common sense. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions, but with the encouraging proviso that Back Benchers are free to vote, according to the Whips, for my amendment if they so wish.
I am delighted to be able to say that we are always making progress. I must add that the impact of a Bill of this importance, with its tax-varying powers, puts it in the category of the first constitutional status which I would regard as not dissimilar to the European referendum of 1975, which was dealt with by the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hon. Members should consider these important points affecting the United Kingdom question.
As I said, in 1975 there was a clear recognition that what was then the Referendum Bill, which was of similar importance to the internal domestic interests of the United Kingdom as this Bill is now, affected the United Kingdom as a whole. There was a national counting procedure because many Scots live and work in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. There are those who live in Scotland who qualify for a vote but who come from other parts of the world. The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies, injustice and contradictions.
Why, but for the draconian discipline imposed by the Prime Minister on his Members of Parliament, is there no resistance among Labour Members from the north-east and north-west as there was in 1977 and 1979 and who, under the terms of the Bill, will be profoundly damaged by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers? It would, in any event, damage the rest of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members of Parliament would lose most of their moral authority in the Westminster Parliament.
There are at present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. Some 30 years ago, the Kilbrandon commission on the constitution recommended that the number should be reduced and, indeed, one of my amendments proposes that it should be reduced to 45, which is, appropriately, the same number as when the Act of Union 1706 was passed. Furthermore, the Bill leaves in limbo the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, given his remarks today, is no doubt what he deserves. It is essential that it is clearly reaffirmed, just as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should also be reaffirmed in the Bill.
I noticed the Secretary of State for Wales making light of the fact that amendments had been tabled to preserve the Crown and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that the Bill does not go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom should not be sitting in this House as a Minister. We should repudiate any possibility of the Bill being a trojan horse for reducing the component parts of the United Kingdom to provinces within the European Union and reaffirm the direct accountability, whether in Scotland or Wales, of Ministers of the Crown exclusively to the United Kingdom Parliament. These matters are all part and parcel of the United Kingdom question.
It is inconceivable that we can proceed with a Bill of this kind when it contains arrangements that are so vague that it is impossible for us to know what the role of the Secretary of State would be and the extent to which Ministers of the Crown would be responsible to this Parliament. Would they be responsible to a Scottish Parliament? What would be those Ministers' functions? The Bill leaves so many questions unanswered and puts the House in an impossible situation.
The amendments propose a solution to the problems that I have outlined and, indeed, to the West Lothian question. There is an answer to it, although it may not be very congenial to Scottish Members. I suggest that when matters arise in this Parliament that affect only those parts of the UK other than Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament shall, by Standing Orders of the United Kingdom Parliament, speak but not vote.
That is highly unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Treasury has a relationship with spending Departments. One can imagine what would happen if the spending Departments were in the hands of one party and the Treasury in the hands of another—it is absolutely unreal.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not the case, and for this very good reason. The West Lothian question, which is often attributed to him, but which, as he has generously acknowledged, was posed by Mr. Enoch Powell, goes to the very heart of the dismembering of the United Kingdom and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out repeatedly in his distinguished career, presents the House with the impossible contradictions inherent in the present situation. If the Bill proceeds, and if the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party do not carry forward their opposition to this Bill and the devolution Bill as they did before, we shall face not only the dismembering of the United Kingdom but the question that he has just put to me—and we are going to have to resolve it. It is not enough to say that it is unreal. The situation is real because it has arisen. It has been presented by the Government, not the Opposition.
Let me put it another way: how would Scottish and Welsh Members react—or, more to the point, how would Scottish and Welsh citizens react—if we set up an exclusively English Parliament but with a full complement of English Members who would continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters? That is the obverse of what the Bill is dealing with.
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, particularly over the past 18 years, when Parliament was dominated by his party, legislation designated solely for Scotland was voted in by English Members, not by Members from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party, which were the dominant parties in Scotland? His argument is illogical because legislation was imposed by him and his colleagues.
I said speak and not vote in the new circumstances. My answer to the West Lothian question, which I pose as the United Kingdom question, is that after the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to propose changing our Standing Orders so that Scottish Members would be entitled to speak and not vote in the circumstances that I have described.
I am delighted that the hon. Lady says that that is no problem, because it helps to relieve some of the difficulties inherent in the question posed so diligently in the past by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am certain that the Scottish and Welsh people would not want the situation to continue if we held pole position in the United Kingdom Parliament and they were constantly affected by our decisions.
Refurbishment has not been mentioned so far. The issue is tucked away in a subtle and devious fashion in one of the last clauses in this wretched Bill. It says that we in this Parliament are expected to pay for the refurbishment of the buildings to be set up for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, even before the passage of the Bill on devolution or the publication of the White Paper—which definitely should precede that Bill, with the referendum coming afterwards. That is outrageous. It is equally disgraceful that we are not being allowed to debate this Bill properly, but the discussion on that has now taken place.
As I have said, within the past 30 years, the Kilbrandon commission suggested that Scotland should have fewer Members. We should also give proper consideration to the threshold for the majority if there is to be an effective referendum. I dare say that other hon. Members will want to refer to that, so I shall not enlarge on it. I simply point out in conclusion that I have suggested a figure of one third in my amendments because I should like to know the Foreign Secretary's reaction, given that he proposed that in 1978–79. I should be happy with a threshold of 50 or 60 per cent., but as we are dealing with a Labour Government with a vast majority—
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Given the probability of the Bill becoming an Act, does he intend to campaign actively in the referendum campaigns? If so, where will he devote his energies—in Scotland or in Wales?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I shall certainly campaign. I shall be in England, but I am near enough to Wales to be able to go there from time to time.
The Bill is an outrage. It has been introduced outrageously and should be rejected, but I should like as many hon. Members as possible to consider my amendments and vote for them.
Because of the time constraints, I should like to ask just one succinct but practical and urgent question that goes back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in the previous debate. It is particularly relevant to the forces vote, but also to other bona fide Scots working in Europe or in England.
During the recess, I had the privilege of being asked by my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, to spend time with them on their operational duties in Bosnia. I can put the problem best by asking the same question that I was asked there. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are based at Fallingbostel in Germany, but many of them are registered at Catterick, Winchester or other military bases. Many of them regard themselves as fully fledged Scots, just as Scottish as any Scottish Members of Parliament. They asked, "Are we going to have our say in the referendum?" What is the Government's thinking on that?
As usual, the hon. Gentleman has asked a difficult question. I am glad that he has asked it of his Front Bench rather than us.
I have a simple point to make. It is beyond dispute that the creation of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales is of interest to the entire United Kingdom, affecting the whole country. The United Kingdom is a unique constitutional entity, created from four parts, bound together by a single sovereign Parliament. Combined with our unwritten constitution, that has created an unusual entity that, nevertheless, works well in practice.
Anything that threatens to alter one part of the Union is of concern to all. That was recognised at the creation of the Union. Two separate sovereign Parliaments came together in 1707 to create a new Parliament for Great Britain, which was itself a new constitutional entity. It follows that any measure that affects that constitutional entity, such as the creation of a new Scottish Parliament, is a matter for all the citizens of Great Britain, now joined by Northern Ireland.
Annual Government expenditure in Scotland is over £800 per head greater than the figure for the whole United Kingdom. In Wales, the gap between what is raised locally in taxation and what is spent there by the Government is even larger. Both Scotland and Wales have a large fiscal deficit. That is a matter of considerable controversy. My constituency looks over the Bristol channel to Wales. Many of the grants and subsidies that Wales gets transfer jobs from my side of the Bristol channel to Wales. The matter is controversial, but it is a price that many English people feel is worth paying for a successful Union.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual publications produced by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. One is called "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland", the other "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Wales". The most recent figures I have are for 1994–95. From those publications I get a figure per head in Scotland of £839 more than for the United Kingdom as a whole. For Wales, the figure is less, but the other side of the equation—the revenue side—is much less, so the fiscal gap between revenue and expenditure is even wider for Wales than it is for Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt about it. From the figures available to all hon. Members, it is clear that both countries run large fiscal deficits which are made up by subsidies chiefly from the English taxpayer.
I personally am willing to accept some of that deficit as a price worth paying for a successful Union. What I do not accept is that, in addition to the large fiscal transfers, it is now proposed that there should be a Parliament for Scotland and an Assembly for Wales which will, of course, be used to attract even more money, powers and privileges to those parts of the United Kingdom at the expense of the English counties.
The Bill provides a small but significant example of what I am talking about. Let us look at who will pay for the costs of the referendum and for the preparatory work involved in setting up the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Clause 5 makes it clear that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund. In other words, it is overwhelmingly—again—the English taxpayer who will pay for all of this while having no say at all in the outcome and no vote in the proposed referendums.
I will take another well-known example—the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in this House compared with what those two parts of the United Kingdom would be entitled to on a strictly pro rata population basis. I accept that there is a case for allowing the extremities of any country some over-representation to make allowances for the sparsity of population and for the difficulties of communication and travel, but that does not apply to the very small constituencies in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
If the proposals go through and if the referendums proceed as planned by the Government, in addition to that over-representation, Scotland and Wales will have their own Parliament and Assembly. The extra Westminster Members will continue to come to this Parliament. They will have nothing to do in their own constituencies because all the powers that they presently have over matters such as health and education will have been transferred to the local Parliament and the local Assembly. They will, however, apparently continue to come to this Parliament in the same numbers in order to interfere in matters that apply to England, and to my constituents in particular.
The two examples I have given—the subsidies that flow to Wales and Scotland and the parliamentary over-representation—make one simple point.
The referendums and their outcome are not matters simply for Scotland and Wales; they are of crucial interest and importance for the entire United Kingdom. I support amendment No. 2 because it would insist that the questions posed in the proposed referendums should be available to all the citizens of the United Kingdom and not simply those in Scotland and Wales.
It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the speeches we are hearing from Conservative Members are basically anti-Scottish. All the talk of Scotland being over-represented, of fiscal transfers and of the English taxpayer paying for the services provided for the people of Scotland is, frankly, racist. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) introduced the debate in an offensive manner. It is offensive to have the ability of Cabinet members questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin. If the hon. Gentleman does not find that offensive, he should not be in this place, which is meant to be the mother of Parliaments and the home of democracy. There would have been demonstrations in the streets against such racist talk from any Member of Parliament in the 1930s. It is a disgrace and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
Some hon. Members have spoken of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom, which is covered by this group of amendments. Most of the United Kingdom is already included in the franchise; everyone in Scotland and Wales will get the vote. During the general election, the English knew very well that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Stone said that in the general election, the Conservative party put preservation of the Union at the very heart of its campaign. I remind him not only that the Conservatives were wiped out in Scotland and in Wales, but that they did not do very well in England either. Some 61 per cent. of English voters voted for either the Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats, both of which made it clear that referendums would be held only in Scotland and in Wales. We have a mandate from the English people and we speak for the English people, unlike Conservative Members who try to build a case on that basis.
I never interfere in Northern Ireland's affairs; I have learnt that it is wise not to do that. I suggest that hon. Members who do not know much about Northern Ireland should not raise the matter of Northern Ireland casually. There is a very sensitive situation there and we should not blunder into it or make false analogies. It is typical, however, of Conservative Members to do that.
The proposals that will be in the White Paper, and then in the Bills that introduce the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, will change the government of Scotland and of Wales. They will not change the government of England. As far as I know, England will continue to be governed as it has always been governed—by this place. I look forward to the day when the English come to their senses and say that it is time that they had an English Parliament. Many Conservative Members continually assume that this is an English Parliament with wee bits of Scotland and Wales added on. We are a big inconvenience. We cause debates, we cause trouble and we take taxpayers' money. That is the tenor of debate from Tory Members.
It is quite simple. The Scottish Labour party subsequently endorsed the decision to hold a referendum and the Scottish voters then endorsed that decision at the general election. As a good democrat, I recognise when I am beaten and I accept that decision. I wish that Conservative Members would recognise when they are beaten in Scotland and that they would accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament because the Scottish people want one.
Amendment No. 120 causes me some concern. It deals with people who were born in Scotland but no longer live there, and suggests that they should be allowed to take part in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, as usual, come up with a very appropriate name for it: he calls it the Gary McAllister-Paul Lambert amendment. For Conservative Members from England who do not recognise those names, they are Scottish internationals. One plays in Leeds, other in Dortmund. They have made their choice to leave Scotland and to seek fame and fortune elsewhere. They earn big money for living outside Scotland. If that is their decision, one of the penalties they have to pay is that they cannot vote in elections in Scotland. That is an important distinction. Whoever you are, if you choose to leave your country, you choose to leave the democracy in that country.
I am worried about the ethnic nature of some of the amendments, as if where someone was born, or where their father and grandfather come from, qualified them for the franchise. We have only one franchise in Scotland—if someone lives in Scotland, they have the franchise no matter what their ethnic origin or which country they came from. That is the only franchise we recognise. The speech by one hon. Gentleman earlier caused me great concern. He was very passionate—I do not know his constituency so I cannot refer to him—and he had an almost mystical faith in the Union, which we frequently hear from Opposition Members. He used words and phrases such as consanguinity, marriage and the blood that ties us together. He stopped short of saying kith and kin, but that is what he meant. That is the language that the Tories used to use about the empire and the other parts of the world that England used to control. The Tories still think in those terms about Scotland and Wales, but those days are over. The fact that they have not recognised that those days are over is why they were wiped out electorally in Scotland and Wales. Democracy is changing. Power has been decentralised and the Bill is part of that process. It will strengthen the links between Scotland and England, not worsen them.
Amendment No. 120 would extend the franchise to those whose grandparents were born in Scotland. On a similar basis, I could take part in the election in the Republic of Ireland next Sunday because my grandparents were Irish. That shows what nonsense the suggestion is. I should not take part in an election in another country that has nothing to do with me now.
I have just said that. I said that if the amendment applied in the Republic of Ireland, I would be able to take part. It is right that I should not be allowed to take part in the election; and nobody who lives in America, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world who has a grandfather or grandmother who happened to be born in Scotland should be allowed to take part in the referendum. That is not a qualification for the franchise.
A later amendment—I think it is amendment No. 149—would exclude citizens of the European Union from the referendum. Under amendment No. 120, a Scot who lives in the Republic of Ireland could take part in the referendum, but under amendment No. 149 he would be disqualified as a citizen of a member country of the European Union. That is nonsense.
As for the Tories' threshold argument, the only reason to introduce thresholds into a referendum is to ensure that the referendum does not succeed. That is what happened in 1978. The people who introduced and supported the threshold did not want a Scottish Assembly. That was the last throw of the dice to stop it happening; it was not about democracy but about blocking the creation of a Scottish Parliament—and it is the same today.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was a very bad man in 1978, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I have no truck with their position then. I opposed them then and if they did it again I would oppose them again. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has learned his lesson. He was wrong in 1978 and we in Scotland have paid a heavy price because we did not have a Parliament in the past 18 years to protect us from the policies of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues. Do not tell me that any Tory is interested in democracy in Scotland or in the Scottish people. The Tories rammed the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people a whole year before they introduced it in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was no referendum then. Nobody asked whether the Scottish voters should be given the franchise.
The Tories reorganised local government in Scotland. People in Dundee are still suffering because of the butchery of Scottish local government by the last Tory Government. There was no referendum on that. Local authorities in Scotland had to organise a referendum to stop water privatisation, like that in England and Wales, happening in Scotland. The Labour local authorities organised that referendum, not the Tory Government. We are not fooled by Opposition Members who say that they are worried about parliamentary democracy or the sovereignty of the people. They worry only about their skins and about power being devolved across the United Kingdom. A different political structure will make them into what they really are—a bunch of dinosaurs.
I wish to address the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in support of amendment No. 2. I am surprised that he, a member of a party that used to be called a unionist party, should favour a measure that would sow, if it were carried, the seeds of great disunity in the United Kingdom. If I understand amendment No. 2 aright, it would extend the referendum to England.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has worked it out, but if the referendum were to be held throughout the United Kingdom and a different result were marked up in England—I say that advisedly—from that registered in Scotland, he would have created a revolutionary situation. He would certainly do so if he sought to translate such a result into a justification for the failure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to implement the clear and settled will of the Scottish people to have a Parliament.
The argument of the hon. Member for Stone has a second leg. He is not satisfied that the House of Commons can adequately determine the issues that would flow from a positive vote in the referendum. As the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is never slow to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament—a view that distinguishes it from my party, because we believe that sovereignty rests with the people—it is strange that he should think that Parliament is not capable of deciding the issue. Of course, the outcome of a referendum in Scotland will have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. Our fates are linked and our constitutional arrangements should take account of a decision to establish a Scottish Parliament. Clearly, some of the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must be addressed at some point.
That is the nub of the question. At what point will the anxieties of, or the knock-on effects on, the people in England be addressed? According to the way in which the proposals have been made, those anxieties and effects will be brushed under the carpet and ignored. Those of us who believe in the Union and want it to survive are concerned that devolution will lead to an explosive situation. We want to prevent that. Those issues should be addressed now, in this debate—if not on the amendments before us, then on some others.
Those issues have been addressed and have been in order; otherwise the amendments to which the arguments were tied would not have been selected. They have not been ruled out of order and I do not suppose that they will be. The question is what weight they should be given, not whether they are in order. I submit that we should not attach great weight to those arguments now in determining whether to establish the machinery to hold a referendum to put beyond peradventure the view of the Scottish people on whether they want a Scottish Parliament along lines that will be set out in a White Paper to be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It seems that that is a relatively limited question.
When substantive legislation implementing the will of the Scottish people as expressed in a referendum is brought forward, I grant that there will come a time for considering whether it is right that the House of Commons should remain constituted as it is and whether Scottish membership of the House should in some way be reduced, and by how much. It would also be right to consider whether the Scots would have not only the right to speak, but to vote not only on United Kingdom matters but on matters affecting parts of England for which they do not have direct responsibility or responsibilities which are discharged, as far as Scotland is concerned, in the new Scottish Parliament.
All such matters are certainly appropriate for debate and certainly ought to be debated, but I question their relevance to the Bill. I question whether it makes sense to invite the English—again, I say that advisedly—or those living in Northern Ireland to contribute their views on whether the Scots have a settled mind on wishing to have a Scottish Parliament.
I do not doubt that the English and those living in Northern Ireland have views, but my guess is that, if the English were consulted separately in, as it were, a separate constituency, they would most likely agree that, if the Scots wanted a Parliament, they should have it. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that Conservative Members of Parliament who have addressed meetings in England on this subject have encountered that answer from English audiences. I do not think that that need delay us.
That is an interesting question, which I will be happy to discuss when we consider the system and the scheme, either in the debate on the White Paper or the debate on the substantive legislation. I do not, however, believe that it is in the least germane to the issue before us.
My party is by no means in favour of the referendum, but the facts are clear. The referendum is a Government commitment. They put it before the Scottish people and had it underwritten and endorsed, and it is simply unreal not to recognise that. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we are right in assuming that the mind of the Scottish people is settled. The referendum will give us the chance to put that question beyond any further argument. The issue is quite simple, and most of the amendments are a distraction from the central question about machinery and enabling us to put the question quite beyond doubt, which is at the heart of the Bill.
I understand the arguments for holding referendums in other ways. I remember the debates that we had in 1978 about post-legislative referendums. All those matters will no doubt be discussed again in future, but tonight we have a relatively simple question before us. I do not think that in opposing amendments such as that tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, extending the question to other members of the United Kingdom, we are in any way denying that what would be done in Scotland would have its impact on others in the United Kingdom—of course it would. People had an opportunity to register that fact in a general election, and overwhelmingly supported parties that were committed to the course that the Government are now following. No doubt they will have further opportunities to express their views.
Let the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends recognise that they lost the argument. Let them recognise that they will have a further opportunity to return to the issues at the right time. They will be listened to with respect in so far as they are not seeking to destroy the wish of the Scottish people.
I shall speak specifically to amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which are in my name. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the Committee on the wider issue of the United Kingdom franchise, I shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. It is, however, the nature of the grouping of the amendments that if that first and more sensible amendment to leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom" were to fall, we would then be driven to consider a more narrow extension of franchise along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 120 and 121.
Amendment No. 120 deals with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has christened the Gary McAllister question. I would prefer to call it the Rob Wainwright question. I find it hard to understand why someone who is able to play rugby for Scotland should not be able to vote in a referendum on Scotland's future. The amendment therefore extends the franchise, should it not be extended to the whole of the UK, to those Scots who are not currently resident in Scotland.
There is a precedent, and it was considered by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Referendum Bill authorising a referendum on the European Community. Lord Glenamara, then Lord President of the Council, suggested a number of conditions on which franchise might be extended. They were not being on the electoral register, having the right of abode, having resided at some time in the United Kingdom—in this case that would be in Scotland—being in occupation, service or employment abroad—not simply having retired to live elsewhere but being occupied or serving Scotland or the United Kingdom abroad—and having declared some intention to return, which was what he called
a vital assurance of continuing connection with this country".—[Official Report, 22 April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1344.]
In the end, the scheme was not proceeded with, although Lord Glenamara made it clear to the House that it would be so possible to extend the franchise.
I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution will address himself to the concern expressed in amendment No. 120. A great number of Scots—some of them indeed serving the state—will not be able to vote in the referendum, yet it would be perfectly possible, were the Government so minded, to allow them to do so.
On the basis of the link between taxation and representation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of a Scottish Parliament having tax-varying powers, such people should also be subject to tax? Does not that underline the huge anomaly and nonsense of what he is proposing?
No, it does not, because the referendum is a one-off decision. We have been told that constantly. It is a constitutional decision, setting up quite different constitutional arrangements. That is indeed why a referendum is proposed to decide it.
That is what the Hansard reports of the relevant debates make clear. It was perfectly practical and sensible and, even though time was short, the Government of the day actively considered it. Why should Scots living outside Scotland be disenfranchised on this major constitutional issue?
Amendment No. 121 deals with service men serving abroad. I believe that it, too, has the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The Government in 1975 acted on the issue and introduced a special clause specifically allowing those service men who were not on the electoral register to vote in the European referendum. They accepted the argument because service men at that point in the year—the spring of 1975—could not have known the previous October that a referendum was to be held, since the proposal was not made until January 1975.
The same argument applies today. Those who might well have wished to make special arrangements to register their vote would have done so had they known last October that this special constitutional vote was coming up. The Government have always recognised that special arrangements need to be made for the service vote, and I do not see why it is not possible to make such arrangements in this case. There are many service men who would otherwise, perhaps, be stationed in Scotland and be able to vote there, but who are serving their country at very short notice in far-flung places. Their service should be recognised with some special arrangement.
The register that would be used for a referendum is the one that was compiled from a census last October, and people deciding whether to register then would have been deciding whether to enfranchise themselves for the United Kingdom general election. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who had chosen not to register for that general election would be missing out on the referendum vote?
What I am suggesting to the Committee is that people could not have known last October that they had to be on the register then to qualify for a referendum that they did not know would be conducted this September. That is the point. It is only fair, particularly for service men, that we recognise that point, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about how Scottish service men are able to vote in the referendum.
I assure the Committee that amendments Nos. 83 to 85 are serious amendments intended to address the anomaly identified by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his interventions earlier in the debate. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to the enfranchisement of Scots living outside Scotland, and amendments Nos. 84 and 85 relate to Welsh men and women living outside Wales.
The amendments are, in a way, slimmed-down versions of new schedule 2, which was tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, and of amendment No. 120, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and others. They represent a serious attempt to solve a serious problem that has been brought to my attention by Scots men and women in my constituency who want to be able to vote in the referendum.
I am disappointed by the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who introduced an unnecessarily confrontational note into a debate on a serious problem that is of concern to Scots men and women living outside their native country.
The problem is complex, and yet rather simple. The Government of the day used the general election register in the 1978 referendums, but the present Government intend to use the local government register this time, thus allowing temporary European Union residents, including English men and women living in Scotland or Wales, the right to vote in referendums on the future of those countries, but denies a vote to Scots and Welsh people, temporarily absent from their countries—whether just across the border in England, or overseas serving their country in whatever capacity—who would be able to register as overseas voters for a general election.
I want not to attack the Scots, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested that Conservative Members were seeking to do, but to defend the rights of Scots men and women living in my constituency. The Worcester Evening News, perhaps a trifle flippantly, summarised the situation as the Government intending to give a Greek waiter temporarily working in a backstreet cafe in Edinburgh the right to vote in an election about Scotland's future, but denying it to a Scottish journalist working here in Westminster for The Scotsman. That is an extreme version of a real anomaly.
I am not sure which journalist from The Scotsman the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and whether he is absolutely convinced that that journalist does not have a residence in Scotland. Is he incapable of understanding why I, as leader of the Scottish National party, am perfectly comfortable with the idea of people from England, Wales, France, the rest of Europe, or Timbuktu, who are resident in Scotland and contribute to the community there, voting on the future of the country? Is he totally incapable of understanding why residents who contribute to a community should have rights of determination, regardless of where they are from?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I wish that we could have a serious debate on the matter. It is a shame that the guillotine makes that difficult to do. There are two separate issues: whether we should give temporary residents in Scotland from other European countries the right to vote in the referendum; and whether we should give Scots people temporarily absent from their country that same right.
I think that the questions hang together and that there is an injustice in denying that right to a Scots person who is temporarily absent while granting it to a person who is there for only a short period and has no interest whatever in the long-term future of the country. That is my view, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) disagrees, but the two questions are separate and should both be addressed at greater length than is the case in this scandalously truncated debate.
I will leave my right hon. Friend the Earl to speak for himself, and I am sure that he will do so most eloquently. I am concerned about the points raised by my constituents—Scots men and women, born in Scotland, most of whom intend to return to Scotland later in their lives—who feel that they are being denied their right to express a view about their birthright. I do not know how they would vote—for all I know, they could be the most ardent pro-devolutionists—but that is not the point. It is an outrage to deny them their birthright.
I find it surprising that Labour Members are laughing at that important point. They are laughing at Scots men and women who are seeking to exercise their right to have a say in their country's future. I find myself in the strange position, as an individual who opposes the legislation and the concept of devolution, at least on the basis proposed at present, of defending Scots people's rights in the face of the Government's hostility. I find that surprising. I am sorry that Labour Members are scoffing, because I intended to make a serious point and I would like a serious response.
Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by temporary residents? I met the mother of an old friend, who was born in Glasgow in 1910 and moved to Oxford in 1936. If she now moved back, should she have the right to vote?
My experience of Scots men and women living outside their country, whether in England or elsewhere, is that they have a deep sentimental attachment to Scotland that is often more powerful, I am ashamed to say, than that of English men and women to England.
No. I want those on the Front Benches to have time to wind up, and I am taking too long over these remarks.
Why are the Government insisting on using the local government register? My suspicion is that they are seeking to exclude overseas visitors who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections and will probably be able to vote in the elections for a Scottish Parliament. I do not understand why, and I urge the Government to think again about the rights and wrongs of that issue.
There is a strong test of residence in law. In 1970, in the Fox v. Stirk case, Lord Denning gave the following judgment:
a person may properly be said to be 'resident' in a place when his stay there has a considerable degree of permanence".
I would say that the Scots men and women in Worcestershire who are temporarily absent from their homes, and Scots people working overseas for IBM, for the Government, or whatever, have a more "considerable degree of permanence" about their attachment to Scotland than the people whom the Government intend to enfranchise in the referendum.
I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. There is a real sense of grievance among Scots men and women—and, I suspect, among Welsh men and women, too—about the way in which the Government are approaching the measure. I plead with them not to deny Scots men and women their birthright to have a say in their country's future, when they are giving a say to people who have no interest in the future of Scotland.
It is a great shame that the Report stage will come so quickly after the Committee stage, because that will not give the Government time to table amendments to address the issue. However, I hope that they will do so in another place.
I shall be brief. In response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I can say that we all agree that if the proposals are to proceed, they should do so on the basis of the consent, the "settled will", of the Scottish people. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me to convey the message, "Let's just ask the question, and not confuse the voters with the facts." Unless we address all the questions and issues now, that is what will happen.
I have great sympathy with amendment No. 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), because it emphasises a simple point—that the Union of Scotland and England is a voluntary union of two parts. We would not expect one member of a club to be able unilaterally to change the rules of the club, to the detriment of the other members. Yet that is what is being proposed.
It is fine for Scotland to have its own Parliament, but it is quite another matter for Scotland to have its own Parliament while remaining a member of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the complexity of those arrangements are not dealt with by confining the franchise to the local government register.
It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to call the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a racist for raising what he calls the Gary McAllister question. There is also the converse of that question, which we might call the Terry Butcher question. The idea that an English football player playing for Glasgow Rangers would have a vote on the future of Scotland, although Gary McAllister would not—
I shall not, because I want to be brief. To describe those arguments as racist ill-becomes the debate, and may reflect more on the sentiments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the English than on anything else.
I wish to talk in particular about amendments Nos. 238 and 239, which I tabled, which propose to extend the franchise at least to the parliamentary rather than the local government register. I shall finish with a plea, to which I hope those on the Government Front Bench are listening.
My constituency surrounds Colchester, and living in that town are the Royal Scots, the finest and the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army—all Scots, to a man. The Royal Scots recently came down to Colchester from Fort George, and they have a deep loyalty to their country. Why can they not have a vote on the future of that country? Will the Minister confirm that his proposal means that those men will not have a vote on the future of the country for which they are prepared to fight and die? That makes nonsense of the Bill.
I shall be extremely brief, and speak only to my amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which relate to clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), and deal with the franchise. I want the Bill to be changed so as to read:
Those entitled to vote in the referendum shall be those United Kingdom citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland.
That makes a slightly narrower point than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I seek to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the Bill would allow European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales, while not allowing equal rights to the other interested citizens throughout the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, the arrangements in the Bill conflict with what appears to be the law in other European Union countries. We do not have equivalent rights in other European countries. For example, under the Irish constitution, only citizens of Ireland can vote in referendums in Ireland. In France, only French citizens, and in Denmark, only Danish citizens, can vote in referendums under the constitutions of those countries. The same applies in Sweden, Spain, Norway and Italy, and there is an equivalent procedure in Belgium.
Why on earth are we allowing European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales on the future of the United Kingdom, when the other European countries do not allow us the same rights in their referendums on constitutional matters? That seems wholly illogical.
The amendments deal with one of the most serious flaws in the Bill—the arbitrary restrictions and limitations on the franchise. I think that it is common ground that the question that needs to be addressed with regard to the referendum is how it is properly and effectively to establish, in the late John Smith's phrase, the "settled will" of the Scottish people and the Welsh people?
We therefore need answers from the Minister to the many questions that have been asked about the arbitrary definitions proposed in the Bill. Earlier today, we started with the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Gary McAllister question. That is a serious question, which cannot be brushed aside by some of the rather contemptuous observations that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
Indeed, that question has been reinforced by some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said that it was the reverse side of the Terry Butcher question. Behind it lies the real difficulty encountered by those who happen temporarily to be resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who are to be given no voice on a matter that touches not only on the government of Scotland and Wales but on the administration of the whole of the United Kingdom.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland moved Second Reading—he was here a moment ago and he may return—he treated the House to a little joke about peppery Scotsmen in Kuala Lumpur who still take an interest in the old country. I do not share his hilarity. Scotland and Wales have never been inward-looking nations, and the world has been enriched by the talent and energy of Scotsmen who have carried their work abroad. The Secretary of State may find them figures of fun, but I think that most of his constituents would take considerable pride in those people's achievements.
The amendments that we are discussing concern not peppery old chaps in Kuala Lumpur, however, but the rights of Scots and Welsh men and women living and working in our own country. The epitome of that point was put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for North Essex, and it was set out clearly in amendment No. 121, which deals with those who are temporarily away from their homes in Scotland because they are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. The Labour party likes to present its devolution proposals as patriotic, but I cannot begin to see any genuine patriotism in disfranchising those Scottish and Welsh soldiers who form some of the finest regiments in the British army.
Yet without any reciprocity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has pointed out, the Bill denies a say to many natives of Wales and Scotland, while giving a say to citizens of the European Union who happen to be residing temporarily in those countries. So in some cases there will be a vote for people born in Athens but not in Arbroath, a vote for people born in Samos but not in Stornaway, and a vote for those born in Grasse but not, alas, in Gorseinon. Many questions spring from those propositions and call for answers.
Why is the franchise to be determined by entitlement to vote in local government elections? Why should it not be entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections? What is the reasoning behind that? What considerations led the Government to that view? Why not establish a central register of electors for the precise purpose of establishing those who are to participate in the decision that will be taken as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland?
Why not have provisions to make obtaining the vote impossible for people newly arrived in Scotland who are only temporarily resident? Such people may have arrived only a couple of weeks before the due date but fulfil the qualifications and may be entitled to vote. Why not have a time limit? Why not say that the person concerned must have been resident in Scotland or Wales for a period of three or six months so that they have a legitimate locus standi for taking part in the decision?
My right hon. and learned Friend is delicately tripping around the amendments. I have been driven to notice that he has not referred to the lead amendment. What does he think about the proposal to extend the franchise to the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not minded to vote for it, why not?
I know my hon. Friend far too well to think that I could get away without addressing his question. I promise that I shall come to it before I sit down.
I have asked some of the questions to which I hope that we shall get serious answers from the Minister before we are subjected to the arbitrary fall of the guillotine. It is a reflection of the mischief of the guillotine procedure that we have not been able to examine such serious questions in detail. We should have been able in Committee to canvass in detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of a franchise based on local government elections or parliamentary elections or a central register. There are serious arguments for and, no doubt, against each of those options. If the Government had not been so heavy-handed, we would have been able to address those questions fully and effectively and so come to a conclusion that would have enabled the outcome of the referendum to be seen much more genuinely, properly and effectively as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with amendment No. 121, which the Opposition Front-Bench team would certainly have supported had it come to a vote. I do not know whether the question to which it gives rise will go down in history as the Sevenoaks question, the Bosnian question or, indeed, the North Essex question, but it is important and deserves a comprehensive answer.
I have much sympathy with the thought that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to move amendment No. 2. I understand why he moved it and why I imagine that he will press it to a Division. We have given some consideration to the matter and do not think it right at this stage to support it. That does not mean that the proposals do not have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom which may warrant wider consideration in due course.
We have yet to see whether the Government will provide any sort of answer to the West Lothian question, or whether they will begin to address the over-representation of constituencies in Scotland. We have no idea whether the Government will take seriously the financial implications of their proposals, not least the question that will arise in due course of what would happen to the contribution made by the rest of the United Kingdom to the financing of services in Scotland if, however unlikely it may be, a Scottish Parliament decided to use its tax-varying powers to reduce the burden of taxation on the people of Scotland. Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the legislation. If satisfactory answers are not provided, we may well have to revisit the question whether those who reside in other parts of United Kingdom should have a say on the outcome of the proposals.
For the moment, we await the answers that I hope that we will get from the Minister on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and to the other important and legitimate questions raised by my Friends in this all-too-brief debate. If the Government's proposals are to acquire real legitimacy—which must be their objective, and we do not seek to challenge it—they must provide convincing answers. I look forward to hearing what answers the Minister will provide.
I am delighted to respond to the debate and will certainly take up the challenge put forward by some Conservative Members on important issues. I am struck by the fact that we spent three hours on a previous motion on timetabling discussing our inability to have a debate. We have had 10 speeches, including some excellent contributions that were concisely put. Perhaps it is an exemplar of the way in which the House should conduct itself in other matters, and in respect of the rest of the Bill.
I shall not give way at this stage. As always, I shall allow interventions later.
I am impressed by the fragile fraternity that exists among Conservative Members in respect of their coherent approach to the submission of amendments. That is a problem for the Opposition, not for Her Majesty's Government. In passing, I am sure that Labour Members and other hon. Members are a bit sick of being lectured about damaging the Union when this measure is designed to strengthen it. Patriotism is not the preserve of the Opposition when uttered in the way that it has been. All hon. Members take great pride in the House; it is one of the binding qualities that keep us here arguing so coherently.
I have some useful advice for the Opposition. It is only four weeks since the rout, but, at some time, they will have to acknowledge the debate that is taking place in their party in Scotland. That is friendly advice. As has been said, in Wales and Scotland the Tories need some nurturing by the Westminster-based parliamentary party. [Interruption.] It is my style to be helpful to the Opposition. [Interruption.] It is not patronising—it is sound advice which I hope that the Opposition will take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised an important issue. Things have moved on since the 1975 referendum. If hon. Members had gone to the Library, they would have found the relevant clause. Service voters can make a service declaration for an address in the United Kingdom. It may be their home address or another, for example, that of their parents—whatever would be their residence in the UK if they were not serving abroad.
Clearly, it is not possible this evening to specify answers for individuals without knowing personal circumstances. I confirm that service personnel who are resident in Scotland will not lose their votes by virtue of serving abroad. To be helpful, I shall spell out the current position in detail. There is no need for further provisions in the Bill because the facility already exists, and we guarantee that it will be exercised in respect of this referendum.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for what he said. I would wish to study his words. Does he mean that a service man who has been posted from Scotland to Catterick and then from Catterick, as part of the brigade, to serve in Bosnia, will be deprived of his vote because originally he was resident in Catterick?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I would wish to respond to it specifically. My understanding is that the situation that he has outlined would be covered. We are talking about the residency issue in Scotland in terms of the declaration that would be made by service men and women who are not operating in their employment in Scotland. With the approval of the Committee, that is one of the issues with which I should like to deal specifically, and I certainly will.
No, I am not giving way. I want to deal with the questions that have been asked. On the one hand, Members want answers, but, on the other, they want to continue to filibuster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an interesting contribution on the so-called Gary McAllister question, a matter with which I wanted to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the Paul Lambert and John Collins questions. I can tell hon. Members, whether it entertains or worries them, that there will be a Paul Gascoigne factor. I am sure that he will have a vote in the referendum if the Bill passes through the House of Commons.
The purpose behind the large group of amendments that is before us is to change eligibility to vote in a variety of ways. Some amendments are designed to allow people who are resident in any part of the United Kingdom to vote in the referendum, while some amendments are designed to change the franchise from local government to parliamentary status. Others are designed to enable people with only a tenuous claim to Scottish or Welsh roots to vote. That procedure is usually reserved for filling football teams. Other amendments have been tabled with a view to requiring a pledge hand on heart for potential Scottish or Welsh residents that they will move to those countries. None of these amendments is acceptable to the Government.
On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Would it be in order for the Minister to write to hon. Members with the details of the answers that he currently does not have time to give us? I am no clearer now than 20 minutes ago whether the Royal Scots in Colchester will get a vote in the referendum.
It is, Mr. Martin. It happens that I tabled the lead amendment. I have attempted to get the Minister to answer the question that I have posed. It is a convention of the House of Commons that a Minister is expected to deal with the question raised within the terms of the first amendment in the group. The Minister has not responded to it yet.
My usual style, Mr. Martin, is to give way to interventions. I am trying to balance the fact that only eight minutes are available to me in which I might try to answer some of the questions asked against continual interventions that are of no particular substance.
I have answered the question of service registration. I think that it is sufficient to leave the matter there for the present. I shall be writing to those hon. Members who have raised the issue.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would add to the electorate any person born in Scotland and Wales who is entitled to vote in a general election in any part of the United Kingdom. That would allow someone born of English parents who has lived all his life in England and has no connection with either Scotland or Wales to vote in a referendum because, by chance, he happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. Why should such a person have any more right to vote than, say, a Scot who is now living in England?
Amendments Nos. 148, 152, 160, 164 and new schedules 2 and 3 are attempts to set up a central register of electors for the referendum. That register would allow five additional groups to vote in the referendum. Members might wish to read the new schedules to learn exactly what hon. Members have in mind for their fair franchise. Perhaps those concerned would like to explain just how their fourth and fifth categories of voter would take their so-called oath of allegiance, promising to live permanently in Scotland. Would they have to take the oath standing on the Stone of Destiny? Would squads of Scots police pursue absconders south of the border and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to their hielan' hame? Hon. Members will have to do better than that if they want their amendments and new schedules to be taken seriously.
The key criterion for deciding who should vote, in terms of our proposals, must be residency. Many hon. Members have confirmed today that that is the sensible, logical and effective way in which to proceed. I accept that people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have a genuine interest. As hon. Members who have promoted the amendments have demonstrated by their own actions, eligibility to vote must depend on more than just interest.
The principle has been well established in previous referendums. For example, in 1973 the people of Northern Ireland voted on the constitutional status of that part of the UK. In 1975, people in all parts of the UK voted on continued membership of the EC. In 1979, the people of Scotland and Wales voted on the devolution plans of the time. On each occasion, the principle of residency was applied.
The Bill has, of course, been debated by the UK Parliament, as will be the Bills to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, subject to the outcomes of the referendums. These debates will provide ample opportunity for the interests of people in all parts of the UK to be taken into account through Members of the House of Commons. That seems to strike the right balance between seeking the consent of those most obviously affected by the proposals and ensuring that the interests of the UK as a whole are taken into account.
As an aside, looking ahead to a possible referendum on Europe, would hon. Members suggest that as the UK's membership has an effect stretching well beyond its borders, citizens of all other member states should be entitled to vote on UK membership?
Those who support amendment No. 121 have raised an important issue. Obviously, we want to ensure that service voters have the right to participate. I have tried to reassure the Committee that that is the case. As a courtesy, I want to explain in detail the current position so that hon. Members are left in no doubt that it is the reality. We shall ensure that it is operational when the referendum takes place.
The current arrangements are apparently working well and it seems important that we should allow them to continue to do so.
Amendment No. 120 would, if accepted, stretch some of the points raised this evening even further. I do not seek to be frivolous in any way, but the amendment could allow someone born in, for example, Bolivia of Bolivian parents, who has never visited Scotland, to vote in the referendum merely because his granny was a Scot. What sort of fairness is that in relation to what we are attempting to do on franchise?
Obviously and understandably, Conservative Members have tried to range wide in our discussions today. However, the substantive Scotland and Wales Bills will come before us later in the Session. It is important to remember that, despite the timetabling motion, we shall have an opportunity to raise at a later stage some of the issues that have been highlighted by Conservative Members this evening. At present, we must remain within the strict terms of the timetable motion if we are to keep in order.
The Minister has still not attempted in any way to answer the main question that has been raised this evening. Will he answer a simple question: why are the Government not prepared to extend the franchise under these referendums to the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he answer that simple question?
I have already answered that question. I have said that the issue of the referendums is primarily one for Scottish and Welsh voters. It must be recognised, however, that the House of Commons, in discussing the Bill during its various stages, will have the chance to reflect the views of everyone living in the United Kingdom. It is vital that that is emphasised. It seems that despite attempting to curtail comments on the timetable motion there is the view around that in some way the House of Commons will be deprived of the possibility of looking in depth at the proposals.
I want to go some way to allay the fears of Conservative Members, if they are genuine fears. We intend to publish a substantial White Paper, and there will be a debate in the House. The White Paper will inform the campaign before the referendum takes place. That is vital, because we want Scottish and Welsh voters to know what they are voting on.
The White Paper, informed by the results of the referendums, will form the basis on which we shall develop the Bill. That will give us ample opportunity to ensure that every sector of the United Kingdom is represented through individual Members of Parliament. That is a reassurance, and we intend to make it a reality.
|Division No. 9]||[8.30 pm|
|Bercow, John||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Blunt, Crispin||Loughton, Tim|
|Brady, Graham||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Brazier, Julian||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Mates, Michael|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Merchant, Piers|
|Butterfill, John||Moss, Malcolm|
|Cash, William||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Clappison, James||Paice, James|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)||Paterson, Owen|
|Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Collins, Tim||Robathan, Andrew|
|Colvin, Michael||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Cran, James||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Day, Stephen||Ruffley, David|
|Duncan, Alan||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Evans, Nigel||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Faber, David||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Fallon, Michael||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Flight, Howard||Spring, Richard|
|Forth, Eric||Swayne, Desmond|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Syms, Robert|
|Fraser, Christopher||Tredinnick, David|
|Gale, Roger||Trend, Michael|
|Garnier, Edward||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Gibb, Nick||Walter, Robert|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Wardle, Charles|
|Gray, James||Waterson, Nigel|
|Grieve, Dominic||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Whittingdale, John|
|Hammond, Philip||Wilkinson, John|
|Hawkins, Nick||Willetts, David|
|Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David||Wilshire, David|
|Hunter, Andrew||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Woodward, Shaun|
|Leigh, Edward||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Mr. Peter Luff and|
|Lidington, David||Mr. Christopher Gill.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Beirth, Rt Hon A J|
|Ainger, Nick||Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Benn, Rt Hon Tony|
|Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)||Bennett, Andrew F|
|Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)||Benton, Joe|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)||Berry, Roger|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Best, Harold|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Blackman, Mrs Liz|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Blears, Ms Hazel|
|Atkins, Ms Charlotte||Blizzard, Robert|
|Austin, John||Blunkett, Rt Hon David|
|Ballard, Mrs Jackie||Boateng, Paul|
|Banks, Tony||Borrow, David|
|Barnes, Harry||Bradley, Keith (Withington)|
|Barron, Kevin||Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Bradshaw, Ben|
|Beard, Nigel||Brand, Dr Peter|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Breed, Colin|
|Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)||Brinton, Mrs Helen|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick||Doran, Frank|
|(Newcastle E & Wallsend)||Drew, David|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Drown, Ms Julia|
|Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Burden, Richard||Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Burgon, Colin||Edwards, Huw|
|Burnett, John||Efford, Clive|
|Burstow, Paul||Ellman, Ms Louise|
|Butler, Christine||Ennis, Jeff|
|Byers, Stephen||Ewing, Mrs Margaret|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Fatchett, Derek|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Fisher, Mark|
|Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna|
|Campbell—Savours, Dale||Flint, Ms Caroline|
|Canavan, Dennis||Flynn, Paul|
|Cann, Jamie||Follett, Ms Barbara|
|Casale, Roger||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Cawsey, Ian||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Foster, Michael John (Worcester)|
|Chaytor, David||Foulkes, George|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Galbraith, Sam|
|Church, Ms Judith||Galloway, George|
|Clapham, Michael||Gapes, Mike|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Gardiner, Barry|
|Clark, Dr Lynda||George, Andrew (St Ives)|
|(Edinburgh Pentlands)||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Gerrard, Neil|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Godsiff, Roger|
|Clelland, David||Goggins, Paul|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Coaker, Vernon||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Gorrie, Donald|
|Cohen, Harry||Graham, Thomas|
|Coleman, Iain||Grant, Bernie|
|(Hammersmith & Fulham)||Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)|
|Colman, Anthony (Putney)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Connarty, Michael||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Cooper, Ms Yvette||Grogan, John|
|Corbett, Robin||Gunnell, John|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hain, Peter|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Cotter, Brian||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Cousins, Jim||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Cranston, Ross||Hancock, Mike|
|Crausby, David||Hanson, David|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Harris, Dr Evan|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Harvey, Nick|
|Cummings, John||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Healey, John|
|Cunningham, Ms Roseanna||Heath, David (Somerton)|
|(Perth)||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Dafis, Cynog||Heppell, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hesford, Stephen|
|Darling, Rt Hon Alistair||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Darvill, Keith||Hill, Keith|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Davidson, Ian||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Hoey, Kate|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Home Robertson, John|
|Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Dawson, Hilton||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Dean, Ms Janet||Hope, Philip|
|Denham, John||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Dewar, Rt Hon Donald||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Dismore, Andrew||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Dobbin, Jim||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Hughes, Ms Beverley|
|Donohoe, Brian H||(Stretford & Urmston)|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Marek, Dr John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Hurst, Alan||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Hutton, John||Martlew, Eric|
|Iddon, Brian||Maxton, John|
|Illsley, Eric||Meacher, Rt Hon Michael|
|Ingram, Adam||Meale, Alan|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)||Michael, Alun|
|Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)|
|Jamieson, David||Milburn, Alan|
|Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)||Miller, Andrew|
|Johnson, Alan (Hull W)||Moffatt, Laura|
|Johnson, Ms Melanie||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|(Welwyn Hatfield)||Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)||Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Morley, Elliot|
|Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Jones, Ms Jenny||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)|
|(Wolverh'ton SW)||Mountford, Ms Kali|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Mudie, George|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Mullin, Chris|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham)||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Keetch, Paul||Norris, Dan|
|Kemp, Fraser||Oaten, Mark|
|Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Khabra, Piara S||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Kidney, David||Olner, Bill|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||O'Neill, Martin|
|King, Andy (Rugby)||Opik, Lembit|
|King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Kingham, Tessa||Osborne, Mrs Sandra|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Perham, Ms Linda|
|Lawrence, Ms Jackie||Pickthall, Colin|
|Laxton, Bob||Pike, Peter L|
|Lepper, David||Plaskrtt, James|
|Leslie, Christopher||Pollard, Kerry|
|Levitt, Tom||Pond, Chris|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Pope, Greg|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Pound, Stephen|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Powell, Sir Raymond|
|Linton, Martin||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Livsey, Richard||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Purchase, Ken|
|Lock, David||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Love, Andy||Quinn, Lawrie|
|McAllion, John||Rammell, Bill|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Rapson, Syd|
|McCabe, Stephen||Raynsford, Nick|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)||Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)|
|McDonagh, Ms Siobhain||Rogers, Allan|
|Macdonald, Calum||Rooker, Jeff|
|McDonnell, John||Rooney, Terry|
|McFall, John||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Rowlands, Ted|
|McIsaac, Ms Shona||Roy, Frank|
|McKenna, Ms Rosemary||Ruane, Chris|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|McLeish, Henry||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|McMaster, Gordon||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|McNulty, Tony||Salmond, Alex|
|MacShane, Denis||Salter, Martin|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McWalter, Tony||Sawford, Phil|
|McWilliam, John||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Shaw, Jonathan|
|Mallaber, Ms Judy||Sheerman, Barry|
|Mandelson, Peter||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Shipley, Ms Debra||Todd, Mark|
|Short, Rt Hon Clare||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)||Touhig, Don|
|Singh, Marsha||Truswell, Paul|
|Skinner, Dennis||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)||Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Smith, Miss Geraldine||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|(Morecambe & Lunesdale)||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)||Tyler, Paul|
|Smith, John (Glamorgan)||Vaz, Keith|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)||Wallace, James|
|Soley, Clive||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Southworth, Ms Helen||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Spellar, John||Wareing, Robert N|
|Squire, Ms Rachel||Watts, David|
|Starkey, Dr Phyllis||Webb, Steven|
|Steinberg, Gerry||Welsh, Andrew|
|Stevenson, George||White, Brian|
|Stewart, David (Inverness E)||Whitehead, Alan|
|Stewart, Ian (Eccles)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Stinchcombe, Paul||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Stoate, Dr Howard||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Stott, Roger||(Swansea W)|
|Straw, Rt Hon Jack||Williams, Dr Alan W|
|Stringer, Graham||(E Carmarthen)|
|Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Stunell, Andrew||Wills, Michael|
|Sutcliffe, Gerry||Wilson, Brian|
|Swinney, John||Winnick, David|
|Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)||Woolas, Phil|
|Taylor, David (NW Leics)||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Taylor, Matthew||Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)|
|(Truro & St Austell)||Wyatt, Derek|
|Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Timms, Stephen||Mr. Clive Betts and|
|Tipping, Paddy||Mr. Jim Dowd.|
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'tax—varying'.
No. 145, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'varying' and insert 'raising'.
No. 112, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'Parliament' and insert 'Assembly'.
No. 88, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'papers' and insert 'paper'.
No. 203, in page 1, line 10, leave out '1' and insert '(Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)).
No. 200, in page 1, line 22, leave out from 'certify' to second 'the'.
No. 89, in page 1, line 22, leave out
'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.
No. 90, in page 1, line 25, leave out
'for each of the two forms of ballot paper.'.
No. 92, in schedule 1, page 4, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert
': FORM OF BALLOT PAPER'.
No. 95, in page 4, line 6, after 'Parliament', insert 'with tax—varying powers'.
No. 93, in page 4, line 9, at end insert
No. 94, in page 4, line 12, at end insert
'WITH TAX-VARYING POWERS'.
No. 76, in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 22.
New schedule 8—Referendum in Scotland (No. 2)—