................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 6.4.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. All of a sudden there
is a real issue being discussed in this election campaign - devolution. And
today - with the help of a studio audience - that's what WE shall be looking
at. Not just the question of parliaments for Scotland and Wales, but also
reform of the voting system and of the House of Lords. Join us - and
representatives of all five main British parties after the News read by
Moira Stuart.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: The Tories have been praying for a
political stick with which to beat the Labour Party ever since the campaign
began and on Friday their prayers, it seems, were answered. Tony Blair went to
Scotland and aroused the fury of many Scots by appearing to suggest that a
Scottish parliment would be a pretty puny thing. It might have the power to
raise taxes in theory, but in reality Mr Blair wouldn't let it happen. Not
much different from a parish council in truth. Well, that's one of the things
that we shall be looking at over the next hour in this debate on the future of
the British Constitution.
The questions will be put by members of
the audience, and I'll be following up to try to make sure that they're
answered. And here are the people who will be debating the questions: William
Hague, the Secretary of State for Wales and the youngest member of the
Cabinet. He's talked of as a future leader. Donald Dewar, Labour's Chief Whip
and a former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Robert MacLennan,
President of the Liberal Democrats and a former leader of the SDP. Dafydd
Wigley, the President of the Welsh Nationalist Party Plaid Cymru and Allan
Macartney, Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party.
And our first question this afternoon is
from Mr Bill Nesbitt, Mr Nesbitt.
BILL NESBITT: If a Scottish parliament is established
in Edinburgh, should the Scottish MPs still vote at Westminster on matters
which concern only England?
HUMPHRYS: Ah, so, the West Lothian question summed
up there for you there. Donald Dewar.
DONALD DEWAR MP: Yes I think that they should and what we
should see this, is in the proper context. Devolution is about democracy, it's
about representing the various strands within the United Kingdom, the nations
that make it up. It's representing - if you take Scotland specifically, the
fact that we have a separate body of Scottish legislation, if you want to look
at education law, you look at the Education Scotland Act, not the Education Act
that runs in England. And of course the Westminster Parliament will continue
to have the major fiscal powers, it will continue to have foreign affairs, it
will continue to have major economic responsibilities. And I think it is a
case of saying that in Westminster we should ask the people there, the elected
representatives of the whole country to take a sensible decision about
representing Scotland and Welsh aspirations within the United Kingdom and
allowing them to run their domestic affairs which are already, as I say, a
separate stream of legislation. So we don't get the tensions, we don't get the
difficulties of having politicians in Scotland and to an extent in Wales,
imposing, particularly in Scotland, imposing solutions like the Poll Tax, like
opting out from education, like dismembering large parts of the Health Service
that we don't have that enforced upon Scotland by politicians that have a very
small part of support in Scotland.
We should have a democratically elected
Parliament which is in fact..is in fact reflecting Scottish opinion. And to
say that because we're doing that, because good democratic principle demands
that, that there should be some sort of punitive raid or that we should
disqualify Scottish MPs at Westminster seems to me to make no sense. We want
to have a grip of the tight grip, the centralised grip on democracy in this
country, we want to trust people in the areas in which they live, whether it is
in English regions, whether it is Wales, we don't want a stereotype, but we
want to give people a chance to run their own affairs and influence things much
more effectively than they have.
HUMPHRYS: And William Hague, why not?
WILLIAM HAGUE MP: Well what we have here and what we're
looking at is the jerrymandering of our constitution. Donald Dewar is saying
there should be a Scottish parliament, that Scotland should be able to
legislate for itself on education, health, a whole wide range of matters, but
also legislate for England. That Scottish MPs would still go to the House of
Commons and vote on what was going on in England. So Scottish MPs would be
able to vote on what effected my constituents but I would not be able to vote
on what effected people in Scotland. That is an inherently unstable
constitutional position and there are only two logical answers to it. One, is
not to embark on the whole ridiculous idea in the first place and keep the
United Kingdom, parliament as a United Kingdom parliament. But the other would
be to say that Scottish MPs would not be able to vote on English matters where
power had been devolved to a Scottish parliament. I want to see the first
answer. I want to see the United Kingdom parliament stay together as a United
Kingdom parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Bob Maclennan, those are the only two
answers as far as Mr Hague is concerned, do you accept that?
ROBERT MACLENNAN MP: I don't think either of them really
addresses the question put from the audience and it seems to me that what we
have to recognise first is that home rule for Scotland is simply the first step
towards decentralisation of government throughout the United Kingdom and that a
parliament in Wales and regional government in England would help to diminish
the apparent unfairness of the system at the very beginning. But I think that
it's quite wrong that the Scots, is they are deciding matters peculiar to
Scotland in Scotland should have the power to decide and vote upon matters
peculiar to England in England, and during that period before we reach a system
of government in which we have decentralisation all round and home rule all
round, I agree we would not have the Scots voting on purely English matters.
Of course there are many matters in
which the Scots would continue to vote which effect the whole of the United
Kingdom. The major provisions of the budgetary economy, the major matters of
foreign policy, the major matters which would remain, retain at Westminster,
those matters would certainly be subject to votes from all the Scots elected.
But I think if the Scots are being elected to a Scottish parliament to deal
with domestic matters in Scotland then it must surely be right that their
numbers should be somewhat reduced in the Westminster Parliament to reflect
that.
HUMPHRYS: Right, I'll come to the Nationalists in
just a moment. But let me go back to you on that Donald Dewar, because
afterall, the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be your allies in this, you've
worked with them for years to set up this whole process and now you've got Mr
Maclennan there saying it isn't fair, what you're proposing, they shouldn't be
able to vote on English matters and there should be fewer of them.
DEWAR: No, Bob Maclennan can speak for himself.
HUMPHRYS: He just did.
DEWAR: I know, he didn't say the second point.
He said he would prefer a full federal solution at some time but he strongly
supports the scheme that is being put forward at this stage as the practical
way forward now. I think Bob is nodding.
HUMPHRYS: Yes but you have a problem with the
fairness. You have a solution for the so-called West Lothian question, which
is not the solution that they had, they say West Lothian question in essence
doesn't exist, you say but it does.
DEWAR: Well if I could take up the point of
representation. I think it would be quite wrong to say that you should reduce
Scottish representation on the subject of national taxation, foreign affairs,
and defence and major economic issues, simply on the basis that the United
Kingdom parliament, representing every part of the country has been persuaded
that for the better government of the United Kingdom, they will pass to
Scotland direct democratic control over the separate areas of Scottish
legislation that already exists within Westminster. You wouldn't have that
kind of punitive raid. And let me just say to you, and it's I suppose a sort
of Conservative argument, but I guess an important one in a sense, I mean if
you were running a business and you decided that it was right to delegate some
of your powers to another body, then you would do that on the merits of the
argument and you wouldn't say that you would keep a stress and a strain within
the United Kingdom which has created great problems over recent years under the
Conservative Government.
HUMPHRYS: If I were running ICI I wouldn't be able
to sit on the board of ICI and also vote on matters effecting British Steel, if
you like, when British Steel people couldn't vote on my matters. I mean you've
not answered that question.
DEWAR: No, it's the same board and if you look
at large companies, if you want to take this, if you go and look at the
structures of large companies, they very often have a Scottish board looking
after specific Scottish business. That doesn't mean that in some sort of way
they are breaking up the company, they are merely doing that because they think
that is a more sensible way of running things. If you are worried about the
future of the United Kingdom, then I think you've got to have a United Kingdom
that can adapt, that can show flexibility and that can recognise, whether it be
in Wales or in North of England or in Scotland there are need for new
structures, and new ways of allowing people to be involved in government. This
is a sensible way of doing it, it's an exciting and radical one but really when
you listen to the cynicism that there is throughout the country about the way
our system works, then who is going to deny the needs for some radical change
and some rethought.
HUMPHRYS: Well, Mr Macartney, you certainly want
radical change but are you happy which what they're proposing?
MACARTNEY: Far from it. I mean it seems to me that
the obvious answer for Scotland is to look towards Europe where a lot of the
powers are now held and say to themselves what would be the best deal for
Scotland and I put it to you that swapping seventy-two members in the
Westminster parliament and getting in exchange not only sixteen members of the
European parliament but a seat in the Council of Ministers where the real
decisions are taken, that is the way forward...
HUMPHRYS: Can we deal with this so-called West
Lothian question first. What would your solution to that be? Bearing in mind
what we've heard already.
MACARTNEY: Well you know I've often talked to
people in England about this and I asked people in Milton Keynes which region
do you belong to and they don't understand the question. So we're asked to
believe that somehow eventually they'll be a kind of 'Come Dancing' regions
created by Labour so as to answer the West Lothian question or possibly by the
English Liberal proposal which is different from the Scottish Liberal proposal
and that that seems to be...no it's correct...that seems to be you know a
complete nonsense when the Scottish people simply want to exercise a democratic
right to determine their own future. And that is for us in Scotland the most
important thing. We are democrats but we also want to play a part in Europe
but in exercising democracy we want a fair electoral system, we want a written
constitution, we want all the positive advantages of a modern European
democracy.
HUMPHRYS: When you talk about a fair system, you'd
accept would you not, it is wrong to be over-represented in the Westminster
Parliament although Scotland is at the moment.
MACARTNEY: Of course, it is we want no
representation in the Westminster Parliament, we want them all out and we want
to be playing a full part in a sovereign body in Scotland and also
sitting-in....
HUMPHRYS: But, since you are going along with the
notion of the Scottish parliament, for the moment, anyway, do you not accept
that there has to be something done now to deal with what we keep referring to
bafflingly, for some people admittedly is the West Lothian question, is part of
the solution to reduce the number of Scottish MPs sitting in the Westminster
Parliament.
MACARTNEY: Well, you know, a week ago that might
have been a sensible question. I think now the problem we have to deal with
is the Tony Blair question. He says, as an English Mp, I will decide what
powers the Scottish Parliament can exercise and there's this real power will
stay in England says Blair. This is the message we're getting from Tony. So,
I find Donald's talk about trusting a Scottish Board and breaking up the grip
of the centre on Scotland quite ludicrous when Blair has gone out of his way to
say: I will keep a tight grip of that power. Don't worry, folks, in England,
this power will be analogous to that of a Parish Council. A small variation...
HUMPHRYS: Well, we'll come to that - alright, I
promise you we'll come back to that, in a minute, and I'll let you make the
point. But, the Conservatives Mr Hague have accepted the principle as a result
of what you've agreed for Northern Ireland. You've accepted that there would
be an Assembly for Northern Ireland another Stormont, if you like. Therefore,
you have accepted the principle of what they are proposing, haven't you?
HAGUE: Northern Ireland is an entirely unique
situation in the world and a spokesman of the Labour Party have said themselves
- George Robertson, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, has said himself that you
can't make a read across from the situation in Northern Ireland to that in
Scotland and Wales. We believe in the United Kingdom, basically. That is at
the heart of what we believe. We believe we live in a democracy called the
United Kingdom, in which the voters and the Members of Parliament - Scotland,
Wales, England, work together. Once you start changing the arrangements, in
the way that has just been described, then, you are into Consitutional chaos.
We've already just seen it now.
HUMPHRYS: We've already accepted the basic
principle: that you should have the sort of Parliament, whatever you want to
call it, in Northern Ireland, the members of which would vote on their own
affairs, apart from foreign affairs and defence and the monarchy. So,
therefore, you may say it is unique but of course everything is unique the
first time it happens and then other things join it and what they're proposing
is that Scotland ought to have something similar. How, therefore, are they
threatening the Union and you're not?
HAGUE: I think, we all recognise and I think
people right across the UK recognise that Northern Ireland is a completely
separate situation. Here we are talking about a quite different thing. Here
we are talking about Scotland and Wales having their own Parliaments or
Assemblies which would, then, be used as a vehicle by Scottish and Welsh
Nationalists to say these things aren't powerful enough. These things don't
have enough money. We must have more power, we must have more tax. We've just
heard the agenda of the Nationalists here and the Labour Party are being the
useful fools, if you like, who meet that halfway, who appease it halfway. That
spells great danger for the United Kingdom and will create a Constitutional
situation that could not last.
HUMPHRYS: Dafydd Wigley I'm going to come to you
about Wales specifically, in a moment. If you want to give a quick comment on
this situation - do but not specifically Wales, for the moment.
WIGLEY: Well, yes, I would like to comment on
this and it's interesting to hear William Hague say that Northern Ireland is a
separate issue. I thought the whole point about the Unionist case is that they
saw Northern Ireland as part of the UK. Now, then, of course, we would like to
see Wales as a fully self-governing kind of...
HUMPHRYS: We're going to come to that I promise
you...
WIGLEY: As far as Wales is concerned, the
proposals that we have before us now don't enshrine law-making powers. Labour
is offering Scotland a Parliament with law-making powers - not for us. We
accept..
HUMPHRYS: Let me stop you because I promise you
the next question...
WIGLEY: Can I clarify this John because in the
Scottish context. If we had lawmaking powers, full lawmaking powers for those
matters in the Welsh Office, we would accept that Welsh MPs elected to
Westminster would, then, not vote on matters, such as Education. And, the
problem, then, becomes not a Welsh problem, or a Scottish problem but an
English problem - how England sorts out how it is different.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly. Bob Maclennan.
MACLENNAN: Well, I think, what threatens the Union
is the kind of centralist, Conservative view that the Union means a single
government in London, determining without regard to what people in the other
nations of Britain want. And, the settled opinion of the Scots for a long
time, over many Elections, has been that we do want a Parliament and Home Rule
for ourselves and to continue to resist that, as the Conservative Party is
doing. It's not only to threaten the unity of the United Kingdom, it's to keep
this country in a position which is quite different from that of every other
comparable democracy in Western Europe, which has decentralised Government.
The Germans have had it since we imposed it upon them after the War. The
Italians have chosen it, the French have now twenty-two provincial assemblies.
It seems to me that they are flying in the face of modernity, adopting (sic)
self-government and self-determination.
HUMPHRYS: But, Donald Dewar, Tony Blair went to
Scotland and said, in effect, that that kind of centralisation, in truth, is
going to continue because he said: I, an English MP, am responsible for the
sovereignity of this United Kingdom and effectively, I know he didn't use these
words, but effectively he said that power, that Parliament in Scotland is only
going to have the powers that I see fit to grant it, especially as far as
tax-raising is concerned.
DEWAR: He said two things: one he said it was
quite ludicrous that the Tories should be hysterical over giving some a level
of varying powers to the Scottish Parliament when they, in fact, gave it to
every level of local government, including the bottom level, the lowest... and,
therefore, he said quite rightly and I one thousand per cent support him that
to get hysterical and to say that you can't trust the Scots in a Scottish
Parliament to behave responsibly in fiscal matters, while you, in fact, trust
local councils at every level to do so seems to me to be a madness.
And, the second thing he said was - a
very simple one - was that he made the point that this is devolution of power.
This is a democratic passing of power to people in Scotland, people in Wales
and we hope in a rather different context to other parts of the United
Kingdom. And, it is done by Westminster. And, it's done for the better
democratic - at the end of the day, this can't happen, John, as you must
recognise.
This can't happen unless the Westminster
Parliament passes the necessary legislation. That seems to me to be a very
sensible and fair point.
HUMPHRYS: That has been passed, the necessary
legislation has been passed by all the MPs.
DEWAR: OK, what a majority of MPs from every
part of the country.
HUMPHRYS: And, we now have a Scottish Parliament -
right?
DEWAR: Right.
HUMPHRYS: And, the Scottish Parliament decides
possibly because the Tories abstain, or whatever the situation happens to be,
the Scottish Parliament decides that it wants to raise Income Tax by three
pence in the Pound, let's say 'cos that's part of the plan. Now, you, Tony
Blair, specifically down in London says: I don't want that. He's already said
it's not going to happen in the first five years. Does he then say to that
Scottish Parliament you can't do it! I'm going to stop you doing it.
DEWAR: No, you haven't followed the argument
closely enough.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I've asked that question a dozen
times and you're not answering it!
DEWAR: I've always wanted to say that to you.
So, I've done it now!
HUMPHRYS: Is the answer No or Yes.
DEWAR: Well, let me give you the answer quite
simply. There is a distinction that must be made. We want the Parliament to
have those powers because we think that it is a matter of discipline and
responsibility.
HUMPHRYS: But you won't let them exercise it .
DEWAR: No, no, that is what the legislation
will do but you've got to make a distinction between giving them powers and the
exercise of those powers.
HUMPHRYS: What's the point in having those powers,
if you don't exercise them?
DEWAR: Well, let me make it clear because it's
open to misrepresentation and is being misrepresented, as it happens. What we
are saying is that the power will be there but as the Labour Party has made a
pledge as a Party in the country that they won't raise personal rates of Income
Tax then, it is right that should apply in Scotland and in England.
HUMPHRYS: Why?
DEWAR: If we don't have control of the Scottish
Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Why?
DEWAR: Then, clearly, it can use that power, if
it wants to....control the Scottish Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Let's be clear because what you said
there was imporant.
DEWAR: Yes, indeed.
HUMPHRYS: If you do not have power within that
Parliament - so, in other words, if that Parliament decides to do something of
which you do not approve in London, it may nevertheless be allowed. It will,
nevertheless, be allowed to do it.
DEWAR: If that power is devolved, the Scottish
Parliament can right it but to a degree.
HUMPHRYS: But, it can't raise taxes.
DEWAR: Yes, of course, it can but the second-
let me just make it clear. The second pledge he made was though is a matter of
Party policy, Labour will not do that in the time of the present government.
HUMPHRYS: I tell you what - we've really got to go
to Wales. Dafydd Wigley standing there feeling very left out. Let me, let me
go to Mrs Richards from Swansea - I bet - was one of those applauding there -
yes.
MRS RICHARDS: You are proposing a much weaker assembly
for Wales, why do you think we are less capable of running our own affairs
than the Scots?
HUMPHRYS: Dafydd Wigley.
DAFYDD WIGLEY MP: Well, we're not-
HUMPHRYS: You're not proposing it, of course! An
Assembly for Wales is being proposed by the Labour Party; that there should be
an Assembly for Wales which does not have the same legislative powers as a
Parliament for Scotland would. What do you make of that? Will you go along
with it?
WIGLEY: Well, no, because we believe that the
needs of Wales are the needs to be able to control our social and economic
agenda to the maximum possible extent. We in Wales have never, ever elected a
majority of Tory MPs and yet we get Tory MPs, Tory Governments - two thirds,
three-quarters of the time and the policies that, therefore, are imposed on
Wales are not the policies that the people of Wales want. Now, then, if you
are going to materially affect those policies - take, for example, Education
something that has been very close to the hearts of the people of Wales, we
need the ability to formulate our own laws, if we're going to develop our
Educational system along those lines.
Now, then, the Assembly that's being
offered by the Labour Party is an Executive Assembley. It will be allowed to
tinker with some of the orders that have been made - secondary legislation, as
it's been called. But, would not be able to create, for example, an Education
Act for Wales. So, if we saw after five years, a return of a Tory Government -
with perhaps, Mr Portillo or Mr Redwood as Prime Minister and wanting to
privatise Education, they might not be able to do so in Scotland, if the
Scottish Parliament has lawmaking powers and it is not over-ruled by London.
But, as far as Wales is concerned, any
act passed in London would apply to Wales. Now, that, frankly, isn't good
enough and we're not prepared to see our country treated as a second class
nation.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Now, Don Dewar. I have to be
very conscious about the amount of time you all get here and not your fault but
you've had more time than most, so far. Can I ask you to be very brief in
answering this question. Why are you denying Wales an Assembly without even the
power of a Parish Council in England?
DEWAR: We are not giving Wales the same powers
as Scotland because we're not going to blueprint that we're enforcing every
part of the country. We believe in listening to people and our understanding
certainly of the situation in Wales is that it is very different from that in
Scotland, they don't have separate Welsh legislation in the way that we do, at
the moment and we believe the real problem in Wales is, of course, a feeling
that there is a sense of identity - not properly recognised - and that there is
an unelected undemocratic state that is becoming more and more important and
ought to be brought under control.
There are more - as you probably know,
John - there are more appointed members of quangos than democratically elected
Councillors and we want to bring that under control and spend the money under
democratic control.
HUMPHRYS: The fact is Dafydd Wigley if there was
this great demand in Wales, you'd have a lot more than four MPs, Plaid Cymru
wouldn't you?
WIGLEY: Well, if one assumes that the only
indicator for a wish for constitutional change is the vote for Plaid Cymru in
Wales and the SNP in Scotland that's a message that should well be heard in
Wales and in Scotland If they want to move forward to get powerful
parliaments it's only the vote for Plaid Cymru, I'm grateful to you for putting
that point so succinctly. (laughter) But can I respond to the point that was
made by Donald Dewar a moment ago, when he said that there was no Welsh
legislation. In fact in this parliament we've had two acts specifically and
exclusively for Wales, a local government Wales Act and a Welsh Language Act.
Those were passed through parliament in committee stage with a committee packed
with Tory MPs, a majority of them from English constituencies that didn't have
to live with the conclusions of that legislation, we in Wales have to do that.
Now we believe that it's necessary in those sugjects that we do have our own
law making parliament, and if Donald Dewar believes in getting different
solutions to different parts of the UK as he put it, to meet the needs, why are
we having a referendum that only has one question. Why is that not option of
having a law-making parliament not part of that referendum so the people of
Wales can genuinely show what they want or...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, I'm not going to let Donald
answer that because we've got to watch the clock on these things. William
Hague, I introduced you as the Secretary of State for Wales. I might as well
have introduced you as a sort of pro-Consul mightn't I, because what you're
saying is we must continue this system. The people of Wales are going to be
governed by an Englishman who comes from across the border without any say in
its own affairs, and you want that situation to continue.
HAGUE: No, what I'm saying is that we should
continue with a system where Wales is fully and equally a part of the United
Kingdom, where Welsh MPs can be part of the government of the United Kingdom, a
very different situation from the one that Dafydd Wigley prefers. We've had a
series of leaders of the Labour Party who have been Welsh members of
parliament. They stood for election for the whole United Kingdom, not just for
Wales, and that is how we believe the country should be governed. The lady who
asked the question put her finger on the issue here. Why is it that the Labour
Party think there should be a powerful tax raising parliament in Scotland, even
though they call it a parish council when they're tallking to other people, and
an assembly without any tax-raising powers in Wales. What have they got
against the Scots or is it that they don't trust the Welsh, and what it shows
you is that their policiy is based on being all things to all people, and being
all things to all people means in Wales that you propose an assembly, the
biggest roomful of hot air that people in Wales would ever have been asked to
pay for, and a parliament in Scotland it means offering something else. No
logical principle behind what they propose, but just being all things to all
people wherever they happen to be in the country.
HUMPHRYS: Let me just pick up another question -
well go on, a quick comment.
MACARTNEY: I was going to ask a particular
question. Does he accept the democratic right of self-determination of the
Welsh and Scottish people, that is absolutely fundamental to...
HUMPHRYS: I'm delighted you asked that question
because we have somebody here, Miss Willis Stewart there we are, with something
very similar to that.
MISS WILLIS STEWART: Yes, polls show that the Scots and Welsh
obviously want some form of devolved assembly. What's wrong with letting the
people decide themselves in a referendum?
HUMPHRYS: There we are. William Hague, what's
wrong with that?
HAGUE: Well, of course polls have shown this in
the past and then turned out to be wrong as so many polls have in history. the
last time we had an actual referendum on it in 1979, the people of Wales voted
four to one against an assembly, and I believe the people of Wales would very
probably vote against an assembly again. So let us not take public opinion for
granted, and I think people are making a great mistake when they assume that
people want to plunge into this constitutional chaos. People when they
consider all the arguments do not want to ...
HUMPHRYS: Why not give them a chance, why not get
them to say: Okay, you know I'm not going to speak for you, speak for
yourselves?
HAGUE: But they - first of all they have their
chance in this General Election to vote for the only party which says let us
not go into this constitutional chaos, which is the Conservative Party.
Secondly a referendum should only be held on a specific set of proposals which
parliament has approved and which then the people can be consulted on. I think
it would be quite right if parliament voted for a parliament in Scotland and an
assmebly in Wales, for it to be put to a referendum. In my party we would
argue for a no vote, but it would be quite right to put it to a referendum.
HUMPHRYS: Dafydd Wigley.
WIGLEY: Well yes. The one thing that we don't
find acceptable is that we're told by someone from a Yorkshire constituency who
doesn't face the electorate in Wales at this General Election what way, what
form we should decide these matters in Wales. What we need is a multi-option
referendum. There are four broad proposals on the table. One is a status quo
which Conservatives advocate. Ours is for self-government. Labour have a
non-lawmaking assembly, and the Liberals advocate a law making parliament.
There's a two to one majority in favour of change in Wales, and of those who
want to change over seventy per cent want a law-making and tax-bearing
parliament for Wales. Now then, if democracy means anything why do we not have
that on the ballot paper in a referendum for it to be meaningful?
HUMPHRYS: Mr Macartney
MACARTNEY: Well absolutely. The lady asked the
question, she said there's a large majority for devolution. Well this is
acutally wrong. There is a large majority for a Scottish parliament, but the
poll in the Sunday Times today gives devolution at thirty-six per cent,
independence at thirty-five per cent. There's only one per cent difference, so
roughly one third of Scots at the moment would like full independence, one
third would like devolution, and the remainder would like no change, about a
quarter. So this is - I think if there is to be a consultative referendum as
Labour propose, then of course, that question as Dafydd Wigley rightly says,
should be put to people, and we have challenged the Labour Party to go down
that road, and they keep saying no, they're going to exclude the option which
is now coming up and is supported currently by thirty-three per cent.
HUMPHRYS: Let's ask Donald Dewar why he won't do
that. Why won't you put independence on the ballot paper?.
DEWAR: That's what we're going to put as a
specific scheme which we would describe in detail and ask Scots to endorse, and
it's interesting that the poll - you don't quote the headline figure which
shows the Labour Party with an overwhelming lead in Scotland as it does in the
country nationally - and on the tax-bearing powers, on the revenue-bearing
powers, sixty-three per cent in favour, twenty-three per cent against, which
is perhaps something that will put in perspective the jibes from people like
Bill Hague. But can I ask you a very simple question: Will you be voting yes
in the referendum?
MACARTNEY: Well tell us what the question - I've
challenged you. Tony Blair has changed the goalposts, he has moved the
goalposts twice since this whole...
DEWAR: He hasn't....
HUMPHRYS: ... because we've got to move on. Let's
assume those are the two questions. First question is: Do you want a
parliament in Scotland. Second question: Do you want it to have tax-raising
powers. Will you vote yes or no to those?
MACARTNEY: The question is this General Election
comes before any such referendum and we are campaigning for an independent
Scotland.
(ALL TALKING TOGETHER)
HUMPHRYS: Bob Maclennan:
MACLENNAN: I think actually this does make quite
clear the approach the nationalists have had all along to this debate. They
are prepared, not to play a constructive part in meeting what has been the
settled wish of the Scottish people, which was actually spelt out in quite
close detail by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which was a broad
cross-party meeting of minds involving several political parties,
representatives of the churches, representatives of industry and the unions,
and all the time the Nationalists have stood on the sidelines and shouted abuse
at those who are trying to moderise our Scottish government within the United
Kingdom, to give the Scottish people the opportunity to have the Home Rule that
they have clearly wanted for a long time. Now, there should be no question of
forcing anyone in this country into a strait-jacket of the kind that we've
heard advocated by the Conservative Party. There are differences between the
different parts of the country, and our constitution ought to reflect those
differences. There are greater demands for legislative power in Scotland than
there are in certain parts of England, but the case for decentralisation for
the whole United Kingdom is a very strong one, and it matches the experience of
other modern countries who have been considerably more successful in managing
their social and economic pressures for change than this country.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let me take another question
from Mr Dancy - Richard Dancy.
RICHARD DANCY: Surely, is not this whole question of
devolution nothing but a red herring, in view of the fact that enormous powers
have been and will be passed over to Europe?
HUMPHRYS: Well, and you like seeing all those, I
see that you're nodding there, I'll come to you in a second, but go back to you
for a second Bob Maclennan, because you are very keen in passing powers to
Brussels.
MACLENNAN: I'm keen on power being exercised
effectively at the level of government where it can be discharged. There are
some matters that we cannot control within the United Kingdom, for example
pollution of the atmosphere, that requires cross-country, cross-continental
agreement, and it does make sense that decisions of that kind should be taken
at the European level. If you're seeking to trade within the European Union,
and indeed in the whole of Western Europe it does make sense that the ground
rules should not be capable of being twisted and abused to the disadvantage of
the member nations, and the decisions about that should be taken for the
nations of Europe as a whole. These are the sort of questions that can best be
decided at European level, but there are many matters that should not be
decided at that level and many matters that should be decided at local level,
and while the Conservative Party has been - let me just finish this point..
HUMPHRYS: Make it quick.
MACLENNAN: While they have been so busy telling
us that everything should be done in Westminster, they've been stripping out
the powers of local government.
HUMPHRYS: Right, let's go to William Hague on
that.
HAGUE: Well I think the gentleman was right to
ask whether this is all a red herring but gave the wrong reason for doing so.
We are very much opposed to a federal Europe, the Conservative Party believes
that we should be in Europe but not run by Europe and that I think is the vast
majority view of the people of this country. But it is all a red herring, it
is all, everything we have been talking about, about Constitutional change
advocated by all the other parties here is a complete red herring when you
compare it to the need to bring new jobs and investment and prosperity to this
country. Nobody here has argued that setting up new parliaments and assemblies
brings a single extra job to the country, makes a single lesson better taught,
makes a single hospital waiting list shorter. It is a red herring but not for
that reason.
HUMPHRYS: You would Mr Macartney?
MACARTNEY: Yes I think William Hague is living in
the past. If you look at what is happening in the European Union you find
there are fifteen member states, the majority of them are small nations. They
sit round a table and decide what's happening and a devolved parliament would
have absolutely no say in that. There are devolved governments in Spain, they
are not allowed to participate in the Spanish delegation for example. The same
is true for many other cases. And so, there is this step in the wrong
direction. We want a parliament which engages with Europe, which can exercise
power in the European Council of Ministers, having a seat there rather than
sitting outside hoping to catch the sleeve of a British Minister....
HUMPHRYS: That's what you're doing, sidelining
yourselve Mr Hague, or sidelining Britain.
HAGUE: We're not sidelining Britain at all and
it's Britain that has argued for an obtained its opt-out from the Social
Chapter so that we keep jobs coming to this country. Britain that has argued
and obtained our opt-out from the commitment to a Single Currency, it's Britain
that used its veto to get billions of pounds of rebates to this country in the
European community finances, we use our position in Europe in our national
interest but also in the interest of Europe as a whole. A United Kingdom
fragmented, torn up into smaller independent countries would not be able to do
that.
HUMPHRYS: Quite reaction on that.
DEWAR: It's not a red herring and anyone who
has listened to public opinion in very many different parts of the United
Kingdom would know that. It's a very very hot issue indeed. It's an issue where
there is legitimate dispute about the best way forward but the idea that it's
not important and what the Labour Party wants to do is to see effective
government in areas like Scotland and Wales and in Scotland in particular if I
can say so, we are deeply committed and will deliver, if we get the chance, a
parliament that will have law making powers, which will be directly reflecting
Scottish opinion and which will have control over spending priorities in the
very large budget that will go with it.
HUMPHRYS: Let's leave devolution for the moment
anyway.
Mrs Dora Jackson has a question about
electoral reform.
DORA JACKSON: For eighteen years you have governed us
with a minority of the vote, is that fair?
HUMPHRYS: Yes, that's the point isn't it Mr Hague,
you had what was it last time forty something per cent voted for you, but you
govern all of us, is that fair? As matter of basic principle.
HAGUE: Well of course in all those elections
over eighteen years, the Conservative Party has obtained many more votes than
any other party. At the last election a record vote. Now people can argue
that instead there should be some kind of proportional system where parties get
their seats in correspondence to the percentage of votes. What you get then is
shifting coalition government. What you get then is people unable to choose
their government because they can vote how they wish in an election and then
parties come together in a coalition which people didn't even know about at the
time they voted in the General Election. That's what happened in Italy so many
times, they've had as many governments as there have been years since World War
II, they've now changed their system to make it substantially similar to our
electoral system, so they can actually start to get towards strong government
and people having a choice at election time.
HUMPHRYS: Donald Dewar, if you get into power, are
you going to hold a referendum to give us a chance to change it if we want to
and - and second part very important - when?
DEWAR: Well we said there will be a referendum
on this issue; we've got a very exciting and big package on constitutional
reform that affects not just Scotland and Wales but the country as a whole and
we think it would be incomplete without a decision on this issue, which has
become an important one and which is running in politics and I think people in
this country. So we will, in the course of the next parliament, it will require
some preparation obviously, it requires legislation, but we want to bring the
matter to a head and we want a decision on it.
WIGLEY: Can I ask a question to Donald on that
one. Seeing he is going to have a referendum on PR, will the Act have gone
through parliament first or will it be a consultative one and will it be a
multi-optional referendum?
HUMPHRYS: Tell us why that is important?
WIGLEY: It's important because there are many
versions of PR. There is the single transferable vote, there is the version
that's going to be applied in Wales and Scotland and there are those that
adhere to first past the post or the national list. Now if we've having a
referendum is there going to be just one proposal or is there going to be a
number of proposals.
DEWAR: There is going to be...obviously people
will have a chance to choose between first past the post and a more
proportional system and we will have a wide consultation procedure, we will
have an electoral commission which will be totally independent to look at that
and then we will test public opinion and I hope that you would support that
Dafydd. I suspect that you would in many ways be sympathetic to that concept.
WIGLEY: I would be certainly sympathetic to the
concept of proportional representation because I believe that sovereignty comes
from the people and that sovereignty should be reflected in a parliament in
Westminster or a parliament in Cardiff for that matter, in proportion to the
people.
DEWAR: You mustn't prejudge the result of that
referendum.
WIGLEY: No of course and one accepts the results
of the wishes of the people. What I find difficult to accept is those who
believe that sovereignty is imbued just in the House of Commons and that it
cannot be passed to anywhere else. I realise that has been the Tory policy
down the years. I was a little bit surprised to hear Tony Blair take the same
line when he said that sovereignty was imbued in him as an English MP.
DEWAR: He said that in a specific context and
all he was saying is the simple truth and that is:in devolved systems, of
course you devolve power from Westminster and that in that sense it has to be
Westminster-
WIGLEY: That's absolutely right. Power devolved
is power retained and that's what we know all along.
DEWAR: Power will be exercised in the devolved
areas totally.
MACLENNAN: There seems to be some kind of private
dispute which is going on here.
HUMPHRYS: In a sense some people might say you've
been a bit excluded because they are actually going to stitch you up if they
get into power, some people say.
MACLENNAN: I think that the Liberal Democrats have
been the pacemakers in this question of making our electoral system reflect the
wishes of the people as a whole. Now let me, the arguments are from fairness I
think are not even challenged by the Conservatives but they certainly do seek
to defend the present system in terms of its outcome and in terms of the kind
of government it delivers. I think that the British people are entitled to
ask if minority government, which is what they have had for the last eighteen
years, has actually reflected the sense of the nation in the decisions that
have been taken and I would question it. I don't believe that if we had had
Proportional Representation a government produced by that would have produced
nonsenses like the Poll Tax which were wholly opposed by the vast majority of
the people. We would not have had something like the Child Support Agency
forced through the Commons. We would not have had nonsensical legislation
because the opinions of those other than the dominant Party would have had to
have been taken into account. In other words, the people would have had their
say.
HUMPHRYS: Fair point Mr Hague.
HAGUE: What he means is what Bob's definition
of a fair system is one that would leave the Liberals permanently in
government choosing between the other Parties who would then provide the
government. The same sort of thing that they have in Germany, where the Liberal
Party in the middle effectively decides whether the Christian Democrats or the
Social Democrats are going to be-.
HUMPHRYS: If a fifth of the electorate vote for
them and they have absolutely no seat at the council of power at all, many
people would say that's unfair.
HAGUE: What people actually want to vote for in
an election is who is going to be the government and they expect the Party that
gets the most support to be the government. Otherwise you get weak and divided
government. What you would have for instance, let me give an illustration of
the problem. Let me given an illustration of the problem. If we went back,
say, to the 1983 Election in which the Conservatives won far more votes than
any other Party, far, far more votes than any other political Party, what you
could have had under PR was then Michael Foot and David Owen getting together
and saying: if you added us up together we ought to have the majority even
though they got millions of votes fewer than the Conservative Party in each
case.
DEWAR: Not together they didn't. Can I ask one
short question.
HUMPHRYS: How short is short - go on, very short,
not a speech.
DEWAR: Bill Hague, you are putting forward some
arguments against any change in the electoral system. Now that's perfectly
legitimate.
HUMPHRYS: That's a speech.
DEWAR: No, it's not. What I want to ask..if
there is a legitimate debate about this, why should you not involve the people
and ask them in fact to take a decision?
HUMPHRYS: Why not let 'em choose - let the people
choose. There you are.
HAGUE: The burden of proof is on those who wish
to change a system that has stood the test of time and given us one of the most
stable and highly thought of democracies in the world.
HUMPHRYS: So you don't trust the voters...
HAGUE: No, no, if there is a specific proposal
to change it from a majority in Parliament and from the government of the day
then I think it ought to be put to a referendum.
HUMPHRYS: I want to go to somebody in the
audience. I wish to go to somebody in the audience - Stephen Williams who has
thoughts on this.
STEPHEN WILLIAMS: I wonder whether this is really a people
issue. Isn't it the case that it's only the Parties that can't succeed under
the present system that really want to change it?
HUMPHRYS: Well, go on.
WIGLEY: That wouldn't be the case, just very
briefly in our circumstances, where PR would not deliver us any more seats in
the House of Commons than we have now. We believe that it's right that any
parliament or assembly should reflect the balance of opinion in the country
that's governing us.
MACARTNEY: I think to be fair to the Scottish
Liberal Democrats, they're doing very well under the present system but they
have stuck with it, but the SNP has long believed that democracy belongs to the
people and that Parliament should reflect the wishes of the people and it's
going back to 1935. It's the last time there was a British majority
government. Ever since then there's been a minority delivered through this
system that William Hague defends and then imposes its will on the British
people. And I wonder if-if I could ask a question of Donald Dewar. He says
that we're going to have a referendum. Is Tony Blair going to campaign in that
referendum just as he says he's going to campaign for the powers for Scottish
assembly to have taxation powers which are not to be used - which are bizzare
enough - is he going to do the same in the referendum? Is he going to be for
PR or against it or is he going to sit on the fence? That is vitally important
and we have to trust Labour.
HUMPHRYS: I'll go to Donald Dewar on that and then
I'll come to you Bob Maclennan. Is Tony Blair going to support it or not?
DEWAR: Tony Blair supports the referendum and
he will have - let me finish - and he will of course give leadership when the
final questions are-
HUMPHRYS: And what leadership will that be?
DEWAR: Well at the moment he's made it clear
that he's not persuaded of the case for change but he thinks it ought to be
tested. But he will, quite clearly, take the lead from the Labour Party point
of view when the Electoral Commission has finished its work and when we see the
alternatives that have actually been put.
HUMPHRYS: There you are Bob Maclennan
That's why I suggested to you earlier, perhaps you'd be stitched up under a
Labour government. Tony Blair has not decided to support what you want, even
though you've sat down with him.
MACLENNAN: We have got an agreement that there will
be a referendum on a proposal which will be putting a clear choice before the
British people between the status quo and an agreed alternative proportional
system. That will then be for the British people to decide, and at that point
when we have - when there has been a recommendation as to what the alternative
system might be, would be the appropriate time for the government of the day
and I hope we shall have considerable influence over that to declare what its
view is.
HUMPHRYS: And you'd be be quite happy if its view
was to say let the status quo remain?
MACLENNAN: But, clearly, I'm in favour of change,
and indeed I think many members of the Labour Party are in favour of change,
and many members of other Parties. And after the Conservatives have lost this
Election and see little prospect of coming back to office for a very long time,
I suspect many of them will be in favour as well.
HAGUE: I think people are getting very cocky
about this election. We haven't had the election yet. I think the most
perceptive comment on this whole thing has once again come from the audience.
This is a politician's argument, not one that comes from the people. You don't
find people on the doorstep saying: I'm not interested in better job prospects
or lower taxes, or better education standards. Let's have proportional
representation. It's an argument between politicians, and it's another red
herring, another example of the utter waste of time which a Lib-Lab government
would be indulging in.
HUMPHRYS: But William - so ,it's going to be a
Lib-Lab government is it? Hang on - you did hear what he just said, we're
going to have a Lib-Lab government Mr Hague just said.
HAGUE: I was working on a hypothetical basis
there John as you know. I don't believe we're going to have a Lib-Lab
government, but what you can see is the kind of chaos that would result if you
had a mixture of all these characters in government together.
WIGLEY: But William, the circumstances are these
surely. If the people saw that a system of PR would have avoided four
Conservative governments on the trot that have caused the economic chaos that
we've got in so many parts of these islands, they most certainly would have
warmed to that system.
HAGUE: This is a country with the best economic
prospects in a generation, and this is a country with dramatically different
prospects from when Conservative governments came into office. That would
probably not have happened had we had a different electoral system.
DEWAR: And that is just nonsense and there
are..
HUMPHRYS: Which bit is nonsense?
DEWAR: The little paragraph fifteen on page X
of the Conservative manifesto which Bill Hague has learnt by heart and is
parroting...
HAGUE: So, you don't think Donald that the
economic prospects of this country are good?
DEWAR: Let me just put it to you that the great
danger of your position is that you are a diehard last- die in the last ditch
opponent of any sort of change. Now, if there is one thing I find as I go
around it is that the fuel, in fact, of the argument - the point that is being
given to the argument for democratic change is the record of the Government and
its failures and the difficulties and frustrations it has produced.
And, the danger to the Union. Because
there is a danger that we'll end up in a very difficult situation with all the
problems of dislocation and all the problems of separate currencies, all the
problems that the nationalists will bring upon us. The real difficulty, the
real danger is the absolute obduracy with which you refuse to consider any
change in the system that clearly is creating cynicism and disillusionment
among people.
HAGUE: I'm opposed to change, if people don't
know what they're doing. And, if the Leader of the Labour Party talks about
powerhouse Parliament one day and a Parish Council the next, he-
HUMPHRYS: If I may - let's go back to the audience
- Denis Rawson has a question, dealing with our Constitution - where is he?
Yes, sir.
DENIS RAWSON: How can you defend the right of
hereditary peers to pass laws in an elected democracy?
HUMPHRYS: How can you, Mr Hague?
HAGUE: Because the House of Commons is the body
which has the true power in the British Constitution and which is
democratically elected. The House of Lords works extremely well as a second
Chamber, as a revising Chamber. It can't overrule the House of Commons, it
can't refuse for years on end to pass legislation but it can bring a very high
quality of debate to the proceedings of Parliament. It isn't afraid to
highlight what it thinks are deficiencies in the programme of any Government -
Labour or Conservative - and it fulfills an extremely valuable role.
My proposition on this is: if it's not
necessary to change something that is working well, then, it's necessary not to
get involved in yet another Constitutional mess of trying to reform part of our
Constitution for no good reason.
HUMPHRYS: Mr Macartney, you'd get rid of the
lot of them, I take it?
MACARTNEY: There's no place for hereditary element
in a modern Parliament and I think that is shared by most people, because to
legislate, or even to revise, you've got to have some democratic legitimacy and
that, clearly, is not possessed by the hereditary Members of the House of
Lords. So, clearly, our preference would be to have our own independent
Scottish Parliament with a written Constitution, which of course the other
Party are not proposing - even for the UK as reform.
But, if we're still in the UK, we should
certainly have nothing to do with the peers who are there, not on any kind of
merit whatsoever but simply on their accident of birth. And, it really beggars
belief to hear people like Mr Hague saying it's the envy of the world. I mean,
I go round Europe and they say: how on earth can they operate in that strange
offshore island with hereditary peers and an anti-European attitude and they're
living in the past and I have to say: I think, people like him are living in
the past but then if I was an English MP ruling Wales I would probably be quite
happy with the status quo.
HUMPHRYS: But, this is the point Mr Hague, how do
you explain to a foreigner, or indeed, anybody else, for that matter, that
because somebody's great, great-great what's it slept with somebody, who'd
slept with somebody they now, they now take decisions....
HAGUE: That's not what people ask me about when
I go abroad. They say how is it that all the jobs are going to your country?
How is it that you've got- How come your Unemployment falls every month and
ours are at postwar record? That's what they talk about. This is another side
issue. This is yet another side issue.
DEWAR: I hope I won't go to the beach at
Torremolinos, and have someone coming up asking me questions like that? You're
quite an unfortunate person!
HUMPHRYS: Let's assume that the person on the
beach at Torremolinos next to you says: actually, Mr Dewar, we do think it's a
jolly good idea to get rid of those hereditary peers but what are you going to
replace them with? And, here's the problem, isn't it? You haven't decided.
You don't know what you're gonna do and it's gonna be years before you even
begin to approach a decision.
DEWAR: Well, what we think is one of the first
and important things we can do is get rid of the hereditary principle. How can
I put this delicately? Let's say that hereditary peers tend to come from a
narrow, social range. There are four hundred of them take the Conservative
Whip. How many take the Labour Whip? Twelve. If you look at the 1995/'96
Parliament, if you take every vote won by the Government and the House of Lords
in that session, over two-thirds of them would have been lost, if it hadn't
been for the vote of hereditary peers. I mean, it just seems to be to be an
indefensible situation and I think the Tories in their heart of hearts know it
but the poor old things have to oppose everything, particularly if it's put up
by the Labour Party, just because their caste of mind.
And, let me ask Bill Craig/Hague a
question.
HUMPHRYS: Make it a quick one, because I want the
audience.
DEWAR: If hereditary peers are so important and
are such a valuable way of bringing status and excellence to the House of Lords
why I have the Conservatives start making hereditary peers?
HAGUE: What we're talking about here is keeping
a system which works well. I'll tell you the answer very clearly. We're not
saying that if you were starting from scratch this is the system that you would
create but we are saying that if you've got a system that is working well you
don't spend years of your time trying to fix it.
UNNAMED MAN: But, that's the whole point isn't it?
HUMPHRYS: I'm going to go to the audience because
we're running out of time. Mrs Carey has a question which, actually, is very
relevent to this. Mrs Carey?
MRS CAREY: I thought you were against quangos
but how come you're creating one?
HUMPHRYS: There we are and the reason for that
question is that that's what you would, effectively be doing Mr Dewar if you
replaced, got rid of all those hereditary peers and then replaced them with
people Tony Blair decided he wanted there - a big quango?
DEWAR: No. What we're going to do is get rid
of a particular offensive principle - the hereditary principle. The House of
Lords will, then, for a period of course depend upon that appointment and, in
that sense, you can call it a quango but it seems of me to be an improvement
that, at least, people of merit and distinction in their own walks of life
represent their peers to bring expertise there. In the longer term, we've got
to look at the House of Lords, for example there are interesting ways in which
it might represent regional opinion in this country. There are interesting
ways in which it might become a watchdog for the Constitution.
And, I think, again, if I can put it
again-
HUMPHRYS: No, no, you cannot do that because I
have to go to Bob MacLennan. I want to ask him, whether he's in favour of what
is admittedly a quango?
MACLENNAN: I think, it's a first step only towards
what we require which is a predominantly elected Second Chamber which is much
more effective than the present Upper House is. We don't have the advantage of
real revising from the House of Lords because - not because the Commons has the
power to throw it out but because the government of the day, which dominates
through its patronage and the House of Commons decides that if there's any
serious decision taken by the House of Lords it will be reversed. We want a
Second Chamber which is effectively like the Senate of the United States, like
the Upper Chambers in other countries, which share the burden, do give a second
chance to the considerations and do look at matters that are now currently not
considered, like treaty-making powers, like the powers of appointments to
quangos, which are not supervised at all by Parliament. Thank you, you get the
last word.
HAGUE: It's yet another distraction from what
really needs doing in this country. We need all these debates like we need a
hole in the head. This is the last-
DEWAR: Would you restore it? Would you restore
hereditary .....to the House of Lords?
HUMPHRYS: I will ask in five seconds - see if you
want to answer the question?
Will you restore the hereditary
principle in the House of Lords? Yes or no, Sir.
HAGUE: I cannot answer for the future
consequences of other Parties but what I can say is that I'm against certain-
WIGLEY: It's indefensible.
HUMPHRYS: The Welshman in fact got the last word.
Gentlemen, thank you very much, indeed. That, I'm afraid, is it for this
afternoon. It's the FA Cup Semi-Finals next week, so we'll be back in a
fortnight with a debate on the economy. But, if you want to keep in touch in
the meantime, you can find us on Page 136 of the Politics Pages on Ceefax, or
we now have a Web Site and you can see the address I hope on the screen even as
I speak and it'll be on the screen at the end of the credits. That's it. Good
Afternoon.
oooOooo
|