................................................................................ 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