| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 552
There spoke the great Liberal leader. There are one or two conservatives on these Benches, too, but I am too discreet to mention them.What about the classic Conservative statement made by Bagehot in 1873?
"In plain English",
wrote Bagehot,
"what I fear is that both our political authorities will bid for the support of the working man ; that both of them will promise to do as he likes if he will only tell them what it is, that, as he now holds the casting vote in our affairs, both parties will beg and pray him to give that vote to them. I can conceive of nothing more corrupting or worse for a set of poor ignorant people than that two combinations of well-taught and rich men should constantly offer to defer to their decision, and compete for the office of executing it. Vox populi will be Vox diaboli if it is worked in that manner." The right hon. Member for Brent, North did not go so far as to say that he would like universal adult suffrage to be removed, but I had the feeling that that might be at the back of his mind. That was certainly what his party did in London.
It is impossible to discuss the constitution without discussing the Crown, because, as I said earlier, we are subjects and not citizens and we have no rights whatever. I shall come to the implications of that in a moment. The thing about a royal or monarchical system of government is that all power comes from the top, and that makes it more difficult for pressure to come from below. I always attend royal occasions, because one learns so much from the speeches made from the throne. We tell the public that we are a democracy. In this place, we are cautious ; we say that we are a parliamentary democracy. When the Queen addresses us, however, she says that we are a constitutional monarchy. There is all the difference in the world between the three.
This is not a theoretical question at all, so let me give a practical example--patronage. The figures that I cite are not the latest figures, which I could have produced, because I do not want the matter to be mixed up with the past 12 years of Conservative Government. I want to present it in a rather different way. Between 1945 and 1976, successive Prime Ministers made 1,494 Ministers by the use of the royal prerogative--309 Cabinet Ministers and 1,185 non-Cabinet Ministers.
There is also the power to create peers--and remember that it takes 43 million people to elect 650 Members of Parliament. Between 1945 and 1976, a total of 568 hereditary and life peers were created on the advice of seven Prime Ministers. Taking honours generally, those same seven Prime Ministers created 118 baronetcies and 264 knighthoods and appointed 85 chairmen of nationalised industries. In a mere 26 years, 2,564 major appointments were made in the name of the crown.
We talk about Europe. As people are beginning to realise, the problem is that when Ministers go to the Council of Ministers--and I was president of the Council of Energy Ministers at one time--all the laws to which they assent are assented to under the royal prerogative of treaty-making. That is why we are an impotent body, gazing at Ministers who come back here to tell us how the prerogative has been used in our name. That is something which has not happened since 1649. Similarly, the power to make war does not lie with Parliament. The whole question is bound up with the oath that we take. Whether they have sworn or declared and affirmed hon. Members have one thing in common. To take our seats, we have to say :
Column 553
"I swear"--or affirm--
"that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law, so help me God."
The first woman elected to Parliament, Constance Markievicz, would not take that oath. I shall erect a plaque in her honour following that in honour of Emily Wilding Davison. Constance Markievicz would not take an oath of allegiance and, although she was the first woman here, she was never--and is not--recognised in this place. It is a funny thing that we should call ourselves a High Court of Parliament. People would not normally swear that oath in a court. They would swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That is not required of Members of Parliament-- although it would not be a bad idea if it were. We make no pledge to our electors. I share the view that the relationship between an hon. Member and his electors is a very important one, but we do not swear to uphold the rights of our electors.
I am a Privy Councillor and, the other day, I dug out my oath : "You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty ; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."
What about Jacques Delors? And what about President Bush with his 30,000 troops in Britain? When I reached the end of the Privy Councillor's oath, I said "I haven't said anything." I was told, "You don't have to say anything. We've administered the oath." In our system an oath is like an injection. One does not even have to say that one agrees.
The relationship between Church and state is very important. The previous Prime Minister created 33 bishops--including two Archbishops of Canterbury- -which is not bad for one person. In 1953 I attended the coronation--for the reason that I gave, which is that I find such occasions most educational. I noted then that the only pledge that the archbishops asked the Queen to give was as follows :
"Will you, to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof? will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their Charge, all such rights and privileges?" The Queen replied
"All this I promise to do."
I then looked up what a bishop says when he is appointed and I had a bit of a job getting the information. The new Archbishop of Canterbury would have recounted this homage :
"I"--
George Carey, I suppose--
"having been elected"--
well, that's a bit of a laugh--
"confirmed and consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury
do hereby declare
that your Majesty is the only supreme governor of this your realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical things
as well as in temporal".
That is to say, the Church and the King or Queen are bound together in that way. The history of that is interesting. Henry VIII nationalised the Church of England. It is our oldest nationalised industry. He wanted
Column 554
a priest in every pulpit on every Sunday telling the people that what the King said was what God wanted them to do. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to open people's letters and the only way in which he could do that was to have a Royal Mail. The Tories nationalised the BBC because they wanted a pundit telling people every night that there was no alternative to what the Government wanted people to do. The relationship between Church and state and Crown and subject is very subtle.If people think I am talking about ancient history, they should remember what hon. Members say when they attend Prayers. An hour ago we said :
"Almighty God, by whom alone Kings reign, and Princes decree justice ; and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding ;"
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is that what is said?
Mr. Benn : My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may not have been present, but I have heard that said many times.
It is not possible to discuss the matter without considering the Crown. I am perhaps one of the few people who, as a lifelong republican, has no ill- will towards the royal family. Willie Hamilton used to come here and make fun of the royal family, but I think that that is insulting. After all, the Queen did not choose the job, although I suppose she could have given it up. However, the Crown is a totally insupportable basis for a constitution. I read yesterday that both Houses of Congress were very polite to the Queen when she addressed them. Why was that? The answer is that she had no power there. If she had been George III, it would have been a very different business.
In 1791 Tom Paine said of the crown :
"But, after all, what is this metaphor called a Crown, or rather, what is monarchy? Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it a contrivance of human wisdom', or of human craft to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation? If it is, in what does that necessity consist, what services does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits?"
I share that view. When I read that Princess Anne was to give a lecture in memory of Tom Paine, I wondered whether members of the royal family were moving towards a similar view.
I am of the opinion that we should adhere to the sovereignty of the people. On 1 May 1649--an early May day--John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn produced
"The Agreement of the People"
and this is the basis upon which we should restructure our method of government. They wrote :
"We, the free People of England,"--
this was before the Act of Union--
"to whom God hath given hearts, means and opportunity to effect the same, do with submission to his wisdom, in his name, and desiring the equity thereof may be to his praise and glory ; Agree to ascertain our Government to abolish all arbitrary Power, and to set bounds and limits both to our Supreme, and all Subordinate Authority, and remove all known Grievances. And accordingly do declare and publish to all the world, that we are agreed as followeth,
That the Supreme Authority of England and the Territories therewith incorporate, shall be and reside henceforth in a Representative of the people consisting of four hundred persons, but no more ; in the choice of whom (according to natural right) all men of the age of one and twenty years and upwards (not being servants, or receiving alms, or having served the King ) shall have their voices."
Column 555
That was a basic principle. If we are going to unpick the British constitution, we must go back to that.Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : The right hon. Gentleman had no need to apologise when he referred to England. His statement with regard to England was perfectly accurate. Does he accept that Scotland has a different constitutional history founded on the declaration of Arbroath of 1320? The Scottish Constitutional Convention, to which the Labour party in Scotland and my party have contributed, is based on a claim of right that asserts the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Mr. Benn : I agree and Keir Hardie advocated that view. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has, by coincidence, come top in the ballot for motions just when I am about to present a Bill to the House on Monday on which I have worked for five years. My Bill is entitled the Commonwealth of Britain Bill and its long title states :
"Bill to Establish a democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Wales dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens ; to establish fundamental human rights within that Commonwealth ; to lower the voting age to 16 years and to make other provision with respect to elections, including equal representation for women ; to prescribe a constitutional oath ; to establish a Commonwealth Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the House of the People and to make provision for the term of a Parliament and for legislative and other procedure ; to establish the office of a President, and a Council of State, and to prescribe the powers of each ; to provide for the formation of governments ; to amend the law relating to official information, the armed forces and the security services ; to make fresh provision for the participation of Britain in the United Nations Organisation and the European Communities ; to make the basing of foreign forces in Britain dependent upon the approval of the House of Commons ; to make new provision with respect to the judicial system and to establish a National Legal Service ; to set up national Parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales ; to amend the law relating to local government, the district auditor and the accountability of police forces ; to end the constitutional status of the Crown and to make certain consequential provision ; to abolish the House of Lords and the Privy Council, to end the recognition in law of personal titles, and to provide for the acknowledgement of service to the community ; to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the offence of blasphemy, and to provide for equality under the law for all religions and beliefs ; to end British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland ; to provide for a Constitution and for constitutional amendment ; and to make transitional and related provision."
I have introduced parts of the Bill as other Bills over the past 10 years and the Crown has always readily assented to place its consent at the disposal of the House for the purpose of debating those Bills. However, there is a long radical tradition, of which the long title of my Commonwealth of Britain Bill is a summary, of people who have taken a contrary view to that expressed by the right hon. Member for Brent, North.
Contrary to the popular mythology that this country has been ruined by lazy workers, militant shop-stewards, incompetent managers and political extremists, what is really wrong in Britain is wrong at the very top where powerful people have succeeded in protecting their position and their privileges. We are always boasting that Britain is the mother of Parliaments and that the whole world envies our system of government. The truth is that under the cover of a mass of ritual and tradition, this House of Commons has become a shell concealing its political impotence against the Executive under a cloak of
Column 556
panoply, and has surrendered one by one the rights which earlier generations wrested so painfully from the authorities of their day. In conclusion, if hon. Members are inclined to laugh at my proposals, I can say only that my experience of change is as follows : to begin with, if you advocate reform, it is ignored. Then it is mad. If you continue after they say you are mad, it is dangerous. Then there is a long pause and then you cannot find anyone who did not agree with it in the first place. It was by that means that the peerage and referendum Acts were carried.If there is a criterion by which we should judge people with political power, I offer the House five questions that I have developed during my time in the House. When we meet a powerful person, we should ask those five questions : What power do you have? Where did you get it? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? If we put those five questions to people with power, we will identify the right guiding principle upon which to base a modern constitution for this country, for our relations with Europe and the United States and its bases and possibly for a new world order which is not dominated by one super-power.
10.48 am
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) not only for the choice of subject but for the thoughtful way in which he introduced it. It was refreshing to hear a Liberal Democrat make a speech on constitutional reform without mentioning proportional representation. Therefore, his points are all the more to be appreciated and seriously considered.
The House is indebted also to two Privy Councillors for their speeches. Both speeches were instructive and based upon much common sense, particularly the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). However, the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which I enjoyed also, was airy-fairy and theoretical and took the matter away from reality and from what can be done as opposed to what should be done. One has many more questions about his propositions than one might have supposed. Although many things are desirable and although many improvements could be made, the great practical problem is always how we do something and how we achieve the objective. That is why the right hon. Gentleman's questions are very important and illustrate the nub of the problem.
What has evolved in our constitution has evolved as a result of pressures. For example, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke about constitutional reform. He mentioned William the Conqueror and said that the 1215 and 1832 reforms were constitutional reforms. He was actually talking about the redistribution of power, which he would say is constitutional reform but which is not all-inclusive. The mechanics of the constitution are not necessarily anything to do with the redistribution of power.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is a contemporary of mine in many ways, although on the other side of the political scene. He did not address the problem of how we make improvements based upon practical knowledge and reality, but spoke about the theoretical concept of ways in which one might achieve an ideal system of democracy. Sovereignty, for example, is
Column 557
one such idea that can easily be misunderstood. Sovereignty is simply the right to do as one wishes without being overridden by an external authority. Sovereignty of this kind applies only to a state, and that is of great importance to us in the United Kingdom. Clearly, in reality, what we can do as a sovereign state is subject to our desire to obtain benefits by co-operation with others. We sign treaties which limit our sovereignty. We engage in understandings. We become allied to others for the purposes of defence. We commit ourselves to all sorts of things that limit our sovereignty. We do not need the treaty of Rome to establish that. We have constantly abrogated our sovereignty to some extent. It is happening all the time. It happens in reality, with or without giving legislative recognition to it. One of the problems in debating a subject of this kind, important though it is, lies in trying to be clear about what we are discussing and not to introduce, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield occasionally did, concepts such as votes for women, the Scottish Assembly, and so on.Mr. Benn : The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but women actually have votes now. If I advocated it, it was not a radical proposal.
Mr. Stanbrook : I was assuming that the right hon. Gentleman was taking an historical perspective in which he wanted votes for women, and that he was accusing the Liberal Democrats of having opposed votes for women--through their own leader, at one stage. Those are interesting developments along the road to the redistribution of power. The extension of suffrage to universal adult suffrage takes time and still does not exist in many parts of the world. No doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman were still in an Administration who had an empire, he would insist upon the colonies adopting universal adult suffrage throughout the empire. We were never able to do so, because, naturally, we took account of the wishes of the people concerned. I was interested in the approach of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire because it seemed fundamentally to be that of the centre party. If it were possible to stand back from our political spectrum and address the overall problem, we would first have to say, "What an enormous lot we are agreed on." A huge number of political subjects are covered by consensus and we do not even discuss them in this place. It is true that we spend much of our time discussing marginal issues that are apparently important and certainly topically important from time to time, but the essential and fundamental matters and the institutions of our constitution are not often challenged. Why is that? It is because we know that they work pretty well. We should take, for example, what is singular in all advanced civilised states of the world--our parliamentary system. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield laughed about it. I do not see why he should. In some ways ours is the best system of democracy. Representatives of the people are elected. Forget about mechanisms, proportional representation and all the rest of it. Representatives of the people are elected to exercise total power over the country. That is our system. It does not exist in the United States. The United States constitution was written a couple of centuries ago by theorists like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. It was written according to the needs of the age those two centuries ago. It may have been necessary then, but it now
Column 558
inhibits progress in the United States. We do not have that system here. We have a wonderful system that happens to have evolved naturally. Of course, one of the right hon. Gentleman's objections to our present system is that at the apex of this parliamentary system there is--there must be in logic--one individual.Mr. Tony Banks : Elect him or her.
Mr. Stanbrook : The hon. Gentleman says, "Elect him or her." However, that is where the genius of the British people, their evolution and experience in the world come in. We are an island race. We have not been conquered for 1,000 years. We have our own way of evolving what is best for us.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been listening closely to what he is saying. Until now in this discussion of the power of this place, he has made no mention whatsoever of the European Community, the institution of the European Commission and the secretive decision making of the Councils of Ministers. We are witnessing the continuing diminution of parliamentary power and the growth of the untrammelled, unrestrained power of strategic decision making in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman surely has to face up to that struggle of power between the 12 national legislature in the European Community and the power--the quite remarkable power--of the European Commissioners and the Councils of Ministers.
Mr. Stanbrook : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for listening to me so closely. I take his point. He is talking about a further evolution by which, whether we like it or not, in practice or by legislative decision, we are becoming part of a greater whole. He is referring to no more than the problems that faced the Scottish Parliament before the Union. Did Scottish people want to be governed as a small part of the United Kingdom from the capital of the partner, England, where the vast majority of Members of Parliament would not be Scottish? No doubt, that was part of the argument and no doubt it provided a good debate. We are talking of transferring such a problem on to a European stage. Britain is no longer so great a power in the world that it is in any sense truly sovereign. Therefore, Parliament does not have the relationship with the rest of the country that it enjoyed in earlier centuries. I accept that point.
Mr. Butterfill : Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be open to this Parliament at any time to resolve to leave the European Community if Parliament deemed it to be in our national interest? We are not bound to the Community indefinitely or, indeed, any longer than we perceive that to be in our national interest. Similarly, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely unlikely that the Queen would refuse to give Royal Assent to a Bill such as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?
Mr. Stanbrook : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point for me. That is precisely the position in which we are placed in Britain. We are not building a constitution from nothing. We do not say that our system is perfect. It is not necessary for us to elect the person at the very top of the system--the head of state. It is not necessary--
Column 559
Mr. Arbuthnot : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that it is against the rules of the House to call an hon. Member a liar. I should like to ask your advice on the status of a candidate who has been elected to the House but has not yet taken his seat. In the Monmouth by-election yesterday, statements were made which were clearly lies. Can we have an early debate on the importance of truth in electioneering and the apparently new policy of not proportional representation but distortional representation by the Labour party?Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on a certain matter. He should refer the matter to the usual channels and find out whether there is time for a debate on it.
Mr. Skinner : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that we have just heard has been well rehearsed by the Tory party, which is whingeing in defeat after the Monmouth result. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the pompous schoolboy type who is now Secretary of State for Health are casting a slur on the people of Monmouth who made that historic decision yesterday.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Decisions on those matters have been taken outside the House. Let us get on with the debate.
Mr. Richard Holt. (Langbaurgh) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the constitution. It strikes me that in the House of Commons there is one rule for the vast majority of us and a separate rule for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You made a ruling a moment ago. You said that the matter was not a point of order. Every one of us respected that decision and kept our seats, except the hon. Member for Bolsover who seems to have the right not to respect the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I have to listen to ascertain whether a point of order is a point of order or not. I made it plain that the decisions were made outside the House and had nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Stanbrook : It is not necessary for us to elect our head of state. To do so would not perfect our democracy, even if that were possible. It so happens that, by experience and general practice under our constitution, we have evolved a system whereby the head of state is automatically created. The head of state is non-political and does not interfere in party politics. The head of state is subject to the golden rule--as Dicey described it--of the supremacy of Parliament. [ Interruption. ] One of the worst things about this place is the party game which often obsesses us when we should be discussing more serious matters. I hope that hon. Members, especially the Whips--[ Interruption. ]
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington, who has the Floor, will get on with what he has to say.
Mr. Stanbrook : I am much obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would be a great help if I had an attentive audience for a moment. I was dealing with the position of the Queen. In Britain we have evolved a system under which our head of state
Column 560
does not need to be elected. We need only consider the United States of America and ask ourselves whether the British people would like a system in which a party politician was the head of not only the Government but the state and was embodied with all the qualities that the British people--the subjects--regard as their corporate national identity. It is impossible for any party politician to achieve that. In a sense, the United States of America is a disunited country because it does not have our inestimable advantage of a constitutional monarchy. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that there were three different roles.The constitutional monarchy is a separate institution of the state. It is not the constitution, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield sought to make out.
Mr. Tony Banks rose--
Mr. Stanbrook : I see that the hon. Gentleman is bursting to make a point so I shall give way to him, if that is what he wants me to do.
Mr. Tony Banks : I am not bursting to make a point. I should like to make a point and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so. He said that we should ask ourselves whether the people want an elected head of state. That is not the case. We should ask the people of Britain whether they want an elected head of state. They may say no, but they should at least be asked. This might be one matter on which a referendum would provide the answer.
Mr. Stanbrook : That is an interesting concept. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is the one person who has forced a referendum in Britain. He uses that device for ascertaining opinion on membership of the European Community. With respect, he did so because he thought that the result would be to his advantage.
Everyone knows that by every test available, including the much discredited public opinion poll system, the vast majority of people have only one opinion on the monarchy. The British people like their monarchy. There is no point in going through a referendum to find out what everyone already knows. In any case, what are we here for? We are not mere symbols. We are here to exercise our judgment as individuals.
It is easy for people to agree and there are many pressures and inducements on them to go along with the party line. Parties are an essential part of our democracy. They are the means by which people of similar outlook and views can associate to obtain power. That is perfectly creditable. However, the party system can break down. There is dispute about the election mechanism and how the representatives of the people should be returned to this place.
I wish to take up the method of electing the representatives with regard to Scotland and other points which have been made about the sovereignty of the people. Sovereignty of the people is a grand concept, but one must remember that we are talking about millions of people, some of whom do not even bother to vote and do not have the slightest interest in our form of government. When one seeks some way of establishing the sovereignty of the people one ends up with a system such as ours, especially when a country has the historical tradition that we happen to have. If one started on a level playing field and built up
Column 561
a constitution for a new state, one might evolve a different system ; but in Britain we have a system under which the sovereignty of the people exists.Speaking as a lawyer, I know that the practical effect of the law provides for the sovereignty of the people. That is why the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is so fundamentally wrong. He is obsessed by the form of the government and by the letter of the law. He does not see that, behind all that, the system would not exist but for the support of the people. People say that treaties are made under royal authority and refer to patronage, and so on. That is perfectly true. When such measures return to the House, would they last five minutes if they did not have the approval of the majority of Members? Of course they would not. That is the reality of the British constitution. Sovereignty is an attribute of the state. Supremacy is the quality of the House.
Mr. Benn : I respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are having a serious debate. When the American forces came here after the war the Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, said that they were coming on a training mission. In fact, they were establishing permanent bases. Even Parliament did not know, yet that was possible under the prerogative. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession, it had not even been published, yet that was possible using the royal prerogative. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the way in which our constitution, which he has described in romantic terms, gives us the right to determine crucial matters affecting the nation's future. Will the hon. Gentleman consider those two points?
Mr. Stanbrook : I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman's point demonstrates the flexibility of our system. In the United States treaties and declarations of war must be approved by Congress. Such matters are subject to the will of Congress. That hiatus often produces great troubles for the Americans and results from their written constitution. We would have the same problem with a Bill of Rights. There would be no flexibility. Neither this place, nor those whom we trust on the Front Bench, would have power to make correct decisions. They would have to suspend their judgment until after a debate and vote in this place. They should know, and do know because of our party system, that they can depend on the support of the majority in the House. That is how our system works. It is not a bad one. It has produced something decent, wholesome and good. The system should be commended by us, even if, from time to time, we seek ways of improving it.
11.10 am
Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan) : I want to say a few words about the constitutional choice facing Scotland, but first I shall pick up one or two of the general points raised about the British constitution.
As I understand the British constitution, it is a perfect mechanism for the establishment to continue to control the state as it wishes while being able to make adjustments in response to the general cry of the population from time to time, without ever giving away too much of its essential core of power.
When I was lectured on constitutional law, I was told that ours was an unwritten constitution and that, therefore, it had many inherent merits-- indeed, a greater
Column 562
number than a written constitution. Yet when we examine this unwritten constitution, we see that it is a mirage. The nearer we get to it, the less distinct it becomes. When we reach out for something solid within it, there is nothing whatever, except what the establishment will tell us is the convention of the day. That is my understanding of the position. It is an undemocratic system on which to found a modern state as we approach the 21st century.It would be much better to have a written constitution that laid down basic individual human rights. It would then become the superior legal instrument of the state. No Parliament and no monarch or anyone else could climb above it. All would be subject to basic principles on how the state should run its affairs in relation to the individual. We hope that that will be the case in an independent Scotland.
Even if the population wishes to retain a monarch for whatever reasons, sentimental or based on folklore or on mythology, the existence of a written constitution would fundamentally transform the role of the monarch inside the state. At present, the monarch is above the law, at least in the English constitution. I shall return to that in a minute. That is the theory. With a written constitution, the monarch could not be above the law. The monarch might be an elevated person, but he or she would be just one person among millions governed by the written constitution. When that happens, the basic background power, about which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was talking, disappears automatically, because power is vested in the written constitution on behalf of the people. I insert those general remarks into our extremely good discussion.
I must tell the right hon. Members for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and for Chesterfield that it is always nice to have one's prejudices and views confirmed. Their speeches confirmed me in my opinion that the quicker Scotland is independent and people like me are away from here altogether, the better it will be for our country. [Hon. Members :-- "The hon. Gentleman will be away from here soon."] That is interesting, because yesterday most Members of Parliament got some sort of pre-election document about marginal seats and I am not in it. I expect to be returned--but, unfortunately, here--after the general election. I look forward to the day when I or someone else will take my seat, not here, but--
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : In the House of Lords.
Mr. Sillars : No, the Scottish National party will not take any seat in the House of Lords. We will not in any way whatever give that place any democratic legitimacy. I regret that the Labour party has not adopted our view. That is a digression and I do not want to be put off making my remarks on the Scottish position.
The right hon. Member for Brent, North made a valid point about Scotland in response to my intervention. He said that comprehensive education in a sense grew out of the social, political and cultural soil of Scotland. We are an egalitarian society, so comprehensive education fits in exactly with the political and social climate that we have created. I was fascinated when the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), addressed the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In that famous or infamous speech, depending on one's view, she invoked several great figures
| Next Section
| Home Page |