| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Whitehead: A number of Conservative Members appear to believe that, if one moves in any way from a centralised unitary state, one must move towards a federal super-state in whose clutches we shall all be embroiled. The facts of history show otherwise.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said that no Government have ever given away power. That is patently untrue. Historical examples include the Zollverein and Benelux arrangements, the Swiss confederation, the Swabian league and the Lombard league in north Italy. Throughout history, sovereign states and sovereign entities have come together for their mutual advantage. That did not mean federation. It may mean confederation for advantageous purposes, but it simply does not mean that, by agreeing to collaborate with other states for mutual advantage, a state throws away its sovereignty, identity and separate purpose.
The arrangements on which this country is embarked attempt to make those different purposes, aspirations and histories confederally possible by means of voluntary arrangements that are mutually acceptable and add to the whole. They are therefore in line with real history as opposed to the invented history of the Conservative party.
Mr. Gill:
Can the hon. Gentleman not see the difference between co-operating with other nations and changing a state's constitutional basis? When I told the House earlier that there was no precedent in history for rulers giving away power, the word that I was used was "voluntarily". The hon. Gentleman is now confusing the issue by comparing what states might voluntarily wish to do in co-operation with other states as against changing the whole constitutional basis of the state to which they belong.
Dr. Whitehead:
I have given some examples to show that, in history, a number of states decided to change how they worked for the benefit of their citizens. It is simply facile to suggest that one must either stay with the constitutional arrangements, which in many people's
Mr. Grieve:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and have some sympathy with it. Those matters are not written in stone and I accept that. However, is it not the case that the extraordinary aspect of the Government's proposals is that we are moving into a miasma? It has never been made clear what even the basic construct of the new constitution will be. As for regionalism, it is all murk. Does he also agree that they do not take account of English national identity? Had I suggested that Scotland should be split into two for regional government purposes, there would have been an outcry from the hon. Gentleman's Scottish colleagues on the devolution issue.
Dr. Whitehead:
May I give the hon. Gentleman an example of how one might look at those issues, in terms not of an academic exercise but of something that has really happened in Europe? There has been a transition in Spain from a fascist dictatorship to a democracy--from a highly centralised state to a highly devolved state, but nevertheless a state that has retained the unitary nature of its constitution.
Mr. Rowe:
The hon. Gentleman is sincere in the examples that he gives but I think that I am right to say that, in all the examples to which he has alluded, there has been a long history of coherent "personality" among all the states or provinces that have come together in some kind of agreement to give up a certain amount of their power. The Government are suggesting that, in a country where such regional identities do not exist, they should be created artificially to fit the plan. The idea that people in Kent and people in Oxfordshire have remotely anything in common that brings them together to create some kind of co-operative regional assembly is absurd.
Dr. Whitehead:
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will realise that I am referring to one of the oldest nation states in Europe. One could argue that Spain has been a nation state--certainly in more or less the form that its present boundaries command--for almost as long as the United Kingdom. Spain is relevant precisely because of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
Spain, historically, was a highly centralised nation state. Despite that, there were a number of states, areas and provinces within its boundaries that had aspirations to move along a different path. Under Franco, those aspirations were ruthlessly suppressed. The Catalonian language could not be taught in schools, and the Galician language was suppressed. In short, Spain was pursuing a path which, after Franco went, would have led to its break-up had a number of those aspirations not been taken seriously. What happened in Spain is instructive and relevant to what we are discussing today.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. Does he not understand that there is a world of difference between Catalonia and what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was talking about--a wholly artificial
Dr. Whitehead:
I am sorry that Opposition Members are so impatient because, in referring to Catalonia, one might make a comparison with Scotland--although not with Banbury. One might compare other areas of Spain with Banbury, and I want to make precisely that comparison. I am not suggesting--unless global warming takes a far greater hold--that Banbury will coincide exactly with Murcia, but we can make some interesting parallels.
I shall quote briefly from a section of a book entitled "Nationalism and the Nation in the Iberian Peninsula" edited by Clare Mar-Molinero and Angel Smith, a section which, I have the sad duty to inform the House, was written by me. I trust that that will not entirely prejudice it in hon. Members' eyes. They ought to take assurance from me that, at least before being elected to Parliament, I was able to discern the truth. Here is one interesting parallel:
The Spanish experience was no mere historical accident. With the rise of democracy in Spain, the Spanish Government decided that the linguistic regions--Catalonia, Euskadi and Galicia--should be given substantial powers of autonomy, first within a unified Spanish constitution. That was done. After that,
Mr. Luff:
We have read the book.
Dr. Whitehead:
I hope that hon. Members have read the book. It is a riveting read--I recommend it for Christmas stockings.
What happened was the opposite of the prediction made by the hon. Member for Billericay in her article in Parliamentary Review. In a wonderful passage--on which, no doubt, she worked for many hours to get right--she said:
"There are, however, other considerations such as the differing legal systems arising from the historical experience of various parts of Spain. Thus the first disposition of the constitution gives protection to the territorios forales, those territories with so-called foral rights, that some regions have gained through history and remain to the present day as distinct laws implying rights of self-government. The financial systems operated in the Basque country and Navarre which allow them to impose and collect the majority of taxes and then give an agreed sum to the central Government for centrally provided services are examples of these rights."
One might say that that is an historical version of the right to vary taxes. In many ways, the system in the foral areas operates similarly.
"Other regions were then offered two routes to autonomy. They could either aim for accelerated autonomy through a series of rather more rigorous procedures deriving from article 151 or could opt for more gentle and gradual procedure under article 143 which involved the consent of two-thirds of the municipal councils of each region followed by the agreement of a central Parliament."
Some of this may be beginning to sound familiar to the House.
"Only one region, Andalucia, opted for the exacting but accelerated path offered by article 151, and after a referendum, obtained full autonomy in 1981. All other regions followed the second path with ultimate success."
The interesting point about that process was that, other than the linguistic regions, it was widely regarded in Spain that the regions were mere historical leftovers like Wessex, Cornwall, Anglia or Mercia. The system of government under Franco was provincial, with provincial
governors. One might say that the Government's offices of the regions have, in many ways, similar powers to those of the provincial governors under Franco.
"'No taxation without representation', the huddled English masses will soon cry. If we are not to be represented in decisions on Scottish affairs then we should not pay for them. Nor can Scottish MPs expect to vote funds for their homelands from the pockets of English taxpayers."
Mr. Grieve:
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that we have interrupted his speech, and he has shown great courtesy. Is not the point that the Spanish system had historical entities that continued up to the 15th century and beyond before they were suppressed by the central Government? Here we are talking about a country, England--I understand his argument about Scotland--that has been a unitary state since the end of the ninth century.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |