| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 861—continued
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me sight of her statement under the new terms of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. The statement is not unexpected; we have been waiting for it for 264 days, which is more than the number of replies that she received to her consultation document. Perhaps there was too much reading for her to do in her otherwise busy day.
Unlike the Government, the Conservatives have been consistent in wanting a reduction in the number of MSPs. As early as 28 January 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) argued for such a reduction in line with the welcome reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. The then Minister, Henry McLeish, supported that. Since then, Conservatives in the Commons, the Lords, and the Scottish Parliament have consistently argued for the Government to uphold the terms of the Scotland Act—which set out the reduction—or, alternatively, for true devolution of power so that the Scottish Parliament could make its own decision. The right hon. Lady may recall that, in 1998, she voted to overturn an amendment to the Scotland Bill that would have had the same effect as her new plans. What specifically has happened in the interim to change her mind?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that similar devolved parliaments elsewhere in the world need fewer members? For instance, in British Columbia, which I visited in the summer, the legislature has greater powers but only 79 members. Will she tell us why the Scottish Parliament needs 129? Will she also tell us why it needs all 17 of its Committees, and why it now needs 23 Ministers when the Scottish Office used to get along nicely with five?
I would be grateful for clarification of the right hon. Lady's statement. Is my reading of it correct that, if her proposed new commission concludes that coterminosity is absolutely essential for the democratic process, she is prepared to retain the 72 Scottish MPs at Westminster? Will she confirm that that number will remain at 72 for the general election to be held by June 2006, and for the subsequent one? Will she also tell us whether she expects to introduce the Bill amending the Scotland Act before or after 1 May 2003?
The Scottish Parliament will only work with public support. The Lib-Lab pact running the Scottish Executive is losing the confidence of the Scottish people. The right hon. Lady knew the first First Minister well, and she may remember him saying, on 11 November 1998, that
- Xover the next few years, we shall have experience of the Scottish Parliament in operation and can then assess how dependent it is on having 129 MSPs for its success. I suspect that that will not be a determining factor. What I believe will be the success of the Parliament will depend on its ability to deliver, to respond to Scottish public opinion and to involve Scottish public opinion in its affairs."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 386.]
Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady has proved that she can count, but she has not proved an awful lot else. She asks what has happened since the consultation began and, indeed, since November 1998. First, let me remind her that in November 1998 she voted for a Lords amendment that would have guaranteed 129 not only for the first Scottish Parliament elections, but in perpetuity. I contend that it is she who is performing a U-turn today. She quoted the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) from January 1998, but she failed to quote his 11 November 1998 speech to the House in which he made it clear that
- XThe first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability".—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
The hon. Lady asks about the independent commission that I propose. That commission will be truly independent. It will have an opportunity to look at all the issues relating to coterminosity, and it will be able to advise on any issue arising from having 129 MSPs and a smaller number of Westminster MPs than at present.
I made available to the hon. Lady a copy of my statement, which makes it quite clear that I envisage that the boundary commission will have reported to me and that an order will have been laid before the House to reduce the number of Members of this House by June 2006, which is the last possible date for a general election. In relation to when that legislation is likely to be introduced to amend the Scotland Act, I would hope that it could be done as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I am not in control of when that might be.
The hon. Lady talks about the lessons of devolution. I say to her that her lecturing the House about that is like the wolf giving Little Red Riding Hood advice on long-term care. The Tories have always opposed devolution, and they sought a no, no vote in the referendum. She asks me why 129 is essential. She will see from the replies to the consultation exercise that the overwhelming majority of people support 129. One of the main reasons for that is proportionality.
I point out to the hon. Lady the fact that the Scottish Conservative party had zero constituency MSPs elected in the 1999 general election in Scotland. As a consequence of 129 and the electoral system, 18 Conservative MSPs were elected. There are few examples in modern history of a party with overwhelming support allowing a diminishing Opposition the chance to have some representation when they cannot win first-past-the-post seats.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of her remarks. May I give a general welcome to the statement, which I believe is courageous? It shows that she has considered the problem seriously, and proposed a considered and constructive solution to the problems set
out in the consultation paper. It also has the advantage of being in line with the recommendations made by my party in Scotland and the only Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Parliament has enjoyed. [Interruption.] Maybe they will let him keep the cup next time.May I refer to three points in particular? First, I recognise the Parliament's success, which I believe is self-evident, especially in how the Committee system has worked and in its proportionality.
Secondly, the statement shows that the changes will be made through an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. It is important that that take place on the Floor of the House with proper opportunity for Members to debate it.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State proposes to set up an independent commission to consider the problems of coterminosity. May I ask the Secretary of State whether its remit will be as tightly drawn as in her statement, or will it have an opportunity to cast its net a little wider? In particular, will it be able to consider as a possibility amendments to the electoral system—for example, the use of the single transferable vote as a remedy for the problem of coterminosity?
Will the Secretary of State consider devolving the routine review of the Scottish Parliament to a boundary commission for Scotland that is answerable in Scotland and operating within clear guidelines? In that context, I commend an amendment that was successful in the other place—not the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—which I tabled and which was then rejected by the Secretary of State's predecessors.
We who have supported devolution for more than a century commend the Secretary of State for respecting the spirit of the constitutional convention, and, allowing for suitable questions on detail, we support the thrust of her statement.
Mrs. Liddell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement, and for the action that I propose.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role and remit of the new independent commission. It will be appointed by the United Kingdom Government in consultation with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. It will be a non-statutory advisory body. I can only say that it is too early for me to be precise about its remit—a subsequent Government will have to make decisions about that, as no Government can bind their successor—but I would expect it to cover any issues arising from the operation of non-coterminous boundaries, and I would not expect it to be prevented from looking at proportional representation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Scottish boundary commission. I see no reason to change the boundary commission as it currently operates. It is an independent body which does its work very effectively, and—I say this with all respect to the hon. Gentleman—I think that the establishment of a Scottish commission would just be tokenism.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): I thank the Secretary of State, for whom I retain the greatest respect, for agreeing that the merit of both the Scotland Act 1998 and the current provision lies in common boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. Is that not, however, a tacit admission that these proposals will cause chaos and confusion with the different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood?
While I welcome the establishment of the independent commission, I fear that it will come too late to minimise that chaos and confusion. May I urge the Secretary of State to consider setting it up far earlier?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |