Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 867continued
Angus Robertson (Moray): I note that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to give the House an example of one single normal Parliament in the world that cannot determine its own size. Will she now give the House such an example?
Mrs. Liddell: The Scottish Parliament is a devolved parliament within the United Kingdom and is essential to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can point as much as he likes. He is a separatist, whereas I believe in the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland have voted for a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Two great friends of mine who are twice my size and twice my height have asked what this has to do with me. I want to tell them. The size of the Scottish Parliament is not my business. Representation here is my business, and that of my constituents. I believe that all constituencies throughout the UK should be the same size, and I hope that the commission bears that in mind. Last week, we saw a reduction of 130,000 in the electorate of Northern Ireland. Every Member here should have the same number of constituents, and there should be separate compensation if Members' constituencies cover a large area. It should not be the other way round.
Mrs. Liddell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I want to put it on record that I am not one of the two people twice his size and weight who put pressure on him.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I entirely endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I claim an interest, in that my constituency, with 74,000 electors, is set to disappear in the English boundary review. Will the right hon. Lady accept that she has not made a case for Scottish representatives in this place having smaller constituencies than ours? Constituents would be better served if Labour Memberssuch as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)paid more attention to Scottish matters and less to television programmes such as XCoronation Street".
Mrs. Liddell: I have not the foggiest idea what the hon. Lady is talking about. From the beginning of
the devolution process, the Government have acknowledged that it would not be possible to continue with the size of representation of Scottish constituencies that obtained prior to devolution. That is why the boundary commission has begun work on the matter. However, the Government will take no lessons from Conservative Members on the operation of devolution. They have done everything in their power to thwart devolution, and for 18 years they put in place at every possible opportunity conditions that mean that the Scottish people resent the Conservatives.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): Given the overwhelming consensus of organisations in Scotland, my right hon. Friend has done the right thing by introducing her proposals with regard to the 129 MSPs. She has rejected my carefully crafted solution but, given that it was supported only by Brian Monteith and Margo MacDonald, I can see why. However, setting up the independent commission some time after 2007 could be a mistake. Does my right hon. Friend accept that having the debate about 129 for the past year has been something of a distraction in Scottish politics, and that continuing the debate for the next five years might be even more of a distraction?
Mrs. Liddell: I repeat that I have chosen the period after 2007 because I want to gather practical evidence about how coterminous boundaries work. Any other approach would be a paper exercise and we would end up working out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need practical evidence about coterminosity, and the independent commission needs the best available information when it gives advice to Ministers.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I, too, commend the Secretary of State for her brave and balanced approach, despite the siren voices of self-interest from Labour Back-Bench Members. Will she now turn her searching gaze on her Department of State, which, once this exercise is complete, must surely have outlived its usefulness?
Mrs. Liddell: It is strange that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should seek a reduction in Scotland's voice in government. That is bizarre. I believe in the United Kingdom, and that Scotland's voice should be heard in the Cabinet.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): My right hon. Friend will know that I made a submission similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), which she seems to have rejected out of hand. From what has been said today, it is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) made a salient point when he said that we were in for five years of people talking down the arrangement that my right hon. Friend proposes. Will she ensure that the independent commission will be included on the face of the Bill to amend the Scotland Act, and that it will not be possible for someone else to withdraw it at a later date? In addition, will she also ensure that the issues at which the commission will look will also be included on the face of the Bill? In that way, people will know the terms on
which the debate will be conducted over the five years. Otherwise, everyone will just be making up their own rules and talking down my right hon. Friend's solutionwhich, by the way, I believe to be an absolute shambles.
Mrs. Liddell: I remind my hon. Friend of the constitutional principle that no Government can bind their successor. Decisions on the matter will have to be taken by a subsequent Government, as the next general election will be held in 2006. I say again that an endless paper exercise between now and 2007 would mean that we found ourselves in the sort of argument that my hon. Friend has described. I believe that practical evidence must be gathered. In that way, sound decisions can be taken about the proper operation of democracy in Scotland, both in Holyrood and at Westminster.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the taxpayer is paying for all these extra MSPs? Does she agree that most people in Scotland think that the money would be better spent on schools and hospitals?
Mrs. Liddell: Does the hon. Lady really want me to go through the Government's increased expenditure on schools and hospitals in Scotland? Shall we talk for a little while about the fact that all 26 of Glasgow's schools are being refreshed in the course of this year? Or shall I tell her that the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for determining their priorities? That is as it should beit is what devolution is all about. The only people for whom jobs have been created are the 18 Scottish Tories who could not win under first-past-the-post system.
Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk, West): My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the scepticism concerning the numbers of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament is created by the cynical practice of the Scottish National party in encouraging list MSPs to pose as constituency MPs. Does she agree that that strategy will completely fail and the scepticism will evaporate when it comes to the test next May?
Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We need only look at the results of the 2001 election in Scotland. The SNP had its worst result since the mid-1980s; it actually managed to lose a seat to the Tories, which is almost unheard-of, and saw the biggest drop in support of any political party. My proposals are about stability. The SNP wants instabilityit is not interested in devolution, simply in breaking up the United Kingdom. We believe that divorce would wreck the prospects for Scottish jobs and the Scottish constitution. The Scottish people have rejected it and this House will reject it again.
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute): The Scottish Constitutional Convention reached a consensus on proportional representation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by proportional representation? If so, and if the Government are still in
power when the independent commission is set up, will they write it into the remit of the commission that it can only examine proportional systems of election?
Mrs. Liddell: I confirm that it is the Government's view that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by a system of proportional representation, but I am not in a position to bind any subsequent Administration. That would be complacent and arrogant of me. However, I believe that when the independent commission looks at the operation of the Scottish Parliament and the need for coterminous boundaries, it will conclude that the system of proportional representation is the only way to ensure that parties which do not succeed in winning first-past-the-post places should be able to be elected to that Parliament to give a balance within the Parliament. There can be very few international examples of a party with the overwhelming support that my party has in Scotland being prepared to give up some of that power in the interests of a more balanced assembly. That is what we did with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |