---

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Did he say that, where Commonwealth countries currently use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a final court of appeal, they would be able in future to develop a home-grown variety of that final court of appeal? If that is the case, I shall have some anxieties, as a number of those countries retain the death penalty.

Mr. Leslie: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe that it is for us to dictate to Commonwealth countries the nature of their justice system. If they choose to retain the final right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that is their right, but if they choose to move away from that arrangement, we should also respect that decision. I believe that that is the correct position to take, and I hope that she will understand that.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Although I am broadly sympathetic to the Minister's argument for the concept of a separation of powers, may I ask him to reconsider the need for a written constitution at this stage, not only to protect us against the depredations of Governments with large majorities, but to clarify the relationship between our judicial system and his proposed supreme court, and, for example, the European Court of Justice? I should be

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1144

grateful if he would say another word about how he believes that relationship will develop. Furthermore, given his proposal that there should be an age limit of 70 for supreme court justices, does he see any read-across to Members of Parliament in that regard, and if not, why not?

Mr. Leslie: One reform at a time, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] We have no proposals on that matter. The age limit of 70 reflects as closely as we can the current arrangements on the Appellate Committee, and our proposals make good sense. We do not propose to have a written constitution at this stage, but the package of reforms and changes that we are putting before the House is sufficiently ambitious and wide ranging to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty to consider. This Parliament is sovereign on all matters. We choose to delegate some of our legislative considerations to European bodies and elsewhere, but, again, we do not propose any change to the relationship between our highest court of appeal and the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): Despite the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), the House of Lords has not always had a beneficial effect on Scots law. I refer him to the case of Bartonshall Coal Company v. Reid and its effect on workmen's compensation—[Interruption.] Look it up; it would interest Labour Members. Given that the Minister said that the new supreme court would deal only with Scottish civil appeals and that such appeals will be binding only in Scotland, what is the sense in having these heard in London? Is not the logic of the proposal that Scots law should be repatriated to Scotland, where it belongs? If the Minister goes ahead with this crazy scheme, will he at least assure us that any Scots appeal will be dealt with only by justices who have a thorough knowledge of Scots law, so that we do not get a repetition of the Reid case?

Mr. Leslie: While Scotland remains a part of the UK, those civil appeals should continue to go to the UK supreme court. I do not believe that it would be right to change that.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Why not?

Mr. Leslie: Having that appeal to the UK supreme court can be of benefit to the whole of the UK—even in Scottish civil cases—because we all have opportunities to learn from the interpretations and applications made by those justices.

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1143

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1145

Point of Order

4.57 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We read in the Scottish press this morning that the Secretary of State for Scotland is about to announce the acceleration of an all-party commission to investigate the various electoral systems in Scotland. Given Mr. Speaker's many strictures on such matters, would it not be usual to have the consultation and then the announcement in Parliament, as opposed to having the announcement in the press and then the consultation?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are about to begin the main business of the day.

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1146

Orders of the Day

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

[Relevant document: The First Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 77, on the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change.]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.58 pm

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is short and to the point. It will keep the composition of the Scottish Parliament at 129 Members by removing the link in the Scotland Act 1998 that makes the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament the same as those for Westminster. The Bill will also provide for the separate review of the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions by the Electoral Commission, which takes over the responsibilities of the boundary commission after the completion of the current review cycle. Without these provisions, there would be no mechanism for reviewing the boundaries for the Scottish Parliament constituencies.

I also want to set out my proposals for dealing with the difficulties that many people believe will arise from having four different voting systems in Scotland, and other associated matters. I shall return to that in a moment, but first let me set out why this Bill is necessary.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I hope that at some point the Secretary of State will touch on the relationship between Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish MPs. If we are to have a large number of MSPs doing all the—no doubt excellent—work that they do at local and constituency level, will he have something to say about the reduction in the responsibilities of Scottish MPs—to say nothing of their allowances—in this House? With all these additional politicians in the Scottish Parliament, how can we justify the continued activity of Scottish MPs, apparently on the same basis as their English and Welsh counterparts?

Mr. Darling: I shall have something to say about MPs and MSPs. The other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises is for this House, not for the Government.

The Government accepted from the outset that devolution removed the need for special consideration for Scotland in terms of representation in this House, and that there should be the same electoral quotas for Scotland as for England. That was an integral part of the devolution agreement. Section 86 of the Scotland Act 1998 provided for that reduction in MP numbers, but the Act also made the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament the same as those for Westminster, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil) (Lab): My right hon. Friend was in the House during the passage of the Scotland Act. Did he envisage—I certainly did not—that there would be an increase of some 250 per cent. in

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1147

Scottish representation as a consequence of devolution? That is what one gets if one adds together 59 and 129 and compares it with what we had before.

Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, when these matters were originally debated it was envisaged that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would reduce as and when the number of MPs being sent to Westminster reduced. As I was about to say, however, the Government said at the time that they would consider how the Scottish Parliament was working and keep the matter under review. Indeed, the Government were not the only people who said that. I note that although the Conservatives tabled an amendment—which, sadly, Mr. Speaker was unable to select—the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who still speaks for the Conservative party, at least on foreign affairs, said on 12 January 1998:

"it cannot be good for Scotland to find that, within a year or two of the Scottish Parliament getting going, its numbers are cut to reflect the changes in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster. It makes little sense to set up a Parliament, ask it to bed down and then make fundamental changes to its size and composition."—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 43.]

So it was not only members of the Government who took the view that these matters would have to be kept under review; it was the view of Conservative Members, too. That may explain why the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes does not have his name on the Conservative amendment.

The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) is that when the Scotland Bill was going through the House, it was anticipated that there would be a reduction in the number of MSPs to match the reduction in the number of MPs being sent to Westminster—but my noble Friend Lord Sewel made it clear that the Government would keep the matter under review. They did so, and subsequently consulted. The conclusion, which was announced by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Lidell), was that the Government would legislate to keep 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.

---