| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donohoe: That person would be entitled to do so, but the responsiblities of the list Member were never defined as they should and probably could have been in that Act. That was a fundamental flaw. To a great extent, if that had been addressed, we would not be here tonight facing this quandary.
I suspect that few people in my constituency and probably throughout Scotland, apart from the chattering classes, are unduly concerned about the number of MSPs, or indeed the number of MPs. What concerns people, and what is more important, is the delivery of a service. They care about education, the NHS, the economy and employment levels, and to that extent the Labour party has indeed delivered, both down here and in Edinburgh. What they will not recognise is the existence of some magic in the requirement for 129 MSPs to be retained, or in the method adopted for their election. Not one ordinary constituent has complained to me about the way in which the present system affects him or her—because it does not affect my constituents at all. What it does is create confusion in the minds of the public. As has been said, the big problem relates to who represents the public in the Scottish Parliament and in this Parliament.
Why have we found ourselves in this position? While the Scotland Act 1998 was being debated, it was made clear that coterminous boundaries would be maintained. Only now do we find that what has happened since then is leading us towards a problem. I foresee a major problem, and have for some time. For some time I have argued forcefully, in any forum that has allowed me to do so, about the whole question of coterminosity, because I cannot accept any other arrangement.
All today's speeches so far, apart from those of SNP Members, have suggested that there is much to be said for coterminous boundaries. Both Conservatives and
Liberal Democrats have expressed that view; the SNP is out on a limb, but we know that its sole aim is to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.Aspects of the independent commission also worry me. Although it has been said that the time scale will be as limited as possible, we have been told nothing more about it; nor has the Secretary of State told us how many members the commission will have, and where they will come from. He must clarify both those points before he receives the support that would otherwise be forthcoming.
As I have said, we have heard many arguments today about possible systems, such as proportional representation and the single transferable vote, but I do not think that the Bill's narrow drafting even allows for such arguments. It allows only for simple clauses dealing with coterminosity, and I want to concentrate on that rather than those other questions, or the question of reduction. I must point out, however, that the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), or that of the Tory party, is not very good. The hon. Gentleman says that, under his preferred system, there would be about 108 MSPs. According to a simple calculator, the figure is 104.26. I would not like to say who the 0.26 would be, but maintaining proportionality would require some 45 additional Members. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the figure that he gave.
Mr. Peter Duncan: There is a straightforward explanation. The fact that Orkney and Shetland are separate constituencies results in a greater proportion of the total number of MSPs.
Mr. Donohoe: That does not add up. There are still four Members coming from somewhere in the system who are unaccounted for.
I want to simplify the position. I have heard many arguments about what is possible, but I want to concentrate on what is feasible. Something must be put together that will be accepted not just by my colleagues and me, but by the mainstream in the Chamber and outside. I believe that allowing two MSPs per Westminster constituency would simplify everything, although Orkney and Shetland would remain separate. According to my arithmetic there would then be some 118 Members with a first-past-the-post system, if the commission adopted it. I do not want to close any doors in that regard. Then there are the additional Members. If there were 11, with six in one region and five in the other, we could maintain the total of 129, which seems to have been accepted by everyone.
7.37 pm
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I am beginning to feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has had to sit there and be subjected to a barrage from his Back Benchers. Some of my comments may prove to be more supportive of his position than those of many members of the Scottish Labour party—although I hasten to add that I will be joining my colleagues in the Lobby to vote against the Bill.
In deciding whether to reduce the size of the Scottish Parliament from 129 Members to 108, we must establish whether it would still be able to scrutinise the Executive
properly, whether the reduction would increase the value of Ministers to the detriment of both Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and whether—given that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral—it would be able to fulfil its roles adequately. No one has made a case for that so far today. I suspect that whether the Bill proves to be good or bad will depend on the Parliament's output. No doubt, during the Bill's progress, we shall hear more arguments of that kind rather than arguments about electoral systems in general.Much of today's debate seems to have been concerned with the additional member system and the list. Many Members representing Scottish constituencies clearly find that system frustrating. That does not surprise me: during the passage of the Scotland Bill I made a number of speeches opposing it. I am a thorough believer in first past the post, for many fundamental reasons. I think that, partly owing to its simplicity but also because of the accountability it involves, it is the best system for the electorate.
I do not think that a lack of coterminosity matters greatly if there are no list Members. Many other countries manage without coterminous districts, although they use first past the post. Indeed, for more than 70 years Northern Ireland elected Members to this Parliament—the imperial Parliament, as it was then—and Members representing much smaller constituencies to Stormont, both under first past the post. Canadians elect a federal Parliament and state Parliaments. The ridings and the state parliamentary areas are very different, except in the case of Ontario.
John Robertson: When the Scotland Bill was being put together, coterminosity, in terms of constituencies, was one of the building blocks for the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that taking away those building blocks would leave the way open for the disintegration of the Union as we know it?
Mr. Syms: An argument made by many people when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed was that embedding Scottish representation in the Westminster constituencies would give rather more unity than the alternative system, but my point is that we do not necessarily have to have that system. The confusion is caused by having a list system, where several Members have an interest in lots of constituencies. It is perfectly possible to have different-sized constituencies, under first past the post, and proper parliamentary representation. In English constituencies, it is normal for county councillors to cover more than one parliamentary constituency; it does not make them bad county councillors, nor does it affect representation to this place.
In federal Parliaments, such as those in Canada and the United States, there are districts of different sizes, with the exception of Ontario. In Australia, Tasmania is the only state where districts are the same size—most others have different systems. In Germany, the Lander have different sized districts and there is AMS at both federal and state level. In the United States of America, which uses a first-past-the-post system, there are some bizarrely designed districts—there are all sorts of different sizes for all sorts of different offices—yet the system works pretty effectively.
I do not think that we need to have a fetish about coterminosity, but the electoral system is key. That is why AMS is causing problems north of the border, although, apart from first past the post, no other system would be preferable. However, there is no doubt about the problem and the Secretary of State is correct to look into the systems. There is a first-past-the-post system for Westminster, AMS for the Scottish Parliament and a list system for Europe and we may be moving towards a single transferable vote system for local government, which will cause confusion. The line taken by the Government has helped that confusion; for example, there was no need for them to bring in a list system for the European Parliament. I voted against that, as I preferred a first-past-the-post system.
The confusion will inevitably give rise to concern, which could lead to lower turnouts, because people will not understand the system. There is a big misconception in the AMS system. The second vote is more important than the first one, as the second vote determines the relative relationship of all the other parties. I was talking to the German ambassador about that point and even he had not realised it, yet under the German system the second vote is important.
Overall, it seems sensible to hold an independent inquiry into the relative systems, as, if possible, we do not want a proliferation of systems. It would have been better to go back to first past the post, which is a simpler and more accountable system. I do not necessarily believe that everything has to be coterminous; providing that the system is simple, we do not need the same districts for representation—I have given several examples of that.
On balance, I shall vote with my colleagues for 108 rather than 129, because I do not believe that the arguments have yet been made on scrutiny and on balance between the Executive and Back Benchers or about whether the Scottish Parliament would do a better job. Perhaps those arguments will be made in Committee.
Some aspects will add a political cost. If there are separate boundaries, we shall have to have separate reviews and separate electoral registers. A dual system will mean costs for local government north of the border and they will fall on the Scottish taxpayer. When Members vote, they should take account of the fact that duplication may have certain costs.
As many Members want to speak, I shall conclude my remarks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |