---

7.43 pm

Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): The Scottish Affairs Committee took extensive evidence before it published its report. At the outset, may I refute the claim that the reports of the evidence did not match what we had heard? That was not the case. For example, on the 129-Member question, almost everyone who appeared before the Committee—whether from political parties or independent groups—came down in favour of retaining that number.

The report stated:

"During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain, for the time being, at 129."

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1192

That exactly reflects the evidence that was given to the Select Committee.

What was important for the Committee was not the mechanics of the 129 figure, or the mechanics of coterminosity but whether any changes would hinder or assist the greater involvement of the electorate. Would the changes be voter friendly? Would they clarify issues for the electorate or would they confuse the electorate even further?

The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has made a consistent point throughout the debate. He has asked whether our constituents tell us that they are worried about coterminosity and the answer is that they do not. However, in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, they ask me, "John, why should the town of Kirkintilloch be split in two for the new Westminster constituency, but remain as one for the Scottish Parliament constituency?" That is how they ask questions about coterminosity. They ask, "Why should the villages of Lennoxtown, Milton of Campsie or Twechar be taken away from the Westminster constituency but remain in the Scottish constituency?".

Technically, those are arguments about coterminosity. That actual question is never asked, but people—quite properly—are interested in their local community and its past. For example, Kirkintilloch has never been split in its parliamentary history, but now it is being split for the Westminster constituency, while remaining whole for the Scottish Parliament. I agree that people do not say, "What about coterminosity?", but they ask pertinent and important questions about how their local communities are represented.

In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said:

"The creation of 59 Westminster Constituencies which do not have coterminous boundaries with 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies is likely to cause confusion among constituents who will be in different constituencies."

No one will argue with that. There seems to be broad support for the view that that would be a major difficulty and a major problem.

Even non-political groups agreed. The Association of Electoral Administrators said:

"The lack of coincidence between Parliamentary Boundaries in Scotland is more likely to cause bewilderment for electors, especially those who reside in cross-boundary areas."

That is not a political viewpoint; the association is independent and the administrators are politically objective. They know how to run elections and they clearly say that the lack of coterminosity could cause major problems.

In its recommendations, the Committee stated:

"Based on the evidence we have received, we recommend that, in order to avoid possible confusion, the constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament should remain coterminous."

The Committee did not reach that conclusion on its own; it was based firmly on the evidence that we heard.

Another issue that has been raised in the debate was the possibility of two Members from the Scotland Parliament being balanced in a Westminster constituency. The Committee said that

"our favoured option is to have 2 constituency MSPs for each new Westminster constituency, totalling 118 MSPs, with the remaining 11 MSPs being elected from a national list".

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1193

As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, the Committee did not recommend how that should be done.

Mr. Weir: Is that not a difficulty with the report? I was a member of the Committee, and that recommendation did not seem to me to be backed up by the evidence. The report could have made a good point, but it chose to recommend the establishment of a commission and to suggest what it wanted the commission to find—the very thing that the Secretary of State was arguing against.

Mr. Lyons: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but the evidence before the Committee was overwhelmingly about the list. People were reasonably satisfied about the possibility that there would be two MSPs in each Westminster constituency; the big and continual criticism was about the list system—for good reason. Questions about the list system have been repeated in the debate today. We have a system for which there is no public support: a candidate can stand for direct election to the Scottish Parliament, come last out of four or five candidates, yet walk into the Scottish Parliament by the back door and take their seat.

That is clearly unacceptable to the Scottish people; they regard it as a fraud. It does not matter which political party gains by that system, or what it says about it; all of us should be embarrassed about it.

Mr. Hood: The agriculture Minister of the Scottish Parliament—Captain Mainwaring himself—little Ross Finney, stands for election in Greenock year after year and always gets trounced; indeed, he was trounced in the last two Scottish parliamentary elections. Does my hon. Friend share my amazement at the fact that every morning, the people of Greenock wake up, having trounced Ross Finney, only to find out that he is not only in the Scottish Parliament, but in the Scottish Executive?

Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because this is clearly a problem. Such people can enter not only the Parliament but the Cabinet. The fact that such things can happen must be an affront to us all, and to the democratic process.

Angus Robertson: Just to be clear that the hon. Gentleman is not making a cheap partisan point, does he include in his criticism the third place candidate in the Scottish parliamentary elections in Moray, Mr. Peter Peacock? He is now serving as a Scottish Executive Minister, having been defeated as a Labour candidate in Moray by the Scottish National party; indeed, he even came behind the Tories.

Mr. Lyons: The point that I am making is an apolitical one: the system is not one that the Scottish people agree with. Those who come last in a direct election should not then be able to transfer to the list. If we are to have a list at all, there should be clear separation between those who want to stand in constituencies, and those who want stand in respect of the list.

I shall give a few facts and figures, which have been provided by the Library. In the 1999 election, 56 list MSPs were elected, 12 of whom were not fighting

9 Feb 2004 : Column 1194

constituency seats. The remaining 44 had been defeated and then entered Parliament via the list system. We might think that a big enough affront to us all, but let us consider what happened in 2003. Of the 56 list MSPs elected in that year, 44 were losing candidates in constituency seats.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I understand and appreciate his hostility towards list MSPs, but we have heard it all before, so it is not really new. Can he explain why he wants to have two-Member constituencies? We do not know how they will be elected, except for some vague reference to the Electoral Commission's deciding on such matters. Is it being suggested that the winner and runner-up will be selected for those constituencies? If so, that is a far more ridiculous idea, because whoever is directly defeated—be it by a majority of 800 or 8,000—will get to serve. Such a solution is 10 times worse than that of list Members.

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands where I am coming from. I want to encourage more people to participate in elections for the Scottish Parliament, for Westminster and for the councils, but the fact is that the list system turns people off. According to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), the Electoral Commission said the following of the question of the percentage:

"Opinion polling following the 2003 elections in Scotland . . . suggested that 13 per cent. of non-voters claimed that confusion over the voting systems being used led them not to vote".

We cannot afford to allow 13 per cent. of that populace to turn away from elections. We need to encourage them, and to try to ensure that they participate in elections in the way that we would like.

Mr. Weir: I remember what was said well, because I questioned Mr. Younger at the time. The figure of 13 per cent. has gone into legend, but the hon. Gentleman should read on a little further in the report to discover what Mr. Younger said. He said that we should treat that figure with caution, and that

"there is quite a lot of experience of earlier polling that suggests that some of these reasons are those that people think are the ones which make it look more respectable for their not having voted".

In other words, he was casting doubt on the robustness of the 13 per cent. figure. On the face of it, that figure is very bad, but perhaps it is not quite as bad as it looks.

---