| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lyons: I am happy for any Member to say that they disagree, or that the figure is not robust enough; I am simply quoting the report and the polling organisation. I have no reason to think that the organisation has a jaundiced view of people participating in voting for the Scottish Parliament. I think it objective and fair, and I am prepared to accept its view. One might well argue that 13 per cent. is an underestimate of the number of people who do not vote because of confusion in the system. But as I said, the list system and its lack of accountability undermine the political and democratic process. It helps no politician if people have no trust or faith in it.
I am old-fashioned enough to think that you should elect the person whom you want to represent you in the Scottish Parliament. It is as simple as—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to hon. Members in his use of the second person.
Mr. Lyons: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. People should have the opportunity to make that decision, which they make on their own. They do not rely on the list system to allow someone to get into the Scottish Parliament through the back door.
If we were to explain to students of higher modern studies or to first-year politics students that this is the system in the Scottish Parliament—
Mr. Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who condemn and deride a system through which those who come first and second in a constituency election are elected to the Scottish Parliament have to examine why it should be that someone who comes fourth in a list system, for example, can be successful?
Mr. Lyons: I am grateful for that intervention. There is no logic to the case made by those who argue that there is a major problem with the election of those who come first and second, or even with the creation of two separate seats. I am quite happy to go along with the list and all that that means, but the fact that we should have the system in question offends us all as democrats, irrespective of whether Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or any given party gains.
The report points one way forward. It is not the solution, but if nothing else it lays a foundation for discussing proposals and recommendations that we can consider in future. That, if nothing else, is a worthy conclusion.
David Hamilton: It is extremely important that constituents understand who their Member is. First and second past the post is a very important issue. Through such a system, people can say to their Member, "You're to blame for not doing this", or "Thank you for doing that." Under a list system, that does not happen. The former system would provide clarification.
Mr. Lyons: I am sure that it would. I am clear in my mind that the list is offensive to all democrats, and we should make that point clear.
7.57 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) reminded us, is our first opportunity to revisit the Scotland Act 1998 on the Floor of the House. Indeed, it has been a good debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is not in his place, because his was one of the best contributions so far. I did not agree with a lot of it, but he made a powerfully argued and cogent case that demonstrated a certain and welcome independence of mind. I heard him speak on Friday's "Today" programme about the remit of the gas and electricity
markets regulator in a similarly independent manner. I never heard him speak in that way when he was Minister with responsibility for energy, but we will leave that to one side for the moment.As I said, however, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North because he seems to be unduly concerned with starting points. He says that we are in a muddled situation. I have no difficulty in agreeing that we are not necessarily in the best starting place, but where we finish is more important than where we start. Once we have been through the Bill, and through the commission process that the Secretary of State said will be introduced soon, we will end up, I hope, where we need to be. Frankly, that is what is important.
I welcome the retention of the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is important, not least because it demonstrates to those Members that their views will be listened to here. Had we sought to proceed in open defiance of the clear majority of MSPs, we would have been introducing a constitutional tension into the debate.
It does not surprise me that the Conservatives are not part of the consensus. They have never been part of any consensus for the development of the constitutional position in Scotland. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) took the best approach that he could have done in the circumstances when he ditched what looked like the last three or four pages of his speech, said that this was a bad Bill, and sat down.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a more telling contribution when she outlined all the things that the Conservatives want for the Scottish Parliament: to reduce the number of Members; to reduce the number of Committees; and to reduce the number of Ministers. Everything that the Conservatives propose in the debate, it seems to me, is designed to reduce the effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament. That is no accident: they do not want the Scottish Parliament to succeed and they do not want it to be effective, because they never wanted it in the first place.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely convinced of the need for 22 Ministers to run the Scottish Executive?
Mr. Carmichael: The number of members of the Scottish Executive or the Cabinet is for the Scottish Parliament to decide, and it will be judged on that basis at the end of the day. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives stood for election in May last year on exactly the same set of proposals—to reduce this and reduce that—and were roundly trounced for their pains, so a little more humility from Conservative Front Benchers would not go amiss.
The question of the coincidence, coterminosity or coterminality—call it what one will—of boundaries is important. Several hon. Members came out with the old saw of asking how often people come to constituency surgeries to talk about coterminosity. Unless one is exceptionally unfortunate in one's constituents, they do not—and long may that continue to be the case. People may not talk about that in surgeries, but they often talk about how the Scottish Parliament operates, and there
is a feeling that it does not operate as well, as clearly or as effectively as it might. I believe that the coincidence of boundaries is part of that. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) mentioned, the operation of the list system is also part of that, so we are right to deal with those points in the Bill. The Scottish Affairs Committee was right to identify it as a problem, and we need to find the solution to it.I explored with the Leader of the House at last Thursday's business questions whether the long title of the Bill could be altered in order to entertain amendments in Committee that would examine those issues, because the Bill is narrowly and tightly drawn. I have to say that the Secretary of State's announcement about the commission today would make that unnecessary—indeed, even unhelpful. The commission is important and I certainly hope that my party will play an active and full part in it.
My other concern is the movement that I detect among some Labour Members—overtly among Conservative Members—away from proportionality. I believe that proportionality was crucial in selling the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people. I say that because it was long held in many parts of the country—particularly in the highlands and islands and the borders—that, as my predecessor but one, the late Lord Grimond of Firth once put it, we do not want to be ruled by Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers. He said that, unfortunately, in 1983 when he was speaking in support of my colleague, Jim Wallace, who was then seeking to take over the seat. He was an Edinburgh lawyer, so it was not perhaps the most helpful intervention in the debate, but it does not seem to have done any lasting damage.
I say in all seriousness that proportionality in the Scottish Parliament means that we must not end up being, to use another expression, the Strathclyde region writ large. That is of supreme importance and any move away from proportionality must be deprecated. It is certainly something that my constituents and I would not countenance supporting. That is why I could not go along with the suggestion in the Scottish Affairs Committee report of having two Members in the Scottish Parliament for each Westminster constituency. Inevitably, in my view, that would have led to the end of proportionality.
Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman is deluding himself. I believe that the Scottish electorate is more interested in the delivery of the Scottish Parliament and what it can provide in the way of better governance for the people of Scotland. It is not merely a question of proportional representation.
Mr. Carmichael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but his view does not concur with what I find in my constituency. My constituents would feel that a Scottish Executive and Parliament dominated by the central belt—and by the party of the central belt that would inevitably follow from first past the post—would, almost by definition, be deficient in its representation of their interests.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |