| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In debating the Bill, we are discussing the number of constituencies, rather than responsibilities.
Mr. Turner: I accept that entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want now to talk about one aspect of representation of those constituencies. The Secretary of State represents in the Cabinet not only Scotland, but transport. My constituents would like him to explain why, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he can decide with the support of Members of Parliament from England, Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter, that no subsidies should be given to the ferries that ply across the Solent to my constituency—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, that is outside the scope of this debate.
Mr. Turner: I was about to say that that is happening while 129 Scottish Members can decide what subsidies are given to the ferries that ply their way to the Scottish islands.
Mr. Hood: I shall try to rescue the hon. Gentleman and bring him back to the subject of the debate. Does he understand that he will be going into the Lobby this evening to vote on a Bill that is applicable only to Scotland, and not to England or Wales? If he thinks that that is okay—and I think it is okay—why was he criticising Scottish MPs for doing the same thing a fortnight ago?
Mr. Turner: I will vote on the Bill because it is a United Kingdom measure. Nobody has tried to argue
that the Bill is not a UK measure, whereas many people—particularly residents of the Isle of Wight—argue that ferry subsidies to the Isle of Wight is not a Scottish measure and that Scottish MPs should not be entitled to vote upon it. I see that you are keen that I should not go too much further down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not.There is one other point that I should like to make about the value or otherwise of MSPs. I understand that the average cost of an MSP is £317,317 per annum, while the average running cost per member of this Parliament is a mere £5,000 more, yet there are so many more MSPs per Scottish elector than there are Members of the UK Parliament per UK elector. I accept that we have peers as well, but most are very cheap; some of them come free. We get good value from the other place, we get good value from this place, but we get exceptionally poor value from MSPs.
Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman's supreme constitutional point that if MSPs were prepared to accept no salary, he would have no objection to however many of them there were?
Mr. Turner: It is not, as it happens. It is just—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have previously reminded the hon. Gentleman of the scope of the debate. I do so once more; perhaps he will now refer to the content of the Bill and the debate.
Mr. Turner: My point was that the number of Members of this Parliament per elector produced better value than the number of electors proposed by the Bill per MSP. It is not a supreme constitutional issue, but it is an issue with which I would be concerned were I a Scottish elector. I am not a Scottish elector, but I do not feel that that should influence the decision one way or the other.
When the Government introduce legislation, they should not turn it upside down within three or four years, which is what I object to most about the Bill. The Government do that all the time, of course. They have done it recently, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition remarked at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. It is embarrassing that they do so because it indicates that they have not thought through legislation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South said that we had sleepwalked into this position and that we did not look at the details of the legislation.
As a result of the Bill, I would like us to decide not to change the current settlement. By making a change, the Government are accepting that it is open to us, and to anyone, to propose changes to the settlement. If we are entitled to propose changes to the settlement, we who represent English electors will seek to open the West Lothian question.
I do not believe that more politicians mean better services. I do not believe that my constituents believe that, and I would be surprised if Scottish constituents believed that. That is why I will vote against the Bill tonight.
9.8 pm
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab): I am aware of the time and will do my best to leave sufficient time for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett).
In an attempt to stop Members intervening to ask who I have talked to lately, I say that I base my input tonight on the debate that I have had with members of my party and of my electorate and on my experience overall in campaigning, since 1978, for a Scottish Parliament.
The first question I asked myself when I was putting my speech together is, "Why open the Act?" I asked the same question when I made my submission to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have had great difficulty in coming to terms with that, so I have great sympathy with Opposition Members. I could mention private conversations that I had with the late Donald Dewar, but I will not do that—instead, I will quote from what he said at the time, which can be read in Hansard by any Member who wishes to do so. When the House of Lords tabled an amendment on whether 129 MSPs should remain for ever, he said:
- "In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries.
I should reassure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about the implications for the Parliament of a reduction in its size. We do not believe that such a reduction will make the Parliament less able to carry out its key roles in scrutinising effectively the Scottish Administration's work and enacting legislation."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 381.]
Mr. Peter Duncan: I am sorry to point out something that might be too difficult for the hon. Gentleman to contemplate, but to assist him in his dilemma, I remind him that in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs he voted with me in order to implement the Scotland Act 1998. I wonder whether he could consider doing so tonight.
John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not know how he conducts his business in Select Committee, but I take the view that I am there to represent the whole House, so I do not consider issues along party political lines, and vote as such. Obviously, other Members do not do the same.
If we are going to pass the Bill—as we obviously are, because the vote of one Member from Glasgow, Anniesland will not make a big difference—it is regrettable that it was not undertaken properly. As many Members said, there is a great deal in the 1998 Act that needs to be sorted. My right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State talked about the commission. That is a very good idea, and it is an even better idea to bring it forward immediately. When my right hon. Friend was asked when it will be implemented, he did not answer. That is of paramount importance in getting rid of any anomalies that may be in the system before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, which is my No. 1 priority in terms of supporting the Bill in future.The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who unfortunately is not in his place, did little to persuade me to support his party tonight—in fact, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from selective amnesia. In the debate in which the late Donald Dewar spoke, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is now chairman of the Conservative party, said:
- "The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability, but what is guaranteed by what he is defending is instability."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
One would put that down to political—
John Robertson: Self-interest is one term, but chicanery is a good word and I thank my hon. Friend for it.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), blamed her for the figure of 129. Again, I revert to what Conservative Members said when the Scotland Act 1998 went through Parliament. They supported that figure; they cannot simply change their minds. They appear to be indulging in very opportunistic politics nowadays. They cannot simply change with the weather: either they have principles or they do not. Someone once said that a Tory cannot eat principles.
My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Paisley, North stole my thunder and my speech. They have obviously been looking over my shoulder. There is no point in telling hon. Members about the number of voters in Glasgow because everybody now knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale mentioned the number of list MSPs in his constituency; it was probably fair that he was the first to mention them.
Why do we need two ballot papers if we have a list system? Why can we not have one ballot paper? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described the second vote as natural. Having one ballot paper would change that and the Secretary of State should consider it. At least that would mean that 77,000 ballot papers would not be wasted in Glasgow and we might save one tree in the Amazon, if only for a year.
We should consider the matter seriously. If 77,000 people go through a ballot paper that is half a mile long and to the trouble of casting their vote only to find that it means nothing, that is not democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) talked about 130,000 votes.
Hangers-on and opportunists stand outside my polling stations and tell people, "That's okay, vote Labour. It's your second vote we want. Don't worry about it; you're voting Labour on the first vote, so they won't worry about it." That completely misrepresents the system. I want members of such parties out of the political system because their politics matches their underhandedness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) made some excellent points. He mentioned people who come to our surgeries and talk about, in effect, coterminosity. They ask, "Who do I go to?" They might want to discuss health and say, "Mr. Robertson, can you help me with this?" I say, "Yes. Give me your case. I'll take it." I forward it to the MSP. Should I forward it to eight MSPs or give it to my hon. Friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland because I know that he will take it up and attend to it properly? The electorate do not understand the difference between a councillor, an MSP and an MP and they do not care. They care about delivery.
When I stood for Parliament, it was on a Labour party ticket. The ballot paper did not say, "John Robertson, sometimes a member of the Labour party" or "part-time Labour party member". It said "the Labour party", and I am under no illusions: those three words were the only reason that I got elected.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |