| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Schedule 1
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'Shetland)' to end of line 14.
The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) For each constituency provided for by Article 2 of the Schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/1037) there shall be two Scottish constituencies'.'.
No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'eight' and insert 'two'.
No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'(3) Six members shall be returned for one region and five members shall be returned for the other region.'.
No. 7, page 4, line 41, at beginning insert—
'( ) The Boundary Committee for Scotland shall submit to the Electoral Commission a report with recommendations on the arrangements to be put in place under paragraph 1(2A) above.'.
Mr. Donohoe: As we saw earlier, politics is not a pure science. On the basis of the previous debate, that is perhaps more the case in respect of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill than other Bills that have been before the House.
In my estimation, the Scotland Act 1998 got some things wrong, but I believe that the position would worsen if this Bill were passed and that it would compound the problems created by that Act. From talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have identified the fact that both in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland there have been real problems
4 May 2004 : Column 1250
with that Act—not least because the existence of the added list Members has created mayhem in the Scottish Parliament and in the constituencies of both MSPs and Members of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have examples of that.
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on touching on what is a sore point with many of us. In the city of Glasgow, for example, the 10 constituency MSPs can only raise cases relating to their own constituency, yet the seven additional Members can raise cases in all 10 constituencies. Not only that, but they raise reserved matters that are nothing to do with them. It is a prime example of mischief making. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking steps to remedy that.
Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he and others have said to me over the period of the Act's existence, there are real problems in respect of added list Members. Members from every party in the House that is represented in Scotland have told me that.
Pete Wishart: But that is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in his amendments. He is suggesting expanding the range of list Members, who will have more say in more people's constituencies if his amendment is accepted.
Mr. Donohoe: As I develop my speech, it will become apparent to the hon. Gentleman that I have addressed that issue. At that point, if he still does not agree with me, he can intervene again.
I am conscious of the fact that you, Mr. Cook, are a stickler for the rules. I will turn immediately to the amendments themselves. I emphasise that the figures that I have mentioned are based on the current review, which is expected to deliver 59 Members of Parliament. As things stand and as I think every hon. Member knows, that number is now conclusive. We are talking of 59 Members. My proposal is based on that number and not on any other.
I have been made aware of some technical problems with regard to the amendments but, as I have already emphasised, my figures are based on those recommended by the Electoral Commission. I accept that the amendments may not be technically perfect in their own right, but having checked with the draftsman and others I have concluded that they are competent to be debated and voted on in the Committee. After all, they have been recommended by the Electoral Commission as the basis on which to calculate.
Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any technical adjustments are required to his proposals, the best way to proceed is not to defeat the amendments but to make technical adjustments in another place?
Mr. Donohoe: That is a possibility. My hon. Friend is right. That is what I will try to convince those on the Front Bench to accept, if that is required.
A number of hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has just entered the Chamber, are on my side and support the amendments.
4 May 2004 : Column 1251
Some 24 Members the length and breadth of the Committee support the idea that we need to look at the boundaries within the Scottish Parliament as well as within Westminster.
Mr. Salmond: If the chairman of Heart of Midlothian is lined up for the amendments, there must be something to be said for them. None the less, how many Members of the Scottish Parliament has the hon. Gentleman consulted, given that it is their electoral system that he is changing, and how many have come out in favour of his proposals?
Mr. Donohoe: That is not my responsibility but the responsibility of others. The consultation was open to MSPs. What is fundamentally important—I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened—is what my constituents and his think about the proposal. My constituents will be concerned about the matter today, but when the changes come about they will become even more concerned. Of that there is no doubt. I will expand on that issue as we move through the debate.
What I am trying to say more than anything else is that we should not allow ourselves to sleep walk into things again, as we did in 1998. By virtue of what we have today, I am clearly of the opinion that we should address the issue with far more purpose than we have to date.
The amendments call for Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament constituency boundaries to be coterminous. That is as far as they go. I do not go any further, although I could. I do not discuss the voting systems that we could create. I do not do anything in terms of gender balance. I say nothing of some of the other elements and problems.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I accept that the amendment says nothing about the voting system, but does my hon. Friend not accept that, in moving to a system of two-Member constituencies and of hardly any top-up Members, we will inevitably move away from the proportional system that was included in the Scotland Act? Is that not the effect, and indeed the intention, of his amendments?
Mr. Donohoe: I would not expect anything less from the architect of PR north of the border, but I will develop the argument. I have perhaps allowed too many interventions, but I stress that I am not dictating terms. In the previous debate, it was said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) was perhaps dictating terms, but I am leaving it open.
Without coterminous boundaries, we will create complete confusion as well as additional bureaucracy for political parties, the structure of elections and electoral rolls. That will cause mayhem and the measure has not been thought out as it might have been.
Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent 15 wards at the moment, but that that will rise to 19, whereas the MSP for the same area will still represent 15? In effect, two constituencies with the same name will represent two different places, which is an absurdity.
Mr. Donohoe:
That further example reinforces my argument. Difficulties will be created for the party
4 May 2004 : Column 1252
structures, as well as for returning officers. Most importantly, it will create havoc for our electors. That is more important than anything else and needs to be addressed. There is no doubt that that is the major complication of the existing system.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that all this havoc and chaos was predicted in 1998 during the passage of the Act, as can be seen from the debates on Second Reading, Third Reading and Committee? Everyone knew that this would happen if we strayed away from coterminous boundaries. It is the Government who have done the U-turn, in an embarrassed fashion, to create the second pillar to which the Under-Secretary referred in her speech.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |