| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Duncan: I commend the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for introducing this group of amendments. They are a valiant attempt to improve the Bill but, in his heart of hearts, he might well think—and perhaps he will not be reticent about saying so—that this Bill is, arguably, incapable of amendment. It is a bad and unnecessary Bill. It is not necessary to introduce this measure at this time. The Scotland Act was passed in 1998 and there is absolutely no requirement to do anything to resolve the problem of coterminous boundaries.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op): As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a humble seeker after truth. He has made the self-denying ordinance not to vote on any English legislation. Can he tell me, then, why all his English colleagues trooped through the Lobby a few minutes ago to vote on purely Scottish legislation?
Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman—
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be best advised not to respond to such a tantalising—[Interruption.] I am protecting the Committee.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Cook. Perhaps we can engage in that subject later.
The fact is that the Bill that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is attempting to amend is unnecessary. Like me, he will recall the comments of Henry McLeish, who said:
"we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223.]
Lord Sewel went further when he said:
"In the White Paper, we explained that we believed that the integrity of the Union would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]
Mr. Lazarowicz: If we trawl through history, we can find a number of changes of position over the years, but how can the hon. Gentleman claim consistency for his party? If he looks at the report of proceedings in the House on 11 November 1998, he will see that, throughout the debate on the Lords amendments, his Front-Bench colleagues took the position that coterminosity was not that important and that it was right to stick at 129 Members.
6.30 pm
Mr. Duncan: Of course, in the long and involved passage of the Scotland Act 1998, we can find quotations in all directions. I am pointing out the magnitude of the Government's U-turn. It is beyond question that they have gone back on their commitment to implement the Act unamended.
Mr. Salmond: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the late Lord Mackay was a valiant defender of the Scottish Parliament's right to set its own number of constituencies?
Mr. Duncan: I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party made that argument in both Houses, and we take no lessons in consistency from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has waved the white flag on 129. Like me, he opposed the political fix in principle, yet the amendment would allow a stitch-up to let things proceed with some kind of amicability on the Labour Back Benches. Scottish Labour Members have capitulated. The amendment does nothing about the fact that there is a widespread view that there are simply too many politicians in Scotland.
Mr. Connarty: I do not agree with that last comment, as surely it is a question of the quality of representation, not the numbers. The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the fact that the amendments deal with a fundamental point with which his party agrees: that there should be a better arrangement for the electorate. As it is clear that the Government want to press ahead with 129, following a consultation, it is best to have something that makes sense to the electorate, and not simply to oppose everything on principle, just to wreck the Government's Bill.
Mr. Duncan: I am coming to some constructive points about the amendment.
I share some of the concerns that were expressed about the commission and its open-ended nature. The Scottish Conservative party has declined the invitation to nominate someone to the commission, on the basis that it is unnecessary at present. The problem that the commission is being set up to solve is that of non-coterminous boundaries, but the fact is that the Bill will create those boundaries. As the right hon. Member for
4 May 2004 : Column 1257
Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said on Second Reading, the commission is being set up to solve a problem that is yet to be created.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly said that I should be more positive about some of the general themes in the amendment, and I propose to do just that. The amendment goes some way towards offering an electoral framework that we would support, but perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has shied away at the last minute from some of the more direct first-past-the-post elements that we both instinctively favour.
First past the post creates better elections and engenders better results. We in the Conservative party believe that some of the stagnation in recent Scottish Parliament elections is due in no small part to the proportional system creating a disenchantment with elections and we strongly favour returning to a system that is more focused on first past the post. We would encourage the Government to consider any such possibility carefully in the months and years ahead.
Mr. Foulkes: I have just realised what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. The Conservative party has declined to nominate someone to the commission, and now he is arguing for first past the post. Surely, he should nominate someone to argue that case within the commission. He is guilty of a total abdication of responsibility—typically Tory.
Mr. Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. Perhaps he did not fully understand me the first time. We take the view that the commission will have its place in time, when the Bill has been enacted, but we have not given up on successfully opposing its passage. If the Bill is not enacted, there is no need for a commission, because we will not have non-coterminous boundaries.
John Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how his party in the Scottish Parliament feels about first past the post, or PR for that matter.
Mr. Duncan: We are on record as supporting first past the post. We argued for it in proceedings on the Scotland Act 1998 and will continue to do so.
Mr. Foulkes: I really am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I note from the amendment paper that his party has tabled no amendments whatever. He has made no constructive suggestions and has said that he is not nominating someone to the commission, in the vain hope that the Bill will be defeated. The Government have a huge majority, so that is absolutely stupid. Surely he can now say that the Conservatives will nominate someone to the commission. To do otherwise is outrageous.
Mr. Duncan:
I do not agree that there is only a vain hope of defeating the Bill. To my recollection, only one Labour Member spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. Every single other Labour Back Bencher was directly critical of it. What will be different is if on Third Reading we can tempt them to follow that through and join us in the Lobby.
4 May 2004 : Column 1258
We believe that the decline in turnout in Scottish Parliament elections has a direct correlation with people's concerns about proportional systems. We believe that the amendment could have been more precise in offering first past the post, although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has some imaginative ideas for first-past-the-post constituencies.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to all my inquiries, he has the absolute, full and complete support of all the Conservatives on the Back Benches behind him? Is he further aware that it would be absolute nonsense to table amendments to a Bill that is absolutely unnecessary? Does he agree that the best sense of all is to give the people of Scotland a chance once again to decide whether they want to keep this assembly—or whether they would rather not?
Mr. Duncan: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's company in the Committee tonight. He holds up the esteem of Conservative Back Benchers with aplomb, as usual.
The imaginative proposal for two small constituencies per Westminster constituency offers interesting possibilities. It would allow for a more local voice in the Scottish Parliament, could create a greater link with councils and councillors and could well resolve some of the difficulties with constituencies overlapping council boundaries. It could help with local public service issues, as small constituencies could reflect distinct interests. In my constituency, Wigtownshire and Stewartry face very different issues, and perhaps the two-constituency idea could form the basis of some agreement.
Under the amendment, there would be a reduction in the number of list MSPs from 56 to 11. One of the ironies of Scottish Parliament elections is that the Scottish Conservatives, who were among the greatest opponents of the list system, were among its greatest beneficiaries.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |