| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lazarowicz: When the hon. Gentleman—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I may have mistaken the intentions of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). Has he finished his speech, or is he giving way?
The Second Deputy Chairman: To whom?
John Thurso: I thought that I was giving way to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Peter Duncan:
I am very grateful, Sir Michael. After all that time, I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman would come back to me. He mentioned that each MSP was involved in 2.9 committees. Does he not accept that the simple solution would be to have fewer
4 May 2004 : Column 1265
committees? Is not it the quality of legislation and of government in Scotland that is important, and not the quantity of the legislation that is created?
John Thurso: I do not accept that proposition at all. I certainly do not believe that legislation is the only thing that makes a Parliament good. The effective scrutiny of an Executive's actions are of paramount importance. One of the successes of the Scottish Parliament is that—in some ways, although not all—it is able to hold the Scottish Executive to account far more effectively than this House does for any Government.
However, I must say that I find the Conservative party's position on these matters almost incomprehensible. Other hon. Members have mentioned the comments made by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I mentioned them on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them today. However, it is clear that, when the Scotland Bill was being enacted, the Conservative party wanted fewer than 129 MSPs. When it was obvious that 129 would be the number, the Conservatives made absolutely clear their belief that the number chosen at the beginning should not be changed.
The Conservative party has done a complete volte-face, U-turn or whatever one wants to call it. I can have sympathy for the views of hon. Members of other parties who, even though they disagree with me, have held their views for a long time. I hope that they would accord the same respect—if I may put it like that—to me. However, I find the Conservative party's shenanigans completely inexplicable.
The amendments would not solve the problem. The Secretary of State has set up a commission, which must gather evidence from all parties. It is ridiculous that the Conservatives are not prepared to take part in it.
John Thurso: Once again, they have elected to let down their few supporters in Scotland by standing on the sidelines instead of engaging in the game. They really are letting down the electorate, and they should rethink their approach on this matter.
Mr. Salmond: I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with interest. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) used the word "yet" when it was stated that the Conservatives did not want to serve on the commission. Are nominations for the commission about to be announced? Is the appointment of the commission being held up until that group decides to catch the bus?
John Thurso: I could not possibly answer for a Tory, but the hon. Gentleman makes the interesting suggestion that the Conservatives, having engaged in fun and games tonight and found a way to oppose the Bill, will do a prompt U-turn yet again and take part in the commission. That is perfectly possible.
I shall conclude by saying that it is right to have a commission to look at electoral systems. I hope that the Conservatives do perform a U-turn, as everyone should
4 May 2004 : Column 1266
be represented on the commission. The appropriate time to discuss electoral matters will be when the commission makes its recommendations to this House. I hope that that will be sooner, rather than later. It is because of that that Liberal Democrat Members, if pressed, will vote against the amendments.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mark Lazarowicz.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Thank you, Sir Michael, and I am sorry that I mistook the courtesy of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the conclusion of his remarks.
When the hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would effectively end the system of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament, he was greeted by a chorus of some Labour Members saying, "Hear, hear!" There is no doubt that one of the amendment's consequences would be to move away from the proportional basis for election to the Scottish Parliament, and that some hon. Members would welcome that. No amendment that would replace the present system with 118 MSPs chosen by the first-past-the-post method could lead to a system that was anything other than grossly disproportionate. However, one of the amendments being discussed would do just that.
I remind the Committee why we have proportionality in the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, the change in the electoral system for local government means that there is a case for looking at the system of proportional representation used for the Scottish Parliament. However, it is worth remembering why the principle of PR was adopted by all the various parties and interest groups involved in bringing forward the proposals that eventually resulted in the Scotland Act 1998.
The PR system was not adopted because of the immense power that I wielded in Labour party committee back rooms over a few months some 15 years ago. To say that it was would be to flatter my role in the political process at that time. The Labour party supported the electoral system eventually presented in the Scotland Act because, at party conferences over more than a decade, it had supported the idea of moving towards a proportional system. That was supported, and still is, by the vast majority of trade unions, including Unison, the biggest union in Scotland. It was also supported by a wide range of organisations outside the political process, and it was supported for a number of reasons.
Some people felt that some proportional system would be fairer than first past the post, which is an argument with which I have some sympathy. One of the arguments put against a Scottish Assembly in the 1970s was that first past the post would lead to domination, based on a small plurality of the vote. If that option had been put forward in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, it might not have gone through. Others recognised that moving to a PR system would make it harder for the Labour party to win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, but would also have the effect of stopping any other party, such as the Scottish nationalists, ending up with an absolute majority on a relatively small percentage of the vote.
4 May 2004 : Column 1267
There were many reasons why a number of organisations came together to support PR for the Scottish Parliament. Certainly, the idea that we should now reject the principle of PR, which would be the effect of the amendment, should not be adopted in the absence of broad consensus among the political parties and other organisations in Scotland. Clearly, there is no consensus for moving away from a PR system.
David Hamilton: Not everyone agrees with the first-past-the-post system, but there is not only one proportional representation system. I believe strongly in an alternative vote system, which connects the Member with the electorate. It takes 50 per cent. plus to be elected through that system, which is an extremely good one. I wish my hon. Friend would stop justifying his position on the decision that he took some time ago, which has landed us with the problem that we now face. He can rewrite history as much as he likes, but at the end of the day, that is not what this is about.
Mr. Lazarowicz: As we are going into history, which I do not want to overdo for fear of straying from the subject, my hon. Friend will remember that one of the strongest advocates of PR for local government was the National Union of Mineworkers, of which he was an active and leading member for many years. History can take us down a number of paths if we wish to follow them.
It is worth looking at the history because it reminds us that the experience of the Scottish Parliament has not led to a majority of the public moving away from support for some form of proportionality in it. The support among the public for that is as strong as it was at the referendum in 1997. I must tell some of my hon. Friends that it is not me, others who share my view or the Government who are out of step with Scottish public opinion on this matter, but some of those among my colleagues who argue against the principle of proportionality.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |