| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chris Bryant: Would my hon. Friend want to preclude people from standing for constituencies and the list? That would obviate the problem that we in Wales call the Clwyd, West system, whereby one person wins the constituency seat for Labour and all three losers win list seats and end up in the Assembly.
Mr. Davidson: I acknowledge that that is a difficulty but I would not legislate against it because I believe that the way in which to address it is to try to reduce the numbers of list members and to make it clear that they have a national rather than a local responsibility. Although I would be prepared to amend the figure of 129 to bring it slightly more into line with the balance of first past the post and proportional representation, we are told that it is a sacred number from which we cannot depart. If that is so, and we have identified 118 first-past-the-post seats, I would choose to elect the remaining 11 representatives on a proportional representation system for the whole of Scotland and ask them to take on a national responsibility and perhaps focus on Committee chairmanships or positions so that they are distinct from the constituency Members, who tend to pick up on local issues and present them in the Parliament.
It is an unwarranted intrusion into the flexibility and freedom of political parties to tell them that individuals cannot stand for both lists. I appreciate that especially the lesser known parties would want their leaders both
4 May 2004 : Column 1278
to head a list and stand for a specific constituency, knowing that he or she was unlikely to prove successful. I acknowledge the problem but the suggested solution is not appropriate.
It has been suggested that everyone always accepted the two principles of 59 Members of Parliament and 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the consensus in the Labour party has always been for the third principle of coterminosity. The majority of Labour Members accept that. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South tabled would fulfil the three criteria better than the Government's proposals.
I hope that, when the Under-Secretary responds, she will tell us more about the commission. I remain anxious about the decade in which the commission will report and in which its reports will be implemented. If we allow ourselves to move beyond 2007, new facts will apply. I presume that that is the intention of those who support delay. After 2007, local authorities would be elected by proportional representation and there would be enormous vested interest in adopting a specific solution wholesale.
It is more sensible to make decisions quickly, acknowledge our difficulties, judge the success of proportional representation by the turnout for the European elections and conclude that the universal application of first past the post is by far the fairest means of conducting elections in this country.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) tempted me into contributing to the debate. I emphasise to him that I have never argued that voting Labour in the second ballot was a wasted vote. I have argued that voting Labour in the first ballot was a wasted vote and I shall continue to maintain that position.
The hon. Gentleman said that his proposal about the Co-operative party was a new idea. I congratulate him on re-presenting an idea that I have heard him present many times in the past few years. However, he has a quality that is not given to everyone participating in the debate: consistency. He was the only Labour Member of Parliament who spoke against the current electoral system for the Scottish Parliament when it was debated in Committee on 28 January 1998. When we consider the system and its faults, we should show a little humility and admit that the hon. Gentleman, who opposed it for different reasons—he said that first past the post was best system—was the only Labour Member to identify difficulties in the initial debate. He therefore has the benefit of consistency.
That does not apply to the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). When only one Tory Back Bencher was present in the debate, it was a little like old times. The only difference was that that used to happen in debates on Scottish legislation when the Conservatives were in government, and the people who were not present carried the vote. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale should have a word with Conservative Members who claim to take such an interest in Scottish affairs and want to vote. The party could at least provide some token representation to show some interest. The hon. Gentleman is more interested in Merseyside than his colleagues are in Scottish affairs.
4 May 2004 : Column 1279
I do not mind the hon. Gentleman's teasing the Labour party about U-turns, but no one has performed more U-turns on the matter that we are considering than the Conservative party. In 1997, the Conservative party in the Lords played a key part in arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to maintain its numbers. It said that it would be impossible for Parliament to impose different systems on the Scottish Parliament. Conservative Members have done a U-turn on that.
Conservative Members are about to perform a U-turn on the commission. I should like an explanation. On several occasions when the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has been asked about Conservative participation, he has used the word "yet". We are therefore being told from a sedentary position that Conservative Members are about to change their mind. My only concern, as someone who posted my letter, first-class post, to the Secretary of State, is that it is a bit much to have to wait to hear who is on the commission until the Conservative party eventually decides that it will nominate—whenever the hon. Gentleman is told that he can by his party leader. Will the Minister confirm that she is not waiting for the Conservative party, or will she deal with that point later? The Minister indicates that she will deal with the point later. I am glad to hear it. It would be extraordinary if we were waiting for the commission to be established because the Conservative party was playing some game about when it would nominate.
8 pm
I have two points on the subject of debate. I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, for obvious reasons.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I have no reason to question his integrity or his knowledge of what happened in 1998 in terms of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) being the only Labour Member speaking in the debate. However, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1998, there has been a significant change in personnel on the Labour Benches?
Mr. Salmond: I did not say that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was the only Labour Member who spoke in the debate. I said that he was the only Labour Member who spoke against the electoral system. Five Labour Members spoke in the debate, including the Father of the House, the then hon. Member for Midlothian, whose successor seems to have a different opinion, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), who I suspect still has the same opinion, and the then hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who of course is no longer in the Labour party. Only the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was against the system.
I accept the point that we have learned from experience. I was merely saying that very few people had the foresight at the time to identify the problems in the system. Where did they arise from? I am not an expert on the constitutional convention, but I suspect that the
4 May 2004 : Column 1280
story runs something like this. The Liberal party on the convention wanted a single transferable vote. Although, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) pointed out, the Labour party had accepted proportional representation, it did not accept the single transferable vote and said that there could be a list system. The Liberals then said that they wanted 145 Members in the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party wanted about 100. The figure of 129 was settled on, as the least possible number to ensure some form of proportionality. So there was a process of horse trading, and perhaps it is hardly surprising that the system that arose from that was by no means perfect.
I have no idea which evil genius decided to have two ballots, which is unnecessary in an additional Member system. It is perfectly possible to operate an additional Member system with one ballot. Incidentally, it could be done—I would say this to the hon. Member for Midlothian if he were here—with ATV in the first ballot. Some people do it that way. I do not know exactly where the two ballot proposal arose from. We have heard Canon Kenyon Wright blamed. I thought that it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but he has specifically denied it in this debate and we have to accept his word.
The key problem with the current system in the Scottish Parliament arises from the second ballot. With great respect to the Labour Members who are concerned about list MSPs crawling all over their constituencies, I was an MSP and had list MSPs crawling over my constituency, but it never did me any harm. I do not reckon that it did the electorate much good, but it was not the most enormous issue. With respect to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), I do not think that the problem with the two votes is the one that she identified, namely that of people saying that a vote for Labour is a wasted vote. It is perfectly clear from an examination of the statistics on the second vote that a substantial minority, probably the majority of people voting, think that the second vote is a second preference. That applies to every party on the first vote. The fact that some parties reinforce that belief in their campaigning may add to the problem, but it is not the heart of the problem. If someone is given two ballot papers and told that they have two votes, it is a reasonable assumption, even for someone who is quite interested in the political system, that the second vote is not quite the same as the first and might be for a second preference. In my experience, most people think that the second vote is for a second preference. That is the heart of the problem, because it is a real corruption of the political system and must be dealt with, whatever else happens in the commission.
I am not an expert on the workings of the constitutional convention. To be able to plead not guilty to that is something of an asset, but I know a bit about the way in which the referendum campaign was conducted in Scotland. I have mentioned before that the Scottish news archive shows that the late Donald Dewar had 183 mentions during the election campaign. I had 120. The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts had four. The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had one. The Minister, who was a Back Bencher at the time, had five, and the current Secretary of State for Scotland had seven. Most of them may say that they were Ministers in other Departments,
4 May 2004 : Column 1281
but the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was a Minister in the Scottish Office, and he had 15 speeches and contributions recorded in the referendum campaign. Eleven were references to his previous hostility to devolution; only one was about involvement in the campaign itself. It was launching referendum ice cream, sold by Ricardo Varani, the owner of the Forum café in Kilmarnock. "Very refreshing" was the then hon. Gentleman's comment. He was obviously crawling all over that constituency and sampling the ice cream.
I do know something about the referendum campaign, and the point was that it was not the specifics of the electoral system—and not even the 129 MSPs—but the idea of proportionality that was very much part of the campaign. Wanting to change the system is perfectly legitimate, given the problems that arise in that respect, but those who want a return to first past the post should remember that, although it was not a dominant or overwhelming part of the campaign, a significant argument in the campaign was that the Scottish Parliament would represent all of Scotland and be elected by a form of proportional representation. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the other Cunninghame Member, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), there is a strong suspicion—without going into the detail of the electoral system that he would like to arrive at—that whatever else may be said about it, it is not a proportional system. Therefore, I suspect that he is cutting across one of the key arguments that were made when we jointly sought the consent of the people back in 1997.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |