---

Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will have played a key part in the referendum campaign in Glasgow in 1997. Can he conceive of the reaction if the Labour party had proposed to the Scottish public a system whereby different constituencies would have been in place for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament only six years on?

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Sadly, at that time it would not have made any
 
4 May 2004 : Column 1285
 
difference, because the debate was about not what was going to happen in relation to the Parliament, but for the hearts and minds of the people and voting for a Scottish Parliament. We all worked hard for that.

I was fortunate enough to be Donald Dewar's election agent, as well as his campaign manager in the constituency because he was out and about in the country. We worked very hard and got a very good turnout in my constituency. We also got a good vote for the Parliament. Lots of parties were involved and that was one of the few times that I have ever congratulated the SNP in my constituency, where it came out, helped and worked hard for a yes, yes vote. The unfortunate thing was that it could not do anything as a party in the Glasgow area to get a yes-yes vote. It was left to the Labour party to do all the work. That was sad, but the good news was that it came out and helped and we got the vote.

What would my position have been if I had known then how it would turn out? I must speak for myself in relation to that. Not too many people come to talk to me about this subject. They might say that the Scottish Parliament is too expensive, or that there are too many MSPs, but it is not generally talked about. People are more concerned about the delivery of services by the Parliament. The question is: is that good? While there are good points, there are also negatives, and the people will decide, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about the amendments.

Many hon. Friends mentioned local government, which is fair. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that there was no legislation on local government in that respect. Well, there is, but it does not come from the Scottish Parliament. Out of 28 councils in Scotland, 24 would like it to stay that way. They are not happy at being told that they are moving to an STV system. They are not happy about a wee cosy get-together in Edinburgh where deals are done long before anything comes out and appear as a fait accompli to the membership. Because of the numbers game at Holyrood, whereby my party has no overall majority, the tip of the tail must be listened to, because they are doing the wagging.

Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition is too high a price in giving PR to local government?

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Again, I can speak only for myself—I would not dream of speaking for anyone in my party or anyone else on this matter—but I must agree. I would never have gone into any kind of coalition with any party under any circumstances. I would much prefer to have been a minority Government, and I believe that we would have got better government in Scotland if we had stuck to that. Hindsight is a great thing.

Mr. Salmond: For clarification—I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman is saying—will he confirm that his problems with this matter are related entirely to decision making in his party? It is no one else's responsibility. If the Labour party want to govern as a minority in Scotland, it has the ability to do it. That was
 
4 May 2004 : Column 1286
 
even done in Wales for a time. Those are choices made by his party colleagues and there is no point in criticising the rest of us for something inherent in his party.

John Robertson: I agree to a certain extent, but the fact is that once we enter a coalition, it is difficult to get out of it. We solidify opposition against us and, in this case, we have the SNP, the Greens, the Scottish Socialist party and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all managing to vote together—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the scope of the amendment under discussion.

John Robertson: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman goaded me into it, and it is not my fault. A big boy did it and ran away. I think that I have made my point.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 do away with the connection to eight European constituencies, which would seem sensible, as we are doing away with the eight European constituencies. As of June this year, we will have a list-type system under which the top people will be voted in. They will not have constituencies to represent. Why would we want to set up a system in the Scottish Parliament that mirrors a system that no longer exists? Nobody wants to answer that question, which seems fair enough.

If we do not want eight European regional lists—let us say for the sake of argument that we want to get rid of them—with what will we replace them? Were we to change to the system that my hon. Friend proposes, we could still have a list system of five or six to top up, depending on whether we want to make one seat of the Western Isles. I identified that kind of problem in my submission. Be that as it may, five or six MSPs crawling over the whole of Scotland has a certain appeal to me, as it will keep them busy and well away from me and let me get on with the work that I think that I do very well for my constituents—[Hon. Members: "Hear, Hear."] I thank hon. Members. I do not know to whom Hansard will attribute that intervention—[Hon. Members: "Everyone."] That will do for me.

Amendment No. 7 asks for recommendations on which Parliament can decide. The House must make the laws and decisions. We cannot allow a commission or someone else to make the decisions for us. This is our job. In effect, it is what we get paid the big bucks for. Those of us who want to shirk the responsibility should go somewhere else. We must take on the responsibility and, to that extent, we should make the decision. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that in relation to the commission. I would like the commission to make recommendations—in the plural—not one recommendation that suits everybody. I want recommendations so that we can come to the House and have a serious debate, and nothing less.

Jim Sheridan: On recommendations, my hon. Friend will be aware that hundreds of our colleagues are in their offices watching this debate and millions throughout the rest of the UK are listening to it. In the event that this proposal is withdrawn or voted down, what system would he recommend to those in the rest of the UK, particularly in England, when devolved government is rolled out?

John Robertson: I know what my hon. Friend is trying to say, but I will leave that to the English regions. It is not
 
4 May 2004 : Column 1287
 
for me to tell them that the system that we have got is crazy. That will be for them, and I hope that they will find that out before they try it and that at least they will listen to us.

I have spoken for a little longer than I anticipated. The point is that this is the House of government—not just the Front Bench but the Back Benches—and we have the right to our say. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that a mistake was made in the laws back in 1997 and 1998. He is right; I think that there were a great many mistakes. The reason for the House, I thought, was to make laws and amend Bills. Why do we do that? We do it to make those laws better. Is that not what we are here to do? We are here to make the law better for the people of this country. How do we do that without people telling their representatives what they think? I make representations to my party and I stand on the Floor of the House and say what I think is right. The Opposition say what they think is right and we end up with a Bill that is fit for the people of the country. I see nothing wrong with that: it is democracy. What I do know is that whatever we have today, at some stage we shall have to revisit it. That is what government is all about.

Mrs. McGuire: I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which the debate has been conducted. As one of my colleagues said—I cannot remember who it was—it has been goodnatured and wide ranging. Amendment No. 1 has prompted discussion of many issues, but I want to deal with all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) before giving him—I hope—enough time to consider a little proposal that I shall make after that.

8.30 pm

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that his amendments involve technical difficulties. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), however, technical difficulties can be ironed out, and even if they did not exist in this case we would not be minded to accept the amendments. Let me deal first with some of the questions he raised in relation to the commission, the timetabled remit and the membership. I hope that he will take some comfort from what the Secretary of State has proposed, and that what I say will address questions raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), about the way in which the commission will operate.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made clear that the commission would be independent, transparent and consultative. Let me respond to concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) by reminding him that, according to the Secretary of State, the chair of the commission should be a senior politician—not serving—an academic, a business leader or another prominent individual in Scotland. The key qualifications will be transparent independence and a manifest competence in dealing with a complex set of issues. It is clear from this
 
4 May 2004 : Column 1288
 
evening's debate that the issues are complex. The chair should be capable of leading an inquiry that will require substantial public consultation.

---