| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donohoe: It has become obvious that there is a widely held view that we should maintain the 129. All parties have agreed that that is still in the best interests of the best performance of the Scottish Parliament. The only exception to that consensus is the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
I would like to go into detail on the interesting contributions that we have heard, but that would be inappropriate in view of the time.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale surprised me when he said that his party had turned down the chance to make a contribution to deciding who was on the commission. That will not help us to make progress at the rate that I believe is required to allow us to solve some of the problems that have emerged not just tonight but over the whole period of discussion on the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) powerfully emphasised my point that we tend to forget that the most important people in all this are our constituents. We clearly have not taken full account of how important it is to have them on our side. She also mentioned the four different systems, which have engendered a debate that is fundamental to the need for change and for the commission to work in a timely way towards a single system.
Mr. Davidson: As having four systems has been identified as a difficulty, and as we currently have only three systems, would it not be sensible for the Scottish Parliament to refrain from changing the system of election for Scottish local government until after the commission has reported?
Mr. Donohoe: There is a point there, but we have no control over what the Scottish Parliament does.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for his fulsome praise at my being appointed a keeper of the quaich. As a master of the quaich, with the long service that he has, he understands what an honour that is. A great deal of work is undertaken not only by myself but by others in the all-party group on Scotch whisky, and I am glad that that has been recognised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) suggested that the list system was flawed, and even he wanted it changed.
4 May 2004 : Column 1294
Coming from the architect of proportional representation on these Benches, that is quite something, and it was very well received.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that he, too, supported 129. He asked specifically how I would have the two Members elected. I said at the outset that I did not intend to close my mind to the different options available. I said that my first preference was for one male, one female—perhaps with a blue paper and a pink paper—which reflects the fact that the Labour party is among the few with anything close to a gender balance in the current Scottish Parliament, and there is a lot to be said for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) mentioned constituencies being divided into two. The possibility of the person who comes second being elected was also suggested, but that is a matter for others to determine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining clearly the absurdity of the current system.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave us his usual history lesson. Sometimes, history does teach us something, but the essence of his contribution was to point out his belief that additional list Members crawling all over his constituency will not do much good for his constituents. I accept that view; indeed, it is one of the main reasons why I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) rightly said that, at the moment, people do not care a jot about this issue. However, when it begins to affect them, they will care a lot. My biggest worry is that they will not vote. In such circumstances, democracy is the victim.
The Minister has answered some of my questions, such as who will chair the commission. I am grateful to her for making that issue clear, and I am also happy with what she said about time scales. A time scale of 18 months, rather than 24 months, will be satisfactory—at least to me.
I tabled the original amendments before 9 February, when this issue was previously debated. In the light of the work done by the commission since then, and having considered the various issues, I shall not press the amendments to a vote tonight—not least because of the contributions made by Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] I apologise—I sat down too early. The Whip is sat in front of me. I do not know what he is doing there—perhaps he is doing the wrong thing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Alan Reid: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 10, at end insert—
'Rule 5
Wherever the boundary of a constituency for the Scottish Parliament is not coterminous with the boundary of a constituency for Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the Boundary Committee (as the case may be) shall ensure that the names for the different types of constituencies shall be different.'.
I shall be brief. Although I support the Bill, as drafted it will result in unnecessary confusion. In 23 cases, constituencies for the Scottish Parliament will have different boundaries from constituencies for Westminster, but the same names. For example, there
4 May 2004 : Column 1295
will be two constituencies of Aberdeen, North, and two of Aberdeen, South. That is not the fault of the boundary commission, which thought that it was producing a report that would work for both Parliaments. Legislation should be put in place to ensure that we do not end up with constituencies with different boundaries but the same name.
In view of the lack of time, I do not intend to force a vote tonight, but I look forward to the Minister's response.
Mrs. McGuire: The intention behind the hon. Gentleman's amendment is to avoid any confusion that might arise from the decoupling of Westminster and Holyrood constituencies where such constituencies will have the same name. It will place the relevant requirement on the boundary committee of the Electoral Commission after the changeover has taken place, but as we have discovered, many electors prefer to stick with a well-established and accepted name for both their Westminster and Holyrood constituency—for example, Banff and Buchan, Gordon and East Lothian—notwithstanding the fact that the boundaries are not identical. We believe that they should retain that right, and I have every confidence that before the same name is adopted for a Westminster and Holyrood constituency, future reviews will take full account of the possibility of confusion and other difficulties that might arise.
As drafted, the amendment would apply only to the new rule for future boundaries, and would make no difference to the current situation. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Alan Reid: In view of the Minister's assurances that the boundary commission will take the considerations I have outlined into account, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
It being Nine o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001, 6 November 2003 and 9 February].
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
9.1 pm
Mrs. McGuire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
Over the two days of consideration—on Second Reading and in Committee today—we have had useful and interesting debates on the issues in the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to our debates, as well as parliamentary counsel and civil service colleagues who have been involved in the drafting of the legislation. This is a short Bill, focused on a relatively straightforward objective—to remove the existing statutory link in the Scotland Act 1998 between the number of constituencies at Westminster and those at Holyrood. That position was supported by a wide-ranging public consultation, which showed overwhelming support for retention of the current number of MSPs.
4 May 2004 : Column 1296
However, as was made clear on Second Reading, we are aware of concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies in the future. That is why we are setting up an independent commission to look at boundary differences and voting systems.
The debate and varied proposed amendments today have shown that there is a range of views on the extent of the potential problems and what the best solutions might be. Further consideration of the issues is clearly necessary, and I entreat all colleagues in the House to ensure that they participate fully in the commission's deliberations. I appeal once again for the Conservative and Unionist party to reconsider its decision not to nominate candidates for the commission. The party has stood outside some of the major constitutional developments that have taken place in Scotland. If it is serious about participating in Scotland's development, the party should reflect again on its decision.
We announced on Second Reading that we would set up the commission as soon as possible. As I said in earlier debates, work is now well advanced towards achieving its establishment. We now have the political parties' suggestions for members of the commission and we are in the process, in consultation with the First Minister, of selecting the chairman. We hope to announce the chairman's name very shortly.
If tonight's deliberations are anything to go by, the commission will have an important and potentially far-reaching task. However, we should be confident that it will be able to carry out its task, consulting openly and fully with the people of Scotland and their representatives. Once again, I hope that hon. Members will participate fully in the debate over forthcoming months.
The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill marks a small but important step in the machinery of devolution, and I commend it to the House. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give it a fair wind on its way to the other place.
9.4 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |